J. Bradford DeLong's Blog, page 2140

Thomas Jefferson on Wealth Inequality

Thomas Jefferson:

Letters: PROPERTY AND NATURAL RIGHT

To James Madison

Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785

DEAR SIR, -- Seven o'clock, and retired to my fireside, I have determined to enter into conversation with you. This is a village of about 15,000 inhabitants when the court is not here, and 20,000 when they are, occupying a valley through which runs a brook and on each side of it a ridge of small mountains, most of which are naked rock. The King comes here, in the fall always, to hunt. His court attend him, as do also the foreign diplomatic corps; but as this is not indispensably required and my finances do not admit the expense of a continued residence here, I propose to come occasionally to attend the King's levees, returning again to Paris, distant forty miles. This being the first trip, I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place. For this purpose I shaped my course towards the highest of the mountains in sight, to the top of which was about a league.

As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

The property of this country is absolutely concentrated in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored.

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.

Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

The next object which struck my attention in my walk was the deer with which the wood abounded. They were of the kind called "Cerfs," and not exactly of the same species with ours. They are blackish indeed under the belly, and not white as ours, and they are more of the chestnut red; but these are such small differences as would be sure to happen in two races from the same stock breeding separately a number of ages. Their hares are totally different from the animals we call by that name; but their rabbit is almost exactly like him. The only difference is in their manners; the land on which I walked for some time being absolutely reduced to a honeycomb by their burrowing. I think there is no instance of ours burrowing. After descending the hill again I saw a man cutting fern. I went to him under pretence of asking the shortest road to town, and afterwards asked for what use he was cutting fern. He told me that this part of the country furnished a great deal of fruit to Paris. That when packed in straw it acquired an ill taste, but that dry fern preserved it perfectly without communicating any taste at all.

I treasured this observation for the preservation of my apples on my return to my own country. They have no apples here to compare with our Redtown pippin. They have nothing which deserves the name of a peach; there being not sun enough to ripen the plum-peach and the best of their soft peaches being like our autumn peaches. Their cherries and strawberries are fair, but think lack flavor. Their plums I think are better; so also their gooseberries, and the pears infinitely beyond anything we possess. They have nothing better than our sweet-water; but they have a succession of as good from early in the summer till frost. I am to-morrow to get [to] M. Malsherbes (an uncle of the Chevalier Luzerne's) about seven leagues from hence, who is the most curious man in France as to his trees. He is making for me a collection of the vines from which the Burgundy, Champagne, Bordeaux, Frontignac, and other of the most valuable wines of this country are made. Another gentleman is collecting for me the best eating grapes, including what we call the raisin. propose also to endeavor to colonize their hare, rabbit, red and grey partridge, pheasants of different kinds, and some other birds. But I find that I am wandering beyond the limits of my walk and will therefore bid you adieu.

Yours affectionately.

Thos. Jefferson

Why We Would All Be Better Off without the Republican Party

Jay Bookman:

GOP voters often more reasonable than radicals they elect: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell offers a telling illustration of how differently the modern Republican Party thinks and operates. In fact, I’m not aware of any other major political party behaving in this fashion in the nation’s history, and if anyone can demonstrate otherwise, please do. In the latest Gallup poll (see chart above), 67 percent of Americans say they would vote to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.... [T]ake a look at the breakdown among Republicans. Forty-seven percent want to end DADT; 48 percent want to retain it. Even among self-described conservative Republicans, 39 percent say they want to end the policy and allow gay Americans to serve openly. Yet even though Republican voters are almost equally divided on the issue nationally, Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted almost unanimously against it, with just one GOP senator voting to end the filibuster yesterday afternoon.

Here’s an even more dramatic example, from the folks at Pew. Fifty-eight percent of Republican voters acknowledge that the best way to tackle the deficit is through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Just 32 percent say the answer is to focus mostly on cutting major programs. Even among self-described Tea Party members, 51 percent say the best way to address the deficit is through spending cuts and tax hikes, with just 39 percent advocating solving the problem through spending cuts alone. Yet you can’t get a Republican on the Hill to even utter the word “tax hike,” lest they be condemned as a RINO....

[I]t’s not merely that Washington Republicans won’t compromise with Democrats. They won’t compromise even with their own voters. The national party is in the grip of radicals who accept no deviation from the approved party line, and who demonstrate no tolerance for the broader, more reasonable range of opinions that exists within the Republican electorate they claim to represent.

Bartlett on McConnell-Obama

Bruce Bartlett:

Tax Deal Puts Economy between a Rock and a Hard Place: given the economic situation, Obama had no choice but to do what he did. The question is, will it work?... The liberal theory is that the economy is suffering from a sharp falloff in aggregate demand. In short, people reduced spending and increased their saving to rebuild wealth lost to the collapse of the housing bubble and decline in the stock market. As sales fell, businesses laid off workers, which led to a further decline in spending as the unemployed tightened their belts and downsized their standard of living. The obvious response, if one accepts this theory, is for the federal government to step in and replace the lost private consumption with public spending on goods and services. Ideally, that would take the form of what economists call “public goods” that would contribute to the nation’s long-term productivity, while also providing short-run stimulus....

Keep in mind that one important constraint is the way people inevitably react to government tax or spending programs. Programs that just put money in their pockets don’t always encourage consumption because people tend to save windfalls....

In contrast to liberals, conservatives have never had a coherent theory of what caused the recession or a program designed to deal with its specific characteristics. In part, that is because there is no single school of conservative economics. Members of the so-called Austrian School, such as Congressman Ron Paul, basically oppose any stimulus. They think that economic imbalances caused by past government intervention in the economy are what caused the recession in the first place. Stimulus, in their view, will only make matters worse. The best thing is for government to get out of the way and allow the economy to readjust, no matter how painfully, which it will do faster without government interference.

Even most conservative economists view the Austrians as eccentric. Most would consider themselves to be monetarists to one degree or another. Monetarists, who follow the late economist Milton Friedman, think that fiscal policy (taxing and spending) is pretty much worthless. What really matters is monetary policy, which is under the independent control of the Federal Reserve. Following Friedman’s analysis of the Great Depression, monetarists thought that if the Fed just kept the money supply from declining then the economy would turn around relatively quickly by itself. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke considers himself to be a follower of Friedman and he moved heaven and earth to make sure that the money supply did not contract, as it did in the early 1930s. And because the banking system is the essential conduit for monetary policy, he threw out the rule book in late 2008, when the financial crisis was at its worst, to keep it afloat, lending vast quantities of money to prevent a financial implosion. And it worked. Without Bernanke’s quick, decisive action, it is very likely that we would have suffered the equivalent of another Great Depression. Unfortunately, it now seems clear that while monetary policy can prevent an economic collapse, it can’t stimulate a prostrate economy. When it tries to do so, the money just piles up in the banks, which are now sitting on more than $1 trillion that is unlent, primarily due to a lack of demand. If people aren’t buying houses, workers are unemployed, businesses aren’t expanding, and consumption is flat, there is no reason to borrow and no way to lend....

All along, there have been some conservative economists who argued that tax cuts were the only fiscal policy with the potential to raise growth. However, their arguments have been incoherent and contradictory. They said that government spending is bad because people discount the future taxes that will be necessary to pay off the higher debts – a mechanism that economists call “Ricardian equivalence.” But for some odd reason, they never say that debts arising from tax cuts will trigger the same response.

There are really only three ways that tax cuts could be stimulative. One would be to raise employment by reducing the “tax wedge” between the gross compensation paid by an employer and the net wage received by the worker.... While this is a plausible theory under normal economic circumstances, it doesn’t make much sense when the primary problem is insufficient demand for business output.... A second way tax cuts might raise growth would be to stimulate investment. Low taxes on the wealthy and big corporations, Republicans repeat ad nauseum, will lead to business expansion, new businesses and job creation. Again, this is a plausible theory under normal circumstances, but why would a business expand when it is perfectly able to satisfy existing demand from its current plant, equipment and labor force?... The final way tax cuts might stimulate growth is by giving consumers more money to spend. But we’ve seen from the experience of the 2008 tax rebate and the Making Work Pay Credit that this is an extremely inefficient method of increasing consumption. And of course, tax cuts are worthless to the millions of those that are unemployed because they have no income to tax. And let’s not forget that because of Republican tax policies in the 2000s, close to 50 percent of all tax filers paid no federal income taxes even before the economy collapsed.

All of this suggests that the tax deal to extend the Bush tax cuts and replace the Making Work Pay Credit with a 2-point cut in the payroll tax is very unlikely to raise growth much, if at all. The one and only justification for this initiative is that it is better than the alternative of raising taxes when the economy is still weak. Given Republicans’ dominance of Congress, Obama really had no choice but to cut a deal on their terms.

Hottest November on Record...

Joe Romm:

NASA: Hottest November on record, 2010 likely hottest year on record globally — despite deepest solar minimum in a century « Climate Progress: NASA released its monthly global temperature data, revealing November was easily the hottest in the temperature record.  The “meteorological year” — December to November — was also the hottest on record.  Calendar year 2010 appears poised to be the hottest on record. These records are especially impressive because we’re in the middle of a strong La Niña, which would normally cool off temperatures for a few months (relatively speaking), and we’ve been in “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.”

Department of "HUH?!?!?!?!?!?!"

Does David Andolfatto really think that the pace at which firms hired new workers and the speed with which unemployed workers found jobs sped up as the recession hit?

Apparently so:

In a typical quarter, roughly 2,000,000 workers per month exited unemployment into employment. When the recession hits... look at what happens to the UE flow. While it does not rise as sharply as the EU flow, it rises nevertheless…and continues to remain high even as the EU flow declines. Is this surge in job finding rates among the unemployed consistent with the deficient demand hypothesis?

Wow. Just wow.

The pace of new hires falls by 30% as the recession hits: firms just don't see the demand to justify hiring at the normal pace.

But when firms hire, they hie not just the unemployed but the employed and the not-in-the-labor-force as well. With more than twice as many unemployed, a greater share of new hires now com from the currently unemployed than used to--but that does not mean any "surge in job finding rates among the unemployed": the rise in the average duration of unemployment tells us that.

This is not rocket science, people...

Liveblogging World War II: December 11, 1940

In the Western Desert of Egypt, the British "Operation Compass" attack on the Italian army continues:

World War II Day-By-Day: British 7th Armored Brigade (7th Armored Division) charges Northwest to the Egyptian coast at Buq Buq & takes the surrender of Italian 64th Infantry Division. Battleships HMS Barham & HMS Valiant, escorted by anti-aircraft ship HMS Coventry & 7 destroyers, bombard Italian positions further West at Sollum, Egypt, to prevent reinforcements being sent forward. Aircraft from aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, escorted by 2 cruisers & 3 destroyers, attack Italian-held El Adem airfield at Tobruk, Libya. In 3 days, British have captured 237 guns, 73 tanks & about 38,000 Italian prisoners (as famously put by a Coldstream Guards officer “5 acres of officers & 200 acres of other ranks”)...

Liveblogging World War II: December 10, 1940

Adolf Hitler:

Berlin, Rheinmetall-Borsig Works -- Speech of December 10, 1940: Nowadays I do not speak very often. In the first place I have little time for speaking, and in the second place I believe that this is a time for action rather than speech. We are involved in a conflict in which more than the victory of only one country or the other is at stake; it is rather a war of two opposing worlds....

Forty-six million Britishers dominate and govern approximately 16 million square miles of the surface of the earth. Thirty-seven million Frenchmen dominate and govern a combined area of approximately 4 million square miles. Forty-five million Italians possess, taking into consideration only those territories in any way capable of being utilized, an area of scarcely 190,000 square miles. Eighty-five million Germans possess as their living space scarcely 232,000 square miles. That is to say: 85 million Germans own only 232,000 square miles on which they must live their lives and 46 million Britishers possess 16 million square miles.

Now, my fellow-countrymen, this world has not been so divided up by providence or Almighty God. This allocation has been made by man himself. The land was parcelled out for the most part during the last 300 years, that is, during the period in which, unfortunately, the German people were helpless and torn by internal dissension. Split up into hundreds of small states in consequence of the Treaty of Muenster at the end of the Thirty Years' War, our people frittered away their entire strength in internal strife.... While during this period the Germans, notwithstanding their particular ability among the people of Western Europe, dissipated their powers in vain internal struggles, the division of the world proceeded beyond their borders. It was not by treaties or by binding agreements, but exclusively by the use of force that Britain forged her gigantic Empire....

My fellow-countrymen, man does not exist on theories and phrases, on declarations or on systems of political philosophy; he lives on what he can gain from the soil by his own labor.... A man may live in a stony desert or in a fruitful land of plenty. This handicap can never be fully overcome by theories, nor even by the will to work. We see that the primary cause for the existing tensions lies in the unfair distribution of the riches of the earth.... [T]he right to live is at the same time a just claim to the soil which alone is the source of life. When unreasonableness threatened to choke their development, nations fought for this sacred claim. No other course was open to them and they realized that even bloodshed and sacrifice are better than the gradual extinction of a nation.... [H]ow can our people, its 360 per square mile, exist at all if they do not employ every ounce of brain power and physical strength to wrest from their soil what they need? This distinguishes us from the others. In Canada, for example, there are 2.6 persons per square mile; in other countries perhaps 16, 18, 20 or 26 persons. Well, my fellow-countrymen, no matter how stupidly one managed one's affairs in such a country, a decent living would still be possible. Here in Germany, however, there are 360 persons per square mile. The others cannot manage with 26 persons per square mile, but we must manage with 360....

[T]wo worlds are face to face with one another. Our opponents are quite right when they say: 'Nothing can reconcile us to the National Socialist world.' How could a narrow-minded capitalist ever agree to my principles? It would be easier for the Devil to go to church and cross himself with holy water than for these people to comprehend the ideas which are accepted facts to us today. But we have solved our problems....

The German capacity for work is our gold and our capital, and with this gold I can compete successfully with any power in the world. We want to live in houses which have to be built. Hence, the workers must build them, and the raw materials required must be procured by work. My whole economic system has been built up on the conception of work. We have solved our problems while, amazingly enough, the capitalist countries and their currencies have suffered bankruptcy.

Sterling can find no market today. Throw it at any one and he will step aside to avoid being hit. But our Reichsmark, which is backed by no gold, has remained stable. Why? It has no gold cover; it is backed by you and by your work. You have helped me to keep the mark stable. German currency, with no gold coverage, is worth more today than gold itself. It signifies unceasing production. This we owe to the German farmer, who has worked from daybreak till nightfall. This we owe to the German worker, who has given us his whole strength. The whole problem has been solved in one instant, as if by magic.

My dear friends, if I had stated publicly eight or nine years ago: 'In seven or eight years the problem of how to provide work for the unemployed will be solved, and the problem then will be where to find workers,' I should have harmed my cause. Every one would have declared: 'The man is mad. It is useless to talk to him, much less to support him. Nobody should vote for him. He is a fantastic creature.' Today, however, all this has come true. Today, the only question for us is where to find workers. That, my fellow countrymen, is the blessing which work brings.

Work alone can create new work; money cannot create work. Work alone can create values, values with which to reward those who work. The work of one man makes it possible for another to live and continue to work. And when we have mobilized the working capacity of our people to its utmost, each individual worker will receive more and more of the world's goods.

We have incorporated seven million unemployed into our economic system; we have transformed another six millions from part-time into full-time workers; we are even working overtime. And all this is paid for in cash in Reichsmarks which maintained their value in peacetime. In wartime we had to ration its purchasing capacity, not in order to devalue it, but simply to earmark a portion of our industry for war production to guide us to victory in the struggle for the future of Germany....

I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good, excellent; my dividends are splendid.' However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we mean. You jeopardize liberty.'

Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76, 80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry. Naturally they say: 'If the German methods grow apace and should prove victorious, this sort of thing will stop.' They are perfectly right. I should never tolerate such a state of affairs. In my eyes, a 6 per cent dividend is sufficient....

To take another instance, besides dividends there are the so-called directors' fees. You probably have no idea how appallingly active a board of directors is. Once a year its members have to make a journey. They have to go to the station, get into a first-class compartment and travel to some place or other. They arrive at an appointed office at about 10 or 11 A.M. There they must listen to a report. When the report has been read, they must listen to a few comments on it. They may be kept in their seats until 1 P.M. or even 2. Shortly after 2 o'clock they rise from their chairs and set out on their homeward journey, again, of course, traveling first class. It is hardly surprising that they claim 3,000, 4,000, or even 5,000 as compensation for this: Our directors formerly did the same - for what a lot of time it costs them! Such effort had to be made worth while! Of course, we have got rid of all this nonsense, which was merely veiled profiteering and even bribery....

Opposed to this there stands a completely different world. In the world the highest ideal is the struggle for wealth, for capital, for family possessions, for personal egoism; everything else is merely a means to such ends. Two worlds confront each other today. We know perfectly well that if we are defeated in this war it would not only be the end of our National Socialist work of reconstruction, but the end of the German people as a whole. For without its powers of coordination, the German people would starve. Today the masses dependent on us number 120 or 130 millions, of which 85 millions alone are our own people. We remain ever aware of this fact....

These are the two worlds. I grant that one of the two must succumb. Yes, one or the other. But if we were to succumb, the German people would succumb with us. If the other were to succumb, I am convinced that the nations will become free for the first time. We are not fighting individual Englishmen or Frenchmen. We have nothing against them. For years I proclaimed this as the aim of my foreign policy. We demanded nothing of them, nothing at all. When they started the war they could not say: 'We are doing so because the Germans asked this or that of us.' They said, on the contrary: 'We are declaring war on you because the German system of Government does not suit us; because we fear it might spread to our own people.' For that reason they are carrying on this war. They wanted to blast the German nation back to the time of Versailles, to the indescribable misery of those days. But they have made a great mistake.

If in this war everything points to the fact that gold is fighting against work, capitalism against peoples, and reaction against the progress of humanity, then work, the peoples, and progress will be victorious. Even the support of the Jewish race will not avail the others....

It was quite obvious: Who was I before the Great War? An unknown, nameless individual. What was I during the war? A quite inconspicuous, ordinary soldier. I was in no way responsible for the Great War. However, who are the rulers of Britain today? They are the same people who were warmongering before the Great War, the same Churchill who was the vilest agitator among them during the Great War; Chamberlain, who recently died and who at that time agitated in exactly the same way. It was the whole gang, members of the same group, who believe that they can annihilate nations with the blast of the trumpets of Jericho....

I waited for a month, because I thought that after the conclusion of the campaign in France the British would give up this method of warfare. I was mistaken. I waited for a second month and a third month. If bombs were to be dropped I could not assume the responsibility before the German people of allowing my own countrymen to be destroyed while sparing foreigners. Now, this war, too, had to be fought to its end. And it is being fought; fought with all the determination, with all the materials, with all the means and all the courage at our disposal. The time for the decisive conflict will arrive. You may be sure it will take place. However, I should like to tell these gentlemen one thing: It is we who shall determine the time for it. And on this point I am cautious. We might perhaps have been able to attack in the West during the autumn of last year, but I wanted to wait for good weather. And I think it was worth while waiting....

This struggle is not a struggle for the present but primarily a struggle for the future. I stated on September 3, 1939, that time would not conquer us, that no economic difficulties would bring us to our knees, and that we could still less be defeated by force of arms. The morale of the German people guarantees this. The German people will be richly rewarded in the future for all that they are doing. When we have won this war it will not have been won by a few industrialists or millionaires, or by a few capitalists or aristocrats, or by a few bourgeois, or by anyone else....

When this war is ended, Germany will set to work in earnest. A great 'Awake!' will sound throughout the country. Then the German nation will stop manufacturing cannon and will embark on peaceful occupations and the new work of reconstruction for the millions. Then we shall show the world for the first time who is the real master, capitalism or work. Out of this work will grow the great German Reich of which great poets have dreamed. It will be the Germany to which every one of her sons will cling with fanatical devotion, because she will provide a home even for the poorest. She will teach everyone the meaning of life.

Should anyone say to me: 'These are mere fantastic dreams, mere visions,' I can only reply that when I set out on my course in 1919 as an unknown, nameless soldier I built my hopes of the future upon a most vivid imagination. Yet all has come true.

What I am planning or aiming at today is nothing compared to what I have already accomplished and achieved. It will be achieved sooner and more definitely than everything already achieved. The road from an unknown and nameless person to Fuehrer of the German nation was harder than will be the way from Fuehrer of the German nation to creator of the coming peace.

WIKILEAKS S E C R E T NOFORN RELIABILITY AND LONGEVITY OF UK-US RELATIONSHIP CONFIRMED

: Saturday, 12 December 1998, 16:13

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 LONDON 000368

NOFORN

SIPDIS

DOE FOR GPERSON, CHAYLOCK

EO 12958 DECL: 12/12/2018

TAGS EPET, ENRG, PGOV, RS">RS, NI

SUBJECT: ENGLAND: RELIABILITY AND LONGEVITY OF UK-US RELATIONSHIP CONFIRMED

REF: A. LONDON 365 B. LONDON 366

Classified By: Consul General Robbie Honerkamp for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D )

(S/NF) Summary: We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I.


A full commitment's what I'm thinking of. You wouldn't get this from any other guy.


I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling. Gotta make you understand.

(C/NF) Chorus: Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.


Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

(S/NF) We've known each other for so long Your heart's been aching but You're too shy to say it


Inside we both know what's been going on We know the game and we're gonna play it


And if you ask me how I'm feeling Don't tell me you're too blind to see

(C/NF) Chorus: Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.


Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

(C/NF) Chorus: Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.

Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

(C/NF) Background Singers: (Ooh, give you up) (Ooh, give you up) (Ooh) Never gonna give, never gonna give


(Give you up) (Ooh) Never gonna give, never gonna give (Give you up)

(S/NF) We've know each other for so long Your heart's been aching but You're too shy to say it


Inside we both know what's been going on We know the game and we're gonna play it


I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling Gotta make you understand

(C/NF) Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.


Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

(C/NF) Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.


Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

(C/NF) Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert you.


Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye, never gonna tell a lie and hurt you. ASTLEY

Department of "Huh?"

Joe Romm reviewed and trashed Matthew Kahn's (very good) book Climateopolis. Matthew asked a question:

Dear Joe,

Have you read my book or merely poked around the 6 pages that Amazon offers for free from the 288 page book? Have you read any of my work on climate change?

Joe answered:

Actually, Amazon offers some 70 full pages of the book for free -- and through the search feature you can find even more of the content. Frankly, the most illuminating part of the book are the notes, as I discuss. Your other work on climate change is not germane. I dare say one can read a much higher fraction of your book online than the fraction of relevant climate science literature you apparently have read. Have you read even a few of the relevant posts on this blog? Even this post and this one would get you to much of the key literature.

I take that answer to be a "no."

Joe Romm is "reviewing" a book he has not read.

That is not good.

Reihan Salam Enters This Year's Stupidest Man Alive Contest...

Nomination entered by Timothy Lee:

The Implicit Message of the DREAM Act | Bottom-up: I have a lot of respect for my friend Reihan Salam, but boy was this frustrating to read:

As I understand it, the DREAM Act implicitly tells us that I should value the children of unauthorized immigrants more than the children of other people living in impoverished countries. If we assume that all human beings merit equal concern, this is obviously nonsensical. Indeed, all controls on migration are suspect under that assumption. Even so, there is a broad consensus that the United States has a right to control its borders, and that the American polity can decide who will be allowed to settle in the United States. Or to put this another way, we’ve collectively decided that the right to live and work in the U.S. will be treated as a scarce good...

So look, there are two basic ways to look at a political issue: on the policy merits and on how it fits into broader ideological narratives. On the policy merits, the case for DREAM is simple and compelling: there are hundreds of thousands of kids who, through no fault of their own, are trapped in a kind of legal limbo. We should provide them with some way to get out of that legal limbo. I can think of any number of ways to improve the DREAM Act, but this is the only bill with a realistic chance of passing Congress in the near future, and it’s a lot better than nothing.... We should let the DREAM kids stay here and we should be letting a lot more kids from poorer countries come here. Doing the one doesn’t in any way prevent us from doing the other.

OK, so that’s the policy substance. Now let’s talk about the politics.... Reihan is, I take it... [claiming] that DREAM helps a relatively small number of people, that the people it helps aren’t necessarily the most deserving, and that DREAM reinforces an objectionable political narrative.

I don’t think any of these claims stand up to scrutiny....

[D]oes passing DREAM “implicitly tell us” something we’d rather not be told? This is where I think Reihan is furthest off base.... [T]he fundamental question in the immigration debate is: do we recognize immigrants as fellow human beings... entitled to... empathy... or... treat them as opponents in a zero-sum world?... Most recent immigration reform proposals... are based on the latter premise: immigrants in general are yucky, but certain immigrants are so useful to the American economy that we’ll hold our collective noses and let them in under tightly control conditions.

The DREAM Act is different. The pro-DREAM argument appeals directly to Americans’ generosity and sense of fairness.... The hoops kids must go through to qualify for DREAM are focused on self-improvement for the kids themselves.... There’s no quota on the number of kids who are eligible, and at the end of the process the kids get to be full-fledged members of the American community. Nothing about this says that we should “value the children of unauthorized immigrants more than the children of other people living in impoverished countries.” I wish Congress would also enact legislation to help children of people living in impoverished countries. If Reihan has a realistic plan for doing that, I’ll be among its earliest and most enthusiastic supporters. Unfortunately, I think the political climate in the United States makes that unlikely to happen any time soon. But that’s not the fault of the DREAM Act or its supporters. And voting down DREAM will make more ambitious reforms less, not more, likely.