The cherry blossoms have begun to open in DC

The city is full of the them.  And they're open(ing), with the peak expected from March 20-23 (which is a bit early, but it's been in the 70s here for a week).  Chris (in Paris) is coming on Tuesday for the week, so he and I are going to go down to the Tidal Basin (by the Jefferson Memorial) to check out the blossoms with the throngs.  DC really is at its best in springtime.

Sasha and I spent the day, yet another prematurely nice day in the 70s, with my friends Matt and Damian hanging out in Matt's yard.

Read the rest of this post...

Video: Dyeing the Chicago River green for St. Patrick's Day

Oh yes they do. This was from last year.

Read the rest of this post...

Chemical in fertilizer linked to higher cancer rates

One of these days someone is going to crack this problem of fertilizers. The chemicals are killing our waterways which means bad news for the environment as well as the food chain. We need productive farms, but we also need to be able to survive eating our fruits and vegetables.

Ingesting higher levels of cadmium, a metal found in fertilizers, may be linked to an increased risk of breast cancer, a new study from Sweden suggests. The results showed that postmenopausal women with a relatively high daily dietary cadmium intake had a 21 percent increased risk of breast cancer. The major sources of cadmium in the diets of women in the study were foods that are generally healthy — whole grains and vegetables. These accounted for about 40 percent of the cadmium consumed.

Read the rest of this post...

Rocky Road to Dublin

UPDATE: Apologies for the video not making the cut when I first published. Somehow Blogger isn't being kind to me and keeps removing links. This pub reminded me of the music and fun of a pub that I visited while hitchhiking along the west coast of Ireland in my younger years. It's a great song about a traveler who leaves home. Today is the last day of SXSW so I'm going to take in some more music, which is everywhere in Austin. It's been a great experience and the town is just great. It's hard to beat a town that loves music as much as they do here in Austin. Read the rest of this post...

Prof. Richard Wolff: We have a "failed economic system"—To fix it, we must tax the wealthy

This headline captures just one of the many excellent points made by New School professor Richard Wolff in this interview.

The questioner (Sam Seder of the Majority Report) asks just eight questions, and the answers are so cogent and clear that you feel like you've walked through a ton of material and barely exerted yourself. It's quite a performance by both of them.

There's a rundown of questions and a few answers after the clip, in case you want to jump around.

The interview starts with Greece — an explanation of what's happening now after the "orderly" partial "default" (actually, debt forgiveness). But the parallels between Europe and the U.S. are obvious and well-explored throughout the interview.

Wolff ends with a terrific discussion of Franklin Roosevelt, why he succeeded, and what we need to do today. Enjoy:



Sam's questions (paraphrased):

1. [0:30] What is the recent Greek deal, and what are its implications for the Greek people?

2. [4:55] How did Greece find itself in this situation?

3. [9:03] What's the distinction between private debt and public debt? In Greece, it's public debt, right?

4. [13:30] Isn't charging [sufficient] interest the way that bankers offset the risk of some loans defaulting? Why do bankers also have to be bailed out?

5. [18:38] With income disparity [between the rich and the rest in the U.S.; between rich nations and the rest in Europe] comes political disparity, right? What does that look like?

6. [19:30] What options were available to Greece, and what options are available in the U.S.?

7. [23:32] In the U.S., what would be the best way of doing what you suggest — a bailout of the folks at the bottom, rather than the top? Wouldn't increasing the deficit by borrowing at near-zero rates be a good idea?

Note: The answer might surprise you. See below.

8. [28:20] As a political calculation, are we anywhere close to to being able to make changes? [Unlike during the Depression] we're now living with the New Deal. We're still in a roll-back phase.

I'd like to expand Wolff's answer to the seventh question, about deficits. It's fascinating and contains two stories about Roosevelt I wasn't aware of.

Here's Wolff, paraphrased, at 24:20 in the clip:

[To your borrowing question], I'd say no. I'd take that page from FDR as well. He didn't borrow. Roosevelt went to the business community and to the rich and [basically] said:

Look you have to help me. You have to give me the money to take care of the mass of the people. If you don't, the CIO and the communists will come down the road and offer you a much worse deal than I'm offering you.

If you give me the money. I'll go to the unions and give them a massive bailout, and in return they'll agree not to interfere with your business. You'll remain the shareholders and boards of directors and all the rest.

So basically he split the business community. Half of them became the sworn enemy of the New Deal. The other half agreed with him, the equivalent of people like Buffett today.

Between the support from the mass of the Dems below, and half of the wealthy at the top, you got the kind of support for FDR to enable the New Deal. He became a virtual saint to the American people.

In that same answer, Wolff tells this telling story about how Roosevelt financed the New Deal (26:18 in the clip; again, paraphrased):

Deficits and debts are real problems. The way to deal with them, at least to move part of the way back [to lower levels], is to raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations.

Illustration: In 1942-43, FDR sent Congress a proposal for a 100% top income tax. This would create a maximum salary or wage or income. Like a minimum wage for the poor, it's a maximum wage for the rich.

Congress went ballistic, led by republicans, of course. In the end, they compromised — on a 94% top tax bracket. [And that's how Roosevelt financed his programs.] In the 50s and 60s, the top marginal rate was 91%, endorsed by both parties. If we're going through the 5th year of a crisis, the same logic ought to move us in the same direction.

I think most of the country would cheer if that actually happened. I've been in favor for years of rolling back the Reagan top marginal rate to Nixon-era levels — all the way back to 70% or 75%.

If that were to occur, the looting of corporations by CEOs would stop in its tracks. No incentive to steal if you can't pocket the loot. (Sadly, if that were to occur, I would stop in my tracks as well, looking for the alternate universe I'd fallen into.)

But at least we agree on the solution. Prof. Wolff, in the rest of the answer to the last question, thinks we need the mass base of pressure from below that allowed Roosevelt to split the rich; he also thinks we're starting to see that.

Here's hoping; and here's hoping its the orderly version.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...