Charlie Rose has had one notable economist on his show after another.  Today he had two, one of them Paul Krugman who won the Nobel Prize in Economics this year.

He says he was made a Nobel Laureate because he presented a view of world trade that hadn’t previous been explored.  Now it seems like common sense but it wasn’t at the time.   Our basic view used to be that countries trade because they are different.  But that’s no longer true - trade goes on between countries who seem to be very similar so it becomes difficult to come up with a fundamental reason why some people should be making some products and not others.   Krugman put together the New Trade Theory which talks about how small, accidental advantages get built into larger advantages which persist over time.  For instance, all carpet production used to be located around Dalton, Georgia.  This traces back to a teenage girl who made a tufted bedspread as a wedding gift in 1895.  It seems obvious now, but this was a completely new realization at the time.

As far as the current economic situation, he agrees the government had no choice.  But Krugman thinks the Treasury made a really bad mistake by not rescuing Lehman Brothers.   He thinks they could have found a way to save it and most of his fellow Economists were certain they would find a way.  It was completely surprising that they decided to let it go.   The reason this is so devastating is that when Lehman was allowed to fail, all confidence disappeared from the system.  On the other hand, it created the political conditions for a more comprehensive solution.

Krugman says the right answer was to recapitalize the system but he hasn’t liked Henry Paulson’s handling of this.  The Treasury was not going to recapitalize the system at first. They were going to buy the assets and troubled mortgages (the toxic waste) off of the institutions and this didn’t make any sense.  They couldn’t make a good case for how this would work and it cost them time.  Paulson wasted three weeks on this decision before he finally changes his mind.   The wait created an even greater lack of confidence.

Krugman was frustrated with Bernanke because he didn’t offer any counter-weight to Paulson’s misguided strategy on the bail out in the beginning.  He sounded more like Paulson’s “yes boss”.  Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, came out very quickly with a proposal for turning it into a capital injection, and Bernanke said “no, we don’t need to do that”, which couldn’t have been what he believed was right.   Barney Frank, in the House of Representatives, had a similar plan.

We learned from the Japanese experience in the ’90s that the thing to do is provide capital injections to the bank early.  Don’t worry too much about inflation.  Worry about that later.  The higher inflation rate allows for more wiggle room.

Krugman feels confident about Obama as President because he says “off-script” you can tell he knows what he’s talking about.  He’s been cautious, but Krugman thinks he’s had to be cautious because the economic situation is extremely complicated and very difficult to explain.   He assures us we can expect good stuff if he’s elected.

Krugman agrees that we need an additional stimulus package on top of the bailout and thinks there will be two:  A bi-partisan stimulus Nov. 5; and then another, bigger one after the change of Presidency.   Krugman’s opinion is that tax cuts and rebates should not be the core of this stimulus package.   When Bush did this, people didn’t spend the money and we need people to spend the money.

He warns that the recession will likely last a long while and that it will be deep (if not a depression).   The last recession was officially only 8 months long but it actually took 2 1/2 years for the labor market to recover.   High unemployment, which started in 2001, did not improve until the summer of 2003.  White House fact sheets on the economy always talk about jobs gained since 2003.  But the fact is, jobs were significantly down from 2001 - 2003.  They never bother to mention the 2 1/2 year recession prior to 2003 when making that statement.

The nature of recessions has changed.  We used to have recessions because there was inflation and the Fed raised interest rates which created a housing crashed.  They would let the rates come down again and the housing market stabilized.   This time, the recession has been created because a private sector has had irrational exuberance.  The bubble has burst and it’s much more difficult to get the economy to move again after a bubble burst than it is in an old-fashioned recession.  It’s going to take a while.

Krugman says we had something we called capitalism from the 1930s to about 1980 which was a fairly heavily regulated system.  The rich were taxed fairly high, but it was still a market economy.   Then came the Regan era which was the age of deregulation.  We are probably going to have to go back to the way things were from 19390s to 1980.  Krugman says that really not such a terrible thing.

Krugman thinks that if Obama wins the presidency, he needs to call for something like a new, New Deal.  Not everything has been bad these past couple of decades but we lost sight of having a society that works for everybody.  We lost sight of a society that provides some basic security and insurance against chaos in the financial markets.  We need to recapture some of those values that made us successful.

Yeah, women should be able to do everything men are able to do. But where do you go with something like this?

I graduated from Texas A&M so a good number of my friends joined the National Guard. But with one exception, they were all male. The idea was that you’d be available for your country but would likely only have to serve one weekend a month and would only be called away for a national emergency. This decision is most often made before kids come into the picture. If kids do happen to come into the picture, there is very likely a female available to take care of those kids for you so you can serve your country. But what happens if you are female, made this decision before kids, but have kids now and don’t have anyone you can count on to take care of them while you are off serving your country?

I watched The Battle of Algiers tonight. It’s one of those synchronistic things. I recently read several works by Sartre and Camus who had an infamous relationship that ended over a political difference regarding Algiers. Camus was for continued French colonization and Sartre was against it. Sartre was for terrorism, Camus was against any killing whatsoever. (Sartre, of course, saw Camus’s idealism as naive.)

I’ve been reading Not On Our Watch about the Darfur genocide and it was mentioned that on the trip to Sudan, the airlines showed The Battle of Algiers which was totally relevant to what was going on in Darfur. I hadn’t consciously connected the two, but isn’t that how things always work? One thing leads to another even when you don’t realize that is what is happening. So of course, I put The Battle of Algiers on my Netflix queue and moved it to the top. I have since added every film on the Sudan, Darfur, and related conflicts Netflix has.

The Battle of Algiers was filmed in 1966 on the streets of Algier and is based on events that occurred in 1954-1962. Algeria had been a French colony from 1830-1962. It was one of France’s longest-held overseas territories and later became the home of thousands of European immigrant who later became known as pieds-noirs. (Camus’s family was among these immigrants.) After Algeirian independence, over 1 million pied-noirs returned to France and were ostracized by the French because it was thought that they had brought about the violence of the Algerian War which was directly associated with the collapse of the French Fourth Republic. The pied-noirs blamed the French for not being able to return to Algiers because it had become so violent.

There was increasing dissatisfaction among the Muslims in Algiers because they were being treated as second rate citizens and lacked political and economic status. The Algerian War began in 1954 and Algeria gained complete independence in 1962. The film focuses on 1954 - 1960 with the beginning of the organization of Muslim cells in the Casbah. This lead to a confrontation with the pied-noirs which further lead to French paratroopers who came to weed out the Muslim National Liberation Front (FLN). They attempt to assassinate or neutralize all of the FLN leaders and in this attempt they could be said to have “won”, but there is further rioting of native Algerians which shows that they merely won the battle but lost the war.

The film is based on Saadi Yacef who was one of the leaders of the FLN. Today he is a Senator in Algeria’s People’s National Assembly. He was captured by French troops on Sept. 24, 1957 and was sentenced to death. But because he told the French army where Ali la Pointe was hiding (with whom the film both begins and ends), he was pardoned by the French government.

The film was banned for five years in France and scenes of torture were cut from both the American and British versions.

It is said that this film continues to be absolutely contemporary in terms of U.S occupation of Iraq and continued troubles in Africa. If you’ve seen it, what do you think?

Just a side note: Sartre is mentioned in the film by Colonel Bigeard. He says he doesn’t like Sartre, but that the Satrean’s are not those you want as foes. (Sartre wrote in favor of terrorism among the native Algierians to free themselves from French Colonial rule.)

I’ve been making my way through all of the DVDs my library has of the America at a Crossroads series. I think I recently checked out the last two episodes my library has, but I’m not sure. I’m listing what it is I’ve watched below so I’ll have it handy when episodes are re-broadcast on PBS or my library acquires more. The website says there are more episodes planned. I unfortunately missed the episodes that aired just after Thanksgiving. There have been 16 episodes in all so far and I’m shy 8 (I’ve seen 8).

What I’ve seen has been absolutely fascinating and informative. Each episode has to do with the challenges the world is faced with after 9/11 and the subsequent retaliation of the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Just a few comments on some of the episodes. Faith Without Fear is based on the ideas and trials and tribulations of Irshad Manji, and female Muslim who thinks fundamentalist Islam must be confronted by Muslims because they have hijacked the religion. I read most of her book several years ago, The Trouble with Islam Today, with my UU book group. I didn’t finish it which is unusual for me. (I finish almost every book I start.) I think I was having similar issues with Christianity at the time and was feeling more inclined to leave my religion than to be the prophet from within, so perhaps her book made me feel guilty? I’m not sure. I definitely did not appreciate the courage it took for her to put her thoughts out there. (From what I recall of her book, I think she may have been a lesbian Muslim?? Which makes her even more courageous!)

On the subject of courage, Warriors presents the trials and tribulations of American soldiers in Iraq. I don’t think anyone can understand what it is these individuals go through unless they have actually gone through it themselves. I have a very UU sort of attitude toward war. I’m not against it, but I’m definitely not for war unless there is an extremely good reason to go to war. I’m still not convinced there was a good reason for the war in Iraq but I am thankful for the men and women who are willing to risk their lives for the sake of their country. Whether or not it is a just war has nothing to do with the fact that these individuals choose daily to courageously serve others.

The Muslim Americans was also fascinating for me. I’d read that there was a big difference between how Muslims are treated in the U.S. and how they are treated in Europe but I think I probably dismissed it as inflated American hype. But according to The Muslims in America, it’s true - U.S. Muslims are much better integrated into society here than are Muslims in most of Europe. Muslims in Europe remain on the fringe of society while Muslims in the U.S. are wealthy and well-educated and an integral part of society. So of course, Muslims in the U.S. are very intolerant of problems caused by fellow Muslims. I profess to not knowing that many Muslims but we have been quite close to a few. We lived next door to a Muslim couple in Mission Viejo. My kids and I were very involved with a Muslim homeschooling family here in Austin for a while. And my husband’s cousin is married to a Muslim. He’s a wonderful, generous person and very fun to argue with. He is married to a Catholic and his daughter married a Jew. He told me he planned for his daughters to be good Muslim wives who serve their husbands but he didn’t exactly raise them that way. They are extremely headstrong, successful females. All of these people are as American as it gets. When 9/11 happened, I never for an instant thought to blame Islam. Unfortunately, American Muslims since 9/11 are beginning to feel discriminated against which is extremely unfortunate and troubling. It is primarily discrimination that has caused the radicalization of Muslims in Europe.

JIHAD: The Men and Ideas behind Al Qaeda was probably the most informative for me. It’s interesting and scary to see the evolution of philosophy that created Al Qaeda and the terrorist attack on 9/11. If the film is right, then the U.S. played right into Osama bin Laden’s hand and then some. He counted on us being cowboys and we were.

But then there is the counter argument offered by neo-Conservative, Richard Perle in The Case for War: In Defense of Freedom. He makes some good arguments. and claims that the label of “cowboy” would have been slapped on JFK today, too. Maybe so, but times have changed and so has our global awareness. Just because a thought process was considered to be OK back then does not mean it is considered OK now. Life is in constant flux. The liberal’s job is to push society forward and the conservative’s job is to make sure the liberal’s don’t push it too far too fast. That’s why we have a system of checks and balances! Unfortunately, I think it’s a little out of balance at the moment. We’ve become so polarized. But perhaps that is part of the process, too?

Anyway, very interesting, thought provoking series.

What I’ve watched so far…

• The Brotherhood
• Struggle for the Soul of Islam: Inside Indonesia
• Europe’s 9/11
• The Muslim Americans
• JIHAD: The Men and Ideas Behind Al Qaeda
• Warriors
• The Case for War in Defense of Freedom
• Fear without Faith

What I still need to see…

• The Anti-Americans (a love-hate relationship)
• Campus Battleground
• Gangs of Iraq
• Homegrown: Islam in Prison
• Inside America’s Empire
• Kansas to Kandahar: Citizen Soldiers at War
• Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience
• Security vs. Liberty: The Other War

Just watched Iraq in Fragments. It is a documentary done by one man who lived in Iraq for 2 years. It is filmed in 3 segments - Sunnis, Radical Shiites, and the Kurds. He managed to build intimate relationships with individuals in each group who allowed him to film 3 different sections in Iraq including radical Shiites which really lets you see the Iraqi perspective under occupation. It was beautiful, lyrical, dismal, eye opening, and very human.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z39tD1wK6wA&hl=en&fs=1]

OK - so there were a whole lot of us who didn’t buy that Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction. I remember feeling like I was crazy for
questioning the assumption. But I also remember that I wasn’t alone in
doing the questioning. There were interfaith councils uniting to
discuss this with petitions being signed by 100s upon 100s of ministers
in the Christian ranks claiming that we had no right to go to war based
on the flimsy evidence. I can’t recall exactly, but I think it is
likely we were a part of the UU Church at this time and of course there
were almost no UUers in the entire U.S. in favor of going to war based
upon the flimsy evidence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
.

So how is it that American journalists could have become so bamfoozled?

This is a very interesting report from Bill Moyers:

“Four years ago on May 1, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier
USS Lincoln and delivered a speech in front of a giant “Mission
Accomplished” banner. Despite profound questions and the increasing
violence in Baghdad, many in the press confirmed the White House’s
claim that the war was won. How did they get it so wrong? How did the
evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the
link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 continue to go largely unreported?”

go to Chapter 1

go to Chapter 2

go to Chapter 3

go to Chapter 4

go to Chapter 5

Thanks Curlysalamander

With God on Our Side - George W. Bush and the Rise of the Religious Right in America

by Calvin Skaggs

I think this is meant to be for George Bush what Birth of a Nation was for the Ku Klux Klan or Triumph of the Will was for Hitler set in a tone Americans of the 2000s can accept. Bush is a sincere agent of the Lord – the real deal – what the deserving evangelicals have been waiting for. According to the film – 36% of Americans have been born again so a lot of people have been waiting for this hero.

It promised a balanced account (“scrupulously balanced” it says on the back of the case) – but I kept waiting for the balance and it never came. I’m not sure what they felt they were balancing – maybe Michael Moore?

It made my stomach hurt. Almost everyone interviewed had a southern accent, was lily white, well-fed, male and confident that God is indeed on their side. Same old song and dance that has been sung throughout history in different forms.

Thing is, there are an awful lot of evangelicals that aren’t pro-Bush. And, with Bush’s falling ratings, the “decisive” anti-postmodern hero isn’t quite so heroic anymore, is he?

Who Killed the Electric Car?

About 8 years ago, a friend of mine was telling my husband about having helped to design some sort of solar powered battery that would be able to store lots of energy and power all kinds of things. But he said it would never go anywhere because the oil companies squash any sort of alternative power before it had a chance to make it.

At the time, I thought he was just being dramatic. Why, when there is so much pollution and people are worried about global warming would they squash something just for profit. Silly me. The scales have since fallen from my eyes and I understand much better now than I did then.

Today we watched Who Killed the Electric Car? . Fascinating film. I was living in California when the zero emmissions mandates were being made so remember seeing a few of these cars that ran only on electricity. Several businesses in our area began providing plug in capability - like in the parking garage at the pediatrician’s office (which was part of the hospital). It seemed like a good idea at the time but I remember thinking that it just wasn’t practical - that the cars couldn’t go far enough on a single charge to be considered trustworthy transportation. But those were in the days when the scales over my eyes were firmly in place. I was definitely a guilty consumer as the film suggests. I never bothered to check into it.

And it’s ashame, too - especially how easily we are all duped by big business. The electric car didn’t die because it wasn’t good technology. It was practical, functional, and the people who drove them loved them. But people didn’t own them. The car companies leased them. And when the leases were up, the leases were not renewed, and the cars were destroyed.

Why? According to Who Killed the Electric Car?, there isn’t a single answer. The new technology was clearly a threat to the oil companies which actively and very publically denounced the technology as impractical.

The auto industry did not want to be told what types of cars that had to produce. Also, electric cars would not provide the same return on parts and services as cars with combustible engines, which is a very large part of the auto industries revenue. In fact, at the same time the electric car was systematically destroyed, the Hummer and large SUVs were introduced and mass marketed and given large tax cuts by the U.S. government.

It’s not exactly surprising that those in office today would be against the electric car. A large percentage have have direct ties to oil and auto industries.

And definitely the consumers are to blame because we didn’t ask any questions. But talk to the people that were selling the electric cars - they had unbelieveable waiting lists. The demand was there and was so high that in order to receive a car, you had to provide a resume.

Many people claimed the battery was the problem. But technology rapidly improved and better batteries could easily have replaced the less effective ones. Today, a car could possibly run 300 miles on a single charge. But the car delearships crushed them all so there are no longer any cars to put the batteries in.

The new push is for plug-in hybrid cars - cars that can run solely on electricity but can also run on gas in a pinch. The technology is there. It will be interesting to see where it goes.