Wednesday, March 25, 2020

Not Just Your local store: Countries Are Starting to Hoard Food, Threatening Global Trade [feedly]

Countries Are Starting to Hoard Food, Threatening Global Trade
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-24/countries-are-starting-to-hoard-food-threatening-global-trade

We're tracking the latest on the coronavirus outbreak and the global response. Sign up here for our daily newsletter on what you need to know.

It's not just grocery shoppers who are hoarding pantry staples. Some governments are moving to secure domestic food supplies during the conoravirus pandemic.

Kazakhstan, one of the world's biggest shippers of wheat flour, banned exports of that product along with others, including carrots, sugar and potatoes. Vietnam temporarily suspended new rice export contracts. Serbia has stopped the flow of its sunflower oil and other goods, while Russia is leaving the door open to shipment bans and said it's assessing the situation weekly.

To be perfectly clear, there have been just a handful of moves and no sure signs that much more is on the horizon. Still, what's been happening has raised a question: Is this the start of a wave of food nationalism that will further disrupt supply chains and trade flows?

U.K. Grocers Ration Buying and Bulk Up Online to Deal With Virus

Shoppers wait on the street for the general opening of the store, during a time set aside for elderly and vulnerable members of the community to shop, at an Iceland Foods store in London on March 18.

Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg

"We're starting to see this happening already -- and all we can see is that the lockdown is going to get worse," said Tim Benton, research director in emerging risks at think tank Chatham House in London.

Though food supplies are ample, logistical hurdles are making it harder to get products where they need to be as the coronavirus unleashes unprecedented measures, panic buying and the threat of labor crunches.

relates to Countries Starting to Hoard Food, Threatening Global Trade

Consumers across the globe are still loading their pantries -- and the economic fallout from the virus is just starting. The specter of more trade restrictions is stirring memories of how protectionism can often end up causing more harm than good. That adage rings especially true now as the moves would be driven by anxiety and not made in response to crop failures or other supply problems.

As it is, many governments have employed extreme measures, setting curfews and limits on crowds or even on people venturing out for anything but to acquire essentials. That could spill over to food policy, said Ann Berg, an independent consultant and veteran agricultural trader who started her career at Louis Dreyfus Co. in 1974.

"You could see wartime rationing, price controls and domestic stockpiling," she said.

Some nations are adding to their strategic reserves. China, the biggest rice grower and consumer, pledged to buy more than ever before from its domestic harvest, even though the government already holds massive stockpiles of rice and wheat, enough for one year of consumption.

Key wheat importers including Algeria and Turkey have also issued new tenders, and Morocco said a suspension on wheat-import duties would last through mid-June.

Food Dependence

Trade as a share of domestic food supply

Source: UN's Food & Agriculture Organization Global Perspectives Studies

As governments take nationalistic approaches, they risk disrupting an international system that has become increasingly interconnected in recent decades.

Kazakhstan had already stopped exports of other food staples, like buckwheat and onions, before the move this week to cut off wheat-flour shipments. That latest action was a much bigger step, with the potential to affect companies around the world that rely on the supplies to make bread.

For some commodities, a handful of countries, or even fewer, make up the bulk of exportable supplies. Disruptions to those shipments would have major global ramifications. Take, for example, Russia, which has emerged as the world's top wheat exporter and a key supplier to North Africa. Vietnam is the third-largest rice exporter, sending many of its cargoes to the Philippines.

"If governments are not working collectively and cooperatively to ensure there is a global supply, if they're just putting their nations first, you can end up in a situation where things get worse," said Benton of Chatham House.

He warned that frenzied shopping coupled with protectionist policies could eventually lead to higher food prices -- a cycle that could end up perpetuating itself.

"If you're panic buying on the market for next year's harvest, then prices will go up, and as prices go up, policy makers will panic more," he said.

And higher grocery bills can have major ramifications. Bread costs have a long history of kick-starting unrest and political instability. During the food price spikes of 2011 and 2008, there were food riots in more than 30 nations across Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

"Without the food supply, societies just totally break," Benton said.

Ample supplies have kept prices relatively low since the 2011 spike

Unlike previous periods of rampant food inflation, global inventories of staple crops like corn, wheat, soybeans and rice are plentiful, said Dan Kowalski, vice president of research at CoBank, a $145 billion lender to the agriculture industry, adding he doesn't expect "dramatic" gains for prices now.

While the spikes of the last decade were initially caused by climate problems for crops, policies exacerbated the consequences. In 2010, Russia experienced a record heat wave that damaged the wheat crop. The government responded by banning exports to make sure domestic consumers had enough.

The United Nations' measure of global food prices reached a record high by February 2011.

"Given the problem that we are facing now, it's not the moment to put these types of policies into place," said Maximo Torero, chief economist at the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization. "On the contrary, it's the moment to cooperate and coordinate."

READ MORE ON FOOD ISSUES IN VIRUS ERA:

Of course, the few bans in place may not last, and signs of a return to normal could prevent countries from taking drastic measures. Once consumers start to see more products on shelves, they may stop hoarding, in turn allowing governments to back off. X5 Retail, Russia's biggest grocer, said demand for staple foods is starting to stabilize. In the U.S., major stores like Walmart Inc. have cut store hours to allow workers to restock.

In the meantime, some food prices have already started going up because of the spike in buying.

Wheat futures in Chicago, the global benchmark, have climbed more than 6% in March as consumers buy up flour. U.S. wholesale beef has shot up to the highest since 2015, and egg prices are higher.

At the same time, the U.S. dollar is surging against a host of emerging-market currencies. That reduces purchasing power for countries that ship in commodities, which are usually priced in greenbacks.

In the end, whenever there's a disruption for whatever reason, Berg said, "it's the least-developed countries with weak currencies that get hurt the most."

— With assistance by Yuliya Fedorinova, and Anatoly Medetsky

(Adds Vietnam suspending new rice export contracts in second paragraph.)

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Bloomberg: What Would It Take to Lift Coronavirus Restrictions? Experts Weigh In [feedly]

What Would It Take to Lift Coronavirus Restrictions? Experts Weigh In
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-25/what-would-it-take-to-lift-coronavirus-restrictions-experts-weigh-in

U.S. coronavirus infections have passed 50,000. The death toll, while still well below the worst-hit countries, is expected to rise. Personal protective gear has run short at hospitals, and many patients with mild symptoms still can't get tested.

The U.S. isn't yet close to having its Covid-19 outbreak under control. But with markets in turmoil and jobs being lost across the country, President Donald Trump has begun laying the groundwork for state and local governments to lift personal restrictions and shutdowns of businesses that have devastated local economies.

"THE CURE CANNOT BE WORSE (by far) THAN THE PROBLEM!" Trump tweeted Tuesday. In a Fox News town hall appearance later that day, Trump suggested the country might reopen by mid-April. "I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter," Trump said.


"We need to absorb the pain now," says Larry W. Chang, an infectious disease doctor and researcher at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. "If you lift restrictions early, the number of infected people will skyrocket. Hospitals will be overwhelmed." That might cause state and local governments to impose even more draconian restrictions, extending  economic damage. 

Many medical experts think the U.S. won't be ready to lift restrictions for weeks or months. "Before considering big changes to social distancing measures now, we should as quickly as possible get to strongest possible position for COVID response – we're no where near that now," Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said on Twitter Monday.

But even the most hard-core epidemiologists don't want to sit inside forever. 

The global pandemic is still new and poorly understood, with debates about how deadly it is, how many people are infected, and who's most at risk. "We are flying the airplane while we are building it," said Gregory Poland, who heads the vaccine research group at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Bloomberg News spoke to several experts on public health and outbreaks about what would need to happen for the U.S. to start easing some restrictions, what it would take for people to get back to work, and what the consequences of getting it wrong could be. 

Buy Time

Authorities can't start lifting restrictions until the outbreak is better under control. Even with reduced transmission as people stay home, it will likely be many weeks, or more likely months, before that happens. That means, in the short term, harsher measures. 

"You shut everything down now except for essential services," said Poland. "The safest thing to do is watch and wait until there are either no or very few additional cases," and ideally a few weeks after that. Then governments could start lifting restrictions, with younger and healthier people going first.

In Wuhan, China, where much more restrictive measures on personal movement were implemented, authorities are only now starting to re-open the city — two full months after it was sealed off from the world.

So far in the U.S. some states have enacted heavy restrictions, closing businesses and telling people not to leave their homes, and others haven't. A more complete U.S. shutdown, even a few weeks, could buy time to learn more about stopping the virus, either with drugs under testing or with better knowledge about who's most at risk.

Lots of Testing

Countries like South Korea have done a much better job at identifying and isolating cases early on, and tracing all their contacts. As a result, the restrictions they've implemented have been far looser. If the U.S. wants people back to work, it needs to find out who's sick and who they might have spread the coronavirus to, said Saad Omer, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health. 

"This is how you stamp out these fires, and we haven't been doing this at all," said Omer.

To do that, the U.S. has to test people. Lots of people. But at present, limits on the availability of tests have meant that mostly moderate-to-severe patients are getting diagnosed, while milder cases are told to stay home.

"We need to take the magnitude of this seriously if we are serious about saving the economy," Omer said. "There are no shortcuts."

That means everything from drive-through testing to broad availability at doctors' offices and clinics to test anyone who might have had contact with a Covid-19 patient. It also means getting them the results quickly. A positive test gives mildly ill people more reason to stay home and take precautions, said former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb. "People are much more likely to self isolate with a positive result," Gottlieb said on Twitter Sunday. 

To test more, the U.S. also needs to ramp up access to protective gear for doctors and nurses. When ICUs treating desperately ill Covid-19 patients don't have enough masks for their nurses, it's impossible to spare protective equipment for testing patients with minimal symptoms. If the testers can't protect themselves from sick patients, it's harder to get them in the field to do the work. Or they can become vectors of transmission themselves.

Track Cases, Stop Infections

Testing people only matters if you do something about it.

The U.S. will likely need thousands more workers to do the contact tracing, since overwhelmed state and public health agencies don't have enough people to do it on their own. 

"We are going to need to hire a new work force to do a lot of these things," says Chang of Hopkins. To stimulate the economy, federal or state governments could hire unemployed workers from hard hit service industries, and shift them into Covid-19 tracking and isolation, he said. Or the National Guard could be called into action to help.

It's also important to stop people from spreading the virus to relatives. Despite all the worry about getting Covid-19 on a subway or at the grocery store, a hallmark of Covid-19 in China and elsewhere is that much of the spread is within families.

"Another thing we need to do is focus on reducing transmission at the household level," said Yale's Omer.

Families who have to deal with an infected relative will need a ready supply of masks, both for patients and designated caregivers, and hotlines they can call for advice on keeping their home disinfected. They may also need places to safely isolate sick  loved ones who are ill, but not sick enough to take up a valuable hospital bed.

Find Out Who's Immune

Once a person has been sick with a virus, their immune system remembers it. Antibodies in the blood indicate that a person was previously infected — and is unlikely to get sick again. That can be checked with a blood test.

"If you make effective antibody, you shouldn't get re-infected," said Deborah Birx, a State Department health official who is part of the White House coronavirus task force, said Tuesday.

Epidemiologists believe that there are likely many thousands of Americans who already have been infected with the virus, but don't know it because their symptoms were mild or nonexistent and they were never tested.  A reliable blood test would allow doctors to identify people who have been exposed and already have antibodies to the virus, and should be able to safely go back to work or school. This could be particularly helpful for health workers and other front-line responders who face more risk of being exposed.

"As the epidemic proceeds, we will want to do serological tests (by drawing blood) on as many people as possible to identify people who have recovered and are highly likely to be immune," said Nicholas Christakis, a social scientist and physician at Yale University, in a March 19 tweet. "This should be a national priority."


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Nurses in garbage bags?: Why the Trump administration must use the Defense Production Act to mobilize production of critically needed hospital protective equipment immediately

Tuesday, March 24, 2020

A Greater Depression? [feedly]

NOURIEL ROUBINI : A Greater Depression?
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/coronavirus-greater-great-depression-by-nouriel-roubini-2020-03

A Greater Depression?

Mar 24, 2020 NOURIEL ROUBINI

With the COVID-19 pandemic still spiraling out of control, the best economic outcome that anyone can hope for is a recession deeper than that following the 2008 financial crisis. But given the flailing policy response so far, the chances of a far worse outcome are increasing by the day.

NEW YORK – The shock to the global economy from COVID-19 has been both faster and more severe than the 2008 global financial crisis (GFC) and even the Great Depression. In those two previous episodes, stock markets collapsed by 50% or more, credit markets froze up, massive bankruptcies followed, unemployment rates soared above 10%, and GDP contracted at an annualized rate of 10% or more. But all of this took around three years to play out. In the current crisis, similarly dire macroeconomic and financial outcomes have materialized in three weeks.




Earlier this month, it took just 15 days for the US stock market to plummet into bear territory (a 20% decline from its peak) – the fastest such decline ever. Now, markets are down 35%, credit markets have seized up, and credit spreads (like those for junk bonds) have spiked to 2008 levels. Even mainstream financial firms such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley expect US GDP to fall by an annualized rate of 6% in the first quarter, and by 24% to 30% in the second. US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has warned that the unemployment rate could skyrocket to above 20% (twice the peak level during the GFC).

In other words, every component of aggregate demand – consumption, capital spending, exports – is in unprecedented free fall. While most self-serving commentatorshave been anticipating a V-shaped downturn – with output falling sharply for one quarter and then rapidly recovering the next – it should now be clear that the COVID-19 crisis is something else entirely. The contraction that is now underway looks to be neither V- nor U- nor L-shaped (a sharp downturn followed by stagnation). Rather, it looks like an I: a vertical line representing financial markets and the real economy plummeting.

Not even during the Great Depression and World War II did the bulk of economic activity literally shut down, as it has in China, the United States, and Europe today. The best-case scenario would be a downturn that is more severe than the GFC (in terms of reduced cumulative global output) but shorter-lived, allowing for a return to positive growth by the fourth quarter of this year. In that case, markets would start to recover when the light at the end of the tunnel appears.

But the best-case scenario assumes several conditions. First, the US, Europe, and other heavily affected economies would need to roll out widespread COVID-19 testing, tracing, and treatment measures, enforced quarantines, and a full-scale lockdown of the type that China has implemented. And, because it could take 18 months for a vaccine to be developed and produced at scale, antivirals and other therapeutics will need to be deployed on a massive scale.

Second, monetary policymakers – who have already done in less than a month what took them three years to do after the GFC – must continue to throw the kitchen sink of unconventional measures at the crisis. That means zero or negative interest rates; enhanced forward guidance; quantitative easing; and credit easing (the purchase of private assets) to backstop banks, non-banks, money market funds, and even large corporations (commercial paper and corporate bond facilities). The US Federal Reserve has expanded its cross-border swap lines to address the massive dollar liquidity shortage in global markets, but we now need more facilities to encourage banks to lend to illiquid but still-solvent small and medium-size enterprises.


Third, governments need to deploy massive fiscal stimulus, including through "helicopter drops" of direct cash disbursements to households. Given the size of the economic shock, fiscal deficits in advanced economies will need to increase from 2-3% of GDP to around 10% or more. Only central governments have balance sheets large and strong enough to prevent the private sector's collapse.

But these deficit-financed interventions must be fully monetized. If they are financed through standard government debt, interest rates would rise sharply, and the recovery would be smothered in its cradle. Given the circumstances, interventions long proposed by leftists of the Modern Monetary Theory school, including helicopter drops, have become mainstream.

Unfortunately for the best-case scenario, the public-health response in advanced economies has fallen far short of what is needed to contain the pandemic, and the fiscal-policy package currently being debated is neither large nor rapid enough to create the conditions for a timely recovery. As such, the risk of a new Great Depression, worse than the original – a Greater Depression – is rising by the day.

Unless the pandemic is stopped, economies and markets around the world will continue their free fall. But even if the pandemic is more or less contained, overall growth still might not return by the end of 2020. After all, by then, another virus season is very likely to start with new mutations; therapeutic interventions that many are counting on may turn out to be less effective than hoped. So, economies will contract again and markets will crash again.

Moreover, the fiscal response could hit a wall if the monetization of massive deficits starts to produce high inflation, especially if a series of virus-related negative supply shocks reduces potential growth. And many countries simply cannot undertake such borrowing in their own currency. Who will bail out governments, corporations, banks, and households in emerging markets?

In any case, even if the pandemic and the economic fallout were brought under control, the global economy could still be subject to a number of "white swan" tail risks. With the US presidential election approaching, the COVID-19 crisis will give way to renewed conflicts between the West and at least four revisionist powers: China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, all of which are already using asymmetric cyberwarfare to undermine the US from within. The inevitable cyber attacks on the US election process may lead to a contested final result, with charges of "rigging" and the possibility of outright violence and civil disorder.1

Similarly, as I have argued previously, markets are vastly underestimating the risk of a war between the US and Iran this year; the deterioration of Sino-American relations is accelerating as each side blames the other for the scale of the COVID-19 pandemic. The current crisis is likely to accelerate the ongoing balkanization and unraveling of the global economy in the months and years ahead.2

This trifecta of risks – uncontained pandemics, insufficient economic-policy arsenals, and geopolitical white swans – will be enough to tip the global economy into persistent depression and a runaway financial-market meltdown. After the 2008 crash, a forceful (though delayed) response pulled the global economy back from the abyss. We may not be so lucky this time.



Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics at New York University's Stern School of Business and Chairman of Roubini Macro Associates, was Senior Economist for International Affairs in the White House's Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration. He has worked for the International Monetary Fund, the US Federal Reserve, and the World Bank. His website is NourielRoubini.com.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Monday, March 23, 2020

Dan Little: A course on democracy and intolerance [feedly]

A course on democracy and intolerance
http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-course-on-democracy-and-intolerance.html

I am teaching a brand new honors course at my university called "Democracy and the politics of division and hate". The course focuses on the question of the relationship between democracy and intolerance. As any reader of the world's news outlets knows, intolerance and bigotry have become ever-more prominent themes in the politics of Western democracies – France, the Netherlands, Germany, Greece, and – yes, the United States. These movements put the values of a liberal democracy to the test.

Here is the course description:
Democracy has been understood as a setting where equal citizens collectively make decisions about law and public policy in an environment of equality, fairness, and mutual respect. Political theorists from Rousseau to JS Mill to Rawls have attempted to define the conditions that make a democratic civil society possible. Today the world's democracies are challenged by powerful political movements based on intolerance and division. How should democratic theory respond to the challenge of hate-based political movements? The course reexamines classic ideas in democratic theory, current sociological research on hate-based populism, and current strategies open to citizens in the twenty-first century to reclaim the values of tolerance and respect in their democratic institutions. The course is intended to provide students with better intellectual resources for understanding the political developments currently transforming societies as diverse as the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, India, and Nigeria.
The organizing idea is that democratic theorists have generally conceived of a democracy as a polity in which a sense of civic unity is cultivated that ensures a common commitment to the formal and substantive values of a democratic society -- the equal worth and rights of all citizens, the rule of law, adherence to the constitution, and respect for the institutions of collective decision-making. (Josh Cohen provided an excellent analysis of Rousseau's core philosophical ideas about democracy in Rousseau: A Free Community of Equalslink.) John Rawls captures this idea in Political Liberalism, where he introduces the idea of "political liberalism":
A modern democratic society is characterized not simply by a pluralism of comprehensive religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines but by a pluralism of incompatible yet reasonable comprehensive doctrines.... Political liberalism assumes that, for political purposes, a plurality of reasonable yet incompatible comprehensive doctrines is the normal result of the exercise of human reason within the framework of the free institutions of a constitutional democratic regime. Political liberalism also supposes that a reasonable comprehensive doctrine does not reject the essentials of a democratic regime. (xvi)
This formulation is intended to capture the idea that a democracy always embraces groups of people who disagree about important things. These conflicting value frameworks are what he refers to as "comprehensive doctrines of the good", and a liberal democracy is neutral among reasonable comprehensive doctrines.

So what is a "reasonable comprehensive doctrine"? Rawls's conception amounts to precisely this: all such doctrines maintain a commitment to "the essentials of a democratic regime". He refers to comprehensive doctrines that reject these commitments to political justice as irrational and "mad":
Of course, a society may also contain unreasonable and irrational, and even mad, comprehensive doctrines. In their case the problem is to contain them so that they do not undermine the unity and justice of society. (xvi)
But here is an important point: Rawls seems to have a robust confidence in the idea that a society that satisfies the conditions of justice and political liberalism will evolve towards a greater degree of civic unity. This seems to imply that he believes that individuals and groups who adhere to their "unreasonable, irrational, and mad" comprehensive doctrines will be led to change their beliefs over time and will gradually come to accept the democratic consensus.

The problem that we consider in the course is that democratic societies seem to have evolved in the opposite direction: doctrines that reject the legitimacy of the fundamentals of liberal democracy (respect for the equality of all citizens and respect for the rule of law) -- these doctrines appear to have rapidly gained ground in many democracies in Europe and now the United States. Instead of converging towards a "democratic consensus" where everyone recognizes the legitimacy, equality, and rights of all other citizens, many democracies have developed powerful political movements that reject all these commitments. These are the political movements of division and hate -- or the movements of right-wing populism. Democracy depends fundamentally on the principle of tolerance of points of view different from our own. Does that mean that democracy must be "tolerant of the intolerant", with no effective means of protecting its values and institutions against groups that would subvert its most basic principles?

So how do we take on this set of issues, which involve both political philosophy and the sociology of political mobilization and political psychology?

The course begins by immersing the students in some of the values that define democracy.We begin with John Stuart Mill's short but influential 1859 book, On Liberty. Mill postulates the equal worth and liberties of all citizens, and argues that a good democracy involves rule by the majority while scrupulously protecting the equal rights and freedoms of all citizens. (Notice the close agreement between this theory and the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which we also read.) We then consider the theory of a liberal society put forward by John Rawls in Political Liberalism, where Rawls argues that a democracy depends fundamentally upon a culture of respect for the equal worth and equal rights and liberties of all citizens. This implies that perhaps democracy cannot survive in the absence of such a culture. 

This is the positive theory of democracy, as several centuries of philosophers have developed it.

Next we turn to the challenges these theories face in the contemporary world: the rise of hate-based populism in Europe and the United States, and the rising prevalence of racism, bigotry, and violence in many countries. And this is not just a Western problem — think of India, the world's largest democracy, and the governing party's inculcation of hate and violence against Muslims. Anti-semitism, anti-Muslim bigotry, and white supremacy are on the rise. The Front Nationale in France, the Alternative for Germany, and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands are all examples of political parties that have developed mass followings with appeals based on racism and division, and similar parties exist in most other European countries. And white supremacist organizations in the United States make the same appeals in our country as well.

The hard question for us is this: can our liberal democracies find ways of coping with intolerance and hate? Can we reassert the values of civility and mutual respect in ways that build a greater consensus around the values of democracy? Does a democracy have the ability to defend itself against parties who reject the moral premises of democracy?

The assigned readings in the course include several excellent and thought-provoking books from philosophy, sociology, and political theory. We begin with Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser's book Populism: A Very Short Introduction, which gives an excellent short overview of the phenomenon of rightwing populism in Europe and the United States, along with a good discussion of the challenge of defining the concept of populism.

We then turn to two weeks on McAdam and Kloos, Deeply Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Postwar America, along with a survey report from the Southern Poverty Law Center on the spread of racist and hate-based organizations in the United States. McAdam and Kloos provide an analysis of the evolution of the mainstream "conservative" political party since the Nixon presidency, and document through survey data and other evidence from empirical political science the rapid increase in racial antagonism in the party's platforms and behavior when in office (linklink). They offer a convincing demonstration of the racism that underlies the activism of the Tea Party.

The next readings are Justin Gest's The New Minority: White Working Class Politics in an Age of Immigration and Inequality (link) and Kathleen Blee's edited volume The New Minority: White Working Class Politics in an Age of Immigration and Inequality (link). These books provide an ethnographical perspective on the appeal of right-wing extremism in western democracies, deriving from rapid economic change (deindustrialization) and demographic change (immigration and the rising percentage of populations of color in both Britain and the US). Blee's volume sheds much light on the role of gender in political mobilization by the right across the spectrum, with substantially more women involved in extremists groups in the US than in Europe.

Next we turn to both longstanding and current strategies by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India to manage politics through antagonism against India's Muslims. Paul Brass's book The Production Of Hindu-Muslim Violence In Contemporary India is the primary source (link), and several good pieces of journalism about the current violence in India against Muslims help to fill in the details of the current situation (linklinklink).

The course ends with a consideration of Robert Putnam's volume Better Together: Restoring the American Community, which makes the case for civic engagement and civic unity -- but in a voice that appears a decade behind events when it comes to the virulence of hate-based activism.

This is a course that is entirely organized around an intensive and engaged student experience. Each session involves lively discussion and student presentations (which have been excellent), and the course aims at helping the students develop their own ideas and judgments. We all learn through open, honest, and respectful dialogue, and every session is engaging and valuable. Most importantly, we have all come to see that these issues of democracy, equality, and intolerance and bigotry are an enormous challenge for all of us in the twenty-first century that we must solve. 

(For the first session students are asked to view several relevant videos on YouTube:

John Rawls Lecture 1, Modern Political Philosophy

Hate Rising: White Supremacy in America

Robert Putnam on Immigration and Diversity

Cas Mudde on Right-wing Populism

These videos set the stage for many of the topics raised throughout the course.)

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

A few Comments on Weekly and Continued Unemployment Claims [feedly]

A few Comments on Weekly and Continued Unemployment Claims
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2020/03/a-few-comments-on-weekly-and-continued.html


On Thursday, the Department of Labor will release Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims.   The consensus is initial claims will increase to 750,000, but that is way too low.

Based on early reporting from various states, initial weekly claims will probably be several million this week.

The all time high for initial weekly unemployment claims, Seasonally Adjusted, was 695,000 in Oct 82. The high during the great recession was 665,000 in Mar 09.

The previous record will be obliterated this week due to the sudden economic stop.

The extremely high level of claims will probably continue for several weeks.    But it will be important to track Continued Claims too - since many of these people won't be returning to work for some time.

Click on graph for larger image.

Here is a graph of continued claims since 1967.

If we look at Hurricane Katrina in 2005, weekly claims jumped up immediately, and then declined fairly quickly back to normal levels - but continued claims stayed high for a few months (since it took some time for people in New Orleans and along the Gulf coast to return to work).

This pandemic sudden stop is like Hurricane Katrina for unemployment claims, but all across the country.

This week initial claims will skyrocket, and the following week continued claims will follow. 

At the worst of the Great Recession, continued claims peaked at 6.635 million, but then steadily declined.    Over the next few weeks, continued claims will increase rapidly, and then will likely stay at that high level until the crisis abates.  
 -- via my feedly newsfeed