Saturday, August 30, 2025

America at War

America is terrific at attacking, and war-making. It's terrible at making peace. Trump is even thinking of changing the "Dept. of Defense" to the more accurate "Dept. of War." It's part of how us USians got control of the continent. Actually, Old World diseases are more responsible than military attacks for the defeat of the North and South American natives--a genocide that wiped out more than 90% of the New World's populations.

The imperialist impulse is why, between 1798 and 1994, the US is responsible for 41 changes of government south of its borders. 

Taking credit for that "victory" is what part of what drove US imperialism up until the Vietnam war, that is. 

And speaking of Vietnam: (from Naked Capitalism) "A vignette provides confirmation of Vietnam’s fierce retention of its identity during the period of Chinese rule. In the documentary The Fog of War, a not-exactly-satisfactory effort at atonement by former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, he recounts how, many years after the Vietnam War, he was able to arrange a dinner with the leaders of North Vietnam during the conflict.

"Needless to say, it was a pretty tense affair. Finally, one of the North Vietnamese officials asked: 'Why did you go to war with our country?'

"McNamara invoked the domino theory, that if North Vietnam won, China and Chinese communism would advance across Southeast Asia.

"McNamara reported that his counterparts nearly leaped across the table: 'How could you go to war understanding so little about our country? We spent 1000 years expelling the Chinese.'"

Want to know the history of the Federal Reserve?

 You can read Greider's Secrets of the Temple, or (much simpler) read this from Matt Stoller.

Stoller unveils the political motivations behind our central bank's shenanigans... It's really fascinating to know, for one example, that Alan Greenspan was a consultant for Silverado Savings & Loan in addition to being a libertarian acolyte of Ayn Rand. 



Excerpt:

But the 2008 financial crisis blew up the Greenspan era, challenging the officials in charge of the Fed in a number of different ways. It was a crisis the Fed should have seen and prevented. The Fed was, after all, the institution that had regulatory authority over mortgages, which it never used. But its leaders were blinded by their obsession with the macro; Ben Bernanke gave a speech titled “The Great Moderation” as the crisis was brewing, in 2004. The blindness was a result of their obsession with macro-economic forces, and ignoring the actual banks and institutions in the real economy. Banks, even big ones, were still micro, left to the losers in the bank supervision department.



And yet, somehow, during the crisis, these banks had affected the real economy. In response, the Fed did what it had done since the Volcker era; it bailed out Wall Street. In this case, it did so by expanding its balance sheet by several trillion dollars, buying bad assets from banks and supplying cash in return. By 2022, its balance sheet had reached $9 trillion. The Fed now regularly loses huge amounts of money due to losses on its portfolio, and those losses are essentially the accounting for a subsidy to Wall Street.

The crisis generated a legitimacy problem for the Fed, since its wizards and oracles had failed, and yet the public had no way to vote them out. But rather than engage in real reform and introspection, like most establishment institutions, the professional managerial economists doubled down. Federal Reserve Independence, rather than a temporary historical phenomenon that should be eliminated as a failed experiment, became sacred, to the point that Joe Biden’s White House had a policy that no administration official could even comment on interest rates.

...

Fed Chair Paul Volcker used to carry around a card of union wage rates, as a reminder that his goal in achieving low inflation was to break union power. The Federal Reserve is responsible in part or fully for the legalization of derivatives, the explosion of subprime lending during

the 2000s, the great financial crisis, a trillion dollar transfer of wealth to big banks as interest rates increased, the institutionalization of crypto-currencies, the merger explosion of the early 2020s, and the failed regulation of Silicon Valley Bank, among other problems. It’s also a highly political institution, pushing free trade and defending large banks; in the 1990s, Fed officials secretly bailed out Mexico so as to protect Citibank and pass NAFTA.

...

here’s more. After the crisis Congress required the Fed to place compensation limits on bank executives. Jay Powell simply refused. The Fed fostered a giant corporate merger wave in 2021, intentionally sabotaged its own payments network, FedNow, because it might be cheaper and better than the system run by large banks, and didn’t block a single merger application of the over 3500 it received from 2006-2021. This choice, as I noted years ago, “includes Silicon Valley Bank in 2021 buying Boston Private Bank and Trust, which the Fed board unanimously justified by noting that SVB would not ‘pose significant risk to the financial system in the event of financial distress.’” Speaking of which, the Federal Reserve’s chief legal officer, Mark Van Der Weide, helped author the legislation that removed regulations on Silicon Valley Bank, and the Fed, and Jay Powell, lobbied for it.

There’s just an endless amount of bad behavior from the technocrats, so the opponents of Trump, asserting that we must protect the “independence of the Fed,” are really missing the point. And I fear that their goal, after Trump leaves office, will be to “restore the independence of the Fed.”

 

 

Friday, August 29, 2025

The Real Homeless Situation: The Housing Hunger Games. (long, but worth it)

From The Intercept (go to the link to hear the interview or read more than the excerpts below)

The Housing Hunger Games

Author Brian Goldstone talked to The Intercept about homelessness. A few excerpts:

"Homeless sweeps have become the go-to, bipartisan performance of “doing something” about the U.S. housing crisis — a spectacle embraced by Democrats and Republicans, city halls, and the White House alike. But sweeps are not a solution. They’re a way to make homelessness less visible while the crisis deepens.

"The roots stretch back decades. President Ronald Reagan’s Tax Reform Act of 1986 pulled the federal government out of building and maintaining public housing, paving the way for a fragmented patchwork scheme of vouchers and tax credits. The result is the system we live with today — one that does little to stem the tide.

"Last year, more than 700,000 people were officially counted as homeless, the highest number ever recorded. Nearly 150,000 of them were children. And that number leaves out the “hidden homeless”: families doubling up in cramped apartments or bouncing between motels.

“What causes homelessness, in the 1980s as now, is a lack of access to housing that poor and working-class people can afford,” says Brian Goldstone, journalist and author of the new book “There Is No Place for Us: Working and Homeless in America.

The housing emergency is no accident; it’s the product of deliberate political choices: “It’s an engineered abandonment of not thousands, not hundreds of thousands, but millions of families.”....
"[Homeless woman] Celeste’s story begins in a really dramatic way. One day, she’s driving home from work with her children. She’s just picked them up from school. She’s left her warehouse job, and her neighbor calls to say that her rental home is on fire.

"And by the time Celeste makes it back to her rental, it has burned down. The street is closed off, and the family loses everything. The only possessions they have left are the few things that were in the kids’ backpacks and a few loads of dirty laundry that Celeste had thrown in her Dodge Durango that morning, intending to go to the laundromat after work. They’ve lost everything else.

"And it’s later determined that an abusive ex who Celeste had recently taken a restraining order out on was responsible for the fire. And even though this fire was kind of the first domino that fell on Celeste and her children becoming homeless, I think it’s really important to note that it wasn’t the fire, it wasn’t even the domestic violence that led them to become homeless.

"What led them to become homeless ultimately was the fact that months after the fire, Celeste was applying for apartments and she was denied. She was told that there was an eviction that had been filed against her, and she said, that’s not true, I don’t have an eviction on my record.
"Come to find out that after this fire took place, Celeste called her landlord, which was not just like a mom-and-pop landlord, it was a private equity firm called the Prager Group. They owned tens of thousands of rentals across the south. And when Celeste called to request that she be put in another home in their portfolio, they told her that in order to “terminate her lease” on this house that had just burned down, she would have to pay not only the current month’s rent — the fire had happened at the beginning of the month, so she hadn’t yet paid her rent — but an additional month’s rent as well. And she would lose her security deposit. And Celeste had hung up in disgust. But yeah, like months later, found out that after she hung up, they filed an eviction against her for nonpayment.

"In Georgia, a tenant doesn’t even have to be notified of an eviction in person. The sheriff was able to carry out what’s called tack and mail dispossessory. And when she actually drove to the house that had been burned down — it still hadn’t been repaired — in the mailbox, she found an eviction notice on which the sheriff had written “served to fire-destroyed property.”

"So at this point in her story, Celeste realized that her chances of getting into an apartment were basically destroyed. And her credit score — this three-digit number that has come to determine whether millions of people in this country have access to something as basic as a place to live — she realized her credit score would basically lock her out of the formal housing market.

"So at that point, when Celeste realized that she was locked out of the formal housing market, she was desperate to get out of her car. And she did what scores of other homeless and precariously housed families and individuals in America are doing: She went to an extended stay hotel.

...."Like many people, Celeste, up to this point, she thought that these extended stay hotels that she was passing by every day as a resident of Atlanta were hotels....These hotels … are actually extremely profitable homeless shelters. … They’re really concentrated in regions of the country intentionally, where working people are most likely to be deprived of a stable place to live.”

...."The weekly rent at this place was almost double what she had been paying for the rental home that had just burned down."

...."And even the Department of Education actually categorizes families and children living in these hotels as homeless, along with families and individuals or children who are living in doubled-up arrangements with others in apartments. They consider that homeless because school social workers and teachers saw over the years that this was just as volatile for children, just as precarious as being in a homeless shelter or being on the street.

"So the Department of Education considers them homeless, but HUD does not. And the caseworker tells Celeste, “I’m so sorry. If you want to be considered homeless and therefore qualify for assistance, you have to go with your kids to a shelter.” But then the kicker comes in where Celeste says, fine, we’ll go to a shelter, and the woman says, wait, you mentioned your son just turned 15. None of the shelters in Atlanta allow boys over the age of 13. So he would have to go by himself to a men’s shelter. And of course, Celeste is not willing to do that.

"The point in saying all of this is not that this was some bizarre aberration; this was just a tragic falling through the cracks. This is an engineered neglect. It’s an engineered abandonment of not thousands, not hundreds of thousands, but millions of families just like Celeste, who are homeless. But they have been written out of the story we tell about homelessness. They literally don’t count. And one of the shocking things that I discovered in the course of working on this book and reporting it was that there’s this entire world of homelessness that is out of sight that we’re not seeing. And what that tells us is that as bad as the official numbers on homelessness are, the reality is exponentially worse.
 

...."All of the people in this book, they are working and working and working some more. But their wages — which are effectively poverty wages — are not enough just to afford this basic human necessity. 

...."Celeste, when she’s diagnosed with ovarian and breast cancer, she’s having to decide, do I go to my warehouse job or do I go to my chemo appointment? Because if I go to my chemo appointment, I don’t get paid because I don’t have sick leave. And if I don’t get paid, me and my children go from living in this awful extended-stay hotel room to being on the street or being back in our car.

...."It’s helpful to remember that mass homelessness, as we know it, is a relatively recent phenomenon in America. It erupted in the 1980s, during the Reagan administration. And from the beginning, there was a concerted effort on the part of that administration, and the part of those in power at that time, to control the narrative about homelessness — to shape public perception.

"So even though at that time the fastest-growing segment of the homeless population were children under the age of 6, these ideas that homelessness is caused by mental illness, by alcoholism, by addiction, or as Reagan put it, by a “lifestyle choice” — a refusal to work. Those really became the dominant narratives in this country about homelessness.

"By the end of the 1980s, the New York Times and CBS News conducted a poll asking New Yorkers at random what causes homelessness. And the number one answer was psychological problems. The number two answer was a refusal to work. Not a single person mentioned housing.

"Never mind the fact that the Reagan administration, as many listeners will be aware, ushered in this neoliberal experiment in slashing, decimating the social safety net, gutting assistance for housing, especially low-income housing. Researchers, scholars who wanted to study the effects of a legacy of racist housing policy or the gutting of the safety net on this burgeoning homelessness crisis, they were systematically not funded. They were not given grants. But scholars and researchers who wanted to look at alcoholism or addiction or mental illness in relation to homelessness, they were the ones who were funded. To the extent that the journal Nature actually had an article called “Reagan versus the social sciences” because of just how concerted that tactic was to make a certain kind of research and therefore a certain kind of knowledge possible. That attempt to control the narrative was very much successful. And I think we’re living under the legacy of that today.

...."What causes homelessness, in the 1980s as now, is a lack of access to housing that poor and working-class people can afford. That is the variable. That is why we see huge rates of homelessness in places that are very, very expensive or where affordable housing does not exist, and we don’t see it in places that might have high rates of drug use, like certain areas of Appalachia, but housing is still relatively available. That is the variable, is not having access to housing that people can afford.

...."Part of what I’m trying to argue in the book is that the current homelessness disaster that we are witnessing is less a crisis of poverty than of prosperity — a particular kind of prosperity. It’s the product, not of a failing economy, but a booming economy, a thriving economy. It’s just not thriving for the people I’m writing about. 

...."The signs of growth and corporate profits are everywhere, and yet the people I’m writing about in this book, they’re not just being pushed out of the neighborhoods they grew up in — formerly Black working-class neighborhoods — they are increasingly being pushed out of housing altogether. And that is a trend we see across the nation.

...."One of the astonishing realities that I encountered in reporting this book over many years was the fact that private equity firms, Wall Street firms, they’re not just buying up vast swaths of America’s rental housing stock. That is something that I think has become familiar for many of us. But that in itself is shocking and the tactics that are employed once they take over this housing is really startling.

...."One of the families in the book — Maurice and Natalia and their children — they end up in one of these apartment complexes owned by a private equity firm called Covenant Capital based in Nashville. And they are the victims of this automated eviction system where if you’re just a couple of days late on your rent, there’s no human to call and talk to. They tried to call. They only got [an] answering machine. Instead, an eviction is automatically filed against the tenant.

...."What was truly astonishing was that they’re also buying up the places where families and individuals are forced into once they are pushed into homelessness.

...."It’s just yet another example of how every single turn in these family stories, there are entire new business models designed to profit off their suffering and, I would argue, to ensure that their precarity continues.
...."When I finished the book, when I finished the reporting, I really thought, “It can’t get any worse.” Surely we as a nation will turn a corner soon and begin to meaningfully address this catastrophe of housing insecurity and homelessness.

"What we’re seeing under this administration is gasoline being poured on this crisis and not just where housing assistance and the way that homelessness is treated is concerned, but with these massive cuts to the safety net more generally with Medicaid cuts, with cuts to food stamps. The families who I wrote about in this book, they and the millions of people like them, their lives will become worse as a result of these budget cuts and the sort of continuation of what Ruth Wilson Gilmore calls an organized abandonment.

...."We’re not talking about the working homeless on the one hand, and these people who are on the street on the other.

"This is better conceived, I would argue, as an entire spectrum of insecurity. Homelessness in America is a spectrum of insecurity. One day you could be in a hotel with your kids. The next night you might be in the car with them. A month from now you could be in a tent on the street. That is how quickly families and individuals can cycle through these conditions.

...."And so I really want to emphasize that this is not a distinct population. Those who we see on the street in a tent or in these encampments, they are just the tip of the iceberg of homelessness in America. And yes, the people I’m writing about in this book are those who comprise the much, much bigger portion of the iceberg that is under the water surface that is not just invisible, but that has been actively rendered invisible.

"If we just criminalize homelessness and we don’t address homelessness at its true root source — which is an unavailability and a lack of access, again, to housing that people can afford — then that entire world that’s under the surface is going to continue to spill out into the open. 

...."There are so many low-hanging-fruit policy solutions that can ease people suffering immediately, that can both keep them in the homes they already have and that can get them into new homes that they don’t yet have much easier, much quicker.

...."We’ve allowed for [housing] to be hoarded up...But we don’t call that by its proper name, which is price-gouging — price-gouging amid a national emergency. We just call that supply and demand economics.

"And I think until we encounter housing in this country with fresh eyes, until we are shocked out of the complacency of continuing to treat housing this way, this crisis will just continue to spiral. The true scale and severity of homelessness is, to put a number on it, actually six times greater than the official figures. So we’re talking about 4 million people right now in this country who have been deprived of housing.

...."It’s to say, let’s no longer kid ourselves that these nibble-around-the-edges solutions — a few tiny homes over here, 20 percent units at 70 percent, 80 percent AMI [Area Median Income] over there — that this is meaningfully addressing this crisis at scale. Building more market-rate housing and hoping that eventually someday affordability will trickle down to those who are in most desperate need of a place to live — I think that that is misguided. I think we do need all [the] solutions on the table. We don’t have the luxury right now of having this kind of Manichaean vision of, it’s either the market or government intervention.

"I think we need it all, but I do think that we need to be clear-eyed about the true scale and severity so that we can say, and this is what I believe: Public housing redone, public housing done right — which many refer to as social housing — which would be not, again, hundreds of thousands but millions of safe, dignified, affordable housing units owned by the public, owned by the government, built on government-owned land. That is really the only way we are going to get out of this catastrophe.

...."[B]efore we can fix the crisis, we have to feel the crisis.

Wednesday, August 27, 2025

Are Poor People Disgusting?

 (c) by Mark Dempsey

"In its magnificent equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the street and stealing bread." - Anatole France  

Poor people are disgusting, they may even smell bad. And never mind the mental illness and addiction! You can barely stand to be in the same room with them and be comfortable! That's what's become of poverty in the US. Incidentally, poverty, like pulling an all-nighter, reduces IQ--so they're dumb too!

The disgusting poverty is supposedly the result of poor individual choices by the poor themselves. But the truth is our current beggar-on-every-corner economy is the result of a series of public policy decisions that drove masses of people out of their homes, out of care, and into the street. In the '70s Nixon stopped the federal government building affordable housing, and in the 80's the Reagan administration cut HUD's affordable housing budget by 75% as he cut taxes on the wealthy roughly in half (and, with his successor, raised payroll taxes eightfold). The local homeless charity, "Loaves and Fishes" began in the '80s. The US hasn't had such a homeless population as it currently has since the Great Depression.

As governor, Reagan also closed California's asylums, sending the inmates out to the street. This movement to evict the mentally ill poor is bipartisan too. JFK had a policy to close the big federal asylums and replace them with smaller transitional housing that would prevent the abuse isolated asylums experienced, and integrate the mentally ill back into the community. Congress approved closing the asylums but neglected to fund the transitional housing. Then Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called it the most shameful episode in all his years as a public servant.

The majority of the homeless are just too poor to afford rent, not mentally ill or addicted, but homelessness poverty also induces its own form of PTSD, so their mental condition is not always optimum. Homelessness is often attributed to too few houses, and blamed on zoning restrictions, but in the USA, there are more vacant homes than homeless, five times as many in San Francisco. The problem isn't too much regulation, it's the heartless distribution of the fruits of our civilization.

Writer Mark Kreidler describes how even the current meager support the poor receive now is diminishing. During the pandemic, "federal policies directed stimulus payments to households, enhanced and extended unemployment insurance, expanded both the Child Tax Credit and food and housing assistance programs, and made health care more accessible. As a result, the U.S. experienced a historic reduction in poverty rates, both overall and for children, despite a crisis that shuttered businesses and put millions out of work."

So...it's possible for public policy to address homelessness, just as it addressed air pollution in Southern California. But as long as the public views poverty as exclusively the result of some individual's bad judgment, it's unlikely public policy will change, no matter how important such policy is. 

Meanwhile, a technician who worked on affordable housing told me he was disgusted with the way the poor treated their housing. "They trashed it," was his comment after he returned to maintain it. 

But poor people are not that concerned with material things--its why they're poor--and the public funding for maintenance in their housing is notoriously skimpy. One could blame the poor for not taking care of their material surroundings, but failure to provide adequate funding for anticipated maintenance is a kind of covert sabotage. It also confirms that "disgusting" observation to do that.

The public's disgust also shows up when mixed-income neighborhoods are proposed. Four- or eight-plexes among the mansions! Are you kidding! The income monoculture of suburban sprawl is the rule, now, because respectable people can't live adjacent to the poor. The idea of poverty as a virtue, practiced by countless generations of monks, has been abandoned.

But poor people have something to contribute. They are typically generous--one reason they're poor. In fact, my poor in-laws would literally give you the shirt off their back, even if it was their last shirt. We definitely need such generosity rather than the scrooge-ified public policy we now have, and we certainly need to perceive the people who are traumatized as human beings. It's what the Good Samaritan did, and it's the least we can do. Pursuing profit, or advantage, at any cost has led us to the current dog-eat-dog economy, and the suffering of the poor.


 

Virtue Signalling is what Democrats are good at

That's "signaling," not "providing concrete benefits to society at large."

 Hoisted from Naked Capitalism's comments section:

Yesterday, I learned that we opened the DNC Summer meeting in Minnesota with a land acknowledgement. That American settlers had stolen the land of the native tribes in Minnesota, the Dakota, who had lived in happy harmony with nature for thousands of years. This was literally the very first thing done at that meeting – almost like an opening prayer or Pledge of Allegiance was done in my youth.

Since I no longer take anything done or said by this party at face value – the lying, dissembling, exaggerating, distorting, virtue-signalling, etc has become too much and affected the lives of so many around me – I did a little research.

The woman chosen to do this land acknowledgement was named Lindy Sowmick. Although she mentioned the Dakota tribe in passing – I did a bit of research and noted that she was from the Chippewa-Saginaw tribe which is basically in Michigan. The way this Chippewa tribe is referred to in some quarters today is the Ojibwe. I learned a lot about the Ojibwe from the website of the actual Minnesota Historical Society –

https://www.mnhs.org/fortsnelling/learn/native-americans/ojibwe-people

The Ojibwe were apparently one of the most populous tribes in North America all over the Northeastern Seaboard hundreds and thousands of years before there were any European settlers. Again, this woman, Mrs Sowmick, was a member of a branch of this tribe. I will reprint below the first paragraph of the website from the Minnesota Historical Society –

The ancestors of the Ojibwe lived throughout the northeastern part of North America and along the Atlantic Coast. Due to a combination of prophecies and tribal warfare, around 1,500 years ago the Ojibwe people left their homes along the ocean and began a slow migration westward that lasted for many centuries.

Upon further research on multiple other websites, one learns that the Ojibwe were actually one of the most violent of tribes in North America. They were propelled by some kind of apocalyptic religious animus – described in the website above as “prophecies” – and it was the Ojibwe themselves that drove the Dakota out of their ancestral home and into the Northern Great Plains – centuries and centuries before there ever was a European settler to be seen. This woman, highlighted by the DNC, is actually a member of the actual tribe that displaced the Dakota from Minnesota.

The sad fact for the Democratic Party who continue to make this land acknowledgement an issue is that land displacement, war and forced moving is a part of human history in every corner of this planet. It is in our DNA. Maybe, just maybe, one day we will evolve and not engage in this behavior. But having judgmental and virtue signalling about it centuries after it happened – and then having a member of the perpetrating tribe be the one doing the scolding is the very definition of lunacy.

When the Democrats start paying to attention to real issues affecting real people in this country, this Dem will start paying attention again. Until then – it is a better show than the clowns in the circus. And that is tragic. We really need some kind of counterweight – but that is certainly not to be had with this group.



Today's Joke

 Q: What happens when Popeye's girlfriend joins a nunnery?

A: Extra Virgin Olive Oyl. 

Sunday, August 24, 2025

Links for this week

(Principally from Ian Welsh's "Weekend Wrap")

  • A reminder that "The law, in its magnificent equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the street and stealing bread." 

  • From Cory Doctorow: 


https://pluralistic.net/2025/08/20/billionaireism/#surveillance-infantalism

Excerpt: "...the ultra-rich (and the states they have suborned) have a fundamental understanding that the more unfair a society is, the less stable it is. The more unstable a state is, the more its ruling class have to expend on private security. No captain of industry wants to arise from his sarcophagus of a morning, only to discover a mob of hoi polloi building a guillotine on his lawn.

As Thomas Piketty argues, there comes a point where it's cheaper to make society more fair – say, by building hospitals and schools – than it is to pay for all the gaiter-wearing gun-thugs you'll need to weed out the guillotine-building projects that spontaneously erupt under conditions of gross unfairness:

https://memex.craphound.com/2014/06/24/thomas-pikettys-capital-in-the-21st-century/

Mass surveillance shifts the guillotine equilibrium in favor of being greedier, by making it cheaper to identify and neutralize incipient guillotine-builders, which means that you can raise the greediness floor without seeing a concomitant rise in your guard labor bill.

And there's lots of money to be made by raising the greediness floor, the corollary of which is that any time you fail to act with sufficiently shameless greed, you leave a ton of money on the table. That's the substance of the shareholder lawsuit against Unitedhealthcare, alleging that after Luigi Mangione allegedly murdered United CEO Brian Thompson‡, United failed to screw enough patients hard enough:

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/unitedhealthcare-sued-shareholders-reaction-ceos-killing-rcna205550

  • The following headline speaks for itself:

Trump’s DC Occupation Costs 4 Times More Than It Would Take to House City’s Entire Homeless Population

 

Friday, August 22, 2025

12 Bar Blues, Monk Style

 

Monday, August 18, 2025

The Tragedy of Outlying Development

(c) by Mark Dempsey

On August 20, 2025, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors will hear a proposal to develop even more of the North Natomas basin, the Airport South Industrial Project. As the map indicates, other proposals are still pending too, and all are bad ideas.

 

North Natomas is directly north and west of Sacramento's downtown, and has already been developed east of Interstate 5. It remains a floodplain surrounded by levees that were originally so weak that a grant to expand regional sewer contained a $6 million penalty if that capacity were used to serve North Natomas.

The land speculators controlling North Natomas were unfazed by the penalty and went all the way to then-vice-president G.H.W. Bush, who made it pay-as-you-develop installments rather than the prohibitive up-front charge. They also got $43 million in levee improvement grants to bring levees up to pre-Katrina standards. 

The residents of North Natomas must now pay to improve levees to post-Katrina standards. Meanwhile, the speculators got $43 million for $6 million in installment payments. Gosh, I wonder who this arrangement favors!

What motivated these political maneuvers? The land speculators, often referred to as "developers," purchased North Natomas land for approximately $2,000 per acre. Once they got the rights to develop it, they were able to sell to builders for as much as $200,000 per acre. That egregious 10,000% profit is called the "unearned increment," and it can be completely untaxed if they exchange their stake in the land they're selling for other income-producing real estate.

In Germany, if they want to build on outlying land, the developers must sell the agricultural land to the local government at the ag land price, then repurchase it at the development land price. All of the unearned increment accrues to the benefit of the public rather than enriching a few speculators, as it does here. And Germany has excellent infrastructure, not collapsing bridges, and free college tuition. Just the arts budget for the City of Berlin exceeds the National Endowment for the Arts for the USA.

But never mind enriching the plutocrats and impoverishing the public realm, developing that outlying land is bad for other reasons. First, the longer roads, pipes, wires, etc. in the infrastructure are roughly twice as expensive to maintain as infill. Second, the Sacramento region has roughly 20 years of unbuilt infill. And third, the longer commutes contribute to global warming.

In other words, outlying development is harmful now and in the future, and we have plenty of alternatives within the current urban form. Let's do something sensible and reject this development.

Sunday, August 17, 2025

Lawyers

Engineers solve problems, lawyers often spend their time with problems that are essentially un-solvable.

Hoisted from comments in Naked Capitalism:  

'By 2020 all nine members of the Chinese Politburo’s standing committee had trained as engineers.’

In the US, there are over 1.3 million lawyers, so about 4 for every 1,000 people. In fact-‘In terms of absolute numbers, the American legal profession was the largest in the world as of 2015, and it is thought to be the largest in the world in proportion to domestic population.’ (Wikipedia)

A common law system requires legions of lawyers while a civil law systems require legions of clerks as the first argues about every facet of the process, while the latter just checks if laws where broken and if so, assigns a predefined penalty.

China uses civil law. Civil law lawyers are trained to see that the process is fair and legal, not to argue what the process should be, so they don’t really make good politicians.

One other US vs. China comment: some of the dominant donors on the right are engineers--the raise-by-a-Nazi KochsYes, the Koch's nanny was a member of Hitler's party.

But Charles and David Koch are engineers of extraction (actually chemistry, but predominantly petroleum). Petroleum engineering remains one of the areas in which the US maintains international dominance. Herbert Hoover was another engineer of extraction (mining), so perhaps that's a common thread in US politics too.

 

Saturday, August 16, 2025

Thanks Obama! Democratic precedent cuts a half billion dollars from Medicare

 I've written previously about the Obama scandals (here) but the latest is that the Trump budget will cut Medicare thanks to a precedent the Democrats supported and Obama signed. From Wikipedia:

‘The Act was introduced in the House of Representatives on June 17, 2009, by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) and has been cosponsored by 169 of the 257 House Democrats. The Act had initially passed the House of Representatives 265–166 as a standalone bill in July 2009, then was attached in the Senate to legislation raising the debt limit to $14.3 trillion. A majority of 241 Democrats supported the bill while a majority of 153 Republicans opposed it.’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Pay-As-You-Go_Act_of_2010 

So thanks Obama and the Democrats.

This is double cruel since the federal government can make the money to fully fund healthcare without raising taxes. For those worried about inflation, Medicare-for-all would actually cut healthcare expenses.

Note: Obama also proposed cuts to Social Security. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-proposes-cuts-to-social-security/ 

Update: “People of privilege almost always prefer to risk destruction, total destruction, rather than surrender any part of their privileges. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is a reason There’s also the invariable feeling that privilege, however egregious, is a basic right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a small thing as compared with that of the rich.” – J K Galbraith 

Friday, August 15, 2025

A reminder: Trump is nothing new, he's just doing domestically what the US has done internationally

 

Monday, August 11, 2025

Saturday, August 9, 2025

Entertainment recommendtions

My wife was laid up with a broken patella and came across a Dae Jang Geum ("The Jewel in the Palace") marathon on the Asian channel. This is a Korean Drama (AKA "soap opera") of more than 50 episodes, so it's lengthy. You can stream it here. If you do get a chance to see it, I'll also warn you it is slow starting. It takes about eight episodes before things really heat up.

Partly as a joke, I suggested my family buy the DVDs for my wife. They did, and we ended up watching them (three times!). I lent them to my brother. He and his girlfriend would visit Korea after they saw it. He started learning Korean.

It appeared in Hong Kong, and the Philipines, and was number one in both places, as well its country of origin, Korea. 

The story itself is has a historical basis--although it's obviously fictionalized--and is set in medieval Chosun (Korea). In it, a young Korean woman who started out in the King's kitchen, ultimately becomes the accupuncturist to the king, when only males were eligible for that role. 

Spunky women are popular in Korea!

If you'd like a less-demanding sample of K-drama, here are some recommendations, often with better production values. All are modern, and about 16 episodes except for Yanxi Palace:

Netflix:

Because this is my first life (nerd rom-com)

Crash Landing on You (Romeo & Juliet with a better ending. North & South Korea are the Montagues and Capulets)

Extraordinary Attorney Woo (Autistic attorney succeeds!)

Amazon Prime Video ... Also YouTube (free!)

The Story of Yanxi Palace (Chinese, and like the palace intrigue of Dae Jang Geum, lengthyThe heroine rises from humble beginnings as an embroidery maid, avenges her sister's death, and more. Another spunky woman!)

...

These asian shows demonstrate lived Confucian philosophy, so offer a genuine alternative example to the Marvel Comics' / might-makes-right way of conducting one's life. The Path: What Chinese Philosophers Can Teach Us About the Good Life is a nice introduction to that philosophy, if you're interested.

As an illustration of what the alternative might mean a tweet from Arnaud Bertrand suggests the Chinese had a problem in their province just east of Afghanistan, Xinjiang. Islamic Jihadists among the muslim population (Uyghers) were disturbing the peace. 

In Afghanistan, the US employed its standard remedies to deal with their Jihadists--bombs and bullets--but in Xinjiang, the Chinese had "re-education" and some forced labor. It probably wasn't pleasant for the Uyghers, but they eventually got jobs. Xinjiang is now a tourist destination. 

The US lost Afghanistan to the Taliban. Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell's retired chief of staff, says he doesn't believe the US foreign policy establishment has an operating brain. The asian dramas demonstrate repeatedly that there are thoughtful solutions to problems, although there are certainly threats and force in them as well.

Which reminds me: according to Twitter user William Huo, 90% of Chinese own their own home. They used to have beggars in their cities (i.e. homeless people), but they gave them jobs, and now homelessness isn't a problem. So...not just threats and force.

In the US, the government built affordable housing until Nixon put a stop to that, and Reagan, as he was cutting taxes on the wealthy roughly in half, cut HUD's affordable housing budget by 75%. The "Loaves and Fishes" organization serving the homeless began in the Reagan era. Make no mistake, homelessness in the US is the result of public policy, not the addiction or bad behavior by the people themselves.

One Key Chinese innovation: Banks are nationalized, fund long-term / infrastructure projects, and don't manage currency issuance around short-term profit for billionaires. Economic note: banks issue "credit money," they do not lend the deposits they have on hand. In the US, we've privatized that function. 

 

 

 

 

 

Friday, August 8, 2025

Today's Bee Letter: California's Restaurant Mandates

Responding to California health care mandates burden small businesses - by Lorraine Salazar, co-owner of Sal's Mexican Restaurants page B10 8/8/25

Lorraine Salazar, co-owner of Sal's Mexican Restaurants writes to protest California's requirement that employers provide (more expensive) healthcare for workers. She omits mentioning the way restaurants often refuse to provide full-time hours and health benefits for their workers now. That means their workers must work multiple jobs and either work sick or rely on Medicaid--health care for poor people, whose coverage has been reduced by the Trump administration. 

Rubio's restaurants protested the California minimum wage too, closing all their restaurants in the state. They omitted mentioning that private equity bought the chain and encumbered with so much debt it couldn't afford to pay its workers and the loans. The lenders got priority.

The omissions are as important as what was said.

 


How accurate are our perceptions of crime?

From: Views on Crime Will Turn Me into the Joker–and Might Be Harming Democrats More Than Some Think by mikethemadbiologist

A couple weeks ago, this poll by YouGov asked “Since 1990, would you say murder rates in U.S. cities have…?” The answer:


By the way, the correct answer is “Decreased a lot”, but even if we lump the ‘decreased’ answers together, it’s really bad–three out of four people got it wrong; if we grade more strictly, only one out eleven knew the correct answer.

Update: The same point, with lots of city by city detail here. Excerpt: "In New York City, for example, the number of murders so far this year is down 85 percent relative to 1993. Last year, murders were down 83 percent relative to 1990. You have to ask yourself: When avatars of the right like Charlie Kirk proclaim that the city is intensely scary, is that a reflection of the city or of Charlie Kirk?

Murders, happily, are down in American cities. But there’s a lot of investment and political utility in suggesting that they are not. Americans, unfortunately, tend to believe it."


Wednesday, August 6, 2025

How did that Gaza war begin on 10/7?

 



Sad to say, this isn't much of a surprise.

A Chinese Tweet about Milton Friedman (the "Menschenfiend") + the 1990s Russification of the US

 



Tuesday, August 5, 2025

Is the Deficit a Problem?

 

The Argentine "Miracle"

  In just 2 months, Britain's preeminent historian has gone from cheerleading the "Milei Miracle" to cheering the US taxpayer ...