"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Spanky --

I happened on this article in the Financial Times by Niall Ferguson last night, and thought you'd be interested, since it bears on a discussion we've had now and again about the march of free markets and democracy. Here's are a few key paragraphs:

• Another appealing economic rule is the Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman's: that sustained growth (rather than the level of income) is conducive to democratisation. At first sight, that proposition appears to fit the long-run historical trend, with the greatest challenge to democracy coming in the era of the Depression.
  
  However, recent economic developments have weakened such arguments. The world economy as a whole has never enjoyed a boom like that of 2001-07. Yet democracy has gained little from all this prosperity. Moreover, the most rapidly growing economies in the world since 2000 have not been the democracies. Take the case of the so-called BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China). While communist-ruled China's share of world gross domestic product has increased by 2.5 percentage points in the past seven years, democratic India's has risen by just 0.6 per cent. Russia has outperformed Brazil by a comparable margin. And this disparity between democracies and autocracies seems set to widen. From now until 2050, according to Goldman Sachs, China's share of global GDP will increase from 4 per cent to 15 per cent, while that of the G7 countries - the world's wealthiest democracies - will decline from 57 per cent to 20 per cent. Other emerging markets expected to achieve rapid growth in the next 40 years include Egypt, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and Vietnam, none of which seems an obvious candidate for successful democratisation.
  
  Back in the 1980s and 1990s, it seemed as if capitalism and democracy were in some kind of mutually beneficial relationship. Not only was economic progress apparently conducive to political progress; the causation could go the other way, from democratisation to enhanced economic performance. These days it looks different. Rapid state-led growth is enriching China and other Asian manufacturers, regardless of their political systems, while their demand for energy and commodities is enriching democratic and undemocratic primary producers alike.

I think Ferguson tends to agree with you, but he also says that there is room for much doubt. Anyhoo, the whole thing is interesting.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
They don't hate us because we're successful. They hate us because we don't follow the Qur'an. The WTC was a symbol of that, and destroying it wasn't designed to impress Americans. The symbolism wasn't for us.

This is correct. Plus it was easier to hit with a plane.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This is utterly recockulous:

• The Affirmative Action Office has completed its investigation of Ms. Nakea Vincent's allegation that you racially harassed her by repeatedly reading the book, Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan by Todd Tucker in the presence of Black employees. In conducting this investigation, we interviewed you, Nakea Vincent, and other employees with information relevant to the mailer.
  
  Upon review of this matter, we conclude that your conduct constitutes racial harassment in that you demonstrated disdain and insensitivity to your co-workers who repeatedly requested that you refrain from reading the book which has such an inflammatory and offensive topic in their presence. You contend that you weren't aware of the offensive nature of the topic and were reading the book about the KKK to better understand discrimination. However you used extremely poor judgment by insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers. Furthermore, employing the legal "reasonable person standard," a majority of adults are aware of and understand how repugnant the KKK is to African Americans, their reactions to the Klan, and the reasonableness of the request that you not read the book in their presence.
  
  During your meeting with Marguerite Watkins, Assistant Affirmative Action Officer you were instructed to stop reading the book in the immediate presence of your coworkers and when reading the book to sit apart from the immediate proximity of these co-workers. Please be advised, any future substantiated conduct of a similar nature could result in serious disciplinary action.
  
  Racial harassment is very serious and can result in serious consequences for all involved. Please be advised that racial harassment and retaliation against any individual for having participated in the investigation of a complaint of this nature is a violation of University policy and will not be tolerated.
  
  This concludes this matter with the Affirmative Action Office. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

In partial mitigation, the school (Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis) then came to its senses.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
This is utterly recockulous:
[list] The Affirmative Action Office has completed its investigation of Ms. Nakea Vincent's allegation that you racially harassed her by repeatedly reading the book, Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan by Todd Tucker in the presence of Black employees.

Apparently, everyone is equally offended by Notre Dame.

PS - This crap happens daily in the Ivory Tower. Nice to see you catching on.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky --

I happened on this article in the Financial Times by Niall Ferguson last night, and thought you'd be interested, since it bears on a discussion we've had now and again about the march of free markets and democracy. Here's are a few key paragraphs:

• Another appealing economic rule is the Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman's: that sustained growth (rather than the level of income) is conducive to democratisation. At first sight, that proposition appears to fit the long-run historical trend, with the greatest challenge to democracy coming in the era of the Depression.
  
  However, recent economic developments have weakened such arguments. The world economy as a whole has never enjoyed a boom like that of 2001-07. Yet democracy has gained little from all this prosperity. Moreover, the most rapidly growing economies in the world since 2000 have not been the democracies. Take the case of the so-called BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China). While communist-ruled China's share of world gross domestic product has increased by 2.5 percentage points in the past seven years, democratic India's has risen by just 0.6 per cent. Russia has outperformed Brazil by a comparable margin. And this disparity between democracies and autocracies seems set to widen. From now until 2050, according to Goldman Sachs, China's share of global GDP will increase from 4 per cent to 15 per cent, while that of the G7 countries - the world's wealthiest democracies - will decline from 57 per cent to 20 per cent. Other emerging markets expected to achieve rapid growth in the next 40 years include Egypt, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and Vietnam, none of which seems an obvious candidate for successful democratisation.
  
  Back in the 1980s and 1990s, it seemed as if capitalism and democracy were in some kind of mutually beneficial relationship. Not only was economic progress apparently conducive to political progress; the causation could go the other way, from democratisation to enhanced economic performance. These days it looks different. Rapid state-led growth is enriching China and other Asian manufacturers, regardless of their political systems, while their demand for energy and commodities is enriching democratic and undemocratic primary producers alike.

I think Ferguson tends to agree with you, but he also says that there is room for much doubt. Anyhoo, the whole thing is interesting.

It's not hard to grow in leaps and bounds when like Russia, you're sitting on incredible oil reserves.

And China's explosive growth is not a result of its old collectivist policies, but of its embrace of western economic ideals. Hell, from a regulatory perspective, we look more Communist than they do. China's "state" is becoming more and more a pile of local fiefdoms running sectors of an increasingly uncontrollable huge country and population. Saying China's central govt runs their economy is like saying our federal govt controls ours.

Pakistan will benefit from India's increasing labor costs, and it's basically a quasi-democracy.

How Iran, Nigeria and Egypt become players confuses me. I assume that must be tied to oil.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It's not hard to grow in leaps and bounds when like Russia, you're sitting on incredible oil reserves.

And China's explosive growth is not a result of its old collectivist policies, but of its embrace of western economic ideals. Hell, from a regulatory perspective, we look more Communist than they do. China's "state" is becoming more and more a pile of local fiefdoms running sectors of an increasingly uncontrollable huge country and population. Saying China's central govt runs their economy is like saying our federal govt controls ours.

Pakistan will benefit from India's increasing labor costs, and it's basically a quasi-democracy.

How Iran, Nigeria and Egypt become players confuses me. I assume that must be tied to oil.

Calling Pakistan a democracy is setting the bar so low as to be meaningless.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Calling Pakistan a democracy is setting the bar so low as to be meaningless.

That's why I didn't do that.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I haven't placed my bet yet. I'm waiting for input from Grandma Obama


and also waiting to find out from Hank's MIL what The Big Wig Jews In New York are saying about it.

I thought you were fucking the Big Wig Jews in New York?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I thought you were fucking the Big Wig Jews in New York?

I'm still wondering why they drink Mad Dog. You'd expect better of heavy hitters like that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm still wondering why they drink Mad Dog. You'd expect better of heavy hitters like that.

they don't drink it. they count how many drinks you have.

[SlaveNoMore]

Obama fans should rest easier now - Samantha Power has [finally] quit the campaign.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm still wondering why they drink Mad Dog. You'd expect better of heavy hitters like that.

Oh. Well I'm still wondering who exactly they are and haven't gotten to what they drink. Hank's MIL seems to believe in them (and Wonk thinks I'm fucking them) but I wonder about their existence. To me, it seems like a figment of Thottam's conspiratorial (DTB?) imagination.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Obama fans should rest easier now - Samantha Power has [finally] quit the campaign.

I've heard that this move makes Obama slightly less pro Palestinian as it were, so he's got that going for him. Which is nice.

“I haven’t seen a job report this recessionary since the last recession,” said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. “This is a picture of a labor market becoming clearly infected by the contagion from the rest of the economy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/bu...d-econ.html?hp

Is there some sort of block that prevents people from saying, "we're in a fucking recession"? This is like a doctor telling you that he hasn't seen an x-ray that looks this cancer-y since his last patient with cancer, or my bartender telling me I haven't looked this drunk-y since the last time I was really, really drunk. Clearly I was infected by the contagion from the rest of the bar. Which was full of drunks.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Oh. Well I'm still wondering who exactly they are and haven't gotten to what they drink. Hank's MIL seems to believe in them (and Wonk thinks I'm fucking them) but I wonder about their existence. To me, it seems like a figment of Thottam's conspiratorial (DTB?) imagination.

get a list of the people who worked in WTC that called in sick the morning of 9/11. See who called them the night before. You'll find 1 number reoccuring over and over.