Dylan Matthews just posted a great, short interview with Bernie Sanders. It is about the Gang of Eight immigration bill that most everyone is so excited about. Sanders is not and it looks like he will vote against it. What really struck me was that his position is almost identical to mine: we need to normalize the 11 million undocumented residents but the rest of the bill is mostly bad.

Primarily, his concern is on the issue of employment. He is rightly highly skeptical that firms can’t find American workers. He said, “Again, if there’s such a crisis, why haven’t wages gone up?” That’s the critical question. The conservative response is usually, “Those jobs aren’t worth that much.” The idea here is that companies would go out of business if they had to pay enough for American workers. That is a decidedly non-conservative argument these conservatives are making. Basically, the logic is: the government should provide low wage workers to inefficient businesses. It’s madness.

Sanders is really focused on technology jobs. He noted that in the last 11 years, wages have risen only 4.5%. What’s more, he noted a clear mathematical problem with the push for more H1-B visas, “I find it hard to understand that, when nine million people in this country have degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, only about three million have jobs in these areas.” Part of the answer is that high tech firms tend to be picky, and highly resistant to hiring older workers. (By “older” they mean over 30 years old.) But the larger issue is just that there is a market for about 3 million tech workers and the industry is just lying about the availability of workers in order to keep wages down.

Unfortunately, Sanders hedges a bit. He also blasts the H2-B visa increases that will provide for even more seasonal workers. That’s all good. But he says many times that there are companies who just can’t find workers. He even provides a full tilt apologia for his home industry:

Look, I understand: the man is still a politician and he has to take care of his constituency. But as Mitt Romney said, “Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” I’m sure that if the Vermont dairy industry paid better, more Americans would take the jobs. I’m sure that Sanders understands this, of course. But he doesn’t need the Vermont Dairy Industry Association raising millions of dollars to campaign against him.

The whole spectacle of Bernie Sanders making these arguments ought to cause belly laughs from the nation. Supposed hardcore capitalists like Paul Ryan don’t understand the basic economics of the system they publicly worship. Meanwhile, socialist Bernie Sanders understands exactly how the economy works—the labor market anyway. And maybe there’s a reason for that. As I discussed last night, most conservatives are very confused about how market economies work. Maybe understanding capitalism has a tendency to moderate one’s views.

PBS is censoring Citzen Koch, a documentary about Citizens United, money in politics, and the billionaire Koch brothers. You may remember back in November, I wrote an article about an Independent Lens documentary Park Avenue. Apparently, the film made a lot of rich people very angry, including at least one of the Koch brothers. There’s even a delicious quote in Jane Mayer’s article, A Word from Our Sponsors, “They went on for twenty minutes, warning that such hateful attitudes could lead many wealthy New Yorkers to move to Florida, where the taxes are lower, and arguing that neighbors of theirs who spent millions of dollars on parties helped waiters and caterers.” How ungrateful we are not to worship the rich for their consumption!

Well, Citizen Koch was supposed to be part of the Independent Lens series too. But after Park Avenue got all the rich people upset, things changed. In particular, WNET and WGBH, the big New Jersey and Boston PBS affiliates, have Koch brothers on their boards. ITVS, the company that produces the Independent Lens series suddenly became very concerned. They wanted the title of the film changed. And they wanted the film to limit the inclusion of the Koch brothers. And they wanted more negative coverage of the Democrats put in. One of the ITVS executives put it frankly, “We live in a world where we have to be aware that people with power have power.”

Eventually, ITVS backed out of the deal. The filmmakers think this is due to pressure from PBS. I suspect that the people at ITVS are just assuming pressure from PBS. They don’t want another controversial film to damage their relationship with the network. Regardless of which is the case, it is certainly true that PBS would have had a problem with this film and it would have hurt the relationship. The filmmakers said, “It’s the very thing our film is about—public servants bowing to pressures, direct or indirect, from high-dollar donors.” Hopefully the film will eventually get a wide release and embarrass both PBS and ITVS. The “public” in PBS has been a joke for a very long time.

The trailer looks really good:

Most people I meet who think they know something about economics are clueless. What I’m thinking about right now are people who think that companies set prices based upon their costs. A standard (incorrect) observation is, “If we raise the minimum wage, the companies will just increase their prices.” Think about how ridiculous that idea is. Imagine that McDonald’s is selling a hamburger for $1.50. They are selling it at that price because it maximizes profits (or at least they think it does). If they could maximize profits at $1.55, they would sell it for that price. But they know that by raising the price by just a nickle, they would lose a certain number of sales and in the end they would make less money. Note that this consideration has nothing to do with the cost of making the burger!

The problem with these would-be economists is that most of them have never run a business. I’ve run several, but by far the most illuminating was running a business at the huge San Jose Flea Market. For various reasons that don’t matter, I was selling make-up there. When we first started, our margins were enormous. Over time they went down, but not because our costs went up. Over time, other vendors offered the same products and we all competed to get customers and so the prices went down. Again: not costs! Every one of us was trying to make as much money as possible. The high prices at first were part of that. But so were the quickly sinking prices at the end.

I thought about this tonight because I got a copy of the Taxing Times, the newsletter of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Jarvis was the guy that got Californians to destroy their public infrastructure by voting for Prop 13, which not only lowered property taxes, it made property appraisals lag way behind the times. During the campaign for Prop 13, Howard Jarvis tried to convince renters to vote for the initiative. He told them that with lower property taxes, their rents would go down. Of course, no such thing happened. Why would it? Renters were already paying the going rate. Why would landlords pass on the extra money to them?

That’s what I find so frustrating about this kind of stuff. I think that Jarvis really thought that rents would go down. In general, conservatives think that businesses are some kinds of charity organizations. This is why they believe in the myth of the “job creator.” It is the idea that business owners hire people because they have excess money lying around. People don’t think that way. Consider your own salary: if you got a raise would you (a) improve your standard of living; (b) save it; or (c) hire a kid to do useless work around your yard? That is the decision that rich people have to make when we give them tax cuts. For the record: they choose (b).

This situation comes up every time there is a natural disaster. Someone is caught selling a can of peaches for ten bucks. Then the president or the governor goes on TV and talks about how it is an outrage. I don’t get that. These politicians are much bigger believers in capitalism than I am. And all these canned goods sellers are doing is what every business has done everywhere at every time: maximize profits. The truth is that the can of peaches is worth ten bucks at that time and that place. Now, I’ll admit, that’s a pretty messed up system that allows one person to take advantage of another. But that is the system almost everyone in this country worships. When Walmart illegally (but without fear of prosecution) stops a unionization effort, they aren’t doing it to keep their prices low; they are doing it to maximize their profit margins. Why is the can seller evil if Walmart is good? (I would argue that the can seller is more ethical. Walmart is trying to stop workers from organizing themselves—surely the most basic of human rights. There is no coercion from the can seller.)

Is it so much to ask of the world for those who think capitalism is the greatest system ever, to understand its basics? It is particularly galling to hear conservatives talk about the marvels of the free market when they demonstrate again and again that they don’t know how capitalism, finance, or markets work. It reminds me of religious people who don’t have a clue about basic spiritual issues or even fundamental tenets of their own faith. I think in both cases, these people hold their opinions because it is part of their culture, not because they actually believe. I have had bizarre experiences talking with conservatives only to have them start saying things that are downright socialistic. Based upon this I have concluded that these people really do believe that a company would never price gouge. It’s endearing, but our economic policies should be based upon fact, not quaint notions of the honorable businessman.

The next time you think about business regulation, don’t imagine the friendly pizza parlor owner who feeds the homeless. He may exist, but he’s the exception. Think of the can seller in hurricane ravaged Florida trying to get a twenty spot for a can of beans. That’s who the typical businessman is. And he’s not evil. He’s just doing his job. If you think there ought to be limits on him, then you should be for more general limits on what businesses can do.

The great Italian Mannerist painter Jacopo Carucci (generally know simply as “Pontormo,” I guess because he was from Pontorme) was born on this day in 1494. His religious work generally involved crowed, but beautifully composed scenes. His portraits similarly have an other world quality to them. All of his work, while realistic in its details creates an abstract feeling that is hard to describe. (Click over and look at some of his work.) He was also the teacher of Il Bronzino, who paints just like Pontormo, although (I think) better.

German physicist Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit was born on this day in 1686. Guess what temperature scale he’s known for. Queen Victoria was born in 1819. She was Queen of England for almost 64 years, which makes her the longest reigning monarch in British history. But Elizabeth II is gaining fast, and in all likelihood will overtake her in two and a half years. The phrase, “We are not amused” is associated with Queen Victoria, but she maintained that she had never said it. People close to her said that she she had a hardy and easy laugh. I’d like to think so. Here’s a song just for her:

Inventor of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, H. B. Reese was born on this day back in 1879. He was not, thankfully, responsible for those terrible “You got chocolate in my peanut butter!” commercials in the 1970s. Like people walk around with jars of peanut butter, eating it with their fingers. I think that Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups are the best mass-produced candy in the world. So all we need is a commercial that says, “Remember: Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups are delicious!” It also has the advantage that it is true.

And finally, relatively minor but incredibly compelling sculptor Sylvia Daoust was born on this day in 1902. She primarily did religious work. But the sculpture on the right My Head from 1930 is typical of the kind of stuff I admire. Her religious sculpture is less artistic, more purely representational, although I’m sure it was good for paying the bills.

The great French actor Michael Lonsdale is 82 today. Comedian Tommy Chong is 75. Liberal linguist George Lakoff is 72. Radar from MASH, Gary Burghoff is 70. Patti LaBelle is 69. Guitarist Waddy Wachtel is 66 and his hair is still perfect. Rosanne Cash is 58. And actor Kristin Scott Thomas is 53.

There are a lot of fine birthdays today, but still, this day was not even close. It belongs to the great Robert Allen Zimmerman, also known as Bob Dylan, who is 72 today. What can I say about Bob Dylan? Do I need to say anything about him? He made, I don’t know, about ten of my very favorite albums. I still listen to him every week. The albums that I never tire of are The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan, Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde on Blonde, and Blood on the Tracks. Here he is doing “Tangled Up in Blue”:

Happy birthday Bob Dylan!

Afterword

Here is what Loudon Wainwright did for Bob Dylan’s birthday 22 years ago:

I have a bone to pick with Greg Sargent. I appreciate his effort, but how long can the man go on spouting happy horseshit without realizing that it has become discouraging. At least a few times per week, he writes something along the lines of, “Boehner has already admitted Republicans won’t allow default.” In this he is talking about how the Republicans have signaled (and in some cases came right out and said) that they will not allow the federal government to default because of a refusal to raise the Debt Ceiling. Oh, though it were so!

It is true that Boehner said, “I’m not going to risk the full faith and credit of the federal government.” But one can only read so much into that. To begin with, Boehner is talking about himself, not the party. But far more important, the statement sounds like a hope more than a commitment. If he is signaling, it is to his caucus, not to the rest of the nation. It’s more like, “Please guys, don’t do this!” And since saying it, he’s been pretty quiet.

My take on the situation is far less sanguine. Even when Boehner was doing his reasonableness tour, much of the Republican Party was enamored with the idea of crashing the economy. I know how revolutionaries feel about this kind of stuff. It is an exciting prospect to remake the society without all those compromises that we’ve allowed over the last 225 years. Just like young science fiction fans, they see only the good in a post-apocalyptic world.

Even worse, many conservatives seem to have been emboldened by the Sequester. When it went into effect without a global meltdown, they took it as more evidence that fears of any policy are overblown. (Of course, no one said the Sequester would cause a global meltdown—only that it would harm people and the economic recovery.) I think there are easily 100 Republicans in the House who are chomping at the bit to crash the economy. The fact that John Boehner indicates that he doesn’t want to do that doesn’t mean all that much.

The real question is whether the GOP establishment can figure out a way to raise the Debt Ceiling without it looking like a political defeat. That’s going to be important not just for the more radical members of the party. We all know that most Republicans worry primarily about being challenged from the right in a primary. In general, I think such concerns are overblown. Last year, for example, there was great concern that Orrin Hatch would lose his primary. So Hatch moved even further to the right. But in the end, he got more than twice as many votes as his challenger Dan Liljenquist. Just like Democrats pandering to the middle, Republican concerns about right flank attacks are mostly mythical. But they believe them and that could cause them to allow a default, even when they know it is a bad thing.

Hopefully, they will realize crashing the economy will not just be bad for the country; it will be bad for them. Most of these Republicans would suddenly find they have much more to worry about in the general election. With half the country out of a job, they would have nothing better to do than show up at the polls.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples of politicians doing things they knew would hurt them. That’s certainly what the leaders of the South did. They went for it all and lost it all. That’s all good. But it also cost the lives of over 600,000 people. But that’s always the case: powerful men thrive despite their mistakes and weak men (by the millions) suffer. Jefferson Davis not only lived 24 years past the end of the Civil War, but he remained rich and respected. Regardless what happens, Ted Cruz’s good life is assured.

Jordan Ellenberg over at Slate reported on Yitang Zhang and the big goings on in the field of prime number theory. There are two stories. One is that Zhang managed to prove some thousands of year old questions. The other is that he is in his 50s.

As I hope you know, a prime number is any natural number that is divisible only by itself and the number one. So 7 is prime, but 9 is not because it is divisible by 3. The first few prime numbers are: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 17, 19, 23, 29. Why are prime numbers interesting? Well, there are many reasons that mathematicians study them. The most fundamental reason, which you may remember from school, is that all natural numbers can be represented by a product of prime numbers. For example, 24 equals 2×2×2×3. But mostly, I think that prime numbers are interesting because they are strange and difficult.

The big news is that Zhang proved that the set of consecutive odd numbers that are prime is unbound. I know what you’re thinking, “Wow! I have no idea what you just said!” Don’t worry, it is very simple. An example of this is 5 and 7: they are consecutive odd numbers and they are prime. On the other hand, 7 and 11 are consecutive prime numbers but they are not consecutive odd numbers; 9 is in the middle.

As you can see in the list of the first 9 prime numbers above, the further you go up, the larger the gap between prime numbers. In general. But its pretty random. The question is whether as the numbers get big whether these consecutive prime numbers stop occurring. They don’t. They get less common, but they never end. Apparently, mathematicians have long assumed that to be true. That amazed me because I always assumed it was not, but then I’m not a mathematician and I’ve never been that interested in number theory.

So the result isn’t amazing. What Yitang Zhang did is prove that this was so. He also proved some other things, but I had enough difficulty getting my head around this one. And of course, Zhang’s age makes for an interesting story in a world that (wrongly it turns out) thinks that only young people are great mathematicians.

The whole subject of prime numbers has always bugged me. From my earliest days I can remember being offended by the fact that the number 2 is prime. I don’t know how common this is, but I have always personalized numbers. One small part of that is a quasi-racist belief that even numbers are just better than odd numbers. The odd numbers are contrary; they offend me. The prime numbers are even worse! So how can a nice little even number be grouped with those thugs the primes? And it’s all because 2 is a Very Small Number. In fact, the number 2 is remarkable: it is divisible by every number equal to or less than itself.

Zhang’s brilliance was to treat prime numbers as random. That may seem obvious, but it’s not. The fact is that prime numbers are not random. But apparently, treating them like random numbers provides great insights. I don’t pretend to understand it. But I feel good that not everyone making important discoveries is younger than I am.

Afterword

Here are two rather large consecutive prime numbers: 104,681 and 104,683.

On this day in 1883, swashbuckler Douglas Fairbanks was born. Actor, dancer, and musician Scatman Crothers was born in 1910. The great meteorologist and Chaos Theory pioneer Edward Norton Lorenz was born in 1917. And singer Rosemary Clooney was born in 1928.

Actress Joan Collins is 80 today. Chess grandmaster Anatoly Karpov is 62. Tuesdays with Morrie author Mitch Albom is 55. And Jewel is 39.

By a nose, the day belongs to botanist Carl Linnaeus who was born on this day in 1707. Linnaeus is the founder of the modern scheme of binomial nomenclature—the formal system for naming species. What I’ve always found so amazing is that the vast majority of species we categorized based upon attributes turned out to be dead right when we looked at genetics. As someone who is caught inside his own head and not very clear on the outside world, I find it amazing that others can see reality so clearly. It is hard to overstate his impact on biology.

Happy birthday Carl Linnaeus!

During the Great Depression, Roosevelt was very angry that the Supreme Court kept blocking his reforms. A slim majority on the Court was very conservative. (Sound familiar?) What could the president do? Well, he could pack the court. The number of people on the Supreme court is not stated in the Constitution. So Roosevelt threatened to add the number of seats on the court and fill them with pro-New Deal justices. Ultimately, this wasn’t done for a few reasons—most notably the retirement of a conservative judge that gave the liberals a small majority. But the point is, “court packing” does not refer to the normal procedure of presidents filling open seats.

Now you know more than Senator Chuck Grassley. In the debate over whether to allow Sri Srinivasan sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Grassley complained six times about Obama’s supposed efforts at “court packing.” He apparently thought that trying to fill vacancies was “court packing.” We see this problem again and again. Start with a Senator of relatively limited mental acumen. Let them age past the 70-year cognitive decline. And watch the stupid fly!

Dylan Matthews helpfully put together the following compilation of Grassley’s embarrassment:

Now, I don’t want to hear any complaints that most people don’t know what “court packing” was either. This is true. I’ve asked a number of people and there is widespread confusion on the matter. Just the same, none of these people go around complaining that Obama is engaged in “court packing.” They don’t even do it in private. And they certainly don’t have staffs that vet their talking points.

Of course, Grassley’s comments don’t exist in a vacuum. He probably got them from a Wall Street Journal editorial over the weekend, Packing the D.C. Circuit. The editors too are confused on the matter, thinking that liberals’ desire to fill the vacant seats as court packing. I am constantly amazed that modern conservatism has such a weak intellectual basis. Gone are the days of William F. Buckley. Now, the few good thinkers on the right are largely ignored. And the Wall Street Journal editorial page has long been nothing but a bastion of right wing freaks and conspiracy theorists.

I understand that Rush Limbaugh bases his talk show on the ravings of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. But Chuck Grassley? With his large taxpayer provided staff? This is just sad.

Afterword

The Bell Curve author Charles A. Murray is actually making the argument that African Americans are poor because they are stupid. People get confused about this fact, thinking that he’s just some bigot. No. All the eugenic inspired ridiculousness is done in the name of an attack on Affirmative Action. But United States Senators (and plenty of other rich and “successful” people) are constantly showing that they are pretty dim. Where’s the outrage over that?