If I had a nickel for every time I’ve been incarcerated… I’d have fifteen cents.

—John Lyshitski
Let’s Go To Prison

Bill Maher has more followers on Twitter than anyone else I follow. Guess who has the second most? Nate Silver.

I know what you’re thinking, “The election is over; who cares about Nate Silver?” Everyone who ever cared as far as I know. Plus a few odd people like Dick Morris and Karl Rove. And the reason is simple: Silver continues to pump out really interesting and even useful information.

This evening, for example, he brought us this surprising headline, Alaska: Future Swing State? Let’s look at the data.

In 2000, Al Gore lost Alaska by 31 points. In 2004, John Kerry lost by 26 points. In 2008, Barack Obama lost by 22 points. And this year, he lost by 14 points. Correlation is not causation, but still.

There are other things. Alaska has one of the highest percentages of independent voters. And it has elected democrat Mark Begich to the Senate. And you know about Lisa Murkowski. So there’s that. And then there is (like elsewhere) a demographic change. Alaska’s population is growing and most of these people are coming from California, Oregon, and Washington. What’s more, although the state is fairly conservative economically and with regards to fossil fuel, they are not that religious.

Of course, Alaska only has 3 electoral votes. But still, it is nice to see the bluing of America.

It’s sad whenever someone who is not actively evil dies. So I’m sad that Dave Brubeck died. But here’s the thing…

He wasn’t great. Don’t get me wrong: he had his moments. He was a very capable jazz pianist. But Bill Evans he wasn’t. But here’s another thing…

If I could be Bill Evans or Dave Brubeck, I would pick Brubeck in a second! First, he got 40 years more. Second, he had a regular, happy life. Other than the music, the same cannot be said for Evans. (There’s nothing like an expensive heroin and then cocaine habit to make the regular parts of life a hell of a lot harder.) So Brubeck had the better life and that should be enough without all of us kissing his metaphorical ass.

There is one thing I really like about Brubeck as a musician: Paul Desmond. He is what made the Dave Brubeck Quartet really work. And he is the reason why 99% of you even know who the hell Brubeck is. Desmond died 35 years, 6 months, and 5 days ago—just for the record, since you didn’t even notice.

Here is the Quartet playing their most famous tune with its writer on alto sax:

Afterword

I know you want it:

Hear the difference? (And if you don’t, please don’t tell me.)

David Weigel posted an article on Slate earlier today, Marco Rubio Mentions the Middle Class 35 Times in One Speech. But that’s not really what it’s about. But it does get to the heart of the matter. You see, Rubio mentioned the middle class, but never really engaged with the concept.

As I’ve noted before, this is par for the course when it comes to Republicans. Their idea of reaching out to groups that aren’t already part of their coalition is to talk nice. There will be no changes to policy! I understand where they’re coming from. Republicans have been very good over the past several decades at convincing people who have very contrary interests to vote for them anyway. Why wouldn’t they think it will continue to work? And the sad thing is that they may well be right.

This is SOP: take traditional Republican positions and claim that they are good for the middle class. So Weigel notes that Rubio just reworks his standard speech except that “stuff that Republicans wanted to do already becomes stuff that will help ‘the middle class.'” And just look at what that stuff is!

Rubio says, “Sound monetary policy would also encourage middle class job creation.” This is just the old “job creator” canard dressed up. The Federal Reserve has a duel mandate: keep inflation low and employment high. But Republicans don’t like this. They want the Fed to have a single mandate: keep inflation low. The claim is that this will help employment by helping the “job creators.” This is supply-side economics: the money will tinkle down on the poor.

The whole “job creator” myth is just a repackaging of the old supply-side economic theory. But everyone knows that there is very little to supply-side economics and that under most circumstances it is just plain wrong. So the Republicans try to sell the same old snake oil under a different name.

Weigel mentions a number of other Rubio zingers. But the main thing is that he’s trying to claim that the same old Republican policies that everyone knows just enrich the wealthy are really good for the middle class. And I think we must all call out this deceitfulness every time we see it. It will keep us busy!

This morning, Jonathan Chait published an article, Obama’s Refusal to Deal Paving Way for a Deal. It starts, “Most of the news coverage of the ‘fiscal cliff’ has come from the perspective of soothing bipartisan centrism, a point of view dramatized most explicitly by CNBC’s hysterical countdown to January, festooned with slogans urging the two parties to ‘Rise Above.'” Chait is ridiculing this and noting that it is exactly because Obama is being firm in these negotiations that we are likely to see a reasonable deal. This, of course, is what we liberals have known all along; it took the centrist Obama 3 years to figure it out. Of well. Better Nate than lever.[1]

Chait’s article is quite worth reading because he explains how things are likely to go from here. But I’m more interested in this chorus of calls for bipartisanship. And you know what I think of that: bipartisan consensus can bite me. Bipartisanship is what is always called for by two kinds of people: those who know nothing and those in the middle. Let’s look at each.

Those who know nothing think that the two sides are fighting like football teams: it’s all a game. But as much as I may despise Republican policy ideas, I don’t doubt that these people really do believe that the world would be oh so much better off if only we kept piling money and gifts on the rich and powerful. (That is the idea behind tinkle down economics.) The two sides are the two sides because they disagree. They don’t disagree for sport.

Now we come to those in the middle. I really hate these arrogant bastards.[2] Their claim is that they’re open minded and are just being objective. This is the basis for all mainstream political coverage. But even when coverage is truly centrist (it is usually just socially liberal and economically conservative), it is no less ideological. So when centrists say the two sides should just compromise, what they are really saying is exactly what the extremists on each side are saying: I want it all my own way!

Making reasonable compromises is a good thing. Giving up something you can live without in order to get something you can’t live without is a good idea. Minimizing your losses when you are in a bad negotiating position is a smart move. And giving a weak opponent a way to save face is noble. But compromising for its own sake is madness.

Afterword

I can’t help but notice that the mainstream media are much more hysterical in their calls for compromise when the liberals are in a strong position. I don’t recall anyone telling Boehner that he should be more reasonable when he claimed he got 98% of what he wanted. And for the hundredth time: 98% wasn’t good enough. What’s more, Boehner didn’t not follow the noble course. But now that things are reversed, Obama is supposed to.

[1] This is from a joke. It is an example of what Wikipedia calls anti-humor. In this case, it tells a very long story leading up to a spoonerism of “better late than never”: “better Nate than lever.” Feel free to make up your own story!

[2] Arrogant Bastard Ale is excellent. Highly recommended!

I don’t mean to scare you, but I found out some stuff this morning. Man! I don’t even want to tell you guys. It’s just so horrible. Ezra Klein writes, 11 Shocking, True Facts About Simpson-Bowles.

See your home interest deduction vanish!
Feel capital gains cuts taxed as income!
Scream at defense budget cuts!
See Night of the Simpson-Bowles if you dare!

Yes kiddos, the Simpson-Bowles plan is more liberal than you probably know. But that’s not because it is liberal. (There is a proposal that I will write about later, but it ain’t Simpson-Bowles.) It is just that with the conservative bias of debt discussion even on liberal MSNBC, their proposal doesn’t look that bad.

Klein lists 11 items that are supposed to shock us. In fact, most of them are not even surprising. But a few are:

1. Simpson-Bowles ends the the Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000 (I know)
2. There are a lot of tax increases in Simpson-Bowles (I know)
3. There are so many tax increases that the plan is nearly 1:1 (hmm)
4. Simpson-Bowles taxes capital gains and dividends as normal income (great)
5. Charities, homes, health care and states (needlessly complicated)
6. Simpson-Bowles raises the gas tax by 15 cents (good)
7. Congress has already passed 70 percent of the discretionary cuts (not surprising)
8. Simpson-Bowles cuts security spending by $1.4 trillion, not including drawing down the wars (yep)
9. The Social Security changes (I know; the cap raise is great)
10. Paul Ryan voted against Simpson-Bowles (I know)
11. Simpson-Bowles went down in the House, 382-38 (not surprising)

So there is really nothing shocking in this list. It is nice to see that the Simpson-Bowles proposal is not quite as bad as I’d thought. But mostly, it was fun to do the poster.

Joseph Stiglitz’s new book The Price of Inequality is a great book. Unlike the books of Paul Krugman, which are also very good, Stiglitz goes into much depth. In fact, the book is kind of like taking a short course on what has been going on in our economy. It is as good as Winner-Take-All Politics, but from an economic standpoint.

One of the high points of the book is Chapter 2: Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society. In it, he goes after one of the most aggravating aspects of the free market religion. Companies may get big by innovating, but they don’t stay big that way. Stiglitz notes that Microsoft, “Did not develop the first widely used word processor, the first spreadsheet, the first browser, the first media player, or the first dominant search engine.” Microsoft has used its lucky original contract with IBM to establish a monopoly, which it then used to stifle competition and steal others’ innovations.

Another example of this is the ethanol industry:

There are so many things to discuss in the book, let me just mention two other things. First, he tackles sociological aspects of market behavior that tend to get ignored in economic models. In particular, he talks about how many economists claimed that racial discrimination couldn’t exist in a free market. Wrong again, Bob! He also shows how people actually do care about each other beyond their simple economic interests. One striking case had to do with an after school program. In order to stop parents from picking their kids up late, the program started charging them extra. It did not work. The parents we’re already doing their best to get their kids on time (these were not rich parents). When the program turned it into a simple economic transaction, many parents just made the calculation that rushing to pick the kids up was not worth the extra money they would have to pay. When it was just caring about others’ time, the parents did better.

Stiglitz’s academic work looks at the effects of imperfect information in a market. Traditionally, economic models assume that everyone knows the value of a product or service. In a sense, this is why people claim that markets are perfect: they assume them to be perfect. Stiglitz showed that the effects of information asymmetries were large. Late in the book, he relates the story of conversations he had with free market fundamentalist Milton Friedman:

Stiglitz ends the book with a series of recommendations for what we can do to fix our economy. They are solid and I don’t see how any reasonable person can question them. However, because of our corrupt political system, there is little hope that more than a little around the edges will be done. So I fear we must first fix our politics before moving on to our economic problems.

This sign that has been posted all over New York City, reads “NYPD Drones: Protection When You Least Expect It.”

It is an excellent example of urban art which makes a difference. And thus, it has to be stopped!

The NYPD held a weeks long manhunt for the artist. They finally arrested Essam Attia and charged him with 56 trumped-up charges, including a weapons charge for an unloaded 22 rifle he kept under his bed.

Explain to me again how we don’t live in a police state.

I try not to read David Brooks, but last night, Matt Yglesias tricked me into reading him with this tweet:

So I went ahead and read The Truly Grand Bargain. What Brooks is doing is a bit of a mystery. Normally, I would think he was just admitting that some Republican demands are hopeless. For example, the top marginal tax rate will go up to 39.6% automatically on 1 January. But he isn’t calling for that. Instead, he claims that the Republicans should be, “Willing to see top tax rates go up to 36 percent or 37 percent.” What?!

But it gets worse. He wants major cuts to Medicare and Social Security in exchange for this one or two percentage point increase in the top tax bracket and a one year ceasefire in the Republican war on the United States credit rating, know as the debt ceiling. Dean Baker did some calculations on this offer. He finds that Brooks is asking for a 6% cut to poor retirees’ incomes and in exchange, Brooks is offering a 1.5% cut in the incomes of the rich through tax increases.

Baker notes, “It’s interesting to think about what he would suggest putting on the table if the Republicans had won the election.”

Afterword

I don’t understand everyone who is claiming that the Republicans should do what Obama wants because the Democrats won the election in a big way. Elections don’t have consequences because anyone has a mandate; they have consequences because someone has power. Obama is not in a better bargaining position because he won the election—at least that isn’t the critical element. He is in this position because the Republicans gave him the power when they assumed he would lose. Now two things are going to happen that the Republicans don’t want: tax increases and military cuts. If these were not coming regardless, Obama’s win would not mean anything in this negotiation.

Matt Yglesias sent us to a YouGov BrandIndex article by Ted Marzilli, Anti-Obamacare rhetoric and restaurant Buzz. It provides data for what I’ve always said: it is a big mistake to bring your politics into your business—especially when your business isn’t a necessity, like dining out at low quality restaurants. (That’s not an insult; I’m rather fond of Denny’s.)

Marzilli presented the graph below. It shows the Buzz score, “Which asks respondents, ‘If you’ve heard anything about the brand in the last two weeks, through advertising, news or word of mouth, was it positive or negative?'” Basically, it measures how a brand is doing. I think it is is fascinating.

The data for Denny’s is very telling. My take on it is that all John Metz’s bitching about Obamacare caused the Denny’s reputation (that was never that high) to plummet—all the way down to zero. And Metz is just a franchise owner. But as it became widely know that Denny’s CEO John Miller slapped down Metz and set about cleaning up the mess, people felt better about the chain. I think the main thing is that people learned that Metz didn’t speak for the company.

I think this final bit is critical, because of what’s happened to Papa John’s. On 20 November, John Schnatter announced that he wasn’t going to screw his employees or increase prices and that it was all a big misunderstanding. His words were “twisted.” That statement is at best questionable. Regardless, the people didn’t buy it. In fact, when Schnatter made his twisted comment, it seemed only to have reminded people of what an asshole he is, because their Buzz score went down even further.

All of these places will eventually recover from this. Soon most people will forget it ever happened—not that long term damage hasn’t been done. But this shows very clearly that business owners should shut up and run their businesses. But I think these people are as sheltered as anyone else in the right wing bubble. I’m always reminded of Bill O’Reilly’s comments about “far left wing extremists.” That’s his way of saying “the other.” And for people like John Metz and John Schnatter, they probably think that Democrats are strange people far away and not what they really are: well over half of their customers.