Stickybuffalo.com

I’ve already posted about one of these, earlier, and neither is really yet at the point of being anything like what you could call a real “mission accomplished,” and etc., etc., so-on so-forth.

But I think the combination of these two positive policy developments, on the same day, is enough to really demand a brief note. Not often do we get even one item of good news like these, however compromised, let alone both:

• Obama Administration Rejects Keystone Pipeline Proposal
• Sopa: US backers end support for anti-piracy bill

That’s not too bad. Both of these proposals epitomize the “migod can we just not do this completely stupid unhelpful horrible abomination” ideas that are all-too common in American politics. Yeah, sure, the list of reasons for restraining the urge to celebrate is long and familiar: Neither measure is really necessarily “dead” yet; industry-backed monstrosities like these are never really truly “dead” anyway. Even if stopped, for now, they’ll sneak back. Neither measure’s defeat really amounts to any kind of actual progress. Nor do these limited little “non-defeats” come close to being “enough” relative to the big-picture of the challenges we’re facing. Nothing ever seems like it is or will be enough.

All true, but, aside from the fact that if this is about as good as we ever actually do we might as well take the opportunity to celebrate when we can because otherwise we’ll eventually just die without ever having let ourselves enjoy the feeling of winning… (more…)

My BFF MS shares a familiar theory, today, over at The Economist:

KEVIN DRUM worries that the high cost of college tuition is driven by the very large value of lifetime earnings gains derived from a college degree. [...] As long as we keep giving people whatever student loans they need to attend college, and absent any regulatory price controls, colleges will hike tuition to the very limit of what it’s worth in higher wages.

Well, that’s a novel and insightful concept, no? I took a shot at the issue of spiraling tuition inflation last September; let’s look back at what I came up with:

Basically, as I see it, colleges are selling would-be graduates their own potential, future enhanced earnings (not to mention prestige, quality of life, etc.) at a discount; of late the amount of the discount seems to keep getting smaller and smaller. Which, realistically, should not come as a surprise, given the nature of humanity and the systems we create, as well as the many “market failures” which probably apply to a college education and minimize the potential for competition to push prices toward the seller’s cost rather than toward the buyer’s ability to pay.

Apologies for self-quoting but, ahem. And being four months ahead of the curve is really a very modest claim on my part; this situation has seemed obvious to me for years. I could probably prove it, too, if I fished around in e-mails or chat transcripts long enough…

…but, obviously, no one would care, for the same reason that Democracy in America is linking to Kevin Drum instead of me. I’m not brave, ambitious and/or well-connected enough (take your pick) to push and shove my way in front of an actual audience. No one reads this stuff.

But, in light of actual evidence in support of what my colossal vanity has believed all along, maybe they should.

ENVY

Let me start things off by taking my own whack at the now well-thrashed piñata of Mitt Romney’s latest pronouncement, that complaints of widening inequality are simply “envy.” I think that to some extent, in the current political climate, this attempt by Romney to claim the crown for “most out-of-touch presidential candidate since George Bush, Sr.” needs no real rebuttal; by all means let him self-destruct. Those taking the occasion to make or repeat useful points about inequality, meanwhile, have already done a fine job.

But I thought of one more point, yesterday, which I think is interesting enough to record here; I think this might be a good response if one were in a debate with Romney (and actually wished to contest his dismissal of inequality). A bit long for a genuinely good sound-bite, probably, but oh well. Here goes:

Think about it this way, Mitt. Imagine you have a friend who plans to start a company. He’s going to need a lot of start-up capital for this enterprise, say $200 million. So you and, say, 98 other friends all go in as investors; not necessarily in equal shares but all 100 people have contributed something to this project. The $200M total is reached, the company is launched, and huzzah! your investments produce a success. Or, that is, they produce growth, but not for 99% of those who made that growth possible, you included. Certainly, the amount of initial contributions varied so one would likewise expect investors’ shares of the growth to vary, but everyone should receive something. Except that 99% are receiving absolutely nothing, with all of the growth going to the enrichment of just 1 in 100, the CEO having through some chicanery or other arranged to keep all the company’s growth to himself. This is entirely contrary to how things were supposed to work, themes of “a rising tide lifts all boats” and “everyone in this together” having been constantly repeated when money was being collected. And so, naturally, you and the rest of the 99% intend to protest this outcome, vocally and aggressively. Asked to respond to your charges, the CEO shrugs disdainfully, waves his hand and pronounces them “just envy.”

And undoubtedly, Romney’s warped corporations-are-people perspective would find various reasons why this is an invalid parallel. He still insists that Romneycare and Obamacare are completely different, after all. But I’m not sure he convinces anyone else. (more…)