As climate change transforms our planet and the polar ice caps recede, new, previously inaccessible areas of the Arctic are opening up for business. Ironically, a notable amount of that business has to do with extracting and transporting the fossil…
The challenge is to design a game where instead of being a badass in LA, you can be a goodass on a communal farm
You walk into a village inn and it turns out the landlord sells swords. You're short of gold so you pop out and shoot some wolves with your bow and arrow. You add their pelts into the deal and buy the sword. Where's this? Skyrim, of course.
Skyrim is a computer game set in the mythical world of Tamriel, where human intercourse consists of fighting, stealing, magic and trade. Whether you're here, or in the deep space of EveOnline, or among the low-life in Grand Theft Auto V, the economics of computer games nearly always resemble early capitalism: trade, conquest and ruthless rule-bending are the sources of wealth; actual human labour and ingenuity almost never. With about half of all households owning a games console, and 8 million people a day secretly amassing fortunes on Facebook games like Farmville, that is one huge dollop of free-market ideology getting dumped into our leisure time.
But what happens if you try to subvert in-game economics? Players in complex online worlds are well used to "gaming the game" – that is, trying to exploit inconsistencies of the economic model to scam other players. Last year one player, by bidding up the price of a worthless object and then getting his friend to destroy it, almost wiped out all the value in the entire universe. The game's fulltime economists – such jobs exist – spent days unpicking the trades.
What I am proposing is something different. What if, just as in an Occupy camp, where they try to "live despite capitalism", you could live "despite" the property forms and voracious market economics of a computer game?
With Skyrim, the "modding" community – techies adept at creating unofficial versions of the game – have already done clever things with the economy of Tamriel. One limited the amount of natural resource (you can run out of wolves); another made the money supply finite; a third introduced a banking system, so that by saving your hoarded gold you could increase the supply of credit to other players.
But what if you could choose to play any of these games without trying to gain wealth through conquest, violence or the mercantile capitalist strategy of buying cheap and selling dear? What if you could pursue a strategy to create things collaboratively, outside the market, and give the basic necessities of life away for free? Would you be able, singly or in groups, to screw the slash-and-grab economy so badly that you forced it into a transition state beyond destructive competition?
These are good questions, because a whole school of economists thinks what they describe is the basic problem facing us in the real world.
Yochai Benkler, a Harvard law professor, has described how the rise of free stuff, collaborative production and non-commercial products such as Wikipedia, create a glitch within capitalism. In a networked information economy, he writes, "co-operative and co-ordinated action, carried out through radically distributed non-market mechanisms … plays a much greater role than it did". (Benkler Y, The Wealth of Networks, New Haven 2006).
Information goods undermine economic systems based on scarcity. Free, collaboratively made products, like Wikipedia potentially, kill commercial products in their market. Open source products – even when commercialised, like the Android system that runs on 70% of all new smartphones – can reduce the market share of closed, proprietary products.
If Benkler is right, the real-world economy of the 21st century becomes itself a giant game, in which non-market forms interact with the classic models based on scarcity and competition. Monopolies form but are undermined by the impossibility of enforcing property rights. Hierarchies soften, but cannot react effectively to the rise of networks.
In multi-player games there is already a lot of collaborative play, even inside the kill-and-shoot environments. Now designers have begun to respond overtly to demands for modelling collaboration: Journey (2012) is a wordless, ethereal game in which players, by interacting, produce mutual benefit and emotional connection but do not explicitly trade.
But most games remain trapped in the economics of their time: they are closed markets, with a variety of static business models, most of which involve destroying your opponent, monopolising designs, or plundering resources.
The challenge is to design a game where the economy can evolve: from competition to collaboration. Where instead of being a badass in LA, you can be a goodass on a communal farm in Andalusia. A game where the "modding" goes on within the official product, not through unauthorised experimental versions. A game where it's possible to "refuse" the basic Jungian call to adventure in an alien world and instead transform the world you live in.
For many of us, economic reality is already a mixture of the market and something beyond the market. Against this, the world of competitive plunder on which most computer and console games are based begins to look boring.
Next year, Skyrim itself goes multiplayer. Designers promise the mythical world of Tamriel will offer a choice of three warring alliances, nine ethnicities and unlimited face tattoos. The proposed economics look like a version of 18th-century mercantilism: conquer a castle, set up your trading post there, exploit need and scarcity.
As a fan of the game, I'd like the opportunity to do something radically different: #OccupyTamriel anyone?
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2013
It's a bit of a slow period for political news: Congress is going into recess, the Affordable Care Act is in a kind of procedural limbo, most people are turning their attention to the holidays – and, perhaps most disheartening, the economy just continues to trudge along, offering neither much hope nor much political urgency. That there should be more political urgency regarding jobs and the economy is a topic of eloquently-expressed frustration by my friend Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post. But economic numbers are hard, while idle speculation about the 2016 presidential candidates is super-easy! And, to be fair, it's a subject that will be on the minds of regular folks soon enough. With that in mind, some thoughts on how to discuss – and perhaps even report on – the candidates and their chances.
1. It's OK to say someone is inevitable!
I mean, that's strong language, but the pseudo-sophistication of pooh-poohing a frontrunner is a short-term strategy for punditry. While it's true that the chattering class deemed Hillary Clinton "inevitable" in 2008, there's little evidence that the inevitable label had a role in her eventual loss. Barack Obama's unprecedented levels of organization and fundraising were, you know, significant factors.
In GOP races, there's even less reason to hedge: conservatives are historically conservative in their choices, not just for the past few, either: for almost 20 years, 1976-2004, there was a Bush or Dole on every ticket! Between 1952 and 1972, Richard Nixon was on five out of six of them. 2016 will be a little different, what with the GOP not having an obvious front-runner, but don't be afraid to stick to the safest name (Chris Christie) even if seems kind of boring. Unless you just don't want to be boring. See next items.
2. If you're going to think out-of-the-box, have some data on your side.
On the Democratic side, the Elizabeth Warren "boomlet" is almost entirely of journalistic blue-skying. The lady says she does not want to run for president, and she seems far too level-headed to try to muscle her way in based on the pining of some Beltway insiders.
On the Republican side, the words "Donald Trump" and "Sarah Palin" are actually Democratic fund-raising slogans. But drop this knowledge: a schism in the Iowa GOP has made that influential (though by no means predictive) caucus especially friendly ground for a Libertarian candidate (Rand Paul). The GOP's dismal relationship with minorities could nudge its leaders to embrace a black or Hispanic candidate – but why not also cite polling that shows most Republicans actually agree with the majority of Americans who say Roe v Wade should remain the law of the land? Softening their pro-life stance would almost instantly give the female voters who fled the GOP in 2012 a reason to reconsider.
Names to drop: Brian Sandoval, the Hispanic (and pro-choice) governor of Nevada. Don't forget the rousing 2012 GOP Convention speech by choice supporter Condoleezza Rice! (who is going to have a new book out in 2015; the pre-election-year book is a fairly reliable sign of presidential ambitions.)
3. Parse the difference between "lack of interest" or "no plans" in a presidential run and a denial that one will run.
Warren, for instance, has "pledged to serve out her term", which is about as high as one can go on the scale of "not going to" as you can get. New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez has explained her desire to not abandon her family to the rigors of a presidential campaign, which is arguably an even more unambiguous rejection. Compare these statements to Clinton's ("I have absolutely no plans to run") or Jeb Bush's ("I'm not thinking about it") or Christie ("I'm nowhere near making a decision yet"). Non-denial-denials will become increasing untenable positions as donors and organizers make their/i> decisions about who to support. Caveat: Even Warren- and Martinez-strength denials can be subject to repeal based on intense personal soul-searching or donor entreaties. (See: Obama, Barack.)
4. Gaffes are not death sentences.
Corollary: gaffes are not the same as unintended revelations about core beliefs. (Confusingly, "a politician accidentally telling the truth" is one classic definition of a gaffe. We need a new lexicon!) Sure, Rick Perry's moment of innumeracy marked the start of a deep dive in the polls, but that's probably an exception to the general rule that most politicians can survive an embarrassing moment, especially if it's handled with humor and grace afterwards. (Perry's inability to recover probably had more to do with his backstage lackadaisical attitude toward the campaign itself than his on-stage brain freeze.)
Politicians say stupid things all the time: Obama's visit to 57 states. Romney's affection for Michigan's perfectly-sized trees. George W Bush. Joe Biden. Sarah Palin. Saying something stupid is not the same as saying something that reveals something about your character: That's the difference between loving Michigan's trees and dismissing 47% of the electorate, or implying there is such a thing as "illegitimate" rape. This is all by way of saying that Joe Biden is still a pretty strong candidate.
[IMAGE: Outgoing US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to State Department employees in a lobby of the State Department on February 1 2013 in Washington DC, via AFP]
Self-styled celebrity super family the Kardashians love their annual Christmas card. Over the years they've built up a smorgasboard of festive snaps, which have become more overblown as the family has slowly risen up the celebrity food chain. Last year's was an all-white number with ticker tape and bubbly, which made it look as if they were trapped in a 2013 version of The Crystal Maze, but this year their yuletide snap went further and almost broke the internet.
Looking like a mix between a scene from Boogie Nights and the interior of a jazzed up Blackpool Pleasure Beach arcade, it's gaudy clickbait replete with thinly veiled digs at celebrity culture. Their subtle subliminal missives are communicated via piles of trashy magazine covers, Bruce Jenner trapped in a tube and graffiti that says stuff like "fame". Most media outlets took the card at face value and instinctively laughed heartily at it, before mocking the Kardashians and moving on, but others looked a bit deeper and started to see the HIDDEN ILLUMINATI MESSAGES.
Conspiracy theorist and shouty bloke du jour Alex Jones summed it up, calling the card "a rather grim and depressing summation of the entertainment world", which most people would happily agree with. But then he went on to add the whole thing was a homage to the "shadowy elite that is turning popular culture into a toxic wasteland". At that point most people switched off, but then even mainstream news sources started to ask; what is the secret Illuminati message? It's a question that has increasingly been asked of celebs linked to hip-hop over the last decade, with artists such as Jay-Z regularly having to bat away accusations that he's part of an occult conspiracy. And Hova is far from the only rapper accused of having Illuminati ties.
An internet search for Canadian cry-baby rap star Drake, for example, will throw up a treasure trove of Illuminati hip-hop conspiracy material. It ranges from Drake being in cahoots with crack-smoking Toronto mayor Rob Ford, to the fact that his clothing line features an owl (which is a sure sign of Illuminatiness) and theories that his tracklists contain hidden messages about the end of the world. The rabbit hole goes even deeper with a whole host of theories about the death of Tupac, which mostly revolve around him being murdered by the Illuminati with Kanye West and Jay-Z (of course) masterminding the whole shady operation.
Rappers are just the latest fall guys and they've taken the place of rock stars, who were regularly accused of occult connections in the 70s. David Bowie's interest in the work of Aleister Crowley around the time of his Berlin triptych which manifested itself via lyrical hat tips, and the Beatles' decision to include Crowley on the cover of Sgt Pepper's was enough to have them accused of dark connections.
So are the Kardashians simply the latest celebrity Illuminati messengers? Probably not – it's more likely they are just the latest celebrities to understand the publicity-spinning potential of Easter egg-laden promo shots that can be interpreted as having a darker meaning. But then again I would say that, wouldn't I? I could be part of the shadowy media cover-up squad.
• The commissioning of this article was suggested by Juicylicious. If there's a subject you'd like to see covered on Comment is free, please visit our You Tell Us page
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2013
["The Door Knob To Storkyrkan In Stockholm With The All Seeing Eye On It" on Shutterstock]
The future is here! Flying robots will, any second now, be delivering your Christmas books, DVDs and gadgets to your door within 30 minutes of you ordering them, thanks to a new initiative announced by Amazon on CBS News' 60 Minutes on Sunday.
It's a brave new world, a whole new paradigm. Or so you'd think if you read most of the breathless coverage about the announcement, which will only get worse: expect a torrent of turgid think-pieces in the next 48 hours about who's going to get "disrupted" as a result of this latest shake-up – and what it means for the US's already beleaguered postal service.
Here's the problem: it's all hot air and baloney. As Jeff Bezos, Amazon's CEO, acknowledged in the 60 Minutes segment, his plan to begin delivery by drone won't be enacted until around 2018 – and that's a hugely optimistic timeline.
The practical issues are manifold: the technology to make the drones operational in any sense is not yet in place. It's all well and good for the unmanned vehicles to fly to a particular GPS site, but how does it then find the package's intended recipient? How is the transfer of the package enacted? What stops someone else stealing the package along the way? And what happens when next door's kid decides to shoot the drone with his BB rifle?
None of that starts to come close to the legal minefield using drones in this way entails. At present, flying drones of this sort for commercial use would be illegal in the US. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which regulates this area, intends to make commercial drones legally viable and workable by 2015, but this deadline is all-but impossible: managing the skies with this much low-level traffic is a problem people are nowhere near solving. Opening up crowded urban areas full of terror targets to large numbers of flying platforms is always going to be packed with conflicting interests and difficulties. And all this has come before the first lawsuit caused after someone is injured by a faulty drone (or that one your neighbour shot), crashing down to earth.
What Jeff Bezos announced amounted, essentially, to an aspiration to change how his company delivers products, in about five years time, if technology advances and regulation falls his way. If his TV appearance hadn't included the magic word "drones", Bezos's vague aspirations to change an aspect of his company's logistics probably wouldn't have made waves. Lucky for him, he did – winning his company positive publicity just ahead of what is usually the biggest online shopping day of the year, the dreadfully named Cyber Monday.
Floating an exciting-but-impractical innovation for a swath of press coverage is such an old PR tactic you'd hope no one would fall for it, and yet everyone still does. In an industry dominated by page views, stuff people will click on that is easy to produce is an irresistible draw. Who cares if it actually stands up?
Bezos' neat trick has knocked several real stories about Amazon out of the way. Last week's Panorama investigation into Amazon's working and hiring practices, suggesting that the site's employees had an increased risk of mental illness, is the latest in a long line of pieces about the company's working conditions – zero-hour contracts, short breaks, and employees' every move tracked by internal systems. Amazon's drone debacle also moved discussion of its tax bill – another long-running controversy, sparked by the Guardian's revelation last year that the company had UK sales of £7bn but paid no UK corporation tax – to the margins. The technology giants – Amazon, Google, Microsoft et al – have have huge direct reach to audiences and customers, the money to hire swarms of PR and communications staff, and a technology press overwhelmingly happy to incredulously print almost every word, rather than to engage in the much harder task of actually holding them to account.
It's too late for the clickfarms already. But outlets and journalists who'd like to think of themselves as serious must stop regurgitating this crap. And, even more importantly, you,concerned citizen, must try to stop clicking on it.
The roll-out of the Affordable Care Act has hatched a spasm of obituaries for Obama's second term, and more than a few for Liberalism as We Know It. That's right, Error 404: Ideology Not Found. At best, pundits have surmised that Obama's popularity will never recover. Comparisons between the implementation of insurance exchanges and the Iraq War or Katrina, as infuriating as they are (how many times do we have to say it: Bush lied, people died; website crashed, people complained on Twitter) do suggest that a mid-term catastrophic failure can derail an entire presidential agenda. Charlie Cook, writing in The National Journal, had the most concise rebuttal of this theory: it's way too early to tell. Or, put as a critique of the logic behind the death notices: pundits tend to think that any given political situation is static, but the truth is that a variety of circumstances can change either voters' perspective or the real impact of presidential actions. Here's a few things that could lift Obama out of his slump.
1. Wait until you see the other guy
Obama benefits when he can function in full campaign mode and present an "apples to apples" comparison to voters. When the GOP primary ramps up, he'll get a chance to do this again. His last sustained high in approval came in November 2012; that 56% high-water mark was in the week after the Newtown shootings and many attributed it to a "rally around the flag" surge in patriotism, but the week previous – in the direct aftermath of the elections – it had been at 54%. In fact, Obama sporadic surges throughout 2012 all came after voters were given a chance to think about another specific politician doing the same specific job, most notably after the Democratic and Republican conventions in late summer.
The White House's attempts to push non-ACA stories is clearly an attempt to take advantage of this strength. Whereas the ACA has made it possible for the GOP to simply point at the mess and not necessarily offer solutions, when it comes to immigration reform or foreign policy, Obama has a chance to define himself against an existing set of competing ideas. Think of that situation as judging two applicants for a position: Obama interviews better. Contrast this to what happens when, say, you have two teams on a field playing a penalty-ridden scoreless game (such as during the budget negotiations): spectators are disgusted by both sides. (Some strategists in the GOP seem to believe that such chaos has at least short-term benefits for their side, hence their glee in perpetuating it.)
2. The Republican Party is fighting itself
The GOP's fraught internal battles have fractured it severely, perhaps irreparably (considering that many are asserting the demise of liberalism, I should probably make clear here that I'm sureconservatism will do just fine). While most commentators, including myself, have adopted the shorthand of "The Tea Party versus the establishment", the schisms range across ideological, attitudinal, generational and even regional lines. There is no reason to believe that that the debates will stay civil; indeed, they've already gotten pretty ugly. Some fist fights have broken through at the national level (Rand Paul versus Chris Christie, Ted Cruz versus John McCain, Boehner versus his caucus). Those simmering at the state level threaten party unity just as much, especially the split in Iowa GOP between a libertarian faction that gained control in 2012 and a legacy cohort that wants to regain the advantage and steer the First-in-the-Nation Caucus to anyone not named Rand Paul. Imagine a primary battle that starts with a drawn-out slugfest among Cruz, Rand and Christie.
In Ohio, Governor John Kaisch, once lauded as a lauded 2016 GOP presidential contender, now faces a barrage of criticism for his embrace of the ACA's Medicaid expansion. As long as the ACA stays symbol of all that's wrong with "big government", the message is damaging. But it could backfire if Kaisch gains re-election (as it looks like he will) using a defense of the Medicaid changes that, with the exception of a single word, could just as easily come from Elizabeth Warren as a Republican: "I think its critical that we're able to help people to help themselves to get them to work. … Conservatism means that you help people so they can help themselves and so they can enter in the economic strength of our country."
3. The success stories from the ACA will come out
The dysfunctional exchange websites have meant that ACA "success stories" – struggling families gaining health insurance they once could not afford – are all but buried, while conservatives push into that void the "horror stories" of relatively affluent self-insured households (on Fox at least, many of the featured case-studies seem to have existing ideological objections to the ACA). As the roll-out has continued, however, the trickle of stories about working-class families breathing easier (and thus contributing to a more robust economy) thanks to the ACA exchanges has gained strength. The numbers will eventual outweigh the anecdotes: Republicans have counted about about one million Californians as among those to whom Obama broke his "if you like it, you can keep it" promise. But it's estimated that about two million residents, including almost all of the holders of those cancelled policies, will receive subsidies to purchase insurance plans that pass the ACA minimum requirements (aka, better plans) that are also ultimately cheaper – even if the premiums are higher, their out-of-pocket expenses will go down thanks to fully covered preventive care, lower deductibles and no penalties for previously existing conditions.
The California numbers reflect analysis that takes into consideration not just cancelled policies but all those who might benefit from subsidies, but even if one sticks to the outcomes for those with cancelled plans, the picture is far from bleak – in North Carolina, 60% of those with cancelled policies will qualify for subsidies; in Florida, 66 percent; in Utah, 84% do. Between five and six million people who do not qualify for the Medicaid expansion and are currently uninsured – arguably the precise demographic for whom the ACA was created – will get subsidies that cancel out entirely the cost of the cheapest policies available, at least one million more Americans than have had their existing policies cancelled. The individual stories of these policy holders exist with or without a functioning federal website, and some reporters have found them, so they will just take longer to get out. But they will get out.
I'm not exactly sure what it is about the hit British TV series, Downton Abbey, that has enthralled so many of us. The scenery is great, Lady Mary's wardrobe is just fabulous, but there are plot holes so huge one could drive Lady Edith's car through them. I suspect the fascination it provokes has something to do with nostalgia – a hankering for a simpler time, when everyone knew their place and where the classes, though separate and unequal, were at least able to be polite to one other. Whatever it is that we find so charming about the series, however, we should try to keep in mind that the rampant inequality it celebrates is not something we should be hankering after.
America has its own real-life upstairs/downstairs thing going on at the moment, best embodied by the Walton clan, who own the lion's share of Walmart Stores, Inc. Walmart is the single largest private employer in America with a work force of some 1.3 million. Each of the four Walton's who have an interest in the stores increased their net worth by $7bn last year alone. Meanwhile, the company's sales associates, who make up the bulk of the work-force, earn an average of $8.81 per hour – less than the federal poverty level for a family of four.
So it's a bit like Downton Abbey on a bigger budget, most of which is allocated to the above the line players. While the Walton's, with their occasional charitable doings and their apparent detachment from reality, seem to feel very comfortable in their role as modern day Lord and Lady Granthams, their poverty-wage workers seem less inclined to imitate the subservient behavior of their below-stairs counterparts. And that's a good thing.
Today, Black Friday as it's known among shopaholics, a slew of protests are being planned outside some 1500 Walmart stores across the country to demand better pay and work conditions. I can only imagine what Downton's dowager countess (she, of "What is a weekend?" fame) would have to say if the workers at Downton Abbey dropped their pitchforks (or raised them perhaps) on one of the estate's busiest days of the year. I'm sure she would be shocked at the ingratitude of the Walmart employees, particularly since at least one Walmart store was recently kind enough to organize a food drive for its impoverished workers so they could enjoy a decent Thanksgiving meal. It's unlikely that the dowager would ever have come around to thinking that it might be better for everyone if the serving classes were given a chance to rise up the social ladder. But the Walmart bosses may someday learn that their disinclination to share the wealth may not be entirely in their best interests.
Although the Walton family made out like bandits last year and the outgoing CEO of Walmart Stores, Inc, Michael T Duke, took home nearly $20m in compensation, the company is not actually doing very well. The US stores have reported shrinking sales for three straight quarters. In a rare moment of clarity, the president and CEO of Walmart US, William Simon, attributed the drop in sales to the over stretched incomes of the low wage consumer the store typically attracts. He explained:
Their income is going down while food costs are not. Gas and energy prices, while they're abating, I think they're still eating up a big piece of the customer's budget.
The irony, of course, is that by paying so many of its 1.3 million employees poverty wages, and setting a low bar for wages across the board, the company is eating into its customer base and thus may be contributing to its own decline.
Writing about this issue recently, former secretary of labor, Robert Reich, made the comparison with Henry Ford's approach to wages. In an effort to boost sales of his Model T's, Ford decided to pay his own workers triple the average factory wage of the time. Ford would be called a socialist if he were alive today, and no doubt was called worse at the time. His cunning plan did work, though. By raising the wages of his own employees, wages for factory workers increased across the board. More workers were then in a position to buy the product Ford was trying to sell them and he made a killing.
With so many workers in America today being paid so little that they can't even afford to buy food, it's no wonder that even low price stores like Walmart are suffering a decline in sales. For now, however, the company seems content with the Downton Abbey model of doing business, where the top 1% get to monopolize the wealth and the long suffering workers are expected to keep a stiff upper lip about it.
The problem with this economic model is that it tends to crash under its own weight. As Nobel prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, wrote last year in Vanity Fair, if people like the Waltons (aka the 1%) are to survive and thrive, they should have the sense to know that "there would be no top of the pyramid without a solid base." The best thing the top brass at Walmart could do to preserve their own privileged status would be to raise wages for their workers. A recent study by the progressive thinktank Demos illustrated that the company could afford to pay its workers an additional $5.83 an hour (pdf), enough to bring their wages just above the poverty level, simply by ending the company's share-buyback program. This way prices could stay as they are but sales would increase as more workers would have more money to spend.
Even the dowager countess could get down with that scenario. So far, however, the Walton's and their ilk have resisted such a move at every turn, preferring instead to loll around in smoking jackets a la Lord Grantham does while his estate collapses around him. Hopefully the workers, who have more to fight for, will not be so foolish or complacent.
Here’s this week’s news from the NSA. Yes, when it comes to international espionage and snooping, in less than a century we’ve gone from a US Secretary of State declaring, “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail” to a former French foreign…
Pope Francis is a pontiff who has constructively broken all the rules of popery – so far to widespread acclaim. He's faulted the Catholic church for its negative obsession with gays and birth control, and now he has expanded his mandate to economics with a groundbreaking screed denouncing "the new idolatry of money".
As the Pope wrote in his "apostolic exhortation":
The worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings.
His thoughts on income inequality are searing:
How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality.
The pope's screed on "the economy of exclusion and inequality" will disappoint those who considers themselves free-market capitalists, but they would do well to listen to the message. Francis gives form to the emotion and injustice of post-financial-crisis outrage in a way that has been rare since Occupy Wall Street disbanded. There has been a growing chorus of financial insiders – from the late Merrill Lynch executive Herb Allison to organizations like Better Markets – it's time for a change in how we approach capitalism. It's not about discarding capitalism, or hating money or profit; it's about pursuing profits ethically, and rejecting the premise that exploitation is at the center of profit. When 53% of financial executives say they can't get ahead without some cheating, even though they want to work for ethical organizations, there's a real problem.
Unlike Occupy, which turned its rage outward, Pope Francis bolstered his anger with two inward-facing emotions familiar to any Catholic-school graduate: shame and guilt, to make the economy a matter of personal responsibility.
This is important. Income inequality is not someone else's problem. Nearly all of us are likely to experience it. Inequality has been growing in the US since the 1970s. Economist Emmanuel Saez found that the incomes of the top 1% grew by 31.4% in the three years after the financial crisis, while the majority of people struggled with a disappointing economy. The other 99% of the population grew their incomes 0.4% during the same period.
As a result, federal and state spending on social welfare programs has been forced to grow to $1tn just to handle the volume of US households in trouble. Yet income inequality has been locked out of of the mainstream economic conversation, where it is seen largely as a sideshow for progressive bleeding hearts.
In the discussions of why the US is not recovering, economists often mention metrics like economic growth and housing. They rarely mention the metrics that directly tell us we are failing our economic goals, like poverty and starvation. Those metrics of income inequality tell an accurate story of the depth of our economic malaise that new-home sales can't. One-fifth of Americans, or 47 million people, are on food stamps; 50% of children born to single mothers live in poverty; and over 13 million people are out of work. Children are now not likely to do as well as their parents did as downward mobility takes hold for the first time in generations.
The bottom line, which Pope Francis correctly identifies, is that inequality is the biggest economic issue of our time – for everyone, not just the poor. Nearly any major economic metric – unemployment, growth, consumer confidence – comes down to the fact that the vast majority of Americans are struggling in some way. You don't have to begrudge the rich their fortunes or ask for redistribution. It's just hard to justify ignoring the financial problems of 47 million people who don't have enough to eat. Until they have enough money to fill their pantries, we won't have a widespread economic recovery. You can't have a recovery if one-sixth of the world's economically leading country is eating on $1.50 a day.
It's only surprising that it took so long for anyone – in this case, Pope Francis – to become the first globally prominent figure to figure this out and bring attention to income inequality.
Income inequality is the issue that will govern whether we ever emerge from the struggling economy recovery and it determine elections in 2014. The support for Elizabeth Warren to rise above her seat in the US Senate, for instance, largely centers on her crusade against inequality. The White House's chirpy protestations that the economy is improving are not fooling anyone.
Into this morass of economic confusion steps Francis with clarifying force:
Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.
It's a historic and bold statement, mainly because it's rarely heard from clergy. Money has always been at odds with religion, going back to the times when God had a fighting chance against Mammon. Moses grew enraged by the golden calf, Jesus by moneychangers in the temple, Muhammad by lending money at interest, or usury. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven, the Bible tells us.
There have been criticisms from prominent men of religion before, but they didn't stick. In 2008, the Archbishop of Canterbury endorsed Marx against the forces of "unbridled capitalism", and the Archbishop of York disdained traders as "bank robbers and asset strippers", but those cries went unheeded in the subsequent flood of corporate profits.
At the time, those criticisms seemed extreme, throwing pitchforks into frozen ground. Francis is speaking at a when the ground has been thawed. Outrage against the financial sector is lurking so close to the surface that the US government can extract a $13bn fine from the nation's largest bank, throwing it into its first financial loss in nine years, and find significant approval.
Still, popes have been largely content to leave these particular issues of economic inequality behind in favor of focusing on social issues. There was, after all, a problem of throwing stones. The church's rich trappings and vast wealth, as well as its scandal-plagued Vatican bank, made an ill fit to preach too loudly about austerity.
Pope Francis, in his simple black shoes and unassuming car and house, is the first pontiff in a long time to reject flashy shows of power and live by the principle of simplicity. That makes him uniquely qualified to make the Vatican an outpost of Occupy Wall Street. His message about spiritual salvation applies mainly to Catholics but it would be sensible for economists and lawmakers to recognize his core message about the importance of income inequality applies to those even those who have no belief in religion.
Capitalism has always seen itself as an amoral pursuit, where the guiding stars were not "good" or "bad", but only "profit" and "loss". It's going to be harder to sustain that belief over the next few years.
By David Sirota On November 26, 2013The national conservative movement is waging a war… in SeaTac. That’s a weird sentence. Out of all the places to wage a political fight, why would conservatives and the infamous Koch Brothers choose a Pacific…
Slate thinks readers aren't interested in unfamiliar stories that will burden them, but journalism's about discovery
This article will take you 3 minutes 45 seconds to read. (2 minutes 30 seconds celsius.) You will expend 60 calories and learn two new vocabulary words, including a synonym for "rebellious". Approximately 30m of your cells will die. Enjoy!
Those helpful journometrics are brought to you by – or at least suggested by – the folks at slate.com, which has taken to including time estimates for consumption of its pieces. On Slate's right rail recently were these items:
•What Would Happen if Ocean Water Was replaced With Deuterium Oxide? 6M TO READ
•How Do Female Republican Strategists Plan to Reach Women Voters? We Asked Them. 8M TO READ •It's Time to Bring Back the Guillotine. 4M TO READ
•How Being in Grad School is Like Being in a Frat. 4M TO READ
The idea is to give a reader, before undertaking the effort and risk of clicking on a story, some notion of the burden he or she will have to endure. It's like those disclaimers on the pharma commercials. If you want relief from depression's pain, ask your doctor about Cymbalta, but be advised that your liver will probably explode. You wish to learn about the GOP's "women strategy"? Fine, but prepare for the chrono-consequences.
Now, obviously, not every story clocks in at a ponderous eight minutes. Every now and then, when the executive-summary gods are with you, the right rail is a "reduced for quick sale" bin. Last Wednesday night was one such cornucopia of conciseness. Look at all these fantastic stories costing you only one minute each:
•Norway's Army Goes Vegetarian to Combat Climate Change. 1M TO READ
•Lance Armstrong Settles $3M Lawsuit, Avoids Testifying Under Oath About Doping. 1M TO READ
•Newt Gingrich Knows How to Fix Obamacare. 1M TO READ
•The Death of Winamp Says a Lot About the Tech World's Vicious Utilitarianism. 1M TO READ
God, I feel like such a sucker. I'd already read the Associated Press version of the Lance Armstrong story, where I spent, like, 3 minutes. I wonder if the AP offers something like Best Buy … a time-matching guaranty. If I take the Slate item to the AP customer service desk, shouldn't I get a 2 minute refund? Just sayin', is all.
Slate's understanding and support of reader needs is not limited to the husbanding of the world's strategic minute stockpile. Exploiting Big Data in exactly the way you'd expect from a high-toned news-and-culture publication, it is also employing algorithms to offer some content based on the individual's own demonstrated consumption patterns. Why, thank you!
The reason I stopped reading the New York Times is that it persists in printing stories whose subjects I have not previously familiarized myself with. I'd be turning to page A8 and suddenly see an article about Myanmar or coulrophobia or North Carolina voter suppression, and I'm all "Whoa there! Since when have I ever shown any interest in Myanmar? Why would I want to be confronted with that?" The tech geniuses at Slate, by contrast, can fill me to bursting with what I'm already interested in.
I mean, come on, you presumptuous MSM editors, I don't consume media for "discovery" or "scope". The last thing I need is your intellectual breadth or judgment. I consume media to stay in my comfort zone and validate my worldview on everything I already know, duh.
Now there are those who stubbornly cling to the idea that mankind is not best served by merely getting what we want. Leo Tolstoy, for instance, wrote:
He soon felt that the fulfillment of his desires gave him only one grain of the mountain of happiness he had expected. This fulfillment showed him the eternal error men make in imagining that their happiness depends on the realization of their desires.
That's from Anna Karenina (21.5 MONTHS TO READ).
No disrespect to Tolstoy, but I think if he had to wade through truth and reconciliation in Burma, he'd be singing a different tune.
As a matter of full disclosure, I should admit that I am on Slate's payroll as co-host of the sprightly language podcast Lexicon Valley. In a way, Slate's sensitivity to consumers was foreshadowed with our own show! A year ago – prompted by people who didn't want to squander valuable time listening to a radio program – Slate began providing text transcriptions of the audio.
My first instinct was to be a bit contumacious, but now I see that this was an excellent adaptation to market demand. Personally, I think Pandora should offer the same service.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2013
As Doctor Who celebrates its 50th, it's time to study the numbers and settle this once and for all. Well, maybe
For the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who, I thought I'd take a look at which doctors were associated with the highest rated episodes, and which season has been rated the most highly by viewers.
Since people have already ranked all the episodes by actual viewing figures and polled people for their favourite doctor, I tried something different. Using IMDb, I compiled a list of every episode (excluding telemovies and prequels), along with user ratings, which doctor appeared in it, and the director. I wanted to include writers as well, but this was difficult due to the way writers are credited on IMDb.
I then grouped the episodes by doctor, season, and director to get the mean user rating of each. As the old series has far fewer user ratings overall per episode (the mean is 76 reviews per episode, compared with 1,659 for the new series), I've separated the two from direct comparison. Because of the higher number of ratings, the figures for the newer series are probably more reliable.
For the old series, the doctor appearing in the highest-rated episodes was the fourth: Tom Baker.
The new series was topped by Matt Smith, the newest Doctor.
As for seasons, in the newest series, season four, starring David Tennant, had the highest mean rating. Season 13 was the highest in the older series, with Tom Baker.
Here are the top 10 for user ratings grouped by directors:
This table is, unfortunately, vulnerable to skewing by low numbers – a director who has directed a single, well-received show is more likely to be placed higher than someone who has directed more.
David Maloney stands out in the older series, having directed the second-highest number of episodes and yet maintaining the highest average rating.
Hettie Macdonald's top position was due to directing the highest-rated episode overall: Blink, which introduced the memorable new Doctor Who enemy the Weeping Angels.
Here are the top episodes by mean rating:
Please keep in mind this is based only on the sample of IMDb users, and in the case of the older series the average number of ratings is rather low, so it should all be taken with a grain of salt. It's still a bit of fun. Who do you think was the best Doctor? Which are your favourite episodes?
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2013
Men already dominate political and corporate hierachies, but feminism, currently healthier than ever, is doing solid work to support fathers who choose to stay at home with their children.
Do men face discrimination? I don't mean gay men or black men or poor, uneducated men or even short men. Or, come to think of it, the many judged "typical boys" every day, but just men? All men.
In a world wherethe male sex make up just under half of the global population but 83% of all those in power, I would say, probably not. Indeed, in a world where not all countries guarantee women's equal property rights and 70% of the population living in absolute poverty are female, I'd go so far as to say the suggestion that men face discrimination as a sex is a bit ludicrous.
Which should mean that today's International Men's Day, partly designed to end discrimination, is a bit of a joke, a campaign from people whose response to any statistic about women being physically abused or dominated or belitted is to say, "but what about the menz?"
Yet I'm all for International Men's Day. As a supporter of the idea that men and women should be treated equally, why shouldn't men have their own day to match the one set aside to promote women and their causes in March? And there are really important issues when it comes to men's rights. I'd just like to know what causes this day is actually for.
There doesn't seem to be much of a global consensus. In Australia they give red roses because they are symbol of strength of character and courage. Elsewhere, they focus on battlefield prowess or men's health, although in China, apparently, they add fashion to the mix.
International Women's Day took off in the early part of the last century as women in Europe and the US campaigned for the right to vote. According to Wikipedia it seems that IMD was "inaugurated" in 1999 in Trinidad and Tobago by a Dr Jerome Teelucksingh, from the Families in Action headquarters, who chose 19 November mainly because it was his father's birthday, saying: "Some have said that there is Father's Day, but what about young boys, teenagers and men who are not fathers?" The day is now celebrated in 60 countries.
The idea for a day to celebrate men's achievement first emerged in the late 60s when the so-called second wave of feminists dared to ask for more than the right to vote and a group that became the men's rights movement was telling them they'd never had it so good. It is perhaps unsurprising that a renewed interest in a day of action for men comes as feminism itself enjoys a resurgence.
In the past year a website has been set up explaining what an international men's day should do in the UK. The campaign's objectives include promoting male role models, celebrating the contribution that men make, highlighting discrimination against men and the inequalities that men and boys face and thus improving gender relations and gender equality.
When these objectives are set against political power, they make no sense. Men at the top of politics, business and the media are male role models, whatever you think of them individually.
So the argument must be when it comes to the sphere typically known as "domestic" and indeed organisations that fight for men's rights as fathers are among the site's supporters. The last of this year's five challenges to "keep men and boys safe" is to promote fathers and male role models.
There is inequality when it comes to parenting in the UK and much of the developed world. Reams of research suggest that women still do the lion's share of household duties even as more and more of them carry out paid work. So entrenched is the idea that women look after children that only recently has shared parental leave become law in the UK. Women still take the vast majority of this leave as maternity leave.
This dominance can mean a belittling of men at home and an uneasiness, often unverbalised, about their presence in the playground, for example. This same attitude starts with boys, who quickly learn that it's never OK to cry and nurturing is a bit "girly". I'm all for changing attitudes like this but there's already a movement that supports dads in the playground and in the kitchen. That movement is called feminism.
Over the past few years I've been asked, "Why do we need an International Women's Day?" so many times that I fear my answer has become a bit pat. "Because it's men's day every other day of the year," is my standard reply.
Yet renewed interest in International Men's Day has made me think of the many things that could change to make men and women more equal in all spheres of our daily lives. This doesn't belittle the deep injustice many women suffer around the world or the casual everyday sexism that defeats them at every hurdle. If anything, pointing out the discrimination against men simply underlines how much worse it is for women.
Happy International Men's Day.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media 2013
Copyright © 2025 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.
