Paul Krugman: Helping the Poor, the British Way

Paul Krugman looks at how much progress we've made in the war on poverty in recent decades and finds it's not nearly enough:

Helping the Poor, the British Way, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: It’s the season for charitable giving. And far too many Americans, particularly children, need that charity. ...

[F]our decades after L.B.J. declared war on poverty ..., I’m not sure whether people understand how little progress we’ve made. In 1969, fewer than one in every seven American children lived below the poverty line. Last year, although the country was far wealthier, more than one in every six American children were poor.

And there’s no excuse for our lack of progress. Just look at what the British government has accomplished over the last decade.

Although Tony Blair has been President Bush’s obedient manservant when it comes to Iraq, Mr. Blair’s domestic policies are nothing like Mr. Bush’s. Where Mr. Bush has sought to privatize the social safety net, Mr. Blair’s Labor government has defended and strengthened it. Where Mr. Bush and his allies accuse anyone who mentions income distribution of “class warfare,” the Blair government has made a major effort to reverse the surge in inequality and poverty that took place during the Thatcher years.

And Britain’s poverty rate, if measured American-style ... has been cut in half since Labor came to power in 1997.

Britain’s war on poverty has been led by Gordon Brown, ... Mr. Blair’s heir apparent. There’s nothing exotic about his policies, many of which are inspired by American models. But in Britain, these policies are carried out with much more determination.

For example, Britain didn’t have a minimum wage until 1999 — but ... Britain’s minimum wage rate is now about twice as high as ours. Britain’s child benefit is more generous than America’s child tax credit, and it’s available to everyone... Britain’s tax credit for low-wage workers is similar to the U.S. earned-income tax credit, but substantially larger. And don’t forget ... Britain’s universal health care system...

The Blair government hasn’t achieved all its domestic goals. ... But there’s no denying that the Blair government has done a lot for Britain’s have-nots. ... Providing a strong social safety net requires a higher overall rate of taxation than Americans are accustomed to, but Britain’s tax burden hasn’t undermined the economy’s growth.

What are the lessons...?

First, government truly can be a force for good. Decades of propaganda have conditioned many Americans to assume that government is always incompetent... But the Blair years have shown that a government that seriously tries to reduce poverty can achieve a lot.

Second, it really helps to have politicians who are serious about governing, rather than devoting themselves entirely to amassing power and rewarding cronies.

While researching this article, I was startled by the sheer rationality of British policy discussion, as compared with the cynical posturing that passes for policy discourse in George Bush’s America. Instead of making grandiose promises that are quickly forgotten — like Mr. Bush’s promise of “bold action” to confront poverty after Hurricane Katrina — British Labor politicians propose specific policies with well-defined goals. And when actual results fall short of those goals, they face the facts rather than trying to suppress them and sliming the critics.

The moral of my Christmas story is that fighting poverty isn’t easy, but it can be done. Giving in to cynicism and accepting the persistence of widespread poverty even as the rich get ever richer is a choice that our politicians have made. And we should be ashamed of that choice.

_________________________
Previous (12/22) column: Paul Krugman: Democrats and the Deficit
Next (12/29) column: Paul Krugman: A Failed Revolution

Update: [Repeated from this post.] Paul Krugman emails a follow-up to the discussion on poverty and inequality in his recent column, and in the discussion in the post below this one. Here are links to the analyses for the UK:

You might also want to provide the sources for poverty and inequality analyses. ...[H]ere they are:

Poverty analysis:

New policy institute: http://www.npi.org.uk/reports/mpse%202006.pdf

Inequality:

Institute for fiscal studies: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.php?publication_id=3575

The reason Britain's an interesting case is that there has been a real shift in policy, from Thatcherism to an attempt to revive the welfare state after a period of conservative ideological dominance. Continental Europe is less of a useful model because it never had a Thatcher and never had a surge in inequality.

Comments

[Bruce Wilder]

"And we should be ashamed of that choice."

A whole lot of people should be ashamed, but aren't.

[Bruce Webb]

Big Government CAN work. Doesn't always, when it does doesn't always do optimally, but we need to drive the stake through the heart of the Big Lie that claims that unregulated markets are always superior to governmental or even social solutions.

This is why the Social Security debate is so important. It is not that retirement security should be privileged to the well-being of children, because it shouldn't. Relative to poor children middle class Social Security recipients are getting a pretty sweet deal. But the Economic Right freely chose to make this program the battleground, the signature issue. They very much need Social Security to be a failure because that validates every effort they make to block other social/government solutions.

The path to Single Payer, the path to fully funded Head Start, starts at the heart of the New Deal and that is Social Security. Wielded properly Social Security combines FDRs vision and Cousin Teddy's Big Stick to whale the crap out of the neo-McKinleyites that now rule our political discourse. Want to make Grover Norquist cry? Want to turn Karl Rove's emotional dial from poor to bleak? Well then make them acknowledge that under ordinary econmic growth the crown jewel of the New Deal is if anything overfunded going forward.

Progressives have been cowering so long, playing defense so long on this one, that the possibilities for standing up and smacking the Economic Right around the head and shoulders with a Social Security Stick never even enters their imagination. 'Victory' on Social Security has been defined down to 'Hands Off'. Well that is not good enough. I fully intend to ratchet that up to "Take THIS! you ..."

If I had to list the four fundamental differences between Karl Rove's Golden Age of the McKinley Administraton and ours it would be Trust Busting, Food Safety (The Jungle), Progressive Income Tax, and Social Security. The stated intent of the Economic Right is to roll back all four. Each in its own way is at the heart of the Progressive agenda.

Well it is not easy to make the FDA or the SEC or the IRS into potent political weapons, but just let you see what I can do with my Mom's retirement check.

I am not an economist, but I can read a spreadsheet. And then roll it up into a club to beat some Cato dudes senseless. Social Security is not just a program to be defended, it is the keystone of a whole vision that we are in this life together, that "every man for himself" is not the proper way to organize society.

Want to address child poverty on a society wide basis? Well then study Table V.B1 and examine Figure II.D7 and then Unleash Your Inner FDR.

[evagrius]

It's all those immigrant's fault. That's why there's so much child poverty in the U.S. All those immigrants that have been let in.

I'll bet that someone has already responded to Krugman in this fashion.

Never mind that Britain also has a large immigrant population.

The Blair government's policies are not that radical. In fact they follow the most general advice given by advocates who want to reduce child poverty.

Reducing child poverty is the best way to reduce adult poverty. It shouldn't take Nobel prize-winning to have that insight be recognized as a basic social truth.

[Ninjaplease]

"Reducing child poverty is the best way to reduce adult poverty. It shouldn't take Nobel prize-winning to have that insight be recognized as a basic social truth."

All that's needed is for these children to go and pay for a college education so that they can take part in the new "Information Economy," and "Learn to be more competitive."

"ut we need to drive the stake through the heart of the Big Lie that claims that unregulated markets are always superior to governmental or even social solutions."

Yes and pretty soon you'll be telling us that "Free Trade" in its current implementation are a "Bad Thing" "In the long run."

[Ninjaplease]

Using the British as an example of eliminating child poverty is interesting... Perhaps we should do what they did to the Irish during the potato famine. Free Trade and immigration, or rather, emigration clearly solved that poverty problem. That ought to be our goal--just look at the "Economic Miracle" that occurred there.

[Noni Mausa]

The interesting question might be "qui bono"? The Neo-Cons and Bush are not stupid, they have gotten quite a lot of what they wanted over the past many years, so I have to assume that they want a fairly deep layer of poor people in the richest country in the world, and have taken steps to ensure they have it. What good are poor people?

I don't know enough economics to be able to calculate the proportions, but some possibilities present themselves:

-- a cautionary example, "Behave, or you might end up poor"
-- a large mass of consumers who can be induced to buy, but don't have the leverage to protest shoddy merchandise or the experience to judge the difference. This goes for payday loan companies etc.
-- a large mass of persons to whom a life in the US military seems like a posh choice
-- a large mass of voters who can be led -- where?
-- a sea-anchor on democracy

Or perhaps widespread poverty is simply the natural outcome of a cutthroat society. Instead of trickle-down we have slop-over -- the inevitable loss of water from an over-full bucket, which would be prevented if they could.

Noni

[ken melvin]

"British Labor politicians propose specific policies with well-defined goals. And when actual results fall short of those goals, they face the facts rather than trying to suppress them and sliming the critics."

This is exactly what the young lady from Finland told me when I asked what difference Finns and Americans. America's biggest problem is the ideologues who desperately want things to be as they think they should be. Out of touch with reality, this lot seems particularly fond of failed policies from previous centuries; attributing success thereto and damning any and all other policies responsible for rectifying an ill. Strange lot these of a strange mindset. Not surprisingly, they oft quote the old testament. 'Tis they who drug CA down and now the nation.

[Noni Mausa]

Also, Ninjaplease commented, sardonically I believe:

"All that's needed is for these children to go and pay for a college education so that they can take part in the new "Information Economy," and "Learn to be more competitive."

I have a question- is anyone researching, or is there a science of the proportions of different sorts of people in a healthy society? By this I mean age groups, numbers engaged in childrearing, numbers "standing idle", young men versus grandmothers, and so on?

Of course there is, I suppose it is called demographics, they measure different proportions. But does anyone study in depth the effects of different proportions?

The ideal consumerist society would not be a society, any more than polished baby carrots in a sack at the supermarket are carrots in the garden, with dirt and roots and fronds and flowers.

A society of computer geeks is not possible, (but would be a boon to the pizza industry). Nor is a society of millionaires or suburb-dwellers. A complete society, like a complete carrot, must have all elements present, or it must import them or their effects. If not, there will be (I surmise) disasterous outcomes in one direction or another.

I read that a society which is very high in young men (14 to 25 or thereabouts) is almost guaranteed to be a violent society. A hollowed-out society of the very old and very young (as in AIDS stricken Africa) is desperate and vulnerable. Other proportional archetypes, like the huge numbers of mostly young families which gave birth to the Boomers, result in specific societal outcomes which are or ought to be predictable.

So, in North America, where are we and where ought we to be? What are we missing, what are we disregarding, and how can the lacks be remedied?

Comments?

Noni

[Bruce Webb]

ninja, if that was intended to be satire you need to sharpen your edge

If it is not satire then I would have to ask what sense it makes to critique New Labor's policies for poor children with Pitt the Elder's Irish policy from two hundred plus years ago.

I mean there are idiots out there that insist that the United States has no real committment to equal rights because Jefferson owned slaves. But history is not an accordian that you can squish at will.

"Yes and pretty soon you'll be telling us that "Free Trade" in its current implementation are a "Bad Thing" "In the long run." "

As long as we have sugar quotas and selective tariffs on steel and lumber we don't have "free trade". Instead we have a series of agreements designed to benefit particular industries and individuals. That as a side benefit I end up with a 7 mega-pixel camera for $150 (with free 1 GIG SD card) and a really cool 32" LCD monitor for $1100 (now probably $850 and $750 after the holidays) both from Samsung is pretty cool but I don't delude myself that the people who negotiated those deals were thinking "You know, Bruce's new job requires a digital camera. By Gum lets go out and get him one for cheap!!"

No Free Trade is not a "bad thing in the long run". But people that insist that it is an unalloyed joy in the short run need a little talk with a guy I call S-T-R.

[Emmanuel]

I like Krugman, but he exaggerates the extent to which England has made progress on poverty and inequality. After all, England still tops Western Europe in the inequality tables.

I'd also want to debate the effectiveness of New Labour anti-poverty efforts, especially among non-white migrants. By American prince-and-pauper standards, the British example may be somewhat better, but hardly something to emulate. There are far better examples.

[calmo]

No Free Trade is not a "bad thing in the long run". But people that insist that it is an unalloyed joy in the short run need a little talk with a guy I call S-T-R. You mean Rusty? The Whip?

Unalloyed joy to read you on Christmas day Mr Webb.
Pure. Short or long run.
Run, walk or skip...

Are you dragging me in here because no one likes to leave little commas out? [Just practicin] Are you counting on your dear readers (that would be me) to be familiar with the larger context that one gains from having read you for years?
Ok, gotta go bestow some more good will on no ones in particular.

[calmo]

There's Mr Dang his self. Merry Xmas to you Emmanuel and thankyou for extending the English language here. [Ok, maybe just mine so far, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we all start really talkin, you know?] (Dang it all. People are too fussy about sounding proper. Nothing sends an honest sentiment down the toilet faster than trying to make it sound right, you know? Dang it, just say it!)
Blurt the sonofabitchout forchrisake.
Dang, but I'm learnin this.

[Emmanuel]

Thanks Calmo, season's greetings to you too.

[anne]

"The moral of my Christmas story is that fighting poverty isn’t easy, but it can be done. Giving in to cynicism and accepting the persistence of widespread poverty even as the rich get ever richer is a choice that our politicians have made. And we should be ashamed of that choice."

Yes; that is the moral of the Christmas story we were told Christmas eve as well. Now, think not just to the cynicism of efforts against povert here but the harmful cynicism that I have pointed to from those who have suddenly gained respectful attention for telling us that assistance against poverty in Africa is a fool's assistance.

[anne]

What is remarkable is to notice that the 1960s and the struggle for civil right and against poverty was a wonderful success. Remember that Martin Luther King found no distinction between the struggle for civil rights and against poverty, and King was killed in Memphis marching for striking sanitation workers. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson responded to King and Michael Harrington against poverty and strides were made in markedly reducing poverty through the 1960s. But, such gains do not come easily and if the gains are subject to cynical criticism the losses are made to seem shameful.

We come then to an arch conservative time, when there is much need and the need is openly mocked from painstaking efforts against dire conditions in Africa to simply trying for a livable minimum wage in America. Think what can be done simply between a livable minimum wage, subsidy for health insurance, dramatic tuition assistance in public colleges, infrastructure development from education to environment protection designed to increase employment.

[Cassandra]

Spot on, Emmanuel.

One must go to the continent - old Europe and the North - to find the really enlightened wholly non-partisan approaches. Britain remains feudal by comparison in respect of almost all social policy from education, public transport to healthcare. The Brits don't seem worse off because they are inherently more stoic than their counterparts across the channel. They also benefit the trickle down resulting from laundering capital flight, and tax arbitrage at the expense of their neighbors.

[slink]

child poverty rates ???

the apple pie cause

perhaps
whitey nation has awaken from
its a long mid day domestic
ron ron slumber

after new orleans
maybe a majority at the polls can turn back toward uncle activism
and away from
" we just threw money at poverty
and poverty won antway..."

" it was a war as unwinable as nam "

well great
sweden on the mississippi

but folks
war on poverty II
can be lost
can be licked
and by its advocates

if their own narrow minded ignorant
frugal nanny vs nurture nanny
grapple ends in this summation :

"we can't afford this war
anymore then the eye raq war "

beware the steel grip
of
fed deficit phobia

[ken melvin]

The British are still recovering from Thatcher.

[slink]

i'm a nasty
"'ebrew jew " guy
as falstaff sez

but happy xmas to u all

fellow
two footed forward thinkin critters

[Bupa]

Like Emmanuel, I was a bit surprised to see Krugman citing the UK as an example that the US should follow for poverty reduction policies.

I usually think of Scandinavian countries as the model to follow on most social welfare issues.

As Emmanuel’s link shows the Scaniavian countries (and some of the new EU member’s from Central Europe) have the lowest Gini coefficients.

But, I’m so much happier with Paul’s article today than his article of Friday that I feel the need to rush to his defence.

First, Paul doesn’t claim that the UK has less inequality than other countries in Europe, nor that it has “fixed” the problem. He says that for the duration of the Blair administration they have begun to tackle the problem. Emmanuel’s link takes us to data for one year, 2003. It would be interesting to see how the Gini coefficient has evolved in the UK from the mid-1990s to 2006. Paul is a relentless fact checker. If he says it has fallen, I’m not going to doubt him just because in 2003 it stood at 36.8, it must have been higher 10 years ago and it might be lower by now.

Second, Paul is writing for the NYTimes to an American audience. It is one thing for readers of Mark’s blog to look to Sweden as a better example than the UK, but the UK is likely to resonate much more with the average reader of the NYTimes and the average voter in America.

Also, the UK is the country in Europe that most resembles the US in terms of the structure of its political economy (generations of policies leaning more towards free market than social welfare) and the complexity of its demographic structure (high percent of first and second generation immigrants). So, while many of us would prefer to follow a Scandinavian model than a British one, the latter is a hell of a lot better than the current American model and it was designed to fit an economy the resembles the American economy.

But, Paul’s closing remark on the rationality of policy discussion is perhaps the most pertinent point. The US is not likely to move to a British or a Scandinavian model. But if America starts to be led by rational folks, perhaps there is some hope of exanding America’s meagre social welfare system and reducing poverty.

Happy holidays,

[anne]

Slink, though almost always right, is actually not quite right here, because there is no "after" to New Orleans which surprises me continually. What we have not done in building and building lives along the Gulf Coast should be surprising and saddening to us all. Bob Herbert has been writing of New Orleans and showing just how far we have come even from Teddy Roosevelt's dedication to San Francisco after the earthquake, let alone to Franklin Roosevelt's sense of what government can and should do.

Paul Krugman is precisly right to show the sort of efforts we need to be about in America, and New Orleans should continually dramatically remind us of a need for a New Deal.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/opinion/14herbert.html

December 14, 2006

Sunrise and Sunset
By BOB HERBERT

Baton Rouge, La.

They look for all the world like internment camps. The long rows of identical white trailers sit on flat, grim, barren expanses of land that are enclosed by metal fences. Armed guards are stationed at the entrances around the clock.

More than a year after the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina, thousands of the poorest victims from New Orleans are still living in these trailer parks run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. They have ironic names, like Mount Olive Gardens and Renaissance Village. A more accurate name would be Camp Depression, after the state of mind of most of the residents.

The "parks" are nothing more than vast, dusty, gravel-strewn lots filled with trailers that were designed to be hitched to cars for brief vacations or weekend getaways. The trailers, about 200 square feet each, were never meant to serve as homes for entire families. But in these FEMA parks, it's common for families of five or six, or even more, to be jammed into one trailer.

I stood outside a trailer at the Mount Olive encampment on Monday afternoon, talking with Geraldine Craig and her 21-year-old daughter, Danielle Craig. The women, who have been unable to find jobs, seemed baffled and depleted by their long ordeal. As we talked, Danielle's 2-year-old son, Javonta, scampered around in the dust and gravel.

Danielle's daughter, Miracle, was 5 months old when Katrina struck. The baby was ill and receiving oxygen when it became clear that the family had to evacuate. "The doctors were taking care of her and she couldn't hardly breathe," Danielle said. "After we left we ended up in a shelter, and I said that my baby needed oxygen but they told us we had to wait.

"They finally sent us to a medical building and they put her on oxygen for about two hours, but the doctor said there was nothing wrong with her."

Like so many thousands of others left destitute and all but despondent by Katrina, the family moved on — to Texas, back to Louisiana, eventually to Baton Rouge. It was too much for Miracle, who never got the proper medical treatment. She died last March. Her heart disease wasn't accurately diagnosed until an autopsy was performed.

"I felt like it was my fault," said Danielle. "I'm still depressed."

When I asked if she'd been treated for depression, she shook her head....

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=7041&exhibition=7&ee_lang=eng&u=77725,4

Red-headed Woodpecker in Flight
New York City--Riverside Park.

Quite an unusual holiday woodpecker.

[maria]

One has, I think, to realize that the US system has evolved into a less democratic affair than is the case in the UK. Voters rule in the UK for the most part while money rules in the USA for the most part. When it is so easy to buy Congress in various ways, the poor who have only a vote (and sometimes not that), don't have much chance to be heard or attended to. How to correct it I cannot say. But first Americans need to face the reality that they do not live in a "democracy", except in name only, and stop believing all the feel good propaganda. After all, to be exact, we are a Republic, not a democracy, anyway.

[john c. halasz]

Umm, maria, just what percentage of the vote did Blair/Labor receive the last time out?

[bakho]

Helping the poor, the Bush way:

Katrina fraud likely to balloon past $1B

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The tally for Hurricane Katrina waste could top $2 billion next year because half of the lucrative government contracts valued at $500,000 or greater for cleanup work are being awarded without little competition.

[maria]

Emmanuel, well the UK has the highest Gini in Europe if you regard Estonia as not being a part of Europe. And at 36.8 compared to the 45 of the USA, I would say the Brits have much to be happy about in the inequality field. Thatcher brought about a rise in UK inequality, which is what she wanted, but even at the end of her "reign" it was lower than it is now. It went up more in the time Major ran things.

[maria]

If you are going to have a government that cares about the poor, you need an intellectual elite that cares about the poor. This used to be the mainly Jewish leaders of social thought in the US; they carried the banner of liberalism and were influential enough to steer the USA in a liberal direction. But when so many of that elite became Neocons and shifted their aims toward militarism and imperialism and the defense of Israel, liberalism in the US was left to die on the vine; today to be called a liberal is regarded as an insult in many quarters. Tony Judt has made all this clear in a number of important articles. Here is one:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n18/judt01_.html

[evagrius]

maria;

Are you "talking" about those "cosmopolitans"? :)

I think it's quite wise of Krugman to point to the U.K. as an example of how a government can tackle child poverty.

First, they speak English. None of those foreigners for Americans.

Second, England's an ally in Iraq.

Third, the U.K. has a strong "free market" credo.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Creating a permenant poverty class just about the poverty level may cure "poverty" but certainly does nothing for inequality.

[DRR]

"If you are going to have a government that cares about the poor, you need an intellectual elite that cares about the poor. This used to be the mainly Jewish leaders of social thought in the US; they carried the banner of liberalism and were influential enough to steer the USA in a liberal direction. But when so many of that elite became Neocons and shifted their aims toward militarism and imperialism and the defense of Israel, liberalism in the US was left to die on the vine;"

87% of Jews voted for the Democrats in the last election. About 75% voted for the Dems in 2004, a year of significant pickup by the GOP. Not that a defense need be mustered seeing as how your critique has a bit of a reactionary whiff to it, but the idea that Jews, even (and especially) elite Jews, are now Neocon-ish imperialists is false. Such infamous characters have never been more than a fraction of even elite Jewish opinion; which on the whole, is in indeed less militaristic & imperialistic than their white non-jewish counterparts.

[anne]

DRR:

"87% of Jews voted for the Democrats in the last election. About 75% voted for the Dems in 2004, a year of significant pickup by the GOP."

About the same for African American voters.

[Winslow R.]

Our society seems to have a difficult time providing any form of assistance to those over 18 as the damage has been 'done' at an early age.

I recently spent time teaching in an inner city high school and was profoundly frustrated watching as extra money and resources poured into this low performing school provided few visible results. The 'permanence' of poverty, while not universal, was all too widespread.

".....current research includes a 15-year longitudinal study of language and literacy skills among low-income children...

.....By the time middle-class kids with well-educated parents are in the third grade, they probably know 12,000 words. But we don’t have a curriculum in kindergarten for teaching vocabulary, and we don’t have a curriculum in preschool for teaching vocabulary. It’s just something we assume kids are going to do on their own. Meanwhile, kids of undereducated parents who don’t talk to them very much probably have vocabularies of 4,000 words by the time they’re in third grade—a third as many words as their middle-class peers

.....the way that Sweden organizes early childhood education. It gives priority for the free, very high-quality early childhood settings to the people that they define as most at risk: single-parent families, non-Swedish-speaking families, immigrant families, families living below the poverty line. We do just the opposite. Half of those at-risk kids in this country are in the care of relatives or informal family day care—settings where there isn’t a professional educator present, let alone books and curricula."

http://www.edletter.org/current/snow.shtml

Progressive California recently voted down universal daycare.

[anne]

Winslow:

".....the way that Sweden organizes early childhood education. It gives priority for the free, very high-quality early childhood settings to the people that they define as most at risk: single-parent families, non-Swedish-speaking families, immigrant families, families living below the poverty line."

Thank you for the reminder, which is why I include increasing spending on HeadStart as building essential infrastructure.

[maria]

DDR: I think you are quite wrong. You confuse the bulk of Jews with Jewish opinion leaders. Most of the political commentary magazines run by Jews are now Neocon for sure. Where is "elite" Jewish opinion on politics except in these magazines? Tony Judt knows what he is talking about; I don't think you do. As far as voting Democrat, most ordinary Jews don't write for magazines or staff think-tanks and do not influence public opinion and yes, the majority vote Democratic. But that does not prevent them from being pro-war and pro-Zionist; you might recall that most Democrats in Congress voted for the war. I had an email exchange with Judt on the matter and he agreed with my assessment why Jewish liberalism has faded so markedly in recent times: that it was due to the shift of influential Jewish punditry to Neoconism. I would hardly call Kristol, Podhoretz, Decter, etc., etc., etc. infamous characters who represent only "a fraction of" influential Jewish opinion; they are a fraction of Jews, but not of influential Jewish opinion-makers. I fail to see that my commentary is "reactionary" or "non-reactionary". It is simply a presentation of the arguments that Judt has already made.

[anne]

Phooey to such nonsense.

[Emmanuel]

Maria, I said Western Europe. Even on my namesake's birthday, I do not post while under the influence of eggnog ;-)

[Cassandra]

RE: Maria v. DRR
Maria hit the bulls-eye regarding this tangential discussion. Even in the realm finance, it appears new-wealthy opinion-leading Jews have rejected the ideological & philosophic roots of the their [mostly left-wing 1st gen] grandparents, disposed of the strongly idealistic, civic and socially-minded democratic ideals of their parents, in favour of more individualistic and Randian social philosophies, and most certainly more aggressive positions on security and Israel, that seemingly come right off Likud platforms.

Recently deceased [Leon] Levy, and Soros are perhaps the last of a generation of wealthy (Jewish) benefactors with deeply social (politically speaking) agendas. Today, one sees Bruce Kovner (Caxton) as the neo-con & AEI sugardaddy, Gilder as the chief patron & light of the strongly right "Manhattan Institute", Paul Singer (Elliot Assoc) shaking down 3rd world countries over their debt, Michael Steinhardt now strongly zionist. Many other Jewish hedgies who made a pile have a seemingly self-righteous streak (if judged by politics) ascribing their success to their Randian vision, hard work and individual cleverness, as opposed to the good fortune of the USA accepting their grandparents, their parents own sacrifices for their ivy education, US Govt student aid, Pell Grants, Federal Studenbt loans that paid for the Wharton MBA etc. And even Goldman and Lehman, the refuge for Jews on Wall Street, exlcuded from White shoe banking JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley & other WASP Inv Banking "clubs", historically skewed donations to Dems and liberals, but now have been fully co-opted and at best split campaign contribs 50/50 or even lean to the Repubs.

Jews remain wonderfully "charitable" but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability - art, hospitals, education etc. - and little seemingly supports the kind of progressive (god-forbid subversive!) politics that such Jewish philanthropic financial fortunes historically supported.

DRR fears and mistakes the highlighting of this evolution as 'anti-semitism', when it is only lamenting the loss of the overt progressive activism of the previous generation, seeing it replaced with -at best - antisceptic non-controversdial & non-denominational values
and at worst, supporting maintstream policies that perpetuate individual privilege at the expense of society as a whole, or in the case of AIPAC & neo-con rags highlighted by Maria, narrow interest-group objectives at the expense of more balanced, wise and just, American foreign policy.

[evagrius]

How many go to "temple" regularly and observe?

I have a hard time seeing how a "Randian" could go to temple and observe.

[anne]

"Creating a permenant poverty class just about the poverty level may cure 'poverty' but certainly does nothing for inequality."

Simply raising the minimum wage to livable wage levels and indexing the minimum to inflation may in turn allow for wage increases above the raised minimum.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/minwagestmt2006

October, 2006

Over 650 economists, including 5 Nobel prize winners and 6 past presidents of the American Economic Association, believe that increasing federal and state minimum wages, with annual cost-of-living adjustments for inflation, "can significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and their families, without the adverse effects that critics have claimed."

[anne]

"Lutherans remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

"Buddhists remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

"Catholics remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

"Methodists remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

"Taoists remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

"Hindus remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

"Baptists remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

"Quakers remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

"Christian Scientists remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

"Episcopalians remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

"Muslims remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

"Confucians remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

"Unitarians remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

[anne]

"Turtles remain wonderfully 'charitable' but much appears anecdotally focused on non-political social respectability...."

Please, not the turtles, not the beloved turtles, please not the turtles. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Save the political anti-social non-respectable turtles. Please save the turtles.

[anne]

Political anti-social non-respectable turtles forever! Power to the turtles, or turtle power or, well, or....

[anne]

Free the political anti-social non-respectable turtles!

[lonesome moderate]

It's all those immigrant's fault. That's why there's so much child poverty in the U.S. All those immigrants that have been let in.

I'll bet that someone has already responded to Krugman in this fashion.

Never mind that Britain also has a large immigrant population.

It doesn't make any sense to talk about "immigrants" to this country without mentioning their legal status. Probably close to 10 percent (estimates vary) of children in the USA are either illegal immigrants themselves, or children of one or more illegal parent. It's no accident that these children are poor, since it's government policy to keep them as poor as possible, to try to "discourage" their parents. So, we have one side of government trying to keep their parents poor, while another side tries to reduce the impact of their poverty on the children. It's not surprising that both sides would be frustrated by their lack of success. I'm not sure what success even means in this context.

One day we will have a rational immigration policy in this country. Until we do it's going to be hard to be rational in many areas.

[Cassandra]

With all due respect, Anne, you are out of line. The proud tradition of Philanthropic Jews supporting important progressive social causes and political organizations whilst eschewing reactionary ones is real and something to be highlighted and admired (in my book). While the loss over time of such the financiers of leading progressive activists and causes is perhaps natural, the swing to the "dark side" to become THE leading financiers of the reactionaries at the AEI,Manahttan Institute, etc, is rather important, given the proud historical legacy bequeathed by their parents and grandparents. I understand your intentions are good, but PC bullying denies important perspective to readers that in any event is hardly politically incorrect.

[anne]

Yes; I understand, and possibly I am naive, but I have no sense that there is a religious or ethnic bent to funding of organization such as the American Enterprise Institute. How anyone could support a combination of Charles Murray and Newt Gingrich under the guise of being charitable is beyond my understanding, but I never would have attributed any religious or ethnic bent to such financing. I understand, now though, your concern.

[anne]

The problem that increasingly bothers me is accepting generalizing across religious or ethnic lines that creates boundaries limiting our thinking to stereotype. Suddenly, we are supposed to think not in terms of individual Chinese or Nigerians but of a stereotypical cultural identity. But, there are a startling number of Nigerian languages let alone cultural identities even before thinking individually.

[anne]

The New York Times tells us that several Iranians were arrested in Iraq, and immediately we think that, ah, Iran is inciting violence in Iraq for we are continually being told this in any event. There has been no evidence of this till now, but now we have evidence. Do we? We quickly find that of 6 Iranians arrested, 2 are Diplomats, and they are freed, but all were asked by the Iraqi government to help in Iraq. Possibly none were helping, possibly some or all. Stereotypical images are self-defeating.

[Alex]

The cost of living in the UK is much higher than it is in the US. Remember, the British pound is worth two dollars.... that is the reason for the British minimum wage being higher, has something to do with policy, but also a very over-valued currency. Also, if British poverty has fallen so drastically, than why is it that Britain's absolute poverty rate is far higher than the US's, as opposed to our measure of it, which is inaccurate as every rational soul knows (food costs 15% of your income nowadays, not 33%). As for the earned income tax credit and this sort of thing, it really isn't dealing with the crisis that is in Britain. If Mr. Krugman were to read the actual policy reports coming out of the UK, he would f8ind that poverty was rising far more under Blair than it is under even Bush the plunderer. ALready the gini index is far higher now under Blair than it ever was under Thatcher and the Conservatives... London has become second only to New York as the center of an orgy of money making, and its been acknowledged that the super rich there now make almost as much as they do here, while housing costs and rents are totally out of control. Imagine if housing and rental costs of New York City were imposed upon all the US? Thats the UK for you, and Mr. Krugman is going to say that poverty there is falling? Yeah right.... given how little has changed in the UK federal budget for the past few years (look at it online, don't surmise). So, while I like Krugman's articles in general, on this he has missed; he's trying to make the case that Blair is making things better vs. Bush; instead, they are both making things worse.

[anne]

Alex, please set down refences to specific articles if possible. Possible Paul Krugman will add references as well.

[anne]

Winslow:

".....the way that Sweden organizes early childhood education. It gives priority for the free, very high-quality early childhood settings to the people that they define as most at risk: single-parent families, non-Swedish-speaking families, immigrant families, families living below the poverty line."

Also, I wonder just broad access is to child care and early childhood education in America across income and ethnic groups. The New York Times questions the access to childcare even for wealthier African Americans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/us/26nannies.html

December 26, 2006

Nanny Hunt Can Be a 'Slap in the Face' for Blacks
By JODI KANTOR

[I may not have given neraly enough attention to this problem in only thinking about HeadStart.]

[anne]

Cassandra,

Again, I understand, and do not in the least find what I consider stereotyping a prejudice. I would however object to such stereotyping no matter the grouping, because it precludes considering the importance of the individual and of individual choice and responsibility. Sociological constructs tell us much of who we are, but they are not determining and they do not allow us to shed responsibility for who we are. There is my complaint.

[anne]

Biological or genetic thinking is different than thinking in the other natural sciences in that it is population thinking and population that insists on recognition of individual distinctiveness. Mercury atoms are not distinct, while all living creatures are and we are more distinct than daisies or butterflies though they are each distinct however subtle the differences. Thinking in stereotypes traps us, and I do not intend to let go of this point because it is missed repeatedly.

[Bupa]

Anne,

"generalizing across religious or ethnic lines that creates boundaries limiting our thinking to stereotype."

Yes, good point. Let's not limit our thinking. But, Anne, please keep in mind, if you apply a PC filter too tightly you may also limit our thinking.

Tony Judt has a pretty good track record of thinking. He also has a good track record of stimulating others to think.

[anne]

Agreed completely; and I read the article by and completely respect Tony Judt.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n18/print/judt01_.html

September 21, 2006

Bush's Useful Idiots: On the Strange Death of Liberal America
By Tony Judt - London Review of Books

[Cassandra and Bupa, agreed.]

[fiskhus_jim]

It was Ronald Reagan, that Cut & Run Republican, who famously declared that, in the War on Poverty, "Poverty has won."

More than anything, this typical comment of a typical Rich Republican represents the Rich Republicans' betrayal of both American ideals and Christian values.

[evagrius]

Bush's Useful Idiots: On the Strange Death of Liberal America
By Tony Judt - London Review of Books

Seems to me quite a good indication of how little "cosmopolitanism" exists among "liberals" in the U.S. ( and elsewhere).

[georgist]

Alex, please set down refences to specific articles if possible.

A recently published book deals with this very issue:

Fred Harrison, RICARDO'S LAW - Why Tony Blair's Project Failed: House Prices and the Great Tax Clawback Scam. Shepheard-Walwyn, 2006, ISBN 0 85683 241 3

[anne]

Winslow:

"I recently spent time teaching in an inner city high school and was profoundly frustrated watching as extra money and resources poured into this low performing school provided few visible results. The 'permanence' of poverty, while not universal, was all too widespread."

Then, the stance you are taking is intervantion against the effects of poverty in education are coming too late. Please comment further.

[Please also reference the article on international comparisons of early childhood education again for I have had trouble linking. Any other references on early education would be helpful.]

[anne]

http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/2005-ja/snow.shtml

July, 2005

From Literacy to Learning

Questions addressed by Catherine Snow on vocabulary, comprehension, and the achievement gap:

What is literacy, and how does its development determine a child’s readiness to learn and succeed academically?

Before fourth grade, what kinds of literacy and language development are important to provide those building blocks for learning?

Why is it important for younger children to develop their vocabularies beyond what they would learn in normal everyday interactions?

Are there ways to improve equity in terms of children’s language development and skills when they start kindergarten?

What do you see getting in the way of the kinds of early literacy instruction that would be the most effective and reach the most children?

[anne]

Ah, Winslow has drawn on the Harvard Education School Letter on early childhoo education:

http://www.edletter.org/fcd/

A nice resource, I have seen many times and never looked through. Thank you.

[William Newman]

I (a libertarian) don't need to be a rightist to predict the right's knee-jerk responses to a focus on child poverty: "broken families" and "out-of-wedlock births." Imagine if a right-winger wrote an article about a stubborn problem (e.g., measured rates of literacy in high school graduates) and called for substantially the same rightist remedies that he favors for essentially every problem (dunno: perhaps lower taxes, stricter immigration controls, faith based programs, and expanded military involvement) while loftily ignoring the stereotypical knee-jerk concern of the left despite the way that during the period in question, it had changed in the scary direction by a factor of four. (Four? Well, a quick Google gives out-of-wedlock birth going from 7.7% in 1965 to 32.2% in 1995; so imagine public school funding dropping in real terms by a factor of 4 and the rightist not deigning to mention it). Granted, my analogy doesn't extend to Krugman's comparison to Britain, 'cause I don't know enough either to confidently pick a country with a disturbingly right-wing educational model (Korea?) or to quickly look up family statistics for the country Krugman picked, but I think my point still stands.

There are a zillion right-wingers out there, and even quite a few good folk who currently vote Democratic but worry about those issues. Are they so contemptibly immune to shame that it's not useful to attempt to communicate with them?

Often I feel I understand left-wingers even less than right, partly for reasons like this.

[evagrius]

William Newman;

The phenomemnon you describe is not due to "leftist" policies but is one that seems to be occuring everywhere.

Could it be a result of industrialism, technology, the moving of peoples to urban areas, the disintegration of traditional cultures, the rise of consumer culture, the rise of mass media and advertising, ( quite a lot of it based on sexual desire), the loss of religious meaning, bad policy decisions benefiting a small class of rich and harming the poor, a rise in Randian influence, libertarianism as an ideology?

Take your pick.

[Robert]

Krugman is a joke. How many times does he want to attempt socialist redistribution policies that have failed for centuries? And this B.S. about "economic justice" and the like is just an attempt to justify paying someone more than their value added. There are winners and losers in every system, but has anyone bothered to notice that the Asian economies have only taken off by adopting capitalist business practices? That was no accident. It's not until nations begin to contract the European socialist disease that things go awry. The govt should be in the business of ensuring opportunity, not outcome...pure and simple.

[William Newman]

evagrius: It was an accident, not the intended point, that in my example of school funding I chose something which is set intentionally as a clear policy choice, so that responsibility for it is clearly assignable. If something other than school funding, something not easily attributable to one policy by one party (unemployment, homeownership, outsourcing, alien orifice probing incidents, whatever) had changed fourfold and was the standard left-wing explanation for the problem, it'd make a more exact analogy to illustrate the point I wanted to make about predictable responses about broken families and/or birth out of wedlock. The point is that they strongly believe it's an important part of what's going on, not that they strongly believe that it was caused by you.

[Bruce Webb]

"How many times does he want to attempt socialist redistribution policies that have failed for centuries?"

Robert, progressive taxation in the United States worked. We created a vibrant middle class by adopting policies that recognized that market distributions from productivity did not in fact create ideal results. Pricing power distortions led to more compensation flowing to capital than its contribution actually merited, progressive taxation via income taxes served to partially level the playing field. A fact recognized by everyone on all sides until some selfish assholes managed to sell some supply side voodoo in the 1980's.

Yes those are assertions. No I don't expect you to accept them. But you might want to examine your reasons for expecting anyone to accept your conclusions just because, you know, they seem so obvious to you.

"Socialist" redistribution policies work. At times and at places. Unless you have a tablet brought down from Mt. Sinai your blanket proclamations really rest on the fact that your name is 'Robert'. Proclamations do not equal economic argument.

[evagrius]

William Newman;

I haven't caused anything. My point is that the predictable "blame" for poverty etc; by all sides is far too complex to assign to any one cause.

[Wimpy]

"And this B.S. about "economic justice" and the like is just an attempt to justify paying someone more than their value added."

Just like those American auto and airline execs, right Robert?

[piglet]

"ninja, if that was intended to be satire you need to sharpen your edge"

Exactly. What's up with ninja? Taling so much rubbish lately.

"Umm, maria, just what percentage of the vote did Blair/Labor receive the last time out?"

That's a good point, jch. I wouldn't exactly point to Britain as a democratic model - Blair rules with a mere 35% of voter support. Both UK and US are democratic models only in the negative sense. However, the British political system has shown more flexibility than the US system, now accomodating three major parties and several regional and smaller parties.

[Ninjaplease]

"really cool 32" LCD monitor for $1100 (now probably $850 and $750 after the holidays) "

Well you certainly got robbed on the LCD--prices are going to hit the basement q2 2007. New processes have come out that have made wide screens extremely cheap to manufacture in Taiwan, once that process gets stolen-ah ahem-"Technology transfered" to mainland China, the prices ought to hit the floor.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Krugman has a soft spot for foreign welfare states. Sadly, it blinds him to how poorly or well they are really doing. According to Child poverty rate doubles, the UK child poverty rate has doubled since 1979. Other sources indicate the same thing. Of course, Krugman is only looking at the period since 1997.

One source Progress on poverty, 1997 to 2003/4 finds a 24% reduction in child poverty since 1997, both from public policy and the generally strong UK economy. The same source finds a one fourth reduction in overall poverty (not 50%). From the conclusion

“The findings of this study show the challenge that tackling poverty represents. Between 1996/7 and 2000/1 relative poverty fell, largely as a result of improvements in employment rates and in the level of some benefits”

I remember Krugman extolling the virtues of the French education system… Just before France burned down. I checked with French friends to see if there was any merit in Krugman’s comments on the French education system. There response was “only in American dreams”…

Yes, immigration plays a very large role here. The links between immigration and child poverty are manifold. Obviously, unskilled immigration drives down wages for American workers and leaves their children in poverty. The recent Borjas, Grogger, and Hanson paper Immigration and African-American Employment Opportunities: The Response of Wages, Employment, and Incarceration to Labor Supply Shocks shows a direct linkage between immigration and black poverty and crime. Of course, it is not just blacks workers who are driven into poverty by Open Borders…

However, there are other immigration/child poverty connections as well. Hispanics have a 48% (and rising) illegitimacy rate. Inevitably, children born out-of-wedlock are far more likely to be living in poverty. Importing a population with high levels of family disintegration can not but help to raise child poverty rates. Note that Asian immigrants have very low levels of illegitimacy and corresponding low levels of child poverty. Only 9% of Asian children (immigrant and non-immigrant) are living in poverty. Far below the UK level.

Even without illegitimacy, unskilled immigrants are doomed to low wages in America. After all, the primary rationale for allowing them to enter and stay (legally or otherwise) is their willingness to provide cheap labor for corporations and social elites who regard servants as a Constitutional right. There is a vast literature showing that the current immigration is low skill (historically this was not true) and that Hispanic immigrants have low skills compared to other immigrant groups. Predictably the children of poor immigrants live in poverty. Who can possibly be surprised by this?

Looking at the state level data shows an overt link between immigration and child poverty (and adult poverty). Several low immigration states (NH 7%, VT 10%, MN 10%) have low levels of child poverty. Several high immigration states (NY 21%, TX 23%, CA 19%) tend to have high levels of child poverty. Overall 26% of immigrant children are poor, versus 16% of the native born. See Who are America’s Poor Children? for a report on the subject.

Overall, the data shows a strong linkage between demographics (including immigration) and child poverty. The correlation isn’t perfect. However, ignoring it won’t help either.

For the record, I am a big fan of Krugman. Most of what he writes (trade, bubbles, inequality, etc.) is quite sane and well considered. However, as a liberal there are things that Krugman can’t write about and probably can’t think about. When a topic touches on one those areas he goes astray, like most liberals who can’t escape the prison of the mind known as political correctness.

The bottom lines here should be obvious. Factors other than the welfare state profoundly influence child poverty. Liberals cannot mention them. However, they exist whether we like them or not. However, it should also be clear that America doesn’t have the luxury of importing poverty of any kind, including child poverty.

[Movie Guy]

I agree with Peter Schaeffer's observations about poverty in the USA, including the quality links.

The absence of a heads up comparison of all factors related to poverty measurements between the U.S., EU, and UK leaves too much out of the picture.

Krugman may prefer that the U.S. adopt some or all of the UK models post-1997, but failing to outline all U.S. programs regardless of source or method that impact U.S. poverty among not only its citizens but illegal immigrants is a poor presentation. Obviously, if Paul wanted to provide a guest post outlining such matters on this blog, DeLong's or others, he should find little objection among his blog supporters.

[Real Person from the Real World]

Bruce Webb wrote "....progressive taxation in the United States worked. We created a vibrant middle class by adopting policies that recognized that market distributions from productivity did not in fact create ideal results. Pricing power distortions led to more compensation flowing to capital than its contribution actually merited, progressive taxation via income taxes served to partially level the playing field. A fact recognized by everyone on all sides until some selfish assholes managed to sell some supply side voodoo in the 1980's."

You put it right! Furthermore, every foreign government out there, has trade policies in place to protect its citizens. Free trade promoting global elites that run these corporations are skimming off all the cream and leaving sour skim milk for the rest of us.

And, as Noni Mausa points out, great masses of poor people have their uses. While all the idiots (republicans) like to infer these masses of poor are all wet-backs from across the border, there are plenty of middle class whites and former boomers born here that are now falling through the cracks too. Look around.

And personally, the imigrant entrepreneurs we bring in, should eventually raise the national IQ and eventually (like the raptors of Jurassic Park) they'll take on the overpaid republicans. (It'll be interesting to see who wins, but my $ is on the raptors).

We have two major stumbling blocks in this country, that have accelerated the spiral downwards:

First, for one thing, we now have Education, Inc., dedicated to making a profit on everyone's pet social cause, not dedicated social institutions that try to ensure an educated population. those long term streams of interest income for student loans and overpriced text books that are redone each semester or quarter are too tempting. Got to keep the Hoi Poloi out, to keep those high salaries and bonuses going for the lucky few that can afford the best education on their own! Also, we should be putting money into education earlier than high school, for it to do any good, but none wants to foot the bill for someone else's children, especially when they are all poor and from across the southern US border. Never mind the ones that were actually born here.

Health related corporate enterprises are another stumbling block. Better masses of people die off, than that these supposedly non-profit and high minded organizations that advertise how much "they care" should lessen their (supposedly non-)profit salaries, and bonuses and benefits for their management.

Frankly, propaganda and spin control are the rule in this country. Add to that, marketing strategies that play to the vanity of the overpaid set. (See the Noka Chocolate discussion.) By the end of this century, the US will probably be another 3rd rate banana republic with all the wealthy trendy global elite types moving to the equator.

I only hope that some of the rest of us can survive and pick up the pieces.

[Clive Holland]

It is interesting to see how people regard the 'New Labour' government's achievements from a second hand perspective. I wholly agree that under 'Thatcherism' our country suffered terribly from a widening gap between rich and poor. The major influence in this upheaval revolved around new economic strategies borrowed from Milton Friedman and that the methodology of cutting jobs and outsourcing somehow makes us richer. In the last thirty years we have lost over 10,000,000 jobs from our manufacturing sector and have replaced our political integrity with spin doctors who blatantly lie about how successful we are. Under Labour we have had no change in our negative fiscal economic structure, yet other areas of tax and waste have been introduced and billions have been thrown away on pointless projects such as road narrowing schemes and environmental projects that actually make pollution worse. Corruption has increased over the last thirty years to an unbelievable scale and poverty is everywhere. However, rather than address the problems we face they are covered up and unemployment figures are obfuscated. According to many well respected universities our economically inactive(unemployed to you and me) number around 9,000,000. Our levels of borrowing and personal debt run into trillions and house prices are around 9 times the average salary. I don't blame Labour for these problems - rather a new era of political dishonesty and incompetence ushered in during the Thatcher era. Labour have done nothing to alter her ideologies and moreover the gap between rich and poor has increased under their stewardship. In December 2007 we stand at the precipice of the biggest economic disaster in our history.

[anne]

Please offer references or documentation for focus if possible.