Linkage

This guy's pretty funny. And I endorse the message:

A nice little restatement of some basic facts:

I often hear progressives say that Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is all very well, but given the real politic, within which these debates are contested, it is better to rely on mainstream understandings to make the case for more government spending on progressive goals.

I remind these economists of the way that John Maynard Keynes used the (erroneous) neoclassical concept of marginal productivity theory for labour demand in The General Theory, to allow him to concentrate on the supply side, where he believed the differences between his approach and the orthodoxy could best be highlighted.

It was a decision that he regretted when it became obvious that the orthodoxy manipulated the debate to categorise Keynes’ quibbles as the special rather than the general case.

And the result was the neoclassical synthesis which dominated macroeconomics for the next several decades and allowed Monetarism an easier path and then the current New Keynesian paradigm to emerge.

The essential message of Keynes was quickly lost because he made that sort of strategic error – using neoclassical framing.

There’s a story about being trans that you’ve definitely heard, whether you’re cis or trans: such-and-so loudly protested that they were a girl from their youngest days—three or four or five. She—because The Story is always and exclusively about trans women, isn’t it?—played dress-up with Mom’s clothes and high heels, always knew she’d been born in the wrong body, fought for transition from as soon as they knew it existed, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The Story is so pervasive, so overwhelming that its mere existence keeps many of us from even imagining that we might be trans until we’re well into our lives. Even then, it’s held over our heads through every step of our transitions. “Why didn’t you tell us sooner?” “But you like beer and trucks and building things!” “But there were no signs!”

As if our identities were written in the stars, to be foretold by blind seers in a Greek tragedy. 

The Story is profoundly toxic to the foundations of trans existence at every level. […] The Story demands that extremely young children invent language to describe a thing that their parents don’t even know exists.

[…]

The real problem with The Story is more nuanced. Not having the words to describe a feeling you’re feeling doesn’t mean you don’t feel it—but also—not having those words dramatically changes your understanding of the feeling itself.

In the days since [Charlie Kirk's] killing, the US right wing has fallen over itself to blame trans people or, as Alex Jones put it to his almost 5 million followers, “the tranny death cult”. Similar formulations can be found across social media. Trans people are terrorists, a death cult, like the Taliban, need to be socially ostracised and banned from transitioning. And we all know there is only one type of trans person most of these people are imagining when they call for us to be electroshocked, shunned, and – let’s be real – beaten and killed. And that’s trans women.

It's over. There and here in the UK. Today I doubt I will see another progressive measure (either in legislation or healthcare policy) put in place for trans people in my lifetime. Who knows what may yet be taken away. In the UK, the terf campaign groups make their goals quite clear: they would like transition banned before the age of 25 and for trans women to be compelled to carry male government ID in all contexts. Once the EHRC guidance banning us from all women’s groups and spaces across society is in place, they intend to sue organisations and service providers that don’t exclude us. Right now, I think it’s best to assume all these things are a likely prospect in the next ten years.

In the community itself there’s been a definite shift in the way we speak about the future. The middle-class trans micro-economy that boomed in the 2010s: Pride month corporate sponsorship, jobs at LGBT charities, DEI talks and panels, diversity modelling and ad campaigns, progressive theatre, educational books about being trans etc, which some of us used to make a living, has gone. A friend and I used to riff on the old Susan Stryker joke that as a trans woman you must commodify yourself one way or another: it’s either escorting or the diversity and inclusion panel. The friend (a sex worker) always said she found more dignity (and better money) in the former.

Why is this happening now? The Right itself offers two contradictory answers simultaneously. On the one hand, they are constantly trying to project strength: They want us to believe they represent a vital, virile alternative to anemic liberal democracy – and a cohesive vision far superior to weak, divisive pluralism. Liberal democracy, in this tale, is destined to surrender to the far right. On the other hand, rightwingers are also obsessed with their own weakness. The Trumpist imagination is defined by a sense of besiegement: Powerful enemies everywhere, anti-American forces both from without and from within conspiring to destroy the nation, “real Americans” constantly victimized by a society they believe owes them eternal adulation and deference, made to suffer under the yoke of crazy leftist politics.

Relentless self-victimization – a veritable persecution complex – has been a defining feature of modern conservatism since its inception. The heightened version of this type of siege mentality we are seeing now points to something that is diagnostically important: Until very recently at least, the Right was indeed losing the fundamental struggle over what kind of country “America” should strive to be. The idea of a “crisis of liberal democracy” has dominated the political and broader public discourse over the past decade. But in crucial ways, it is the conception of “real America” as a white Christian patriarchal homeland that has come under enormous pressure. Socially, culturally, and – most importantly, perhaps – demographically, the country has moved away from the rightwing ideal since the middle of the twentieth century. It is not just a figment of the reactionary imagination that America has become less white, less religious, and more pluralistic in basically every dimension. As a result, the conservative hold on power has become tenuous. In a narrow political sense, they may be in charge right now – in the White House, in Congress, at the Supreme Court. But it is not just political power the Right seeks. They desire cultural domination and affirmation. In the cultural sphere, the public square, and across many societal dimensions like the family, the shift in power away from white male conservatives has been more pronounced. The Right has engaged in a comprehensive counter-mobilization in response – a radicalization fueled not by a feeling of strength, but by a sense of weakness.

[…] Clinging to the idea that “The Right won’t go THAT far” is futile because they have convinced themselves that their leftist enemies have already gone *much further*.

Just so, so angry:

Alix and her partner, Tiarn, are among the first tenants of a new public-private housing development the Victorian government is using as a template for its planned demolition and redevelopment of the state's 44 public housing towers.

Under the so-called Ground Lease Model, the state demolishes existing public housing blocks and leases the land to consortiums of private developers and non-profit housing providers for 40 years.

The consortiums then rebuild the sites with a mix of social, affordable and market-rate rentals, and hand them back to the government when the lease period expires.

The Flemington complex includes 240 community housing units and 116 affordable apartments for couples like Alix and Tiarn who earn less than $111,000 a year, and for single people earning less than $71,000.

But less than a year after they moved in, Alix and Tiarn were told by the consortium that operates their development that it had decided to increase their rent by 17 per cent.

"Since then, it's been nothing but stress and anxiety," Alix said.

The proposed increase would see the weekly rent for their one-bedroom apartment rise from $322 to $377 — an extra $55 the couple says they can barely afford.

So many bad ideas:

Reviewing the welfare payment for low-income renters is one of several ideas presented to Housing Minister Clare O'Neil after the election to reset Labor's housing agenda.

A table of contents which was accidentally sent to the ABC has revealed Treasury told Ms O'Neil and Treasurer Jim Chalmers the government's signature target of 1.2 million new homes in five years "will not be met".

[…]

Headings from the contents table show Treasury made nine "recommendations" of housing policies for Ms O'Neil to consider. While the materials do not include those recommendations in full, they give an extended glimpse at the department's focuses.

One of the nine recommendation areas focused on support for renters, listing several "policy reform opportunities" including a review of Commonwealth Rent Assistance, a supplement for welfare recipients who rent.

The supplement was increased by Labor in its first term, but economists and welfare advocates say it is still insufficient. Matthew Bowes, a Grattan Institute housing expert, told the ABC it should increase by 50 per cent for singles and 40 per cent for couples.

… which will just be a pass-through to landlords.

I disagree profoundly with Alan on restricting immigration, and the idea that we should encourage the involvement of superannuation funds in community housing (i.e. let's cure financialisation with more financialisation!), but the point that housing has to become a bad financial asset — and therefore good value as housing — is absolutely key.

Richard Yetsenga points out that there are 11 million dwellings in Australia, for 26.6 million people, which is theoretically enough. That suggests, he says, that the problem is misallocation rather than a genuine shortage.

Yes, but is the government going to force people to sell their holiday homes? And in any case, they are nowhere near employment or public transport so only useful as holiday homes.

The other problem with achieving more supply is capital.

The current plan is that it must be private capital because governments haven't got the money, because priorities have changed since the days of plentiful public housing.

But if affordability is to be improved, housing can't be a good investment.

To keep the current level of (un)affordability — that is, with house prices at nine to 10 times incomes, residential real estate has to be a poor investment, providing a return of no more than 3-4 per cent per annum, including rent, so incomes can keep pace.

To return to the affordability of 25 years ago — a house price to income ratio of four times, it would have to be an absolutely rubbish investment for 20 years with zero return.

That means private capital can't do it — only the government can.

I only heard about this case recently, via my fab lecturer, Erik Dean. I don't know how I missed it at the time.

In a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank today, striking down an abstract software patent. Essentially, the Court ruled that adding “on a computer” to an abstract idea does not make it patentable. Many thousands of software patents—particularly the vague and overbroad patents so beloved by patent trolls—should be struck down under this standard. Because the opinion leaves many details to be worked out (such as the scope of an “abstract idea”), it might be a few years until we understand its full impact.

Alice Corp.'s patent claimed a form of escrowing that was well known. Called an “intermediated settlement,” it allowed a third party to act as an intermediary by creating “shadow accounts” for parties, and only allowing transactions to go through if the “shadow account” showed the party had enough money. Oh—and it was done with a computer.

The Alice case has a long history in the courts. The case was originally filed in 2007.  In 2011, the district court held that all the patent's claims were invalid as abstract. In 2012, a divided panel at the Federal Circuit reversed. In 2013, the full Federal Circuit vacated the panel opinion and again found the claims too abstract in a decision that had 10 judges produce 7 different opinions. And now, in 2014, the Supreme Court has finally ended it: Alice’s claims are invalid.

In a concise 17-page opinion, the Supreme Court recognized that Alice claimed the abstract concept of “intermediated settlement,” something the Supreme Court recognized was “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Having done this, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that merely adding “a generic computer to perform generic computer functions” does not make an otherwise abstract idea patentable. This statement (and the opinion itself) makes clear that an abstract idea along with a computer doing what a computer normally does is not something our patent system was designed to protect.