Too little. Too late?

The focus of this blog lately is the nation's current economic mess and how we got there. This is installment 2. Here's #1.

As I argued yesterday, the Great Recession of the last few years was facilitated by 30 years of zombie economics, which consisted of deregulating industry, privatizing services, cutting taxes for the wealthy, and eroding programs that promoted shared prosperity.

In late 2008 and early 2009, Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations enacted policies designed to correct course. First, under Bush's watch, the TARP program or Wall Street bailout was passed. Most people hated it, for good reasons, although it may have actually helped stall the slide of markets and lending institutions and wound up costing less than expected.

The second was the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better know as the stimulus. It was a big bill and a massively mixed bag, consisting of some elements that really helped boost the economy (like extending unemployment insurance, subsidizing COBRA and boosting food stamps) while others that didn't (things like tax cuts for businesses).

Here's the rationale behind it: three things drive economic growth: private spending, business investment and government spending. In a recession, the first two tend to tank, leaving the third to take up the slack.

The main problem with the Recovery Act, as several economists have argued (search this blog for more) is that it wasn't big enough and it didn't place enough focus on direct job creation. At the time it was designed, it was estimated that unemployment would peak at around 8 percent. More than two years later, the rate is still 9.1 nationwide.

The Recovery Act probably did help end the recession in at least a technical sense of helping GDP to stop falling and it did keep millions of Americans from falling into poverty, but it didn't go far enough or last long enough. Now, as it trickles to a halt, we're likely to see more and more layoffs, especially at the state and local level, and more cuts to needed programs and services.

The biggest problem with an inadequate stimulus was political: right wing opponents attempted to brand it as a failure with considerable success and use anger at slow job growth to turn public attention in another direction.

About which more tomorrow.

MORE OF SAME here.

SHOCK DOCTRINE. Don't fall for it (again).

TALKING SENSE. Here's a statement from the AFLCIO on real and bogus crises.

WHAT ABOUT THE TOOTH FAIRY? Some evangelicals are questioning the literal historicity of Adam and Eve.

WHY NOT PEOPLE? A new study suggests that chimpanzees are more generous than previously thought. Perhaps humans are less so.

GOAT ROPE ADVISORY LEVEL: ELEVATED

A history of violence

The punishment of Tantalus.

"I know this house's ancestry--
it's pedigree of sin."

Violence seems to run through families, generations, countries and even entire regions of the world, with outrage breeding outrage. Sadly, sometimes those who were its victims become its perpetrators.

Ending that seemingly endless cycle and establishing a higher social order is the theme of the Oresteia by Aeschylus. Although its message is profoundly political, the dramatic trilogy focuses on how violence played out in one family...and what a family it was.

Here's a short summary of the backstory of the drama:

1. Tantalus served up his son Pelops (literally) at a banquet for the gods. They were not amused and he was one of the few ancients to qualify for personalized eternal damnation by being "tantalized" with food and drink but forever unable to get it. The gods reconstructed Pelops physically but not morally.

2. Pelops sabotaged the chariot of his father-in-law to be, which led to his death. Then he double crossed and murdered they guy who helped him do it. The guy not surprisingly cursed the house with his last breath.

3. Pelops sons Atreus and Thyestes set a new standard for nastiness. First, they contested for power. Then Thyestes seduced the wife of Atreus. Then, after a family meeting for "reconciliation," Atreus kills Thyestes children and serves them for dinner to their unknowing father. One, Aegisthus, got away.

Nice guys, huh?

In the play proper, the merry dance goes on:

4. Agamemnon, son of Atreus, sacrifices his own daughter Iphigenia in order to get fair winds to sail for Troy at the beginning of that war.

5. On his return, Clytemnestra with the help of her lover Aegisthus (remember him?) kills Agamemnon.

6. Orestes, son of Clytemnestra and Agamemnon, kills his own mother at the order of Apollo.

Then it really gets messy.

While all that sounds like an incredible downer, the plays are actually optimistic about the possibility of people, with the help of divine wisdom, to rise above all that and break the endless cycle.

More to come.

GO, SUPREMES! The big news around here is the US Supreme Court's decision regarding Massey Energy and whether a state justice elected with money from CEO Don Blankenship should recuse himself form cases involving the company. The court said he should. Here's the NY Times on it. Here's the Washington Post. And here's the Charleston Gazette.

A "WARRIOR GENE?" Some scientists think they've found one that is associated with violence. Hmmm...maybe that explains the whole Atreus thing.

ON THAT NOTE, global spending on weapons is through the roof.

BULLY FOR YOU. The research is in, and some strategies seem to work in confronting bullying.

GOAT ROPE ADVISORY LEVEL: ELEVATED

REGARDING DINOSAURS, PEOPLE, ALTRUISM, AND SUCH

Caption: The serpent in the garden?

I've been sitting on this one a while and trying to figure out what to do with it:

PETERSBURG, Ky. — The entrance gates here are topped with metallic Stegosauruses. The grounds include a giant tyrannosaur standing amid the trees, and a stone-lined lobby sports varied sauropods. It could be like any other natural history museum, luring families with the promise of immense fossils and dinosaur adventures.

But step a little farther into the entrance hall, and you come upon a pastoral scene undreamt of by any natural history museum. Two prehistoric children play near a burbling waterfall, thoroughly at home in the natural world. Dinosaurs cavort nearby, their animatronic mechanisms turning them into alluring companions, their gaping mouths seeming not threatening, but almost welcoming, as an Apatosaurus munches on leaves a few yards away.

It's not the Flintstones; it's a new Creation Museum which purports to show people hanging out with dinosaurs, who were apparently vegetarian in their prelapsarian condition. Here at least, the earth is only a few thousand years old, fossils and geologic formations are the result of Noah's flood, and the demon of Darwinism has been exorcised.

It's ironic that when we literalize good stories we often lose their point and when we try to blend literalistic religion with science we're not doing either any favors.

Meanwhile the real message of the Genesis story is a keeper: creation is good, but humans from the beginning have misused their freedom and in doing so have brought suffering on themselves and the rest of the world.

UPWARD MOBILITY Here's an interesting item from the AFLCIO blog about a report America's declining social mobility. What is eye-catching about this report is the fact that the report was co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, two conservative think tanks not known for undue concern about inequality.

FEELING ALTRUISTIC? It may be only natural. According to this item from the Washington Post, scientists are conducting new research that suggests our concern for others is

not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.

Their 2006 finding that unselfishness can feel good lends scientific support to the admonitions of spiritual leaders such as Saint Francis of Assisi, who said, "For it is in giving that we receive." But it is also a dramatic example of the way neuroscience has begun to elbow its way into discussions about morality and has opened up a new window on what it means to be good.

Recent brain imaging studies and experiments "are showing, unexpectedly, that many aspects of morality appear to be hard-wired in the brain, most likely the result of evolutionary processes that began in other species." If that is the case, at least some basic elements of the moral sense are not so much "handed down" by teachers as "handed up" by genes.

This is what the 18th century philosopher and political economist Adam Smith called "moral sentiment." Holy Scottish Enlightenment, Batman!

GOAT ROPE ADVISORY LEVEL: ELEVATED