...and they are even worse than predicted. We already know about the credit crisis that Blair and Brown promoted via friends at City banks, but the socio-economic results are equally bad. The UK has more personal debt than the US and it is actually greater than the GDP as opposed to a hair under the US GDP. City bankers never had it so good as they have during the reign of New Labour. So good, in fact, that Blair now works for JP Morgan where he receives millions. Yesterday a new report was released that reinforces existing sentiment that the Blair years promoted inequality and were failures.
Ministers were last night putting a brave face on figures showing a widening gap between the richest and poorest families and a second successive 100,000 jump in the number of children living below the government's poverty threshold. They said extra money pledged to help the young and the elderly in this year's budget underlined the commitment to meet Tony Blair's 1999 pledge to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and halve it by 2010.
Britain's leading tax experts - the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) - said that despite the billions of pounds spent on tax credits, Labour had yet to meet its 2005 benchmark of reducing child poverty by a quarter and that the prime minister would have to divert money from middle-class tax cuts to have an even chance of hitting the 2010 target.
This is a government who has major problems across the board. It's no wonder the leadership likes the Tibet situation, because it helps stir up nationalism and divert attention from even larger problems. While the communist government has done a commendable job raising the living standards for millions of people, they have also left millions behind. When an economy grows, so do expectations. Overall it's a good problem to have provided a government is reaching out to everyone. (In the US, we can also relate since the broad majority of Americans have been left behind for the last three decades.)
Since the Shanghai market has lost half of its value since last October, Beijing has delivered a typically knee jerk response - much like our GOP - and lowered taxes on stock. Just like in the US the tax cuts are going to a slim minority at the top and so far this has been well received. Will the good times last? Probably about as long as the GOP good times lasted though the end result in China will be more ground shaking than the meek response we tend to see in the US. Leaving tens or hundreds of millions behind in a country that has never had a peaceful transition from one system to the next should be a real reason for concern within the communist leadership. Bubbles burst, it's just a fact of life. How a country bounces back is the difference maker.
There's been some interesting blogging recently on mobility and meritocracy. A little while ago Atrios wrote, in the context of President Bush perpetuating the harmful idea that professional sports are some magical opportunity for poor people, "Lots of people in this country are basically born on 2nd and 3rd base and then manage to stay there for the rest of their lives. And many of them look down on those who start at home plate and fail to hit a home run." Yglesias, relatedly, goes further in addressing the meritocracy myth (and its stepbrother, entitlement) thusly:
[T]he merit illusion stems from the well-documented fact that people don't have a great intuitive grasp of statistics or large numbers. If your family connections boost your odds of getting into Harvard from one percent to five percent, you'll perceive that as having triumphed against the odds on merit rather than using family connections to quintuple your chances. . . . It's difficult, however, for people to keep in their heads the idea that, yes, you may have displayed considerable merit to get where you are but also you've taken advantage of a lot of undeserved privileges of birth. Similarly, if you wind up needing to compete on merit against a few hundred other people for a couple dozen highly desirable slots, the question of what happened to all those other people who got excluded from consideration for non-merit reasons sort of falls out of sight.
I think this is absolutely right, and extraordinarily important. Nobody wants to believe their successes have been handed to them, or are some kind of accident, especially those who work really really hard to get where they are. After all, successful people (defined broadly) have probably beaten out lots of competition for whatever accomplishments they've achieved. But as Matt said, tons of people never even make it to the competition. A fascinating and stark example comes from this analysis of higher education and wealth, entertainingly using AJ Soprano as an archetype. The data demonstrates that, not surprisingly, if you're rich, you're likely to go to college no matter how bad your test scores are. But that's just college in general, you might say -- dumb rich people going to college unnecessarily isn't a problem, right? So let's look at the "highly selective" colleges numbers. For kids whose test scores are in the bottom quartile, only 0.2% of those whose families make under $20,000 per year go to a selective university. And it seems about right that bottom quartile test scores wouldn't get you into a selective college. But for kids whose families make more than $100,00, in the bottom quartile of test scores, 3.5% manage to sneak their way into "highly selective" colleges. So rich kids are nearly 18 times as likely to get into selective colleges than poor kids with the same (crappy) test scores. 18 times!
The numbers aren't as stark with the next example, but for reasons I'll get to, I think they're even more important: for the second-highest quartile of grades, 27% of students go to selective colleges. This seems pretty reasonable, after all, selective colleges have to dip below the top quartile of test scores, and certainly some of those students will have money. In the under $20,000 category of second-quartile scorers, however, only 6.2% go to selective colleges, meaning if your family makes $100K+, you're more than four times as likely to go to a selective college than a kid whose family makes under $20,000.
Here's the thing, though: I would guess that if you're in the bottom quartile and you get into a highly selective college, you know it's not because you're smart, and you probably know it's because your family has money. But that second quartile group, that's chock full of kids who think they made it *purely* on merit. They had very good scores! They worked really hard! They beat out lots of other kids who came from relatively wealthy families! They don't see, though, that they're overwhelmingly more likely to get into that college than the kid with the same grades and much less money. This leads to a sense of entitlement, not only that the achievement was self-made, but that the people who didn't make it must not have really been trying. That the other kid just didn't study or work or think as hard. And some of these effects are similar with regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, or other "other" that people don't really think about when they consider class/financial/education/etc stratification.
Now, in the end, I'm not entirely sure what to do about all this, especially on an individual level. Certainly I would and do support public policy that helps create an equal playing field, and personally I find it important to recognize that my successes, whatever they have been or end up being, are in many ways tied to the fact that I hit the privilege jackpot. People who look like me and who have the financial security that my parents were able to provide don't exactly have a lot working to keep them down. But even without knowing what should be done, exactly, acknowledging these realities seems important in its own right.
Tomorrow, check back for how this relates to the blogosphere . . .
Hillary is absolutely correct about Americans who have been shafted by the policies of the GOP, Bill Clinton, and Hillary's votes on the war and the bankruptcy bill. I don't know who Obama is talking to, but these people are smiling and happy. They're pleased that they've been given the opportunity to be thrown aside to help freedom, democracy, modern economics, corporate CEOs, and the government of Colombia.
Funny, but I've witnessed the same in poor countries around the world. Some people see suffering millions who have no idea how they will manage to put the next meal on the table - but no, that's just not right. I know when I look at the world's working class - and I think Hillary and McCain would agree - I see smiling happy people. I see starving people who are bloody well happy to get a three-day old crust of dried bread out of the waste bin, thank you very much. They're simple people, really, but perky as the dirt-poor clams they are. Oh, to be blue collar (or no-collared) and carefree. Heck, I know many a friend (and spouse) of Hillary and McCain would trade in their million dollar salaries and $200,000 speaking fees to live without the worry of where to spend their awfully inconvenient trust funds. Ahh, being poor, with no job (or just as bad, two jobs), no health insurance, an exploding mortgage, gas prices of $4 a gallon, two wars with no end, a massive budget deficit to hand down to the kids, and an overall bleak future - now THAT is the life. Just ask Hillary. Hillary connects with these happy people because she's had a hard life too, what with the sniper fire and all. And her chauffeur, her gardener and her cook are all simple people and she does talk with them, sometimes. And after all, she can shoot a gun just like John Kerry, or perhaps Mitt Romney. All regular people too, just like Hillary.
Something tells me the poor won't get a sniff of a bailout/assistance despite many never recovering from the first Bush recession. See, if they risked everything with billions and trillions and blew it, then they would have money coming hand over fist. What Congress still isn't saying is that the average American reached their economic peak over thirty years ago. It's been a steady decline yet all we get are new schemes to offer credit and line the pockets of Wall Street.
Since the late 1990's average incomes have declined 2.5 percent for families on the bottom fifth of the country's economic ladder, while incomes have increased 9.1 percent for families on the top fifth, said the report from the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Economic Policy Institute.
As middle class people in wealthy countries such as the US and Europe already know, the cost of food has skyrocketed in the last few years for a variety of reasons. Sure, some of that has to do with crop failures related to bad conditions though the more serious problem has been related to diverting food to biofuels (where the money is better) and the increasing cost of fuel, that has risen dramatically since the war mongering and invasion of Iraq.
For decades Republicans in the US have preached a tough-love approach to foreign aid but while this simplistic response appeals to a certain crowd in America it ignores the realities of the world around us. For example, a substantial percentage of the population across southern Africa eats mealy-meal, which is cooked corn meal. If they are lucky, maybe they will be able to afford a sauce to splash on this. This is what people eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner if they can even afford three meals. This is it. All of the extras that we're used to just don't exist as an option on a regular basis. With over one billion people around the world surviving on $1 per day, cost increases for basics such as corn and wheat have an enormous impact. It's really time to step back and look at where we are and how we came to this situation.
Current South African president Mbeki is finishing his second (and final) term as president though he hoped to maintain control of the ruling ANC. Controlling the primary political party essentially means controlling the government in South Africa. Yesterday the ANC party members voted for the leadership role yesterday and Mbeki lost badly to Jacob Zuma. In recent years Zuma has faced trial for rape (he was acquitted) and has also faced charges of corruption. The corruption charges have not yet been put to rest and could come back to end his career.
Outside of South Africa, Mbeki is best known for his bizarre theories on HIV/AIDS. Internally, Mbeki was viewed as an unpleasant, technocrat who never managed to connect with the people. Years after apartheid, the problem of poverty is still very present though it is hard to deny the growth of the black middle and upper class. The problem has been the limits of that growth and the continuing misery of millions.
(More after the jump on Zuma and changes for South Africa.) Zuma has his own strange beliefs on the subject of HIV/AIDS (just take a shower after sex) but he has been able to connect with the people around the country. Whether Zuma has the ability to grow the middle class, it's hard to say.
I spent half a year traveling around South Africa a few years ago and visited numerous "townships" across the country. What jumped out to me was that there were so many hard working people who lived in such poverty. We befriended a young South African who invited us to his house and meet the family in one particular township. His mother worked in a posh hotel, traveling by bus every day and working long hours, though she still had very little to show for her efforts.
The house was a very basic square (as you see in most townships) that did not include any modern conveniences in the kitchen and was sparsely filled. It was amazing to see such a hard working family have so little. It's not that I don't understand the local economics in such places, but in South Africa you constantly stumble upon such great discrepancies between rich and poor. Change can't happen overnight but the ANC has been in power since 1994 and it's not unreasonable to expect a little more.
Mbeki can be credited with maintaining a good economy and keeping foreign investment but times have changed and people want more. Hard working people have every right to expect that their lot in life improve if they put their nose to the grindstone. If anything, this is a healthy development that more people want to join the middle class.
The challenge in the future will be whether Zuma can maintain economic growth while expanding the middle class. The biggest fear among some is the possibility of expanding the old boy network, with all of the favors-to-friends that too often dominates politics. Of course, Zuma also needs to get beyond his existing corruption problems.
It's difficult to lift yourself up with your bootstraps if you don't have any bootstraps or they're under water. As an American or European it's hard to understand or imagine what it's like to live on under $2 per day though millions upon millions in world do precisely that. When I look at the billions blown on Wall Street or the black hole of spending in Iraq, I wonder why it's so difficult for wealthy nations to step up and help those who are in need, at home or abroad. The people that I've met in poor communities work just as hard as anyone else, but are often stuck due to circumstances well beyond their control.
Without the money, the panel found, a warmer world "could stall and then reverse human development" in the countries where 2.6 billion people live on $2 a day or less.
Scientists have reported that temperatures rose an average 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 100 years, bringing the prospect of a century of extreme weather, rising seas, widening drought and disease and harm to fisheries, forests and farmland.
According to development officials, the unfortunate consequences include women and young girls walking further to collect water in the Horn of Africa, people erecting bamboo flood shelters on stilts in the delta of the Ganges River, and others planting mangroves to protect themselves against storm surges in the delta of the Mekong River.
"These impacts ... go unnoticed in financial markets and in the measurement of world gross domestic product (GDP)," the panel's report said. "But increased exposure to drought, to more intense storms, to floods and environmental stress is holding back the efforts of the world's poor to build a better life for themselves and their children."
The global anti-poverty effort, the ONE Campaign, held a small meeting this morning for a few bloggers from the right and the left with the new campaign co-chairs, former Senator Majority Leaders Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Bill Frist (R-TN). The campaign is launching a $30 million effort to influence the 2008 elections here in the US by getting all the presidential candidates to endorse the following goals:
5 Achievable Goals
1. Save 15,000 lives a day by fighting HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, three of the world's most devastating diseases. 2. Prevent 5.4 million young children from dying each year from poverty-related illnesses and 400,000 women from dying in childbirth each year. 3. Provide free access to primary education for 77 million out-of-school children with a special emphasis on girls. 4. Improve the living conditions of vulnerable populations by, for example, providing access to clean water for 450 million people and basic sanitation to more than 700 million people. 5. Reduce by half the number of people in the world who suffer from hunger, resulting in 300 million "fewer" hungry people each year.
I was struck by two things at the Daschle-Frist meeting. First, some of the conservative bloggers were really into the campaign. And second, Senator Frist seemed awfully into the campaign as well. As a Democrat, I'm not accustomed to finding Republicans who care about HIV/AIDS and world poverty. It's was a nice thing to see.
I raised a few concerns to the Senators. First, compassion fatigue/foreign fatigue. After the ongoing debacle in Iraq, I wonder whether Americans are going to be in the mood for a very expensive foreign adventure any time soon. Having said that, saving the poor is a totally different venture than fighting a war, and it's quite possible the public would welcome a warm and fuzzy change of pace. My second concern was whether the ONE Campaign had the gumption it will need to get politicians off the dime. Meaning, it's a bipartisan campaign made up of a coalition of liberal and conservative non-profits. I can't speak for the conservative non-profits, but the liberal ones can sometimes be a bit wimpy. They don't want to ruffle feathers, and don't want to offend politicians. Their standard refrain to any proposal is "we can't do THAT." The ONE Campaign is going to need to browbeat its own member organizations just as fiercely as it browbeats our politicians.
But all in all, I think this is great. It's about time AMERICA re-engaged the world in a good, positive, helpful way. It also wouldn't hurt us to find a goal that we can all agree on, left and right.
After the briefing, ONE held an event at St. Mark's church. As I'd already had my briefing, I stayed for the beginning, which included the African Children's Choir - see video below.
This is just wrong. But, it is happening in the United States of America in the 21st century. What a legacy:
To the shock of Mississippi officials, who in 2004 had seen the infant mortality rate — defined as deaths by the age of 1 year per thousand live births — fall to 9.7, the rate jumped sharply in 2005, to 11.4. The national average in 2003, the last year for which data have been compiled, was 6.9. Smaller rises also occurred in 2005 in Alabama, North Carolina and Tennessee. Louisiana and South Carolina saw rises in 2004 and have not yet reported on 2005.
Whether the rises continue or not, federal officials say, rates have stagnated in the Deep South at levels well above the national average.
Most striking, here and throughout the country, is the large racial disparity. In Mississippi, infant deaths among blacks rose to 17 per thousand births in 2005 from 14.2 per thousand in 2004, while those among whites rose to 6.6 per thousand from 6.1. (The national average in 2003 was 5.7 for whites and 14.0 for blacks.)
