What’s
Wrong Today:

We
went to war with North Korea in the 1950’s. We say that we won that war, but in
the 60 years since we signed the ceasefire agreement, there have been many violations,
incursions, threats and deaths among the parties.  Over the years, we got used to the North Koreans being
awful, just not awful enough to merit a major military response.

They
never leave our radar, but we never
consider North Korea a primary threat, much less an existential threat, like we
have Iran.

This
view continues, despite North Korea abandoning the armistice treaty, closing
the border to the joint manufacturing zone, suggesting that foreign diplomats
leave the country for their safety and rolling missiles on to launch pads, all
in the past month.

Yet in
recent years, North Korea has shown a willingness to follow its rhetoric with
actual violence. In March 2010, it sunk
the South Korean ship Cheonan,
killing 46 sailors. That November, Pyongyang attacked
the island of Yeonpyeongdo during a US-South Korea military exercise.

Still,
we remain focused on Iran. As Julian Hattem wrote in The
Atlantic, we treat North Korea as an afterthought:

It’s partly a matter of
geography. Most experts agree that North Korea’s rockets cannot
reach the American mainland. And even if they could, there’s a lot of time
and distance for early warning and for the military to shoot them down. Little
to fear, right?

Wrong! Do you know the Single-Shot-Kill Probability (SSKP) of an Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) with a conventional warhead? Its way less than 50%. So unless we use nuclear-tipped ABMs, (SSKP >80%), half of the missiles could get through.

All the while,
we make fun of Kim Jong Un. When
Kim welcomed Dennis Rodman to North Korea in February we thought, Kim Jong Un
is a Dennis Rodman fan, how out of touch he is. We laugh when a map behind Kim
shows that Austin, TX is a ballistic missile target, along with LA and New
York.

Our allies in the
region don’t treat the North Korea so lightly. South Korean and Japanese
citizens tend to view North Korea as an existential threat, as we might if Kim
was sitting in Mexico City or Ottawa.

Iran, meanwhile, is a
Muslim nation and it is easier to stoke American fears with Muslim fanaticism
than North Asian nationalism. Iran brings in the Israel factor. We might not be
directly in Iran’s neighborhood, but Israel is, and the particular dynamics of
the US-Israel relationship and Israel’s oft-stated
willingness to preemptively strike Iranian nuclear sites makes that threat seem
most urgent.

There is also the
fear that Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon would inspire Saudi Arabia and
other countries in the neighborhood to also seek them.

In Asia, South Korea
and Japan accept the United States’ nuclear umbrella as a safeguard
against the North; countries in the Middle East are less willing to rely on us
to protect them from Iran.

However, North Korea
has been almost a constant threat to South Korea and tangentially, to Japan.
When tyrants die, their legacy usually dies with them but we are on to Kim 3.0 and we are seeing the same behavior.

The threat
is palpable. North Korea has thousands of artillery guns and many millions of
shells, some of which are chemically tipped. Their artillery
along DMZ are capable of hitting Seoul. It only takes a artillery round 56
seconds to get there. North Korea’s missiles can reach all of Japan and South
Korea, and they have at least a few nuclear tipped missiles, in addition to their
chemical and conventional missiles.

When the UN,
at our behest, places sanctions on North Korea, Mr. Kim threatens us with pre-emptive
nuclear war, knowing full well that we have little desire for a war with a
nuclear armed nation.

The threat
posed by Iran is different. Iran has fewer artillery pieces, a smaller missile
force, an outdated air force and no nuclear weapons currently. So Iran has less
to threaten us or our allies with than does North Korea.

So, when the
UN places sanctions on Iran at our behest, when “someone” attacks their nuclear
facilities with cyber weapons and when “someone” kills their nuclear scientists,
Iranians can make only vague threats since they do not yet have a means of
retaliation.

This should lead us to treat Iran and North
Korea very differently.

The
North Korean regime isn’t an ordinary regime. Ordinary people don’t threaten
pre-emptive nuclear strikes. They could try to hold South Korea hostage with the
few nukes they have. We would not have sufficient reaction time to prevent
Seoul from falling in that event. The standoff would be North Korea holding the
cities hostage with nukes while we try to create a credible alternative threat.

What
would we do then? There would be no easy answer to that riddle.

And
what about China?  China could get involved as they did in the
1950’s. If China believed North Korea might fall in retaliation for their hostile
acts against South Korea or Japan, China would see North Korea becoming a US
proxy state right on their border, something they would work hard to avoid.

Returning to
Iran’s existential threat: When Iran threatens the United State and Israel, it’s
mostly with hot air.

But Israel won’t tolerate Iran working on a nuclear program, so they’re
obviously the biggest threat facing the world today. At least among politicians
in Washington and that may be all that matters.

Iran has a
boatload of work to do before it is a partner of peaceful nations. But, the “let’s
invade now!” case has not been made. Iran is not launching their
nonexistent nukes with their non-existent ICBM’s any minute now just because they’re
religion makes ‘em crazy.

Iran isn’t
even the craziest country on their street, much less in the world.

That would
be North Korea. Give it your full attention.

Things
could get hot there very soon and what our response will be is far from clear.

 

What’
s Wrong Today:

Enjoy
the Final Four this weekend.

Here are a few cartoons for your
enjoyment.

Mr.
Obama’s 5% Pay cut:

Mr. Kim’s temptation:

Our priorities are all wrong:

What REALLY went down at Rutgers:

Missing Roger Ebert:

What will it take to get our vets what they need?

What’s
Wrong Today:

We are leaving Afghanistan in 2014.
The costs and complexity of that task is now becoming clear. We will spend more
than $6 billion to pull out, says UK’s The Guardian:

Some
estimates are higher. The job is to salvage and reuse as much of the $26
billion of equipment on the ground that we can, particularly in this time of
budget deficits. The US military says it plans to level any bases not handed
over to Afghan forces and fly out, drive out or scrap the weapons, equipment
and tens of thousands of Humvees and expensive MRAPs (mine-resistant
ambush-protected vehicles) it has shipped in since 2001.

The
plan is to ship out as much equipment as possible by while making sure the nearly
70,000 US soldiers still in Afghanistan are not left short of the equipment
they still need. By August, the equipment exodus will be in full swing, with US
sending about 1,500 military vehicles and 1,000 containers per month out of Afghanistan.

About
two-thirds of that cargo is expected to move through Pakistan. In July, Pakistan re-opened its
highways to NATO supply trucks after the routes had been closed for
several months in response to the US killing 24 Pakistani soldiers in an attack
on a border post in November, 2011.

When
the US left Iraq, equipment was trucked to Kuwait where it was cleaned, packed and shipped out. But Afghanistan has no coastline, no stable, US-friendly
neighbors and a vulnerable road network, making the job more dangerous, expensive
and complicated. Colonel Mark Paget of the 401st Army Field Support
Brigade: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

The
Wall Street Journal reported that the US tested the Pakistan
overland route used for the past decade to bring goods into Afghanistan in
reverse, by sending a trial load of military hardware through Pakistan and on to
the port of Karachi. The shipment, which included more than 70 containers and
20 military vehicles, was a early test of the plan to bring home our military
gear via Pakistan.

But,
as Jim White reported at Empty Wheel, although the first shipment of 20 trucks made it
through, we now know that subsequently, a convoy of
five trucks on the exit route was attacked and destroyed.

From
the AFP via the
Express Tribune:

The vehicles and their contents were a total loss. Looks
like the Taliban will have no problem stopping the steady, even flow of goods
that Colonel Paget says is critical. Nothing
can pile up equipment like a low cost, low tech attack. We will have to do a
better job protecting these convoys, or else use the more expensive alternatives of
air freight or the Northern Distribution Network, (NDN) a route through
Central Asia to the Baltic and Black Sea ports. The NDN may be more expensive
than the route through Pakistan, but it isn’t exposed to attacks by the Taliban.

Perhaps
the military will allow a certain number of the convoys to be
burned by militants in Pakistan as a cost of doing business. Perhaps the
military will respond by hardening the convoys with troops, Humvees and MRAPS
like those they are trying to send home. Or, perhaps they would just be happier
ordering new stuff rather than using refurbished old stuff.

The
moral of the story: It’s clearly easier to get in than to get out of
Afghanistan.

Moral
#2: Apparently, the Taliban can drink the Pentagon’s milkshake whenever they want.

What’s
Wrong Today:

The
Wrongologist continues to be otherwise engaged, but here are more links for
your review:

1. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that the US has lost almost 2 million
clerical jobs since 2007, but gained 387,000 managers. The International
Business Times is out early with a report  on the BLS data and the changes to the
workforce. Read it and weep.

    2. CNN
takes a different cut at the BLS data talking
about the growth in low-income jobs. The headline is that seven of the ten highest employment occupations earn less than $30,000 per year. Many of these jobs earn less
than the current poverty level.

Here is a chart from the BLS data in the report:

And here is
a chart showing current unemployment and average income by education level:

Seems that the best idea is still to go to college.

What’s
Wrong Today:

There
will be limited blogging this week as the Wrongologist attempts to finish a
year-long project and also to file his (and Ms. Oh So Right’s) taxes.

Instead
here are selections of links to articles by people who obviously have more time than the Wrongologist:

1. Daily Currant reports: Paul
Ryan thrown out of Easter Mass

2. NYT: Tom
Friedman’s ridiculous article on Sunday

• Dean
  Baker’s mocking
  response to Friedman
• A
  site where you can create your
  own mock Friedman column 

3. David
Stockman’s even more ridiculous
Sunday NYT article

• Paul
  Krugman’s cranky
  response  also, more by Krugman here 

4. 21
Charts that compare medical costs overseas to the US

5. Obligatory
funny pet video: Who is the
guilty dog?

 

Happy Easter, or happy Final Four, depending upon your religion:

Easter message to the Weasels in Washington:

Scalia admits his non-traditional relationship:

Obama’s speech in Israel:

Kim Jong Un imitates Psy’s dance:

Rodman’s bromance has benefits:

What’s
Wrong Today:

Politicians
are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against
them. Do you wonder why, if both Democrats and Republicans are against
deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians
are against war and unemployment, we have war and unemployment?

The plain truth is that
if 538 people in Congress can decide the direction of the federal government, it
must follow that the conditions that exist today are what they want to exist.

If
the budget is in the red, it’s because they colored it red. If Marines are in Africa,
it’s because they wanted them sent to Africa. There are no insoluble government
problems.

Above all, don’t
let politicians con you into believing that there are disembodied forces like
“the economy,” “inflation” or “politics” that
prevent them from doing what they have taken an oath to do.

Turning to
2013, how is it that when Mr. Obama gets re-elected by a majority on a pledge
to hike taxes on incomes above $250K, and despite
having a legislative situation where if he takes no action, his pledge succeeds,
that he proceeds to negotiate against himself?

How is it
that while polls show that a majority of Americans oppose cuts to Social Security, both President
Obama and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, along with Republicans, are for them?

So,
What’s Wrong?

It’s the rule
of the Plutocrats. Throughout history, the richest among us have used their wealth
to secure favorable laws.

As Jeffrey
Winters and Benjamin Page write in their 2009 article, Oligarchy
in the United States, it is perfectly possible for an oligarchy to function
quite nicely inside a democracy. Reference to another work by Benjamin Page appeared
in the Wrongologist earlier
this week.

Winters
and Page write: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

Winters
and Page speak about oligarchs, while the Wrongologist speaks about plutocrats.
How are plutocrats different from oligarchs?

“Oligarchy”
is when the government is controlled by a small group; “Plutocracy” is when the
government is controlled by the wealthy. The Wrongologist assumes that all
plutocrats are oligarchs but not all oligarchs are plutocrats. The Free
Dictionary reports
that the combination of plutocracy and
oligarchy is called plutarchy, a largely unpronounceable word.

How do the
plutocrats coordinate their politics? How can they work together when there are
so many of them? Winters and Page say the
answer is that hyper-rich people share three
important interests:

• Protecting
  and preserving wealth

• Insuring
  the unrestricted use of wealth

• Acquiring
  more wealth

They don’t
have to conspire to protect their interests. They just shut up and let a few of them manage the specifics
for all of them.

Take the
Estate Tax as an example: Its function is partly to generate revenue, but its
social role is to break up large fortunes. The Wal-Mart heirs provide
leadership for the rest of the plutocrats on this issue. They spend vast sums
of money to insure that their children do not suffer the indignity of living on
less than billions (and billions) of dollars of inherited money.

Very few other
plutocrats outwardly support the Wal-Mart heirs on this issue and even fewer oppose
them. Those that do oppose them only talk, they do not spend money.

Plutocrats
deploy armies of professionals to assist them in influencing economic policy. As
we discussed yesterday,
professionals see themselves as independent, but they need patronage to maintain their positions and they
get it by providing research and advocacy for the policies that support the
views of the plutocrats.

Plutocrats have recently lost interest in maintaining
their part of the bargain about following the rules:

• Entire
  industries are now off limits for prosecution

• Rules
  are randomly changed to favor their interests

Worst of
all, democracy no longer works in America. It used to operate under majority rule. That is no longer the case in either house of Congress.

In the
House, under the Hastert Rule, the Speaker is reluctant to present a bill that
doesn’t have the support of a majority of his party. That means that a minority
of the House can prevent any bill from being heard.

The Senate’s
rules allow a single Senator to stop a bill. A minority can prevent consideration
of any bill. This situation is largely the fault of the Republicans, the party
of the plutocrats. But in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) could have
moved against the paralysis and changed these rules, but he refused to do so. In
the Senate, fault lies as much with Harry Reid as with the party of the rich.

This leverage is used by the plutocrats primarily
on economic issues.

Like the
rest of America, plutocrats are divided on social issues like immigration, LGBT
rights and women’s issues. It turns out that some plutocrats have family or
friends or are themselves LGBT.  Because
of that, they are prepared to allow democracy to work on this issue.

And that’s
exactly how things are working out. On
matters of direct interest to the plutocrats, they win. You can pass laws about marriage or abortion as long as we get our way on money.

That’s just
a lousy deal for the rest of us.

Representatives
of the plutocrats are elected either by low voter participation, or by the
willingness of those who do vote to elect people based mostly on non-ability
factors like religion, party, appearance, etc. It doesn’t help that there is a
majority of people who care more about the Super Bowl than presidential
elections. Television ratings are
truth.

In the
1930’s, the organized support of the American people made Social Security
possible. Today, their apathy may lead to its destruction. When pessimists
proclaim that Social Security will not be there for them, we should ask if that
won’t be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

How long can
it be before an army of average Joes takes on the task of ending our political impasse?

What’s
Wrong Today:

Today, the Wrongologist turns up HIS voice: Our economy is
failing our citizens despite the wonderful stock market.

Consider that in the
past 6 months:

• The working age
  population has grown by 1.1 million; the number of employed Americans is up by 500k,
  but the number of people who have left the labor force has increased by 600k

• The number of Americans
  entering the Food Stamp Program increased 1 million, to 47.8 million

• Existing home sales have
  increased by a scintillating 2.9% on a seasonally adjusted annual basis and
  average prices have fallen by 6%

• The National Debt has
  gone up by $750 billion, while Real GDP has increased by $150 billion

• Real hourly earnings have
  not increased in the last six months

• Consumer debt has risen
  by $65 billion 
  

• Retail sales have
  increased by less than 2%

With 71% of our GDP driven by consumers,
these numbers show that we are institutionalizing our low growth economy, and
perpetuating income inequality.

As Timothy Fenwick Jr. said in
the movie, Diner:

At the close of the movie, he is
driving by a long white fence in some ritzy, horse farm section outside
Baltimore. He could feel that they lived better than he did. Awareness can be a bitch. 

Income
inequality has been around and studied for some time. In 1954, Simon Kuznets
published his classic paper on whether income inequality
affects growth. In the late 1990′s income inequality reached modern historic
highs and has stayed there.

Viewed
from below, income inequality is about how much better the rich live than do the
people below them. In the realm of politics, being rich gives the ability to
buy political power. The more power that can be reliably bought, the more money
and political power become interrelated. According to Wikipedia, a plutocracy must
not only have Pluto, (wealth), but cracy, (power).

Now, even
members of the professional class are becoming aware of income inequality as they watch the wealthy elites move up and out of sight. Professionals are realizing that their
own perceptions of income inequality has changed. No longer are they watching as the
middle class and working class fall into the abyss, but they are experiencing their own relative fall in
comparison to the truly wealthy.

Income
inequality is now everyone’s issue: first, the working class, then middle
class and the technical class, and now the professional class. They, the CEOs, bankers and attorneys, saw themselves as servants of the elites and in return, believed
that they had the chance to join the elites if they invested well, or if they created
a big score for a member of the elite.

One important
concept that explains how the world works is the Red Queen’s Race. In the book, Alice In Wonderland, the Red Queen drags Alice “as fast as they can
go,” and they go nowhere. The term Red Queen’s Race
describes a situation where exerting all one’s efforts leads to going nowhere. Our current Red Queen’s Race is the effort
by Washington to deal with high unemployment and low GDP growth.

Congress
and the Plutocrats are dragging us about, but we are getting nowhere.

Look at
almost any policy that the “Very Serious People” push. You will see that it
creates more financial paper to sell. What we get is the continued stagconomy and the honor of paying
rent to people who do not compete directly for the things we want, and the honor of not having
to pay rent to people who DO compete directly with us. We are bought off by the
homogeneity of our material world: Everyone’s phones, cars, trucks, houses, all work
the same way and work well. It is a trade that the vast majority of Americans
are willing to make, one that is not tied to an ideology or to a single
political party.

We and the
elites now live in two different worlds, they, with banks in Geneva, hotels in
Dubai and medical care that the rest of us do not see. This is hugely expensive,
since their parallel world is not tea
with the Queen, but breakfast on Mt. Olympus. 

And first
class is no longer first class; first class is a private jet. In the 1970’s you
could see Mayors and CEOs flying the Shuttle. They don’t fly the Shuttle any more.
They don’t go to the same hospitals, theirs do not accept our insurance. This is
also why the professional class hates taxation: They are not rich enough to
hide their money; their money resides where it can be found by governments. And
thus, the government must not increase taxes.

Summary

• Income
  inequality and lack of social mobility is how our political economy was
  designed

• There
  has been a sequential exclusion of all classes but the elites from increases in
  real wealth starting in the 1970’s

• The
  public has accepted this exclusion, while elites have used it to concentrate their
  political power

The
point is that teachers, doctors or architects, who once lived next door to Plutocrats,
now see that they are falling farther and farther behind. Doctors and attorneys,
who were closest to the Plutocrats, have been superseded by the MBA’s running
the insurance delivery system who, by the way, find that they are also falling
behind.

Teachers
and architects are way back in the rear view mirror.

Things
have regressed. Health care is once again regarded as a luxury. A defined
pension is a luxury. A full-time job is a luxury. A middle-class income is a
luxury. In fact, everything north of genteel poverty has become a luxury.

The
middle class and the poor have always had aspirations, but caused no trouble
for the Plutocrats. Yet, history says that they are the people who bring out the
firing squads when betrayed.

It
takes a while to sink in: It was almost 100 years from Louis XIV until Louis
XVI took his little trip through the streets of Paris to the guillotine.

 

The Wrongologist is in Istanbul, Turkey and is then heading
to Dubai. Full-scale blogging should
begin again around March 11.

Istanbul is a fact-finding visit.  Here is the Topkapi Palace:

Invited to speak at the American University in Dubai:

Trinkets will be purchased.

This Week At Our Lady Of Wrong: