Obama on civil rights & equality strategy

I got this from Slate, one of my regular rags. i found a real insightful observation (in bold below) about the different attitudes that conservatives and liberals have on the role of the courts. I relate it to what i learned from the book Who Rules America by Domhoff.

begin quote"
In some states, like California, judges instructed the state to take steps to equalize school funding from district to district. In others, like Kansas and Kentucky, and in ongoing litigation in Connecticut, the court decisions are framed in terms of adequacy of funding—making sure each district has enough, rather than the same amount. Either way, it's redistribution of what's become a rather routine sort. This is what Obama was talking about when he said in the radio interview, "Suddenly, a whole bunch of folks start bringing these claims in state court under state constitutions that call for equal educational opportunity, and you see state courts with mixed results being more responsive to it."

What comes through far more clearly in the interview is a tactical point: Obama thinks it's a mistake to rely too much on courts to further any broad agenda. He says, "I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused. I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that." And then he continues, "Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know … the institution just isn't structured that way."

This is a whole separate, bitter, ongoing fight in legal circles—over when to turn to courts as a means of change and when to turn to the legislature, which is directly accountable to the voters and so perhaps the safer and more stable route. It's a truism that conservatives favor legislative change and see the courts as an undemocratic end run around it. They especially think that about any push for "redistributive change," Obama's subject here. In this interview, Obama comes down on the traditionally conservative side, albeit for presumably different reasons. He thinks the civil rights movement misjudged the courts' utility—they were good for providing for a right to vote and for black people to sit with white people at a lunch counter, to use Obama's examples, but they're not good for deciding who's entitled to what government benefits or property rights. "Obama is with Bork on this," Cass Sunstein, an Obama adviser, told me, referring, of course, to the arch-conservative, famously not-confirmed-to-the-Supreme Court Judge Robert Bork.
copied from this Slate article
"end quote

What i found interesting was that Domhoff outlines how the 'elite' class influences America, but i don't remember any explicit contrast between the legislative and court-based strategies of getting what you want done. I think if more liberals look at passing laws (liberal majority yeah!) instead of waiting for the courts, then America would be a much more balanced society.

Why we're not in a (economic) depression already

I've been wondering that with the largest five investment banks going under, why isn't the economy in a full tailspin already? I mean we've seen this coming for two years, and though hopefully half of the crisis is in our rearview mirror, i've been wondering why we haven't gone into a recession by now, or even a depression.

I mean, some of the major indicators are harrowing: the rate of new housing and price of new housing is dropping (but mainly driven down in over-inflated markets like cali and florida, my little neighborhood of West Philadelphia is treading water with a little bump here and there).

What's saved us? Toyota and Wal-Mart. Well, not exactly that company, but the things that make them great: lean thinking. To get what's going on, you have to understand the difference between the construction of supply chains now versus twenty years ago, and much of the change can be attributed to businesses inhaling the notion of lean thinking or JIT (just-in-time) production that was imported from Japan.

So the scenario twenty years ago was that if i was in manufacturing, and i had a couple clients, i would make large batches of products so that i had 'inventory'. Now, i had to make enough inventory so that stuff wouldn't be on back-order for 3 months, so i also had to buy space for this inventory. Now, when my main buyer went out of business, i lost thousands or millions because i had no place to sell my goods.

This may seem bad for A business, but it was even worse for the supply chain. How? Well, i then reduce my orders from my suppliers who feel the same reverberation. But, since i supplied the company that just closed its doors, i also supplied them along with my competitors and other companies who created complementary products. Now, since i got a reduction in orders, also my competitors and complementors did, so OUR supplier is now out not just the business of one business (mine) but multiple businesses (my competition and complementers).

This is a process called amplification. So a disturbance closer to the consumer end of the supply chain, amplifies its consequences down the supply chain. And vice versa . . . when the midwest suffers a drought, all the products relying on corn suffer from higher prices, and lower profit margins.

So what has changed? Wal-mart. Wal-mart got on the IT train real early, and all-in. What they did was set up a system so that their suppliers had real-time access to the current and historical rate of sales of their products. What that meant was that companies instead of creating abstract and guess-based forecasts, they could accurately predict how much an item would sell, and in what seasons, and in what quanitties. So, they no longer had to go through miniature boom-bust cycles for their inventory, they could create a relatively consistent stream of production.

If they then transmit this information to their suppliers, then their suppliers have more realistic information and goals for production. So the amplification factor is minimized or at least reduced drastically due to better communication. Two days ago i saw a graph from another blogger that charted the price of fish in coastal African markets and the volatile fluctuations, until cells phones came in. Now, fishers can call ahead to see the price of fish and can choose to go where the best price is instead of waiting to get all the way to the market and gambling on price. In the graph, the variation was about a third of what it was before!

I remember back in the early-mid nineties when i watched NBR (nightly business report) over my father's shoulder how they would report fluctuations in manufacturing. I would assume that the fluctuations aren't as volatile as before most of the economy started with this IT thing. Now, the situation is far from over, many manufacturing and a few other sectors of the economy are far from investing and/or utilizing their IT departments in such a way as to communicate back through their supply chain, but it is happening, and this fact has enabled the contraction in credit to not adversely affect the rest of the economy. Why? Because you don't need a loan for guaranteed money, you need a loan for speculative money.

Since businesses are relying less on borrowed money for their core production, what's suffering is the creation of new business, not the sustaining of old business. Well, that's my half-pence of analysis anyway