Today in inequality reading: Nicholas Kristof

In his important new book, “The Darwin Economy,” Robert H. Frank of Cornell University cites a study showing that among 65 industrial nations, the more unequal ones experience slower growth on average. Likewise, individual countries grow more rapidly in periods when incomes are more equal, and slow down when incomes are skewed.

That’s certainly true of the United States. We enjoyed considerable equality from the 1940s through the 1970s, and growth was strong. Since then inequality has surged, and growth has slowed.

One reason may be that inequality is linked to financial distress and financial crises. There is mounting evidence that inequality leads to bankruptcies and to financial panics.

“The recent global economic crisis, with its roots in U.S. financial markets, may have resulted, in part at least, from the increase in inequality,” Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry of the International Monetary Fund wrote last month. They argued that “equality appears to be an important ingredient in promoting and sustaining growth.”

Inequality also leads to early deaths and more divorces — a reminder that we’re talking not about data sets here, but about human beings.

via nytimes.com

Somebody wasn't thrilled to join daddy in covering the iPhone launch for Macworld.

Slow blogging today

I've got other work to get done!

Why not bring criminal conspiracy charges against men in the Mummers prostitution case?

I'm clearly a bit cranky that the criminal burden of the Mummers prostitution party has fallen upon the female prostitutes involved. Here's a question for Philadelphia police and prosecutors: Why not bring criminal conspiracy charges against some of the Mummers' leaders?

Here's how the Inquirer describes the investigation:

The investigation into the club began almost two months ago, after police received tips that women were soliciting sex on the second floor of the building every second Tuesday of the month between 7 and 11 p.m., Blackburn said.

Lt. Charles Green of the citywide vice unit said an undercover officer gained access to one of the parties last month after wrangling an invitation from Crovetti. Inside, the officer saw women walking around wearing next to nothing, as well as about 50 men.

About 7:30 Tuesday night, two undercover officers made a repeat visit to the party. As the officers made their way around the building, they saw a man pulling his pants up near a naked woman in one room, and others engaging in sex acts in view of the bartenders and others. Meanwhile, Green said, 10 women approached the officers about paying for sex.

"It was just so out in the open, and so obvious what was going on," Green said.

If it was so obvious what was going on—not just in that moment, but to the point that it sparked a two-month investigation—then it was probably obvious to the folks who run the Mummers' Downtowners Fancy Brigade clubhouse. They—in all likelihood—knew what was going on and permitted the illegal activity to continue.

Seems like that fits the definition of a criminal conspiracy under Pennsylvania statutes:

A person is guilty of
conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if
with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he:
(1) agrees with such other person or persons that they
or one or more of them will engage in conduct which
constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to
commit such crime; or
(2) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the
planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or
solicitation to commit such crime.
(b) Scope of conspiratorial relationship.--If a person
guilty of conspiracy, as defined by subsection (a) of this
section, knows that a person with whom he conspires to commit a
crime has conspired with another person or persons to commit the
same crime, he is guilty of conspiring with such other person or
persons, to commit such crime whether or not he knows their
identity.

In other words, you don't have to have had a conversation saying "let's do this criminal act together" in order to commit criminal conspiracy. It can be implicit and tacit—and the justice system can infer evidence of such a tacit conspiracy.

Well, hey: Pretty much the whole city has made the same inference here.

It's another question entirely whether prostitution should be illegal at all. (I'm of mixed opinions on the topic.) But right now it's not just illegal to offer sex for money; it's illegal to pay money for sex. We've only one side of that equation here—and women, again, are bearing the criminal burden of it. Philadelphia police and prosecutors can do better than that.

Walt Disney, Snow White, and Occupy Wall Street

At NRO, Charles C.W. Cooke finds an Occupy Wall Street protester to mock and educate. It needs to be quoted at length.

He was a fairly well dressed and sometimes well spoken middle-aged man, and he wanted to talk to me about Walt Disney. This request alone was enough to pique my interest. But then, he surprised me. “Walt Disney,” he said, “was a whore…Look at how much money he made out of Snow White….Why can’t I use it in my mashups?”

Walt Disney made a lot of money from Snow White, something my friend considers unfair. But then Walt and his brother Roy also took a lot of risk. Originally estimating that the movie would cost $250,000 to make, the final bill ended up at around $1.5 million. During the three grueling years of production, Walt was almost universally laughed at for his ambition, including by his wife and brother. In the industry the project was known as “Disney’s Folly,” in part because the studio quite literally had to invent most of the processes necessary for the production of a full-length animated film. It had never been done before, and he was banking the studio’s future on it turning out alright. Through sheer will and charisma, and the hard if skeptical work of his brother Roy, Walt managed to borrow enough money to realize his vision. And here is the kicker — Walt remortgaged his house to help pay for it.

I told my friend this in response to his appraisal, albeit in less detail. His response: “So? I’ve lost my house twice.”

What we should have absolutely no sympathy for whatsoever, however, is the naked rejection of the American system, as espoused by my Disney-hating friend. Whatever one thinks of Wall Street, Walt Disney won fair and square and deserves our admiration not our oppobrium. It is this sort of attitude, encountered widely, that devastates the protester’s cause.

Actually, Walt Disney's corporation is a perfect example of how big corporations can bend the government to suit their purposes in ways that benefit them and crowd the public out of their own moneymaking and artistic endeavors.

Until 1998, a movie like "Snow White"—that is, a work of "corporate authorship"—would've been under copyright for 75 years. Under that law, Disney's movie would've entered the public domain ... next year, making it possible for Cooke's protester to use the video in his mashup without fear. Something new and interesting might've been born of it.

But the Walt Disney corporation managed to use the power of its lobbying muscle to have the law revised with passage of the Copyright Term Extension Act. Now works of corporate authorship are protected for 120 years. "Snow White" won't be lawfully available for mashups until ... 2057. Assuming Disney hasn't had the law changed again by then.

There's a reason for copyrights—so that creators can reap the rewards of their work—but, once upon a time, there was a good reason for limited copyright terms: So other creators could take those ideas, build on them, create new innovations, and extend the vitality of capitalism.

And it's a good thing, too: "Snow White" was available for Walt Disney to use and fashion into something new, beautiful, and profitable because it was in the public domain. Walt Disney took risk, sure. His corporation is keeping others from acting similarly. That's not the "fair and square" victory Cooke claims.

'Our main targets were the females': Police, the Mummers, and prostitutes

Lawrence Crovetti, charged with
promoting prostitution—the only man
to face sex charges in the case.

We get a bit of an explanation in today's Inquirer:

John Murray, 56, of Deptford, the club's financial secretary, and Alfred Sanborn, 44, of South Philadelphia, its steward, were arrested on liquor violation charges. The two acted as bartenders during the parties, and the clubhouse did not have a liquor license, police said.

Murray and Sanborn were aware of the prostitution, said Deputy Police Commissioner William Blackburn, but police did not have enough evidence to charge them with prostitution-related offenses. The dozens of men seen interacting with the women were not arrested, either.

"We weren't privy to the conversations between the males and the females, where there was a price and a particular act that was identified," Blackburn said. "Our main targets were the females."

The main targets were the females? Why? If the police are correct, Tuesday night's Mummer's prostitution party was a monthly event. They went to the trouble of getting an undercover officer invited into the club. They couldn't take the time to develop a case against the people who were facilitating the prostitution parties, or taking advantage of the services?

It takes two to tango. Certainly, this particular Mummers club has received a black eye it may not recover from. But it is the women—with one exception—who are charged with crimes involving sex. Not the men who were also committing crimes. With due respect to the difficulties of developing a prosecution-worthy case, it is simply wrong that the criminal burden of this situation falls so heavily, so exclusively on the women involved.

Not just the criminal burden, but the social burden. The men who sought blowjobs and who knows what else from these women won't have their pictures published in a photo gallery at Philly.com, forever viewable by anybody able to use Google. (And look at those photos, how bedraggled and worn most of the women appear. It should put the lie to any media-fueled fantasies we have about Julia Roberts-style glamorous hookers.) The men were paying for sex, but it is the women who are paying the price. It is a shame. A damn shame.

Paul Waldman on the GOP's Medicare plans

So let’s review the Republican position on health care, explained here by Gingrich but shared by pretty much everyone in the party:

1. Health care in general, and Medicare in particular, are bankrupting our country.
2. But government should never try to figure out which treatments are effective.
3. Medicare should pay for any treatment anyone wants, regardless of whether it works or what it costs.
4. If an insurance company refuses to pay for a procedure, that’s their right as actors in the free market; if Medicare refuses to pay for a procedure, that’s Washington bureaucrats trying to kill you.
5. We need to cut Medicare benefits, because don’t forget it’s bankrupting our country.

via prospect.org