Categories Economy

7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
#Thread: Though it's important to shed light on the ongoing humanitarian crisis in #Yemen, you could read this entire @reuters article (and most articles written about Yemen) and not know why this boy is starving or who is responsible for these conditions:

The boy travelled from Al-Jawf to Sana'a because al-Jawf is among "high intensity battlefronts" & is the target of repeated civilian airstrikes.
https://t.co/1KlIN5ixTf

Also, roads are "damaged" because they're frequently bombed by US/Saudi airstrikes:

Shockingly, he's one of the lucky ones who managed to make it to a hospital.

Only 51% of health facilities are (barely) functioning: https://t.co/GBgKXM562t

And hospitals have been frequently targeted by airstrikes: For example:

International aid & donations are necessary for Faid & millions to survive because of the Saudi/US/UAE blockade that prevents Yemenis from trade and makes them reliant on aid instead. Before the war, Yemen imported 90% of its food; now, 80% rely on aid.

Famine hasn't been declared because the UN faces immense pressure from its top donors, the US & Saudi, who are also causing the famine in Yemen.

The US went as far as pressuring the UN to restrict aid to Northern Yemen, where 70% of Yemenis live:
Nice article from @MESandbu. This from a theme in sellside research before Christmas. Could the pandemic break secular stagnation & deliver a decade of strong growth?


Historical evidence clear - pandemics are usually deflationary, causing lower r*. Big difference with wars, which usually cause r* to rise. Great Jorda et al paper on this

Here is their main result


Historically, Wars destroyed both capital stock and labour force. Pandemics killed millions but left capital stock untouched. Covid-19 is neither of these things. Workforce hasn't plunged, capital stock untouched. Comparison with 1920s is a stretch. So precedent for today..

Some more recent evidence based on modern health crises shows only a short-lived boost to GDP, then weaker trend then before. See this Vox column
1/9. There are many problems with this rule. Pruitt/Wheeler threw out EPA's own established procedures to short-circuit the science review: changes to the review process since 2017 undermined its quality, credibility, and integrity.


2/9. Pruitt/Wheeler kicked all 7 members off the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and replaced them under a policy found to be arbitrary and capricious by the U.S. district court of SDNY. The repopulated CASAC has the appearance of lack of impartiality.

3/9. Wheeler refused to form a CASAC Ozone Review Panel 3 months after EPA issued a call for nominations for such a panel, thereby depriving CASAC of the breadth, depth, and diversity of expertise, experience and perspectives needed for ozone NAAQS Review.

4/9. The Ozone review process was truncated and accelerated, leading to inadequate scientific review, and inappropriate commingling of science and policy reviews. Fewer opportunities for public comment created a less transparent NAAQS scientific review process

5/9. As professional malpractice, the stripped down and reconstituted CASAC offered advice outside of its expertise, particularly with regard to epidemiology (there were zero epidemiologists on CASAC). The CASAC chair imposed a burden of proof contrary to that of the CAA.
1/

🧵 THREAD about probably one of the BEST discussions about social value of work, economic wealth and fairness in a while.

40 mins with @amolrajan, @PJTheEconomist @elerianm @KGerlich777 Louise Casey

@davidgraeber 🗣️ "The more your job helps others, the less you get paid"


2/

Reminded me of @euan_lawson for @BJGPjournal quoting Michael Sandel on meritocracy: https://t.co/tAl6sobtKW

🗣️ "In an unequal society, those who land on top want to believe their success is morally justified. In a meritocratic society, this means the winners must believe...

3/

🗣️ "...they have earned their success through their own talent and hard work.… at a time when racism and sexism are out of favor (discredited though not eliminated), credentialism is the last acceptable prejudice."

4/

@PJTheEconomist over the last 20 years:

⬇️ 30% per person spending on social care
⬆️ 100% more hospital doctors.

No extra GPs - actually the number of full time equivalents is dropping: https://t.co/n20woUk0Wu

And they aren't equally distributed either (inverse-care law)

5/

When we look at care work @KGerlich777 talks about care sector:

➡️ How it is heavily gendered? 80% women
➡️ How poorly it is paid and misconceptions about what it involves.

Louise Casey explaining needed huge reform and re-structure