Month: August 2016

In Cultural Revolution, Chinese “Tried to Turn Their Homes into Fragile Islands of Freedom”

(p. C8) Mr. Dikötter’s greatest contribution with “The Cultural Revolution,” which is the third in a trilogy on China during the Mao era, is his undermining of the conventional view of the period following Mao’s death in 1976. The prevailing narrative, much encouraged by the Communist Party, is that the Chinese state began “lifting” hundreds of millions of people out of poverty through its sage adoption of capitalist-style policies officially called “reform and opening,” beginning with an end to systemwide economic planning and the restoration of markets.
Drawing on a growing body of existing research, Mr. Dikötter argues that China’s markets were not born of the official reforms of the late-1970s and early 1980s but rather got their start before the Cultural Revolution had ended in 1976. He writes of peasants and city dwellers who had completely lost faith in the system and began improvised acts of survival and resistance, like the private trading of goods and labor, which was banned, and even small-scale industrial output.
“Senseless and unpredictable purges were designed to cow the population and rip apart entire communities, producing docile, atomized individuals loyal to no one but the Chairman,” Mr. Dikötter writes. The outcome, as with so many extreme, top-down uses of power, was almost the exact opposite. As surreptitious markets began to flourish in response to scarcity, “people from all walks of life tried to turn their homes into fragile islands of freedom.”​

For the full review, see:
HOWARD W. FRENCH. “‘Bombard the Headquarters’; The twin pillars of Mao’s campaign were uprooting supposed reactionaries and the promotion of sycophancy.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., May 28, 2016): C8.
(Note: the online version of the review has the date May 27, 2016.)

The book under review, is:
Dikötter, Frank. The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History, 1962-1976. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2016.

Many Discoveries Take a Long Time Because “No One Really Looked”

Periods are a strange phenomenon. We don’t know why humans have them, or, to look at it another way, why most other animals don’t. Scientists say only 1.5 percent of mammal species have periods, and most of those are primates like us. The ranks of the menstrually afflicted grew a little bit recently, as researchers learned that female spiny mice have periods, too. They shared their findings on the bioRxiv preprint server.
. . .
Why did it take scientists so long to notice that these curious creatures were part of the period posse? “The answer, as with many discoveries in science, is that no one really looked,” said Hayley Dickinson, a reproductive physiologist and long-time spiny rat researcher at the University of Monash. “Everyone knew that rodents didn’t menstruate.”

For the full story, see:
Nowogrodzki, Anna. “First Rodent Found with a Humanlike Menstrual Cycle.” Nature (Fri., June 10, 2016).
(Note: ellipsis added.)

The preprint of the research mentioned above is:
Bellofiore, Nadia, Stacey J. Ellery, Jared Mamrot, David W. Walker, Peter Temple-Smith, and Hayley Dickinson. “First Evidence of a Menstruating Rodent: The Spiny Mouse (Acomys Cahirinus).” bioRxiv (June 3, 2016).

Scientists Reviving Extinct Tortoise Species

(p. D1) . . . the story of extinct Galápagos tortoises has taken a strange, (p. D5) and hopeful, twist.
More than a century ago, it turns out, sailors dumped saddlebacked tortoises they did not need into Banks Bay, near Wolf Volcano on Isabela Island. Luckily, tortoises can extend their necks above water and float on their backs. Many of them made it to shore, lumbered across the lava fields and interbred with Isabela’s native domed tortoises.
In 2008, scientists tagged and collected blood samples from more than 1,600 tortoises living on the flanks of the volcano. Back in the laboratory, there was a genetic eureka: Eighty-nine of the animals were part Floreana, whose full genetic profile DNA had been obtained from museum samples.
Some had genes indicating their parents were living purebred Floreana tortoises, hinting that the species may not be extinct after all.
Seventeen tortoises were shown to have high levels of Pinta DNA. Tortoises can live for more than 150 years, so some of them may well be George’s immediate next of kin.
Last month, scientists went back to find them. Their plan was to capture and separate tortoises with high levels of Pinta and Floreana DNA, and then breed animals that are genetically closest to the original species.
In just a few generations, it should be possible to obtain tortoises with 95 percent of their “lost” ancestral genes, the scientists said.

For the full story, see:
SANDRA BLAKESLEE. “A Lost Species Crawls Back to Life.” The New York Times (Tues., DEC. 15, 2015): D1 & D5.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date DEC. 14, 2015, and has the title “Scientists Hope to Bring a Galápagos Tortoise Species Back to Life.”)

All Land in China Owned by Communist Government

(p. B1) WENZHOU, China — Chen Furong and his wife bought their home 23 years ago for its proximity to the city center and for the tree-lined canal just outside. Their dream was to pass it on to their children and grandchildren, a piece of wealth giving their family a share of China’s economic miracle.
Then their neighbor tried to sell her place — and it was all thrown into doubt.
Like every other homeowner in China, Mr. Chen and his neighbor own their homes but not the land underneath them. All land in China is owned by the government, which parcels it out to developers and homeowners through 20- to 70-year leases.
When the neighbor — whose surname is Wang — tried to sell her apartment, local officials told her that her lease on the land had expired. To sell her apartment, they told her, she would have to pay them one-third of the sales value.
Ms. Wang protested in a move that drew national attention. Suddenly millions of Chinese who had socked away billions — and possibly trillions — of dollars were worried as well. If the local authorities in other parts of China did the same thing, they thought, a big chunk of their own wealth could end up with the government as well.
“What will happen after our land lease expires?” (p. B4) asked Mr. Chen, 69, who with his wife holds a 70-year lease. “I will be dead when the lease expires, but will I be able to give it to my son?”

For the full story, see:
STUART LEAVENWORTH and KIKI ZHAO. “Built on Shaky Ground.” The New York Times (Weds., June 1, 2016): B1 & B4.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date MAY 31, 2016, and has the title “In China, Homeowners Find Themselves in a Land of Doubt.”)

Creative Destruction of Polaroid by Digital Photography

(p. A17) There aren’t many 3-year-olds who can take credit for inspiring a revolution in the way millions of people view the world. According to a legend that begins Peter Buse’s welcome history of the Polaroid company, “The Camera Does the Rest,” it was engineer Edwin Land’s daughter, Jennifer, who asked one evening in 1943 why it took so long to view the photographs that the family had shot while on vacation in Santa Fe, N.M. Land set out on a walk to ponder that question and, so the story goes, returned six hours later with an answer that would transform the hidebound practice of photography: the instant snapshot.
. . .
“In 1974 alone there were about 1 billion Polaroid images made, and by 1976 . . . 15 billion in total,” the author writes, “and this before the real explosion in Polaroid photography in the late 1970s and early 1980s.” The party might have gone on forever had it not been for the same type of creative destruction that Polaroid itself had stirred up in the 1940s–this time brought about by the digital revolution.
By the time the company joined that revolution in the 1990s, it was too late. Their digital products were inferior to those being turned out by competing companies. Polaroid had always done well selling cameras, but the real money was in the film, the demand for which was falling precipitately. In July 1997, the company’s stock price was $60.51. Four years later, as the company spiraled toward bankruptcy, it was $0.49. The author writes that Polaroid joined the “analog scrap heap” that included “vinyl turntables and the Sony Walkman.”​

For the full review, see:
PATRICK COOKE. “BOOKSHELF; The Original Instagram; Purists grumbled that Polaroids were ephemeral, but Ansel Adams created some of his most enduring photographs using the camera.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., May 17, 2016): A17.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date May 16, 2016.)

The book under review, is:
Buse, Peter. The Camera Does the Rest: How Polaroid Changed Photography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Based on Cost and Fairness, 76.9% of Swiss Voters Say “No” to Taxpayer-Paid Minimum Income for All

(p. C6) ZURICH–Swiss voters on Sunday overwhelmingly rejected a controversial initiative that would have guaranteed all Swiss residents a minimum income on which to live.
The Basic Income Initiative received just 23.1% of the vote in Sunday’s referendum, compared with 76.9% against. . . .
Rather, the significance of Sunday’s vote–which the plan’s backers ensured by collecting the necessary 100,000 signatures–was that it gave a high-profile airing to an idea that has gained traction among economists in Europe and the U.S. in recent years.
Though the monthly amount wasn’t spelled out, it was expected to have been around 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,560) per adult, with a smaller subsidy for children, without regard to employment, education, disability, age or even wealth.
. . .
Opponents, . . . , latched on to two critiques: cost and fairness.

For the full story, see:
BRIAN BLACKSTONE. “Switzerland Votes to Reject Basic Income Initiative.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., June 6, 2016): C6.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 5, 2016.)

Obama and Koch Brothers Agree Occupational Licensing Restricts Opportunity

GranatelliGraceCanineMassageTherapist2016-07-11.jpg“Grace Granatelli, a certified canine massage therapist. In 2013, Arizona’s Veterinary Medical Examining Board demanded that she close up shop for medically treating animals without a veterinary degree.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — “I usually start behind the neck,” Grace Granatelli said from her plump brown sofa. “There’s two pressure points back behind the ears that help relax them a little bit.” In her lap, she held the head of Sketch, her mixed beagle rat terrier, as her fingers traced small circles through his fur.

Ms. Granatelli, whose passion for dogs can be glimpsed in the oil portrait of her deceased pets and the bronzed casts of their paws, started an animal massage business during the recession after taking several courses and workshops. Her primary form of advertising was her car, with its “K9 RUBS” license plate and her website, Pawsitive Touch, stenciled onto her rear window.
But in 2013, Arizona’s Veterinary Medical Examining Board sent her a cease-and-desist order, demanding that she close up shop for medically treating animals without a veterinary degree. If not, the board warned, every Swedish doggy massage she completed could cost her a $1,000 fine.
To comply with the ruling and obtain a license, Ms. Granatelli would have to spend about $250,000 over four years at an accredited veterinary school. None require courses in massage technique; many don’t even offer one.
. . .
(p. B5) The Obama administration and the conservative political network financed by the Koch brothers don’t agree on much, but the belief that the zeal among states for licensing all sorts of occupations has spiraled out of control is one of them. In recent months, they have collaborated with an array of like-minded organizations and political leaders in a bid to roll back licensing rules.
. . .
. . . the current mishmash of requirements is too often “inconsistent, inefficient, and arbitrary,” a White House report concluded last year. Many of them, the report said, have little purpose other than to protect those already in the field from further competition.
. . .
Only rarely are licensing requirements removed. Last month, though, Arizona agreed to curb them for yoga teachers, geologists, citrus fruit packers and cremationists.
But dozens more professions escaped the ax. “Arizona is perceived as a low-regulatory state, but this was the most difficult bill we worked on this session,” said Daniel Scarpinato, a spokesman for the Republican governor, Douglas Ducey.
Licensing boards are generally dominated by members of the regulated profession. And in Arizona, more than two dozen of the boards are allowed to keep 90 percent of their fees, turning over a mere 10 percent of the revenue to the state.
“They use that money to hire contract lobbyists and P.R. people,” Mr. Scarpinato said. “This is really a dark corner of state government.”
They are often joined in their campaign by lobbyists from industry trade associations and for-profit colleges, which sell the required training courses.

For the full story, see:
PATRICIA COHEN. “Horse Rub? Where’s Your License?” The New York Times (Sat., JUNE 18, 2016): B1 & B5.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date JUNE 17, 2016, and has the title “Moving to Arizona Soon? You Might Need a License.”)

The White House report mentioned above, is:
The White House. “Occupational Licensing: A Framework for Policy Makers.” July 2015.

$10,000 Universal Income Would Reduce Work and Cost Taxpayers Trillions

(p. B4) This month [June 2016], Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute will publish an updated version of his plan to replace welfare as we know it with a dollop of $10,000 in after-tax income for every American above the age of 21.
. . .
Its first hurdle is arithmetic. As Robert Greenstein of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it, a check of $10,000 to each of 300 million Americans would cost more than $3 trillion a year.
Where would that money come from? It amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. Nothing in the history of this country suggests Americans are ready to add that kind of burden to their current taxes. Cut it by half to $5,000?
. . .
As Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury secretary and onetime top economic adviser to President Obama, told me, paying a $5,000 universal basic income to the 250 million nonpoor Americans would cost about $1.25 trillion a year. . . .
The popularity of the universal basic income stems from a fanciful diagnosis born in Silicon Valley of the challenges faced by the working class across industrialized nations: one that sees declining employment rates and stagnant wages and concludes that robots are about to take over all the jobs in the world.
. . .
Work, as Lawrence Katz of Harvard once pointed out, is not just what people do for a living. It is a source of status. It organizes people’s lives. It offers an opportunity for progress. None of this can be replaced by a check.
A universal basic income has many undesirable features, starting with its non-negligible disincentive to work. Almost a quarter of American households make less than $25,000. It would be hardly surprising if a $10,000 check each for mom and dad sapped their desire to work.
. . .
As Mr. Summers told a gathering last week at the Brookings Institution, “a universal basic income is one of those ideas that the longer you look at it, the less enthusiastic you become.”

For the full commentary, see:
Porter, Eduardo. “ECONOMIC SCENE; Plan to End Poverty Is Wide of the Target.” The New York Times (Weds., June 1, 2016): B1 & B4.
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date MAY 31, 2016, and has the title “ECONOMIC SCENE; A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty.”)

The Role of Steve Jobs in the Creation of Pixar

(p. B4) . . . [a] book that isn’t out yet (until November [2016]): “To Pixar and Beyond: My Unlikely Journey with Steve Jobs to Make Entertainment History” by Lawrence Levy, the former chief financial officer of Pixar. What a delightful book about the creation of Pixar from the inside. I learned more about Mr. Jobs, Pixar and business in Silicon Valley than I have in quite some time. And like a good Pixar film, it’ll put a smile on your face.

For the full commentary, see:
Sorkin, Andrew Ross. “DEALBOOK; Tell-Alls, Strategic Plans and Cautionary Tales.” The New York Times (Tues., JULY 5, 2016): B1 & B4.
(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed word and year, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date JULY 4, 2016, and has the title “DEALBOOK; A Reading List of Tell-Alls, Strategic Plans and Cautionary Tales in Finance.”)

The book praised by Sorkin in the passage quoted above, is:
Levy, Lawrence. To Pixar and Beyond: My Unlikely Journey with Steve Jobs to Make Entertainment History. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016.