Suchergebnisse

Bristol wine bar KASK has measures in place to keep customers and staff safe during the COVID-19 pandemic, including NHS Test and Trace.

NHS Test and Trace systems in use at the Isle of Wight Heritage Service and Record Office.

This episode is the second in our Brexit series, and we are joined by Lucian Ashworth, Professor of International Relations at Memorial University of Newfoundland, and author of the influential text 'A History of International Thought' (Routledge, 2014).

Back before Christmas, in Episode 14, we heard Lee Jones offer what was perhaps not exactly a 'Lexit' (or 'left exit') position on Brexit, but nevertheless a progressive position very much in favor of a full Brexit. At the core of Jones's arguments was, I think, the view that the EU is an essentially anti-democratic and unreformable project. The only way to address the problem, he claimed, was to restore British sovereignty. In this sense, Jones was critical not only of the deal Theresa May proposed, last December, but also the position of the Labour Party, with its now infamous six tests — that is, essentially, the idea that whatever deal the UK should pursue, it should be one that results in the "exact same benefits" as as those currently enjoyed by the UK, as a member of the Single Market, but with special additional provisions, including "fair management of migration."

Since we spoke to Jones, there have been a number of important developments, but little by way of clarity as to how the drama will end. On January 15, in the greatest parliamentary defeat of any PM in British history, the British Parliament rejected Theresa May's deal. Since then, following the terms of the so-called Brady amendment, passed on January 29, she returned to Brussels in order to try to negotiate "alternative arrangements." She plans now to present her new deal to Parliament on March 12, just two weeks before the deadline March 29. This is very close to the wire, but May hopes to be able to get the EU to budge on the backstop — something she must do, if she is to persuade Tory Eurosceptics to support her plan.

In this episode, you will hear Ashworth engage with a number of Jones's key points, including the 'WTO rules' issue, the importance of not overstating the power of the Far Right in Europe, and the history of reactionary politics, on the British left. But Ashworth's core arguments stem from his concerns about the future of the Irish border, and the unacknowledged costs of a return to the fantasy of 'the sovereign people' — especially in an era where complex global flows of capital have made it harder and harder for the Left to leverage the state, as it pursues its mission of defending labour and democracy, from the interests of the global financial elite.

Importantly, this episode with Lucian Ashworth was recorded on February 16. Due to technical issues, it wasn't ready for broadcast until today, February 28. This delay does not significantly effect the value of the interview, since our discussion focused mainly on the historical context of Brexit, and abstract questions about globalization, and its complex consequences for our traditional models of politics and economic life.

That said, it is worth mentioning that on Tuesday, February 26, Theresa May announced that, should her deal fail to pass the house, she is going to allow a vote on an extension of Article 50. The pressure is on, however, as we have also begun to see rebellion breaking out, and the creation in Parliament of a new 'Independent Group,' composed of rebels from both Labour and the Conservatives. Corbyn, for his part, announced his support for a second referendum — putting before the people a choice between whether to remain in the EU, or to pursue Labour's alternative vision of a Brexit deal, which includes a permanent customs union.

If you have any questions or comments about the show, you are welcome to reach out to us via Twitter: @occupyirtheory — equally, feel welcome to leave us a positive rating on iTunes, or your favorite podcast software.

Thanks for listening!

The so-called zero-lower-bound (ZLB) plays a prominent role in modern (and even older) macroeconomic theories. It is often introduced in a paper or at conference as a fact of life -- an unavoidable property of the physical environment, like gravity. But is it correct to view it in this way? Or is the ZLB better thought of as legal constraint--something that can potentially be circumvented by policy?

The Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 allows the U.S. Federal Reserve (the Fed) to pay interest on reserve accounts that private banks hold at the Fed. Specifically, the Act states that:

Balances maintained at a Federal Reserve bank by or on behalf of a depository institution may receive earnings to be paid by the Federal Reserve bank at least once each calendar quarter, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates.
The effective date of this authority was advanced to October 1, 2008, by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

It is not clear (to me, at least) whether the Act grants the Fed the authority to pay a negative interest rate on reserves. Note that if the interest-on-reserves (IOR) rate is set to a negative number, then banks would in effect be paying the Fed a "service fee" for the privilege of holding reserve balances with the Fed. But if the Fed is not legally permitted to use negative interest rate policy (NIRP), then the ZLB is obviously a legal constraint.

This legal constraint, however, may not be binding if the ZLB is also an economic constraint. In fact, the traditional explanation for the ZLB is the existence of physical currency bearing zero interest. The idea that arbitrage will effectively keep interest rates from falling below zero is deeply ingrained in the minds of economists. For example, Corriea, et. al. (2012) write:

Arbitrage between money and bonds requires nominal interest to be positive. This "zero bound" constraint gives rise to a macroeconomic situation known as a liquidity trap. It presents a difficult challenge for stabilization policy.
However, we know from recent experience that the ZLB appears not to be an economic constraint.  Several central banks today have set their deposit rates into negative territory:




There is currently over $10 trillion of government debt in the world yielding a negative nominal interest rate; see here. As of this writing, even long bonds like the German 10-year Bund are in negative territory.

Well, alright, so the ZLB is evidently not an economic constraint. But surely there is some limit to how low nominal interest rates can fall? This lower limit is called the effective lower bound (ELB). And economic theory is clear: if we're at the ELB in a recession, then monetary policy has done about as much as it can be expected to do.

But what exactly is the ELB? Is it -1%, -2%, -5%, or perhaps even lower? Economists like Miles Kimball believe it to sufficiently negative to warrant NIRP as an effective policy tool; see here (see also the discussion by Ken Rogoff in chapter 10 of his book). These arguments, however, did not seem to gain much traction. For example, in the present discussions concerning the Fed's new long-run monetary policy framework, the possibility of NIRP is not even mentioned. But perhaps it should be if the ELB is in fact significantly below zero. In what follows, I want to make my own (related) argument for why the ELB is probably a lot lower than most people think.

Suppose the Fed was to set the IOR to -10% (in a deep demand-driven recession, this would presumably be accompanied with a promise to raise the IOR at some point in the future). The traditional economic argument suggests that any security dominated in rate of return by cash would in this case be driven out of circulation.

The first thing we could imagine happening is banks attempting to convert their digital reserves into vault cash. Banks are presently holding over $1.6 trillion in reserves with the Fed. The largest denomination Federal Reserve note is $100. This is what $1 trillion in $100 bills apparently looks like:




That's about the size of a football field. Banks would not convert all of their reserves into cash--even if it was costless to do so--because they'd need about $20-30 billion or so to make interbank payments. Of course, managing all that cash would be far from costless. But there is a simpler reason for why banks would not make the conversion. The Fed could simply charge banks a 10% service fee on their vault cash.

Alright, well what effect is the -10% IOR rate going to have on the deposit rate (or fees) that banks offer (or charge) their depositors? Banks are not likely to pass the full cost on to their depositors, especially if they view the NIRP to be temporary, because they'll want to maintain their customer relationships.

But let us take the extreme case and suppose that NIRP is perceived to be permanent. Then surely deposit rates will decline (or bank fees will rise) significantly. Deposit rates may even decline to the point where depositors start withdrawing their money from the banking system. Banks may well let this source of funding go if they could borrow more cheaply from the Fed (banks would need to borrow reserves to honor the withdrawal requests of their customers). Of course, the Fed lending rate is also a policy variable and could, in principle, be lowered to negative territory as well.

But how realistic is it to imagine all or most bank deposits converted to cash? While this might be the case for small value accounts, it seems unlikely that the business sector would be able to manage its payments needs without the aid of the banking system. Even money market funds need to work through the banking system. I suppose one could imagine a new product created by (say) Vanguard in which they create a cash fund with equity shares redeemable for cash that is collected and stored in rented Las Vegas vault. But the moment the activity is intermediated, it becomes taxable. If the Fed is not permitted to tax (oops, charge a service fee) such entities, the fiscal authority could, in principle, implement a surcharge that is set automatically off the IOR rate in some manner.

I think in this way one can see how the ELB might easily be well below -5% (or more). This is probably low enough to allow us to disregard the ELB as a binding economic constraint. The relevant constraint is always a legal one. And laws can be changed if it is deemed to serve the public interest.

Keep in mind that in a large class of economic models, ranging from Keynes (1936) to New Keynesian, there is potentially much to be gained by eliminating the ZLB. If these models are wrong, then let's get rid of them. But if they're roughly correct, why don't we take their policy prescriptions seriously? Let's stop talking about the ZLB as if it's a force of nature. It is a policy choice. And if it's a bad policy choice, it should be changed.

This is a special guest post by Kal Munis, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Virginia. Kal is a lifelong Montanan, and is an alum of both Montana State and the University of Montana. I expect to feature his work often here.



With the 2018
midterm elections just a little over seven months away, candidates have begun
to ramp up efforts to distinguish themselves from one another. In addition to
the various typical dimensions on which we might expect those aspiring to
represent us to stress their unique qualifications—such as prior political
experience, policy positions and past accomplishments—there is another
conspicuous characteristic upon which political candidates in Montana attempt
to out-maneuver one another: successfully conveying that they possess an
authentic Montanan identity.

 Typically, candidates try to signal to voters that
they share with them various attachments to the customs, values, and lived
experiences particular to their geographical constituency. They do so in
numerous ways including in video advertisements, mailers, press releases,
emails, social media postings and other campaign media. It should be noted that
these activities don't stop at election day—indeed, many politicians will
continue to cultivate their image of place-based authenticity as a component of
what political scientists refer to as their "home-style."

Candidates in
Montana and elsewhere clearly engage in this behavior cycle after cycle due a
belief in the campaign community that it is an effective practice. In a content
analysis of all video based advertisements that were paid for by campaigns
during the 2012 and 2014 U.S. Senate elections, I found that these types of ads
are widespread throughout the country, with the highest level of usage being
clustered in Western states such as Montana. Despite their seeming ubiquitousness,
it remains unknown whether campaigns' decisions to deploy these appeals are
evidence based or the product of folk-wisdom based inertia.

 Irrespective of their effectiveness, however,
some pundits (and voters—see
the comments on this
ad)
have remarked that excessive hand-wringing over which candidate is the most Montanan borders on xenophobic,
particularly when such concerns are tied to place of birth. At the same time,
however, it seems widely accepted that the success of many candidates in
Montana, particularly Democrats Senator Jon Tester and Governor Steve Bullock
(as well as former Governor Brian Schweitzer), has been largely predicated on
their ability to connect with voters on the basis of place.

In large part, the
mechanism through which this connection has been fostered in Montana, as well
as that upon which many campaign appeals based on place identity are made, is the
candidate's birthplace. For successful Democratic candidates in Montana, it
seems that part of the litmus test has been whether they're a native of the
state. For a recent example, look no further than Governor Bullock's successful
2016 reelection bid against then Republican gubernatorial candidate and current
U.S. Representative Greg Gianforte. In that race, the Bullock campaign was able
to successfully paint Gianforte as an outsider with deep connections to
California and New Jersey. So out of touch with Montana was Gianforte,
according to Bullock's campaign, that he was willing to try to run roughshod
over that which many Montanans hold to be most sacred: public lands. The
narrative was simple: Bullock, a native Montanan, respects and maintains
Montana values, whereas Gianforte—a Californian multi-millionaire by way of New
Jersey—does not. The result, meanwhile, was shocking, as returns revealed that
Bullock defeated Gianforte by 4 points, all while Gianforte's co-partisan in
the presidential race, Donald Trump, crushed his Democratic foe by a staggering
22 points.

As part of the
2018 midterm elections, Tester will defend his Senate seat and multiple
Republicans are competing in their party's primary to challenge him. Currently,
most observers regard Matt Rosendale as being the front runner among these
challengers. And, if recent advertisements are any indication, it would seem
that several left-aligned groups, including the Montana Democratic Party, consider
him to be the front-runner as well.

In a recent
advertisement,
the MTDP makes an overtly place identity charged indictment of "Maryland Matt" Rosendale,
namely that he is an outsider who "doesn't share our Montana values." In the
ad, the MTDP takes a 'don't just take our word for it' strategy by relying
mostly upon statements made by (or on behalf of) prominent Montana Republicans,
as well as upon a compilation of footage of Rosendale himself butchering the
pronunciation of the state he is running to represent in Washington. The statements
(which are attributed variously to current U.S. Senate primary opponent Russ
Fagg, former U.S. House primary opponent and current Secretary of State Cory
Stapleton, and to a PAC that supported Ryan Zinke in the 2014 Republican
primary for the U.S. House of Representatives) all suggest that Rosendale's
non-native born status should be viewed as a deficiency in the eyes of voters. Of
these statements, Stapleton's makes the case against Rosendale's non-native status
most powerfully, stating "we don't need that East Coast value here in Montana,
we don't need somebody from the East Coast representing us in Montana, we need a
Montanan representing us on the East Coast."

This theme, though
in decidedly less antagonistic tone, was on display yet again a few weeks ago in
Bozeman at the Republican U.S. Senate candidate
forum
(not a debate!) put on by the College Republicans at Montana State University.
The forum, which featured Rosendale and his three opponents, Troy Downing (a
fellow non-native from California), Albert Olszewski, and Russel Fagg, saw all
candidates take pains to stress their connections to Montana and demonstrate
their embrace of Montana values. Rosendale and Downing (the non-native
candidates) did so in decidedly apologetic fashion, with the following
statement by Downing being emblematic of the tone: "I've always been a
Montanan, it just took me 31 years to get here." Fagg and Olszewski (the native
candidates), meanwhile made their born and raised Montanan bonafides front and
center from the outset, with Fagg, for example, noting that he "has the Montana
roots, the Montana endorsements, (and) the Montana donations."

It was a portion
of Fagg's closing statement as well as Rosendale's that followed, however, that
really drew my attention. In his last appeal to the crowd in Bozeman that
night, Fagg made his case that his native Montana roots would be critical to
defeating native Jon Tester in 2018. "I'm a fourth generation Montanan…and (my
family) has live and loved Montana since before Montana was a state," he said "[…]
and the reason that's important, I appreciate everyone that has moved to
Montana because they love Montana, but the Democrats are going to unmercifully
beat up two of my opponents because they moved here nine years ago (Downing)
and fifteen years ago (Rosendale). It may not be fair, but it's the truth. If
you put me on that ticket, that takes that argument away from Senator Tester." Fagg
then went on to note that he has to date collected the lion's share of
endorsements from prominent Montana Republicans from well-known names such as
Marc Racicot and Denny Rehberg (Rosendale, meanwhile, has the support of
prominent national Republicans such U.S. Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee)
before passing the mic to Rosendale.

Fagg's point was
brought into stark relief just moments later when Rosendale mispronounced
"Montana" so badly that even I, a social scientist who studies the role of
place-based identities in politics, couldn't help but to find it grating. In my
defense, it was the contrast of Rosendale's mispronunciation and Fagg's ominous
message regarding the importance of Montana roots in eyes of Montana voters
that made the moment so powerful. And, apparently I wasn't the only one to
notice—the MTDP released the "Maryland Matt" ad just a few days later and
appeared to indirectly reference the forum in a short blurb accompanying the
ad's posting.

Do voters care
about where candidates were born? To begin to investigate this question, I draw
upon data from three different surveys that I have fielded (one in Autumn 2015,
one in Spring 2017, and another in early fall 2017) utilizing Mechanical Turk
samples. All respondents in these surveys reside in the United States. Within
each survey, I included a question asking whether and how important respondents
thought it was that candidates running for Congress in their state had been
born there. In the most recent two surveys, an additional question was asked
regarding whether respondents felt that candidates born in their state were
more likely to understand the values and needs of people in their state.



Table 1: How important do you think it is
for candidates running for Congress

in your state to have been born in your
state?













Fall 2015



Spring 2017



Fall 2017





Extremely Important



25

(5%)





200

(11%)





130

(11%)





Very Important



117

(25%)





368

(20%)





255

(22%)





Moderately Important



136

(29%)





496

(28%)





300

(26%)





Slightly Important



87

(18%)





320

(18%)





232

(18%)





Not at all important



111

(23%)



423

(23%)



229

(23%)





N



476



1,807



1,146







Results for the
first question are remarkably stable across all three samples, as can be seen
in Table 1. In the most recent sample, one third of respondents indicated that
they felt candidate place of birth to be highly important (including both the
"extremely important" and "highly important" categories). A little over a
quarter of respondents indicated candidate place of birth to be moderately important.
Meanwhile, a minority of respondents (41%) indicated that candidate place of
birth is only slightly important or not important at all to them.



Table 1: In general, do you think that
candidates born in your state are better

at understanding the values and needs of
people in your state?











Spring 2017



Fall 2017





Yes



853

(47%)





554

(48%)





No



287

(16%)





144

(13%)





Unsure



667

(37%)





450

(39%)





N



1,807



1,146







            As
for respondents' perceptions regarding whether native born candidates are more
likely to better understand the values and needs of their constituency, a large
plurality in both samples (an average of 47.5%) indicated that they felt this
was the case, with a small minority (an average of 14%) of respondents saying
this wasn't likely to be the case. A large number of respondents in both
samples indicated that they were unsure regarding this question (38%). These
results are presented in Table 2.

            To
further explore responses to these questions, I use various methods (including
ANOVA, OLS, and logistic regression) to model the relationship between
responses to these questions and respondents' partisanship.[1] First, I estimate the
association between how important respondents rated candidate birthplace and respondents'
partisanship while controlling for the influence of other background
characteristics. Results show that, on average, the place of birth of political
candidates is significantly more important to Republicans (by about 25%) than
it is for Democrats even after controlling for the influence of respondents'
level of educational attainment, gender, self-reported recent voting history,
and whether the respondent lived in a rural area. Moreover, further analysis
reveals that Republicans' average importance rating of candidate place of birth
is significantly higher than that of independents as well, though Democrats and
independents do not differ significantly from one another in this respect. Finally,
I model the association between partisanship and perceptions of whether being
born in state imparts upon candidates a special constituency related knowledge
(all while again controlling for a number of other related factors). Results
indicate that Republicans are 4.5 times more likely on average to indicate that
candidates born in their state typically better understand the values and
problems associated with that state.

            Taken
together, these results suggest that many Americans see candidate place of
birth as being an important attribute of political candidates. More
specifically, a majority of people in my sample indicated that it is at least
moderately important that candidates be born in the state that they seek to
represent in Congress, with a full third indicating that they feel it is highly
important. Moreover, a plurality of respondents indicated that they believe
that candidates born in the state they are running in are more likely to
understand the needs and values of their constituency. Results also indicate a
significant association between these considerations and partisanship, with
Republicans endorsing both to a greater extent than non-Republicans on average.
All of this is especially noteworthy considering that these results are derived
from a sample comprising survey respondents from all across the United States.
And, in terms of demographic characteristics, the sample skews slightly younger,
more liberal, and more educated than the American population as a whole—as well
as Montana. So, if anything, I would expect the patterns and statistical
associations described above to increase in magnitude if the sample were one
perfectly representative of Montana.

            Finally,
in relating all of this back to Montana politics, the results presented here
seem to lend some credence to Republican
candidate Russ Fagg's (as well as many others) warning to Republican primary
voters that (in)congruence between where candidates are born and the district
they hope to represent is important to voters—and, at least in this sample,
especially amongst self-identified Republicans. And, since Tester will almost
certainly have to win over a considerable percentage of voters who recently
voted for our Republican president, these results suggest that one fruitful
path for him to do so would be to continue to appeal to voters on the basis of shared
Montana values and identity (as Bullock did in his successful 2016 reelection
bid). Whether and to what degree he is able to do so could very well be
moderated by whether a native-born Republican, such as Fagg or Olszewski, is at
the top of the Republican ticket.

B.
Kal Munis is, amongst other things, a 6th generation Montana native
and alumnus of both Montana State University and the University of Montana. He
is currently a PhD candidate in the Woodrow Wilson Department of Politics at
the University of Virginia. You can follow him on Twitter @KalMunis.










[1] If you want more specifics on the
data and my analyses, please send me an email or leave a comment below.