Now everyone’s using it

I surely didn’t coin the expression ‘The Great Divergence,’ but I’ve been encountering that term with some frequency of late. First, Timothy Noah has a book by that title. And now this.

I do take exception to this excerpt from the linked piece:

I consider the Great Divergence to be one of the most important developments in the United States over the past thirty years. The growing economic divide between American communities is not an accident but the inevitable result of deep-seated economic forces.

Was the Great Divergence “inevitable”? I think not, and so do others, including Dean Baker (pdf), Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson (Winner-Take-All-Politics) and John Cassidy (How Markets Fail). These authors chronicle the deliberate and concerted efforts of the money class to whittle down New Deal financial regulations and persuade Congress to pass bills in their favor. In their judgment, there was nothing “inevitable” about the Great Divergence at all. Here’s Baker:

Money does not fall up. Yet the United States has experienced a massive upward redistribution of income over the last three decades, leaving the bulk of the workforce with little to show from the economic growth since 1980. This upward redistribution was not the result of the natural workings of the market. Rather, it was the result of deliberate policy, most of which had the support of the leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

The hole

My son often describes Seattle as the place where baseball talent comes to die. The examples have no end.

Let us review a few, before I attempt a very curt explanation.

Adam Jones, who came up through the Mariners’ farm system, was traded to Baltimore in exchange for George Sherrill and Erick Bedard. Sherrill is back with the M’s, only to injure his arm, which earned him a spot on the disabled list. Bedard, who possesses one of the best curve balls around, pitched little with the Mariners. He, too, spent most of his time recovering from injuries. As for Jones, he is now, of course, a bona fide all-star center fielder. He’s batting around .300 with 13 home runs. The Orioles sit atop the American League eastern division. Jones also sports a gold glove.

Adrian Beltre came and went. But during his five-year stint in Seattle, he gave every indication that his bat had never hit a ball. Swing and a miss, usually on a slider away, far away. The year before he arrived in our fair city, he tore up National League pitching, batting over .330 and leading the league in home runs, with 48. In his first season with Seattle his average plummeted by 80 points and he hit only 19 four-baggers. The best he could do here was .276 in 2007, when he also hit 26 home runs. He was then dealt to Boston where he miraculously discovered his latent abilities, those he had displayed with the Dodgers. In 2010 with the Red Sox he hit .321 and led the league in doubles. Becoming a free agent that year, he signed a huge contract with the Texas Rangers, where he’s batted .300. Last year there he smacked 32 home runs.

The Mariners were just swept by the Cleveland Indians. Their roster includes at least three former Mariners, all position players. They are Shin-Soo Choo, Jack Hannahan, and Jose Lopez, who slammed a three-run homer yesterday to tie the Mariners in a game that M’s closer Brandon League decided to go apeshit in the bottom of the 11th, yielding three BBs, the lead, and eventually the walk-off single that scored the winning run. Lopez could be the exception to the rule. In 2009, he actually hit .297 when he was with Seattle, far above his career average of .262. Choo never hit above .100 with Seattle. After landing in Cleveland, he put up some impressive stats, including three consecutive seasons at .300 or above. He’s the Indians regular right fielder and known for having one of the best arms in baseball. Hannahan played but one year in Seattle, when he hit .230. He’s now hitting .287 with Cleveland.

The Mariners signed David Ortiz, then named David Americo Arias. That was 1992. And how has he done since we let him go? You can see for yourself here. Speaking of the Red Sox, where Ortiz serves as designated hitter, we also used to have Jason Varitek and Derek Lowe. Well the Mariners signed them only to trade them both to Boston in exchange for Heathcliff Slocumb, perhaps the worst trade in baseball history next to that guy Ruth. What’s so odd about Slocumb, other than the fact that he was a bust with the Mariners, is that his ERA was 5.79 in his last year with the Red Sox. What the hell were the Mariners’ brass thinking. Oh, you say they weren’t then and perhaps ever. Got it.

Remember Rafael Soriano? He had an uneven experience with Seattle before he, too, left the team. In 2010, while pitching for Tampa Bay, he led the league in saves, with an ERA of under 1.73. He’s taken over for injured Mariano Rivera as the Yankees’s closer.

The Mariners had a big left-handed pitcher named Matt Thornton. We had no use for him, so he wound up with the Chicago White Sox. His career strikeouts-per-nine-innings ratio is 9.7. In 2010 he struck out 12 batters for every nine innings pitched, recording an ERA of 2.67. Well, the M’s have Charlie Furbush and Lucas Luetge for the same role. Splendid. A couple of thumbers versus a fear-monger.

Let’s talk shortstop for a minute. The Mariners’ front office made a big deal about acquiring Jack Wilson, who was an all-star with the Pirates. He hit .308 one year, when he made the All-Star roster, and almost .300 in another. His fielding was impeccable. But he had a miserable time in Seattle, never hitting above .250. His stint with the M’s may have ruined him for life. He’s now with the Braves batting an anemic .170. To replace him, the Mariners acquired Brendan Ryan. With the Cardinals he managed to hit as high as .292 in 2009, and .287 a couple of years before that. Since he’s become a Mariner, his average dropped to .248 last year and he’s really struggling this season, hitting only .153. He weighs 195 pounds. Only pitchers are allowed to hit below their weight. In 1984 Seattle signed Omar Vizquel. In my opinion, he’s the best shortstop I’ve ever seen. In five years with the Mariners he averaged .250. Since leaving, he’s hit as high as .333 with Cleveland and above .290 in three other seasons. His career BA is .272.

We drafted Raul Ibanez in 1992. Without a doubt he is the M’s best left fielder ever. But not at first. He hit poorly in his initial stint with Seattle, before he wound up in Kansas City. His bat came alive there. He hit .280 the first year with the Royals, then two straight years of .294. The M’s reacquired him, and—guess what?—he defied the curse, recording his best seasons, even hitting .304 in 2004. Yet, spending those last years with Seattle took its toll on Raul’s bat; he’s never done as well since.

The Mariners used to have a guy named Mike Morse. I always liked him. So do the Washington Nationals. After playing sporadically in Seattle, he’s found a home in the Capitol, batting over .300 last year, with 31 home runs. His career BA is .296, and he can play just about anywhere on the field.

We can’t forget that the Mariners traded Cliff Lee (and Mark Lowe) for Justin Smoak, Blake Beavan, and Josh Lueke. Lee is now with the Phillies being Cliff Lee, which is to say, quite well, thank you. He’s also pulling down over $20 million a year. His ERA this year is under 2.0. The Mariners believe(d) that Smoak is their answer at first base. How’s that working out for Seattle? Shitty, I’d say. He’s hitting just .209 as I write, though he got two hits in yesterday’s miserable loss.

One of my favorite pitchers today is Doug Fister. He started out slow, but improved each year with the Mariners. He got so good, in fact, that we traded him. Of course. He’s one of the most dominant pitchers in the American League, with an ERA of 1.79 in 2011 for Detroit, and an even lower ERA this year. And who did we get in return? Can you say Casper Wells and Charlie Furbush? Wells hit above .300 in his first year with Detroit and .257 when we acquired him. With Seattle, however, he’s hit a consistent .216. Furbush’s ERA when we traded for him was 3.62. After reaching Seattle his ERA jumped to 6.62. This year it’s 4.30 in limited action.

But we can’t forget Chone Figgins. A lifetime .290 hitter, his talent really died in Seattle, with no hint of improvement on the horizon. While with the Angels, his lowest season average was .267, ignoring his rookie year, when he had only a dozen plate appearances. In 2005 he led the American League in stolen bases with 65. In his three seasons with Seattle he’s stolen a total of 48. As for his batting average, what can we say? His averages: .257, .188, and this year .182.

Seattle hasn’t always been talent’s black hole. In 2001 the team tied the major league record for most victories: 116. The entire team average was .288. Four of the nine roster regulars hit over .300. Ichiro led with .350 and Bret Boone his .331. Four batters had at least 20 home runs, with Boone heading the list with 37. The pitching staff had a collective ERA of 3.54. Jamie Moyer won 20 games and Freddie Garcia collected 18 wins. The team scored exactly 300 more runs than their opponents.

Ah, the good old days. That year the opening day payroll was $75.7 million, or the 11th highest in the league. The Yankees, as always, were number one, with a payroll of $110 million. This year the M’s opened with a combined payroll of $82 million, just an eight percent increase over 12 seasons; and the Mariners have fallen to 18th place, far below the Yankees ($198 million) and the Phillies ($175 million). So, the Yankees boosted their payroll over the same period by 80 percent, or 10 times more than Seattle. Does money buy pennants?

There are four teams with a lower payroll than the Mariners who are either leading their divisions, tied, or within a game. These are Tampa Bay, with a payroll of $64 million, the Baltimore Orioles ($81 million), the Cleveland Indians ($78 million), and the Washington Nationals ($81 million). It would seem, then, that money doesn’t buy you love—or necessarily a trophy.

So I’ll suggest two explanations for the Mariners’ woes. The first is the general manager, the person responsible for putting talent on the field. The second is the manager, the one who has to get that talent to perform. If I were grading their respective efforts, an ‘F’ gets recorded next to their names.

Medieval

A friend, and fellow ex-Catholic, linked me to the video on this site, Catholics Called to Witness. It is indeed slick, in a production sort of way, and appeals not to one’s reason but to our limbic system. That is, it’s all about imagery and music. Therefore, it will surely be effective in calling Catholics to November’s voting booths to cast ballots that reflect the Church’s “values,” which are “marriage,” “life,” and “freedom.”

The video, which is positively medieval in tone and visual expression, with a blacksmith pounding out letters that are eventually assembled to spell out the “values,” emphasizes that marriage must be “reinforced” rather than “redefined.” Abortion, of course, must be prohibited in all circumstances. Compelling the Church’s institutions to provide health care insurance that covers contraception is anathema.

Conspicuously absent from this call to arms is any mention of the Church’s social gospel, the teachings found in the Sermon on the Mount, for example. Thus, we hear or see nothing about the plight of the poor and near-poor, roughly half our population, or that 40 million Americans lack health insurance, or the plutocracy that makes paupers of the Rest of Us, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the thousands on death rows awaiting lethal injection. Nothing. Nada. Nichts.

The conspicuous absence is all in the name of our Lord. Damn the Church.

Green Apple

Notwithstanding his quest to find meaning in life while eating nothing but organically grown fruits, Steve Jobs was notoriously uninterested in the plight of those who assembled his “insanely great” products, nor did he really care all that much about Apple’s environmental footprint. With the accession of Tim Cook to CEO, however, the company’s attitudes and actions on both fronts appear to be changing.

Not long after, if not before, the New York Times raked Apple over the labor coals, Cook instituted regular inspections of his suppliers’ factories, most notable those of Foxconn, the giant firm that puts together the lion’s share of the electronic gadgets we use, whether or not with an ‘i’ in front of the name. Recently Apple directed its suppliers to boost wages while curtailing overtime, which had become the norm.

Now we learn that Apple’s humongous North Carolina server farm will be completely powered by renewable energy sources, much of it in the form of solar power. Apple is also busy constructing another server farm, this one in Oregon. It, too, will be green-powered.

Apple seems to be sensitive to public perception, or Cook is just built that way. Take a look at the company’s webpage devoted to its efforts to build and operate in an environmentally friendly manner.

Is this hype or propaganda, designed to curry favor with the folks at Greenpeace, who have been particularly strident in their criticisms of Apple? Or is this genuine?

I suspect that it’s both. But it’s also good for the bottom line. Apple’s customers, I hasten to presume, are probably more environmentally conscious than those who consume competitors’ products. Regardless, a win-win for customers and the environment.

It really is the Republicans

So say Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein in answering the question, Who’s to blame for our political and economic mess? They write:

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

Obama’s big mistake was that he failed to understand his enemy, choosing to negotiate and compromise with them. The Republicans, we should tell the president, eliminated those verbs from their dictionaries.

A kinder, gentler nation

That phrase of George H.W. Bush, surprisingly, describes my aspiration for this country. We’ve got a long way to go.

A friend occasionally scolds me for being “progressive,” which he equates with utopianism. The world is what it is, and there’s really nothing anyone can do about it. That may very well be true, but I choose to believe that things could be—and should be—different.

Suppose you join me for a bit as I describe that aspiration. I’ll just lay out a list.

  • free health care for everyone, regardless of circumstances
  • free education, from pre-school through graduate school
  • a squeezing from both the top and the bottom, so that the rich aren’t so rich and the poor aren’t so poor
  • generous, even lavish support for the arts, in schools and in communities
  • clean water
  • clean air
  • immaculate and well-maintained sidewalks and streets
  • human-scale architecture that both calms and uplifts
  • no death penalty
  • rare and always safe abortions
  • great, not just adequate, schools, with beautiful, clean, and efficient buildings, well-paid and well-trained teachers, ample supplies, state-of-the-art technology
  • a national pension fund that provides a secure and adequate retirement for every worker
  • livable-wage jobs for anyone who needs work
  • truly livable, walkable cities and towns
  • state-of-the-art public transportation systems readily available to all, with an emphasis on convenience, comfort, and aesthetics
  • no guns or bullets
  • safe and high-quality food at affordable prices
  • attractive and eminently usable “third places” (home and work being the other two places), where people congregate to eat and socialize
  • beautiful, proximate, and citizen-friendly public buildings
  • no Fox News
  • no coal plants
  • no Tea Party
  • no Rush Limbaugh
  • a military with the sole objective of only defending our borders against foreign enemies, and no more
  • no Grover Norquist
  • no Harley Davidsons in downtowns
  • a completely different government based on and fueled by ideas; no politics of dirt (i.e., real estate); a unicameral parliament; no judicial review

I should think that in such a country, people would be less anxious, less worried, less greedy, and less angry. They would me more tolerant, more relaxed, more educated, more social, more civil, and more reasonable. In short, we would become a kinder, gentler nation.

What’s wrong with that?

Reluctantly, we return to Timmy

The question on the minds of every San Francisco Giants fan is What the hell is wrong with Lincecum? Last night he took to the mound, threw some decent pitches, struck out several of the opposition, only to yield a string of base hits resulting in another loss. His line:

A key metric for pitchers is walks plus hits per inning. This season Lincecum’s number is 1.56. Over his career he’s averaged 1.2 WHIP. In his Cy Young seasons, Lincecum recorded 1.17 and and 1.05 WHIP, for the years 2008 and 2009, respectively. In the year he won the award, Felix Hernandez gave up an average of 1.06 walks-plus-hits per inning.

Masterful (Greg) Maddux walked an average of 0.20 batters per inning over 23 years. His career WHIP was 1.14.

I know, it’s unfair to compare Lincecum with Maddux. Heck, this year it may be unfair to compare Lincecum with the Mariners’ Kevin Millwood; his WHIP this year is 1.6, and he has a lower ERA for 2012.

Notwithstanding the unfairness of it all, it may be edifying to wonder what made Maddux so successful and Lincecum a bust this year. As a former pitcher (Cal) I appreciate the importance of mechanics in delivering the ball to particular targets, accommodating different velocities and ball-rotations. Maddux had a simple, straightforward delivery, one that minimized extraneous weight shifts and arm angles. Lincecum’s delivery, of course, is nearly the opposite, with lots of body movement, torquing, arm-flinging, and the like. He would understandably encounter difficulty replicating the same mechanics on every pitch.

And it’s his inability to replicate that’s likely the culprit. While he’s never been stingy in the bases-on-balls department (0.37 BB/IP over his career), this year Lincecum has walked an average of 0.51 batters per inning pitched.

The increase in walks illustrates the greater problem: Lincecum can’t spot his pitches. When Posey wants a fastball inside, Lincecum is likely to throw it high and wide. His splitter, which he uses as a changeup, works best when it starts over the heart of the plate then dips sharply, either to the right or left. This year, more often than not, that pitch starts at the hitter’s knees and winds up in the dirt, inducing few to swing.

The failure to locate has everything to do with mechanics gone wild. But can you imagine the challenge he and his pitching coach, Dave Righetti, have in dealing with each segment of Lincecum’s delivery? I’m sure that they’ve viewed countless videos of Lincecum’s Cy Young years in an effort to identify variations, which are probably quite subtle; yet each slight difference in each phase compounds.

Watching Lincecum for the first two or three innings last night I thought that he was hurrying his delivery. He wasn’t allowing his body weight and his left leg to shift backwards enough before thrusting forward. This pause prior to launch is crucial. The Mariners’ Jason Vargas discovered that he, too, was rushing his body. So he added a more pronounced delay, rotating his torso and right leg (he’s left-handed) further toward second base before propelling his body forward. This slight alteration adds a bit more velocity to his fastball and slightly more movement to his slider.

Many have studied Lincecum’s motion, developed by his father as a young boy. The curiosity stems from this question: How could someone so slight of build (about five feet eleven and 165 lbs.) throw a fastball nearly 100 mph., as he used to do. Here’s a breakdown of Lincecum’s delivery. You’ll note that Lincecum rotates his torso from his left to right to such a degree as to reveal almost his entire back to the batter. His left leg extends far behind the rubber. Then the pause before he explodes off the mound, landing his left foot far ahead, which provides leverage against the full unwinding of his torqued upper body.

For whatever reasons, Lincecum doesn’t throw the ball nearly as fast as he did during his miracle years, which attracted even Popular Mechanics to his motion. Could he throw that fast (say 98 mph) if he wanted to? I doubt it, since there have been many occasions this year when such a fastball could have extricated himself from a troubling situation; he could muster no more than 91 to 93.

When Linceum was throwing the ball in the high 90s he relied on a four-seam grip, which, at those speeds, makes the ball seem to “hop,” although gravity takes its toll; rather, the ball doesn’t drop as much as a pitch thrown with a two-seam grip. Now he still relies on the four-seam grip, to a lesser degree, to be sure. But that grip imparts little movement to the pitch. It’s “straight,” and hitters love straight.

So, let’s assume that Lincecum has lost his fastball. Can he still be effective? Of course. But he would have to exercise better command of his now-slower pitches. And this gets us back to what I believe to be the fundamental challenge: mechanics.

A pitcher who can deliver a ball in the high 90s, combined with a wicked splitter, doesn’t have to worry all that much about locating his pitches. That’s all changed, apparently. Now Lincecum has to resort to control, the ability to hit the target far more often than not.

If control emerges as critical to Lincecum’s future success, he’ll have to adopt different, less complicated mechanics. He is obviously aware of this need. Last year, during an especially mediocre, if not simply awful, stretch, he eschewed the windup in favor of the stretch position, even when no one was on base. The mechanics in throwing the ball from the stretch are necessarily less involved.

However, fooling around with mechanics during the season can be more problematic. Lincecum, like others in the Giants rotation, is paid big bucks to win games, not experiment on the fly. If Lincecum and Righetti determine that new mechanics are in order, the experimentation should be done either in the off-season or, gulp, in the minors. Can you imagine, though, sending a two-time Cy Young award winner back to the minors?

My guess, though, is that Lincecum will continue in the rotation for the rest of the year. And each time he starts, fingers are crossed.

Good luck with that, Tim.

In what universe…

Mr. Boehner receives multiple blows from the editors at the New York Times. He deserves all the disapprobation the paper dispenses.

It clearly does not bother Speaker John Boehner that he pushed the United States to the brink of default last year. It does not matter that the deep spending cuts in the resolution he demanded to end that crisis will hurt economic growth. It does not even matter that the House he leads is determined now to break that agreement with even deeper cuts in vital programs.

No, the only thing that matters to Boehner and his ilk is to frustrate Obama’s re-election chances and to shit on the Rest of Us. So, I ask in what universe does Boehner garner support? Oh, that’s right. This is the United States of America, otherwise known as Darwin’s social society, where the superior reign over and steal from those unworthy of decent lives, which, it appears, are us 99-percenters—minus the damnable Tea Party.

Debt, again

We know why debt skyrocketed during the early to mid 40s. The U.S. was at war, big time. But think about this for a moment in terms of America’s collective psyche.

Europe was already engaged in a massive conflagration when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Congress immediately declared war on Japan, and since Japan was part of the German axis, we were forced to fight on two fronts. No problem, evidently. We Americans committed any and all resources to prevail, even, as it turned out, if our debt-to-GDP ratio soared past 100. The cause justified the fiscal imbalance.

Besides winning the war, the U.S. economy also grew.

To be sure, GDP was growing before the war, which Berkeley economist Christine Romer attributes to monetary expansion. In 1941 the U.S. was already jumpstarting industries to provide materiel to England in its battle with Berlin. That year saw real GDP soar by 17 percent. The next two years the annual GDP growth was 18 percent. Then GDP fell to 8 percent and even hit a negative 11 percent from 1945 to 1946. From then on, however, the economy grew steadily in real dollars, with only a few negative blips.

Meanwhile, as we see in the first chart, the debt-to-GDP ratio fell. Interesting. The country not only reduced its debt levels but also saw the economy expand.

Suppose the present economic conditions represent, in Krugman’s vernacular, the Lesser Depression. Suppose further that the biggest factor in ending the Great Depression was the massive fiscal stimulus required of the war effort, which also drove debt sky high, more than 120 percent of GDP. Would it not make sense, then, for the federal government to spend massive amounts of money now, even if debt levels rise?

The answer to that question depends on whether or not the U.S. is in similar circumstances as it was during the Great Depression, when so many people were out of work, banks and businesses shuttered, and the economy essentially stagnant. Again, Krugman believes the parallels are there, which is why he, among others, is calling for a massive fiscal stimulus, knowing full well that current politics makes it impossible.

One other thing is equally certain: business as usual isn’t working, and probably cannot work. Austerity under present circumstances almost guarantees economic contraction. That’s what states have been forced to practice—and how are their economies doing? (California’s Governor Jerry Brown, to name one example, just called for more draconian cuts in the state’s budget, with predictable consequences.)

I should add one other certainty. Should Mitt Romney defeat Obama and Republicans gain numerical control of both houses, the country is doomed, since the GOP is all about cuts—in both spending and taxes. Then watch the debt explode and unemployment soar. History tells us so.

Precedents for a Euro breakdown

One nice thing about reading Matthew Yglesias is that he is a thinking man writing about economics. Having trained as a philosopher (at Harvard, no less, and magnum cum laude to boot), Yglesias penetrates through the turgid prose of economic discourse to cull out gems or their opposite, then treats his audience to clear, cogent analysis.

Just one example is on the topic of potential, if not imminent, eurozone collapse, precipitated by an almost certain Greek exit. Would other countries follow? If so, how many and which ones?

Via Twitter, Yglesias asked for examples of common currencies—that is, several sovereign nations using the same coin—that did not collapse once a member left. His readers provided just one instance: the Sterling Area of the UK and its Commonwealth of Nations. Both Canada and New Zealand withdrew from the sterling without upsetting the remaining whole.

However, if you think of the euro as gold, history is on the side of unraveling. Yglesias:

I would also put the interwar Gold Standard in the category of total dissolutions of a currency regime. The Gold Standard “worked” as a monetary system as long as it was “unthinkable” that a country would abandon gold. But once countries started leaving, there was a downward spiral.

Uh-oh.