Daily-Dose

Contents

From New Yorker

From Vox

Despite what conservatives say, Joe Biden is not trying to ruin the holiday shopping season.

President Biden announced this week that the Port of Los Angeles would operate 24/7 in a bid to address product shortages in the United States. The news arrived in tandem with the Labor Department’s release of data showing that the ongoing supply chain crisis is driving up consumer prices and inflation.

Conservatives are spinning these developments into a tale about how this supply chain catastrophe is ruining Christmas — and it’s all Biden’s fault.

There’s a new front in the Fox News “War on Christmas” coverage: supply chain delays. pic.twitter.com/kosVA3pkMV

— The Recount (@therecount) October 13, 2021

Despite what some people are saying on right-wing news outlets and social media, recent problems with the global supply chain can’t be blamed on Biden alone. As his recent efforts have shown, the president is trying to help. In reality, these shortages and delays are the product of many cross-cutting problems that have existed for years, including the Covid-19 pandemic, rising consumer demand, and a global and highly optimized manufacturing network that doesn’t adapt to change quickly.

As handy as it would be to blame just one person for America’s supply chain woes, the situation and its solutions are far too complex for such an easy explanation. Let’s discuss.

So the supply chain is complex. What does that even mean?

The supply chain is how the global economy produces and delivers the stuff that people buy. It encompasses all the people, companies, and countries that play a role in that process. Technicians at facilities in Taiwan who make computer chips are part of the supply chain, and so are the truck drivers that deliver goods from warehouses to retailers in the US.

Factories that make the plastic used in packaging, cargo ships that move products from Asia to the West Coast, even Amazon’s fleet of jets are all considered part of this incredibly complicated system of global manufacturing that’s been dramatically disrupted in the past couple of years.

How did the supply chain get so messed up?

It’s tempting to blame the pandemic alone for the current supply chain catastrophe, but in some ways, the pandemic merely exacerbated existing problems with global trade and exposed some new ones.

What the pandemic did do was cause factories to shut down, usually because there weren’t enough workers, and that created shortages of products and components. Those shortages led to bottlenecks and delays in product manufacturing (if factories don’t have the parts to build something, it doesn’t get made and doesn’t get shipped).

As more shortages lead to more bottlenecks, the disruption causes problems in other parts of the supply chain, creating even more shortages, new delays, and higher prices. For example, automotive manufacturers haven’t been able to make cars and trucks, because they can’t get their hands on enough computer chips. Ikea can’t ship furniture parts from its warehouses to its stores thanks to the trucker shortage. A supply crunch for petrochemicals has driven up the cost of making anything that includes plastic, including children’s toys.

Who broke the supply chain?

Again, no one person is responsible for upending the global supply chain. Several long-term trends and compounding challenges created the conditions that caused this crisis. US companies have been moving more and more manufacturing abroad for decades, which means a growing amount of the stuff American consumers want to buy needs to be imported. Meanwhile, worsening conditions for truck drivers in the US have made the job incredibly unpopular in recent years, even though the demand for drivers has gone up as e-commerce has become more popular. That means that as Americans relied more on online shopping during the pandemic, getting goods from ports to doorsteps has been challenging.

“It’s 40 years in the making,” Nick Vyas, the director of the Global Supply Chain Institute at the University of Southern California, told Recode. “We allowed supply chains to get away without having contingencies in place, resiliencies in place, and other measures to ensure humanity would never be subjected to this.”

The pandemic made these problems worse, which contributed to the breakdowns in the supply chain we’re now witnessing. While US automakers have imported semiconductor chips from abroad for decades, Covid-19 forced those companies to compete with laptop and phone manufacturers over the same components. As the pandemic pushed many veteran truckers to retire early, new drivers couldn’t earn licenses because trucking schools were closed during lockdown.

Covid-19 has also affected consumer demand — namely, which products they want to buy and how much — creating constant changes that the supply chain just hasn’t been able to keep up with, especially lately.

It seems like we’ve had plenty of time to fix these problems. Why are they suddenly ruining Christmas?

Global manufacturing has been operating at full capacity for more than a year. But without any slack to address worker shortages, bottlenecks, and delays, problems have only piled up. These issues have now reached a critical mass. So even though American consumers have started to order much more stuff, there’s no flexibility in the supply chain to accommodate that demand.

“Delta basically conditioned our behavior to tell all of us that, ‘Hey, this could last a while,’” Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, a senior resident fellow for climate and energy at the think tank Third Way, said. “So we just went out and bought like crazy.”

This record number of imports is slowing down product deliveries. Cargo ships carrying holiday merchandise are waiting to unload their stock along the California coast, but there aren’t enough port workers to do the job. Those delays mean there are fewer containers available for manufacturers trying to send more products to the US, which only sets the supply chain back even more.

We can agree that it’s everybody’s problem. But what’s Biden actually doing to fix it?

Pushing the Port of Los Angeles to operate 24/7 is Biden’s most direct action to date, and it’s supposed to ensure that an additional 3,500 cargo ships are unloaded each week. The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, which expanded its operations last month, are responsible for 40 percent of the containers brought into the US, so expanding their operations is supposed to speed up shipping nationwide, the White House says.

The move will help reduce the number of ships waiting to dock, but it only affects the later stages of the supply chain problems: shipping and delivery. Right now, it’s not clear what Biden can do to fix the bottlenecks occurring higher up in the supply chain, like manufacturers running low on components and factories getting shut down abroad. While the White House has convened task forces to address these underlying problems, those efforts probably won’t bear fruit in time for the holidays.

“This is more a demand and supply situation, more so than a government situation,” Patrick Penfield, a supply chain management professor at the University of Syracuse, said. “The government has a role with regulations and enforcing laws, creating laws, and trying to stimulate development. But other than that, they’re powerless as far as how commerce works.”

If Biden can’t fix it, who can?

No one can fix the supply chain challenges before the holidays because they’re too complicated. Factories can’t immediately increase their manufacturing capacity, and more people won’t suddenly receive trucking licenses just because US consumers want to buy more stuff. Severe weather events in Texas, an energy crisis in China, and a fire at a chip factory in Japan have created new hurdles, too.

In the long run, it’s possible that the US government can change policies that contributed to this situation in the first place. Politicians could shift their approach to trade, which has historically encouraged US companies to manufacture products abroad. Improving labor standards might boost working conditions for truckers and factory workers to make those jobs more appealing — boost global vaccine manufacturing and ensure that workers in other countries are safer from Covid-19 outbreaks. Admitting more people into the US could address a shortage of delivery and port workers.

The government could even consider redeploying the Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era law that gives the president certain powers over domestic manufacturing during a crisis. For instance, the US Commerce Department is weighing how to use that law to address the US supply of semiconductor chips.

But these ideas are a reminder that US supply chain policy does not exist in a vacuum. It’s an amalgam of all sorts of broader policy choices that aren’t so easy to change.

When is this all going to end?

Some experts say it will be months before these supply chain problems resolve themselves. Others think these disruptions represent a new normal that could last years. Regardless, there’s no reason to think these issues will be fixed by the holiday season. In fact, the White House has already said there’s no guarantee that packages will arrive on time.

So should we blame Joe Biden for ruining Christmas?

No. 

The historical Marie de France was the first known woman to have written French-language poetry. She lived in 12th-century England, was probably born in France or an independent region that has since become part of contemporary France, and seems to have been known at the court of King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine. (You might remember those particular royals best as the parents of Richard the Lionheart and King John, famed for being side characters in the Robin Hood legend and also for signing the Magna Carta.)

Marie de France was highly educated, suggesting that she was of noble birth. And she wrote swaggering, sensual poetry of courtly love and Celtic fairies.

All that is about as much as we know of Marie. There are theories and shadowy historical rumors that connect her with various 12th-century abbesses and noblewomen, but there’s very little we can say about her life for certain.

What does come through in the poetry Marie left behind, though, is a certain strength of character, a suggestion of a force of will that borders on supernatural.

“Whoever gets knowledge from God, science, / and a talent for speech, eloquence, / shouldn’t shut up or hide away,” Marie writes in the prologue to The Lais of Marie de France. (Translation by Judith P. Shoaf.) She goes on, admonishing: “No, that person should gladly display. / When everyone hears about some great good, / then it flourishes as it should.”

Marie has that knowledge and that talent, and she’s got no intention of shutting up or hiding it. She’s going to make sure everyone knows about her brilliance. That’s why she wrote a book of poetry that’s survived for nearly 1,000 years. You can almost imagine her willing those poems into the margins of history, into the place where her life used to be.

In Matrix, Groff puts that ambition and that drive at the center of Marie’s existence and then builds everything else up around it.

Groff draws from the most popular theory of Marie’s life, which identifies her with the abbess of Shaftesbury, also named Marie and half-sister to Henry II. In Groff’s telling, Marie is the product of rape, a shame on the Plantagenet family line. She is also passionately in love with Henry’s wife Eleanor, another historical woman remembered for her indomitable strength of character and her patronage of the arts. (It was in Eleanor’s court that the courtly love poetry of the French troubadours flourished.)

If Marie were beautiful and well-mannered, Eleanor might have been willing to bring her bastard sister-in-law to the court and marry her off to someone. But Marie is tall, “a giantess of a maiden,” possessed of vigorous physical strength and little beauty or grace. Anyone, Eleanor informs her brutally, can see that she “has always been meant for holy virginity.”

So in the opening pages of Matrix, 17-year-old Marie arrives in Shaftesbury, the back end of beyond, to serve as prioress at an abbey. There she will remain for the rest of her life, rising to the rank of abbess, guarding over the young nuns in her charge and sending her poetry out into the world for Eleanor, her great unrequited love. And by the time Marie is done with it, Shaftesbury is transformed utterly.

When Marie arrives, the abbey is impoverished, and the nuns all slowly starving to death. Grimly, Marie extracts back rent from the abbey’s tenants and develops a reputation as a dangerous landlord to those who don’t pay and a generous one to those who do. She spreads the word that her nuns are available to copy text at a fraction of the price the monks charge — a bargain, because women aren’t supposed to do script work.

As money comes in, Marie channels her furious, foiled ambition into making her abbey a center of art. She turns it into a fortress, surrounded by a vast labyrinth that no one who hasn’t been taught by the abbey will be able to travel.

At last, she begins to take on the roles reserved for a priest, administering mass and hearing confession from her nuns. She even slips into the scriptorium at night to change the verbs and nouns into the feminine case, operating always with palpable glee. “Slashing women into the texts feels wicked,” Groff writes. “It is fun.”

Marie makes the abbey into a world of its own, a self-sufficient commune, run by women and only for women, where no men appear. Her ambitions are spectacular, and her closest friends suggest more than once that she may be going too far and abusing her power — but still, the idea of the world she’s building becomes a fantasy as potent now as it was in the 12th century. (“We were in the middle of the Trump presidency, and I was exhausted” while writing Matrix, Groff explained in a Q&A with her publisher. “I just wanted to go live in a feminist utopia.”)

“She feels royal,” Groff writes of Marie, after she succeeds in building a dam that turns a stretch of fallow land belonging to the crown into a lake. “She feels papal.”

Finally, the fantasy realized. Pope Joan was a myth, but within the pages of Matrix, Marie can feel more than real. Papa femina at last.

Share your thoughts on Matrix in the comments section below, and be sure to RSVP for our upcoming live discussion event with Lauren Groff herself. In the meantime, subscribe to the Vox Book Club newsletter to make sure you don’t miss anything.

Discussion questions

Here are a few questions and scattered thoughts to guide your discussion.

  1. How does the title of Matrix take you? Does it work for you, or do you find it distracting? NO JUDGMENT ZONE: When you first heard of this book, did you think it was going to be a novelization of the sci-fi movie?
  2. One of the most compelling parts of this book is how vivid and visceral all the physical details are. Marie as a character lives very much in her body, and the way Groff channels that worldview has the side effect of making history feel immediate and real. What’s your favorite physical detail in the book? For me, it’s probably Marie bathing in the river at night to cool off from a hot flash, and the rat-a-tat rhythm of the sentence as she climbs into the water: “Off with the clogs and the stockings now wet from night dew and the mud cools her toes, the water is at her ankles, dragging hard at the hems, at knees at shame at belly so cool at chest and the arms, the wet wool pulling her body down.”
  3. What’s your take on Marie’s visions from Eve and the Virgin Mary? As Groff makes plain via Marie’s second-in-command Tilde at the end of the novel, hedonistic Marie is an unusual choice for a medieval mystic, but today’s poets often write about a mysticism rooted in the flesh. (“At the hour of my death, for the gifts of my body I give thanks,” says Everyman in the poet Carol Ann Duffy’s modern translation of the medieval morality play.) Tilde suspects that Marie’s visions are created rather than given. What do you think?
  4. Speaking of the visions, which one is your favorite? I, myself, am partial to the one showing God as a hen laying eggs of creation.
  5. In the final pages of Matrix, Groff suggests that, had any of Marie’s private writings survived, they would have offered “the traces of a predecessor” as society trembles and reshapes itself before the force of climate change, and “showed a different path for the next millennium.” How do you imagine such a book might have changed things for us?
  1. September 27, 2021

Previously, some more centrist lawmakers had proposed that these subsidies should only be available to families that make 150 percent or less of their region’s median income.

Means testing makes it harder to access programs

There are some serious costs associated with means testing. Though they’re usually framed as ways of curbing government spending, means-tested benefits are often more expensive to provide, on average, than universal benefits, simply because of the administrative support needed to vet and process applicants.

And then there’s the burden means testing puts on those in need. Take the applications for SNAP, or food aid, for example. The most complicated state programs require individuals to meet a specific income threshold and complete certain asset tests. Individuals need to show that they don’t currently make more than 130 percent of the poverty line, or $16,744 for an individual, and have assets worth more than $2,500 (a requirement that varies based on age). According to mRelief, a nonprofit that assists SNAP recipients, the average applicant needs to either fill out a 17-page form or participate in a 90-minute interview, in addition to providing as many as 10 documents about their assets. Even the prospect of this can push people away.

“One hundred percent of the poverty line, 200 percent of the poverty line — that’s not how people think. I always have to go back to a chart to figure it out,” says Ellen Vollinger, a legal director at the Food Resource and Action Center, about how people determine eligibility. “They think, sure, we only want it to go to this cohort of people. But they forget there are large amounts of people who can’t cope with this.”

Applying for food stamps, fuck this question. Jesus pic.twitter.com/LwvKrojC4x

— narcotics anonymous dropout (@superloafcat) October 9, 2021

Progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) have cited “bureaucracy, red tape, [and] waste” as key reasons means testing can be problematic, and that’s been borne out in the research as well.

Yep. Means testing = more bureaucracy, red tape, & waste.

That’s why programs where means testing gets implemented are less popular, not more popular. It’s also why many people who are eligible for means-tested programs still don’t get healthcare or help at all - it’s too hard. https://t.co/y7I4CmZr4s

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 3, 2021

According to Georgetown University political scientists Pamela Herd and Don Moynihan, the administrative costs for programs like SNAP, the family assistance program known as TANF, and the Supplemental Nutritional Program for Women, Infants, and Children can range from 15 to 40 cents of each dollar of benefits distributed in the programs. That includes money used to interview people, check the documentation they provide, and ensure that their claims of need are valid.

In other words, even though the intention of means testing is to help people most in need, imposing strict qualification requirements can actually make it tougher for individuals who are eligible to get past the application process.

As Matt Bruenig writes for the People’s Policy Project, a progressive think tank, these administrative barriers have hurt uptake rates of programs like SNAP and Medicaid, none of which fully serve all the people who qualify for them:

The overall participation rate of the food stamp program is 85 percent and is only 75 percent for the working poor who likely have a harder time proving their eligibility to the welfare office. The participation rate of Medicaid is 94 percent for children, 80 percent for parents, and around 75 percent for childless adults. The participation rate of the Earned Income Tax Credit (and also presumably the Child Tax Credit) is 78 percent. The low participation in the EITC cuts the poverty-reducing effect of the program by around 33 percent, according to the Census Bureau, meaning that mainstream estimates of the EITC’s impact (e.g. those produced by CBPP) overstate the effectiveness of the program by at least 50 percent.

Additionally, researchers have found that means testing stigmatizes people who are eligible for these programs, further reducing participation in them and fomenting biases toward low-income people.

Conversely, universal programs including Social Security and Medicare have much higher uptake rates of 97 percent and 96 percent among older adults, though they aren’t without their own administrative hurdles. Filing claims for Social Security benefits or enrolling in Medicare can be extremely confusing and time-consuming as well.

Finally, there’s the political argument. Programs that apply to a broader swath of people tend to have much greater political buy-in — think Medicare, for example. “In the same way that we’re not here to try to pit programs against each other, we’re also not here to pit people against each other,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told reporters on Tuesday.

Interestingly, some moderate House members have been inclined to back more universal versions of programs, like child care, because they want to ensure their constituents aren’t left out. “New Jersey already pays more than $10 billion in taxes than we receive in federal spending and I will not let another federal program pay less to New Jersey tax payers than it does to all other Americans,” Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), a House Democrat in a battleground district previously told the New York Times.

A pitfall that universal programs are able to avoid, too, is choosing a cutoff that fails to adequately estimate need. For instance, the income threshold for SNAP is $28,550 for a family of three. Because of this cap, people who make slightly more money than the cutoff are left out of the program — even if they could also use this support.

Negotiations on the reconciliation bill will be about trade-offs

In the end, reducing the overall costs of the reconciliation bill will be about trade-offs. Progressive lawmakers thus far have not signaled an interest in further targeting any programs. Instead, they’ve pushed for fewer years of funding for social programs in the bill.

“If there are fewer dollars to spend, there are choices to be made,” Speaker Pelosi said in a press conference on Tuesday, adding that shortening the length of programs is a key mechanism that Democrats are eyeing. “Mostly we’d be cutting back on years and something like that.”

As Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) explained in an MSNBC interview, the approach that lawmakers take is likely to vary by program. He signaled an openness to discussing the income cap for the expanded child tax credit, for example, but emphasized that additional restrictions on universal pre-K would be a much harder sell.

“It’s reasonable for certain things: If you’re saying that the earned income tax credit should go to working families and not the rich, I agree,” Khanna has said. “But if you’re saying that we shouldn’t have universal pre-K or universal community college, I say no. … I’m glad that K-12 education isn’t means-tested in this country.”

From The Hindu: Sports

From The Hindu: National News

From BBC: Europe

From Ars Technica

From Jokes Subreddit