Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, September 9, 2019

Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman

Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Max Mittleman
Timothy Spurlin

Miles Stephenson
Finn Storer
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White

FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

“

It was the best of times, it
was the worst of times,”
began Charles Dickens in
his 1859 novel “A Tale of Two
Cities.” Today, more than 150 years
after Dickens’ death, those words
remain relevant: At present, they
describe the predicament facing
Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Internationally, Putin’s reign has
been a time of great success for
Russia. Since first coming to power
in 2000, he has emerged as the
face of the modern Russian state,
increased his nation’s power on the
global stage and made significant
strides towards Russia’s long-term
goal of destabilizing Western, liberal
democracies. However, while Putin
continues to project strength abroad,
he faces a spate of domestic concerns,
with economic struggles and recent
protests over electoral freedom
causing his approval rating to drop as
Russians begin to worry about their
future.
It is undeniable that through
the lens of global geopolitics, Putin’s
tenure as Russian president has been
a time of great accomplishment for
his nation. Today, Putin’s name and
image are synonymous with the
Russian state, a sign of his global
political presence. He is consistently
ranked alongside American and
Chinese leaders as one of the world’s
most powerful heads of state, despite
governing a substantially smaller and
less economically powerful nation
than his Chinese and American
counterparts. The sentiment that
Putin is a strong leader is reflected in
his global perception: As of 2018, 52
percent of Americans believed Russia
played a bigger role in the world than
it had 10 years prior, while only 15
percent thought it played a smaller
role.
However, Putin’s projections of
strength are just the tip of the iceberg:
On the world stage, he’s made tangible
strides towards achieving Russia’s
political goals. Russia’s primary goal
is bigger than Putin: to destabilize
Western nations it believes to be part
of the liberal order. This aim extends
back to the founding of the modern
Russian state. After the Soviet Union
fell, many former Soviet Republics
and Soviet Union protectorates,
which
the
Russians
saw
as
culturally Russian, joined Western
organizations such as the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization and
the European Union, manifestations
of the U.S.-backed liberal order. As
the Russian president, weakening
the liberal West is naturally a goal
Putin has worked to further. His

most-publicized triumph came in the
2016 U.S. presidential election, when
Russia’s government-backed online
trolling group, the Internet Research
Agency, helped sow political discord
and promote President Donald
Trump’s candidacy, which ultimately
aided his victory. However, Putin’s
accomplishments extend far beyond
causing chaos in the 2016 presidential
election: there are ties between
Russia and the United Kingdom’s
“Vote Leave” campaign from the
2016 Brexit referendum, and many of
Europe’s newly-empowered far-right
parties, which share Putin’s disdain
for liberalism, have ties to Russia.
While
Russia’s
government-
sponsored electoral meddling has
been highly effective, perhaps its
most significant contribution is
the blueprint it left behind. Across
the globe, online political trolling
has become a common electoral
tactic. Though the aforementioned
European far-right does maintain
ties to Russia, many parties can
now rely on a steady stream of
inflammatory misinformation from
far-right websites in their respective
countries, a move inspired by the
IRA’s tactics. Meanwhile, in other
countries such as the Philippines,
spreading
misinformation
has
blossomed into a major component
of
political
campaigning,
with
independent
companies
offering
their online trolling services to
candidates.
In
addition
to
promoting
democratic destabilization in the
West, Putin has also worked to
effectively expand Russia’s influence
in Africa. Documents leaked earlier
this year showed the Russian
government’s plans to build ties with
various African nations, including
the Central African Republic, Libya
and Madagascar, with the aim of
introducing Russia-friendly leaders,
promoting Russian political values,
accessing natural resource deposits
and securing lucrative military
contracts. By competing with foreign
nations (namely China and the
United States) for influence in Africa,
Putin aims to strengthen Russia’s
influence abroad to a degree which
has not been seen since the fall of the
Soviet Union. With regard to Russian
values, the documents revealed
the Russian government’s interest
in creating a sense of Pan-African
nationalism among the countries it
worked with in Africa, something
which bears many similarities to the
idea of the “Russky Mir” (Russian
World), the ideology Russia uses to
justify encroaching on the rights of

former Soviet states like Belarus
and Ukraine. Although Russia
cannot match the massive financial
investments the United States and
China have made in Africa, they still
demonstrate Putin’s vision of Russia
as a global power capable of molding
the world in its vision.
However,
despite
Putin’s
success in expanding Russian
influence abroad, he faces several
problems in his home country
that may be of serious concern.
Putin’s biggest obstacle is Russia’s
struggling economy and its impact
on everyday citizens — over the
past five years, the average real
income in Russia has dropped by
over 10 percent, and Russians are
understandably frustrated. Russia’s
economic struggles, including the
decreasing real income, can be
traced back to two primary causes,
both of which Putin bears some
responsibility for. Most directly, at
least some of Russia’s contemporary
problems are tied to sanctions placed
on Russia for annexation of Crimea,
a move Putin had direct control over
(ironically, the original invasion
boosted Putin’s popularity). More
importantly, Russia’s key economic
problem in the past decade has
been falling oil revenues. Though
Putin
cannot
singlehandedly
control the global prices of oil,
many of Russia’s oil problems
are linked to the government’s
inability to diversify the Russian
economy beyond natural resource
production, something which stems
from Putin’s disinterest in tackling
economic corruption (though that
is unsurprising, considering Putin is
a personal beneficiary of the current
system).
While Putin’s most pressing
domestic concern is the economy,
Russian citizens have also grown
frustrated with some of Putin’s
repressive political tactics and are
coming out in protest. Earlier this
year, investigative journalist Ivan
Golunov was held in jail on fabricated
drug charges after he investigated
corruption in the Russian funeral
industry. However, after protests
across the nation, the government
ultimately admitted defeat and
released Golunov. In recent weeks,
a spate of protests have been held in
Moscow after Putin’s government
disqualified several rival candidates
running for city council positions.

ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN

Putin’s international success and domestic struggle

C

ollege students ought
to be interested in the
recent inversion of the
yield curve, as its ramifications
could
potentially
pose
a
significant threat to our post-
graduation plans.
For those who don’t know
what the yield curve is, it is
a graph that plots different
bonds by their contract length
and their respective yields, or
how much one gets back for
investment. Typically, 10-year
bonds
have
higher
yields
because that means people are
lending out their money for a
longer period of time and thus
should expect a greater return
on their investment. However,
for the first time since 2006, the
yield curve recently “inverted,”
meaning that short term yields
increased above long term ones.
Why is this such a big deal?
Bonds are generally a much
better measure of the economy’s
health
than
other
markers,
such as stocks, for a couple
reasons. First and foremost, the
variability of the stock market
is pretty much unpredictable.
When it is up or down, people
will offer their thoughts on what
has influenced it as a whole, but
typically the day-to-day just
sometimes changes. Bonds are
like stocks but are generally
considered safer due to their
complexity
and
guaranteed
returns. As business journalist
Heidi
Moore
eloquently
explained in a tweet thread:
“The stock market is a way that
people tell short stories about
a company … Bonds also tell a
story about a company or a
government. But it’s a BETTER
story, a novel rather than a short
story.”
The inverted yield curve is a
better indicator of the economy’s
health than any given down turn
in the stock market. As short-
term bonds have increasingly
higher yields than long-term
ones, investors are essentially

saying that the short run is
looking riskier than the long
run, and therefore yields should
be higher in order to compensate
for the higher risk (i.e., there is
most likely a recession landing
in about two years’ time).
That may seem like a whole
lot of economic jargon, but
in reality, the track record
for inverted yield curves and
recessions in the U.S. and United
Kingdom is rather uncanny. All
of the recessions in post-war
America have been preceded
by an inversion in the yield
curve about two years prior.
That is cause enough for serious
concern.
Truthfully, it is incredibly
difficult to discern the exact
cause of this phenomenon. All
we can do is infer plausible
causes and make judgments on
them on a case-by-case basis.
What we do know is that the
temporary
inversion
in
the
yield curve means that there
is some sort of short-term
uncertainty
in
the
market.
Most likely, it is a combination
of factors all impacting the
market. Global growth is down:
Germany is nearing a recession
with a shrinking economy and
Argentina’s stock market lost
about half its value in a few
days. Pair this with the ongoing
trade
tensions
between
the
U.S. and China and a looming
disaster brewing in the United
Kingdom. due to the possibility
of a “No-Deal” Brexit, and it all
points to a murky short-term
future for the global market.
It is also somewhat possible
that there is a self-fulfilling
aspect of this warning. After all,
the inverted yield curve does
not cause a recession; it merely
acts as a historic signifier of one.
Warnings of a looming downturn
could influence stakeholders to
respond accordingly by saving
more and spending less, which
in turn slows the economy and
thus we have the very thing we

feared would happen anyway.
It should be noted that while
this inversion has occurred
before every recession, the
sample size for this indicator
is
still
rather
small.
The
outcome is not guaranteed,
but it is reasonably probable —
we ought to take the warning
seriously all the same.
President
Donald
Trump
has
tried
diverting
much
of the attention away from
the warning signs, tweeting
recently that “the Democrats
are trying to ‘will’ the economy
to be bad for purposes of the
2020 elections” while also
attacking the Federal Reserve
for not keeping interest rates
lower.
Unfortunately,
there
is no evidence that the Fed’s
interest rates have much to do
with this phenomenon, and it is
unlikely the Democratic party
possesses the will to impact
global markets in such a way.
Regardless of possible causes,
everyone attending a university
should be paying close attention
over the next year or so. Great
resources include keeping up
with news sources such as The
Economist, The Wall Street
Journal or the Financial Times
that all cover the economy in
detail (and all have some sort
of student discount available).
Another tool to stay educated
is social media. Find and follow
a few economists to stay up to
date.
If the inversion of the yield
curve is correct again that
means a recession is just two
short years away. Which, by
my math, means it will hit as
most of us currently attending
the University of Michigan are
graduating. Securing a job can
be hard enough after getting
your diploma. Let’s hope we
don’t have to do that in the
midst of a new recession too.

Observe the inverted curve

Zack Blumberg can be reached at

zblumber@umich.edu.

ALANNA BERGER | COLUMN

On mental health and mass shootings

Timothy Spurlin can be reached at

timrspur@umich.edu.

TIMOTHY SPURLIN | COLUMN

“

Mental illness and hate pulls
the trigger, not the gun,” said
President Donald Trump at
a White House address following
the back-to-back shootings in El
Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio
in early August. Trump’s words
echo a greater sentiment put forth
by a multitude of politicians and
gun rights advocates in the days
following mass shootings.
In the wake of the mass
shootings that have plagued the
United States for the better part
of two decades, elected officials
and various public figures have
often steered the debate away from
gun control toward mental illness
issues within the country. Perhaps,
at first, this seems to make sense.
To many Americans, the thought
of entering a public space with
high powered weapons for the
sole purpose of killing innocent
strangers
is
incomprehensible.
A sensible conclusion seems to
be that no individual of a sound
mind would do such a thing, and
therefore such a perpetrator must
have some sort of mental illness.
However,
the
majority
of
research demonstrates that the
propensity to make a connection
between mass gun violence and
mental illness is misguided. Though
some high-profile mass shooters,
such as those who committed the
massacres at Virginia Tech, in
Tucson, Ariz. and in Newtown,
Conn., had a history of mental
illness, evidence demonstrates this
relationship is not causal.
The first piece of evidence to
disprove the relationship between
mental illness and mass gun
violence is that the United States
is not unique in terms of rates
of mental health issues. In fact,
statistics show rates of mental
illness remain roughly the same
throughout
the
world.
When
compared with peer nations such
as Canada, Ireland or Germany,
the United States demonstrates
similar rates of mental illness. If
mental illness was truly the main
cause of these random acts of
mass violence, then the rates of
mass shootings in these countries
should be comparable to those in
the United States. However, when
it comes to gun violence, the United
States stands alone among its peers.
As of 2017, gun-related deaths
comprise 73 percent of homicides in

the United States, compared with 3
percent in England and Wales as
of 2017, 38 percent in Canada as of
2018 and 13 percent in Australia as
of 2013. In fact, gun homicides in
the U.S. are at a 25.2 times higher
rate than gun homicides in other
comparable
developed
nations.
Additionally, the United States
ranks as the 28th highest in terms
of rates of deaths from gun violence
worldwide, far higher than other
developed countries. While the
mental illness epidemic appears
to be universal, the gun violence
epidemic
remains
uniquely
American.

Another counterpoint to the
notion of mental illness as a
cause of mass shootings or gun
violence is the fact that mentally
ill individuals, in reality, commit
a small fraction of overall violent
crimes. Data from the National
Center
for
Health
Statistics
shows that less than 5 percent of
violent crimes are committed by
those with diagnosable mental
illnesses.
Thus,
those
with
mental health issues are overall
unlikely
to
perpetrate
violent
crimes, including gun violence
and mass shootings. Moreover,
further
statistics
demonstrate
that mentally ill individuals are,
in fact, much more likely to be the
victims of violent crimes. More
than 25 percent of those diagnosed
with a mental illness will be the
victim of a violent crime. It seems
that the existence of a mental
illness is a far better predictor of
victimization of violence rather
than of perpetration.
At this point, it is clear that a
mental illness does not make an
individual more likely to harm
others in acts of gun violence.
However, there is another link
between
mental
illness
and
gun violence that often remains

undiscussed. Suicides have long
accounted for the majority of
gun-related deaths in the United
States. Suicide by firearm is also
an extremely brutal method,
accounting for less than 6 percent
of suicide attempts but over half
of fatalities. Furthermore, ease
of access to guns contributes to
suicide risk. People living in states
with high rates of household gun
ownership are four times as likely
to die by gun-related suicide when
compared to states with lower
rates of household gun ownership.
In this sense, there appears to be
a link between gun violence and
mental health struggles. However,
access to firearms proves to be
a greater risk to the mentally ill
themselves rather than to the rest
of society as a whole.
In the wake of mass shootings
that continually rattle the United
States,
politicians
repeatedly
blame the mental health crisis
for the carnage. This is an issue
that persists on both sides of
the ideological spectrum, with
Trump blaming the mentally ill for
pulling the trigger and Democratic
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo
calling for a “mental health data
base to prevent the dangerously
mentally ill from purchasing a
firearm.”
Repeatedly
placing
the blame for our gun violence
crisis on the nation’s mentally
ill, an already vulnerable and
stigmatized population, is unfair
and dangerous. The fact of the
matter is that both mental illness
and gun violence are massive
public health epidemics inflicting
untold damage on the American
populace.
Even
though
the
brazen
capacity for violence demonstrated
in high profile mass shootings
seems far outside the bounds of
sanity to most people, mental
illness is decidedly not responsible
for the high rates of gun violence
in the United States (barring those
related to suicide). In order to
properly provide for our nation’s
mentally ill, we must dispel
harmful stereotypes that mental
health issues are responsible for
one of our worst national scourges
and begin to look elsewhere to
combat our gun violence epidemic.

Alanna Berger can be reached at

balanna@umich.edu.

When it comes to
gun violence, the
United States stands
alone among its
peers

KAAVYA RAMACHANDHRAN | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT KAAVYAR@UMICH.EDU

Read more at MichiganDaily.com