Thursday Open Thread
House passes ban on job bias against gays - is going to get vetoed from what I hear? I don't support any job protection laws including this one.
The oil prices are still going up but the Smart cars are finally coming to US! I am looking forward to seeing them around.
Happy almost Friday!
Submitted by Ender on Thu, 2007-11-08 10:05
Tags:
Comments :
National debt at record $9 trillion
Yup. Yesterday our National Debt passed $9T.
You may note that the article says that bush43 has added $3.865 trillion. Ronnie Reagan, the other President who conservatives consider a Saint, raised the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion 
during the course of his presidency. That's a combined $6 Trillion of the total $9T for just those two.
Why is it that the most highly regarded conservative Presidents spent their grandchildren's money like drunken sailors and are still considered conservative?
'They' say debt doesn't matter
Go put more debt on your credit card.
Apparently it's a fabulous way to run a household.
My neighbor is doing fantastic. Her credit debt is WAY up to only $62,000, just a little over her yearly income.
Naysayer liberals don't understand that everything is just fine. All we need to do is write happier headlines.
It is the economy, stupid.
so why is she doing so well?
Bush's fault?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
She's friends with Rupert Murdoch
It is the economy, stupid.
Here comes da recession
Link
Bernanke was asked how likely a recession was. He dodged the question.
qui tacet consentire
The silent protest of the poor
The American consumer is supposed to drive the economy. Loan sharks on steroids didn't care. Investors on steriods didn't care. Now that they can't pay it is this simple problem so mulitiplied that is causing the world markets to question the integrity of US securities funds floated for investment.
It all depends on the consumer. Will we get some respect?
It is the economy, stupid.
MissL,
Recessions were, are and will always be the result of bad monetary policy.
It's a monetary issue, plain and simple.
We are too far down the path of bad monetary policy now. No matter what Bernake does from here on out, it will hurt. We're in a catch 22. Sooner or later the tricks the Fed keeps employing will be unable to achieve a tentatively decent result to mask the problem.
And when that day comes, few will care about why it really happened. They will blame anyone and everyone but the true core guilty party: The Fed.
Blaming "loan sharks" or some other visible tasty target isn't going to get to the bottom of the problem.
We could cut spending and raise taxes....
I know, that is a novel idea that is politically distasteful. But I think addressing it that way is more mature than letting the freight train run right over you while we just stand there and watch it approach.
how's that going to prevent a recession?
the damage is done.
You don't believe in market psycology?
The market uses it all the time. If they THINK things will get better, they act on their hunch, usually by bidding stocks up. That coupled with less national debt usually will induce a better economic environment.
Of course, there will always be those who complain about taxes.
part of the problem with market psych
is that it can induce behavior that isn't warranted by real indicators.
That's what I'm referring to when I say an "overwhelming cluster of errors".
Sadly, it's not all in people's heads. It's very real and we can't think it away....though we can tinker with real indictators to stave off a recession for a period of time....but not forever. All the mistakes will eventually come home to roost.
Yea there's a bunch of truth there.
Last night I heard that Moodys is "re-evaluating" a sizable number of the SIV's they had previously rated in light of the declines that many groups issued yesterday.
Doesn't sound much like Rocket Science. It does make one wonder what basis they were using to rate and rank all those loans/SIV's though.
From how I see it
the problem is not to be found in looking at SIVs and loans. The problem lies in the forces that create realities that these entities react to. In this case, we look at the fed, which has kept interest rates at levels that have not reflected the state of the market. What should rated have been? I don't know. But they're too low. With "real market interest rates", the catalyst to cause these wide spread discords are not there.
Oil prices
can also trigger a recession.
qui tacet consentire
I don't see that
oil prices going up can maybe slow growth over a period. But a recession is another animal. Here, bad monetary policy is culprit but inducing overwhelmingly large cluster of investment errors.
John
The guilty party, is humans. Humans screwed this up, specifically the human quality known greed.
You don't have money, or profits, or monetary policy without humans. The bottom of the problem is human unrestricted transparent human greed.
It is the economy, stupid.
MissL
you said nothing with regard to my post. Come on.
It's time to reform humans
They are the ones responsible for this bad monetary policy. Humans make up the government, the labor force, the invester class, the federal reserve and the global market. This is clearly a human problem.
How to regulate human behavior to avoid this foolish monetary policy?
It is the economy, stupid.
I think it's time to feed the monkeys...
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I don't like bananas
but I will take or gold coins or copper coils :)
Donations much appreciated.
I have to drive tomorrow and it will take 29 big black trash bags of aluminum cans, recycled for me to fill my tank.
It is the economy, stupid.
ummm...
OK. I know what I think on that question. What do you propose?
Trust me
You don't want to know what I think. That will go nowhere fast.
Let's just say that to date, I have not been assimilated......
It is the economy, stupid.
I dunno
the way your talking, it would seem we need a top down gestapo. Pardon the hyperbole.
Leadership is good
I don't think you would call Ron a gestapo, but he is a leader of a movement that holds strong beliefs.
It is the economy, stupid.
Now you lost me.
I just scrolled up to make sure this thread was indeed about recessions and the such. It indeed is. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
Top down
=gestapo?
Yet Ron Paul is top down leading a movement. Does that make him a gestapo.
Response to your hyperbole.
It is the economy, stupid.
Oh, OK
I thought we're going to address and elaborate on your statement above.
nope
like I said....... that will go nowhere fast.
It is the economy, stupid.
As long as you actually explain, substantiate
and discuss, it always goes somewhere.
What I generally react less charitably towards is when people don't or can't coherently explain a position that they stand so firmly behind....or even attempt to.
I'm actually very technical and philosophical when it comes to these things. I always appreciate a logical argument. try me.
not tonight dear
I have a headache
It is the economy, stupid.
OK.
But don't think "IT'S GREED!" works as a good answer.
OH really
Are you the thought police now.
And here I thought you believed in liberty.
I will think whatever I want sir.
You are not the arbiter of my morality.
It is the economy, stupid.
my goodness
you read waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to far into comments.
That's my opinion. "IT'S GREED!!!" is lousy answer.
You can think whatever you want. Don't ever think I'm implying otherwise.
Right.
But don't think libertarianism is a good answer.
That's just my opinion. Libertarianism is a lousy answer.
It is the economy, stupid.
LOL. that's so sad.
you're so paranoid and fixated on that that you can't even have a conversation.
Here we are in thread about monetary policy and recessions and all you can do is dwell on monolithic ideology is sweeping generalized opinions.
There you go again
I told you I didn't want to discuss this with you.
This is exactly why.
Roger that. Over and out.
It is the economy, stupid.
LOL. Self-fulfilled prophecy
this has nothing to do with issue of monetary policy or thoughtful discussion. this is about your attitude and approach to communicating with others.
In the middle of all this chit chat, don't think it's hard to overlook the fact that I kindly asked you your opinion on the monetary policy/recession matter and that you refused to answer or have a discussion about because it wouldn't go anywhere.
Well, my dear, you never attempted to discuss to the issue.
Don't feel vindicated by my observation of and reaction to your non-answers.
Over the cliff
now you are not only telling me how I should think (Greed as an answer is unacceptable to you) now you are telling me how I should feel. (don't feel vindicated)
Why can't you just respect the fact that I am not interested in discussing monetary policy with you specifically as I stated previously (read above posts)without making little personal digs and jabs?
If it is so important, why not write a dairy about it, with your very own thoughts and analysis, so that others who might enjoy an intellectual back and forth with you can do so. You can title it, "John's Ideas for the Big Fix on Monetary Policy".
It is the economy, stupid.
And Ole' she goes.....
I thought you had a headache, anyway? :)
just a quick thing that I learned about "over and out"
when I was in the military and learning how to talk on the radio...
Apparently "over" is when you finish what you said and are passing your turn over to the other party for a response... And "out" means you are done with the conversation completely and expect no response... So "over and out" is not an oft utilized phrase ;)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Roger that
over and, oh just one last thing. before I turn the radio off..... :)
It is the economy, stupid.
Don't agree
Recessions *can* be caused by bad monetary policy, but recessions can also happen because hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to look back and say "the Fed should have done this instead." But every time the Fed meets, it has to make a very tough judgment call about the relative dangers of inflation vs. recession. Monetary policy has a time lag, so by the time you realize you screwed up it's already 6-9 months too late. (This is the problem with inflation targeting. Sounds great, until you ask: which measure[s] of inflation, and how do you separate the signal from the noise in these often very noisy-in-the-short-term statistics?)
Further, "real business cycle" theory argues that a recession can occur despite even perfect monetary policy -- indeed, it argues that recessions can be *desirable*. Real business cycle theory is highly controversial, and I don't entirely subscribe to it, but the idea isn't complete looniness. The 2001 tech bust, for example, was indeed a recession, but it also cleared out a lot of counterproductive economic deadweight -- firms that didn't deserve to exist, firms that were ineffective uses of investors' capital. We shouldn't be shedding tears for the demise of such firms.
Well, I have never seen anything to make me believe
otherwise. Show me and I'll be glad to chew on it.
I'm not familiar with "real business cycle" theory but I am familiar with Austrian Business Cycle Theory. And the Austrian version, building from principles on time preference and such as well as the role of knowledge in markets and other points I've learned about, it makes a lot of sense.
Part of the problem with Austrian Economics for many in the mainstream is that it doesn't make pro-active economists feel very good about "doing things". And the ATOTBC is very descriptive but doesn't offer a lot in the way of clear action other than finding a way to achieve the most accurate interest rates possible in real time to avoid the cluster of errors that pile up and cause down turns.
I've come to view controlling interest rates as being sort of like controlling prices.
When you control prices, it's going to lead to surplus or shortage because the price system is broken and does not reflect market forces. When prices float freely, supply is stable (more or less) because demand adjusts and/or supply gets signals to increase.
Interest rates are similar in that rates that are too low will cause malinvestment and send bad market signals and too high will cause deflation and its own problems.
Obviously, there's a lot more to it than that.
BTW, the 2001 bubble is considered by many to be a monetary-induced problem. Greenspan was messing around with rates for years. The malinvestments came home to roost in 2001.
Look up RBC theory on Wikipedia
...or, it should be covered in any intermediate-to-advanced macro textbook.
You mischaracterize the views of us neoclassicals. We (at least those of us who are inflation targeting advocates) *don't* advocate "doing things"! We want the Fed to *stop* trying to manipulate markets. We just want the Fed to be legally mandated to pursue a policy of 1-2% annual inflation, and nothing else. If this sometimes results in a recession, so be it.
Yes, it *is* exactly that. Any neoclassical economist would agree 100%. Interest rates are the price of money, so fixing interest rates *is* a form of price-fixing.
But unless you advocate completely getting the government out of the money business, you simply don't have a choice. As long as we have a government monopoly in the money business, you have a choice. Either the government can set the price of money (and not the quantity), or it can set the quantity of money (and not the price). Honestly, it doesn't matter which one you pick -- you can achieve the same effect either way. So you just have to pick your poison, and hope that the government does a good job of setting that price or that quantity.
I happen to believe that your best chance of success at this task comes through explicit inflation targeting. After all, inflation itself isn't bad -- even 10% annual inflation, if it was reliably 10% every year without fail, would be essentially harmless. (This 10% would just be tacked on as part of interest rates, and the real economic effect would be minimal.) It's *unexpected* inflation that's bad. So our goal should be to keep inflation in the tighest possible range.
A gold standard will do a *worse* job, not a better job, at achieving price stability than this. A gold standard isn't terrible, but it't not good either. It, too, is price fixing. You're fixing the price of gold.
Points taken, LZ
I actually giggled when you said "us neoclassicals". I don't really consider myself "Austrian" or Chicago School or Neoclassical. Some things make more sense to me through one school and other things through another school. Some Austrian more complex points are still fuzzy to me and very counter-intuitive.
I tend to refer to Austrian School when I speak about very specific issues because it's the one I learned about first and, to date, the most. The methodical framework upon which it builds is the most familiar to me.
I've only recently (the last year) learned about alternate ways of viewing the same issues. Most times, it's mainly "tomAIto-tomAHto. But yes, some things are stridently different in subtle or stark ways.
Often times it is like this:
Austrian:
groups of positive or negative Integers of equal distance from the same integer are always equal
Neoclassical (or Chicago School)
(x = x)
But some times, the explanations are very different. I find that this normally happens when Austrians scoff at something neoclassicals say for which they feel the math is suspect or not totally reliable. But hey, it's all good. I have read up on neoclassical basics and read articles from all viewpoints. Bryan Caplan, for example, is not an Austrian anymore, per se, though he's steeply grounded in the work in work of Mises. But he's one of my favorite economic writers.
I just got done, today in fact, with "Free to Choose" my Friedman and found his monetary stuff very understandable and lucid. I personally don't fret over the detailed difference between him and Austrians. Austrians think he's wrong on monetary policy though seem closer in agreement on the general matter than the status quo and what's wrong with it. But Friedman is far less concerned about monetary inflation by itself than the Austrians.
As for the gold standard, I'm not totally advocating it but I do see the logic behind it. Reading Rothbard's defense of a PURE gold standard, interest rates and monetary policy in general, whether or not he's 100% correct, leads me to believe the nay sayers are over-reacting a bit. It has some value, I think.
But as for Friedman, based on what I just recently read in the book, he echoed a general idea of what you said about monetary policy. He says the feds the twin goal models of "full employment" and "stable prices" (I remember correctly) are ultimately incompatible to do at the same. They should only do one or the other and the results will be better....either way it doesn't matter...as long as they only do one.
I really liked his alcoholism analogy for inflation though.
Friedman's contribution to macroeconomics
...can be summed up in 5 letters: NAIRU. (Non-Accelerating-Inflation Rate of Unemployment) In short, Friedman demonstrated that governmental monetary policy *cannot* achieve the Keynesian dream of "full empoyment." Any attempt to do so will simply result in ever-increasing, ever-more-destructive inflation that cannot be cured without a painful recession. NAIRU was initially controversial, but is now accepted wisdom. The only remaining debate is: how in the heck are we supposed to know the value of NAIRU, so that we know whether we're above it or below it?
Friedman and others completely refuted the "Philips Curve" theory. Basically, the Philips Curve only works if everyone in your country is a bunch of idiots who expect zero inflation year after year (despite years of obvious evidence to the contrary). The key observation: *expected* monetary policy is by definition ineffective at influencing real economic variables, because decisions have already been made based on those expectations. Only *unexpected* monetary policy changes (those that the market did not predict) can influence real economic variables.
Ultimately Friedman was wrong in the details (monetarism proved to be a flop) but right where it mattered. Monetarism is a great idea, but it can't be applied in practice, because it turns out that it is nearly impossible to accurately measure "the money supply" in our modern economy, with the complexity of modern financial instruments. "Money" isn't just cash and bank deposits any more.
Even so, the fact that monetarism doesn't work doesn't matter. Everyone, even the hardest-core Keynesians, has now accepted its most important premise: inflation is a monetary phenomenon.
Why?
Because that's the way partisan politics works.
Reagan, for his part, did slow down domestic growth. The problem is that military spending was extremely high.
Bush43, on the other hand, has the double whammy of increasing ALL spending and at fast rates.
The result is that GWB has passed LBJ in sheer spending growth.
In the end, though, these Republicans did a cheap thing in that they did the easy part of their agenda quite well: cutting taxes. Sadly, the part that needs more work: cutting spending was left more or less untouched (Reagan) and worsened (Bush).
King Rudy or Queen Hillary
That's all the Traditional Media seems to care about. Who's ahead in the polls, is asked breathlessly every other minute.
------
Oh yeah and cheap money.
The gamers on Wall Street want cheap money. All they want is rate cuts.
Big Ben Bernanke is testifying before Congress today. What's moving the markets?
Gasp! He is talking about the need for transparency.
----------
How is Brand Americana doing globally?
Is unnregulated free market capitalism causing weakness in the dollar. Does it matter?
It is the economy, stupid.
Musharraf Opponents Charged With Treason
Seen that dKos thread yet? Here it is.
"And less than a day after that very easy to understand message, and with the assurance from the White House that, "President Musharraf listened carefully and heard what President Bush had to say," it is being reported that:
Three politicians and a union activist were charged with treason for making anti-government speeches in the southern port city of Karachi, a court official said Thursday. [...]
If convicted, the charge carries a maximum sentence of death."
Darth Cheney is green with envy. He wishes his huevos were that large.
We need Pakistan. We don't need Musharraf. Just another military dictator with nukes. Yea, he's dubya's type of guy. And that's the image the rest of the world thinks about us. Is that what we want them to think?
Oregon hates children....
In all seriousness, this surprises me a bit on face. For those knowledgeable, maybe you can give me an opinion on the author's post-mortem.
good news
and good to hear that Oregon voters cut through the "save the children" rhetoric. We had a Stem Cell Research referendum defeated in NJ that would've "borrowed" $470 million and later on passed the cost to the taxpayers.
People are not amused with the expensive boondoggles.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I support S-CHIP
but I also don't think it should be funded by a special tax on cigarettes or any other special tax. it should be funded out of the General Fund.
If they want to increase the General Fund by increasing taxes on particular items and areas, bring that up in budget meetings and vote on it.
Works for me
I think S-CHIP could work best if we limited it to children aged of up to 120 years and limited it to families of total assets under $50,000,000,000.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Thank you for the break.
Sometimes I find myself getting too serious here.
Oregon amendment vs Schip
There's at least one really big difference between the Oregon amendment and the Schip debate: the oregon issue was in fact an amednment. It modified the state constitution to add a specific tax.
Most constitutional amendments here go down in flames, I think because people are leery of letting the constitution take the place of the usual legislative process.
That said, clearly advertising is a major factor, the post mortem's snide tone aside. Oregon like everywhere else in the US has a large body of voters who pay little attention to the issues and are easily molded by advertising, especially when there is a huge discrepancy between one side and the other. We saw this a few years ago when we voted on the Trojan nuclear plant shutdown.
A combination of those two factors I think explains the results more than a fundamental rejection of state health care for children.
There's no such thing as a credible free market health care alternative. Health care and free market ideology are fundamentally incompatible.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Actually there is
If you allow hospitals or other health care businesses the leeway to turn away patients who can't pay, then I think a free market might work. But then again, you said a credible alternative, so I still haven't provided one.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Excellent Tlaloc
Health care and free market ideology are fundamentally incompatible.
If free markets ruled the day, lots of folks on Medicare that spend weeks in the ICU right before they die, should be written off and unplugged as a drag on the bottom line. Just not cost effective.
It is the economy, stupid.
We actually agree on the ENDA veto -
I say smack it down! (but I'm holding out for a better bill under a more strongly Democratic government)
We can at least enjoy the brief moment of solidarity.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
nothing against gays
but I already dislike all the job protection laws. I wish they all would be repealed. But since that isn't going to happen I would prefer not giving even more groups the protected status.
Also I don't think T protections will happen even under a Dem administration.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Partially agree -
it seems like a bad fix to a worse problem, but since the problem is one of long-term education and cultural change, I'm not sure I can think of any other practical approach.
You may be surprised about T protections: states you'd never expect have passed them.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I am not a huge fan of forcing people
not to do something even if it's not morally right. And I think the solution has somewhat screwed up the workplace and brought a lot of fear into it. Good and bad.
Yes, I don't know much about the T protections... so hey you never know. Plus since I am not really in the shoes of any discriminated against minority (in US that is heh) I can't really imagine how it is.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So you think companies should be allowed to discriminate
Pay women, blacks and Jewish folks less or fire them 'cause they don't like those types? The reason these laws are there is because when they weren't, the companies did. And the free marked never got around to correcting it.
I say we start with the darned Russians!
Oh!....Sorry Ender....
I guess I take that back......
Gays and Smart Cars
You would if you were black and living in the south in the 1st half of the 20th century.
I'm excited about getting one when my '99 Taurus goes kaput. For what they are, the mileage isn't all that great. A Prius gets quite a bit better mileage, but the upside is that I can actually afford a Smart Fortwo.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
it was a neccessary evil
no question about it. I am not sure of a better remedy however.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Confused
So it was necessary but you didn't support it?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
it was necessary to address the issue back then
no question about it. I wasn't around then obviously so I couldn't have not supported it. :)
I don't like the method of addressing it and do not support existing laws or any new proposals to add to existing laws. But I do not have a better suggestion for how they could've handled it back then. Now I just oppose all such existing laws.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What did you think about the House Judiciary
Committee's hearing on torture?
From this TPM post it looks like it was civil. Too bad some folks tried to impune the integrity of one of the witnesses (Malcolm Nance, 20 years' service in the Navy, including time instructing would-be Navy SEALs how to resist and survive torture if captured. Intelligence and counterterrorism expert.)
Then again, there apparently were those (Rep.Trent Franks (R-AZ))
that insisted you HAD to torture captives.
Unfortunately, former Navy instructor Malcolm Nance
said he considered it a "guarantee" that other nations now have "a legal standard to subject American soldiers to enhanced interrogations." U.S. Air Force Reserve Colonel Steve Kleinman said he "agree[s] entirely."
Support the troops.....yea right. Let's make sure they get tortured!
all the hearings and other stuff about torture
is as meaningless as it gets. Too much noise about nothing. I am too tired to care about a drummed up non-issue.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I could switch to talking about the FISA/telcom bills.
But that would bore you as well. I do have a bunch of stuff to finish before the afternoon is out so I will leave you to your own devices.
I think that's the problem
A lot of the stuff the Dems are doing is wasting time with bad issues and talking about nothing to give impression of doing something.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Fox News airs bizarre claim that Hillary ordered hit on cats
At first I was ticked that Phaux News ran this story about Kathleen Willey's claims that Hillary had her cat's killed.
(what a beautiful day to go swiftboating!). Then I read the thread in Wonkette 
. Oh My God! You have to read the comments on the Wonkette link! They are so funny I almost lost my lunch!
So instead of Swiftboating,
do we call this Fristboating
?
I thought this
was the funniest comment. GoRight will appreciate it, especially.
edit: Okay, this one
had me laughing even harder.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I don't think you meant the sluggo comments
but the one right above it. Yea, that got me. Truthfully, I died over the sluggo comments even though they are somewhat crude. Probably that's why. Sometimes, I wonder about my mind.
These were the two I meant:
(for GoRight): "Ya see! The death toll continues to climb!"
"Kathleen Willey must've been pissed when Hillary dressed up as Curiosity for Halloween. Talk about rubbing it in."
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
check out the trollhunters including CLC
trying to kill a Ron Paul proponent on dkos in Paul vs Clinton
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Meh
He's not so much a Paul proponent as he doesn't submit to the philosophy of "any Democrat is better than any Republican".
DKos is groupthink and a partisan blog, but I repeat myself. I wouldn't be surprised if that one got deleted.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...