Good morning.
- Hmm, the last two frames makes me wonder how often God feels this way about us, “I’m going to save you … and then kill you!” (out of frustration over our stupidity).
- Stalin, Russia and memory.
- Sin and Scripture.
- Speaking of sin …
- Iran and fission.
- Succinct.
- Cause or effect?
- WSD or WOT?
- Paternalism in government.
- Small states.
- Reality and video.
- Of Mr Mailer tweaking a crowd.
- Afghanistan and Mr Emmanuel … more criticism here too.
- Tax revenue.
- Don’t hold your breath waiting.
WSD or WOT?
Interesting but kinda silly. While we did destroy the old Iraq, there wasn’t much of a country in Afghanistan to destroy. The tragedy is not the destruction of abstract countries but of hundreds of thousands of human beings like you or me but consigned by fate (or, in your world, by God) to be born a Muslim in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan.
The U.S. is more than happy to prop up Muslim states that are financially helpful, e.g. Saudi Arabia, even when the majority of 9/11 attackers were from there. It’s got nothing to do with destroying Muslim countries and everything to do with macho revenge fantasies (Iraq, Afghanistan) combined with cynical realpolitik (Saudi Arabia.) To the extent that we’re involved in Pakistan, I’d say that’s actually a departure in that we’re being more pragmatic under Obama than under the last several administrations.
Paternalism in government.
I was all set to mock you, Mr. make-the-woman-get-a-judge-to-okay-her-abortion-paternalist for calling someone else a paternalist, but that’s pretty frickin’ awful.
Small states.
Don’t they get fed up standing athwart history yelling stop? In the 1700s it was somewhat reasonable for Pennsylvania to be a different kind of animal than New York. In today’s world when you can fly clear across the country to the other coast in a few hours, it just makes no sense.
Tax revenue.
WTF? One, this is a once-a-century crash. Calling it a “slowdown” is ridiculous. Two, we *should* “borrow massively” every time there’s a “slowdown” this bad. That’s how you get out of them.
Don’t hold your breath waiting.
This is kind of strange, how does the gov’t ‘give’ us the stimulus money back? esp. considering that half of it is in the form of lower taxes? To give the money back, people like Mark should make added ‘gifts’ to the US Treasury.
I’m not holding my breath.
Don’t they get fed up standing athwart history yelling stop? In the 1700s it was somewhat reasonable for Pennsylvania to be a different kind of animal than New York. In today’s world when you can fly clear across the country to the other coast in a few hours, it just makes no sense.
I believe they’ve shown that we are losing our regional accents. Here in the NY area Bob Grant has been a right-wing talk radio giant for decades…but Rush overshadowed him and became huge accross the nation. Why? My father-in-law insists its voice. Grant sounds like someone from NYC. Rush has a way of speaking that is exactly on the US’s linguistic ‘center of gravity’.
Mass media has had a huge impact on our political structure that shouldn’t be underestimated.
Boonton,
Wouldn’t tax credits be part of the money “already spent?”
JA,
Once a century … this one is as bad as 1980 not 1920 … 30 years a century does not make. And “Two, we *should* “borrow massively” every time there’s a “slowdown” this bad. That’s how you get out of them.” is disputed.
JA,
On that last bit (TARP and the stimulus) … if data won’t budge you … doesn’t that mean your position ain’t based on evidence.
By tax credits you’re talking about the $8K first time homebuyer’s credit?
I’m not sure if it’s ‘already spent’. Depends how you do the accounting and the economics. To the degree it motivated action today its ‘spent today’. But then its also a fact that the actual spending will happen at tax time when Uncle Sam has less cash and Joe Homebuyer has more cash. That would probably be QI and Q2 of 2010 when tax returns are filed, but then with extensions its possible there will be stragglers in 2011 claiming the $8K.
But this is a small part of the stimulus spending. The bulk of what has already been spent is lower payroll taxes, extended unemployment benefits and food stamps with some construction projects. When you say the gov’t should ‘pay it back’ what exactly do you think that means? How exactly would you expect to see the gov’t ‘pay back’ the *lower* amount of taxes its been taking out of your paycheck? The only logical way the demand makes any sense is to read it as you demanding the gov’t get more money from you…..which you’re perfectly free to do by sending the money into the Treasuriy’s fund to retire debt.
Disputed by idiots.
As for 1980 being greater than and equal to 2008…I give you:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2009/July/job_losses_and_recessions.png
Which summarizes a much longer argument into a much more concise picture.
As for ‘massive borrowing’. Why do you think interest rates are so low if our borrowing has been so massive relative to the situation?
And another chart showing clearly 1982 was NOT worse or even equal to the current recession:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/6a00d83451c45669e20120a613aa38970c-500wi.jpg
Boonton,
By “tax credits” I meant lower taxes. Wouldn’t the tax credits and breaks be already included in the money already spent.
I’m not sufficiently attuned to accounting language to distinguish any difference between a tax break and a tax credit. To me they sound like synonyms.
Boonton,
You’re chart is interesting except somewhat deceiving I think, as it graphs change in employment. It is my recollection that employment remains higher now than it was at the start of the 80s recession. But I think careful analysis is needed to really state claims about whether this is worse or better than 1980 … which is not present in the links you provide.
Boonton,
To add to the last bit, the point is the graph’s you note are deceptive in that the 1980 recessions would not, looking at that, give you the idea that current unemployment figures are not as bad as in 1980.
JA,
On the Pakistan thing. I’ll offer you a challenge (and no googling). You offer:
In what ways does the current administration’s policies regarding Pakistan differ than the last year. Name three things we’re doing there now that evidence pragmatism.
And note, the blogger in question is not embroiled in US politics but is a Pakistani blogger. If they see the policies of the US as WSD and one continued by Obama, I’d offer they have likely more at stake and therefore more data on the situation than those of us in the US.
In what ways does the current administration’s policies regarding Pakistan differ than the last year.
Without googling, I don’t know exactly how far Bush went before he finished his term. I just meant that the idea of fighting in Pakistan itself is a pragmatic one (compared to, e.g., Iraq) — we’re there because and only because the terrorists are there.
And note, the blogger in question is not embroiled in US politics but is a Pakistani blogger. If they see the policies of the US as WSD and one continued by Obama, I’d offer they have likely more at stake and therefore more data on the situation than those of us in the US.
Yes of course. And that’s a huge reason why we shouldn’t be in either of those wars — the civilian population will inevitably see us as occupiers and destroyers.
On that last bit (TARP and the stimulus) … if data won’t budge you … doesn’t that mean your position ain’t based on evidence.
1) TARP is not the stimulus.
2) You should not rely on bloggers to do your reading for you. You link to a blog which links to an editorial. The original does not have the same implication (“TARP may not have actually accomplished anything”) unless you squint real hard:
Over the last year, TARP in general, and the Capital Purchase Program (CPP)
in particular, along with other efforts by the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) and Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC), have made important contributions to helping stabilize
credit markets. To illustrate, figure 1 shows that while it is difficult to isolate
the impact of TARP, the TED spread—a key indicator of credit risk that
gauges the willingness of banks to lend to other banks—has narrowed to
levels not seen since market turmoil began in late 2007. However, TARP is still
a work in progress, and many uncertainties and challenges remain. For
example, while some CPP participants had repurchased over $70 billion in
preferred shares and warrants as of September 25, 2009, whether Treasury
will fully recoup TARP assistance to the automobile industry and American
International Group Inc., among others, remains uncertain. Moreover, other
programs, such as the Public-Private Investment Program and the Home
Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) are still in varying stages of
implementation.
But I think careful analysis is needed to really state claims about whether this is worse or better than 1980 … which is not present in the links you provide.
If a careful analysis is needed then why did you state out of the blue that the current recession is 2nd place to 1982?
On that last bit (TARP and the stimulus) … if data won’t budge you … doesn’t that mean your position ain’t based on evidence.
Unless theory has given you good cause to believe that without the TARP the data would have ‘budged’ in the manner of falling off a cliff. Granted that’s not as good as being able to access an alternative universe where everything is exactly the same but that one policy question you’re looking at (TARP vs no-TARP), but until the multiple-universe teleporter is invented for academic research we will have to make do.
JA,
Yes, I know. this is why I said TARP and the stimulus.
But it seems to me that even in the piece you quoted, “shows that while it is difficult to isolate
the impact of TARP”. Spend hundreds of billions of money … and get responses like that and the ones quoted by the piece I linked, which note that lending by banks receiving funds is not greater than lending by banks which did not.
My pointing out the blogger from Pakistan was not from the US was mostly in response to your remark, “interesting but kind of silly” which seemed mocking. And it seems to me that your ideas that we are suddenly more pragmatic our dealings with Pakistan is not based on any factual knowledge of a shift in policy.
Boonton,
Huh? The link noted that TARP aid did not increase lending in banks which received assistance. Why is that not a relevant point?
Huh? The link noted that TARP aid did not increase lending in banks which received assistance. Why is that not a relevant point?
Well yes that would be nice but also to avoid a complete collapse of the financial system.
Spend hundreds of billions of money … and get responses like that and the ones quoted by the piece I linked, which note that lending by banks receiving funds is not greater than lending by banks which did not.
In the center of town is a giant propane depot. It catches on fire. the town dumps thousands of gallons of water on the fire until it is put out before the tanks explode taking out all of downtown. A month later some kid at the local university announces a study….businesses that weren’t doused with water were doing just about as much business as those that were. Therefore the water was all wasted.
Boonton,
OK. Fine. But it was also termed a “credit crises” and lending by banks seems not unrelated. If it makes no difference if a bank got assistance or not … why is that not relevant?
The point of that question highlights the problem with your propane tank analogy.
I don’t disagree, a full recovery from the ‘credit crises’ would be a return of normal bank lending which I don’t think we’ve seen yet. I don’t think you can measure the effecitveness, though, by comparing banks that got money with banks that didn’t. Assume banks that didn’t get money are being run perfectly and the perfect response to the immediate economic climate is to make very little lending.
Now assume that the banks that received money were like the propane company on fire. They would have exploded if aid hadn’t come in time but now they are as perfect as all the other banks. What would that look like? Well, they would make little lending as that is the ‘perfect’ response to the current economic climate.
Boonton,
Why do you say that? I’m not discounting it … just asking why you’re of that opinion.
Recall that a number of the banks that got money didn’t need it. What do banks do with money they have but lend it? After 9/11 the airlines were given assistance if they needed it or not … Southwest used it to buy fuel futures ahead of rising gas prices and made out very very well. I don’t think the question of relating credit availability of banks that did and didn’t get assistance is an unreasonable question … and that in the absence of that there might call to question the assistance.
After 9/11 the airlines were given assistance if they needed it or not … Southwest used it to buy fuel futures ahead of rising gas prices and made out very very well.
Let’s think about that. Suppose Southwest’s CEO sold his soul to the devil in exchange for the next 5 years worth of fuel prices. The first thing he would do is buy fuel futures. What is he didn’t get any 9/11 money? He would still buy fuel futures and make out like a bandit.
What does this tell us. Either Southwest had better knowledge or didn’t. If it did, the 9/11 aid wouldn’t have made a difference. Southwest has/had superior management and would have made out well. What if Southwest didn’t? Suppose the CEO said I have this extra money from the gov’t let me try betting on fuel futures a bit. In that case you just have a random bet. For every CEO buying futures at the right time with 9/11 money, there could just as easily be one buying them at the wrong time.
If the aid is neutral, in other words its just enough to return the damaged company to the playing field then I wouldn’t expect to see a lot of variation in behavior between companies that got aid and those that didn’t. If the aid was exceptional, though, more than compensating the companies for the damage from the ‘outside event’ (and both 9/11 and the financial crises you have to take ‘outside’ with a grain of salt), then the companies getting the aid would have an advantage over those that didn’t. They’d be able to exploit the additional resources and leverage them against their competitors.
Let’s try another analogy. You and your neighbors all have roughly similiar houses, jobs and financial situations. There’s a massive flood that damages all of your houses. Many get aid from FEMA but not all the same since the damage wasn’t consistent. Let’s say a year or two later you all look almost exactly alike. I’d say the aid ‘worked’ in the sense that it got you all as close as possible to the status quo. Suppose, though, neighbors who got aid were living in giant mansions while those that didn’t were getting letters from the town trying to condemm their property in order for the mansion neighbors to expand their lots. I’d say in that case the aid was not effective, it turned into a giant windfall for those that got it. Likewise if a year or two later the neighbors who got no aid were living normally but those who got it were living in makeshift metal boxes I’d say the aid was woefully too little….all else being equal.
Why do I think lending is not normal. At the moment its a lot of ancedotal evidence. Stories about credit card rates being jacked up, credit lines cut even for good customers. Mortgage lending, except where the gov’t is backing it, is very low. Interest rates on Treasury bonds are very low even though the gov’ts been issuing a lot of debt, money wants to stay in ‘safe’ areas like Treasuries rather tahn lending to business or consumers. In my reading, though, I’ll try to be on the lookout for more objective measures.