Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktWhen the government grows, the private sector shrinks. Or maybe it’s that the private sector shrinks, thus obligating the government to grow.
The 6 Things Movies Love to Get Wrong About the Workplace.
HuffPo says Anti-Incumbent Fever Can Hurt Republicans. Implied, if not explicitly stated, is that it might also hurt the incumbents in the senate and the Whitehouse, as there are, in fact, a lot of incumbent Democrats, too.
Newt Gingrich says the Ryan-Wyden bill is awesome. Wonder who that will hurt more.
Do you like to clip coupons? I do. It’s like money you don’t pay taxes or withholding on. Good deal!
There’s a new Ghost Rider film on the way. I love it when underperforming films get a sequel. That shows moxie!
Climategate continues. Whistleblowers are criminals who must immediately be arrested, if their leaking the wrong kind of emails. Who thinks this is a good idea for dealing with climate skeptics? Whistleblowers were cool . . . back in the day.
Why We Need Serious Welfare Reform. I observed some of the same things over 20 years ago (without the iPhones). I agree in spirit, but it’s not going to happen. There will always be people, and lots of them, abusing the system and teaching that to the next generation. Those incentives will always be present in some form. The blogger is young. She talks like this might change, and it won’t, unless the entire country goes bankrupt. I’d prefer that not to happen, even if it means an ever-growing entitlement class.
Here’s another picture of a puppy:
 |
| lmsinca’s Christmas Cookies |
I thought this one was pretty good…
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Quote from the "6 Things" link:But seriously, how many of you out there have a job that constantly revolves around big presentations and landing important accounts?While working, you bet I did. Landing and keeping important accounts. And yes, it was stressful at times.
LikeLike
The paper is interesting. Keynsians view the economy as Y = C + I + G (Output = consumption + investment + government spending). In their view, if the economy is weak, increase government spending (G) and the economy (Y) improves. The paper implies that increasing "G" reduces (C + I) more than the increase in G, so that the increased government spending is counterproductive. This view is consistent with the theory that government intervention in the economy causes deadweight losses.Obviously the Three Amigos (Krugman, Reich, and DeLong) aren't about to agree with the conclusion, but it is interesting, and does seem to be supported by common sense data. Japan is exhibit (A) = they did a deficit spending policy for two decades => in other words they increased "G" massively, taking their status from the biggest creditor in the world to a debt / GDP ratio of 2.2. Economic growth over the same period? Zero or just about zero. IOW, Keynsian economic spending is completely redistributive, and has a negative net economic effect. The classic case of dividing an 8 slice pizza between 3 people by throwing out two slices.
LikeLike
Lms:Those cookies look really yummy, and I'm not a sweets person. Maybe you could post some recipes? My sister-in-law has requested a mess of cookies as a Christmas present.
LikeLike
lms, your arrangement of cookies looks like it belongs in a magazine. very nice.
LikeLike
Mike, these are only about half the ones we make. I'll try to put some recipes up this weekend. Who's going to make them? The reason I ask is that some of them are rather difficult. For instance the Santa Clause is little pieces of sugar cookie dough that you roll in different size balls and they spread out during baking to form the Santa. Icing etc. is added later. One of everyone's all time favorites though are the ones in the upper right corner. A coffee sandwich cookie with Kahlua frosting squeezed out around the edges then dipped in chocolate sprinkles, but you have to have a cookie press to make them. Some of the others are a little easier and still good, I just don't have pictures of them yet. Anyway, I'll write down a few recipes this weekend.It's funny, I'm not much of a sweets person either, but I grew up making cookies as Christmas gifts and just never looked back. Now everyone expects it. Luckily my girls will carry the tradition on as they both enjoy making them.
LikeLike
Brent, they look so good because my photographer daughter took the pictures for me, and that was from her cell phone. She's awesome and was over a couple of nights ago stealing some to add to her assortment so I made her snap a few pics while she was here and she put the collage together for me while she was at it.
LikeLike
"Now everyone expects it."yes, we do.luv,(shameless-sweettooth) tao;>)
LikeLike
Lms,Should I email you my address so you can send me those cookies? Or, should I just post it in the comments?
LikeLike
Haaaaaaahaaaaaaa you guys. I dare you McWing. We have a young woman who used to live down the street who is mentally challenged and at 35 acts about 10 who calls me almost every day this time of year to make sure I'm going to send her some. They moved to Arizona a few years ago when her parents retired and she waits for these all year. You guys are in good company, she's a sweetheart, but she also has first debs.
LikeLike
lms:Who's going to make them?Um, I was going make them since I do all the baking in our house. I probably don't have the patience for the Santa Clauses, but we do have a cookie press.
LikeLike
A win for Kevin: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70534.html?wpisrc=nl_wonkIncandescents earn brief reprieve!
LikeLike
My goodness, lms is a professional pastry chef.It seems wrong to taunt all of us with this show of baking prowess and bounty, but on the other hand just looking at Christmas cookies is part of the joy of the season.On a sadder note, I dropped by PL and left a punchy comment on Romney and Bain and the liberal attack on him, only to have wbgonne express his hatred and disgust at me and wish me to burn in hell. Lol.
LikeLike
" The paper implies that increasing "G" reduces (C + I) more than the increase in G, so that the increased government spending is counterproductive. This view is consistent with the theory that government intervention in the economy causes deadweight losses."But not all gov't spending is equal. Some spending has a multiple approaching 1.5 (infrastructure improvements), while other spending returns less – and can be a net drain.
LikeLike
Okie dokie mike, I will work on recipes today and put them up in the morning. I will suggest both the coffee kisses and the other cookie press cookies as excellent recipes for both flavor and looks. I will include the Red Velvet Whoopie Pies (we added the peppermint to the recipe), apricot/oatmeal iced cookies, my best sugar cookie cut out recipe and vanilla bean shortbread. I love a man who bakes………
LikeLike
Re the econ paper, it has been an article of faith — and just an article of faith — among the Keynesians that there is a mythical (positive) multiplier for government spending. This is really the sine qua non of Democratic policy. We hear it all the time, asserted as fact, but with no specifics. I've asked for the empirical evidence of this multiplier many times and pointed out that it is really just an assumption. The CBO and other "modellers" tell us that government spending "grows" the economy simply because they assume that it does. It's amazing to me that this assumption is routinely claimed to e a fact, when it is indeed just an assumption. It's the assumption on which Obama's claim to have "saved" the economy is based.I'm no expert, but this is not the first academic paper showing that the muliplier is likely negative, not positive. But the tomato throwing (at these authors)is probably about to begin.
LikeLike
"But not all gov't spending is equal. Some spending has a multiple approaching 1.5 (infrastructure improvements), while other spending returns less – and can be a net drain."As a general proposition (absent the 1.5), this is probably true, but it isn't the theory of Keynesian demand stimulus.
LikeLike
I have found that when someone begins with a blanket statement like "government spending is always good" or always bad, what follows is typically thoughtless nonsense.
LikeLike
I have always found that when someone begins with a straw man, what follows typically is thoughtless nonsense (and what went before as well). Good to see nothing has changed.
LikeLike
bsimon: Incandescents earn brief reprieve!Hardly sufficient. Republicans were willing to go balls-to-the-wall on raising the debt ceiling (at least, until the last moment). They should be going at least as far, right now, for the most American of innovations, the humble incandescent light bulb. I have found that when someone begins with a blanket statement like "government spending is always good" or always bad, what follows is typically thoughtless nonsense.I found that it's rare that much follows at all. I've been told, more than once, that high taxes alone lead to economic prosperity, irrespective of government spending or stimulus or whatever–just taking money away from people, in and of itself, leads to prosperity because things were great back in the 1950s when top marginal rates were around 79%. While I'm perfectly willing to accept, as an article of faith, that infrastructure improvements have a multiplier effect (and suspect 1.5 is low, if you compared the cost of, say, the American Interstate System to the related economic growth and business related to said system over the past 50 years). But it's very difficult to do this, I think, as there's no way to attribute the appropriate level of growth absent said infrastructure improvements. You can't have a control group. Thus, you may operate out of a intuitive sense that without the roads, products wouldn't be shipped, thus they wouldn't be bought, thus people would not be employed to make them, thus they wouldn't have the money to buy other things . . . But it's hard to judge how much of this would have existed without government spending, how much of it is cyclical, how much of that economic productivity might have still happened–just happened elsewhere–without said stimulus. While I do not object to government spending (the more public spending that can be done without incurring additional debt or confiscatory taxes, the better, IMHO), when I see statements about how everybody knows any level of government spending results in a 1.5x multiplier or that ongoing unemployment benefits results in a 2x multiplier, I feel like I'm getting a sales pitch for the Brooklyn Bridge. Ergo, I don't believe there is anyway to know that, so those saying it are taking it on faith (a faith with many traditions and practices and rituals, but faith, nonetheless), and expecting me to do so, as well.
LikeLike
qb: On a sadder note, I dropped by PL and left a punchy comment on Romney and Bain and the liberal attack on him, only to have wbgonne express his hatred and disgust at me and wish me to burn in hellWas that on the Morning Plum?
LikeLike
kev,Yes, it was on MP but was quickly deleted (along with many caothien insults).In fairness, it wasn't just me he wished to burn in hell but me and all free market people or conservatives or something like that.
LikeLike
I am very interested in the coffee cookie recipe. My wife is really the baker in the family and I'm more of the cook, but I would like to develop a go to cookie for office parties, birthdays etc. and that sounds right up my alley. I also would like to dabble in making my own bread. Does any of the numerous chefs here make their own bread often?
LikeLike
" I don't believe there is anyway to know that, so those saying it are taking it on faith"If the number cannot be calculated the critics are likewise relying on an article of faith.
LikeLike
Those cookies look so very wonderful. I just eat the raw dough I buy at the store despite the warnings. I'm like Ron Paul in that respect.
LikeLike
bsimon:If the number cannot be calculated the critics are likewise relying on an article of faith.I don't think the denial of something in the absence of evidence can be characterized as "faith". Saying "I believe in God" is an expression of faith. Saying "I don't believe in God" is not.
LikeLike
ashot, I love baking bread (it's the only baking I'm any good at). Do you have a kitchen scale?
LikeLike
" I don't think the denial of something in the absence of evidence can be characterized as "faIth.""If the response is that the answer is unknowable without evidence, we agree. I read Kevin's post as saying the evidence hasn't convinced him, or is suspect. I don't think he's citing that as evidence the theory is wrong. However, there are people who do and it is those people to whom my comment references.
LikeLike
Atheism is a religion in the sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
LikeLike
A theory that says we should increase government spending because it increases economic growth needs to be supported with evidence. The evidence in fact appears to show that the opposite is true. Hence, believing in and advocating policy based on this theory is at best an act of faith. Opposing it is not. The burden is on the Keynesians; the evidence does not seem to support them.
LikeLike
QB, you remind me of a liberal acquaintance who will only acknowledge evidence that confirms preheld beliefs.Keynesian economics, as I understand it, is not that more government spending will always boost economic output. Instead, it focuses on times of high unemployment & slow/stagnant economic growth. It is at times like these that gov't spending can help the economy grow by boosting cash flow within the economy. It seems logical to me that putting otherwise unemployed people to work is a clear economic gain – you are creating productivity where there was none before. How is that activity an economic drain?
LikeLike
bsinom:It seems logical to me that putting otherwise unemployed people to work is a clear economic gain – you are creating productivity where there was none before.It is only an economic gain if they produce more value than what it costs to pay them to do a job. Employing someone to alternatively dig and then fill in a hole will not result in economic gain, no matter what the rate of unemployment or economic growth in the wider economy is at the time.
LikeLike
"QB, you remind me of a liberal acquaintance who will only acknowledge evidence that confirms preheld beliefs."What exactly is the evidence I don't acknowledge? Your belief isn't evidence. This paper is evidence to the contrary. There are other empirical studies that agree.One of the flaws in what seems logical to you is that you are simply assuming that spending puts otherwise unemployed people to work. Another is that it accounts only for the short term, without considering that the government's misallocation of resources is likely to depress growth in the future. Of course, that is the sort of thing that is "not seen," so it is easy to forget or even pretend that it is not part of the analysis.
LikeLike
" the government's misallocation of resources is likely to depress growth in the future. Of course, that is the sort of thing that is "not seen,""Your criticism likewise leaves unseen the economic benefits of new infrastructure projects, for example.
LikeLike
"Your criticism likewise leaves unseen the economic benefits of new infrastructure projects, for example."No, it doesn't. Not of those benefits are real, in which case they are measured in actual GDP, for example. How would those benefits be real but unseen?
LikeLike
Not "if"
LikeLike
ashot:My current favorite bread recipe is here. The only issue is that you have to let it rise overnight, then again for another two hours. But the bread itself is nice and crusty, but not too dense because you only use a tiny bit of yeast.
LikeLike
" How would those benefits be real but unseen?"The same way your alleged costs (depressed growth) would be unseen.The presumption of misallocated resources is likewise fuzzy logic. You seem to start with the assumption that all gov't spending amounts to a misallocation of resources. Which brings us back to my earlier observation about what follows blanket statements.
LikeLike
"The same way your alleged costs (depressed growth) would be unseen."Sorry, but it's not as easy as a "right back atcha." We measure actual economic growth. Hence, when the government spends money, we measure the performance of the economy with that money spent. This is what economists sometimes call "the real world." What is "not seen" is what is the hypothetical or alternative scenario in which that money is not spent or is not spent that way. That is what economists sometimes call the "but-for world"–what would the world look like "but for" that spending. That "but-for" economy is what is not directly measurable."The presumption of misallocated resources is likewise fuzzy logic. You seem to start with the assumption that all gov't spending amounts to a misallocation of resources."No, I did no such thing. It probably is a good default presumption, but the observation that Keynesian theory fails to account for misallocation and particularly in the long term in no way depends on such a universal assumption. It is simply an observation that Keynesian theory accounts only for benefits seen and not costs (or potentially reduced growth and productivity) not seen. The paper linked above is an empirical demonstration that in fact the costs do appear to outweigh the benefits. It shows through comparative analysis that spending appears to negatively correlate with growth. "Which brings us back to my earlier observation about what follows blanket statements."Yes, you do seem to go in circles.
LikeLike
A theory that says we should decrease marginal tax rates because it increases economic growth needs to be supported with evidence. The evidence in fact appears to show that the opposite is true. BB
LikeLike
Paul, their argument is about the entire structure of public finance. Brent lays it out, above. KW's original observation applies and we cannot know from this study which came first.Every western economy now has built-in countercyclicals like unemployment compensation. Thus when the private sector contracts, the public sector expands. Automatically. Not saying which is cause and which is effect, only saying we now cannot tell from this presentation.
LikeLike
I'll admit to having fun with using the exact wording with one slight modification. 1981 – Big tax cuts followed by steep recession1986 – Tax increases with continued growth1990 – Tax increases with moderate recession1993 – Tax increase followed by strong growth2001 – Tax cut followed by recession2003 – Tax cut followed by moderate growthOne can't even conflate causality and effect. Brian had it right. Data in favor of one's predisposition is considered. Conflicting data is ignored. Alan Heeger would be proud.BB
LikeLike
Well, FB, your fun is rather weakly based, since you fudge the facts.For example, the first Reagan tax cut was enacted in August 1981. The "steep recession" officially started a month earlier, and of course the economy never really had come out of the 1980 recession. Similarly, the 2001 recession started before the tax cuts.Many other factors affect growth as well–oil, end of cold war, tech boom and bust, 911, but the old saw that tax cuts were followed by recession is factually untrue.
LikeLike
"The paper linked above is an empirical demonstration that in fact the costs do appear to outweigh the benefits. It shows through comparative analysis that spending appears to negatively correlate with growth."Sorry, but it appears that may not be the entire story. Curiously, the National Review's summary of that study missed a couple interesting bits of nuance in the source material "the negative effect of government size on GDP per capita growth is stronger at lower levels of civil liberties and political rights. Finally, and for the EU countries, we find statistically significant positive coefficients on overall fiscal rule and expenditure rule indices, meaning that having stronger fiscal numerical rules in place improves GDP growth."Curious; curious. So you mean that strong fiscal regulations, perhaps like the CFPB, actually improves economic growth? Fascinating. Elsewhere the authors mention the truism that "economic progress is limited when government is zero percent of the economy (absence of rule of law, property rights, etc.), but also when it is closer to 100 percent."Where have I heard that before… Oh yeah – the Laffer Curve. Curiously, just like with the Laffer curve, the folks who trot out the theory start with the assumption that we're at the high end of the curve. They never ask where the 'sweet spot' is; where we get maximum efficiency. Instead, they throw out the myopic maxim that 'more is always worser' ignoring that at the other end of the spectrum, less is worser too. In any case, this study is talking about gov't growth over the course of decades, not the affects of short term stimulus to address an economic crisis. In other words, it is irrelevant as a rebuttal to the Keynesian idea that in times of high unemployment & low economic growth the gov't needs to 'prime the pump' and get the economy going. A proper stimulus is not an increase in the baseline size of government, but a temporary set of programs that stay in place only as long as the root criteria are in place: high unemployment & low growth. The knee jerk reaction that gov't spending is always bad only perpetuates the downturn.
LikeLike
Thanks for looking at the source, Brian.
LikeLike
QB's correction is noted. Massive tax cuts failed to do a damn thing about the steep recession in 1981. Ditto in 2001. The adults in the room are perfectly aware that actions by the Fed had the dual effect of causing a strong recession and wringing inflation out of the economy. Still, what about that steep recession that was an inevitable cause of the Clinton tax rises. Oh wait. Never mind.Then there's a fun fact I hear from Grover. The problem is of tax cuts that are temporary. Umm, but the Bush tax cuts had a specific sunset date. Ergo, they were not permanent and thus could not cause any growth as they lacked the certainty of the mythical "permanent" tax cut.And so it goes.BB
LikeLike
Fairlington:The adults in the room…This room? Please do be more specific…who do you not consider an adult here?
LikeLike