Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktSomebody else is trying to do the Bad Lip Reading thing. This is their take on Rick Perry’s “Strong” Ad.
An evil genie tortured and killed a Saudi woman. Other members of her family better watch out, as the police had concluded that other members of her family, especially those questioning their fine police work, may also be under the influence of evil jinn. Another hat tip to our friends, the Saudis.
American Spectator has a decent article on Keynes: The Madness of Lord Keynes. Whatever you think about throwing money into the economy in order to stimulate, it doesn’t magically produce economic growth like turning the key in the ignition.
***
Lee Stranahan finds a newspaper from 1967, making similar observations that I’ve made in similar circumstances.
I recently read some of the Uncle Remus stories, from a Disney edition of the main stories from Song of the South, released the same time the movie came out. I love Walt Disney, but he sure sounds nostalgic for plantation ownership and magic negroes in that foreword. Which is why that book is out of print, I guess, just like the movie.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Have to disagree on the piece on Keynes. If there's an argument in that piece, I don't see it. If someone would care to prove me wrong, then be my guest, but I don't see premises and a conclusion there. Perhaps I'm wrong. For that matter, I don't see support for any number of extremely ambitious claims. In addition, the prose is genuinely risible."…the surge of an army of activist-intellectuals into the ranks of governments before, during, and after World War II"Very difficult to take anything seriously that includes a phrase like that.
LikeLike
The Spectator piece opened with:"After almost four years of stimulus-packages, deficit-spending, and quantitative easing, it now seems obvious that traditional "Keynesian" remedies to our current economic woes have failed to put America back on track."Except what passed was watered down pseudo stimulus – including tax cuts – at lower volumes than the Keynesians (Krugman, etcetera) recommended. It is invalid to draw a 'keynesianism failed' conclusion from a test that wasn't Keynesian. Repubs wouldn't pass the stimulus the Obama admin asked for, but want to blame him for failing. That don't make sense.
LikeLike
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/closer-look-at-s-e-c-s-mortgage-fraud-charges/?pagemode=print
LikeLike
from the strahan link… "Remember – at Couture’s Gardens every Tuesday is Go-Go Nite and every Sunday Afternoon is Polish music" does it get any better?
LikeLike
bsimon:Except what passed was watered down pseudo stimulus – including tax cuts – at lower volumes than the Keynesians (Krugman, etcetera) recommended. It is invalid to draw a 'keynesianism failed' conclusion from a test that wasn't Keynesian. One of the single largest stimulus packages in history is "watered down psuedo stimulus" that "wasn't Keyensian"? Certainly something here "don't make sense", but it's not what you seem to think.
LikeLike
Annual $1 trillion deficits count as "stimulus" as well. We aren't anywhere near austerity.
LikeLike
Isn't Quantitative Easing pure stimulus?
LikeLike
Song Of The South is permanently hidden way back in the deepest darkest corner of the Disney Vault where it is guarded by Walt's cryogenically frozen head. It will never see the light of day except in a few bootleg foreign editions.Roger Ebert has frequently rallied for its release with supplementary information explaining the context of the movie if needed.I always found it ironic that one of the most popular rides at DisneyWorld is based on a movie nobody younger than 40 has ever seen.
LikeLike
yello:Yesterday you suggested that people in the vilified 1% were more likely to be conservative. What makes you think so?
LikeLike
It will never see the light of day except in a few bootleg foreign editions.There were full foreign releases of Song of the South on VHS. Last official release was in the UK in 1991 (PAL format). It's also been released several times by video producers in Japan, where (under Japanese law) it's in the public domain. There was an NTSC laserdisc produced in Hong Kong. And Disney continues to discuss some kind of release, so either Song of the South will be released with a lot of exculpatory analysis by academics where that is perhaps the actual product, and the full movie is included in the Blu-Ray "for reference", or just a compilation of all the musical numbers (which, let's face it, is what most regular folks who want Song of the South released care about. I had a copy of Song of the South on VHS, and watched it about 12 years ago, and remember it being boring (it was not a great dupe, either, which didn't help). Take out the songs and it's definitely a Fox and the Hound type movie, mostly banal, where they only thing interesting about it (aside from the music) is the offensiveness.
LikeLike
I always found it ironic that one of the most popular rides at DisneyWorld is based on a movie nobody younger than 40 has ever seen.But many of the children have seen several of the musical numbers–at least, they used to. During the late 80s and 90s, Disney started releasing Sing-A-Long video tape products. Several of these featured signature songs from Song of the South, including "Zip-a-dee-doo-dah!" and "Laughing Place", among others. But many classic rides at Disney World have no original movie reference (or didn't)–like The Haunted Mansion, Pirates of the Caribbean , Space Mountain, Big Thunder Railroad, Expedition Everest, etc, and they're still popular. Splash mountain is a great ride, but it also does what I expect would be done if Song of the South had been tackled in the 80s or later–the presence of human beings is entirely eliminated.
LikeLike
bsimon: Except what passed was watered down pseudo stimulus – including tax cuts – at lower volumes than the Keynesians (Krugman, etcetera) recommended. It is invalid to draw a 'keynesianism failed' conclusion from a test that wasn't Keynesian. If the single largest influx of government money into the economy in history (as far as I know) wasn't sufficiently Keynesian, then Keynesianism cannot ever be implemented in the real world. By that same argument, one could say supply side or trickle down hasn't ever really been tried, because taxes weren't cut nearly as much as they should have been for as long as they should have been for supply side economics and trickle down to really kick in.
LikeLike
The only time I went to Disney World as kid my favorite rides all had nothing to do with Disney Movies or Shows that I watched. The only one that I remember being associated with a movie was 20,000 Leagues under the Sea and I only liked that ride because my mom is a bit claustrophobic and she freaked out a bit when the closed that hatch. Even when I went to Disney World in college I didn't know Splash Mountain was associated with a movie although I suspected it was. I did like singing "Zip-a-dee-doo-dah!" when I was growing up.
LikeLike
Looking for a concise way to say this, I found:Contrary to some critical characterizations of it, Keynesianism does not consist solely of deficit spending. Keynesianism recommends counter-cyclical policies.[15] An example of a counter-cyclical policy is raising taxes to cool the economy and to prevent inflation when there is abundant demand-side growth, and engaging in deficit spending on labor-intensive infrastructure projects to stimulate employment and stabilize wages during economic downturns. Classical economics, on the other hand, argues that one should cut taxes when there are budget surpluses, and cut spending—or, less likely, increase taxes—during economic downturns. Keynesian economists believe that adding to profits and incomes during boom cycles through tax cuts, and removing income and profits from the economy through cuts in spending and/or increased taxes during downturns, tends to exacerbate the negative effects of the business cycle. This effect is especially pronounced when the government controls a large fraction of the economy, and is therefore one reason fiscal conservatives advocate a much smaller government. [wiki]I am pretty sure from economic history that counter-cyclicals can have the desired effect, but that effect is lost when politics dictate deficits all the time, and an equilibrium of public finance that presumes constant deficit. Cutting taxes while simultaneously engaging in two wars is not Keynesian because it is not counter-cyclical. The slipshod tendency to yell "spend more" can become an argument for bubbling. I do think the Fed had a hand in rebubbling after the dotcom bust and did so on purpose.I favor the true Keynesian counter-cyclicals like unemployment compensation, that increase targeted spending in bad times, but DECREASE it in good times. Simply blowing out money all the time is hardly Keynesian.
LikeLike
The 9 Most Racist Disney Characters.From the post (talking about Song of the South, whose Uncle Remus is #2):When the movie had its world premiere in 1946 in Atlanta, James Baskett, the actor who played Remus, was not allowed to attend. Zip-a-dee-doo-dah!
LikeLike
Simply blowing out money all the time is hardly Keynesian.So we're unlikely to ever practice true Keynesian economics, then. Human nature is not to tighten the belt when times are fat. Neither federal nor state governments do it, even though most of them would probably be in better shape if they conserved in fat times so there was something left in lean times.
LikeLike
This seems to be a little good news. We've discovered an awful lot of Medicare fraud out here in CA.Mark, it looks like the legislative shenanigans of the past few days will prevent unemployment compensation being extended at this point. I'm not quite sure I understand what the House is doing by sending the bill to conference knowing the Senate has gone home, other than just killing the bill outright. There is some speculation they nixed the up or down vote because they were afraid it just might pass…lolWASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is reporting it has recovered nearly $9 billion in fraud against the government since the beginning of the Obama administration, a record three-year total.The $3 billion recovered this year included an unprecedented $2.8 billion raised after whistle blowers filed lawsuits for false claims for government money or property such as Medicare benefits, military contracts and federal subsidies and loans.Reporting of false claims increased after Congress amended the False Claims Act 25 years ago to increase incentives for whistle blowers to 15 to 30 percent of funds recovered from lawsuits they file on behalf of the government.Assistant Attorney General Tony West noted Monday that 28 percent of the more than $30 billion in recoveries since then have come since President Barack Obama took office.
LikeLike
On the fraud front, electronic medical records are making detecting fraud much easier. So I wouldn't give the Obama administration too much credit. I am a bit skeptical as to how much of the captured money represents actual fraud versus some lesser degree of culpability. The other issue is that under PPACA if a provider discovers an overpayment and doesn't pay it back within 60 days, they have (arguably) committed fraud. I continue to be baffled that plaintiff law firms advertise for car accident claims, but don't advertise for qui tam claims. If you get a good enough claim, the government prosecutes the case for you.
LikeLike
Yesterday you suggested that people in the vilified 1% were more likely to be conservative. What makes you think so? I hate to quote Krugman but it was the first link I found.http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/Repulicanism is correlated with income.
LikeLike
Scott, the journal piece to which you linked is somewhat comical, but helps make my point; they write (after opening by calling the bill a tax and spend program) " The $275 billion in tax relief offered in the stimulus package focuses more on lower-income families. It also includes business incentives to spur job creation and a $500 payroll tax holiday for workers."So at least a third of the stimulus was in the form of tax cuts – exactly the prescription conservatives continue to lobby for. Nevermind the nonsensical WSJ calling a tax cutting bill a "tax and spend" program – it plain and simple isn't Keynesian stimulus.
LikeLike
Repulicanism is correlated with income.Most of the liberals I know make more money than I do. Anecdotal, I know, but I will say that being a Democrat is correlated with income in the house and senate. 😉 Although they're all pretty much rich, elitist, out-of-touch d–er, feminine hygiene products. I mean, with good reason, I'm sure. If there was a conclusive, outsize correlation of voting patterns with income, one would expect more consistency in election results, wouldn't one? Republicans would always lose and Democrats would always win (given that there are more people of lower incomes than of higher incomes). Republican candidates would be boutique candidates who could only win in a few exclusive congressional districts in the house, but could never win national elections. Because they would always be, by definition, in the minority.
LikeLike
Also, if it were true that being a Republican made you richer (don't worry, it's not), then I think you'd actually see a lot more Republicans. Changing your party affiliation would be a very attractive thing to do, if switching from D to R automatically increased your income. 😉
LikeLike
Kevin,yello definitely didn't say being a Republican made you richer, he said there was a correlation. Also the correlation comment was made in response to the prior point that those in the 1% are more likely to be Republican so it needs to be viewed in the context. Given that context, your comment about Republicans necessarily being in the minority is wrong. Simply because the wealthy are more likely to be Republican doesn't necessarily make the opposite true, ie that the poor and middle class will more likely be democrats.
LikeLike
it plain and simple isn't Keynesian stimulus.Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I thought tax cuts during a recession were a perfectly acceptable form of Keynesian stimulus (although, to be fair, and to Mark's point, it's not truly Keynesian because it was not proceeded by, and will not be followed by, tax increases and spending cuts when the economy was/will be better). The "just wasn't enough argument", like a stopped clock, is correct periodically, but rarely enough that it's always going to be difficult for the other side to accept. It seems to most conservatives that the stimulus (tax credits included) was quite large, and did not work, thus the argument that we need more of what didn't work is not compelling. Agreed that calling the stimulus "tax and spend" is nonsensical. Was there in any tax increases in the stimulus? I don't recall there being any, and, even if there were, the net effect couldn't have been to increase net taxes–otherwise there'd be little stimulative effect in the tax credits. Of course, the government does "tax and spend". That's the whole idea. 😉
LikeLike
It seems to most conservatives that the stimulus (tax credits included) was quite large, and did not work, thus the argument that we need more of what didn't work is not compelling.Why are Republicans arguing for tax cuts if you admit they didn't work? Saying the stimulus was too small seems a stronger position than saying tax cuts and government spending didn't work so what we need to do is cut taxes.
LikeLike
yello definitely didn't say being a Republican made you richer, he said there was a correlation.Well, good golly. Then what could possibly be the attraction of becoming a Republican? 😉Given that context, your comment about Republicans necessarily being in the minority is wrong.Fair enough. I think out loud sometimes. Also the correlation comment was made in response to the prior point that those in the 1% are more likely to be Republican so it needs to be viewed in the context.A good point, as well, though it makes me wonder: At those that are in the .5% or the .01% more likely to be Republicans or conservatives? When I think of .01%, I think of folks like Richard Branson, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Eric Schmidt, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg (who is a Republican, but he makes Nelson Rockefeller look like Ronald Reagan). Ronald Perelman. Paul Allen. etc. I'm not sure of Mark Zuckerberg's political affiliation, but I'd be willing to bet he's not a registered Republican. On the right, who have we got? Roger Ailes, Sumner Redstone (?), the Koch brothers? The Waltons may be Republicans. I'm sure there are more on both sides, but I'd be curious if the majority of the super-ulttra-rich are more Republican or more Democrat, more conservative or more liberal, and what conclusion we might draw from that? I'm looking at Forbes list of top 100 rich people. On which I'm willing to wager registered Republicans are in the minority.
LikeLike
Although however the affiliations go, it does seem the Republicans get more money from the superwealthy. Although it seems difficult to separate out the super-rich person from their corporations. Damn you, Citizens United!
LikeLike
Then what could possibly be the attraction of becoming a Republican? 😉A question worthy of its own post if ever there was one. 😉Fair enough. I think out loud sometimes.I hear you. Sometimes doing so is a bit dangerous on this blog. At those that are in the .5% or the .01% more likely to be Republicans or conservatives? The Krugman links shows the top third are slightly more likely to vote Republican, but it's hardly a landslide. I will agree that looking at the Forbers list I would think more of those are Democrat than are not, but there's a lot of speculation in that statement. If Krugman's numbers for the top third hold true for Forbes' list then we are talking 42 on the list would be Rep and 37 would be Democrat. That seems well within the standard deviation of my speculations.
LikeLike
Why are Republicans arguing for tax cuts if you admit they didn't work?They weren't big enough! Ba-dum-dum. I don't necessarily oppose government spending (especially on infrastructure), and would like to see more permanent tax cuts (rather than anemic temporary tax credits) on households making less than $250k, and would be fine with taxing the wealthy more (again, especially the super-duper wealthy who are mostly liberals, anyway [heh!]). I think the Republicans are (by and large) arguing against it because it's something they believe they can make an albatross around the Democrats neck, and winning elections is the name of the game on both sides, pretty much all the time. Saying the stimulus was too small seems a stronger position than saying tax cuts and government spending didn't work so what we need to do is cut taxes.Except if you want to argue that the stimulus was too small, you could probably have gotten a bigger tax cut out of Republicans–although not necessarily, but I don't think the idea of deeper long-term tax cuts for folks making less that $250k or $100k was ever floated). Then maybe half or more the stimulus would have been tax cuts, but there would have been more money out there faster. Which, if Keynesian stimulus work, would have certainly been a good thing. The argument over the stimulus seems to be a variation, on the whole, of: it was a good idea, because I thought of it. No, it was a bad idea, because it's not my idea. Etc. But I do believe the argument that additional stimulus, in the form of more government spending or more tax cuts, will result in a revived economy is largely flawed. I believe we would do better to seek stability first, both short term and long term, and the economy will take care of itself. Which might require a bank bailout in the short term, but ought to be followed be eliminating conglomerate banks that are too big to fail (either getting them out of mutually vulnerable businesses, or breaking them up). But I don't think we should fix roads or build new government buildings as a form of stimulus (rather, these things may or may not be worth doing in and of themselves, but expecting a magic revival of the economy because we fix bridges and fill potholes is not a good idea, IMO). Nor should we expect people getting to keep a little more of their paychecks to magically make-up for a decade of over-value assets and bursting bubbles and ill-conceived if well-meaning government tinkering in the economy.
LikeLike
Then what could possibly be the attraction of becoming a Republican? ;)A question worthy of its own post if ever there was one. 😉It'd be a short post, from me. A: My other option was becoming a Democrat. 😉
LikeLike
Kevin, the reason borrowing money to fund new infrastructure is stimulative is that it adds to the cash flowing through the economy. The status quo is that people are tentative – they're being fiscally conservative; paying down debt increasing savings. At an individual level, that's smart behavior. But its slowing the economy. On the other hand, if you build a bridge with borrowed money, you're moving people into the workforce, potentially reducing unemployment payouts & at the end have a useful piece of infrastructure. The wages & materials purchases create cash flow within the economy.
LikeLike
bsimon: On the other hand, if you build a bridge with borrowed money, you're moving people into the workforce, potentially reducing unemployment payouts & at the end have a useful piece of infrastructure. The wages & materials purchases create cash flow within the economyBut doesn't that stimulus essentially evaporate, once the project is done? I agree that it's good to have useful infrastructure, and that it be repaired and maintained, and that actually has an extensive long term impact (our robust economy has a very good friend in the Eisenhower Interstate System). But the immediate stimulus seem to be minor–I just don't see it making a huge economic difference. I understand the argument, I just feel the stimulus would necessarily have to be transient.
LikeLike
I agree with both bsimon and Kevin here. It is wise long term policy to strengthen the physical infrastructure. But here is anotherway to make Brian's point, Kev:We could spend invest money when we were in a boom and labor was in short supply, or we could invest it during a bust when labor was cheap [and money is cheap, too]. A classical economist says wait for a boom to spend on stuff and a Keynesian says time your gov. projects as countercyclical. Do it when it isn't competing with the private economy for labor and do it when it will do the multiplier effect missing from lack of private employment.
LikeLike
" the stimulus would necessarily have to be transient."That's a good thing, right? The goal is to provide a short term boost, not create a new permanent agency / entitlement.
LikeLike