All Things in Moderation

Morning Report 10/16/12

34 Responses

1. 

   markinaustin, on October 16, 2012 at 8:45 am said:

   Off topic:

   Afghanistan –

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Michigoose, on October 16, 2012 at 9:29 am said:

   One thing I still haven’t been able to figure out is why you hard-core numbers guys are willing to vote for Romney. Everything he says that has anything to do with numbers is completely made up out of thin air. . . his “six studies saying his tax plan will work”? Blog posts and op-ed pieces. His 12-million jobs plan?

   Romney’s 12 million jobs promise is based on the idea that achieving energy independence will create three million jobs; tax reform will create seven million more; and that expanding trade and cracking down on China takes us to 12 million. But, incredibly, when Kessler asked the Romney campaign to back up these claims, this is what he got back:

   We asked the Romney campaign and the answer turns out to be: totally different studies … with completely different timelines.

   For instance, the claim that 7 million jobs would be created from Romney tax plan is a ten-year number, derived from a study written by John W. Diamond, a professor at Rice University.

   This study at least assesses the claimed effect of specific Romney policies. The rest of the numbers are even more squishy.

   For instance, the 3-million-job claim for Romney’s energy policies appears largely based on a Citigroup Global Markets study that did not even evaluate Romney’s policies. Instead, the report predicted 2.7 million to 3.6 million jobs would be created over the next eight years, largely because of trends and policies already adopted — including tougher fuel efficiency standards that Romney has criticized and suggested he would reverse.

   There you have it. Ten million of those jobs in Romney’s plan represent an entirely bogus promise. As for the remaining two million jobs that would be supposedly created by Romney’s trade policies, the report supplied by the Romney camp bills itself as “highly conditional” — and also doesn’t evaluate any of Romney’s policies. Kessler dubs Romney’s plan “bait and switch.”

   Mitt’s “new math”.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Brent Nyitray, on October 16, 2012 at 10:07 am said:

   One thing I still haven’t been able to figure out is why you hard-core numbers guys are willing to vote for Romney. Everything he says that has anything to do with numbers is completely made up out of thin air. .

   Well, speaking for myself, I would say that I consider studies from both sides on job creation to largely be exercises in speculation, where you can assume the GDP growth rate you want in order to create the number you want. Some economist, somewhere will give you a forecast you can hang your hat on, and your study will be nice and complete with sources, etc.

   For that matter, I don’t believe the government can create jobs as much as it can create an environment conducive to job creation. Regulatory policy has a big effect on job creation, and I believe Romney will be more thoughtful than obama has been. I believe obama so fears regulatory capture that he has gone to the other extreme, where the input of the private sector is neither solicited nor desired. This has created a dog’s breakfast out of financial sector regulation, which is inhibiting credit.

   As a “numbers guy” I would point out housing starts have been so low for so long that there is tremendous pent-up demand. Romney doesn’t even mention housing construction as a potential catalyst, but I believe it is there, big time. The question is, how soon will that happen. Romney prefers to let housing bottom on its own, while obama prefers to continue to pursue policies which delay the inevitable. I believe that a bottom in housing is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a robust recovery. Romney would accelerate the bottoming process, while obama will delay it. While I believe housing has bottomed in most parts of the country, there are areas like the Northeast which have further to go. At the margin, Romney’s policies will hasten the construction recovery, while obama’s will inhibit it.

   In energy, I believe that energy independence is a huge catalyst that will be a game changer on so many levels for the US economy – from drastically reducing our defense budget to reducing the “tax” that high energy prices place on the economy. IMO, obama (and the Democrats) are too wedded to the environmental lobby to fully take advantage of this. Certainly on the jobs front, will there be more people working in the energy sector under Romney vs obama? I believe so. Will we be closer to energy independence under Romney vs obama? I believe so.

   FWIW, Romney does cite a study that claims he will usher in a more robust recovery that will create 250k – 300k jobs a month, more in line with traditional recoveries. You can quibble with the 7 + 3 + 2 statement, but the 12 million study is there. Obama’s recovery has been sub-par, and Romney is proposing policies that will remove some of the worst headwinds to growth. We SHOULD be creating at least 250k jobs a month, even in the aftermath of an asset bubble. 250k is by no means a “pie in the sky” number.

   Now Greg Sargent can argue that 250k jobs a month will be created anyway, and he may be right – job creation is not solely dependent on the government – but who is more likely to facilitate an environment for those sorts of numbers? Mitt Romney, not Barack Obama.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     markinaustin, on October 16, 2012 at 11:50 am said:

     IMO, obama (and the Democrats) are too wedded to the environmental lobby to fully take advantage of this. Certainly on the jobs front, will there be more people working in the energy sector under Romney vs obama? I believe so. Will we be closer to energy independence under Romney vs obama? I believe so.

     I disagree. We are having an energy boom in petroleum and natural gas that is not dependent on the Admin. It will continue even after fracking is understood and regulated for safety. Worldwide, and here, the demand for alternate energy is expanding rapidly and American companies can still get in on the ground floor. There are wind generator parts being made all over the plains states. Biodiesel is almost an American monopoly in terms of refinery production but we send most of it to Europe, as I recall. We would do well to continue the military’s increasing use of biodiesel. There are gov decisions that can be made that increase our competitiveness that include alt energy and I have no reason to think WMR is interested in them. In TX, wind generation is cheaper than coal and almost as cheap as NG.

     I tend to agree with you on the housing bubble issue, but think most of that has played out and the BHO policy response will not affect the remainder of the housing bottom in any significant way.

     I think that the loss of governmental jobs in every area accept defense and homeland security promised by WMR will actually be a drag on the employment numbers.

     In my dreams, the best scenario for a WMR presidency is that he would accept the military’s assessment of needs and veto congressional attempts to pork them up, and that he would actually break up homeland and housing, consolidate veterans and defense; consolidate energy, commerce, labor, and agriculture; and generally reorganize the cabinet in a way that reduced overlapping and conflicting regs by eliminating fiefdoms. I don’t believe that is in his sights at all. Neither party ever addresses structural reform because each party wants more fiefdoms, not fewer.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • 

       markinaustin, on October 16, 2012 at 11:57 am said:

       Brent – a parting shot 🙂

       http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

       LikeLike

       Reply
4. 

   Michigoose, on October 16, 2012 at 11:14 am said:

   Brent–thanks for the thoughtful answer. I need to get back to you with a couple of questions when I have time.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Michigoose, on October 16, 2012 at 11:15 am said:

   OT:

   Another attempt at voter suppression falls by the way side.

   The U.S. Supreme Court sealed a legal victory for President Barack Obama’s campaign in the pivotal state of Ohio, leaving intact a ruling that restored early voting rights for the weekend before the Nov. 6 election.

   Ohio Republicans had sought to cancel early voting that weekend for everyone except members of the military. A U.S. appeals court blocked the plan last week, saying it probably violated the constitutional rights of non-military voters. In a one-sentence order, the Supreme Court today rejected a challenge to that ruling, filed by Ohio’s Republican secretary of state and attorney general.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on October 16, 2012 at 11:27 am said:

     More voter suppression laws that have yet to be overturned.

     LikeLike

     Reply
6. 

   novahockey, on October 16, 2012 at 11:49 am said:

   gerrymandering is a more insidious form of voter suppression. they’ve systematically eliminated any chance for the minority party in a district to win an election. that’s a way bigger deal that poll open/close times or what ID you have to show. there’s an argument for a voting rights act violation.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on October 16, 2012 at 12:26 pm said:

     nova:

     gerrymandering is a more insidious form of voter suppression.

     Agreed. It is much more insidious than maintaining election day as, well, a day. The horror.

     LikeLike

     Reply
7. 

   Michigoose, on October 16, 2012 at 11:52 am said:

   Scott–

   If you’d been following the Ohio story at all you would have known that that was exactly what they were doing (suppress the vote) and a very specific portion of it

   Meanwhile, via [August 19th’s] Columbus Dispatch came an impressively honest acknowledgment of what’s behind the whole fight, from Doug Preisse, chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party (in Columbus) and a member of that county’s elections board. “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban— read African-American —voter-turnout machine,”

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Michigoose, on October 16, 2012 at 11:59 am said:

   nova:

   gerrymandering is a more insidious form of voter suppression

   I’ve always thought so, also, but then yesterday I either saw a link or heard a teaser on the radio about how that isn’t true. I’m trying to find it, because now I’m really curious.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   Michigoose, on October 16, 2012 at 11:59 am said:

   Psst–Mark, that’s great! 😀

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     markinaustin, on October 16, 2012 at 12:07 pm said:

     You won’t like this one as much, Kelley, but i just saw it on the cafe TV:<a href="” title=”Let’s Get Fiscal”>

     LikeLike

     Reply
10. 

    Michigoose, on October 16, 2012 at 12:17 pm said:

    A friend just sent me this one, also.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    novahockey, on October 16, 2012 at 12:20 pm said:

    would be curious as to what you find.

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    novahockey, on October 16, 2012 at 12:26 pm said:

    mark — you asked about the exchanges and something. slipped my mind. do you recall what it was?

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    Brent Nyitray, on October 16, 2012 at 12:29 pm said:

    Mark, I think the mitt is all for alternative energy sources, its just that he won’t subsidize them as much as obama. And he will be more open to allowing drilling on public lands than obama is.

    And I am all for energy independence because I want to drastically reduce the military. I would love nothing more than to say good riddance to the headaches in the M.E. IIRC Romney would reduce employment at the government by attrition, which shouldn’t have a tremendous effect on the economy.

    Regarding the tax plan, if his final plan, whatever it turns out to be, doesn’t score as deficit-neutral under CBO, it isn’t going to get through the House, let alone the Senate.

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    Michigoose, on October 16, 2012 at 12:45 pm said:

    Scott:

    It is much more insidious than maintaining election day as, well, a day.

    When you have so few polling places that people have to wait in line for 10 hours simply to get inside the building you can do two things. Open more polling places or allow more days for voting–which would you prefer (and for the purposes of this I’m only talking about in-person voting)?

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on October 16, 2012 at 1:14 pm said:

      More voting machines/polling places.

      LikeLike

      Reply
15. 

    Michigoose, on October 16, 2012 at 12:53 pm said:

    nova:

    Here’s the link I must have seen, and here’s the original article that Seth Masket is talking about. I haven’t read the Atlantic article yet, but Masket argues that it’s more a result of outside funding than redistricting:

    Draper asks him if outside group funding of campaigns, rather than redistricting, might be polarizing politics. That’s when Tanner goes off the rails:

    “That’s part of the problem,” Tanner conceded when I asked him about the super-PAC ads flooding the airwaves. “But you can trace how the members got here back to gerry­mandering. I don’t give a damn how much money you spend. These guys are gonna be responsive to the people that elected them, to avoid a party primary. And so they come here to represent their political party, not their district or their country. That attitude has infected the Senate, too. Look at Orrin Hatch,” he said, referring to the veteran Utah senator who fought off a primary challenge from an ultra­conservative. “Now you’d think he was an original member of the Tea Party. It makes you sick to see him grovel.”

    Yes, Tanner is citing the example of Orrin Hatch to make a point about redistricting’s pernicious effects on partisanship. That would be the Orrin Hatch who’s in the U.S. Senate and who represents the entire state of Utah, whose borders have never been redrawn.

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    novahockey, on October 16, 2012 at 1:18 pm said:

    i don’t follow … funding doesn’t go into the safe seats. the trick is not to run up the score in the safe seats, but pad them enough the ensure a win and shift votes to into the opposite party’s formerly safe seat and/or a competitive one.

    Or — and this is more likely — you make it safe for the incumbents on both sides. that’s what happened in my area. VA-11 went D by 1/2 a point 2 years ago. Now it’s D+5. The R state legislature turned a swing district into a safe D by shifting some neighborhoods from a safe D (VA-8 now D+15 instead of D+20) seat over to it. in return, a neighboring R district got more safely R. and these keeps the incumbents happy and prevents them from having to spend any money.

    http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/news/article/virginia-redistricting-making-the-ins-further-in

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. 

    novahockey, on October 16, 2012 at 1:18 pm said:

    or hire line standers.
    /doffs top hat.

    LikeLike

    Reply
18. 

    Michigoose, on October 16, 2012 at 1:31 pm said:

    More voting machines/polling places.

    Fair enough! I personally would go with more days, just because not everybody can take a Tuesday off (or partly off), but having enough voting machines and polling places would alleviate a large part of the headache. Much easier to take an hour off work than four hours.

    or hire line standers

    Just make sure they aren’t undocumented workers, nova!

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ashot, on October 16, 2012 at 1:45 pm said:

      Just make sure they aren’t undocumented workers, nova!

      Wait a second, nova, did you hire some black panther members to save your spot in line during the last election?

      LikeLike

      Reply
19. 

    novahockey, on October 16, 2012 at 2:27 pm said:

    *NEW* black panthers, thank you very much.

    LikeLike

    Reply
20. 

    novahockey, on October 16, 2012 at 3:10 pm said:

    actually — speaking for voter suppression, Halo 4 drops on Nov. 6. evil plot to distract the youth vote?

    LikeLike

    Reply
21. 

    Michigoose, on October 16, 2012 at 3:28 pm said:

    what’s the halo demographic, nova?

    LikeLike

    Reply
22. 

    Michigoose, on October 16, 2012 at 3:43 pm said:

    Somebody over on PL is starting a rumor that LIBOR caused Pandit’s resignation. . . any truth to the accusation or just hot air? I don’t see anything like that anywhere else.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      markinaustin, on October 16, 2012 at 3:51 pm said:

      Off Topic again – high tech warfare

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-inevitable-blowback-to-high-tech-warfare/2012/10/15/dc4c1496-147f-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_print.html

      LikeLike

      Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on October 16, 2012 at 5:37 pm said:

      re Pandit & LIBOR

      A common rumor but seems like pure speculation. Jim Cramer reported that insiders are suggesting he was pushed out by the Board over strategy and execution differences.

      LikeLike

      Reply
23. 

    Brent Nyitray, on October 16, 2012 at 6:02 pm said:

    I think in the post Dodd Frank world, having a hedge fund guy run Citi had the wrong optics.

    LikeLike

    Reply
24. 

    jnc4p, on October 16, 2012 at 8:21 pm said:

    “Brent Nyitray, on October 16, 2012 at 12:29 pm said:

    Mark, I think the mitt is all for alternative energy sources, its just that he won’t subsidize them as much as obama. And he will be more open to allowing drilling on public lands than obama is.

    And I am all for energy independence because I want to drastically reduce the military. I would love nothing more than to say good riddance to the headaches in the M.E. “

    You need to vote for Johnson then. The last thing Romney or Obama has planned is to “say good riddance to the headaches in the M.E.” or drastically reduce the military.

    LikeLike

    Reply
25. 

    jnc4p, on October 16, 2012 at 9:27 pm said:

    Ahh. Real socialism in action: Equality of outcome trumps the pursuit of excellence. Kurt Vonnegut’s satire couldn’t have put it better.

    “French president pushing homework ban as part of ed reforms
    Posted by Valerie Strauss on October 15, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    How do you think this would go over in the United States? French President François Hollande has said he will end homework as part of a series of reforms to overhaul the country’s education system.

    And the reason he wants to ban homework?

    He doesn’t think it is fair that some kids get help from their parents at home while children who come from disadvantaged families don’t. It’s an issue that goes well beyond France, and has been part of the reason that some Americans oppose homework too.

    Hollande’s reform plans include increasing the number of teachers, moving the school week from four days to 4 1/2 days, overhauling the curriculum and taking steps to cut down on absenteeism.

    “Education is priority,” Hollande was quoted as saying by France24.com at Paris’s Sorbonne University last week. “An education program is, by definition, a societal program. Work should be done at school, rather than at home,” as a way to ensure that students who have no help at home are not disadvantaged.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2012/10/15/french-president-pushing-homework-ban-as-part-of-ed-reforms/?tid=pm_pop

    LikeLike

    Reply