Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1502.2 | -2.9 | -0.19% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2741.1 | -8.1 | -0.30% |
| Oil (WTI) | 97.63 | 0.1 | 0.06% |
| LIBOR | 0.299 | -0.002 | -0.67% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 79.42 | -0.142 | -0.18% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.99% | 0.00% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 193.1 | -0.3 |
Markets are lower on a surprisingly weak 4Q GDP number, which showed the economy contracted by .1%. The ADP employment change report showed the economy added 192k jobs in January. Mortgage Applications fell 8% last week. Later today, we will get the FOMC rate decision. The 10 year, which was above 2% earlier is back down below. MBS are up small.
The Q4 GDP number was surprisingly weak (the Street was at + 1.1%) and will undoubtedly be revised upward as it does not jive with the other data points out there. Certainly the earnings reports we are seeing out of Corporate America do not indicate a recession. This is the “advance” report (the first of three) and is based on incomplete data. The next estimate will be released at the end of Feb.
NAR has a good piece on the home ownership rate and household formation. The latest homeownership rate of 65.3% is the lowest since 1996. Renters have been increasing. They estimate that household formation broke out of its doldrums in 2012 and will be close to normalcy – around 1.1 million. Note that this represents pent-up demand for housing as the Great Recession drove the low numbers, not demographics. Of course some of these new households will go to rentals, but many will start purchasing starter homes, and they are the key to get transactions flowing again. This would also help ease the burden on the sandwich generation.
Chart: Household Formation:
Looks like the sequester is going to happen, though the recent GDP report may give lawmakers a push to do something about it.
When the FOMC statement is released, people will be focusing on the end of QE. Aside from the effect on interest rates, there is also the question about the size of the Fed’s balance sheet. A recent paper projects the Fed’s balance sheet to start contracting in 2015, with a return to a more normal size in early 2018. The Fed has been highly profitable during QE, since its own buying influences prices and makes its holdings of MBS and Treasuries more valuable. But what happens when they begin to sell? The Fed may in fact lose money over the next few years, which will undoubtedly bring a political angle into the future role of the Fed. Whoever succeeds Ben Bernake will, like Paul Volcker, preside over a Fed that will be unpopular, to say the least.
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
I wonder if the GDP numbers had come out before the fiscal cliff deal if they would have decided to punt everything again for another year. Full extension of all the Bush tax cuts in exchange for no spending cuts at all.
LikeLike
Krugman’s latest:
Actually, if this description is correct:
“For Taylor argues that low rates engineered by the Fed are just like a price ceiling that reduces the supply of loans, and therefore reduces overall lending.”
then it matches my own experiences. Rates are low, but no one qualifies. At that risk/return level and once you take into account the other regulations on lending, only the highest quality loans will be made. I believe the disconnect between lower rates and lack of lending has actually been pretty widely reported.
LikeLike
I believe the disconnect between lower rates and lack of lending has actually been pretty widely reported.
Is that what you meant to say?
Lenders are gun shy in the housing market because they were recently burned by poorly qualified borrowers, etc. They can make fantastic money at 4% because they are borrowing at much lower rates than they are lending. It’s like infinity if you can leverage it enough! OPM was how I learned it my freshman year at Rice. Other People’s Money. Borrow at $100 at 2% and lend it at 4%. Have no skin in the game. At the end of the year, pay back the principle and interest and you get $2 for no cost at all. Infinite profitability.
Works until the bubble bursts.
LikeLike
As much as I respect Krugman, he tendency to belittle opponents with smirky remarks about ignorance of basic economic theory is annoying, even if they are accurate (which I have no way of knowing).
LikeLike
Ezra Klein blames the GDP drop on a dramatic fall-off in defense spending. Be interesting to see how this gets spun in the sequester debate.
LikeLike
“markinaustin, on January 30, 2013 at 9:35 am said: Edit Comment
I believe the disconnect between lower rates and lack of lending has actually been pretty widely reported.
Is that what you meant to say?”
Yes.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on January 30, 2013 at 9:37 am said:
As much as I respect Krugman, he tendency to belittle opponents with smirky remarks about ignorance of basic economic theory is annoying, even if they are accurate (which I have no way of knowing).”
They also seem out of place if the opponent in question is an economics professor at Stanford.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Taylor
LikeLike
““In the Pentagon, you have to use it or lose it by the end of the fiscal year in September,” said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense now at the Center for American Progress, in a recent interview. “You see this a lot. ‘We’ve got to fly a lot this month for training, otherwise Congress will take back the money they gave us.’””
I believe we made a similar argument about the budget recently.
LikeLike
OT to LMS (or anyone with an interest) …
CMS is soliciting comment on hospice care. They’re designing a survey that targets family members. Details at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/01/25/2013-01299/medicare-program-request-for-information-to-aid-in-the-design-and-development-of-a-survey-regarding
LikeLike
BEA was all over the defense cuts, saying that they were accelerated in q3, and decelerated in q4. Basically the “use it or lose it” effect for budgets.
I am surprised this isn’t considered a seasonal effect since it is predictable.
The drop in business inventories is more worrisome… That said, I do expect that .1% drop to be revised away..
LikeLike
Brent:
The drop in business inventories is more worrisome
Could this be a result of Sandy?
LikeLike
Mike, perhaps, but the biggest drop was in October..
LikeLike
Michigoose, if you decide you like Roman history, I highly recommend HBO’s Rome miniseries. It’s historical fiction and they take a fair amount of liberties, but I believe they got a lot of the “feel” of the time period right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_%28TV_series%29
LikeLike
MMT explicitly embraced:
“Don’t Repay the National Debt
It’s time to revive a British financial innovation from the 18th century: perpetual bonds.
By Matthew Yglesias|Posted Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2013, at 2:17 PM ET”
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/01/perpetual_bonds_a_clever_way_to_manage_the_national_debt_in_a_time_of_low.html
LikeLike
Absolutely stupifying.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/172533/libertarian-mugged-reality
LikeLike
McWing:
First dailykos, now The Nation. How about a little ideological diversity, huh?
LikeLike
“it throws off the whole schedule but if you volunteer to go two minutes early they fear they might be fined!”
Call it the irrationality of the market.”
Fear they might be fined has nothing to do with the market.
LikeLike
Fear they might be fined has nothing to do with the market.
It has everything to do with labor laws on the minimum length of an unpaid break (30 minutes). When I worked fast food decades ago, punching back in early was a major commotion as it required much cooking of the time sheet by the manager and the employee to rectify the error. The rules are to keep hourly employees from being exploited but it’s not without unintended consequences.
However, I do sympathize with the bigger arc of the narrative. I was a devout libertarian in my youth but then my wife got a job as a public school teacher.
LikeLike
yello:
I was a devout libertarian in my youth but then my wife got a job as a public school teacher.
I’m married to a public school teacher as well, and I am struggling to figure out how that would have any impact at all on a libertarian worldview.
LikeLike
I’m sure the crappy part of town was a result of to little government as well.
I’m sure in MA that some wingnut Libertarian city official is literally unregulating that neighborhood into poverty. I bet it’s an elected Republican to boot. Boston is a fucking Republican hive mind if you ask me.
I turned Libertarian shortly after I entered into the public school system.
LikeLike
How about a little ideological diversity, huh?
Perhaps we can just alternate days. :-b
I’m not sure he has ever called a Daily Caller link “Absolutely stupefying.” no matter how appropriate it would be.
BTW, HuffPo has finally caught up with Daily Caller’s Menendez scoop. So much for my delusions of a left-wing media conspiracy of silence.
I’m still awaiting Rush Limbaugh to voice his opinion as a subject matter expert.
LikeLike
I am struggling to figure out how that would have any impact at all on a libertarian worldview.
In all honesty, Scott, I can understand why you’re struggling–nothing external has ever influenced your internal worldview as far as I can tell.
LikeLike
Mich:
Scott, I can understand why you’re struggling–nothing external has ever influenced your internal worldview as far as I can tell.
First, you really don’t know much about me at all, where I’ve come from, what experiences I have had, etc., so you have no real foundation on which to make such a judgment. Second, I doubt there is a person alive whose worldview hasn’t been influenced by external events.
That aside, since you seem to know, please do edify me: what is it about being married to a public school teacher that might cause one to reconsider a libertarian worldview?
LikeLike
Scott:
I was simply making an observation based on your behavior here. I’ve watched you beat a dead horse to dust in order to have the last word so as to assure whoever your were arguing with that your position was the correct one.
LikeLike
Mich:
I take it, then, you don’t know either why being married to a school teacher would cause one to reconsider a libertarian worldview.
LikeLike
I have observed that personal self interest results in the poor allocation of the resources needed to maximize human capital potential.
LikeLike
yello:
I have observed that personal self interest results in the poor allocation of the resources needed to maximize human capital potential.
I view each human life as an end in itself, not as “capital” to be “maximized” towards some other end. And given that each human life is an end in itself, the pursuit of personal self-interest (happiness) is precisely the point of life.
But I am curious…how do you measure whether or not human capital is being “maximized”?
LikeLike
“I turned Libertarian shortly after I entered into the public school system.”
there is no cure. but plenty of causes. example:
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/01/31/cops-interrogate-7-year-old-bronx-boy-fo
update: or this: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/31/tennessee-dont-say-gay-bill-revived-now-requires-students-to-be-outed-to-parents/
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on January 31, 2013 at 6:56 am said:
I have observed that personal self interest results in the poor allocation of the resources needed to maximize human capital potential.”
Not everyone has equal claim to the resources.
LikeLike
ScottC,
I can’t win a game of 20 Questions with you so I humbly concede.
Jnc,
That is why coercion (theft, taxes,etc.) Is required.
LikeLike
yello:
I can’t win a game of 20 Questions with you so I humbly concede.
I wasn’t trying to play 20 questions. I was just curious how you could recognize when human capital was being maximized.
LikeLike
It’s much easier to spot in the negative: illiteracy, unemployment, malnutrition.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on January 31, 2013 at 10:17 am said:
Jnc,
That is why coercion (theft, taxes,etc.) Is required.”
My point is that nor should they. Those who create the resources have the claim to them.
LikeLike
Jnc,
The right to that claim is not absolute. Come on, say it: “Taxes are theft.” I know you can.
LikeLike
I have a much narrower definition of public goods that justify taxation.
LikeLike
And when you raise other people’s taxes but not your own to fund your programs, it’s certainly not “shared sacrifice”.
LikeLike
And now we are back to the flat tax rant. It’s like an endless loop around here.
LikeLike
yello:
And now we are back to the flat tax rant. It’s like an endless loop around here.
Indeed. Points are made and you evade them with snark.
LikeLike
You get mad when I just plain ignore them.
LikeLike
yello:
You get mad when I just plain ignore them.
No, not really.
LikeLike
My definition of public good includes not letting kids starve or having people die because they can’t afford a doctor.
LikeLike
yello:
My definition of public good includes not letting kids starve or having people die because they can’t afford a doctor.
Can you provide some idea of the essential characteristics of what you consider a public good?
LikeLike
I thought I did. Basic education, even higher education; basic nutrition; catastrophic and routine health care; living wage; clean air and water; safe food; crime free streets; transportation including mass transit. Am I missing anything?
LikeLike
yello:
Those seem to me to be examples. I am looking for the characteristic(s) that they all share in common and which makes them a public good. In other words, how do I know a public good when I see one? Presumably they share something in common besides just being things that yello wants to spend OPM on.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on January 31, 2013 at 12:04 pm said:
And now we are back to the flat tax rant. It’s like an endless loop around here.”
Correct. We have incompatible views of what constitutes justice.
LikeLike
yello:
My definition of public good includes not letting kids starve or having people die because they can’t afford a doctor.
That’s the other problem. Your definition of a public good is completely different from a libertarian idea of a public good. Libertarian public goods are like air and maybe police/defense. You think that education and health care are public goods. So, any taxes that pay for education and health (or the like) are theft or redistribution.
LikeLike
Why doss sacrifice have to be shared.If your goal is to redistribute wealth, it doesn’t make much sense to rob Paul to pay Paul. You can’t get blood from a turnip.
LikeLike
yello:
If your goal is to redistribute wealth…
I think you should have said “If you goal is to redistribute someone else’s wealth…” You don’t need to rob anyone in order to redistribute your own wealth.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on January 31, 2013 at 1:06 pm said:
Why doss sacrifice have to be shared.If your goal is to redistribute wealth, it doesn’t make much sense to rob Paul to pay Paul. You can’t get blood from a turnip.”
Again, see the term “justice”.
You are making the “taxation equals theft” argument better than I can.
And the shared sacrifice reference comes from the President. I agree would lead to a much more illuminating debate if he were to drop it entirely and embrace redistribution on the merits.
LikeLike
yello: “education, health care”
Scott: “air, lighthouses”
yello; “things that are good for society”
Scott: “non-rivalrous, non-excludable”
And the merry-go-round continues to spin ….
LikeLike
Subways are pretty non-rivalrous. there is no sense in having two
LikeLike
mike:
yello; “things that are good for society”
If that is indeed how he would define it, I think we could pursue that line of thinking to see where it really takes us. For example, if air travel is good for society does that make air travel a public good? Should flights be a government provided “right”? Has the existence of the pill been good for society? Does that make the pill a public good? Nationalize pharmaceutical companies? What about major league baseball? Has that been good for society, and if so should Jeter get paid by the taxpayers?
I’m guessing “things that are good for society” might need a little refinement as a definition.
LikeLike
how would you rate metro, yellow?
I say C+. a lot of its problems are external (the lack of dedicated funding is a serious flaw) … but some of them seem self inflicted.
LikeLike
The lack of working escalators on the Metro makes it a laughingstock. I like Metro better than Boston’s T but not as good as NYC. Perhaps even a shade behind Atlanta’s MARTA. I have never ridden Baltimore’s and I live there.
LikeLike
Baltimore has a subway? I had no idea.
most of metro’s escalators should be stairs. obviously not dupont and the huge ones.
LikeLike
Subways are pretty non-rivalrous.
Subways are non-rivalrous but excludable (pesky turnstiles/card readers), so would not fit the strict economic definition of a “public good.”
The difference is in the article — “the” public good (yello) versus “a” public good (Scott).
Just thought that might help stop the spinning around. But, if not, carry on!
LikeLike
I’m guessing “things that are good for society” might need a little refinement as a definition.
Probably, but I don’t think he’s talking about public goods in the way that you are. I’m guessing that yello is talking about things that affect the public good, like education and vaccination, rather than non-excludable, non-rivalrous goods like air.
Just to talk about your examples:
Regional air travel receives significant subsidies, so the government is already providing that “right,” to a certain extent.
The pill is covered by government subsidized health care.
MLB is being funded by taxpayers through bonds and tax breaks for new stadia, so Jeter is getting paid by the taxpayers, indirectly.
LikeLike
so Jeter is getting paid by the taxpayers, indirectly.
Jeter is suis generis. But why do we have to pay for ARod?
LikeLike
Mike:
Probably, but I don’t think he’s talking about public goods in the way that you are.
I don’t think so either. I think the distinction you drew with the two different articles, “the” and “a”, was a good one (although exactly the sort that gets me derided as a pedant).
I’m guessing that yello is talking about things that affect the public good, like education and vaccination, rather than non-excludable, non-rivalrous goods like air.
I think you are right, but the trouble with this is that virtually all productive activity affects the so-called public good (a conceptual problem in itself, but I will leave that for now.) So should the government be responsible for arranging all productive activity in society? Surely not, so still it must be narrowed down. And I doubt it sensibly can be.
LikeLike
Mike:
BTW…subsidies to airlines or airports do not grant a “right” to air travel, to any extent. And Jeter is not at all being paid by the taxpayers, indirectly or directly. Jeter is paid by the owners of the Yankees. The idea that if the owners receive some kind of tax break or public funds for a stadium (to which I am very much opposed, BTW) then anything they do is suddenly “paid for” by the government is absurd.
Yes, the pill is covered under socialized health care, which is one of the very “public goods” under dispute, so that was probably a poor choice for me to use as an example.
LikeLike
why do we have to pay for ARod?
Because the Steinbrenners are stupid. They should have listened to Cashman.
LikeLike
Nationalize pharmaceutical companies?
There are orphan drug acts for diseases too uncommon to ever be profitable. And flu vaccines are fairly heavily subsidized.
What about major league baseball?
Now who is building strawmen for whom? Baseball is entertainment. So far I’ve only advocated for the food side of the bread and circuses mandate.
So should the government be responsible for arranging all productive activity in society?
Central planning has a very checkered history. Justifiably on the dustbin of history.
Surely not, so still it must be narrowed down. And I doubt it sensibly can be.
Of all the words we debate over, I imagine ‘sensibly’ is one we would have very differing approaches to.
LikeLike
yello:
So far I’ve only advocated for the food side of the bread and circuses mandate.
So far you have conspicuously provided no direction whatsoever on which characteristics your notion of “public good” possesses. Which was my point. If it is simply anything that can somehow be construed to be “good” for “the public”, why not entertainment too?
Central planning has a very checkered history. Justifiably on the dustbin of history.
Exactly. So just saying anything that is good for the public qualifies doesn’t work. So how do you decide when the government should start throwing its weight around?
Of all the words we debate over, I imagine ‘sensibly’ is one we would have very differing approaches to.
You’d have to actually first offer some idea of what these characteristics are before we can discuss how sensible they might be.
LikeLike
Subways are non-rivalrous but excludable (pesky turnstiles/card readers)
There is a lot of economic sense in charging even nominal amounts for public services. It creates a sense of participation and ownership that something totally free does not engender. It’s a subcategory of the problem of the commons.
I’ve had a lot of online debates about the total population or the density required to make urban (or inter-urban) mass transit viable from a functional let alone economic vantage. New York, Tokyo, Paris, London, et. al. are obviously on one side of the divide. Baltimore is a place on the threshold. It’s one heavy rail route does not intersect it’s one light rail route. There are not enough high density destinations. It’s unfriendly to suburban commuters.
LikeLike
Scott:
subsidies to airlines or airports do not grant a “right” to air travel, to any extent.
I didn’t say “grant.” I said “providing for.” Without the subsidy, flying out of regional airports would be financially out of reach for the vast majority of residents those airports service.
The idea that if the owners receive some kind of tax break or public funds for a stadium … anything they do is suddenly “paid for” by the government is absurd.
No more absurd than the idea that MLB is a public good. Money is fungible after all.
LikeLike
Mike:
Without the subsidy, flying out of regional airports would be financially out of reach for the vast majority of residents those airports service.
I’d guess it still is even with the subsidy.
No more absurd than the idea that MLB is a public good.
I agree! I think both notions are absurd. The fact that an activity is “good” for “the public” does not make it a public good. And I don’t think the fact that an activity is “good” for “the public” is reason to expect or demand that it be undertaken by the government.
LikeLike
So far you have conspicuously provided no direction whatsoever on which characteristics your notion of “public good” possesses.
And I thought we weren’t playing Socratic Cross Examination. You are such a grand master, you don’t even require question marks for each round. I am so sorry my responses always fall so short of your expectations.
LikeLike
…no direction whatsoever on which characteristics your notion of “public good” possesses.
Okay, I’ll give it a try: They are, um, ‘good’, and the ‘public’ gets to take advantage of them. You know, like roads and parks. Or perhaps they are ‘good’ for the ‘public’ like getting educated or being able to borrow books or not dying when you are sick. I know, that one is a private good because only one person can be kept from dying at a time. But perhaps if I get the government to pay for sick people who need catastrophic care, I can get it too someday.
Or perhaps public goods are things that the ‘private’ sector can’t make money off of like places for homeless people to sleep which aren’t the doorways of businesses. But in the libertarian world, everything has a price and those mentally ill or crippled people should just work a little harder or rely on the contributions of sympathetic passerbys. Oh, wait, they do that already. It’s called panhandling. There just don’t seem to be enough philanthropic libertarians to make that a viable business model for people who have voices in their head.
But if we could force people with lots of money to give a small portion of their income beyond what they need for living expenses, money they would have otherwise spent on palatial displays of conspicuous consumption in, say, Newport, the government could build buildings for these unemployable people or pay private citizens to house and feed them. But then that becomes a private good because wealth is being transferred from one party to another involuntarily and it violates somebody’s liberty somehow.
See, that’s the advantage of being pragmatic rather than dogmatic. You get to just make shit up because you aren’t hidebound to some Talmudic philosophy emanating from unsupportable axioms like ‘Any infringement on liberty is coercion’ or ‘Marriage can only be between one man and one woman.’ or ‘I have no obligation to any other person ever beyond what I chose to voluntarily contribute.’
A pragmatist gets to weigh a policy and determine if the benefits exceed the costs or if a particular tax policy will raise revenue efficiently at the least adverse effect to the economy or if the needs of the many outweigh those of the few.
Who knows? Perhaps someday it may make sense to force all professional sports teams to become community-owned shareholder organizations with the municipality which provides the playing arena as the majority vote holder. It would sure silence critics of municipal munificence which only seem to benefit uber-wealthy team owners and hyper-talented athletes. Not my idea of a public good, but it’s worth considering on its merit rather than against some Platonic ideal of Individual Liberty.
LikeLike
yello:
See, that’s the advantage of being pragmatic rather than dogmatic. You get to just make shit up because you aren’t hidebound to some Talmudic philosophy
It is certainly an interesting approach to thinking that not only isn’t concerned with a lack of consistency and logic but actually extolls it as a virtue. In any event, it does make clear, then, that the only common thread tying all of the things you consider to be a public good together is simply things yello wants to spend OPM on. It is a wholly subjective determination based on your personal taste.
…emanating from unsupportable axioms like ‘Any infringement on liberty is coercion’ or ‘Marriage can only be between one man and one woman.’ or ‘I have no obligation to any other person ever beyond what I chose to voluntarily contribute.’
Those aren’t axioms at all, much less unsupportable ones.
BTW, being pragmatic does not, as you seem to think, make one free of ideology. Even pragmatists must have goals they seek to achieve that are determined by a certain worldview to the exclusion of other worldviews. What makes one a pragmatist is simply a realistic view of the practical ability to achieve those goals in full, and the manner in which one might come closest to doing so. A person who thinks all income should be distributed equally to all people may decide that, practically speaking that is unachievable, and so advocate for a 50% income tax rate instead of a 100% tax rate. His advocacy may be pragmatic, but is nevertheless driven by ideology.
LikeLike
+1,000 yello
Also, I’m a Packers stock holder.
LikeLike
Mich:
+1,000 yello
As a scientist I would have expected you to appreciate intellectual rigor, consistency, and logic a lot more than, as yello himself put it, just making shit up.
LikeLike
Thanks, michi.
I almost wanted to end with a Dennis Milleresque “But that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.”
LikeLike
Hey, yello, could I send you my CV? I’d like to know if you’ve got any suggestions for where to shop it.
LikeLike
i don’t have a lot of contacts in the public or health sectors, but pass it along and I will see if I know someone who knows someone.
LikeLike
On its way!
LikeLike
It is certainly an interesting approach to thinking that not only isn’t concerned with a lack of consistency and logic but actually extolls it as a virtue
Shocking, isn’t it? Astounding that millions of sheeple make it through life without a rigorous internally consistent philosophy based on a highly arcane jargon-filled theory of enlightened self-interest, guided instead by common sense and a smattering of barely remembered Sunday School platitudes about being nice to people. No wonder that civilization is not only sliding to Hades in a handbasket but that the path is so steep and the speed is accelerating.
LikeLike
yello:
Astounding that millions of sheeple make it through life without a rigorous internally consistent philosophy…
No, that is not really that astounding. What is somewhat surprising, though, is someone who takes pride in his inconsistencies.
BTW, I think forcing people to do things they don’t voluntarily do the exact opposite of “being nice” to them. Call me crazy.
LikeLike
Call me crazy.
I do my best to stay within the ATiM guidelines for conduct at all times.
LikeLike
Scott:
I’d guess it still is even with the subsidy.
Just for reference, a round trip plane ticket from State College, PA to DC (not subsidized) costs about $550, whereas a round trip ticket from State College to Chicago-O’hare (subsidized) costs about $350. $200/ticket adds up pretty quickly.
And I don’t think the fact that an activity is “good” for “the public” is reason to expect or demand that it be undertaken by the government.
I agree. You and I have been down this road before. I just can’t subscribe to a philosophy where the government only provides for public goods, when the category of public goods excludes things like the interstate system.
LikeLike
Mike:
I just can’t subscribe to a philosophy where the government only provides for public goods, when the category of public goods excludes things like the interstate system.
The interstate highway system was originally built as a matter of national defense, which I would categorize as a public good.
LikeLike
“Shocking, isn’t it? Astounding that millions of sheeple make it through life without a rigorous internally consistent philosophy based on a highly arcane jargon-filled theory of enlightened self-interest, guided instead by common sense and a smattering of barely remembered Sunday School platitudes about being nice to people. No wonder that civilization is not only sliding to Hades in a handbasket but that the path is so steep and the speed is accelerating.”
I wonder how much of the $16 trillion debt and the ongoing yearly $1 trillion deficit is a result of this wonderful ” common sense and a smattering of barely remembered Sunday School platitudes about being nice to people.” philosophy?
Heckuva job, Sheeple!
LikeLike
I wonder how much of the $16 trillion debt and the ongoing yearly $1 trillion deficit is a result of this wonderful ” common sense and a smattering of barely remembered Sunday School platitudes about being nice to people.” philosophy?
I wonder how much is due to unnecessary military adventurism and the gutting a previously balanced tax structure.
LikeLike
“I wonder how much is due to unnecessary military adventurism and the gutting a previously balanced tax structure.’
How is that not part and parcel of the wonderful philosophy you extol?
LikeLike
How is that not part and parcel of the wonderful philosophy you extol?
Because my philosophy relies on common sense, particularly when it comes to the wisdom of land wars in Asia.
LikeLike
Isn’t all the spending, even on land wars in asia, driven by what’s thought of, at the time, “common sense and a smattering of barely remembered Sunday School platitudes about being nice to people.”?
LikeLike
Scott:
The interstate highway system was originally built as a matter of national defense, which I would categorize as a public good.
OK. I would argue that interstate highways themselves are not non-excludable and often not non-rivalrous. But we agree that national defense is a public good.
That aside, roads in general (excluding the interstates) are not public goods. And I think the government should be funding the construction/maintenance of them.
LikeLike
yello:
when it comes to the wisdom of land wars in Asia.
Or going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
LikeLike
Isn’t all the spending, even on land wars in asia, driven by what’s thought of, at the time, “common sense and a smattering of barely remembered Sunday School platitudes about being nice to people.”?
I’m not sure about your Sunday School platitudes, but mine leaned more towards “Turn the other cheek.” than “Bring it on.”
LikeLike
“That aside, roads in general (excluding the interstates) are not public goods. ”
Roads are public goods. Everyone can use them. The distinction is with things like transfer payments which go to benefit the individuals receiving them at the expense of those paying for them.
LikeLike
jnc:
Roads are public goods
No, they are not. They may be common pool goods that everyone can use, but they are excludable and rivalrous. That much is clear for anyone who has driven the PA turnpike.
LikeLike
jnc,
Are you actually to the right of ScottC on this? So far we have gotten him to come out in favor of environmental pollution regulation and public highways.
LikeLike
yello:
Are you actually to the right of ScottC on this?
I don’t think the left/right continuum works here. Conservatives are not libertarians, although they do share some ideas.
Also, as I have pointed out in the past, within the context of our federal system my objection to progressive ideology has as much to do with the level of government which is trying to implement it as it has to do with the fact of implementation. I find the fact that California might impose a progressive income tax on its citizens to be more amenable than the feds imposing it on everyone. To the greatest extent possible, I think people should be allowed to live in the type of community and with the kind of government restrictions that they as individuals find palatable. Progressives seem to want, to the greatest extent possible, to force people to live in the type of community and with the kinds of government restrictions that they as progressives find palatable. Hence their routine desire to push lawmaking up to the federal level.
LikeLike
I haven’t thought through the issue well enough to draw a distinction between “common pool goods” vs “public goods”.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on February 1, 2013 at 9:18 am said:
jnc,
Are you actually to the right of ScottC on this? So far we have gotten him to come out in favor of environmental pollution regulation and public highways.”
No. My core issue is with entitlements funded through progressive taxation. With regards to roads, etc. I agree with Julian Sanchez:
LikeLike
Reading through PL this morning I came across this:
“yellojkt
8:59 AM EST
I’m shocked Ford did better than Honda. We are a two Hyundai family and find the quality as good or better than the Japanese. I will never, ever buy a GM product.”
Given that the government has determined that bailing out GM and ensuring it’s profitability is a core public interest, if not a positive right for GM employees (i.e. their right to a job, a decent wage and health care), why shouldn’t you be required to purchase a GM product to further those critical public interests?
Why does your right to choose your car outweigh their rights to a job, a decent wage and health care?
LikeLike
Why does your right to choose your car outweigh their rights to a job, a decent wage and health care?
Now you’re not even trying. Troll McWingnut does that sort of thing much better.
Jobs are fungible. Somebody had to build the car I bought. By buying a Korean car I am helping the industrialization of nation with an emerging middle class capable of making significant contributions to musical culture.
I imagine that many of the salesmen and mechanics at my local Hyundai dealer were former GM employees displaced when the gummint forced GM to close half its dealerships.
The whole point of the GM ‘takeover’ was that the economic magic of the invisible hand had made the bridge financing they needed to ride out the financial downturn unavailable at any price and the US became the lender of last resort. I would normally be opposed to such interference in the free market since other manufacturers (***cough***Ford***cough***) didn’t engage in the moral hazard that was destroying GM. However my pragmatic side recognized that the steps taken were needed to ensure a competitive market and a sound manufacturing base long-term.
As a practical matter, I always thought of the car industry as banks that give away vehicles instead of toasters to get your business.
LikeLike
jnc:
I haven’t thought through the issue well enough to draw a distinction between “common pool goods” vs “public goods”.
These are specific economic definitions. Common pool goods are things that are freely provided, but rivalrous (like public roads). Turnpikes/toll roads, OTOH, are private goods because they are excludable and rivalrous.
So, the question is: what are the specific parameters of the things the government should be funding beyond public goods, if anything?
LikeLike
Mike:
So, the question is: what are the specific parameters of the things the government should be funding beyond public goods, if anything?
An additional, and equally important, question is at which level of government should it be funded.
LikeLike
Scott will accuse me, with justification, of being trapped in legalisms. They have me coming from a different direction.
We invented and grew a nation dedicated on the one hand to an expanding common market and inferentially to competitive capitalism and on the other hand to protecting legally defined liberties, which we extended to more and more lawful residents and citizens, over time. We were a nation of immigrants and we had great battles over what that meant. We have a supreme federal government that leaves most of domestic policy to the semi-sovereign states. We have separation of powers at the federal and state levels and every state is guaranteed a republican form of government and every American is guaranteed the rights of every other American within each state.
So I come from the view that has worked out OK and only needs tweaking from time to time. So I am happy with both the old US highways and the Interstates being maintained by the feds. I am happy with both ports and inland waterways maintained by the feds. But I would rather see public schools dealt with by the states.
Some actions we took didn’t work out so well. Some others did. The lessons are there.
I just come from a different direction. I understand the theory of public goods but I think it has limits as an analytical device. Once you say “clean air” is a public good, you still have to determine who or what will keep it clean. Once you say education is not a public good, especially if you admit that knowledge is a public good, you still have to determine who or what will or will not provide education, and to whom.
LikeLike
Mark:
…the semi-sovereign states.
So that debate is settled then? 🙂
Once you say education is not a public good, especially if you admit that knowledge is a public good, you still have to determine who or what will or will not provide education, and to whom.
Why? You could just let whoever wants to provide an education do so for whoever they want…just like pretty much every other non-public good or service.
LikeLike
“I always thought of the car industry as banks that give away vehicles instead of toasters to get your business.”
when my grandfather died, we found 10-15 toasters. he’d opened up bank accounts all over town.
LikeLike
when my grandfather died, we found 10-15 toasters. he’d opened up bank accounts all over town.
He hoarded banks!
LikeLike
Mark — CMS and IRS are providing an exemption from the individual mandate for those who would be otherwise eligible for Medicaid expect for the fact their state opts not to expand coverage. was that your question?
LikeLike
NoVA – is the cumulative result that the Medicaid eligibility rules increase participation directly from the fed in the states that opted out? Sounds like it – and now Ashot, QB and I all guess the courts will uphold that, based on the individual nature of the eligibility.
LikeLike