Explosive Material

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.[1]

[1] The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 7
Open Access
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm
Scientists:
Niels H. Harrit
1 Jeffrey Farrer
2 Steven E. Jones
3 Kevin R. Ryan4
Frank M. Legge
5 Daniel Farnsworth2
Gregg Roberts
6, James R. Gourley7
and Bradley R. Larsen3

1 Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
3 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA
4 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA
5 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
6 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA
7 International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm

Borrow. Spend. Buy. Waste. Want... File. Part I

by the Sandwichman

In May 1927, Henry Ford gave the order to shut down production of the Model T to retool for production of the Model A. According to a special report that appeared in the May 5, 1956 issue of Business Week, "Selling to an Age of Plenty," that action by Ford marked "a great divide in modern times... the transition from the Age of Production to the Age of Distribution."

Ford had been reluctant to implement a model change and had earlier declared he would not do so. But competitive pressure from the successful sales strategy of General Motors eventually forced his hand. Beginning in 1923, General Motors had introduced the annual model change for Chevrolet, a move that vaulted the Chevy from a mediocre second-string vehicle to a Brand. The Chevy was murdering the Flivver.

Three years after the Ford Motors shut down, a satirical essay by Kenneth Burke appeared in the New Republic magazine. Titling his essay "Waste -- The Future of Prosperity," Burke dedicated it to Henry Ford who Burke mistakenly credited with the model change and the "planned obsolescence" concept.

Burke's Veblen-inspired satire revolved around what he called the "Theory of the Economic Value of Waste," which may be stated as: "The more we learn to use what we do not need, the greater our consumption, the greater our consumption, the greater our production; and the greater our production, the greater our prosperity." "By this system," Burke explained, "business need never face a saturation point. For though there is a limit to what a man can use, there is no limit whatever to what he can waste." With the sole proviso that, "We have simply to make sure that the increase in the number of labor-saving devices does not shorten the hours of labor."

Besides annual model changes for automobiles, Burke ruminated on such advances as disposable razor blades, skyscrapers, beverages, advertising, prisons and war as vehicles for stimulating the economy and keeping people busy "for at least eighteen hours a day replacing the wasted commodities."

Twenty-six years later, writing in The Nation, Burke got the opportunity to retract his unjust indictment of Henry Ford when Business Week published the article mentioned in the first paragraph.

My article like all burlesques was based on what I thought was a grossly exaggerated statement of my case. But recently (in their May 5 and June 16 [1956] issues) Business Week published two articles that startled me, and even nonplussed me, by offering as simple gospel a line that, if I could have thought of it when I was writing my burlesque a bit more than a jubilee ago, I'd certainly have used as the perfect frisky summing-up of my thesis "Just past the midmark of the 20th Century," we read, "it looks as though all of our business forces are bent on getting every one . . ." (and here is the notable slogan) to "Borrow. Spend. Buy. Waste. Want."

I would then have looked upon such a slogan as ideal material for a
farce. Now presumably it is to be taken in full earnest.

In my original article, also, I thought I was making much sport of the trick psychological devices whereby a customer with a perfectly serviceable car was persuaded that he should get rid of it because there was a newer model available. In particular, I guyed the doctrine of "obsolescence" that was implied in such high-pressure selling tactics. But now I find Business Week referring quite respectfully to the way in which General Motors "adopted the annual model change, helping to establish the auto industry's renowned principle of 'planned obsolescence.' " I had mistakenly thought that the principle was a joke; by now it has become "renowned."

A correction of another sort is in order, too. I had featured Henry Ford as the person most responsible for this type of economy. However, the articles in Business Week point out that, on the contrary, Henry Ford was an old-timer ("the archetype of the production man") with an antiquated Puritanical notion that, if you gave people a serviceable car at a price made progressively lower by increased sales, a car that the buyer might use for several or even many years before it needed replacement, you would have done enough. According to Business Week, it was General Motors that freed us of such old-fashioned nonsense, and started the rat-race of the annual change-over, plus the inducements of ever-lengthening time for payment on the instalment plan; and Ford was reluctantly driven to the same methods by the pressures of the situation, with its technologically and financially Darwinian competition for survival.

The articles help us see how, when other industries such as appliances and plastics developed by following the same marketing procedures as General Motors, we finally came to have, in all its perfection, "the Consumption Economy," the "age of distribution, of the consumer and his foibles," in brief the Grand Convergence or Fatal Confluence of the factors that make up what now usually goes by the honorific title (and perhaps partial misnomer) of "The Higher Standard of Living."

Part II

An Absurd Growing-Up

. . . our abundant society is at present simply deficient in many of the most elementary objective opportunities and worthwhile goals that could make growing up possible. It is lacking in enough man’s work. It is lacking in honest public speech, and people are not taken seriously. It thwarts aptitude and creates stupidity. It corrupts ingenuous patriotism. It corrupts the fine arts. It shackles science. It dampens animal ardour. It discourages the religious convictions of Justification and Vocation and it dims the sense that there is a Creation. It has no Honour. It has no Community. Just look at that list. [1]

Speech cannot be personal and poetic when there is embarrassment of self-revelation, including revelation to oneself, nor when there is animal diffidence and communal suspicion, shame of exhibition and eccentricity, clinging to social norms. Speech cannot be initiating when the chief social institutions are bureaucratized and predetermine all procedures and decisions, so that in fact individuals have no power anyway that is useful to express. Speech cannot be exploratory and heuristic when pervasive chronic anxiety keeps people from risking losing themselves in temporary confusion and from relying for help precisely on communicating, even if the communication is Babel.

[1] Paul Goodman. 1960, p. 12.
As quoted in:
PAUL GOODMAN (1911-1972)by Edgar Z. Friedenberg1
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/publications/ThinkersPdf/goodmane.PDF

[2] Paul Goodman 1964, p. 79
As quoted in:
PAUL GOODMAN (1911-1972)by Edgar Z. Friedenberg1
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/publications/ThinkersPdf/goodmane.PDF

A Society That Nobody Wants - edited version number 4

To the right is an image of protesters at the Vietnam moratorium march held in Melbourne on 8th May 1970. This event - the biggest the city had ever seen - was organised by Dr Jim Cairns [1] and held only a few days after 4 students were killed and 9 wounded by US National Guardsmen at Kent State University in America.[2]

The Australian establishment was horrified, "predicting blood in the streets and the Minister for Labour and National Service said "it was an invitation to anarchy". Later he called the supporters of the Moratorium "political pack-raping bikies" while the Prime Minister of the day said they were storm troopers." [3]

A few years prior to this event the US State Department had opposed Dr Cairns' application for an entry visa to enable him to engage in a speaking tour against the continued US and Australian military involvement in Vietnam. However, the State Department capitulated when they were advised by Australia's Foreign Minister that such a refusal would be considered "against the interest of Australia if a member of the Australian Parliament was rejected entry into the US." [4]

I was 15 years old then and I didn't know why boys close to my age were being conscripted to fight in this Asian nation. Miseducation was (and remains) compulsory.

Jim Cairns' book entitled 'Silence Kills' has a description of the Vietnam War. On the first page of his book it says:

Vietnam is one-twenty-eight the size of the United States. Its total population is one-sixth that of America. The average Vietnamese lives for a year on less than the average American consumes in a week. Vietnam is a peasant country with little science and little industrial power. America, an industrial giant, is able to send men to the moon. Vietnam has no air force or navy. American aircraft bomb and strafe South Vietnam without fear of attack. Her powerful navy shells hamlets, villages and towns and sends out fighters and bombers while riding safely miles out to sea. The United States is a vast sanctuary where tens of thousands of men in industry turn out bombs, napalm, gases, aircraft, guns, mortars and all the weapons of war; and to this sanctuary America has added the airfields of Thailand and benefits from aid from a dozen 'free world' nations all of whom are safe from attack. Vietnam, in the south, has been bombed, shelled and burnt almost back to the stone age.

Wars and mainstream thought are wrong. Dead wrong. Many years and many books later the questions on the Vietnam War still keep coming.

People are uneasy about and ashamed of the world that they have given their children to grow up in. My parents were resigned about their own convenient adjustments, but they were, by no means willing to see their children robbed of a life of worth.

There is not one scintilla of evidence of Australian troops torturing prisoners of war in Vietnam.[5]

[Army chiefs admitted that water torture was used against captured Vietnamese.]

This is our great adventure, and a wonderful one it is. [6]

If we quit Vietnam, tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii and next week we'll have to fight in San Francisco. [7]

There is little evidence that the Viet Cong have any significant following in South Vietnam. [8]

Oh, it's so hard to give expression to the process of the loss of ethical values that has gone on for so long. There are several edits to this post this morning. Many words are devoted to science, and invention and to practical organisation. It's expedient, but a language appears to have died in the process.

Now the killing fields extend to the world's oceans, forests and the global economy? Greed proves its exponential function.

An autopsy for national and global death needs to be carried out. Part of this process "must read Vietnam."[9]

[1] Doctor Jim Cairns was the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia in the Whitlams Government. He was forced to resign as a result of what he claims were lies posted in the Melbourne Age (Fairfax) newspaper. (See 'Oil in Troubled Waters' by Jim Cairns. Page 92. Published by Widescope International Publishers Pty Ltd, 1976.)

[2] VCE Attitudes to the Vietnam War
http://www.shrine.org.au/files/documents/VCE-Vietnam.pdf

[3] A reminder of Vietnam by Pauline Mitchell*
http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve03/1161cairns.html

[4] 'Straight Left' by Tom Uren. Random House, 1995. page 188, 189.

[5] Australian Defence Minister Phillip Lynch, responding to Australian journalist John Sorell's claim in the Melbourne Herald, 1966.

[6] Hubert Humphrey, United States Vice President on Vietnam, 1967.

[7] Lyndon Johnson, United States President, 1967. He was elected as a peace candidate in 1964 but then his administration organised the 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident to encourage the American people to yet another war.

[8] Dean Rusk, United States Secretary of State, 1965.

[9] Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
By Rev. Martin Luther King. 4 April 1967

The Fragility of Economic Data

Measurement of profits always includes a certain degree of subjectivity as long as the operation involves durable physical assets or longer-term financial assets, the value of which will depend upon future economic conditions. The economist who concerns himself most deeply with this issue was J. R. Hicks, a younger contemporary of Keynes. Hicks recognized that accounting is backward looking, while economic values depend upon the unknowable future. I backward looking, Hicks meant that accountants use previous prices and extrapolations based upon historical experience. Economics looks at an investment in terms of how it is expected to perform in the future.

For example, when a business purchases a computer for $10,000, it does not write off the full cost in the year of purchase. Instead, it will follow an accounting convention, which will subtract a fixed amount of depreciation for each year of its expected life. Nobody knows whether the computer will be obsolete in two years instead of the expected five. If it has to be replaced sooner than expected, then the computer will have to be depreciated prematurely.

The degree of uncertainty becomes far greater with financial instruments. For this reason, accounting rules can become a matter of life and death for a corporation. To make matters worse, accounting tricks permit corporations to create an illusion of success. Such practices do not depend upon Enron-like fraud. Instead, skilled accountants can circumvent the law, making financial regulation into an oxymoron. At the same time, investors presumed to be making informed decisions, even though they have no way of penetrating the opacity of accounting that supposed to measure how well a firm is doing.

The FASB is supposed to be there to provide investors with reliable information, but when this information became inconvenient, Congress stepped in. Congress did not have to pass any laws; it merely had to threaten to do so.

So now the banks are healthy. The stock market is improving. When will the other shoe drop?

Coercing Regulators to Create Fictitious Profits

The previous post described how Congress coerced the FASB to change accounting methods to make banks look healther.

Floyd Norris at the NY Times gives an aggregate investment of the profits that Wall Street desired accounting changes made possible. The following Bloomberg article gives some estimates about the effects on Citi's and Wells Fargo's profits.

Norris concludes "Both the banks and their regulators see virtue in opacity."

Norris, Floyd. 2009. "Seeking Reality in Bank Balance Sheets." New York Times Blog (5 June).
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/seeking-reality-in-bank-balance-sheets

"David Zion, the accounting analyst at Credit Suisse, is out with a report today on fair value accounting, in which he calculates how many billions of dollars were added to bank "values" by the changes that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) was forced to make: "We estimate first quarter pretax earnings improved by $4.9 billion as a result of the new other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI) rules for the 20 Financials sector companies that early adopted them, including eight companies where the new rules may have increased pretax earnings by more than 5%. In addition, the FASB's mark-to-market clarification resulted in five of the 20 companies marking assets up from $27 million to $4.5 billion"."



Onaran, Yalman. 2009. "Bank Profits From Accounting Rules Masking Looming Loan Losses." Bloomberg Markets (July).
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=alC3LxSjomZ8

"Analysts who have examined the quarterly profits and government tests say that accounting rule changes and rosy assumptions are making the institutions look healthier than they are."

"Citigroup's $1.6 billion in first-quarter profit would vanish if accounting were more stringent, says Martin Weiss of Weiss Research Inc. in Jupiter, Florida. "The big banks' profits were totally bogus," says Weiss, whose 38-year-old firm rates financial companies. "The new accounting rules, the stress tests: They're all part of a major effort to put lipstick on a pig." Further deterioration of loans will eventually force banks to recognize losses that their bookkeeping lets them ignore for now, says David Sherman, an accounting professor at Northeastern University in Boston. Janet Tavakoli, president of Tavakoli Structured Finance Inc. in Chicago, says the government stress scenarios underestimate how bad the economy may get."

"FASB also let companies recognize losses on the value of some debt securities on their balance sheets without counting the writedowns against earnings. If banks plan to hold the debt until maturity, they can avoid hurting the bottom line. At Citigroup, the recipient of $346 billion in fresh capital and asset guarantees from the government, about 25 percent of the quarterly net income came thanks to the debt securities rule change, the bank said."

"Another $2.7 billion before taxes came from an accounting rule that lets a company record income when the value of its own debt falls. That reflects the possibility a company could buy back bonds at a discount, generating a profit. In reality, when a bank can't fund such a transaction, the gain is an accounting quirk, Weiss says."

"Without those accounting benefits, Citigroup would probably have posted a net loss of $2.5 billion in the quarter, Weiss estimates. In the five previous quarters, Citigroup lost more than $37 billion."

"Wells Fargo also took advantage of the change in the mark- to-market rules. The new standards let Wells Fargo boost its capital $2.8 billion by reassessing the value of some $40 billion of bonds, the bank said in May. And the bank augmented net income by $334 million because of the effect of the rule on the value of debts held to maturity .... The higher valuations Wells Fargo put on its securities probably won't last, as defaults increase on home mortgages, credit cards and other consumer and corporate lending, Northeastern's Sherman says."

"The Federal Reserve, which designed the stress tests, used a 21 percent to 28 percent loss rate for subprime mortgages as a worst-case assumption. Already, almost 40 percent of such loans are 30 days or more overdue, according to Tavakoli, who is the author of three primers on structured debt. Defaults might reach 55 percent, she predicts. At the same time, the assumptions on how much banks can earn to offset their losses are inflated, partly because of the same accounting gimmicks employed in first-quarter profit reports, Weiss says."

Mark-To-Market or Marching to Wall Street's Drummer?

Congress coerced financial regulators to let Wall Street redefine the way it measured profits -- allowing the big banks to show profits and pass the highly vaunted stress test. In the next post, I will indicate how effective this technique has been in creating an illusion of profitability. Then in a third post, I will offer some more comments.

Pulliam, Susan and Tom McGinty. 2009. "Congress Helped Banks Defang Key Rule." Wall Street Journal (3 June): p. A 1.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124396078596677535.html

"Not long after the bottom fell out of the market for mortgage securities last fall, a group of financial firms took aim at an accounting rule that forced them to report billions of dollars of losses on those assets. Marshalling a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign, these firms persuaded key members of Congress to pressure the accounting industry to change the rule in April. The payoff is likely to be fatter bottom lines in the second quarter. The accounting issue lies at the heart of the financial crisis: Are the hardest-to-value securities worth no more than what the market is willing to pay, or did the market grow too dysfunctional to properly set values?"


"The rule change angered some investor advocates. "This is political interference on a major issue, and it raises questions about whether accounting standards going forward will have the quality and integrity that the market needs," says Patrick Finnegan, director of financial-reporting policy for CFA Institute Centre for Financial Market Integrity, an investor trade group."

"The rules had required banks, securities firms and insurers to use market prices to help assign values to mortgage securities and other assets that don't trade on exchanges -- to "mark to market." But when markets went haywire last fall, financial firms complained that the rules forced them to slash the value of many assets based on fire-sale prices. That contributed to big losses that depleted their capital and left several of the nation's largest firms on the brink of failure. Earlier this year, financial-services organizations put their lobbyists on the case. Thirty-one financial firms and trade groups formed a coalition and spent $27.6 million in the first quarter lobbying Washington about the rule and other issues, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public filings. They also directed campaign contributions totaling $286,000 to legislators on a key committee, many of whom pushed for the rule change, the filings indicate."

"Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat who heads the House Financial Services subcommittee that pressed for the accounting change, received $18,500 from coalition members in the first quarter, the second-highest total among committee members, according to Federal Election Commission records. Over the past two years, Mr. Kanjorski received $704,000 in contributions from banking and insurance firms, the third-highest total among members of Congress, according to the FEC and the Center for Responsive Politics."

"During a March 12 hearing before the House subcommittee, FASB came under intense pressure from committee members. "If the regulators and standard setters do not act now to improve the standards, then the Congress will have no other option than to act itself," Rep. Kanjorski said in his opening remarks. "We want you to act," Rep. Kanjorski told Robert Herz, FASB's chief. Mr. Herz waffled about how quickly the standards board could act. Rep. Kanjorski leaned over the dais. "You do understand the message that we're sending?" he said."

""Yes," Mr. Herz replied. "I absolutely do, sir." FASB made speedy revisions to its rules. In an interview, Mr. Herz said FASB merely accelerated the matter on its agenda, and tried to be responsive to input from investors and financial-services firms."

"The change helped turn around investor sentiment on banks. Financial firms had the option of reflecting the accounting change in their first-quarter results; they will be required to do so in the second quarter. Wells Fargo & Co. said the change increased its capital by $4.4 billion in the first quarter. Citigroup Inc. said the change added $413 million to first-quarter earnings. The Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston said the shift boosted its first-quarter earnings by $349 million. Robert Willens, a tax and accounting analyst, estimates that the changes will increase bank earnings in the second quarter by an average of 7%."

"Mark-to-market accounting has been around for decades. Many banks were content with the rules when the markets were going up. But the rules became a big problem in late 2007. As markets turned down, FASB clarified the rules and established how certain financial instruments, including mortgage securities, should be valued. The guidelines said valuations should reflect "observable" input such as market prices whenever possible. They required banks to disclose extensive information about assets they were unable to value based on market prices. Financial firms last year reported losses or write-downs totaling roughly $175 billion, according to Michael Mayo, an analyst at the CLSA unit of Credit Agricole SA."

"Rep. Gary Ackerman (D., N.Y.) and Rep. Kanjorski pushed Mr. Herz to agree to a speedier timetable. They repeatedly cited Rep. Perlmutter's legislation to broaden oversight of FASB. "It will be done in three weeks. Can and will," Rep. Ackerman instructed Mr. Herz. "Yes," Mr. Herz replied. "Can and will," Rep. Ackerman repeated. Rep. Ackerman declined to comment through a spokesman. A FASB director, Lawrence Smith, said at the time that FASB had little choice but to act. "We can't ignore what's going on around us," he said."

The Waxman-Markey Disaster: Offsets for Every Purse and Purpose

Willem Buiter has noticed another flaw with Waxman-Markey: its carbon reduction targets are purely hypothetical, since virtually all of them, from now to 2050, can be “met” with offsets. Buiter mentions my favorite argument against the offset trade: it relies on an epistemological impossibility, comparing the emissions reductions purchased by offsets against a hypothetical universe in which no such purchases take place. He doesn’t bring up the incentive nightmare, on the other hand: the inducement for every party along the offset value chain to deceive the others and any agency set up to supervise the process. All in all, it seems beside the point to describe carbon offsets as a loophole; they exist precisely because they generate profits for a wide swath of businesses.

As horrible as the offset giveaway is, and the permit giveaway as well, they are not the worst. In theory, both could be fixed if the political system were suddenly to become more responsive to the public interest. Future amendments could require permit auctions and shut down the offsets. What can’t be fixed without overhauling the entire system is the absurdity of issuing permits on a sector-by-sector basis for actual carbon emitted, as if that could actually be monitored and enforced. Environmentalists may think this is a grand idea because, well, those who emit carbon into the atmosphere are bad people and must be kept on some sort of leash. Never mind that it will take an incorruptible army of inspectors to determine just who is behaving how badly, that most small emissions will have to be left outside of such a system altogether, and that parceling out emission budgets this way is an open invitation to rent-seeking.

The simple, effective, non-moralistic solution is to cap the extraction of fossil fuels from the earth, or their importation from other countries. That will make these fuels scarce and expensive, and we can all decide how much we are willing to pay for them according to any reason, noble or base, that moves us. Why is this not on the table?

European vs. U.S. Unemployment Explained

European vs. U.S. Unemployment Explained

When Jaimie Galbraith is good, he can be very good. Here is an example, explaining European unemployment as a result of inequality rather than social democracy. After explaining the close association between inequality and unemployment, he goes on:


97: "The European economy is no longer a collection of separated national systems. Spain, Germany, and France are not independent, mutually isolated national economies. There are no barriers to trade or capital flow, in fact, no formal barriers to the movement of labor throughout Europe. There is now a single currency unit across most of the region. The integration of the European economy in practice -- from the standpoint of a large multinational corporate employer, for instance -- is nearly complete. From every analytical point of view, it is necessary to start thinking of Europe as a single unit. It is therefore necessary, from a statistical and practical point of view, to measure inequality and employment at the European, and not the national, level."

97: "When this is done, the notion of Europe and the United States at the opposite ends of an employment-equality spectrum disappears. Pay inequality within countries of Europe is relatively low, but inequalities between them are very high: much higher than across comparable distances in the United States. Adding the two components, the inequality within and the inequality between countries, one finds that overall inequalities of pay are actually higher in Europe than in the United States. Thus, the standard perception of a European/American counterpoint is simply incorrect. So far as pay is concerned, Europe now is both more unequal and less fully employed than the United States. It is, by the same token, less efficient, but not for the reasons usually given. Rather, the United States wins the efficiency contest -- not because it is less egalitarian but because it is more so than the ungainly ensemble of countries that now make up the European Union."

Galbraith, James K. 2008. The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too (New York: Free Press).

Entelechial Property

by the Sandwichman

Am I the only one who uses far-out puns as a research aid?

Before his famed career as moral philosopher and economist, Adam Smith (1723-1790) was well known for a series of public lectures on rhetoric that he gave in Edinburgh and Glasgow. In this volume, Stephen J. McKenna provides the first book-length treatment of Smith's rhetorical theory, focusing on his theory of rhetorical propriety-the means by which effective communication is adapted to the variables of subject, audience, speaker or writer, purpose, and moment-and the centrality of this concept to his thought.

The word 'entelechial' occurs frequently in Laurence Coupe's book, Kenneth Burke on Myth. I'll be saying more about Burke in subsequent posts, specifically with regard to the relationship between myth, rhetoric and economy. But I'm delighted that my punning Google search turned up the unexpected rhetorical connection between Burke and Smith.

Palin’s D in Macroeconomics: Grade Inflation

We have known for some time that Sarah Palin does not know very much with respect to public policy issues in general and even she admitted to having received a D in macroeconomics. But I bet her college instructor is wandering how he gave her such high marks after seeing this.

Alaska governor Sarah Palin let loose Wednesday on the Obama administration for enacting fiscal policies that "fly in the face of principles" and "defy Economics 101." … "Since when can you get out of huge national debt by creating trillions of dollars of new debt?" Palin asked. "It all really is so backwards and skewed as to sound like absolute nonsense when some of this economic policy is explained."

We are in the midst of the worse recession in our lifetime with the employment to population ratio dropping to 59.7% - and NOW this Republican wants fiscal restraint?

Fear of Inflation – Ferguson v. Krugman

Niall Ferguson notes:

On Wednesday last week, yields on 10-year US Treasuries – generally seen as the benchmark for long-term interest rates – rose above 3.73 per cent. Once upon a time that would have been considered rather low. But the financial crisis has changed all that: at the end of last year, the yield on the 10-year fell to 2.06 per cent. In other words, long-term rates have risen by 167 basis points in the space of five months.

Ferguson goes onto argue that this settled a debate between him and Paul Krugman where Ferguson has been arguing that the Federal deficits will have to be monetarized and the reason that nominal rates have increased is that inflationary expectations have jumped. The Federal Reserve is reporting that the long-term real interest rate currently was 1.8% on June 1, which means the 3.7% nominal rate represents expected inflation near 1.9%. Back on December 18, 2008, nominal and real interest rates on 10-year government bonds were about around 1.8% - that is, zero expected inflation.

Daniel Gross agrees with Krugman who writes:

Now, it’s true that the Fed has taken unprecedented actions lately. More specifically, it has been buying lots of debt both from the government and from the private sector, and paying for these purchases by crediting banks with extra reserves. And in ordinary times, this would be highly inflationary: banks, flush with reserves, would increase loans, which would drive up demand, which would push up prices. But these aren’t ordinary times. Banks aren’t lending out their extra reserves. They’re just sitting on them — in effect, they’re sending the money right back to the Fed. So the Fed isn’t really printing money after all. Still, don’t such actions have to be inflationary sooner or later? No. The Bank of Japan, faced with economic difficulties not too different from those we face today, purchased debt on a huge scale between 1997 and 2003. What happened to consumer prices? They fell ... Some economists have argued for moderate inflation as a deliberate policy, as a way to encourage lending and reduce private debt burdens. I’m sympathetic to these arguments and made a similar case for Japan in the 1990s. But the case for inflation never made headway with Japanese policy makers then, and there’s no sign it’s getting traction with U.S. policy makers now.

Ferguson is basically arguing that we have seen a modest increase in expected inflation. Maybe so – but as long as we have only modest inflation, that may be a very good thing for the economy. After all – today’s labor market news is that the employment-population ratio fell to 59.7 percent. So why this silly worry that aggregate demand may be too strong?

Employment Shocker

by the Sandwichman

May nonfarm employment fell by 345,000, much less than even the Sandwichman's revised prediction (between 570,000 and 635,000). Moreover, the April and March employment totals were both revised upward, resulting in reduced job losses for those months of -504,000 (-539,000 preliminary) and -652,000 (-699,000 first revision) respectively. Taking these revisions into account nonfarm employment now stands at 132,200,000, or 214,000 below the preliminary April number.

The BLS birth/death adjustment added in 220,000 jobs in May, compared to 176,000 for May 2008.

Meanwhile, the number of UNemployed persons increased by 787,000 in May, compared to 563,000 in April. And the unemployment rate increased to 9.4% from 8.9%

Stock Market Mirage

How can it be that a company that employs 250,000 filing for bankruptcy is actually good for the stock market and makes the DJIA rally so strongly? The easy answer is the stock market no longer reflects the economic reality on main street. [1]

Or is it that stock markets today are being used to hide the usury on Wall Street: hedge fund manipulation [2] the plunge protection team [3] tax haven secrecy [4] transfer pricing (organised balance sheet losses) [5] global monopoly capitalism, looting [6].

There's a good article by Dr Housing Bubble" on 'Stock Market Dissonance, though his national economy comparison with China is now alarmingly obsolete.


[1] Stock Market Dissonance: Why the Stock Market no Longer Reflects Main Street Economics. The Dow Jones Industrial Average. June 3rd, 2009

[2] Hedge Funds and Stock Market Manipulation. Friday, March 24, 2006

[3] Bush convenes Plunge Protection Team By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor
Last Updated: 12:05am GMT 08/01/2008

[4] British Tax Haven’s Safety, Secrecy Face Brown, Obama Challenge
By Simon Clark. 16th January 2009

[5] Transfer Pricing Tax System and Its Development in China
State Administration of Taxation (.pdf)
People’s Republic of China

[6]Looting and How It Came to Pass
Naked Capitalism. 4th June 2009

Revised Preliminary Updated Prediction!

by the Sandwichman

Sandwichman previously predicted a job loss of between 775,000 and 835,000 jobs in the May employment report. This morning, however, when parsing the CNN Money happy talk about signs of improvement, I realized a wrinkle I had overlooked. Ken Houghton also called attention to the wrinkle in a comment. Am I comparing a preliminary report for May to a revised one for April? That hadn't been my intention. But I did make a mistake. I was carelessly thinking of the April job report as if it was static and the May one as if it was the "final edition".

From last September to February, as the employment situation has hemorrhaged, the average adjustment from first preliminary to final revision has been 136,800 per month. Comparing this month's preliminary with last month's first revision could thus handicap the reported job loss by an average of 205,250 jobs. So I'm going to make a revised prediction of a NOMINAL job loss of between 570,000 and 635,000 jobs in May. Because the April job losses will likely be revised upward by, say, 60,000 to 70,000 (to 599,000 to 609,000), CNN Money can even report the preliminary May figure as an "improvement."

It may not be obvious that the 570,000 figure represents the SAME estimate of jobs lost as the original 775,000, the difference being that an estimated 205,000 of them are split between one upward revision of the April report and two future revisions of the May report. Phew!