Saving Medicare off the table? Absolutely not. Nothing is off the table except raising taxes. Tax hikes will hurt economy & job creation.
So the Ryan proposal is supposed to “save” Medicare by eliminating it! George Orwell would be proud!
Thursday, May 5, 2011
The Medicare Debate: Eliminating = Saving
The Ryan long-run fiscal plan has so many twists and turns, it is truly amazing. For starters, the Republicans are once again telling us that cutting taxes is the path to reducing the deficit. But then Paul Ryan did come up with one idea of how to cut government spending – his phase-out of the Medicare program. Of course, Speaker Boehner and other Republican leaders are realizing that if they get behind Ryan’s proposal to phase out Medicare, it will cost them politically. So they at first decided to duck and run from this idea. But ala Twitter, the Speaker wants us to know he has not abandoned the Ryan Medicare phase-out proposal:
So the Ryan proposal is supposed to “save” Medicare by eliminating it! George Orwell would be proud!
So the Ryan proposal is supposed to “save” Medicare by eliminating it! George Orwell would be proud!
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Even If the Recent Slowdown in Real GDP Growth Were a Blip
David Leonhardt is rightfully concerned about the state of our economy and reports:
For the entirety of 2010, real GDP growth barely undone the decline in real GDP for 2009. And with zero growth for 2008, our economy is around 10% below potential GDP. So even if this were a blip and we returned to growth rates around 3% or 4%, we will be far below full employment for quite a while.
For the second straight year, the recovery seems to be at risk of stalling. The economy grew at an annual rate of only 1.8 percent last quarter — eerily similar to the 1.7 percent growth last spring, just when job growth started slowing down ... White House advisers and Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, argue that the bad news is a merely a blip caused by bad weather, a temporary cut in military purchases and other one-time factors. They may be right, too. Stock market investors certainly share their optimism: the Standard & Poor’s 500 index is near a postrecession high.
For the entirety of 2010, real GDP growth barely undone the decline in real GDP for 2009. And with zero growth for 2008, our economy is around 10% below potential GDP. So even if this were a blip and we returned to growth rates around 3% or 4%, we will be far below full employment for quite a while.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Ayn Rand and Me: Article Based on an Interview with Michael Perelman
http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/ayn-rand-and-me-article-based-on-an-interview-with-michael-perelman
Monday, May 2, 2011
Those Pesky Postwar Recessions
Well, the debate over my post on Keynes on central planning has gone viral all over the place, and I shall make no attempt to link to all of it. However, I do want to comment further on a point raised actually in Facebook debates on this by one of the makers of the video in question, John Papola. This has to do with the accusation that Keynes was (maybe) a supporter of what has been called "military Keynesianism," with the point being made in the video that unlike what lots of Keynesians supposedly said (Samuelson being provided in the debates as an example in 1943, although not Keynes himself), we did not go into a deep depression after WW II, even though there was no massive fiscal stimulus and there was this sharp drop in government spending with the end of the war.
This curiously relates to a matter that has been much argued about previously on various blogs, namely the nature of the short and sharp post-WW-I recession of 1919-20. Some have argued that this shows how wrong Keynes was, because laissez-faire was followed, including letting prices (and some wages) fall sharply in 1921, with the economy bouncing back very nicely, after having the unemployment rate soar from 5% in 1920 to 9% in 1921. Most economic historians have attributed this recession to "postwar adjustment problems."
OTOH, some of those making a big fuss about that recession somehow fail to notice that in fact there was a post-WW-II recession, if also very brief, if sharp. It occurred in 1945 with the sharpest decline in wartime spending, although not much remembered. However, the official stats have US declining in GDP by a whopping -12.7% in that year, although that number must be taken with some grains of salt due to all kinds of measurement issues and restructurings. Some say this exaggerates things as the unemployment rate only went from 1.5% to about 3.6%, a rise, but not all that much to get worked up about.
Two points. The first is that this latter event does not account for the massive decline in female labor force participation that occurred in 1945, from about 38% to about 30%. We all know (or should) that those withdrawing from the labor force do not count in the unemployment rate. That not very large increase in the UR does not disprove that there was a sharp (if short) decline in GDP. (Rosie the Riveter went home to boom out those babies, and to buy houses to be built, given that basically none had been for about 15 years in the US).
The other point, which is perhaps more cogent for the debates here, involves monetary policy. Frightened of rising inflation, the inexperienced Fed raised the discount rate sharply during 1919-20, halting doing so in June, 1920 as it became clear that the economy was plunging into recession. OTOH, the very loose monetary policy of WW II basically continued during the immediate postwar years, only finally ended with the Fed-Treasury Accord of 1951 in the face of rising inflation tied to the Korean War. So, it may well have been that the Fed was listening to Samuelson and was slow to tighten monetary policy, thereby helping to ease that postwar transition and make sure that the one after WW II was not as sharp as the one after WW I, despite the much larger adjustments that were made.
Added: For some strange reason the system is not allowing me to comment. So, I shall reply to some comments here in the main post.
To John Papola.
OK, I grant that you have "Keynes" saying "too bad" about the wartime achievement of full employment and accept that you recognize that he was a pacifist prior to WW II. In the same place he made his statement you quote he expressed optimism that full employment could be achieved after the war with aggregate demand management without interfering with individual decisionmaking.
I am not sure why you cite Higgs on reduced consumption levels due to rationing and so forth in WW II. Everyone knew about that, certainly including Keynes who discussed such matters in his "How to pay for the war," which was all about restraining the excessive aggregate demand associated with the war.
I continue to maintain that one needs to track labor force participation. Womens' participation rose at the beginning of the war above anything previously seen and then fell at the end of the war sharply. Anyone who quotes unemployment rate changes without noticing that is being disingenuous at best. I have no problem at all with tracking employment rates (percent of working age employed) rather than unemployment rates, which have always been known to suffer from these problems.
Russ,
The recession started in Feb. 1945, but went on for 8 months, with NBER giving the GDP decline as -12.7%, larger than any since, including our most recent recession. Sure, there were measurement issues and index number problems with all that restructuring, but the 2% increase in the official unemployment rate combined with the 8% decline in female labor force participation is consistent with a pretty sharp decline in GDP, if not necessarily a full -12.7%.
This curiously relates to a matter that has been much argued about previously on various blogs, namely the nature of the short and sharp post-WW-I recession of 1919-20. Some have argued that this shows how wrong Keynes was, because laissez-faire was followed, including letting prices (and some wages) fall sharply in 1921, with the economy bouncing back very nicely, after having the unemployment rate soar from 5% in 1920 to 9% in 1921. Most economic historians have attributed this recession to "postwar adjustment problems."
OTOH, some of those making a big fuss about that recession somehow fail to notice that in fact there was a post-WW-II recession, if also very brief, if sharp. It occurred in 1945 with the sharpest decline in wartime spending, although not much remembered. However, the official stats have US declining in GDP by a whopping -12.7% in that year, although that number must be taken with some grains of salt due to all kinds of measurement issues and restructurings. Some say this exaggerates things as the unemployment rate only went from 1.5% to about 3.6%, a rise, but not all that much to get worked up about.
Two points. The first is that this latter event does not account for the massive decline in female labor force participation that occurred in 1945, from about 38% to about 30%. We all know (or should) that those withdrawing from the labor force do not count in the unemployment rate. That not very large increase in the UR does not disprove that there was a sharp (if short) decline in GDP. (Rosie the Riveter went home to boom out those babies, and to buy houses to be built, given that basically none had been for about 15 years in the US).
The other point, which is perhaps more cogent for the debates here, involves monetary policy. Frightened of rising inflation, the inexperienced Fed raised the discount rate sharply during 1919-20, halting doing so in June, 1920 as it became clear that the economy was plunging into recession. OTOH, the very loose monetary policy of WW II basically continued during the immediate postwar years, only finally ended with the Fed-Treasury Accord of 1951 in the face of rising inflation tied to the Korean War. So, it may well have been that the Fed was listening to Samuelson and was slow to tighten monetary policy, thereby helping to ease that postwar transition and make sure that the one after WW II was not as sharp as the one after WW I, despite the much larger adjustments that were made.
Added: For some strange reason the system is not allowing me to comment. So, I shall reply to some comments here in the main post.
To John Papola.
OK, I grant that you have "Keynes" saying "too bad" about the wartime achievement of full employment and accept that you recognize that he was a pacifist prior to WW II. In the same place he made his statement you quote he expressed optimism that full employment could be achieved after the war with aggregate demand management without interfering with individual decisionmaking.
I am not sure why you cite Higgs on reduced consumption levels due to rationing and so forth in WW II. Everyone knew about that, certainly including Keynes who discussed such matters in his "How to pay for the war," which was all about restraining the excessive aggregate demand associated with the war.
I continue to maintain that one needs to track labor force participation. Womens' participation rose at the beginning of the war above anything previously seen and then fell at the end of the war sharply. Anyone who quotes unemployment rate changes without noticing that is being disingenuous at best. I have no problem at all with tracking employment rates (percent of working age employed) rather than unemployment rates, which have always been known to suffer from these problems.
Russ,
The recession started in Feb. 1945, but went on for 8 months, with NBER giving the GDP decline as -12.7%, larger than any since, including our most recent recession. Sure, there were measurement issues and index number problems with all that restructuring, but the 2% increase in the official unemployment rate combined with the 8% decline in female labor force participation is consistent with a pretty sharp decline in GDP, if not necessarily a full -12.7%.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Did Keynes Support Having a "Central Plan"?
That he did is charged by "Hayek" in the freshly released "Keynes versus Hayek: Round 2" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc , put out by Russ Roberts and John Papola, with backing from the Mercatus Center at George Mason. Like its predecssor, it definitely sides with Hayek, but is also highly hilarious, with pretty much anybody able to enjoy Papola playing Bernanke handing out wads of cash to bankers, and some other goofy stuff, such as libertarian anarchist Ed Stringham eagerly interviewing "Keynes" after he is declared the winner in a boxing match after being knocked down by "Hayek."
However, I do find it disturbing that increasingly Austrians and some others have taken to charging Keynes with having supported "central planning," as indeed done in this video. Is this correct? I think that the answer is largely "no," with it certainly being that answer if one means by that command central planning of the Soviet type that Hayek criticized in his Road to Serfdom (which Keynes praised, btw, when it first came out).
I think the strongest evidence for Keynes supporting central planning comes from two sources, which I shall quote. The first comes from his 1920s essay, "The End of Laissez-Faire," which has been identified as the inspiration for the movement for indicative (non-command) planning that was seen after WW II in such countries as France, Japan, India, South Korea, and some other places, although not UK or US.
After noting that uncertainty can lead to inequality of wealth and the unemployment of labor, he states: "I believe that the cure for these things is partly to be sought in the deliberate control of the currency and of credit by a central institution, ans partly in the collection and dissemination on a great scale of data relating to the business situation, including the full publicity, by law if necessary, of all business facts which it is useful to know. These measures would involve Society in exercising directive intelligence through some appropriate organ of action over many of the inner intricacies of private business, yet it would leave private initiative and enterprise unhindered." (p. 318 from Essays in Persuasion)
One can argue that Keynes is offering a hopeless contradiction when calling for this "directive intelligence," probably the closest he came anywhere to command, with his simultaneous limit on that regarding leaving "private initiative and enterprise unhindered," this latter certainly not fitting with the full-blowin command socialist model at all.
Regarding the information gathering, well, of course that is now generally done in most higher income economies, and many have argued that this was the essence of the indicative planning operations carried out in many countries, when they worked at their best, as some claim was the case in France in the 1950s, when businesspeople needed some sort of external push to revive their animal spirits, to use Keynesian language, and that seeing projections of demands by others helped provide this.
The other passage that some have pointed to as possibly suggesting a central planner tendency by Keynes comes from the final chapter of the General Theory, p. 378:
"Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the influence of of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investmenet. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which publich authority will co-operate with private intiative. But beyond this no obvious case is made out for a system of State Socialism which would embrace most of the economic life of the community."
One can argue again here that Keynes is setting himself up for some sort of impossible contradiction, and Hayek may well have argued that such control of investment would lead to his road to serfdom slippery slope. However, it is clear from later passages that what Keynes had in mind was ultimately the control of the aggregate of investment rather than of its specific forms or details.
These almost certainly provide the strongest evidence for Keynes supposedly supporting there being a "central plan." But it looks at most, putting the two together, like one that involves lots of provision of information and data along with some sort of control of aggregate investment, while leaving most of the decisions up to "private initiative." This hardly constitutes a "central plan," and certainly not one of the sort that the actually existing Hayek criticized. The fictional one in the video should have spoken more carefully.
However, I do find it disturbing that increasingly Austrians and some others have taken to charging Keynes with having supported "central planning," as indeed done in this video. Is this correct? I think that the answer is largely "no," with it certainly being that answer if one means by that command central planning of the Soviet type that Hayek criticized in his Road to Serfdom (which Keynes praised, btw, when it first came out).
I think the strongest evidence for Keynes supporting central planning comes from two sources, which I shall quote. The first comes from his 1920s essay, "The End of Laissez-Faire," which has been identified as the inspiration for the movement for indicative (non-command) planning that was seen after WW II in such countries as France, Japan, India, South Korea, and some other places, although not UK or US.
After noting that uncertainty can lead to inequality of wealth and the unemployment of labor, he states: "I believe that the cure for these things is partly to be sought in the deliberate control of the currency and of credit by a central institution, ans partly in the collection and dissemination on a great scale of data relating to the business situation, including the full publicity, by law if necessary, of all business facts which it is useful to know. These measures would involve Society in exercising directive intelligence through some appropriate organ of action over many of the inner intricacies of private business, yet it would leave private initiative and enterprise unhindered." (p. 318 from Essays in Persuasion)
One can argue that Keynes is offering a hopeless contradiction when calling for this "directive intelligence," probably the closest he came anywhere to command, with his simultaneous limit on that regarding leaving "private initiative and enterprise unhindered," this latter certainly not fitting with the full-blowin command socialist model at all.
Regarding the information gathering, well, of course that is now generally done in most higher income economies, and many have argued that this was the essence of the indicative planning operations carried out in many countries, when they worked at their best, as some claim was the case in France in the 1950s, when businesspeople needed some sort of external push to revive their animal spirits, to use Keynesian language, and that seeing projections of demands by others helped provide this.
The other passage that some have pointed to as possibly suggesting a central planner tendency by Keynes comes from the final chapter of the General Theory, p. 378:
"Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the influence of of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investmenet. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which publich authority will co-operate with private intiative. But beyond this no obvious case is made out for a system of State Socialism which would embrace most of the economic life of the community."
One can argue again here that Keynes is setting himself up for some sort of impossible contradiction, and Hayek may well have argued that such control of investment would lead to his road to serfdom slippery slope. However, it is clear from later passages that what Keynes had in mind was ultimately the control of the aggregate of investment rather than of its specific forms or details.
These almost certainly provide the strongest evidence for Keynes supposedly supporting there being a "central plan." But it looks at most, putting the two together, like one that involves lots of provision of information and data along with some sort of control of aggregate investment, while leaving most of the decisions up to "private initiative." This hardly constitutes a "central plan," and certainly not one of the sort that the actually existing Hayek criticized. The fictional one in the video should have spoken more carefully.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Is Donald Trump a Protectionist?
Justin Elliot reports on more hypocrisy from the DONALD:
Trump claims he is running for the Republican nomination to be President. One would think candidates in that party would be singing the virtues of free trade as if it made everyone better off. But I would agree with Mr. Trump on the international macroeconomic issue that their undervalued currency does have at least a minor impact on U.S. aggregate demand. And no – everyone is not better off from free trade even if Chinese goods are high quality. But having just read Dani Rodrik’s The Globalization Paradox, let me suggest that Mr. Trump also read this excellent discussion so he might sharpen his questioning of the standard Republican talking points for free trade.
But I’ve left off Justin Elliot’s punch line:
The Census Bureau reports that we purchased almost $365 billion in goods from China last year of which over $59 billion was related to apparel and footwear. So Mr. Trump is not alone in sourcing apparel from China. And I’d never call his clothing crap even he does.
Donald Trump has emerged in recent years as the nation's foremost China basher, going after the Asian superpower for undervaluing its currency and for taking American manufacturing and jobs ... Now, Trump has long complained about Chinese currency "manipulation" and has called for a large tariff on imports of products from China in order to bolster U.S. manufacturing. But he has also gone further, urging Americans to buy fewer products from China, claiming that Chinese goods are shoddy and maintaining that, in his own business dealings, he favors American manufacturing over Chinese manufacturing.
Trump claims he is running for the Republican nomination to be President. One would think candidates in that party would be singing the virtues of free trade as if it made everyone better off. But I would agree with Mr. Trump on the international macroeconomic issue that their undervalued currency does have at least a minor impact on U.S. aggregate demand. And no – everyone is not better off from free trade even if Chinese goods are high quality. But having just read Dani Rodrik’s The Globalization Paradox, let me suggest that Mr. Trump also read this excellent discussion so he might sharpen his questioning of the standard Republican talking points for free trade.
But I’ve left off Justin Elliot’s punch line:
So it's at least ironic -- and at most an example of gross hypocrisy -- that Trump's own line of men's wear, the Donald J. Trump Signature Collection, is manufactured in China.I discovered this after walking from Salon's offices to the large Macy's in midtown Manhattan, where an entire section is devoted to the Donald J. Trump Signature Collection of suits and ties. This particular corner of the store is decorated with an oversize portrait of Trump; the line promises to provide "the pinnacle of style and sophistication" and "the necessities to be boardroom ready all of the time."
The Census Bureau reports that we purchased almost $365 billion in goods from China last year of which over $59 billion was related to apparel and footwear. So Mr. Trump is not alone in sourcing apparel from China. And I’d never call his clothing crap even he does.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Do The Saudis Want Obama Out?
The Saudi oil minister has announced a cut in Saudi oil production, claiming that there is "too much oil on the world markets," although recent reports suggest that US inventories are plunging, http://www.commodityonline.com/futures-trading/technical/Crude-oil-surges-on-US-inventory-data-23374.html , and longer term data on OECD and global inventories falling also, http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo/#Global_Crude_Oil_And_Liquid_Fuels .
Jim Hamilton at Econbrowser argues that Saudi Arabia may be running into production limits, noting particularly that it has never gotten back to 2005 levels of production, despite much higher prices more recently, http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/04/saudi_oil_produ_4.html . On Crossroads Arabia, John Burgess reports at least two more theories of what is going on, beyond the production problems story and the obviously false claim that there is "too much" oil on the market, http://xrdarabia.org/2011/04/19/saudis-too-much-oil-on-the-market .
One of these involves internal Saudi politics, that the royal family has promised large amounts of spending in the near term to avoid a serious internal upheaval, and higher oil prices now help achieve that. I note that if this is what is going on it is the first time ever that the Saudis have not viewed the danger of declining long term demand due to much higher prices as more important than short term monetary gains, although maybe they are spooked by all the uprisings, and also if they are beginning to run low they may be taking a shorter time horizon, not to mention that younger and less patient members of the royal family may becoming more influential.
The final one, which Burgess views as paranoid, is that the royal family wants to at least display unhappiness with Obama's responses to the Arab Spring uprising, if not actually wanting to bring him down, although it is clear that if oil prices soar high enough to bring a return to global recession, that is the most likely way to bring about a failure of Obama to be reelected in 2012. In any case, the royal family has been openly displeased at the US supporting the rebels in Egypt (eventually), and are even more upset at mild US criticism of Saudi intervention in Bahrain, which the Saudis view as a possible inspiration for their own Shi'a to rise up. While the Shi'a are only around 12% of the Saudi Arabian population, they are located in the oil-producing Eastern Province and have long held senior positions in ARAMCO, dating back to when it was owned by US oil majors that hired them when they were being discriminated against by the majority Sunnis of Saudi Arabia.
In any case, this is the first time ever that I have seen any officials from Saudi Arabia making statements about world oil markets that are clearly not in line with the widely reported facts. Something is up, and I suspect it is some combination of all of the above.
Jim Hamilton at Econbrowser argues that Saudi Arabia may be running into production limits, noting particularly that it has never gotten back to 2005 levels of production, despite much higher prices more recently, http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/04/saudi_oil_produ_4.html . On Crossroads Arabia, John Burgess reports at least two more theories of what is going on, beyond the production problems story and the obviously false claim that there is "too much" oil on the market, http://xrdarabia.org/2011/04/19/saudis-too-much-oil-on-the-market .
One of these involves internal Saudi politics, that the royal family has promised large amounts of spending in the near term to avoid a serious internal upheaval, and higher oil prices now help achieve that. I note that if this is what is going on it is the first time ever that the Saudis have not viewed the danger of declining long term demand due to much higher prices as more important than short term monetary gains, although maybe they are spooked by all the uprisings, and also if they are beginning to run low they may be taking a shorter time horizon, not to mention that younger and less patient members of the royal family may becoming more influential.
The final one, which Burgess views as paranoid, is that the royal family wants to at least display unhappiness with Obama's responses to the Arab Spring uprising, if not actually wanting to bring him down, although it is clear that if oil prices soar high enough to bring a return to global recession, that is the most likely way to bring about a failure of Obama to be reelected in 2012. In any case, the royal family has been openly displeased at the US supporting the rebels in Egypt (eventually), and are even more upset at mild US criticism of Saudi intervention in Bahrain, which the Saudis view as a possible inspiration for their own Shi'a to rise up. While the Shi'a are only around 12% of the Saudi Arabian population, they are located in the oil-producing Eastern Province and have long held senior positions in ARAMCO, dating back to when it was owned by US oil majors that hired them when they were being discriminated against by the majority Sunnis of Saudi Arabia.
In any case, this is the first time ever that I have seen any officials from Saudi Arabia making statements about world oil markets that are clearly not in line with the widely reported facts. Something is up, and I suspect it is some combination of all of the above.
China to Become World’s Largest Economy by 2016 – So?
Brett Arends seems alarmed:
He could have mentioned that China’s population is over 1.3 billion while ours is approximately 0.3 billion. The CIA World Factbook noted that in 2010 China’s per capita income was only $7400 per year (ranking #126) whereas ours was $47,000 per year (ranking #10). One would hope that China’s growth would be such that its per capita income would surely converge to that of richer nations.
Under PPP, the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the size of the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take America’s share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times. China’s would reach 18%, and rising. Just 10 years ago, the U.S. economy was three times the size of China’s.
He could have mentioned that China’s population is over 1.3 billion while ours is approximately 0.3 billion. The CIA World Factbook noted that in 2010 China’s per capita income was only $7400 per year (ranking #126) whereas ours was $47,000 per year (ranking #10). One would hope that China’s growth would be such that its per capita income would surely converge to that of richer nations.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Lenovo Sucks: My Computer Held Hostage
Unbeknownst to me, my computer ended up somewhere in England, just before I have to leave town to address a delegation of Chinese visitors.
Up till now, I have had great luck with my computer. When I had a problem, I could send it back overnight, have it repaired the next day and have it come back on the following day. This time I only needed to repair a latch on the computer. I sent the computer back on Monday morning. I followed its movement to Lexington, Kentucky, where it got stuck. I was advised not to worry he was about to move again to nearby Memphis, where it was to be repaired.
UPS finally agreed to do a search for my computer. Later, they discovered that it was sitting in England. My computer then flew back to Lexington, Kentucky, not far from Memphis. My problem was that now on my problem was that now it had to pass through customs, where, UPS told me that it could take as much as a couple weeks to clear.
When I called Lenovo requesting a loaner, I got escalated up a couple levels to where I was told that the agent could do nothing more but to send a memo to somebody who was otherwise unreachable, and who would contact me sometime next week.
Up till now, I have had great luck with my computer. When I had a problem, I could send it back overnight, have it repaired the next day and have it come back on the following day. This time I only needed to repair a latch on the computer. I sent the computer back on Monday morning. I followed its movement to Lexington, Kentucky, where it got stuck. I was advised not to worry he was about to move again to nearby Memphis, where it was to be repaired.
UPS finally agreed to do a search for my computer. Later, they discovered that it was sitting in England. My computer then flew back to Lexington, Kentucky, not far from Memphis. My problem was that now on my problem was that now it had to pass through customs, where, UPS told me that it could take as much as a couple weeks to clear.
When I called Lenovo requesting a loaner, I got escalated up a couple levels to where I was told that the agent could do nothing more but to send a memo to somebody who was otherwise unreachable, and who would contact me sometime next week.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Obama v. Ryan on Rationing Health Care
Robert Pear reports on a controversy surrounding the President’s proposal to increase the power of the Independent Payment Advisory Board:
Paul Krugman notes:
In other words, Congressman Ryan has an alternative rationing system – the free market. If you have little income and virtually no assistance from the Federal government, the price rationing system would basically tell you that you are not entitled to any health care services. Something tells me this is exactly the kind of society Congressman Ryan seeks. But would the rest of us agree with him if he were just honest enough to say so?
Mr. Obama wants to expand the power of the 15-member panel, which was created by the new health care law, to rein in Medicare costs ... Under the law, spending cuts recommended by the presidentially appointed panel would take effect automatically unless Congress voted to block or change them. In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board’s recommendations. The impact of the board’s decisions could be magnified because private insurers often use Medicare rates as a guide or a benchmark in paying doctors, hospitals and other providers. Last week, in his speech on deficit reduction, Mr. Obama said he wanted to beef up the board’s cost-cutting powers in unspecified ways should the growth of Medicare spending exceed certain goals. Supporters say the board will be able to make tough decisions because it will be largely insulated from legislative politics. Lawmakers do not agree. Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, called it “a rationing board” and said Congress should not “delegate Medicare decision-making to 15 people appointed by the president.” He said Mr. Obama’s proposal would allow the board to “impose more price controls and more limitations on providers, which will end up cutting services to seniors.”
Paul Krugman notes:
Arguably the most important thing we can do to limit the growth in health care costs is learning to say no; we cannot afford a system in which Medicare in particular will pay for anything, especially when that’s combined with an industry structure that gives providers a strong financial incentive to engage in excessive care ... Mainly the attack is coming from Republicans, who want to dismantle Medicare, not save it — their proposal is that instead of having Medicare make choices based on expert advice, we should give seniors inadequate vouchers and let insurance company executives make those choices instead.
In other words, Congressman Ryan has an alternative rationing system – the free market. If you have little income and virtually no assistance from the Federal government, the price rationing system would basically tell you that you are not entitled to any health care services. Something tells me this is exactly the kind of society Congressman Ryan seeks. But would the rest of us agree with him if he were just honest enough to say so?
Fukushima in the last 9 days
2011 – April 20th. Japanese Government to introduce legal sanctions against those entering the 20 kilometre evacuation zone.
2011 – April 20th. Japan nuclear agency finally admits fuel has melted in reactors 1, 2 & 3
2011 – April 19th. Radiation at No. 2 spent fuel pool millions of times above normal & thousands of times higher than troubled No. 4 pool
2011 – April 19th. Chernobyl still leaking radiation. The current concrete “shield now has cracks, raising fears that 95% of the original nuclear material remaining inside the reactor could escape. Radiation levels directly over the sarcophagus are too high for the [new steel] arch to be built over it”
2011 – April 18th. Reports that hot radioactive fuel is being bulldozed into the ground.
2011 – April 18th. Hamaoka nuclear power plant must shut down. The reactors sit right above the spot where a massive Tokai region earthquake is predicted to strike.
2011 – April 18th. “"What is most serious is that even a month after the accident, we see no prospects of getting radioactive leakages under control," North Korean media reports.
2011 – April 19th. Clouds of radioactive steam rising from Fukushima reactors 1,3 and 4 at 6am.
2011 – April 18th. The Surrey Nuclear Power Plant in Virginia Forced to Shut Two of its Reactors after Tornado.
2011 – April 19th. A pair of thin robots on treads sent to explore buildings inside Japan's crippled nuclear reactor came back Monday with disheartening news: Radiation levels are far too high for repair crews to go inside.
2011 – April 18th. US Congressman Markey alleges that the head of the NRC told everyone not to write down risks they find from an earthquake greater than 6.0 (the Indian Point nuclear plant was only built to survive a 6.0 earthquake) 79
2011 – April 16th. Japan asks Brazil to ease food import rules (radiation-contaminated food). Brazil is considering the request.
2011 – April 16th. EU Raises Level Of Japan Nuclear Radiation Allowed On Ships, Cargo By 300%. Has already raised the amount of allowable radiation in food 20 fold.
16th April 2011: Japan Nuclear Radiation In San Francisco Milk Exceeds Infant Dose In Less Than 3 Gallons ….US FDA tolerates a much higher level of radiation contamination of food than does the US EPA. “FDA’s limit for Cesium-137 in a single liter of milk is 47 times higher than EPA’s annual maximum for human exposure…. There have already been allegations that EPA plans to relax radiation standards. In the wake of this conflict of agencies, expect someone to try to relax the MCL for radionuclides.”
2011 – April 17th. Breaking news on NHK at 7pm ET: Smoke/steam rising from ALL 4 reactor units — Workers evacuated
2011 – April 16th. Radiation in groundwater at the Number 2 reactor has increased 17-fold in a week
2011 – April 16th. “2 Days ago the waterlevel in no6 went down to zero (core barely covered) and the temp went up. A few hours later that data disappeared…. The waterlevel in all 3 (1, 2 and 3) reactors is much too low; the cores are "partially" exposed, meaning the upper half of the rods have melted down and the rubble is at the bottom: http://atmc.jp/plant/water/”
2011 – April 15th. Running for our lives. “so far the winds have blown most of the danger out to sea and onto the northern American continent. If the winds turn and blow to the south for any length of time it could mean curtains for Tokyo…. Life goes on as before and if you want evidence for that just look at your newspaper, Yahoo news summaries or your television to see. But sorry, that is not the truth—not true at all as a tragedy on a civilization-size scale silently falls down on us in the form of nuclear mists of fine very dangerous particles.” “Part of the world ended a month ago in terms of the total destruction of parts of northern Japan and it is true of energy production and industrial capacity, which are collapsing in Japan and around the world like dominoes….” When I saw the videos of explosions on the atomic power station in Japan I knew immediately it was a great catastrophe, and that information is being withheld on an unimaginable scale.”
2011 – April 15th. Dr Christopher Busby estimates that about 400,000 people within 200 kilometres of Fukushima will get cancer from this accident.
2011 – April 15th. Nuclear fuel has melted in three reactors at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and fallen to the lower sections of their container vessels, raising the specter of overheated material compromising a container and causing a massive radiation release, the Atomic Energy Society of Japan said in a report released on Friday.
What Really Happened Webmaster's Commentary
THE FULL ARTICLE: “Fuel in the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors has made contact with air, while the No. 3 reactor's rods have remained underwater, the group said…. Tokyo Electric Power indicated it could drop sandbags filled with zeolite into the nearby ocean as soon as Friday to help curb the spread of radioactive contaminants… Workers earlier this week transferred roughly 660 tons of radiation-tainted water out of an underground passage, but fluid flooding the area reached its original depth by Friday morning, …Contaminated water has hindered efforts to restore cooling mechanisms needed to help prevent additional radioactive material from escaping the site… A nuclear waste treatment area intended to receive the water was still undergoing inspection for possible weak points in pipelines.”
2011 – April 15th. Nuclear firm says it has no blueprint to resolve crisis. Sydney Morning Herald seems to be trying to paint a rosier picture.
2011 – April 14th. Edano forced to retract PM saying Fukushima permanently uninhabitable. Fukushima milk being sold to Japanese.
2011 – April 14th. Japan considering relocating Government out of Tokyo
2011 – April 13th. Radiation from Japan shows up in the Southern Hemisphere (Australia, Fiji, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea). “To date, more than 35 radionuclide stations that are part of the International Monitoring System (IMS) have provided information on the spread of radioactive particles and noble gases from the Fukushima accident.”
[A history of the global dispersal of radiation from the Japan nuclear emergency. 12th March – 3rd April 2011]
2011 – April 13th. First time radioactive cesium found in spinach, arugala and kale in the San Francisco Bay area.
2011 – April 12th. Japanese computer models for March 14th – 16th showed very heavy emissions of radioactive iodine and cesium. This month old assessment resulted in an upgrade of the nuclear disaster to Level 7 on 12th April 2011. Seiji Shiroya, a commissioner of Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission said that the government delayed issuing data on the extent of the radiation releases.
2011 – April 12th. Elevated levels of radiation found in Ontario
2011 – April 12th. “It’s been a month since the 9.0 Earthquake, tsunami, and the first of a series of explosions at the Daiichi reactors. Since that time, Japan has received 980 earthquakes and aftershocks: a number so staggering that it is almost incomprehensible. Numerous explosions have occurred as well, and every day it seems the Japanese nuclear and government official reveal a little more about the true nature of the on-going tragedy at Fukushima.”
2011 – April 12th. "The troubled nuclear plant… is facing a wide array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely, and that in some cases are expected to increase as a result of the very measures being taken to keep the plant stable,” according to a confidential NRC assessment.
2011 – April 12th. Radioactive Seaweed Detected In Puget Sound
2011 – April 12th. Secret weapons program inside Fukushima nuclear power plant?
2011 – April 11th. Strongest radioactive cloud covers Vietnam and dispersed on April 9th and 10th.
2011 – April 11th. Reporting has ceased on the dry well radiation readings of reactor number one. Have the nuclear fuel rods breached their containment core? “Japan now appears to have an abundance of radioactive sea salt that's unfortunately caked on top of the spent fuel rods and actually preventing much more water from reaching those rods. In a sense, spraying salt water on spent nuclear fuel rods is sort of like spraying them with a slow-acting insulation. It's only a matter of time, it seems, before that insulation make it impossible for water to keep the rods below meltdown temperatures.”
2011 – April 11th. Fukushima radiation taints US milk supplies at levels 300% higher than EPA maximums (figures from 2 weeks ago) + What’s wrong with the ‘science’ being used by the EPA.
2011 – April 11th. Meanwhile, a French Research Body On Radioactivity (CRIIRAD ) has broken stride with the corporate controlled media/experts and released a stern warning: “The risks associated with iodine-131 contamination in Europe are no longer “negligible.” Pregnant women and infants are advised against drinking fresh milk and eating vegetables with large leaves.
2011 – April 11th. Breaking News: New Quake Hits Japan, Fire At Fukushima Nuclear Reactor #4 Follows
2011 – April 11th. Extremely high levels of radiation in Japan. University researchers challenge official data.
2011 – April 11th. Russia to send back radioactive cars from Japan
2011 – April 11th. Yukio Edano: “"There are some places where cumulative levels of radiation are increasing depending on climate and geographical conditions, even outside of the 20-kilometre radius circle,". Japan added to the 20 kilometre evacuation zone … on Monday, as a powerful aftershock rattled the nation a month after its biggest recorded earthquake wrought devastation. The move to restricts pockets (only) beyond the current 20-kilometre evacuation area.” + The high priests of this kind of world tell us not to worry as they raise the limits of what is considered “safe” as they did in Japan—the water is now “safe” to drink in Tokyo because they moved the goal posts and raised the limits of what is “safe.” + “, the Japanese authorities have found that the areas beyond 20 km radius could be exposed to over 20mSv during the course of the next one year, approximately until next March…” 139
50 millisieverts (50,000 microsieverts) is the safety standard for evacuation. It assumes emissions are temporary. “We are discussing how best to issue evacuation orders based on data and standards for accumulative radiation.”
2011 – April 20th. Japan nuclear agency finally admits fuel has melted in reactors 1, 2 & 3
2011 – April 19th. Radiation at No. 2 spent fuel pool millions of times above normal & thousands of times higher than troubled No. 4 pool
2011 – April 19th. Chernobyl still leaking radiation. The current concrete “shield now has cracks, raising fears that 95% of the original nuclear material remaining inside the reactor could escape. Radiation levels directly over the sarcophagus are too high for the [new steel] arch to be built over it”
2011 – April 18th. Reports that hot radioactive fuel is being bulldozed into the ground.
2011 – April 18th. Hamaoka nuclear power plant must shut down. The reactors sit right above the spot where a massive Tokai region earthquake is predicted to strike.
2011 – April 18th. “"What is most serious is that even a month after the accident, we see no prospects of getting radioactive leakages under control," North Korean media reports.
2011 – April 19th. Clouds of radioactive steam rising from Fukushima reactors 1,3 and 4 at 6am.
2011 – April 18th. The Surrey Nuclear Power Plant in Virginia Forced to Shut Two of its Reactors after Tornado.
2011 – April 19th. A pair of thin robots on treads sent to explore buildings inside Japan's crippled nuclear reactor came back Monday with disheartening news: Radiation levels are far too high for repair crews to go inside.
2011 – April 18th. US Congressman Markey alleges that the head of the NRC told everyone not to write down risks they find from an earthquake greater than 6.0 (the Indian Point nuclear plant was only built to survive a 6.0 earthquake) 79
2011 – April 16th. Japan asks Brazil to ease food import rules (radiation-contaminated food). Brazil is considering the request.
2011 – April 16th. EU Raises Level Of Japan Nuclear Radiation Allowed On Ships, Cargo By 300%. Has already raised the amount of allowable radiation in food 20 fold.
16th April 2011: Japan Nuclear Radiation In San Francisco Milk Exceeds Infant Dose In Less Than 3 Gallons ….US FDA tolerates a much higher level of radiation contamination of food than does the US EPA. “FDA’s limit for Cesium-137 in a single liter of milk is 47 times higher than EPA’s annual maximum for human exposure…. There have already been allegations that EPA plans to relax radiation standards. In the wake of this conflict of agencies, expect someone to try to relax the MCL for radionuclides.”
2011 – April 17th. Breaking news on NHK at 7pm ET: Smoke/steam rising from ALL 4 reactor units — Workers evacuated
2011 – April 16th. Radiation in groundwater at the Number 2 reactor has increased 17-fold in a week
2011 – April 16th. “2 Days ago the waterlevel in no6 went down to zero (core barely covered) and the temp went up. A few hours later that data disappeared…. The waterlevel in all 3 (1, 2 and 3) reactors is much too low; the cores are "partially" exposed, meaning the upper half of the rods have melted down and the rubble is at the bottom: http://atmc.jp/plant/water/”
2011 – April 15th. Running for our lives. “so far the winds have blown most of the danger out to sea and onto the northern American continent. If the winds turn and blow to the south for any length of time it could mean curtains for Tokyo…. Life goes on as before and if you want evidence for that just look at your newspaper, Yahoo news summaries or your television to see. But sorry, that is not the truth—not true at all as a tragedy on a civilization-size scale silently falls down on us in the form of nuclear mists of fine very dangerous particles.” “Part of the world ended a month ago in terms of the total destruction of parts of northern Japan and it is true of energy production and industrial capacity, which are collapsing in Japan and around the world like dominoes….” When I saw the videos of explosions on the atomic power station in Japan I knew immediately it was a great catastrophe, and that information is being withheld on an unimaginable scale.”
2011 – April 15th. Dr Christopher Busby estimates that about 400,000 people within 200 kilometres of Fukushima will get cancer from this accident.
2011 – April 15th. Nuclear fuel has melted in three reactors at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and fallen to the lower sections of their container vessels, raising the specter of overheated material compromising a container and causing a massive radiation release, the Atomic Energy Society of Japan said in a report released on Friday.
What Really Happened Webmaster's Commentary
THE FULL ARTICLE: “Fuel in the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors has made contact with air, while the No. 3 reactor's rods have remained underwater, the group said…. Tokyo Electric Power indicated it could drop sandbags filled with zeolite into the nearby ocean as soon as Friday to help curb the spread of radioactive contaminants… Workers earlier this week transferred roughly 660 tons of radiation-tainted water out of an underground passage, but fluid flooding the area reached its original depth by Friday morning, …Contaminated water has hindered efforts to restore cooling mechanisms needed to help prevent additional radioactive material from escaping the site… A nuclear waste treatment area intended to receive the water was still undergoing inspection for possible weak points in pipelines.”
2011 – April 15th. Nuclear firm says it has no blueprint to resolve crisis. Sydney Morning Herald seems to be trying to paint a rosier picture.
2011 – April 14th. Edano forced to retract PM saying Fukushima permanently uninhabitable. Fukushima milk being sold to Japanese.
2011 – April 14th. Japan considering relocating Government out of Tokyo
2011 – April 13th. Radiation from Japan shows up in the Southern Hemisphere (Australia, Fiji, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea). “To date, more than 35 radionuclide stations that are part of the International Monitoring System (IMS) have provided information on the spread of radioactive particles and noble gases from the Fukushima accident.”
[A history of the global dispersal of radiation from the Japan nuclear emergency. 12th March – 3rd April 2011]
2011 – April 13th. First time radioactive cesium found in spinach, arugala and kale in the San Francisco Bay area.
2011 – April 12th. Japanese computer models for March 14th – 16th showed very heavy emissions of radioactive iodine and cesium. This month old assessment resulted in an upgrade of the nuclear disaster to Level 7 on 12th April 2011. Seiji Shiroya, a commissioner of Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission said that the government delayed issuing data on the extent of the radiation releases.
2011 – April 12th. Elevated levels of radiation found in Ontario
2011 – April 12th. “It’s been a month since the 9.0 Earthquake, tsunami, and the first of a series of explosions at the Daiichi reactors. Since that time, Japan has received 980 earthquakes and aftershocks: a number so staggering that it is almost incomprehensible. Numerous explosions have occurred as well, and every day it seems the Japanese nuclear and government official reveal a little more about the true nature of the on-going tragedy at Fukushima.”
2011 – April 12th. "The troubled nuclear plant… is facing a wide array of fresh threats that could persist indefinitely, and that in some cases are expected to increase as a result of the very measures being taken to keep the plant stable,” according to a confidential NRC assessment.
2011 – April 12th. Radioactive Seaweed Detected In Puget Sound
2011 – April 12th. Secret weapons program inside Fukushima nuclear power plant?
2011 – April 11th. Strongest radioactive cloud covers Vietnam and dispersed on April 9th and 10th.
2011 – April 11th. Reporting has ceased on the dry well radiation readings of reactor number one. Have the nuclear fuel rods breached their containment core? “Japan now appears to have an abundance of radioactive sea salt that's unfortunately caked on top of the spent fuel rods and actually preventing much more water from reaching those rods. In a sense, spraying salt water on spent nuclear fuel rods is sort of like spraying them with a slow-acting insulation. It's only a matter of time, it seems, before that insulation make it impossible for water to keep the rods below meltdown temperatures.”
2011 – April 11th. Fukushima radiation taints US milk supplies at levels 300% higher than EPA maximums (figures from 2 weeks ago) + What’s wrong with the ‘science’ being used by the EPA.
2011 – April 11th. Meanwhile, a French Research Body On Radioactivity (CRIIRAD ) has broken stride with the corporate controlled media/experts and released a stern warning: “The risks associated with iodine-131 contamination in Europe are no longer “negligible.” Pregnant women and infants are advised against drinking fresh milk and eating vegetables with large leaves.
2011 – April 11th. Breaking News: New Quake Hits Japan, Fire At Fukushima Nuclear Reactor #4 Follows
2011 – April 11th. Extremely high levels of radiation in Japan. University researchers challenge official data.
2011 – April 11th. Russia to send back radioactive cars from Japan
2011 – April 11th. Yukio Edano: “"There are some places where cumulative levels of radiation are increasing depending on climate and geographical conditions, even outside of the 20-kilometre radius circle,". Japan added to the 20 kilometre evacuation zone … on Monday, as a powerful aftershock rattled the nation a month after its biggest recorded earthquake wrought devastation. The move to restricts pockets (only) beyond the current 20-kilometre evacuation area.” + The high priests of this kind of world tell us not to worry as they raise the limits of what is considered “safe” as they did in Japan—the water is now “safe” to drink in Tokyo because they moved the goal posts and raised the limits of what is “safe.” + “, the Japanese authorities have found that the areas beyond 20 km radius could be exposed to over 20mSv during the course of the next one year, approximately until next March…” 139
50 millisieverts (50,000 microsieverts) is the safety standard for evacuation. It assumes emissions are temporary. “We are discussing how best to issue evacuation orders based on data and standards for accumulative radiation.”
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Abolish The Debt Ceiling!
That's my solution to the impending crisis over raising the legal US debt ceiling that threatens to shut down the US government, throwing us into many difficulties, and possibly crashing global financial markets if the US Treasury defaults on debt, thereby possibly throwing us back into a deep global recession. It is fear of political paralysis over raising the debt ceiling that lies behind the S&P's announcement yesterday of a downgrade to "negative" of prospects for US debt ratings, even though that remains AAA, which has in turn triggered Republicans like Eric Cantor to double down on demanding stronger budget cuts (really do in Planned Paranthood???) as the price for allowing another round of raising the debt ceiling.
As near as I can tell, I am the first person to publicly call for abolishing the debt ceiling, but there are very good reasons for doing so. The top is that the US is the only country in the world that I could find after considerable searching that even has one. Lots of googling only turned up a 2009 move in Germany to limit debt by its states, or Lander, although not on its federal government. A study by the Congressional Research Service, updated in 2008, made estimates of "debt ceilings" for many countries, but these were based on estimates of those countries' abilities to handle the interest payments of their debts, and the paper explicitly distinguished these artificially estimated debt ceilings from the "US legal debt ceiling" http://fpc.state.gov/documents.organization/105193.pdf . This study covered pretty much all of the high income OECD economies. Maybe Gambia or some other totally obscure country has a debt ceiling like the US does, but so far I have been unable to find a single one, much less any that have ever had one.
So where did it come from? The first such debt ceiling was imposed by Congress in 1917 at the time of US entry into WW I, when they passed the Second Liberty Bond Act, which allowed the US Treasury to issue long term bonds to fund the war effort. That initial debt ceiling involved several, each tied to different kinds and maturities of the US debt instruments. In 1939 these were unified into a single overall debt ceiling, which has been our system ever since. With the massive borrowing during WW II, the ceiling was raised by huge amounts each year. In more recent years, until now, the increases have usually been pro forma, with a total of 69 such increases since 1962.
So, this is something that people completely take for granted in the US, but for which there has never really been any good reason to have and now is clearly a major source of potential damage and trouble, with nothing good served at all by continuing to keep it. The irony is that it is especially ridiculous in a system of divided executive and legislative power such as we have, although that is probably why it was put in in the first place, to keep a war-fighting executive in line. In parliamentary democracies, if there is a profound dispute over budgets, there is a vote of no confidence, the government falls, there is an election, and the new one gets to deal with the mess. In ours, there is no fall of government if there is a breakdown between the branches as we seem to be heading towards, but we may get a politically caused financial collapse for which there is absolutely no good reason whatsoever, a weird gift from Mr. Madison's separation of powers.
So, I say, let us get rid of this dangerous monstrosity, the sooner the better. Abolish the US debt ceiling, and now!
As near as I can tell, I am the first person to publicly call for abolishing the debt ceiling, but there are very good reasons for doing so. The top is that the US is the only country in the world that I could find after considerable searching that even has one. Lots of googling only turned up a 2009 move in Germany to limit debt by its states, or Lander, although not on its federal government. A study by the Congressional Research Service, updated in 2008, made estimates of "debt ceilings" for many countries, but these were based on estimates of those countries' abilities to handle the interest payments of their debts, and the paper explicitly distinguished these artificially estimated debt ceilings from the "US legal debt ceiling" http://fpc.state.gov/documents.organization/105193.pdf . This study covered pretty much all of the high income OECD economies. Maybe Gambia or some other totally obscure country has a debt ceiling like the US does, but so far I have been unable to find a single one, much less any that have ever had one.
So where did it come from? The first such debt ceiling was imposed by Congress in 1917 at the time of US entry into WW I, when they passed the Second Liberty Bond Act, which allowed the US Treasury to issue long term bonds to fund the war effort. That initial debt ceiling involved several, each tied to different kinds and maturities of the US debt instruments. In 1939 these were unified into a single overall debt ceiling, which has been our system ever since. With the massive borrowing during WW II, the ceiling was raised by huge amounts each year. In more recent years, until now, the increases have usually been pro forma, with a total of 69 such increases since 1962.
So, this is something that people completely take for granted in the US, but for which there has never really been any good reason to have and now is clearly a major source of potential damage and trouble, with nothing good served at all by continuing to keep it. The irony is that it is especially ridiculous in a system of divided executive and legislative power such as we have, although that is probably why it was put in in the first place, to keep a war-fighting executive in line. In parliamentary democracies, if there is a profound dispute over budgets, there is a vote of no confidence, the government falls, there is an election, and the new one gets to deal with the mess. In ours, there is no fall of government if there is a breakdown between the branches as we seem to be heading towards, but we may get a politically caused financial collapse for which there is absolutely no good reason whatsoever, a weird gift from Mr. Madison's separation of powers.
So, I say, let us get rid of this dangerous monstrosity, the sooner the better. Abolish the US debt ceiling, and now!
Monday, April 18, 2011
A Laugher for Tax Day
Arthur Laffer is always good for a laugh. Sensitive to the heavy burden borne by readers of the Wall Street Journal, he bemoans the fact that the rich must employ so many people to find or develop tax loopholes. His remedy is to allow the rich to avoid taxes on capital income altogether with the flat tax.
Laffer, Arthur. 2011. "The 30-Cent Tax Premium: Tax compliance employs more workers than Wal-Mart, UPS, McDonald's, IBM and Citigroup combined." Wall Street Journal (18 April).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704116404576262761032853554.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
Laffer, Arthur. 2011. "The 30-Cent Tax Premium: Tax compliance employs more workers than Wal-Mart, UPS, McDonald's, IBM and Citigroup combined." Wall Street Journal (18 April).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704116404576262761032853554.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
Saturday, April 16, 2011
The Latest Effort To Mess With Social Security
Meteor Blades at http://www.dailykos.com reports that Senators Graham, Paul, and Lee are proposing to put in a phased increase in the Social Security retirement age to 70 and to also limit the benefits paid to higher income people. First of all, I agree with Dean Baker and Bruce Webb, both of whom continue to do yeoman labor pointing out the many flaws in the arguments by many commentators about social security, that there is no serious financing problem with social security.
That said, I agree with Blades that this is a pernicious proposal. Raising the retirement age will hurt minority and blue collar workers. It is also not clear that we will continue to see increases in life expectancy, with poor white women particularly showing declining life expectancy in recent stats. Yes, cutting benefits to higher income types would be progressive, but it would also undercut them being willing to support the system. If somewhere down the road (not now), a fix is needed, raising the income cap on fica would be preferable as a progressive solution.
I also note that these proposals resemble those put out by Bowles and Simpson, who co-chaired the Cat Food Commission, and which some commentators think was wonderful, although the commission never formally put anything out as a whole, due to opposition to any tax increases by the likes of Paul Ryan. Ironically, Ryan has left social security alone in his bizarre budget proposal, just passed by the House without a single Dem supporting it. He is too busy going after medicare and medicaid, while proposing massive tax cuts for the rich that mean that his budget would run even higher deficits over the next decade than the status quo. What a joke, given all the serious commentators claiming he was "serious."
That said, I agree with Blades that this is a pernicious proposal. Raising the retirement age will hurt minority and blue collar workers. It is also not clear that we will continue to see increases in life expectancy, with poor white women particularly showing declining life expectancy in recent stats. Yes, cutting benefits to higher income types would be progressive, but it would also undercut them being willing to support the system. If somewhere down the road (not now), a fix is needed, raising the income cap on fica would be preferable as a progressive solution.
I also note that these proposals resemble those put out by Bowles and Simpson, who co-chaired the Cat Food Commission, and which some commentators think was wonderful, although the commission never formally put anything out as a whole, due to opposition to any tax increases by the likes of Paul Ryan. Ironically, Ryan has left social security alone in his bizarre budget proposal, just passed by the House without a single Dem supporting it. He is too busy going after medicare and medicaid, while proposing massive tax cuts for the rich that mean that his budget would run even higher deficits over the next decade than the status quo. What a joke, given all the serious commentators claiming he was "serious."
Thursday, April 14, 2011
"A Letter from John Ketch, Esq. Asserting His Right to the Necks of the Over-Grown Brokers." (1721).
John Ketch was the famous hangman, long-dead at the time, but John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, the authors of the Cato's Letters published this call for the punishment of the banksters who perpetrated the disastrous South Sea Bubble. Sadly, the bankers went unpunished, beginning a long tradition.
Justice is not dead in the United States. Barry Bonds is convicted of his high crime. Our country is protected from Bradley Manning. And besides, Martha Stewart served time. The real culprits go free. Instead, the people will pay the price, while financial profits soar.
Justice is not dead in the United States. Barry Bonds is convicted of his high crime. Our country is protected from Bradley Manning. And besides, Martha Stewart served time. The real culprits go free. Instead, the people will pay the price, while financial profits soar.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)