[y66]

That Stockman piece was pretty good. I agree with his criticism of Obama's position on extending tax cuts for the middle class and I enjoyed his literary flair in sentences like these

Quote

Such fiscal jabberwocky ignores the fact that we have experienced a recession every five years or so for the last six decades ... the United States does not have a divine right to issue any amount of interim debt that suits the ideological convenience of the two parties ... the Democrats are immobilized because Keynesians insist on kicking the budgetary can down the road until cyclical “demand” has in their estimation fully recovered, while Republicans sit on their hands because supply-siders insist on letting the deficit fester until tax cuts work their alleged revenue magic .

It will be interesting to hear what Mr. Bernanke says Wednesday about post QE2 policy. Hard to imagine him even hinting that more expansion is needed, even if he believes it.

[Winstonm]

This is the 800 lb. gorilla that no one is talking about:

Quote

With the central banks no longer ready to buy, the Treasury market will once again be driven by real investors — many of them likely to demand higher interest rates owing to the heightened fiscal risks recently highlighted by Standard & Poor’s. Ominously, the biggest and baddest of these real investors, the quarter-trillion-dollar Pimco Total Return Fund, has already thrown down the gauntlet by selling Uncle Sam’s paper short.

Hell hath no fury like a bond market scorned.

[kenberg]

I distrust literary flair. Anyway, I didn't think that one sends an R.S.V.P. in response to an invitation. You send the R don't you?

Nonetheless I liked

Quote

A quasi-bankrupt nation saddled with rampant casino capitalism on Wall Street and a disemboweled, offshored economy on Main Street requires practical and equitable ways to pay its bills.

Fundamentally, the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership are attempting to outdo each other in slinging bull. Stockman says as much, I agree. "rampant casino capitalism" seems like a pretty good description of what's going on. There is this guy who comes around with a truck, accompanied by his English speaking wife, and does some tree work for us. That's free enterprise that I understand. I get my trees taken care of, he makes a probably pretty good living. What the guys on Wall Street do is something different. They make a very good living, but it does not get my trees cut. I think that there might be some across party line support for telling these folks that the jig is up.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2011-April-24, 18:20, said:

What the guys on Wall Street do is something different. They make a very good living, but it does not get my trees cut. I think that there might be some across party line support for telling these folks that the jig is up.

You didn't follow the legislative process around financial regulation, did you?

[JLOGIC]

cherdano, on 2011-April-25, 05:49, said:

You didn't follow the legislative process around financial regulation, did you?

lol

[cherdano]

Spence Bachus, Republican House member from Alabama, and the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, defines his role as follows:

Quote

In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.

The article goes on to note that "He later clarified his comment to say that regulators should set the parameters in which banks operate but not micromanage them." Glad he cleared that up.

(There is some ground for bipartisanship, though. Just like his Democratic predecessor, he is receiving substantial campaign donations from the financial services industry.)

[kenberg]

The public relations office of Ken Berg has just released the following clarification of his remark about across party line support:

The remark was not intended to apply to those bozos in Washington. It was to refer to the little people, the salt of the Earth, the backbone of America. Me, in other words.

Joking aside (yes, the above was meant to be joking) it seems to me that a distinction should be made between government interference in tree cutting and government interference with the banking industry's goal of ripping off the entire country. It also seems like my Republican neighbors might appreciate this distinction. I don't need to take a year of study to see if my trees have been cut well. If the job is done badly, we can all settle that on our own. I don't understand banking and I hope to not have to learn it.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2011-April-18, 09:06, said:

I'm squirreling money away. Long term, Costa Rica is sounding nice...

Simply put, the US is *****ed.
The populace no longer has the maturity necessary to deal with the issues confronting the country.
I'm expecting things to get real ugly...

As a practical example, look at the current debate over the budget.

I suspect that everyone knows what real long term budget reform looks like:

1. Single payer health care
2. Health care rationing for end of life care
3. Dramatically scale back defense spending
4. Simplifying the tax codes
4. Slash agricultural subsidies

Unfortunately, the country doesn't seem capable of even discussing these issues let alone implementing them

Add in a host of addition challenges related to the education system and climate change and we screwed.

I'm sure I'm not that uncommon in that there are a couple other discussion forums to which I contribute, and I - from my limited personal experience on those - have to side with Richard on this one - the amount of willful ignorance in the U.S. seems to be growing exponentially - and to me, it has a faith-like feel to it, as the party line is treated as if it were inerrant gospel, and controversies like global warming, wars, taxes, and healthcare reform are explained away with an almost apologetic-like disdain for reasoned dialogue.

[kenberg]

To take Richard's points one at a time:

1. Single payer: Probably, but I don't really know. I have this 90 page booklet around somewhere that I am supposed to read to decide on my health care choices. Maybe my wife will do it. I think we stick with the plan we have. I don't understand it but it seems to work. I mentioned that a friend just finished a forty day stay at Johns Hopkins Medical Center. That costs some bucks no matter who pays for it or how many payers there are. We can do some wonderful things in medicine that we could not do twenty or even ten years ago. Most of them cost a lot. Still, the complexity is baffling to everyone and must be a drain on cash.

2. End of Life etc. Ever since my father died thirty some years ago it has been crystal clear to me that life is finite. I do not expect my wife, my family or my country to invest large sums of money prolonging it all for a month or two.

3. Defense spending: I recognize the need for military preparedness and also the need for military action. I would hope it could be scaled way back. This would be, I think, a good way to advance the interests of our country.

4. Simplifying the tax code: A life as simple as mine should not lead to tax complexity but it seems that it does.

5. Agricultural subsides: These things have a life and a logic of their own. Very few have any justification as far as I know. My favorite: Apparently we subsidize cotton farming and exports to an extent that Brazilian farmers successfully brought a claim against us in international court for unfair practices. The solution is that we now also subsidize Brazilian cotton farmers.


But here, I think, is the problem in a nutshell: It's my view that as long as everyone shares in the burden, I expect that part of a reasonable solution will be that my own taxes will go up. A more common view is for people to believe that the solution is for someone else's taxes to go up, and/or we should cut programs that benefit someone else. We are desperately in need of honest discussion and negotiation.

[Winstonm]

Ken,

As for healthcare, I really do not think the question is one of economics so much as a philosophical one: is healthcare a business or a right of all citizens? If it is a right, then it should be provided - and the costs would have to be tackled by the new system and the government. We could eliminate 95% of our total defense spending (not just DoD budget but all types of defense spending) and completely provide quality healthcare for everyone.

I think healthcare should be considered a right - not a benefit and not a profit-making business model.

I am of the opinion that dismantling the present system in itself would contribute mightily to reducing future costs. Would this lead to some type of limits to care - sure it would - who cares? A universal good system better serves humanity than a elusive great system that only wealth can afford.

[awm]

I'm not quite as pessimistic as hrothgar seems to be. Our government is usually pretty good at doing nothing. It seems quite possible that in two years when the Bush tax cuts expire, the two sides will be unable to come to a compromise and the whole thing will end up expiring (probably both sides trying to blame each other in the press). If the entire Bush tax cuts expire, we are well on our way to a balanced budget! One of the big issues in late 2010 was that Obama really seemed to want the middle-class part of the tax cuts extended and was willing to compromise in order to get that. However, after 2012 Obama will no longer be up for re-election and the economy will hopefully be in better shape, both of which make the middle-class tax cuts seem less important.

It is true that pretty much every other country in the world does a better job of controlling health care costs than the USA. Hopefully when the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) really gets up and running it will help some in this regard. There are several states currently trying to experiment with single payer (notably Vermont and California). This is basically how single payer got started in Canada (one province adopted it, and it spread) so maybe it will catch on in the US too.

We need to address our bloated military budget too, and while Winston's 95% cut seems highly unlikely, there is some acceptance from Republicans that cuts to the pentagon should be part of deficit reduction. Obama's new secretary of defense (Leon Panetta) is apparently a big budget-cutter and may find some savings in the military budget.

[cherdano]

awm, on 2011-April-29, 02:51, said:

We need to address our bloated military budget too, and while Winston's 95% cut seems highly unlikely, there is some acceptance from Republicans that cuts to the pentagon should be part of deficit reduction.

I'll believe it when I see the vote. The last round of budget cuts included an increase in spending for the military.

[kenberg]

It's desirable to have broad support for positions so let me just say a word about my own reactions.

If someone says "We have some serious problems with the delivery of medical care. The costs are spiraling upward and everyday people are not able to cope" my reaction is along the lines of "Let's see what we can do and what it will cost". If instead someone says "I have a right to medical care, I will give you my list of what I want and tell you how much money you should send me to support this right that I have" my reaction is not as positive, not by a long shot.

Generally I think that phrasing things in terms of rights is a mistake, both philosophically and tactically. To use an analogy Winston might appreciate, it's too much like "It's in the Bible so you have to do it". My health care is fine but I recognize a need both for the country and the less fortunate. I'm up for supporting reasonable solutions. Suggesting that economics is irrelevant because health care is simply a right will get my back up, and I think needlessly so.

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on 2011-April-29, 03:26, said:

I'll believe it when I see the vote. The last round of budget cuts included an increase in spending for the military.

In the Bizarro World of the Beltway, a decrease in the increase is called saving money.

My wife uses this same reasoning with sale items at the grocery story. "I saved $12. They were 2 for 1."

"But we don't have a dog."

"Oh, yeah. I stopped by the kennel on the way home..."

[kenberg]

Just be thankful that the kennel was not having a 2 for the price of 1 sale. Although I suppose you could call them Bill and Hillary.

[y66]

I don't think there's any hard science on this but I'm pretty sure the anecdotal evidence suggests that people who own dogs have fewer health problems. Not sure about cats. I've got one of each, just in case.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2011-April-29, 07:21, said:

I don't think there's any hard science on this but I'm pretty sure the anecdotal evidence suggests that people who own dogs have fewer health problems. Not sure about cats. I've got one of each, just in case.

One of each? You mean two anecdotes? What do you feed an anecdote? Me? I've got a dachsund - one of neither.

[helene_t]

y66, on 2011-April-29, 07:21, said:

I don't think there's any hard science on this but I'm pretty sure the anecdotal evidence suggests that people who own dogs have fewer health problems. Not sure about cats. I've got one of each, just in case.

Plenty of studies in the scientific literature but most are based on too small sample sizes to yield firm conclusions. This one seems ok:
http://www.springerl...g7286044411447/

[hrothgar]

y66, on 2011-April-29, 07:21, said:

I don't think there's any hard science on this but I'm pretty sure the anecdotal evidence suggests that people who own dogs have fewer health problems. Not sure about cats. I've got one of each, just in case.

Methinks you may have made a costly assumption about casuality...

Let's assume that there is some kind of strong causal link between "Health" and "Owns a Dog"

One possible interpretation of this result is "The act of buying a dog will improve my health".
However, it would be equally valid to hypothesize: "It takes a lot of time and effort to care for a dog, therefore sickly people are rarely dog owners."

And of course, there is always the possibility of some hidden variable (like rats!)

[kenberg]

Dogs expect to be walked.
Walking is good for people.
Therefore....

Yes, we can take a daily walk without owning a dog. We don't. QED