Very Loud, Very Hot Freedom | You Are Dumb

Very Loud, Very Hot Freedom | You Are Dumb

Deregulation, in contrast to smart regulation (which may include less or different regulation) is sociopathic, insane, and deadly.

I Choo-Choo-Choose Not To Die At Work

The link below goes to a great post about how deeply the rational actor theory has infected economic thought.  I always found it laughable to use the RAT (see what I did there?) to describe the real world, but this is no longer funny.

Hullabaloo

Debt And Growth

I read R&R's book. It's an interesting historical survey. And totally inapplicable to our current monetary system, and thus fairly useless as an analysis of or commentary on our current macroeconomic climate. And this article points out that they appear to be cooking the numbers to support their thesis.

Fatal Fallacy 4

I posted #3 a while back, but wanted to pick up the series again. I'm posting #4 for the sake of completeness, but I would be lying if I told you I really understand this one. Focus on the last, italicized (mine), part.

Fallacy 4

Inflation is called the "cruelest tax." The perception seems to be that if only prices would stop rising, one's income would go further, disregarding the consequences for income.

Upward Redistribution

There has been some labor unrest in China. I'm sadly kind of surprised they haven't been massacred. But that isn't the point. A mainstream, allegedly "Left" economics writer, Matt Yglesias, doesn't seem to understand what he's talking about.

Why are workers rioting in China? Because, says Matt, of the large gap between labor productivity and labor compensation there, which is similar to how things once were in the US and Western Europe but is unlike anything in the contemporary US.
Oh really? Since 1973, labor productivity in the US has risen 80.4 percent. Yet median wages have increased only 4 percent, and median compensation as a whole—which includes benefits—has only increased 10.7 percent.

Workers are more productive than ever, and the substantial reward goes to the top. If you think this is unrelated to the decline in Union membership and power, you are silly.

Why Don't They Just Get Jobs?

[via Crooked Timber]

This article is stunning.

Using a different definition of distress, Luke Shaefer of the University of Michigan and Kathryn Edin of Harvard examined the share of households with children in a given month living on less than $2 per person per day. It has nearly doubled since 1996, to almost 4 percent. Even when counting food stamps as cash, they found one of every 50 children live in such a household.

From the original post: "The result is striking because of the $2 figure, which is derived, not from a US poverty line, but from the World Bank Poverty line for developing countries. These children aren’t just poor by American standards - they would be considered poor in sub-Saharan Africa."

If we, as a nation, are to be judged not by the success of the wealthiest, but by the suffering of the poorest, I submit we are a failure.

It is hard to tell which of Clinton's policy choices was the worst (NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagal, the much-vaunted surplus), but "ending welfare as we know it" has got to be among the most cruel and short-sighted. And "liberals" idolize that asshole.

Dumb, But Amusing

Putting aside the idiocy of the message behind it, I actually think "Owebama" is kinda clever. Yeah, that's a lot to put aside. It does frustrate me that the debt is only an issue to the Right when a Democrat is in office, but then again, it frustrates me that the debt is an issue at all. 

This came up in the context of the nontroversy about the $716 billion that the ACA cuts from MediCare. Never mind the internal inconsistency of calling a President who cuts almost three quarters of a trillion out of the budget "Owebama," the idea that this means the Dems are hostile to MediCare, and the Republicans are going to "save" it is farcical. But keeping a consistent viewpoint and not just reacting on a purely partisan, emotional level is not really most folks' bag, or so the Intertubes keep trying to tell me.

Niall Ferguson: Still Being Given A Forum To Embarass Himself [UPDATED]

Update: Salon does it better, of course.

As a historian, Ferguson may have valuable insights, especially if you are sympathetic to the "White European Men Rock!" strain of historical analysis. But in many other ways, not least as a political commentator, he's just horrible. The link takes on one dumb point, the link inside the link (to Krugman) takes on another, but I just love this line of argument:

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

Is this satire? Irony? Or is Ferguson's understanding of the American political process at the Federal level so poor that he doesn't realize that the Congress, not Obama, dictates what laws are passed? Does he not get that the House has been Republican for two years? Does he not understand the significance of the filibuster, or the median vote in the Senate?

The rest of his article blathers on about the debt (which Ferguson does not understand), foreign policy (neoconservative garbage and apologetics) and is basically a big commercial for Romney 2012. It isn't that Ferguson is awful, it that he is respected that kills me. Hacktacular indeed.

The "Self-Made" Myth

[via G&T comment section]

This looks like an interesting read. The ignorance of history and lack of common sense needed to believe the myth that America's wealthy are the product solely of their own hard work is staggering. Fair arguments can be made about the optimal extent of government involvement in the market, but the die-hard Randian types are stunningly, glaring wrong. Of course government can needlessly constrain individual achievement, and of course it can make unwise policy choices. But the harm to our society from the efforts that go too far the other way, that is, to limit regulation and and "let loose the power of the market," seems, to me, to be vastly more detrimental.

Fish In A Barrel

To be fair, the argument being destroyed in this piece is so absurd and over-the-top that destroying it is like, well, see the title of this blog. OTOH, so much talk from the right is based on the kinds of absurd lies and misrepresentations that Mosler addresses, I thought it useful to see them refuted in this style.

Shocker!

[via Eschaton]
Otherwise law-abiding people who are cut off from public assistance may turn to crime.

Austrian Economics: Rarely Correct, Always Hysterical

In lieu of the hysterical, paranoid, evidence-free rants I have subjected myself to in an effort to understand "hard money" believers and their hard-on for returning to the Gold Standard, here is a response to the hysteria. Reading the Austrian/Gold-bug material is like reading the early American sermons of people like Jonathan Edwards (no, not this dick). Fevered religious nonsense, based on magical thinking and a deep misunderstanding of how the world actually works.

Gold vs. Fiat

[I just realized this is a re-post of the same article, but it is important, so in case you missed the original, I'll keep this one, too]

Understanding that we are not on the gold standard, and what fiat currency means is essential to understanding public discourse with respect to our Federal budget. Suffice to say virtually all the discussion is based on inapplicable gold standard logic.

A Great Piece On The Fed

[via facebook]

Referring to Alan Greenspan:

He pointed out before Congress that the virtue of loading down homeowners, college students and others with debt was that they were afraid to go on strike or even complain about working conditions or seek higher wages, for fear of being fired and missing a mortgage payment or credit-card payment.

Referring to Ron Paul:

Ron Paul’s proposal opposes paper credit itself, whether issued by the Fed or the Treasury. He wants to return to the gold standard and clash government spending – in effect, to create an economy without government. So what he actually advocates is not only the end of the Fed, but the end of a functioning credit and tax system. The idea is otherworldly and has no possible chance of being enacted, because it would cause a vast debt default as a result of plunging prices, incomes and employment.

 Read the whole piece here.

Health Care Is Not A Commodity

I have seen a number of "let the free market run naked in the yard and nature will take its course"-type arguments about heath care. The main problem is, health care doesn't fit the traditional definition of a commodity. I don't want the government involved in the business of making things. But health care doesn't fit into the model that shows that market forces are best at allocating resources.

Please see this rather academic pdf for an explanation. Krugman weighs in here.

The Actual Problem With The Deficit

Too small. The link at the end of paragraph 3 of the article is also worth a read.

I understand why people have a hard time accepting that the entire public debate on the deficit is premised on a falsehood (actually, many falsehoods), because it is upsetting to think that almost everyone, including every major political figure in Washington, has it wrong.

I also understand why well-educated people with MBAs, or at least an Econ major, for which they paid a lot of money, need to believe that what they were taught was correct. The implicit argument from authority is easily justified when your authority teaches at Harvard, or the like. Especially when you agree with the authority's political views, like I agree with Krugman (mostly).

The simple fact is, the linked article describes the reality of the modern monetary and banking systems. Its premises are all based on facts, not theories, and many, if not all, of the implications are backed up by data. Regardless of where you learned it, if the model that you use to describe things actually describes neither the past nor the present, you may wish to reconsider your model.

"Beyond Austerity"

A very good analysis of why we are where we are economically, and why austerity is exactly the wrong thing to do about it.

The Answer To "Get A Job!"

If only millions of Americans didn't suddenly become lazy, we wouldn't be in this mess! The "argument" really is that dumb.

If every open job were filled tomorrow, 75% of the unemployed would still be out of work.

Ron Paul Is Nuts

I find it most disturbing (like Darth Vader your-lack-of-faith disturbing) that otherwise sentient people find Ron Paul's candidacy appealing. Note, I said "candidacy." I agree with RP on a few things, like the "War On Drugs," and our imperialism. But, the dude is whack, as the kids may still be saying. Check it. The idea of a man so unwaveringly married to a patently unrealistic (as well, as inhumane) world-view being President is brain-bruising. Plus, the dude's a racist, straight up.

And yet, in the never-ending pursuit of showing how desperately ignorant they are, some folk apparently believe that such fervent religiosity of ideals is just what this country needs. Yikes.

We Are Not On The Gold Standard

One simply cannot pretend to understand issues of macroeconomics (the so-called "debt crisis" chief among them) if one does not understand this fact and its significance. Please read this.