[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-13, 13:06, said:

The US inflation rate was below 3% [only for] 22 years in the last 50 you can count them here.

Yes, the terrible US inflation that your chart shows for the 1970s and early 1980s was very disruptive. Those were the years where retirees encountered severe financial problems here.

[blackshoe]

From the prologue to David Weber's novel The Short Victorious War:

"What this country needs is a short, victorious war to stem the tide of revolution." — V.K. Plehve, Russian Minister of the Interior to General A.N. Kuroparfon, Minister of War, 200 Ante-Diaspora (1903 C.E.), on the eve of the Russo-Japanese War

"The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions." Robert Lynd — (224-154 Ante-Diaspora)

Russia lost their war. The Republic of Haven lost theirs too — the Republic was overthrown in a coup, and became The Peoples' Republic of Haven, ruled with an iron fist by the Committee of Public Safety.

Nothing directly to do with economics, I suppose, but something in the last couple of posts triggered my memory of it.

[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-13, 11:56, said:

Thus low velocity can suggest lots of things. A greater fraction of income devoted to savings. A general reduction of debt. A change in the relative proportions of the money supplies. A change in prices. Or real growth. Or it can indicate that no one wants to buy the goods that are being created.

Yes, there are many factors that affect velocity, and the government can't force folks to spend all of their money or to spend it quickly. Indeed there is a tension between the value of saving to us as individuals and the importance of spending to the health of the economy overall. What the government can reasonably do to increase velocity -- and thereby boost the economy -- is to direct governmental spending so that the money reaches the pockets of those most likely to spend it rather than to those who will sock it away.

The Bush administration's TARP program did avert the disastrous failure of our banking system, but didn't boost the economy to the degree that they had hoped. Instead of loaning the money to businesses and consumers, which would have helped to jumpstart the economy, the banks protected their corporate interests (as corporate officers are obligated to do) by sitting on the billions that they were loaned.

[PassedOut]

Although the US Senate voted to retain the ethanol subsidy yesterday -- pandering once again to the free lunch farmers of the midwest -- it was heartening that 34 republicans broke with Grover Norquist's powerful free lunch lobby to vote against that subsidy. In contrast, all but 7 democrats voted to continue the free lunch: Senate vote to repeal ethanol tax credit fails, but some in GOP break ranks

Quote

“You’ve got 34 Republicans that say they’re willing to end this, regardless of what Grover says,” Coburn said, referring to pledge creator Grover G. Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform. “That’s 34 Republicans that say this is more important than a signed pledge to ATR.”

Many GOP senators were emphatic in their support for the Coburn measure, suggesting that a crack may be opening in the Republican front against new revenue — a development that could help ease a path to a debt-reduction compromise with Democrats, who are insisting on additional revenue as part of any deal.

“Everybody’s entitled to their own opinion,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), when asked whether wiping out the ethanol credit is tantamount to raising taxes. “It’s my opinion that it’s a disgraceful subsidy that is unwarranted and a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a participant in bipartisan talks led by Vice President Biden aimed at forging a debt-reduction agreement, said Coburn’s “willingness to cut special-interest tax breaks for the purpose of deficit reduction is encouraging.”

“A realistic conversation about deficit reduction must include both cuts and revenues, and Senator Coburn’s amendment to eliminate $6 billion in tax earmarks for ethanol is an important part of this discussion,” Van Hollen said.

Both of my senators voted to continue that particular free lunch and have heard from me about it. I hope other voters put pressure on their people in congress to stop this kind of crap -- and to thank the republicans who had the courage to thumb their noses at Grover Norquist's free lunch lobby.

[phil_20686]

In somewhat unrelated news, Britians Austerity package seems to be working ok, as unemployment has registered a large drop despite government layoffs. No idea how significant this will be in the long term, but we will see.

[y66]

UK unemployment is indeed at its lowest level in nearly 2 years. But if this is what OK looks like, god help the UK.



Paging Mr. Keynes.

[phil_20686]

y66, on 2011-June-15, 12:59, said:

UK unemployment is indeed at its lowest level in nearly 2 years. But if this is what OK looks like, god help the UK.



Paging Mr. Keynes.

but then I could produce this graph:

Sorry teh forums do not support .gif extensions

and point out that following a recession 7% really is not that bad to start with. And that this fall of 88000 was in the face of government layoffs of 140000 or so, so private sector employment grew my nearly a whole percentage point. I am quite up beat about the state of the UK economy, I think productivity is rebounding strongly, but the statistics are masked by falling deficit spending (masks real gdp growth) and government layoffs (which mask employment growth in the private sector).

Obviously there is still some way to go, but I am optimistic.

[PassedOut]

US health-care reform is changing incentives, and hospitals are responding: Hospitals courting primary-care doctors

Quote

The law will reward teams of doctors, nurses and others if they coordinate to provide better care at lower costs. As front-line doctors, primary-care physicians are key to this effort.

In some cases, hospitals are seeking to take over existing practices; in others, they are hiring new graduates or relocating doctors from outside the region to prepare for accountable-care organizations.

Change is always difficult for some, but change that injects accountability is needed to cut the waste from the medical system that the US endures today.

[PassedOut]

But change is easier for politicians. If you wish to blame something for your failures -- earmarks, for example -- you simply abolish the word "earmark" from your vocabulary and choose a new, less vivid, phrase for it: House earmarks morph into ‘programmatic requests’

Quote

Cutting the $553 billion base Defense Department budget is made that much harder when House members continue their long-standing habit of slipping into it “little” multimillion-dollar items that once were called earmarks.

In the House version fiscal 2012 Defense Authorization Bill they became en banc amendments approved without public discussion in committee (Armed Services) and on the House floor, and financed from a $650 million Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund, which was created by reducing other programs.

The House Appropriations Committee has taken a more subtle approach. Instead of its old habit of soliciting earmarks, it now asks members to provide “programmatic requests” ahead of subcommittee markups.

Yep, a truly bipartisan agreement to maintain business as usual. Who says the parties can't find common ground?

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-June-21, 06:45, said:

Who says the parties can't find common ground?

not me, although some still use the term 'free lunchers' when talking about some, but not all, politicians... they're *all* free lunchers, some are just better at hiding that fact

[blackshoe]

Ron Paul?

[luke warm]

at least you know where he stands on issues... get rid of the fed, simplify the tax code, pull back the military

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on 2011-June-22, 03:58, said:

at least you know where he stands on issues... get rid of the fed, simplify the tax code, pull back the military

Reduce the states to 13 colonies, reinstitute agrarian economy, wear powdered wigs...

"If I could turn back time." Cher

[blackshoe]

Of course. You don't agree with him, so you ridicule him. Typical.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-June-21, 16:00, said:

they're *all* free lunchers, some are just better at hiding that fact

Ron Paul on the free lunch

Quote

The truth is that many politicians and voters essentially believe in a free lunch. They believe in a free lunch because they don't understand basic economics, and therefore assume government can spend us into prosperity. This is the fallacy that pervades American politics today.

It's reasonable to debate what expenditures the government should make. And many of the expenditures are disastrously foolish, with the Iraq war at the very top of the recent list. But that war was authorized by our representatives -- as is every dollar that has been spent, whether wisely or foolishly. As a citizen, I'm obligated to pay my share (in reality, more than my share) of that debt, whether I agree with the spending or not.

Anyone -- regardless of party -- who takes tax increases "off the table" in our circumstances is properly labeled a free luncher. The alternative to paying higher taxes to cover the deficit and to chop away at the debt (as Bill Clinton so responsibly did) is stealing from our children and grandchildren. Every politician -- democrat or republican -- who has signed Grover Norquist's free lunch pledge is a thief, pure and simple. (Or, if he or she did not really mean it, a liar.)

Let our children and grandchildren pay for their own mistakes, not for ours.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on 2011-June-22, 06:54, said:

Reduce the states to 13 colonies, reinstitute agrarian economy, wear powdered wigs...

"If I could turn back time." Cher

does that mean you're against any/all of those things?

PassedOut, on 2011-June-22, 08:08, said:

As a citizen, I'm obligated to pay my share (in reality, more than my share) of that debt, whether I agree with the spending or not.

if you're amongst the 50% who pay any taxes at all you're paying more than your fair share

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on 2011-June-22, 15:39, said:

does that mean you're against any/all of those things?


if you're amongst the 50% who pay any taxes at all you're paying more than your fair share

I am against attempts to live in the past - like nothing ever went wrong prior to the Fed.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-22, 07:30, said:

Of course. You don't agree with him, so you ridicule him. Typical.

You really think I am against pulling back the military?

Yes, I ridicule Paul because he relies on dogma rather than reasoning. Abolishing the Fed and reestablishing the gold standard won't do squat to help anything, but it fits on a bumber sticker.

Just like "Go Galt" fits on bumber stickers of the terminally hopeless believer in fairy tales.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2011-June-22, 17:18, said:

You really think I am against pulling back the military?

Yes, I ridicule Paul because he relies on dogma rather than reasoning. Abolishing the Fed and reestablishing the gold standard won't do squat to help anything, but it fits on a bumber sticker.

Just like "Go Galt" fits on bumber stickers of the terminally hopeless believer in fairy tales.

Did I say that I think you're against pulling back the military? No, I said that you ridicule someone because you disagree with him. And asserting that things with which you disagree are "fairy tales" or "dogma" is just more of the same bullshit.

[awm]

luke warm, on 2011-June-22, 15:39, said:

if you're amongst the 50% who pay any taxes at all you're paying more than your fair share

There are a number of problems with this statement, which is a frequent Republican talking point.

First, it's not true that 50% of people don't pay taxes. What's true is that roughly this percentage don't pay federal income taxes. However, most of them are still paying the various payroll taxes, state and local sales taxes, and a portion of various national taxes which are passed on to consumers (notably the gasoline tax). They may also pay state income taxes (which tend to permit fewer deductions) and even property taxes.

Second, it's quite possible to argue what "fair share" means. With a few exceptions, most of the people not paying federal income taxes are also not making much of an income. Many of them are families with kids subsisting on one or two minimum wage jobs, who can barely make ends meet. These families have basically been screwed over by the lack of a government safety net, by the bad economy, by predatory lenders, etc. It's not clear to me that their "fair share" is the same as the "fair share" of wealthy people who have in some cases massively benefited from recent government policies (i.e. huge payments to the military-industrial complex, bailing out of various big banks).