I've been struck by two pieces of writing lately. The first is a local fave of mine named Myles Spicer. On the whole, he and I are pretty well aligned when it comes to seeing clearly what so many miss.
The mantra of Republicans and conservatives has always been to bless the private sector and urge government to "get out of the way, and let capitalism work." Great! Then where are the jobs?
A question I recently asked and got rigid ideology for an answer. I'm still asking. We had tax cuts and no regulation. Look what happened.
Conservatives claim that government interference, especially taxation, is impeding our recovery; they just have no basis in fact. There is nothing at all that is preventing, obstructing, retarding or impeding American business from creating jobs ... except American business itself.
And why would they? They have a ton of money and are doing well without hiring. The best part, though, is that they can blame the government which results in a continued shift to privatize everything. I can't believe they say this with a straight face when 375, 000 public sector jobs have been lost since 2008 and hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs have been added since that time.
Spicer's best lines though, are about the "uncertainty" canard.
If you think today's environment is "uncertain," you did not live in the Depression. You missed World War II. You forgot about the times when mortgage rates got up to 20 percent. You skipped the turmoil and discontent of the Vietnam War. In fact, in the context of history, today's times are more tranquil and predictable than most. "Uncertainty" is a cop-out.
Actually, it's more than a cop out. It's part of the overall (and total) bullshit narrative that the invisible hand will take care of all of us. I'm wondering if Adam Smith would still offer the same views he does if he had to deal with the derivative, CDO, or credit default swap.
David Brooks sums it up quite nicely in his latest column.
The Republican growth agenda — tax cuts and nothing else — is stupefyingly boring, fiscally irresponsible and politically impossible. Gigantic tax cuts — if they were affordable — might boost overall growth, but they would do nothing to address the structural problems that are causing a working-class crisis.
Republican politicians don’t design policies to meet specific needs, or even to help their own working-class voters. They use policies as signaling devices — as ways to reassure the base that they are 100 percent orthodox and rigidly loyal. Republicans have taken a pragmatic policy proposal from 1980 and sanctified it as their core purity test for 2012.
A perfect summation. It is continually amazing to me that these middle class voters fall for their garbage when they make policies that adversely affect them.
Brooks and I part ways, however, when he lists four things we need to do to get this country moving again. It's not that I don't agree with them. In fact, I think they are all excellent ideas and I would support them wholeheartedly. Clearly, his bias prevents him from seeing that there is someone who is attempting to pull from all four of those baskets: President Obama.
The president has reformed health care and embraced the recommendation of Bowles Simpson regarding entitlement. He fervently supports ECFE and many other education initiatives. He passed a financial regulation package that is trying to break the unholy alliance between business and the financial sector. And he wants to overhaul immigration so it supports bringing in high quality human capital. So, I guess Brooks is an Obama supporter? He doesn't really sound like it most of the time.
Brooks is right when he says we all know what needs to be done. We aren't getting there because the central tenet of one side's ideology is to NOT think outside of the box. Until they can get past that, is there any point in even trying to find consensus?
50 comments:
Do you agree with Spicer when he says:
"It has been the private sector (not government or Obama) that has brought us to this malaise"?
Because I blame it all on Bush and the failed policies of the past.
"There is nothing at all that is preventing, obstructing, retarding or impeding American business from creating jobs ... except American business itself."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index
The statement is patently rediculous. However, the US doesn't fare too poorly in the world rankings.
"If you think today's environment is "uncertain," you did not live in the Depression. You missed World War II. You forgot about the times when mortgage rates got up to 20 percent. You skipped the turmoil and discontent of the Vietnam War."
None of these compare to when I used to have to walk uphill in a blizzard to school, both ways. Fighting off bears and panthers, most days.
Depression? Today's job figures are worse. The depth of the housing slump is worse.
WWII? (Ditto his Vietnam)
He's got me there. But we have had Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Iraq (again) and wherever else we've decided to nation-build.
Mortgage rates?
Rates are pretty low, that's true. But didn't I just hear you complain that it is too hard to get a loan these days? Which do you want... usury, or just no lending?
I can't believe you left out this gem of a phrase:
"maldistribution of income"
I'll leave it at that.
Basically, your boy complains that businesses keep trying to make more money.
Those dirty rotten filthy scoundrels. We should just let the government take over those businesses for the good of the people.
So then I started with your Brooks link.
I got to:
"unsustainable levels of debt"
and stopped. We never have to pay back the national debt. Brooks must be stupid.
Then Brooks goes on to say something that is undeniably something I agree with.
Both major parties are worthless.
But you insist he must be wrong on that part, and he just doesn't get how great Obama is.
The president has reformed health care and embraced the recommendation of Bowles Simpson regarding entitlement.
Really? What health care reform - his Administration has issued more waivers than regulations. He was ready to crucify Paul Ryan and Ryan's proposal actually was modest in comparison to the Deficit Commission. Is there a single Dem in the House that has spoken up about this?
But it appears Brooks isn't the only one who disappoints you in not fawning over Obama the Magnificent.
heh heh heh
How long can you suck Administration cock M? All you do on this blog is talk about how great Obama is - no mention of how his admin has continued some of the worst of the Bush policies when it isn't inventing its own executive atrocities. Not one fucking criticism (save perhaps that they didn't do more) that I can recall in over 2 years.
You can whine about TSM, but Kevin & company didn't give the Bush administration half the lip (and throat) service you do this one.
Well, juris, it's pretty simple. President Obama has produced results. bin Laden is dead. DADT has been repealed. He (and Congress) passed health care and finreg reform as well as a whole host is medium to minor things that needed to be done.
And he pulled the economy back from the brink. Since we are a nation of whiny babies, we want it all-quick and now dammit so he naturally he scores low on the economy. Of course, he'd be a lot lower if we were at 20 percent unemployment right now which is where we would likely be if he had taken the consevative or libertarian route.
Given what he had to work with, I give him a B+. I'd like to see further refinement in the war on extremism, serious immigration reform, and a focus on climate change so we can move forward on tackling this issue properly.
Well M, Gitmo is still open, the PATRIOT Act was renewed (and Sen. Wyden for one is concerned about the officially secret interpretation of that by the Admin), science is still being politicized, and we are actually fighting more wars than under Bush. And not a harsh word from you? I have to ask - what WOULD cause you to criticize him?
Pulled the economy from the brink? With his own bare hands? That is exactly the childish stupidity that puts idiots like Bush and Obama into power in this country.
Fucking Democrats were screaming about 6% unemployment under Bush - now you are all apologies and patience. You are a huge, screaming, steaming pile of hypocrisy.
Reflect on that, if you can do so without retching.
Bin Laden is dead.
Congrats, Mr President.
If I had a job, I'd contribute to your re-election.
Ignore everything else that's been said here, Mark. It seems you were going to anyway.
Republicans suck!
Obama is great!
DADT is repealed! Finally I can sleep!
The USA is borrowing money to pay the interest on money we have borrowed.
Back from the brink indeed. If we were truly on the brink, as you say, then how are we not closer to it?
Is the economy getting better?
Are we less in debt than we were two years ago?
What EXACTLY is better than it was?
bin Laden is dead
Following the policies of Bush and utilizing the same personnel Bush used. This is timing, not some special result only O could've accomplished.
DADT has been repealed
Actually DADT was a policy of Clinton which allowed gays to serve as long as they stayed in the closet. Saying that DADT was repealed would mean that we reverted back to gays not being able to serve. The more appropriate terminology would be that he eliminated the ban on gays serving in the military.
He...passed health care...reform
Yup, shoving something down the throat of half the populace that is fundamentally opposed to it is I'm sure a positive action from your viewpoint. While it is a result, I'm not sold that such is a good result. Further, using such as a measuring stick for O's accomplishments only resonate among those who would agree with the result.
he pulled the economy back from the brink
Uh..OK.
...20 percent unemployment ...which is where we would likely be ...
Ahh, I see. Speculate much?
further refinement in the war on extremism
Translate as 'war on people who disagree with me'.
serious immigration reform
Translate as 'give illegals citizenship. Make appearances to stop further illegal immigration. When that fails, use same arguments to give those illegals citizenship. Repeat ad nauseum.'
focus on climate change
Translate as 'label skeptics as deniers, ignore poor science and force economy killing legislation down the throats of half the population - legislation that they won't be able to know until it's passed.'
OK, M here's someone that has some credibility on what it takes to create jobs. More than me, you or any other blow-hard on the 'net.
Learn anything? Or do your true believe blinders leave you with nothing but "govt good - business bad"?
Of course, he'd be a lot lower if we were at 20 percent unemployment right now which is where we would likely be if he had taken the consevative or libertarian route.
I've seen the "if not for Obama, we'd be at 20% unemployment" phrase kicked around a lot. So far I have yet to see anything to back that statement besides it having been said by Obama... you know, the same guy who said enacting his economic plan would keep unemployment below 6%, and that lack of it would cause unemployment to go to 8%?
Care to provide any support for that statement? You treat it as proven fact, it'd be nice to have such confidence.
"There is nothing at all that is preventing, obstructing, retarding or impeding American business from creating jobs ... except American business itself."
http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/155167/158/County-Shuts-Down-Kids-Lemonade-Stand-500-Fine
How can someone even have a debate with someone who repeatedly starts off with bold-faced lies?
We had tax cuts and no regulation. Look what happened. (emphasis mine).
Mark has been repeatedly called out for this same lie, and shown in devastating detail just how and why it is a lie. Mark, of course, casually dismisses all contrary evidence as "rigid dogma". Kind of like a creationist casually dismissing evidence of evolution as "rigid Darwinist dogma" (I shit you not, that's a phrase they use).
Larry, there is a reason I refer to this place as Leftboro Baptist.
There isn't much debate with the Westboro brand either.
We aren't getting there because the central tenet of one side's ideology is to NOT think outside of the box. Until they can get past that, is there any point in even trying to find consensus?
I absolutely agree, except that I think the tendency is on both sides.
Let me guess, you don't consider the automatic caricature response like "sucking on corporate cock" an example of not wishing to think outside one's little box, right?
Something I have noticed to be much more prevalent on one side than the other, though... one side is much more careful to distinguish between factual data, logical conclusions from factual data, and speculative opinion than the other side is. You can see it right here. One side posts links in nearly every comment thread, so their argument isn't just "because I said so." The other side tends to only post links when pressed, both in comments and in the blog posts themselves. They don't want to provide a means for you to check, they want you to take their word for it. The character of the links themselves are different, too. The side that links the most tends to link to sites that are full of links themselves, to provide sourcing for what you find there. The other side tends to prefer opinion pieces with few or no links.
And that side would be...?
And that side would be...?
That's the funniest thing you've ever posted here.
So what's your take on Brook's latest column?
"For that reason, the Fannie Mae scandal is the most important political scandal since Watergate. It helped sink the American economy. It has cost taxpayers about $153 billion, so far. It indicts patterns of behavior that are considered normal and respectable in Washington."
[...]
"Of course, it all came undone. Underneath, Fannie was a cancer that helped spread risky behavior and low standards across the housing industry. We all know what happened next.
The scandal has sent the message that the leadership class is fundamentally self-dealing. Leaders on the center-right and center-left are always trying to create public-private partnerships to spark socially productive activity. But the biggest public-private partnership to date led to shameless self-enrichment and disastrous results."
That's a little outside of your box, Mark. Will it be dismissed with an airy wave of the hand as "rigid ideological dogma"?
It's not full on rigid dogma but I still disagree with him. My research has indicated that while Fannie and Freddie certainly contributed to the problem, they weren't the origins nor driving force of it. For that you should check out the last in line recommended doc "House of Cards"
http://www.hulu.com/watch/59026/cnbc-originals-house-of-cards
He's the one who showed it to me and there is a scene towards the beginning that shows where it all started in juris' home state of California. Fannie and Freddie are mentioned throughout the program as being more followers than leaders.
It all came down to how much money everyone was making and how no one wanted to regulate any of it. I have no problem ripping the government if it is from the standpoint of them sitting around with their thumbs up their asses and doing nothing. But actively causing it because of entitlements? No, that's straying into propaganda.
Further, I wrote this on Oct 1, 2008.
In regards to Fannie and Freddie, Freddie Mac Chairman and CEO Richard Syron recently said that the GSEs have been hit by a "100-year storm" in the housing market, accentuated by some higher-risk mortgages that they were forced to buy to meet government affordable-housing targets.
"The latter contention is more than disingenuous. A substantial portion of Fannie's and Freddie's credit losses comes from $337 billion and $237 billion, respectively, of Alt-A mortgages that the agencies imprudently bought or guaranteed in recent years to boost their market share. These are mortgages for which little or no attempt was made to verify the borrowers' income or net worth. The principal balances were much higher than those of mortgages typically made to low-income borrowers. In short, Alt-A mortgages were a hallmark of real-estate speculation in the ex-urbs of Las Vegas or Los Angeles, not predatory lending to low-income folks in the inner cities. (http://online.barrons.com/article/SB121884860106946277.html)
I do agree with him about this, though.
People may not like Michele Bachmann, but when they finish “Reckless Endangerment” they will understand why there is a market for politicians like her. They’ll realize that if the existing leadership class doesn’t redefine “normal” behavior, some pungent and colorful movement will sweep in and do it for them.
Redefining normal behavior for me is tighter regulation which simply means they have to start putting these guys in pound me in the ass prison. If you do that, people like Bachmann lose their broader support.
Fannie and Freddie are mentioned throughout the program as being more followers than leaders.
Which is substantially incorrect.
Look, home ownership has been a bipartisan promotion for over 70 years. There is a boatload of incentives in the federal and state tax codes for home owners vis a vis renters.
This bubble, unlike say the tech stocks/internet bubble was largely a creation of govt support to increase the rate of home ownership, and for that Fannie and Freddie were no small part. And, like any other bubble - the early players made money and the late arrivers got slammed. You may feel bad about people that got stuck at the end flipping houses, but I don't. Getting rich quick (and easy) is an old story and yet people never seem to learn.
And just what fucking regulation would you propose (with full benefit of hindsight even) that would have stopped the housing bubble?
There don't need to be any "new" regulations. Just the old Glass Stegall act would be fine. Recall Manzi, juris, in which he discussed how it was the interconnections that came about by GLB in 1999 that was another major cause of our problems. If those barriers had still been in place, we would not have had such a great crisis. It would have been more contained.
Predatory lending did not originate with Fannie and Freddie. More importantly, it's not poor people wanting to have houses that caused trillions of dollars in losses. It's a simple matter of math if you really think about it. It was the people who made several hundred thousand dollars a year and wanted mansions. Put those guys together and mix in the CDOs and credit default swaps (both allowable because of lax regulation) and that's your perfect mix for a catastrophe.
Then you are simply full of shit if you call this a failure of regulation - and can't suggest a regulation that would've prevented the problem. Full of shit, or with a faith in "regulation" like some people have in Jesus.
You still refuse to recognize that pushing home ownership is a bipartisan vote-catcher.
"It was the people who made several hundred thousand dollars a year and wanted mansions."
Yep. Keep hatin' those rich folks Mark. They are the man who is keeping you down.
No, Malcom, they are the ones that over extended themselves. Or is that only poor people that do that?
Juris, show me the financial crisis from the mid 30s to the late 70s that was on par with the ones that have occurred in the last 30 years. Certainly we've had recessions before and some tough times but nothing like the problems we have had as regulation has been stripped away. It's not a matter of faith, it's a fact. During a time of tighter regulation and very high taxes, our country prospered. Given the changes in the global economy, we can't go back to those high taxes but we have to have regulation that mirrors what we saw with Glass Steagall. We have to disconnect the various parts of the financial industry.
"During a time of tighter regulation and very high taxes, our country prospered."
And we get to the point where you will abandon the thread. It seems that 1/5 of your posts end when someone asks you a question like this:
So you are saying that high taxes and more regulation cause economic success?
Can you show me some proof of your assertion?
I don't have to show anything Lady. I've already shown the proof a million times!
Juris, show me the financial crisis from the mid 30s to the late 70s that was on par with the ones that have occurred in the last 30 years.
That is the whole point - the financial crisis was driven by the housing bubble. The nearest we had to that was during the inflation of the 70s. The stock market crash of 73-74 was worse than the Tech bubble crash last decade or the current one. However no one in 73-74 bought the "too big to fail" BS.
Glass-Steagal had nothing to do with driving the housing bubble. And until you understand that the bubble was what led to the financial meltdown, you will never understand what really happened. You will just be a cargo cultist aping the gestures and being disappointed that the gods were not properly appeased.
That is why you can't actually say what regulation would have worked - because you don't know.
Lady Gag, I'd call the post war boom an answer to your assertion. Or did we not build ourselves into an economic superpower in the years after WWII. But fake Mark is correct. I've answered it a million times. Also, the "thread abandoning" argument is silly and tiresome. We have the same basic debate in a zillion threads so clearly you aren't paying attention or, more likely are doing the usual game playing.
Juris, I don't know how many ways I can tell you that you are wrong. Before Glass Steagall was repealed, sub prime loans were at 5 percent. By 2008, they were at 30 percent. Organizations like Citigroup, after the repeal, were consequently allowed to do things like mortgage backed securities, SIVs and CDOs. This is what drove the bubble, not the government's insistence that people own homes or the CRA. It's completely baloney and distracts from the root causes of the problem.
Juris, I don't know how many ways I can tell you that you are wrong.
As many as you like. But you saying something doesn't make it so. Facts are funny that way, which explains why you are short on them and long on faith.
I don't get it. Mark is short on facts after he just listed several. You don't make any sense to me but English is my second language so I could be missing a nuance.
There wasn't a fact there, just M's conjectures and hand-waving. This is a quick overview of G-S. It was repealed in 1999 - by which time the housing boom/bubble was already well under way.
Note in the article that JP Morgan was blamed for bad business practices that lead to the stock market collapse. Funny how Morgan was neither unprofitable or unsustainable (in short - the criticism was quite misdirected) back then (though more recently was a different story). From that link I quote:
"The bank's Process Driven Trading unit was amongst several on Wall Street caught in a short squeeze, reportedly losing nearly $300 million in one day. One of the stocks involved in this squeeze, Beazer Homes USA, was a component of the then-bulging real estate bubble. The bubble's subsequent collapse was considered to be a central feature of the financial crisis of 2007–2010."
One more on G-S, the housing bubble and the meltdown.
"We have the same basic debate in a zillion threads"
Yes, we sure do.
And you hold to the mantra that more regulation and higher taxes were the reason for American prosperity after WWII.
Nothing about a war-torn Europe with little manufacturing capability.
Nothing about the long gone ideal of the quality under a 'Made in USA' label, and the demand for that quality.
Nothing about the establishment of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.
Who had more regulation after the Berlin Wall went up? East or West Germany? Which half was successful economically?
Who had more regulation, North or South Korea? Which half is successful economically?
Since this is the zillionth (+1) time you've told us that higher taxes and more regulation were the cause of economic success, can you just link me to the post where you laid out the facts that brought you to that conclusion?
There are so many posts that it would be silly to link them all. Use the labels. That's why I started them.
East and West Germany? Hmm...one was a totalitarian government and the other was a social market economy. The latter was successful economically and they leaned far more towards socialism then we did which means much more regulation. We don't even need that much and really can't have as much as we had back then due to the problem of innovation in the global economy.
What we can have is enough to send a message to private firms that if they fuck around like they have done in the last 30 years and continue to cause crises, they are going to go to jail. It's really simple when you think about it.
Tell me the label if you would, please.
So, you are saying that MORE regulation (East) was less successful than LESS regulation (West)?
I thought that was my argument...
How about Korea? Same thing?
Well, you are doing the usual dance of drawing a douche bag comparison. When I say more regulation, I don't mean East Germany or North Korea. Centrally planned economies will always fail as I have said many times. But under regulated ones will also fail to distribute resources efficiently and that's where the government can sometimes help as with health care.
There is such a thing as too much regulation and that would be East Germany and North Korea. In contrast, there is such a thing as too little which is where we are at now although the finreg bill is at least a start. I'd even say that West Germany's and now Germany's social market economy is too much regulation and government for this country.
Either you are misunderstanding what I am saying or simply being an ass hat. You operate under the belief that lower taxes and less regulation improves economies. Period. There is no wavering from this. I say that they don't and that we have had high taxes and more regulation and have had great economic success. I'm not drawing a correlation between the two. You are drawing a correlation between low taxes/less regulation and "good" economis. This is another classic case of you assuming that I think the same way as you do and I don't.
Lower taxes, trickle down, supply side, laissez faire...it's all been proven to largely be complete shit and the last 30 years are the proof. And, actually, so has the Keynesian model in some ways. More and more these days, we need constructivist thinking to solve our economic models but, as usual, we are stuck in a bipolar world. A large reason why our economy is so sluggish right now is that people aren't thinking with any width of vision on how to solve problems. They are dogmatically stuck.
"More and more these days, we need constructivist thinking to solve our economic models but, as usual, we are stuck in a bipolar world. A large reason why our economy is so sluggish right now is that people aren't thinking with any width of vision on how to solve problems. They are dogmatically stuck"
Why don't you quit trying to write a novel in a second rate blog and say something?
Although this paragraph may have required a thesaurus for you, it says absolutely nothing.
Your debating skills involve these phrases:
douche bag comparison
simply being an ass hat
Is it possible that Jim has you pegged?
When I say more regulation, I don't mean East Germany or North Korea.
I guess this means you finally answered the question of how much govt is too much.
But under regulated ones will also fail to distribute resources efficiently and that's where the government can sometimes help as with health care.
So, you have an idea about what regulations will improve the "distribution" of healthcare. Are you one of the Pelosi-ites that needs to pass a regulation to figure out what is in it and what it is supposed to do?
Lazy, first of all, this isn't a second rate blog. It's a fourth rate one. And being overly wordy is the whole point of a blog. Love the anti intelligence rip, though.
Juris, I've answered it many times. You don't listen. Regarding health care, essentially yes. When there is such inelastic demand for a good or service and the suppliers have created an inefficient market, this is where the government can help. This is particularly true of something as vital to people as health care.
"Centrally planned economies will always fail"
Yep. And so will this one.
When there is such inelastic demand for a good or service and the suppliers have created an inefficient market, this is where the government can help.
Suppliers don't create markets. You throw around inelasticity as though nearly every product/market can be characterized thus. Food is more "inelastic" than health care - yet people manage to feed themselves without the govt intervening in their every decision. Every time you talk about gas prices going up you say demand is inelastic and within a month the stats show consumption dropping in response to higher prices. You really don't know what you are talking about and it would be nice if you would learn a little more before you shoot yourself in the foot... again.
If govt was absolutely essential to healthcare, then how on earth did our society survive pre Medicare (which came 25 years after SocSec)?
JI.
Our society didn't.
We'll review it tomorrow. Or perhaps the next day...
Anonymous, we don't have a centrally planned economy. That is a factually wrong statement. I don't have time to manage your fantasies so unless you have something else to contribute, I'm done with this line of discussion.
Juris, that's not really true. The government regulates the food industry. I'm curious to see if there is any information regarding which is more elastic-food or health care. Regarding gas, world demand is so high that it doesn't matter if we change our behavior and lower our demand. We are shackled to the world market and the burden falls on us because of the inelastic demand.
And, please, enough with the "you don't know what you are talking about" baloney. Who do I think I am, Bo Diddley?
We survived before because the market was much simpler before Medicare and distributed resources efficiently. Things changed (as they often do) when the drive for profit became intoxicating.
Seriously, you do not have that good a grasp of economics. You could remedy that, or you can just keep talking out your ass.
Huh?
Anyone else notice that Mark "doesn't have a good grasp of economics" as soon as juris doesn't agree with the simple facts?
Yeah, Jeff, I've noticed. It happens when juris realizes that mark has a deeper knowledge set as well.
A deeper knowledge of what? Mark just keeps mindlessly repeating his mantra. In other words, doing exactly what he accuses others of doing, and yet insisting that he doesn't. His proof? That he's told us repeatedly how open-minded he is -- and then repeats the mantra. [/facepalm]
Post a Comment