Quoting InJapan: the Paleo-cons and the liberals in the American landscape have pretty much come to an agreement that Afghanistan is a lost cause.

I agree with this impression, with one qualification: its pacifist-leaning liberals who are in that camp. Liberal hawks and neocons remain strange bedfellows in supporting the war. Realists are in the middle--supporting a scaled down, but still military, presence in AfPak.

"Why should I join the Republican Party?" you ask...well let me tell you...

The salient and disturbing aspect of these 2009 elections I regret to say is their patent shoddiness. How long have these parties been competing? Since 1854 in various guises? What the GOP in NY-23 and New Jersey and the Dems in Virginia and New Jersey did is hardly the work of ancient organizations, these days fortified with college-educated professionals specifically trained in campaigning. A party that fights itself loses (NY-23). And, candidate vetting and campaigning is the entire game. Creigh Deeds ran the wrong campaign for Virginia, and the GOP served them the candidate and campaign the Dems should have owned. In NJ, Governor Corzine was a wounded duck who lost his mandate to be governor when he couldn't solve NJ's tax problems. And then, he spent his way through an embarrassing amount of smear of a Republican candidate fit for it. Meanwhile both parties missed Daggett. Finally, and obviously the MSM doesn't care, in Houston there's a white, blonde, gay woman battling an African-American man. I'm pleased blonde v. black didn't return in the tabloids, but this looks like a fair fight! I guess the money stayed away, so the media isn't watching. If I have to be wonky - and I'd rather just be

James Pinkerton constructs a syllogism: 1. The Stimulus bill was passed
2. after the stimulus bill was passed, millions of jobs were lost ergo 3. The stimulus bill destroyed millions of jobs!!! I'm impressed. Clearly, there can be no other explanation of these phenomena, because macroeconomics is an area in which the most recent politically controversial intervention in the economy is the only cause of every outcome.

Quoting Don Zeko: James Pinkerton constructs a syllogism:

1. The Stimulus bill was passed
2. after the stimulus bill was passed, millions of jobs were lost

ergo

3. The stimulus bill destroyed millions of jobs!!!

I'm impressed. Clearly, there can be no other explanation of these phenomena, because macroeconomics is an area in which the most recent politically controversial intervention in the economy is the only cause of every outcome.

Surgical strike! We can only ask Jim to restrain his inner crackpot. That's enough for now.

Hell, what bugs me about this isn't that it's crazy, it's that it is common. What I would give for a political media that had even a basic understanding of causality and macroeconomics...

Sad how partisan loyalists like D. Corn revert to the line "the president hasn't made himself clear to the American public, there was a lack of communication, etc..." I remember the same sort of lines coming from Republicans trying to defend GWBush. I'll give politicians the benefit of the doubt on this one: if they seem like they're muddling along and they don't give clear answers, or don't start a healthy debate blah blah blah...it's because they don't see any political gains in doing so for their ultimate survival or they're trying hard to strike a certain pose while doing the exact opposite (it's not an easy job).

Quoting Don Zeko: Hell, what bugs me about this isn't that it's crazy, it's that it is common. What I would give for a political media that had even a basic understanding of causality and macroeconomics...

Who does? Do you?

Not necessarily a lost cause, but not worth the considerable effort required to achieve our stated objectives. I know this sounds like splitting hairs, but I think that the difference is significant. One of those conclusions can be refuted by Gen. McChrystal saying "oh, well we can definitely achieve this definition of victory in x years with y thousand more troops if the afghan government does a, b, and c," but the other can't.

Actually you put it into a witty sound bite form convenient for even CNN.

With an emphasis on "basic," yes, I think I do have a basic understanding of causality and macroeconomics, or at least enough of an understanding to know that I don't know everything. At the very least I'm not going to insist that the Stimulus must have been failure because the economy continued to do poorly after it was passed (or, for the sake of balance, that the Bush Tax Cuts were the only reason, or even one of the main reasons, that the economy developed as it did after their passage).

Indeed. The economic illiteracy of most people who comment on these issues in the political media is frustrating. As is the inability of people in the business media (who do understand this stuff) to speak about it in plain English that general news audiences can understand.

Quoting Don Zeko: With an emphasis on "basic," yes, I think I do have a basic understanding of causality and macroeconomics, or at least enough of an understanding to know that I don't know everything. At the very least I'm not going to insist that the Stimulus must have been failure because the economy continued to do poorly after it was passed (or, for the sake of balance, that the Bush Tax Cuts were the only reason, or even one of the main reasons, that the economy developed as it did after their passage).

I agree with Pinkerton that the stimulus money went overwhelmingly to some of the richest people on earth. I disagree with his other point that a program of govt works a la FDR would have been a better solution. But I think stimulus proponents can and should be criticized for making predictions on unemployment levels that were quite wrong. If we can never criticize people who make wrong predictions, then there is no incentive to be accurate.

I say this in part because Jim's acquiescence to David's points aligns well with my general sense that the Paleo-cons and the liberals in the American landscape have pretty much come to an agreement that Afghanistan is a lost cause.

Yes, I am definitely seeing allies in the Pat Buchanan camp of the Republican Party. A national pacifist group I'm a member of sent out an email today with a Buchanan op ed attached. That is definitely a first for us. I couldn't be happier with this merging of pro-peace interests. Locally, we are also doing a major outreach to Republicans, as well as AfPak skeptics in the military.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Realists are in the middle--supporting a scaled down, but still military, presence in AfPak.

I've come to realise, thanks to Rory Stewart, that is the only option we have left. Although I would argue that Britain should stay out of any attacks on Pakistan altogether, domestically, for us, it would be a fucking disaster.

Clearly, there can be no other explanation of these phenomena, because macroeconomics is an area in which the most recent politically controversial intervention in the economy is the only cause of every outcome.

You may be forgetting that the stimulus bill was not designed to create or save private sector jobs (except those heavily beholden to the democratic party). The main intent of the stimulus plan was to perpetuate union dues and the political donations they stimulate, which the democrats cannot live without. Even this huge windfall financed by the American taxpayer cannot save the funding troubles for the benefits of the SEIU (except those of union officials and favored members). For that they need Card Check to keep the Ponzi scheme rolling. Change You Can Believe In

Quoting Toryentalist: I've come to realise, thanks to Rory Stewart, that is the only option we have left. Although I would argue that Britain should stay out of any attacks on Pakistan altogether, domestically, for us, it would be a fucking disaster.

Thanks for the video. Rory Stewart is one of the most knowledgeable commentators on Afghanistan and always makes eminently good sense. He saw the writing on the wall long before anyone else....at least that's my unexpert impression. Let's hope some of his good sense percolates up to Obama.

I thought you wanted America and NATO out of Afghanistan altogether? That's not what Mr. Stewart has argued for.

Quoting Lyle: I thought you wanted America and NATO out of Afghanistan altogether? That's not what Mr. Stewart has argued for.

Could you quote me on that? No.

Yes, but you have been saying the U.S. should leave, no? Clarify your position if you will. Do you support Obama following through with the McChrystal report, for example?

Quoting Lyle: Yes, but you have been saying the U.S. should leave, no? Clarify your position if you will.

Do you support Obama following through with the McChrystal report, for example?

No, I have not. And no I do not--if the latter means, as Stewart fears it will, further requests for more soldiers down the road. Not that my opinion matters in the least. Every comment I've ever made in this forum has been intended to awaken scepticism about the utterly unrealistic goals of state-building in a country like Afghanistan. That and the confusion between fighting Al-Qaida and fighting the Taliban. I linked to Stewart's article in the London Review of Books several times last summer.

As you know though, Mr. Stewart's advice to President Obama is to go forward with the McChrystal report. So you don't entirely agree with Mr. Stewart. No one has ever argued Afghanistan could be built up into some kind of model state. At best people seem to believe that Afghanistan could return to its pre-Soviet invasion days or, like Mr. Stewart argues, become something like what Pakistan is today. Definitely some people have used hyperbolic language to support their arguments for being in Afghanistan (I agree with Mr. Stewart that Condi Rice's statement was perhaps too broad), but I don't think anyone has argued Afghanistan could be made into some kind of Central Asian Canada or Mexico. As far as I can also tell, Mr. Stewart is not arguing for a complete withdrawal anytime soon or that America and NATO should never have gone into Afghanistan. Clearly, he believes that Al Qaeda is a legitimate threat and that something should be done about them, like perhaps ratcheting up the conflict against Al Qaeda in Pakistan, which he seems to suggest.

Quoting Lyle: As you know though, Mr. Stewart's advice to President Obama is to go forward with the McChrystal report. So you don't entirely agree with Mr. Stewart.

No one has ever argued Afghanistan could be built up into some kind of model state. At best people seem to believe that Afghanistan could return to its pre-Soviet invasion days or, like Mr. Stewart argues, become something like what Pakistan is today. Definitely some people have used hyperbolic language to support their arguments for being in Afghanistan (I agree with Mr. Stewart that Condi Rice's statement was perhaps too broad), but I don't think anyone has argued Afghanistan could be made into some kind of Central Asian Canada or Mexico.

As far as I can also tell, Mr. Stewart is not arguing for a complete withdrawal anytime soon or that America and NATO should never have gone into Afghanistan. Clearly, he believes that Al Qaeda is a legitimate threat and that something should be done about them, like perhaps ratcheting up the conflict against Al Qaeda in Pakistan, which he seems to suggest.

Lyle,
How do you kill an idea? Do you use drones for that?

It's not about killing an idea, it's about killing human beings who are trying to kill other human beings. If it was just about killing someone because of their ideas, it'd be murder. These guys actually put their ideas into action though. Right? I mean, 9/11 actually happened.

Quoting Lyle: As you know though, Mr. Stewart's advice to President Obama is to go forward with the McChrystal report. So you don't entirely agree with Mr. Stewart.

No one has ever argued Afghanistan could be built up into some kind of model state. At best people seem to believe that Afghanistan could return to its pre-Soviet invasion days or, like Mr. Stewart argues, become something like what Pakistan is today. Definitely some people have used hyperbolic language to support their arguments for being in Afghanistan (I agree with Mr. Stewart that Condi Rice's statement was perhaps too broad), but I don't think anyone has argued Afghanistan could be made into some kind of Central Asian Canada or Mexico.

As far as I can also tell, Mr. Stewart is not arguing for a complete withdrawal anytime soon or that America and NATO should never have gone into Afghanistan. Clearly, he believes that Al Qaeda is a legitimate threat and that something should be done about them, like perhaps ratcheting up the conflict against Al Qaeda in Pakistan, which he seems to suggest.

I suggest you listen to the interview again. Stewart said, regretfully, that Obama has no choice but to

Actually, I think Mr. Stewart probably thinks President Obama should have never ballyhooed on Pakistan in his campaign. Obama had no choice himself, but to give General McChrystal the initiative because he and the Democratic Party campaigned on it. He wasn't asked that question though, so I'm not sure. The problem with Afghanistan is that 9/11 happened (although some people talk about how we should have never left Afghanistan after the Soviets exited the country -- maybe all the killing would have already gone on, but 9/11 might not have happened, interesting thought). If, however, 9/11 hadn't of happened we would never be in Afghanistan. We really could care less if the Taliban executes young girls for the slightest of religious transgressions or allows octogenarians to marry children. But 9/11 did happen and Afghanistan was where Osama bin Laden and cohorts had succor. So we had to go there, and now we have to remain there with some kind of presence for probably many, many years. Not being there today or tomorrow (post 9/11) wasn't ever an option, I think. It's a burden America and friends will just have to become comfortable carrying.

Quoting Unit: I agree with Pinkerton that the stimulus money went overwhelmingly to some of the richest people on earth. I disagree with his other point that a program of govt works a la FDR would have been a better solution.

But this isn't a matter of belief or disbelief, we can actually look at how the money was spent, as the NYT does here:
http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus As it turns out, direct tax cuts, grants to states to prevent job cuts, and increases in safety net items like Medicaid, COBRA, and unemployment benefits account for most of the stimulus bill. Where in that list did the overwhelming majority go to the wealthiest Americans? I'd agree with that if you made the same claim about the financial sector bailouts, but that's another discussion altogether.

Quoting Don Zeko: James Pinkerton constructs a syllogism:

1. The Stimulus bill was passed
2. after the stimulus bill was passed, millions of jobs were lost

ergo

3. The stimulus bill destroyed millions of jobs!!!

I'm impressed. Clearly, there can be no other explanation of these phenomena, because macroeconomics is an area in which the most recent politically controversial intervention in the economy is the only cause of every outcome.

Seriously. I was shaking my head through that period of the diavlog, wondering to myself, "can Pinkerton actually be that stupid?" Props to Corn. As always, the guy is top notch -- I especially loved his opening about the "Democratic sweep," nicely puncturing the GOP victory lap.

Jim was very disappointing on NY -23. Wow, so the lesson is that conservatives need to fall in line & support anyone with an (R). Oh, and move to the center. That of course is the standard establishment advice we've been getting ever since Reagan. Its gotten us 3 lost elections (92,96, 2008), the Bush II debacle, and filibuster proof Democrat majorities. The RNC, Newt, and the whole establishment is to blame for R-23. First, for nominating a liberal, secondly, by giving her $900,000. Thirdly, but sticky by her and attacking Hoffman - even after it was clear she was a loser. Their candidate was such a liberal she endorsed the Democrat. Conservatives are fed up because people like Newt & the RNC never learn, they keep losing and picking bad candidates, then blaming everything except their own strategy and judgment. Meanwhile, the great R.S. McCain attacks James Wolcott , Evidently, Wolcott is a fashion designer whose so stupid he makes former sportscaster Olbermann seem like a Ivy League grad.

Quoting rcocean: ... whose so stupid ...

Never fails.

Quoting rcocean:
Meanwhile, the great R.S. McCain

cue AemJeff in 3, 2, 1 ...

rocean - keep up the good work and brilliant analysis. Without people like you, Dems are probably too inept themselves to stay in power. Nancy needs your help.

Quoting rcocean: Jim was very disappointing on NY -23. Wow, so the lesson is that conservatives need to fall in line & support anyone with an (R). Oh, and move to the center.

I didn't think he was saying move to the center. But one question -- and it often comes up during Corn/Pinkerton dialogues, because David represents a certain Dem view and Corn, in particular, seems to take sides in the ongoing fight within the Republicans (i.e., the support for Huckabee, who was trashed by the mainstream, even supposed conservatives of a particular stripe, yet obviously represents some of the same forces of some of the populist conservative types) -- is assuming that there's either a fight for the control of the Republicans going on or some sort of realignment, what are the key principles that you believe the Republicans should stand for? For example, I tend to see the populist rhetoric within the Republican Party as smoke and mirrors, but I'm curious, if this is the direction that you'd see the Party go in, what that means in terms of policy. Also, I don't know your views on the Republican Reformer types who tend to get trashed as liberals

Quoting nikkibong: Seriously. I was shaking my head through that period of the diavlog, wondering to myself, "can Pinkerton actually be that stupid?"

You really were? You didn't know he was just spinning?

Quoting nikkibong: cue AemJeff in 3, 2, 1 ...

Racist. White supremacist. rcocean should have better taste, particularly since I really don't believe he's indulging a racist impulse (just stubbornness in the face of opposition.) But, since Brendan made me giggle about the original post, and since rc didn't actually link - I figured I'd let it go, this time.

Quoting stephanie: I didn't think he was saying move to the center.

What are the key principles that you believe the Republicans should stand for?

-Fiscal Responsibility
-Fair Trade
-Enforcement of the immigration laws
-Federalism
-Reducing the power of the Federal Judiciary
-A strong defense
-Pro Life and socially conservative
-

Quoting rcocean: -Fiscal Responsibility
-Fair Trade
-Enforcement of the immigration laws
-Federalism
-Reducing the power of the Federal Judiciary
-A strong defense
-Pro Life and socially conservative
-

Thanks, but that leads to some follow-up questions, as a lot of those are things that most people are for, generally, but disagree on the specifics.

Quoting rcocean: -Fiscal Responsibility

Meaning raise taxes if necessary (and thus perhaps a kinder view of Huckabee and some other governors than was shown in the last campaign)? Or just cut spending? Specific cuts desired, or simply an anti-deficit policy? Does it matter whether recessionary pressures are present? I ask all this, because I think it's fair to say that there have been splits within the Republicans on some or all of these issues (with Bush himself justifying his tax cuts and lack of concern about maintaining the deficit reduction that had begun by pointing to the threat of recession). I assume you would say that such an argument is not conservative, but I'm asking, as I think it's not an uncommon one in portions of the business community that have traditionally been Republican.

-Fair Trade

That's in recent years been more of a Dem thing than Republican, so interesting to

Quoting rcocean: Jim was very disappointing on NY -23. Wow, so the lesson is that conservatives need to fall in line & support anyone with an (R). Oh, and move to the center.

That of course is the standard establishment advice we've been getting ever since Reagan. Its gotten us 3 lost elections (92,96, 2008), the Bush II debacle, and filibuster proof Democrat majorities.

The RNC, Newt, and the whole establishment is to blame for R-23. First, for nominating a liberal, secondly, by giving her $900,000. Thirdly, but sticky by her and attacking Hoffman - even after it was clear she was a loser.

Their candidate was such a liberal she endorsed the Democrat. Conservatives are fed up because people like Newt & the RNC never learn, they keep losing and picking bad candidates, then blaming everything except their own strategy and judgment.

Meanwhile, the great R.S. McCain attacks James Wolcott , Evidently, Wolcott is a fashion designer whose so stupid he makes former sportscaster Olbermann seem like a Ivy League grad.

Still not as "polished" as the top whores.. I guess I went to college to do the wrong thing - learn, or at worst, tick off a list of requirements. I should have been thinking about becoming as much of a c$cks$cker as rcocean

Steph, You're absolutely right. Republicans constantly SAY they are for all these things, but when in office they don't implement them and have a million threadbare excuses WHY. Take fiscal responsiblity. It means what it says. You balance the budget, you may occasionally run a deficit due to a recession, but you do so as a last resort. I'd prefer to balance the budget through spending cuts but if the American people can't accept that - then raise taxes on those who can afford it. Or do a combination of both. Fiscal responsibility also mean auditing institutions that are regulated and may require federal assistance, trying to keep federal loans and guarantees to a minimum and refusing to bailouts corporations unless absolutely necessary. McCain despite his rhetoric, was always a joke when it came to fiscal responsibility. He couldn't wait to fly to DC and give the banks and AIG billions, he's never wanted to cut anything except "earmarks" and he's in favor of wars everywhere -whether we can afford them or not. Bush of course had a track record so bad he would have been labeled a "Spendthrift liberal" - except he had

Quoting Baltimoron: Still not as "polished" as the top whores.. I guess I went to college to do the wrong thing - learn, or at worst, tick off a list of requirements. I should have been thinking about becoming as much of a c$cks$cker as rcocean and every 'head in the media.

Thanks for reminding me why I had you on "ignore". Bye Bye

It must hurt to know you give so much crap and yet get so little in remuneration or hand jobs. Please keep ignoring me. I get a big warm fuzzy with every negative emotion. The joy of watching hacks slam into the wall along with their unpaid stooges gives me hope for humanity.

It seems to me Jim is misreading the whole Afghan surge situation. He calls Karzai a stooge for the Americans and faults Obama for not following through on his campaign pledge to surge thousands more troops into Afghanistan. I don't think Jim got the memo that Karzai was exposed for stealing the presidential election, which put the Americans in a terrible position of potentially pouring in more troops to surge on behalf of a fraudulent, illegitimate government. Stealing an election is a game changer and I am glad Obama is reconsidering any surge to shore up that phony Afghan govt.

Been done MythBusters Season 6 Episode 19

That was satisfyingly disgusting and hilarious! And, those dung balls were much lovelier than a Kaine, O'Reilly, or Carville!

Quoting Don Zeko: But this isn't a matter of belief or disbelief, we can actually look at how the money was spent, as the NYT does here:
http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus

As it turns out, direct tax cuts, grants to states to prevent job cuts, and increases in safety net items like Medicaid, COBRA, and unemployment benefits account for most of the stimulus bill. Where in that list did the overwhelming majority go to the wealthiest Americans? I'd agree with that if you made the same claim about the financial sector bailouts, but that's another discussion altogether.

First of all the list you linked to has lots of items aside from the few you mention: such as tax breaks to GM, and other things where the money might very well go to people high up in the bureaucratic chain of command that already have jobs (the worse case scenario would be to suck competent people who are already successfully employed in the private sector into new govt jobs). Second the money has been only partially spent and I'm not sure which items saw the money first.

Quoting Unit: First of all the list you linked to has lots of items aside from the few you mention: such as tax breaks to GM, and other things where the money might very well go to people high up in the bureaucratic chain of command that already have jobs (the worse case scenario would be to suck competent people who are already successfully employed in the private sector into new govt jobs). Second the money has been only partially spent and I'm not sure which items saw the money first.

Yes, but the list also has the amounts spent on each item, all of which are listed in order of the amount of money appropriated. The first 12 items on the list, with the exception of the item about adopting health information technology, are all either direct welfare programs, aid to states, tax cuts, or infrastructure projects, and add up to $498 billion, or about 2/3 of the total bill. So while I wouldn't say that none of the money went to the wealthy, traditional Democratic interest groups, ACORN, or whatever, most of the stimulus money was spent on exactly what the Dems said

Quoting Don Zeko: Yes, but the list also has the amounts spent on each item, all of which are listed in order of the amount of money appropriated. The first 12 items on the list, with the exception of the item about adopting health information technology, are all either direct welfare programs, aid to states, tax cuts, or infrastructure projects, and add up to $498 billion, or about 2/3 of the total bill.

Once again: most of this money hasn't been spent yet. Somehow it turns out that the govt can't even spend as fast as it dreams it can. Also tax credits are not tax cuts: it's a way to reward Joe and punish Jack.
If they were serious about immediate stimulus and tax cuts they would have cut the employer portion of payroll taxes.

So while I wouldn't say that none of the money went to the wealthy, traditional Democratic interest groups, ACORN, or whatever, most of the stimulus money was spent on exactly what the Dems said it was spent on, and ought to make it's way directly into the economy. I have my own quibbles about the size and composition of the stimulus, but the line you're pushing

Quoting Unit: Once again: most of this money hasn't been spent yet. Somehow it turns out that the govt can't even spend as fast as it dreams it can.

Well ok, if you think that the stimulus funds should have been spent more quickly, say so. I was responding to your argument that the stimulus money was mostly going to the super-rich and failing to improve the macroeconomic picture. The link I provided shows that that isn't the case. Maybe the funds are taking time to be spent, but it's not like they're going to something entirely separate from what they've been appropriated for.

Quoting Unit: Also tax credits are not tax cuts: it's a way to reward Joe and punish Jack.
If they were serious about immediate stimulus and tax cuts they would have cut the employer portion of payroll taxes.

What does this even mean? Tax credits benefit the people that receive the credit, and harm future taxpayers in that they increase the debt. That's the whole point of stimulus; you help people out now when the economy is in shambles, and we pay it back when times are good. How is this

Quoting Don Zeko: James Pinkerton constructs a syllogism:

1. The Stimulus bill was passed
2. after the stimulus bill was passed, millions of jobs were lost

ergo

3. The stimulus bill destroyed millions of jobs!!!

I'm impressed. Clearly, there can be no other explanation of these phenomena, because macroeconomics is an area in which the most recent politically controversial intervention in the economy is the only cause of every outcome.

What I found most disturbing about Pinkerton's comments was his implication that the government should be creating jobs. It would seem that a real conservative would be saying that the government should get out of the way in order to facilitate the creating of jobs. I guess everyone wants to revisit Keynesian economics in the time of crisis.

Quoting Unit: Sad how partisan loyalists like D. Corn revert to the line "the president hasn't made himself clear to the American public, there was a lack of communication, etc..." I remember the same sort of lines coming from Republicans trying to defend GWBush. I'll give politicians the benefit of the doubt on this one: if they seem like they're muddling along and they don't give clear answers, or don't start a healthy debate blah blah blah...it's because they don't see any political gains in doing so for their ultimate survival or they're trying hard to strike a certain pose while doing the exact opposite (it's not an easy job).

Right on analysis. However to give the politicians the benefit of the doubt would assume they were doing good while appearing not to. What you describe is that their main objective is to benefit themselves.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Indeed. The economic illiteracy of most people who comment on these issues in the political media is frustrating. As is the inability of people in the business media (who do understand this stuff) to speak about it in plain English that general news audiences can understand.

Maybe it's so complex that it is impossible to speak about it in plain English. I heard Orzog on Charlie Rose a couple of nights ago. What I came away with is that if this guy is bullshitting, no one would know it or would be afraid to point it out.

Quoting badhatharry: Maybe it's so complex that it is impossible to speak about it in plain English. I heard Orzog on Charlie Rose a couple of nights ago. What I came away with is that if this guy is bullshitting, no one would know it or would be afraid to point it out.

It might be so complex that it's impossible to speak about it in totally plain English. I often feel when writing stories, that as editors force me to whittle stuff down to plain English, some element of the truth is lost. I think you have to attack this problem from both ends: I'm strongly in favor of basic economics joining reading and math as a core subject that high school students should have to study. At the same time, I think you need to ensure that the people covering these subjects in the media are smart enough to whittle these issues down at least to the plainest English possible without undercutting the facts. I aspire me to be one of those people, but I'm not even within shouting distance of it yet.

Quoting Don Zeko: Well ok, if you think that the stimulus funds should have been spent more quickly, say so. I was responding to your argument that the stimulus money was mostly going to the super-rich and failing to improve the macroeconomic picture. The link I provided shows that that isn't the case. Maybe the funds are taking time to be spent, but it's not like they're going to something entirely separate from what they've been appropriated for.

What does this even mean? Tax credits benefit the people that receive the credit, and harm future taxpayers in that they increase the debt. That's the whole point of stimulus; you help people out now when the economy is in shambles, and we pay it back when times are good. How is this a relevant critique of tax credits?

Again, what? the stimulus money wasn't "taken from the economy," it's all deficit spending. That's the whole point of economic stimulus: you pump money into the economy to fill the output gap and avoid a deflationary spiral until the private sector returns to health, then you cut back and run surpluses to pay it back. This whole line of

Thanks for the answers. You ask:

Quoting rcocean: What do you think the Republicans need to do?

I guess it depends on whether the question is what they need to do to appeal to me or what I think they should do to be a more effective and useful party in a two-party system. Since, currently, the Dems appeal to me okay (not that I don't have some issues with them), the second question is more interesting, although I'm puzzling out what I think the answer is. The reformers tend to appeal to me, though, and not simply because they are supposedly liberal (I don't think they generally are, they just dissent on some issues), but because they seem to be feeling out what the existing problems are that the Dems aren't addressing well or the Republicans and figuring out what a conservative approach to the issue might be. In that sense, I think ideas that reforming the tax code to make it simpler, get rid of loopholes, stop using it to encourage every action under the sun, could be a good idea. I think some approach to health care that addresses the concerns about costs and employer-involvement

Basically, my diagnosis is that there needs to be a realignment of some sort and on whatever the new issues are, since it seems to me (although I'm sure real Republicans might not see it the same way) that the Republican Party is too much focusing on the climate that existed in the '70s or so. Whereas I (as someone who really became aware of politics during the Reagan era, as a kid, and cast my first Presidential vote for Clinton) largely sympathize with the Republican position on a lot of the key issues then, they don't seem to be the same ones that logically drive politics today, which is why I feel no motivation from them to vote Republican. For example, take foreign policy. The parties at one time split in a certain way on Cold War related issues, but the Cold War has been over for a long time now, and it's never really been clear that either party has a clear position on foreign policy. Sure, during the Bush admin there was a certain position on the War on Terror and Iraq and the neo

Quoting stephanie: [...]

Quoting stephanie: [...]

Good posts. Very well articulated.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: It might be so complex that it's impossible to speak about it in totally plain English. I often feel when writing stories, that as editors force me to whittle stuff down to plain English, some element of the truth is lost.

I think you have to attack this problem from both ends: I'm strongly in favor of basic economics joining reading and math as a core subject that high school students should have to study. At the same time, I think you need to ensure that the people covering these subjects in the media are smart enough to whittle these issues down at least to the plainest English possible without undercutting the facts. I aspire me to be one of those people, but I'm not even within shouting distance of it yet.

Yes, yes and yes on the basics, but how will you handle such phenomena as derivatives? Things which arguably are so new that very few truly understand them. I felt that I had some grasp of basic economics until Enron collapsed and then I just sat and wondered how all those MBA's never saw it coming. I think things have gotten

Quoting badhatharry: [...]

I feel exactly the same way.

Quoting badhatharry: Yes, yes and yes on the basics, but how will you handle such phenomena as derivatives? Things which arguably are so new that very few truly understand them. I felt that I had some grasp of basic economics until Enron collapsed and then I just sat and wondered how all those MBA's never saw it coming.

I think things have gotten out of hand of late and are even beyond human scale. So few create things and great fortunes are made by simply moving money from place to place. What sense is to be made of that? We have entered the twilight zone of economics. Until there is a higher premium set on integrity and honesty and real work, we will remain as Alan Greenspan said, shell-shocked.

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,”

Jim Stewart had a NYer piece in the fall of 2008 about the rogue SocGen trader that helped explain how swaps and futures could bring down a bank--I thought that was pretty good at making things clear to someone who

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: ... I don't think this stuff is beyond understanding; but I think those who get it are far too few.

I think there's been a deliberate strategy of crafting instruments with a degree of complexity such that they're going to be generally misunderstood, except, of course, by the people responsible for creating them, and a few experts. They ought to be regulated almost out of existence, in my opinion.

Oh yes, I heard the This American Life episode about the federal government agency (been looking for the acronym for a half hour now, but no luck) which was tasked with looking after the ratings agencies. According to that episode they were so beholding to the ratings agencies that there was no way they could objectively do their jobs. I agree that people can find clear, concise analyisis. This American Life is a great example. But the larger question is what the hell is to be done about it? When I listen or read about this stuff, all I can conclude is that we need a major dose of integrity injected into the system. I believe in the free market and its genius, but it can only work if the people who are involved are creating real value.

Quoting bjkeefe: I feel exactly the same way.

will wonders never cease?

Quoting AemJeff: I think there's been a deliberate strategy of crafting instruments with a degree of complexity such that they're going to be generally misunderstood, except, of course, by the people responsible for creating them, and a few experts. They ought to be regulated almost out of existence, in my opinion.

Given enough time, there is always a way around regulation.....any regulation.

Quoting badhatharry: Given enough time, there is always a way around regulation.....any regulation.

That's why regulations aren't chiseled in stone.

Quoting AemJeff: That's why regulations aren't chiseled in stone.

But they are! And they just keep adding up. What is really needed is that regulations be enforced. What I see now is that there are so many and the regulatory agencies are so beholding to the entities they are supposed to regulate, that very little gets accomplished by all of these regulations.

Quoting badhatharry: But they are! And they just keep adding up. What is really needed is that regulations be enforced. What I see now is that there are so many and the regulatory agencies are so beholding to the entities they are supposed to regulate, that very little gets accomplished by all of these regulations.

Those are valid concerns. But the takeaway lesson, at least for me, isn't "don't regulate."

Quoting badhatharry: Oh yes, I heard the This American Life episode about the federal government agency (been looking for the acronym for a half hour now, but no luck) which was tasked with looking after the ratings agencies. According to that episode they were so beholding to the ratings agencies that there was no way they could objectively do their jobs.

I agree that people can find clear, concise analyisis. This American Life is a great example. But the larger question is what the hell is to be done about it? When I listen or read about this stuff, all I can conclude is that we need a major dose of integrity injected into the system.

I believe in the free market and its genius, but it can only work if the people who are involved are creating real value.

I was at a conference on this topic this past week and the consensus was something like this:
--these instruments are complicated, but not incomprehensible to people with a decent understanding of math
--businesses will always try to escape regulations and so regulations have to be both enforced and constantly tweaked to react to

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I was at a conference on this topic this past week and the consensus was something like this:
--these instruments are complicated, but not incomprehensible to people with a decent understanding of math
--businesses will always try to escape regulations and so regulations have to be both enforced and constantly tweaked to react to new developments in business practice
--this requires regulators to be people with intelligence and mathematical ability equal to that of the businessmen and women they regulate.
--so long as there is a profound gap in wealth and (more crucially) social status between private sector and public sector work, the best and brightest of Harvard, Stanford etc will go to the private sector while the public sector will be stuck recruiting the kids who came in closer to the middle of the academic pack.
--we must reverse that gap and elevate public sector work to the point where first-in-their-class econ majors from top universities aspire to work at the SEC, or this problem can't be solved.

Wishful thinking. "We need to enforce the regulations". What a novel thought. Nobody had ever thought of that before, it's so simple, just enforce the regulations...

Quoting badhatharry: Right on analysis.

However to give the politicians the benefit of the doubt would assume they were doing good while appearing not to. What you describe is that their main objective is to benefit themselves.

As I said it's not an easy job. If politicians implements the crazy ideas that the majority that elected them is demanding, they might screw up reality so bad that they'll suffer in the next election no matter what (the electorate also has no memory). So while their modus operandi is self-serving, they still provide an essential "moderating" function for the system as a whole.

I disagree. The analogy between investing and gambling is well-worn. But every gambler knows he has to pay up before he leaves the table. Socializing the risk is the culprit. Swaps, et al have a place in a market. But those who play the market shouldn't be protected. There should be a legislative standard of how much protection investments require, from stocks to the newest instrument as yet not concocted. Trying to restrain this innovation is foolhardy, because money will either go in legit channels or investors will commit crimes. As a society, though, the layperson has to make clear, that a gambler who loses has to pay up. Otherwise, investors will use this instruments with impunity with dwindling returns and more crises. Check out Charles Calomiris talking - or read the notes - about crises and risk (~5.48)

I heard Orzog on Charlie Rose a couple of nights ago. What I came away with is that if this guy is bullshitting, no one would know it or would be afraid to point it out.

That's probably more Charlie Rose's fault than anyone else's.

Hey David, the real lesson from NY-23 seems to be the liberal won but he had to pretend he was a conservative to do it. Wonder what his supporters feel like now, other than as dupes at a carnival's Midway. Congressman Hoffman broke three campaign promises in two hours, voting for the Saturday Night Sneak, which cuts Medicare benefits, raises taxes on the middle class and taxes medical benefits, all three things he promised never to vote for. But he'll still be in good company in Washington with Barack 'we'll debate the health cate bill on C-SPAN' Obama and Nancy 'three day review' Pelosi. Now that is a debacle. Change You Can Believe In!

Quoting harkin: Congressman Hoffman ...

That's not a title I can believe in.