Razib, Matt Welch, Chris Hayes, Josh Cohen, Glenn, Brink, Bob, Mark Schmit...Maha and Ham's great foray into the apollo. And it's only Tuesday. What an awesome week at BHTV. All we need now is Michelle Goldberg. Thanks, bookers!

I liked Loury's point about the "vein in the American psyche". Another interesting thing to note is that among the elite blacks are disproportionately immigrants themselves or like Obama children of Africans or Caribbeans (Colin Powell, for instance) rather than the African-Americans that suffered under slavery & jim crow. The documented effect that feeling good about a good deed means that bodes ill for the persisting problems in, say, inner city schools. Though speaking of those, I'm disappointed neither of them mentioned Obama shutting down the effective D.C charter program. His point about how it's not really Christian not to forgive convicts struck me as facile. Obviously there is a difference between secular and temporal authority & rules. I don't believe in God, but when I did I didn't claim that his commandments get to override the rulings of courts. I'm personally uncomfortable with the pardon power executives have and suspect it would be often used for political reasons. I'm no fan of Alexander Hamilton, but I'll acknowledge that there are inevitable mistakes in the justice system. Perhaps a sort of expert panel would be better invested with that power than a politician. It

Having only listened to the first segment regarding race thus far, a couple thoughts immediately come to mind. First and most obvious regarding the impact of recession on black Americans, it seems likely that this impact is in and of itself race neutral. That is, there may be race-related reasons involved in the fact that black Americans populate the lowest economic class disproportionately but it is no surprise that being there they suffer during times of particular economic hardship. Those at the bottom always do and always have. In years of bad harvests, the nobility never goes hungry but the peasants are free to starve. The second and more interesting idea to me relates to some study results reported in a recent Slate article, and no doubt elsewhere, regarding the idea of "moral licensing". That is, having built up some "moral credit", perhaps by performing some virtuous act or acts, people tend to feel somewhat entitled use that credit by ethically slacking off or acting in a less moral manner later. This suggests that there may well be a degree to which some will feel that

The cities are back? I don't see it. African-American unemployment is 20 percent across the nation and probably twice that high in many inner city areas. It is also sky high among twenty something working-class whites. So why don't we see anything like Roosevelt's CCC? I've been reading lots of books on the New Deal lately. The CCC was up and running in less than 3 months (!) and employed literally millions of young people all over the nation, mixing them up by class and region and ethnicity and matching them with local communities in need. Granted, that was a rural program employing lots of big city kids, but isn't there plenty to do in the cities themselves: schools to be repaired, homes insulated, sidewalks installed, playgrounds constructed, community centers built, graffiti removed, gangs cleaned up and replaced, old ladies looked after, medical clinics opened, internet installed, daycare centers manned, children mentored, vacant lots cleared, abandoned buildings torn down (look at Detroit) and replaced with parks, delapidated houses painted, oral histories recorded, music made, languages learned, skills and trades imparted -- the list goes on and on as far as the imagination can roam. Yet I see nothing, nothing, nothing. If Obama would worry about class he wouldn't have to worry

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: I've been reading lots of books on the New Deal lately. The CCC was up and running in less than 3 months (!) and employed literally millions of young people all over the nation, mixing them up by class and region and ethnicity and matching them with local communities in need. Granted, that was a rural program, but isn't there plenty to do in the cities today: schools to be repaired, homes insulated, sidewalks installed, playgrounds constructed, community centers built, graffiti removed, gangs cleaned up and replaced, old ladies looked after, medical clinics opened, internet installed, daycare centers manned, children mentored, vacant lots cleared, delapidated houses torn down (look at Detroit) and replaced with parks, delapidated houses painted, oral histories recorded, music made, languages learned, skills and trades imparted -- the list goes on and on as far as the imagination can roam.

Yet I see nothing, nothing, nothing. If Obama would worry about class he wouldn't have to worry about race. Right now he is failing to connect with poor people everywhere. He is not their man.

Anything books in particular you liked? For Obama to be working on that level would require him to be well outside of the mainstream of economic thought. I'm with you: we'd have

What a stark difference between Bush, who pardoned virtually nobody, and Huckabee, who pardoned quite a few. Were they reading the same Bible? Huckabee need take only 1 more step to make himself a true Christian: oppose the death penalty. Somehow capital punishment is justified as fair compensation to family and friends of the victim. But in reality, it only feeds their most base and primitive instincts, leaving these grieving people looking very much like Bush...rigid and mean-spirited. My suggestion is that those people in favor of capital punishment should not be pardoned.

The cities need aid. There are a lot of poor people living in the them who are by definition not producing all that they need to survive. But I doubt the additional mega billions being spent to provide the poor with what they need is going to raise their productivity. Productivity is what it is all about in an economy. The more we collectively produce, the more we all have to consume. It would be interesting to see numbers on national production of things that people actually consume. Homes built. Cars repaired. Food grown. Not sure how computer software written and movies produced can be measured. Exclude infrastructure. Then contrast that number with government expenditures. My theory is that increases in government spending do not correlate as much as would be expected with national production.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: ... isn't there plenty to do in the cities themselves: schools to be repaired, homes insulated, sidewalks installed, playgrounds constructed, community centers built, graffiti removed, gangs cleaned up and replaced, old ladies looked after, medical clinics opened, internet installed, daycare centers manned, children mentored, vacant lots cleared, abandoned buildings torn down (look at Detroit) and replaced with parks, delapidated houses painted, oral histories recorded, music made, languages learned, skills and trades imparted -- the list goes on and on as far as the imagination can roam.

For the economy ( and society ) as a whole, doing all of this would be a big positive. But only if the work is done by the same communities the work is being done for. Otherwise, you are just taking money/production from a productive section of the country/economy/society and allocating it to unproductive areas. I am in the camp that asserts that the policies of FDR and the federal government extended the duration of the depression. But at least the people who were employed to build the public works back then were the same people who would use what was produced.

The rhetoric about rich people "working harder" is misleading, yes. Nobody works harder in a brute physical sense than a ditch digger. But there IS such a thing as working 100 times more intelligently, or 100 times more productively than someone else. And sometimes - definitely not always - THIS kind of difference IS responsible for income differences. Those on the left, like Mark Schmitt, tend to point out conservatives' downplaying of factors like luck and privilege in wealth-achievement. They're correct to do so. Yet, at the same time they downplay the role hard work, skill, and talent DO often play in upward mobility. BIAS, BIAS, EVERYWHERE BIAS.

Quoting Ottorino: The rhetoric about rich people "working harder" is misleading, yes. Nobody works harder in a brute physical sense than a ditch digger. But there IS such a thing as working 100 times more intelligently, or 100 times more productively than someone else. And sometimes - definitely not always - THIS kind of difference IS responsible for income differences. Those on the left, like Mark Schmitt, tend to point out conservatives' downplaying of factors like luck and privilege in wealth-achievement. They're correct to do so. Yet, at the same time they downplay the role hard work, skill, and talent DO often play in upward mobility.

BIAS, BIAS, EVERYWHERE BIAS.

You start off making a good point. Certainly it is true that I have worked in a situation where if it weren't for the three or four geniuses whose ideas the rest of us were paid to implement, there would have been no company. However, you go too far. You're missing Mark's point, which is that, all too often, one does in fact hear the talking point about "working harder." (It would not be consistent the people one often hears saying this to cast it in terms of intelligence, since another one of their memes is anti-intellectualism.) The people who parrot this

Quoting DenvilleSteve: For the economy ( and society ) as a whole, doing all of this would be a big positive. But only if the work is done by the same communities the work is being done for.

This is...exactly right. And it's precisely the sort of thing that Glen Beck and crew decry. In fact, the U.S. has programs of this sort in the works right now. The idea is to create green jobs in the cities, train residents local to the job sites to do the work, and encourage new workers to enter existing unions to ensure long-term employment. For the right, this plan is a nightmare conspiracy.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I am in the camp that asserts that the policies of FDR and the federal government extended the duration of the depression. But at least the people who were employed to build the public works back then were the same people who would use what was produced.

You're in the wrong camp. FDR saved the country, then the world. But, yes, you've got the right idea about production and consumption here.

Quoting Ray: This is...exactly right.

And it's precisely the sort of thing that Glen Beck and crew decry. In fact, the U.S. has programs of this sort in the works right now. The idea is to create green jobs in the cities, train residents local to the job sites to do the work, and encourage new workers to enter existing unions to ensure long-term employment.

why do we need to create green jobs in the cities? Cities already have a much lower carbon and resource using footprint per capita than other parts of the country. Start with the basics. People in the cities should be building their own housing. The doctors, dentists and educators should come from the communities they serve.

Quoting Ottorino: But there IS such a thing as working 100 times more intelligently, or 100 times more productively than someone else. And sometimes - definitely not always - THIS kind of difference IS responsible for income differences.

No; it isn't. This is why Schmitt's Gates example is so wrong. Gates's money doesn't come from invention or work; it comes from positioning. He was in the right place at the right time; he was lucky. Gates is actually a great example of how totally out of whack the market is. If the market were in any way efficient, it would have rewarded Gates only the minimum amount necessary to get him to do the work he did. Would Gates have worked only for $60 billion? No. He'd have worked for a much, much smaller amount, leaving the balance available for allocation to other investments. The market has wildly over-rewarded Gates. The productivity or intelligence (?) of a person's work should not matter to the market in its negotiation with a worker over compensation. The market ought to provide the minimum possible financial motivation necessary to get each worker to work.

Quoting Ray: Gates is actually a great example of how totally out of whack the market is. If the market were in any way efficient, it would have rewarded Gates only the minimum amount necessary to get him to do the work he did.

you would likely have to abolish intellectual property laws to reduce the earnings of people like Bill Gates.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: you would likely have to abolish intellectual property laws to reduce the earnings of people like Bill Gates.

Nope. Better antitrust laws, and better enforcement of same would work dandy.

Great argument if you applied it equally to say the carbon footprint giants that require 1200 limousines and 140 private jets used to ferry around those so enamored of the AGW theme, but instead you defend them with the old tried and true meme of it doesn't matter what their particular life styles are because their cause is so righteous. I believe it was Tolstoy who said (paraphrased) "“Hypocrisy may deceive the cleverest and most thoughtful man, but easily recognized by the children no matter how ingeniously it is disguised"

Yes, I like Jared Bernstein and James K. Galbraith. Their emphsais appears to be on the worker not wealthy bankers and investment types. So far, it appears the latter group have benefitted from the Obama Administration's economic policies - at least that is the public's perception of it. Also, it appears that the majority party is at loose ends on what to to do about the high unemployment numbers which will not serve them well in the '10 elections if they persist in the 10% range (pushing 13% in California). John

Actually wasn't it Paul Allen, Andrea Lewis and Marla Wood that did most of the "work" and Gates that did most of the negotiating and selling?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: you would likely have to abolish intellectual property laws to reduce the earnings of people like Bill Gates.

That would be fine with me, and I'm encouraged by current assaults on IP law. But, no, you wouldn't have to go that far. As AemJeff said, anti-trust law would help the market on this count. I'd also suggest a top marginal tax rate in excess of 90%. Capitalism--any kind of sophisticated market system--cannot exist without very finely-tuned regulations. Whatever system of allocation we've got out there, it's not a market system. It is some other beast, and it is devouring us.

So I take it you won't be laying down the $200,000, for a flight into space in the near future because the venture has been capitalized by those entrepreneurs that have used there immoral wealth to make the transition to government control of all things involving space flight to market driven suppliers of the service.

Quoting piscivorous: Great argument if you applied it equally to say the carbon footprint giants that require 1200 limousines and 140 private jets used to ferry around those so enamored of the AGW theme, but instead you defend them with the old tried and true meme of it doesn't matter what their particular life styles are because their cause is so righteous. I believe it was Tolstoy who said (paraphrased) "“Hypocrisy may deceive the cleverest and most thoughtful man, but easily recognized by the children no matter how ingeniously it is disguised"

Way to stay on topic. One sure mark of the wingnut is the tendency to cast everything in terms of the same old stale pet peeve, no matter how little it actually pertains. [Added] I should say that I am delighted when denialists like you harp on inanities like private jets. It only further exposes your side as having no real basis in reality.

I thought it went directly to your point about "But particularly on the side of the fat cats and their trained mouthpieces" but I guess what is delicacy for for some is to bitter for others to contemplate tasting.

Quoting piscivorous: I thought it went directly to your point ...

Of course you thought it was on point. And of course two things are exactly alike just because you assert that they are. Please, continue.

Quoting piscivorous: So I take it you won't be laying down the $200,000, for a flight into space in the near future because the venture has been capitalized by those entrepreneurs that have used there immoral wealth to make the transition to government control of all things involving space flight to market driven suppliers of the service.

Entrepreneurs don't use "there" wealth. They risk other people's money on "there" ventures. And they would be making the transition from, not "to" government funding of space flight. And, no, I wouldn't lay down a dollar to ride the Tilt-a-Whirl at the local carnival, never mind a low-orbit throw-up ride. And, no, it's not a market-driven service. If we had a market system and if markets stimulated technological innovation, then we'd already be taking our solar-powered flying cars into orbit. However, I presume your intent was to imply that private funding of space flight would allow many more people to experience the joy and wonder of space flight, and that this is something we ought to support. Screw that. If I'm making a call on space exploration, I'd rather have the government tax the hell out of the rich people who'd

The middle volume of Schlesinger's trilogy, "The Coming of the New Deal," is a surprisingly good blow-by-blow account. For an insider's account available on the web, Frances Perkins voluminous oral history project at Columbia is vivid -- start with the section entitled "The Inaugeration." And here is a link to an excellent PBS documentary on the web: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/ccc/

Quoting Ray: That would be fine with me, and I'm encouraged by current assaults on IP law.

But, no, you wouldn't have to go that far.

As AemJeff said, anti-trust law would help the market on this count. I'd also suggest a top marginal tax rate in excess of 90%.

Capitalism--any kind of sophisticated market system--cannot exist without very finely-tuned regulations.

Whatever system of allocation we've got out there, it's not a market system. It is some other beast, and it is devouring us.

I'm in favor of abolishing I.P (and I'm a programmer! what a world, what a world). But I regard anti-trust as bogus. It's used by failing, usually well established companies, to restrict competition. Linux has been free to download for years, but people keep using Windows anyway. Capitalism can and has existed without fine tune regulations. The 19th century wasn't laissez-faire, but the interventions mostly consisted of subsidies & monopolies. Government wasn't as capable of providing a fine-tuned regulatory apparatus back then. The U.S isn't even all that unregulated compared to western europe. It's the low income (but not corporate/capital) tax rates and percent of GDP in government spending that are responsible for its relatively high place in Cato/Fraser or Heritage's economic

So you prefer NASA's giant leap forward with Apollo II over Scaled Composites, LLC's White knight II. While it was Queens, Kings, Popes and potentates that took the first steps in exploiting the New World it was merchants and entrepreneurs that made it free. Are sight seeing tours the be all and end all of what free enterprise will make of space, I think not but you have to start some where and NASA doesn't really have a clue from what I've seen lately.

Of course your cherry picked cut and paste ignores the salient part of the argument, your hyperventilating double standards, but then I've come to expect nothing less.

Quoting piscivorous: Of course ... I've come to expect nothing less.

I can't tell you how good it makes me feel to fulfill your expectations.

Quoting T.G.G.P: Capitalism can and has existed without fine tune regulations. The 19th century...

...was filled with economic disasters, with highly undesirable economic, environmental, and societal outcomes. Capitalism was under dire threat throughout the entire 19th century. How do you think communists got their start?

Quoting T.G.G.P: You live in one of the richest nations in the world, in one of the richest periods of time in history. If only everyone could be so lucky so as to be "devoured" in such a manner!

No. I think I'll skip over thanking my lucky stars that I'm not, say, a Cave Man or from Burkina Fasso. I think I'll stick to calling out injustice and bad policy where I see them right here, in the good ol' U.S., thanks.

Quoting T.G.G.P: This may be because regulation is different now compared to the 30's so that "shovel ready" projects cannot be undergone so easily.

It's more because we're trying to do this better than we did it in the '30s. We're trying to develop long-term employment in building trades. Look at Glen Beck's ravings against Van Jones. Beck pretty much had it right.

Quoting piscivorous: While it was Queens, Kings, Popes and potentates that took the first steps in exploiting the New World it was merchants and entrepreneurs that made it free.

You poor kid. You want to replace one aristocracy with another. Get over your fascination with Great Men and enter the Real World. "merchants and entrepreneurs that made it free"--hilarious! NASA is flailing, because it has no purpose, and it has no purpose, because we as a nation have no purpose. We're aimless.

Quoting Ray: You poor kid. You want to replace one aristocracy with another.

Get over your fascination with Great Men and enter the Real World.

"merchants and entrepreneurs that made it free"--hilarious!

NASA is flailing, because it has no purpose, and it has no purpose, because we as a nation have no purpose. We're aimless.

Unless you are well into your 70's I don't believe I would qualify as a kid and that would make you a dirty old man i suppose. As to being a Nation that is purposeless I think it is more a problem with leadership that is failing to channel the dreams and ambitions, of it's citizenry, except in the direction of self-importance.

Quoting Ray: ...was filled with economic disasters, with highly undesirable economic, environmental, and societal outcomes.

Capitalism was under dire threat throughout the entire 19th century. How do you think communists got their start?

No. I think I'll skip over thanking my lucky stars that I'm not, say, a Cave Man or from Burkina Fasso. I think I'll stick to calling out injustice and bad policy where I see them right here, in the good ol' U.S., thanks.

It's more because we're trying to do this better than we did it in the '30s. We're trying to develop long-term employment in building trades. Look at Glen Beck's ravings against Van Jones. Beck pretty much had it right.

You said capitalism cannot exist, not "capitalism will have problems". This is like Austrians pleading about Mises' impossibility argument about socialism. Capitalism WITH regulation has had economic "disasters" as bad as the 19th century, it only looks good in comparison to the communism whose existence you marshal as an argument for the flaws of capitalism! Face it, Marx was dead wrong. Workers did not become steadily more and more impoverished until they overthrew the most advanced capitalist countries, rather they kept getting richer while Lenin & the Frankfurt school

The problem of trying to regulate compensation are the unintended consequences and the opportunities for corruption and political abuse that arise whenever you put politicians in charge of something. The only way to go in my view is to stop bailing out the fat cats and stop cushioning their landing. Enough with the govt backing up and guaranteeing private investors and influential capitalists. Enough with incentives, breaks, and government insurance of risk. Let people pay for the consequences of their choices, and they'll be more careful. Treat people as adults and they'll stop lending their money to well-connected "poker" players.

Quoting T.G.G.P: Capitalism WITH regulation has had economic "disasters" as bad as the 19th century

There is nothing else but capitalism with regulation. Capitalism cannot exist without regulation, and the fewer regulations it has, the worse it performs. I can't imagine why you think that 19th century capitalism had no regulations, but there you go.

Quoting T.G.G.P: Workers did not become steadily more and more impoverished until they overthrew the most advanced capitalist countries

So? Why do you think I'm a Marxist?

Quoting T.G.G.P: rather they kept [url="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/12/macaulay_on_pes.html"]getting richer

Oh; I get it: you think capitalism has something to do with wealth generation. Capitalism is not responsible for wealth generation. In the U.S., our wealth comes from: technology, slavery, and nearly untapped natural resources, which we killed the indigenous population to get. Capitalism impedes technological process and serves mainly as an engine of destroying the wealth that technology produces. In capitalism, wealth passes upwards from workers into the hands of capitalists, who then create asset bubbles that destroy wealth. Part of the process of moving capital in this way involves retarding technological development, which is necessary to keep capital flowing into the wealth furnace, rather than into re-investment in new technologies.

Quoting Ray: There is nothing else but capitalism with regulation. Capitalism cannot exist without regulation

That's the statement you quoted which I rejected. It doesn't do very well to reiterate such a statement or we'd just keep going "Is not!", "Is too!". You have to support your argument.

Quoting Ray: and the fewer regulations it has, the worse it performs

Which is equivalent to saying the more regulations it has the better it performs. That sounds like an empirical statement. I linked to a site that ranks countries by the amount of regulations, you can suggest alternative rankings if you wish. A number of economists have used the rankings I mentioned to find correlations with GDP growth (a measure of performance) and found that higher scores (corresponding to less regulation) are found in countries with higher growth.

I can't imagine why you think that 19th century capitalism had no regulations, but there you go.

The modern regulatory state wasn't quite feasible back then. The federal government in America had a drastically smaller workforce back then, primarily collecting tariffs on imports (direct taxation was prohibited by the constitution, and most functions the government currently provides weren't considered authorized by the constitution

Quoting T.G.G.P: That's the statement you quoted which I rejected. It doesn't do very well to reiterate such a statement or we'd just keep going "Is not!", "Is too!". You have to support your argument.

he is correct. without supporting structures of law etc. - i'd just kill you and take your stuff. if you want to trade, you need the assurance of systems that protect you from that situation so you can invest your capital and get a return on your investment. where do you think there has ever been a thriving capitalism without a state to enforce the regulations against, at a minimum, theft and violence that make "free trade" possible?

Quoting popcorn_karate: he is correct.

Are you agreeing with my point about reiterating the statement that is being disputed, or are you agreeing with his statement? And if the latter, how should you respond if you disagree with a claim someone else makes and then they respond by just reiterating the claim?

without supporting structures of law etc. - i'd just kill you and take your stuff.

For one thing, laws against murder are not what is normally considered "regulation". Many libertarians/anarcho-capitalists following Rothbard have proposed junking the entire regulatory system and letting the tort system sort it out. There are problems with that approach when it comes to pollution, but not murder. Murder can be and has been treated as a tort (the phrase "blood money" was called "wergild" in Anglo-Saxon tradition). That could a non-regulatory (there are no regulators involved, the impacted parties bring suit and the government is not considered a party) way of dealing with the issue using the government as mediator, but even that isn't necessary. Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law", which I highly recommend, discusses how completely private systems of law & justice have operated, such as the Anglo-Saxon I mentioned

Quoting Ilovecroatia: I only ask because in those monster threads a few hundred posts its annoying only being able to see ten posts a page then having to click next. Is there an option to make it say 20 or 50 even?

Indeed there is. 1. Click on User CP near the top of the page. 2. Click Edit Options in the Menu on the left 3. Scroll down to Number of Posts to Show Per Page. You can select up to 40 per page. However, in this forum, you might actually prefer another option. You're currently using the Linear Mode. The Threaded Mode is far superior. (It may take some getting used to.) To use the Threaded Mode: 1. Click into any thread. 2. Near the top right of the page, you'll see a link for Display Options. 3. Click it, and select Switch to Threaded Mode.

Quoting TwinSwords:
However, in this forum, you might actually prefer another option. You're currently using the Linear Mode. The Threaded Mode is far superior. (It may take some getting used to.) To use the Threaded Mode:

1. Click into any thread.

2. Near the top right of the page, you'll see a link for Display Options.

3. Click it, and select Switch to Threaded Mode.

I think the Hybrid mode is the best of both worlds.

Quoting popcorn_karate: I think the Hybrid mode is the best of both worlds.

Yeah, it's not bad -- on small devices, e.g., smartphones, especially.

Quoting TwinSwords: Yeah, it's not bad -- on small devices, e.g., smartphones, especially.

My hand-built command-line interface is the best.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Right now he is failing to connect with poor people everywhere. He is not their man the way Roosevelt was.

He's not and, so far as I can tell, he hasn't tried to be. The Dems have realigned, and it will be interesting to figure out what that means. But I think part of what it means is that various economic changes are bad for specific interest groups and that Obama will consider the overall effect before taking a position and perhaps try to ameliorate the bad effect without interfering with the positive effects on the overall economy. All this is why David Frum's commentary, while intelligent in some ways, seems out of date. More in his thread.

Quoting stephanie: But I think part of what it means is that various economic changes are bad for specific interest groups and that Obama will consider the overall effect before taking a position and perhaps try to ameliorate the bad effect without interfering with the positive effects on the overall economy.

Sometimes I have that sense about Obama, but when I read something like this, I wonder. Could it actually be that letting the movers and shakers have their way is the way of the world now, and best for all? Is this the track to one-world governance and enough material goods and equality for all..some more equal than others, but a chicken in every pot? Matt Taibbi:

'Just look at the timeline of the Citigroup deal," says one leading Democratic consultant. "Just look at it. It's fucking amazing. Amazing! And nobody said a thing about it."

***

Incredibly, Froman did not resign from the bank when he went to work for Obama: He remained in the employ of Citigroup for two more months, even as he helped appoint the very people who would shape the future of his own firm. And to help him pick