Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
johnbr
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 days ago
in Web 2.0 RC1 on Web 2.0 RC1
*What???*
You *knew* they were going to be slaughtered, and yet You lifted not Your hand to save them from the dread fate.
What kind of deity allows such slaughter? An uncaring, merciless one, that's who.
You *knew* they were going to be slaughtered, and yet You lifted not Your hand to save them from the dread fate.
What kind of deity allows such slaughter? An uncaring, merciless one, that's who.
1 reply
4 days ago
in Web 2.0 RC1 on Web 2.0 RC1
Yeah, but the entire Austrian school has been saying pretty consistently that the Stimulus wouldn't work at all, and we wouldn't see any meaningful impact from all that money we spent.
So from my perspective, the fact that the stimulus hasn't worked seems like a vindication of the Austrian model, rather than a justification to tax our future selves even more.
On the other hand, I remember when we invaded Iraq and a bunch of people said "we don't have enough troops". And things went pretty bad, and Bush announced he was going to "surge" a bunch of extra troops, and everyone said "adding more troops won't help". But it did help, quite a bit,, it turns out.
All of this is a round-about way of saying that Krugman may be right, but he may also be 100% wrong (and there are Econ Nobel Prize winners who think the stimulus was a waste of money).
And if I were completely cynical, I would suggest that a wise philosopher would advocate for a policy, and then, no matter what variation on that policy was enacted, should always argue that it wasn't enough. Because by saying "it's not enough", he protects himself it the policy doesn't work, and if the policy does work, he was simply being conservative, instead of being flat-out wrong.
But I'm not that cynical.
:)
So from my perspective, the fact that the stimulus hasn't worked seems like a vindication of the Austrian model, rather than a justification to tax our future selves even more.
On the other hand, I remember when we invaded Iraq and a bunch of people said "we don't have enough troops". And things went pretty bad, and Bush announced he was going to "surge" a bunch of extra troops, and everyone said "adding more troops won't help". But it did help, quite a bit,, it turns out.
All of this is a round-about way of saying that Krugman may be right, but he may also be 100% wrong (and there are Econ Nobel Prize winners who think the stimulus was a waste of money).
And if I were completely cynical, I would suggest that a wise philosopher would advocate for a policy, and then, no matter what variation on that policy was enacted, should always argue that it wasn't enough. Because by saying "it's not enough", he protects himself it the policy doesn't work, and if the policy does work, he was simply being conservative, instead of being flat-out wrong.
But I'm not that cynical.
:)
2 replies
moorewr
PS: I thought the reaction against the surge on the left (except for the "get out now" crowd, they at least were consistent) was pathetic and hypocritical.
moorewr
This sprung from my debate with jeffmiller and hilker about what the Obama administration was thinking during the stimulus and the roll-out of the "2nd stimulus" call.
From my standpoint nothing at all is proven because the money hasn't been spent. Our limited practical experience is our only guide -- the Treasury-view disasters at the start of the depression, the Keynesian recovery, the Keynesian response to recessions since WW2 in the 1st world (mixed results), the Japanase liquidity trap, and the Austrian-driven disasters in developing markets.
From my standpoint nothing at all is proven because the money hasn't been spent. Our limited practical experience is our only guide -- the Treasury-view disasters at the start of the depression, the Keynesian recovery, the Keynesian response to recessions since WW2 in the 1st world (mixed results), the Japanase liquidity trap, and the Austrian-driven disasters in developing markets.
1 month ago
in Is manufacturing in decline in the US? Take the quiz. on Web 2.0 RC1
Crazy - can you send me some links? I'd love to get more up to date data - the UN's own stats (unido.org) only go through 2006
1 reply
crazynutjob
Nuts. I was going to try to give you a link to justfuckinggoogleit (just to be an ass), but I couldn't get any good results (though "manufacturing output us" is how I found that quiz). When in doubt about economic data, I first turn towards the known reports. ISM publishes a great report here. It was just updated, but here is a graph for better viewing pleasure (unfortunately, that's a month to month comparison, you really want a cumulative graph).
Because it makes a contribution to GDP, and capacity utilization is tracked by the Fed, it makes sense to look at the Fed data as well. Check here. Scroll down, there's more below the first chart. (also, check the GDP report at BEA.gov)
The Federal Reserve FRED tool is awesome (I use it for my occasional money supply graphs, but it has much more). Here are the search results for "manufacturing." Note, you may have to create a free account before that link works.
Because it makes a contribution to GDP, and capacity utilization is tracked by the Fed, it makes sense to look at the Fed data as well. Check here. Scroll down, there's more below the first chart. (also, check the GDP report at BEA.gov)
The Federal Reserve FRED tool is awesome (I use it for my occasional money supply graphs, but it has much more). Here are the search results for "manufacturing." Note, you may have to create a free account before that link works.
1 month ago
in Web 2.0 RC1 on Web 2.0 RC1
I'm of the opinion they both have been pretty indifferent to the concept of "rule of law". It's a shame to waste a crisis, after all.
There's no doubt that the media was helpful for Bush in 02/03 - but that turned sour pretty quickly, and got even moreso over time. Having said that, he deserved much of the negative press,
As for Obama on GM and Chrysler - Wagoner's dismissal and Obama's instructions to Chrysler on how to proceed regarding a deal with Fiat both seem pretty coercive to me. And of course, there's this entire mess: http://islandturtle.blogspot.com/2009/05/white-... and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/business/01he...
So from my perspective - Obama uses his control over the big banks to force other bondholders to accept his bankruptcy plan. And the holdouts were (allegedly) threatened with the ruin of their reputation if they did not submit.
That seems coercive to me.
I understand that you can flip the bits on a couple of those variables - maybe the holdouts weren't threatened, and since Bush started the TARP process, it's not Obama's fault that they are now his vassals. But even so, he's still pulling the strings.
We've already established my position on the bailouts - no one should have gotten a single penny. And, given that these companies asked for money, they are obliged to bow-and-scrape before their new liege-lord. Controlling executive pay is probably counterproductive, but on the other hand, it's not particularly surprising.
On the other hand, using your henchmen to endorse a bankruptcy plan that dramatically and ahistorically benefits your loyal voting blocks at the cost of other, less partisan players is, IMO, quite troubling.
Thought experiment - what if McCain was President, and all other things were essentially equal, but w.r.t the Chrysler bankruptcy, the labor unions were only getting 5% (instead of 10%) and the bondholders were getting 65% instead of 60%, because President McCain used his hold over JPMorgan and such to endorse a plan that was more beneficial to the bondholders. If I were in your shoes, I'd be pretty livid at that scenario.
There's no doubt that the media was helpful for Bush in 02/03 - but that turned sour pretty quickly, and got even moreso over time. Having said that, he deserved much of the negative press,
As for Obama on GM and Chrysler - Wagoner's dismissal and Obama's instructions to Chrysler on how to proceed regarding a deal with Fiat both seem pretty coercive to me. And of course, there's this entire mess: http://islandturtle.blogspot.com/2009/05/white-... and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/business/01he...
So from my perspective - Obama uses his control over the big banks to force other bondholders to accept his bankruptcy plan. And the holdouts were (allegedly) threatened with the ruin of their reputation if they did not submit.
That seems coercive to me.
I understand that you can flip the bits on a couple of those variables - maybe the holdouts weren't threatened, and since Bush started the TARP process, it's not Obama's fault that they are now his vassals. But even so, he's still pulling the strings.
We've already established my position on the bailouts - no one should have gotten a single penny. And, given that these companies asked for money, they are obliged to bow-and-scrape before their new liege-lord. Controlling executive pay is probably counterproductive, but on the other hand, it's not particularly surprising.
On the other hand, using your henchmen to endorse a bankruptcy plan that dramatically and ahistorically benefits your loyal voting blocks at the cost of other, less partisan players is, IMO, quite troubling.
Thought experiment - what if McCain was President, and all other things were essentially equal, but w.r.t the Chrysler bankruptcy, the labor unions were only getting 5% (instead of 10%) and the bondholders were getting 65% instead of 60%, because President McCain used his hold over JPMorgan and such to endorse a plan that was more beneficial to the bondholders. If I were in your shoes, I'd be pretty livid at that scenario.
1 reply
moorewr
Well, I was saying that TARP is surely coercive - both under Paulson & Geithner. Goldman Sachs has been told they are not allowed to buy their way out. That's akin to forcing Ford to join GM and Chrysler, then forcing out their CEO.
1 month ago
in Web 2.0 RC1 on Web 2.0 RC1
You make some fair points. I would say that I can rattle off a bunch of reasons why the Bush regime was less scary than the Obama regime, based on the adversity of the media, government employees, the hostile Congress, etc.
But that's not meta- enough for me - I think the real issue is how you and I (and others) weight different kinds of concerns. For example, I suspect that I weigh the scariness of nationalizing Chrysler, ignoring bankruptcy laws and a fawningly obeisant media higher than you do. Conversely, I weigh the torture/rendition/FBI thing somewhat less scary than you do.
From a meta- perspective, having different weights upon different aspects of governance is simply part of a robust and involved citizenry.
From a non-meta perspective, I would say that FDR waged an inadvertent war against American businessmen, largely by frightening them the incredibly arbitrary policy changes he made week-to-week in his second term, and the threats of punitive taxation as well. In other words, I think he had good intentions, but...
But that's not meta- enough for me - I think the real issue is how you and I (and others) weight different kinds of concerns. For example, I suspect that I weigh the scariness of nationalizing Chrysler, ignoring bankruptcy laws and a fawningly obeisant media higher than you do. Conversely, I weigh the torture/rendition/FBI thing somewhat less scary than you do.
From a meta- perspective, having different weights upon different aspects of governance is simply part of a robust and involved citizenry.
From a non-meta perspective, I would say that FDR waged an inadvertent war against American businessmen, largely by frightening them the incredibly arbitrary policy changes he made week-to-week in his second term, and the threats of punitive taxation as well. In other words, I think he had good intentions, but...
1 reply
moorewr
Well, on the one hand many things done in the Bush administration circumvented or defied our system of laws. Most of the list re: Obama seem to boil down to not violations of the rule of law but "he and his policies are too popular." As for the media, well, I must not watch the same channels as you, or you have wiped the disgraceful behavior of the media in 2002-2003 clear from your mind.
I will make a key distinction between GM/Chrysler and TARP - the government didn't force GM and Chrysler to accept federal money. The browbeating the bondholders have received may be distasteful, but the only directly coercive power in the arena is the bankruptcy judge.
They (the carmakers) came begging and accepted the consequences. Paulson/Bush DID force banks into TARP, and Geithner wont let them out.
I will make a key distinction between GM/Chrysler and TARP - the government didn't force GM and Chrysler to accept federal money. The browbeating the bondholders have received may be distasteful, but the only directly coercive power in the arena is the bankruptcy judge.
They (the carmakers) came begging and accepted the consequences. Paulson/Bush DID force banks into TARP, and Geithner wont let them out.
2 months ago
in Web 2.0 RC1 on Web 2.0 RC1
For me, it's more about the rule of law than the bailout. At this point, essentially we've abandoned the rule of law on bankruptcies - we've established the precedent that the Executive branch can unilaterally determine how bankruptcies play out, without regard to judicial review.
This may be acceptable to you when the UAW "wins" and hedge funds lose, but if Dick Cheney becomes our next president, don't expect the UAW to fare as well if this happens again in the future.
Without consistency, even the illusion of fairness collapses.
This may be acceptable to you when the UAW "wins" and hedge funds lose, but if Dick Cheney becomes our next president, don't expect the UAW to fare as well if this happens again in the future.
Without consistency, even the illusion of fairness collapses.
2 replies
moorewr
Well. There's still legal process - you can challenge the decision made here in court.
The fact remains that the government has leverage because it is providing the cash - and there's no way to avoid that being corrosive to democracy and order.
The fact remains that the government has leverage because it is providing the cash - and there's no way to avoid that being corrosive to democracy and order.
crazynutjob
Moot issue: The group has disbanded.
As far as due process and rule of law: Section 363 law is very, very complicated. Many of the procedural aspects of the law seem at odds with the rest of bankruptcy law. In some ways, it seems hastily made. But the bankruptcy judge seemed to be following the procedures quite well, and he certainly wasn't simply giving the senior creditors the shaft. It would have been interesting to watch play out.
As far as due process and rule of law: Section 363 law is very, very complicated. Many of the procedural aspects of the law seem at odds with the rest of bankruptcy law. In some ways, it seems hastily made. But the bankruptcy judge seemed to be following the procedures quite well, and he certainly wasn't simply giving the senior creditors the shaft. It would have been interesting to watch play out.
2 months ago
in Web 2.0 RC1 on Web 2.0 RC1
echoing Jeff - it's not that the min. wage explains everything. But it does carry some weight, at least for me. The classic argument "if something costs more, you generally want to buy less of it" holds true, even for labor.
I don't think it will be too terribly long before there are robots/automatic systems to replace virtually all forms of manual labor. I doubt they'll be Asimovian general class robotic servants -- probably more like semi-custom automatic systems at fast food restaurants, paving systems, construction robots, etc - each one specially made for one purpose.
We're already starting to see that change - the automated checkout line at various grocery stores and such.
I don't think it will be too terribly long before there are robots/automatic systems to replace virtually all forms of manual labor. I doubt they'll be Asimovian general class robotic servants -- probably more like semi-custom automatic systems at fast food restaurants, paving systems, construction robots, etc - each one specially made for one purpose.
We're already starting to see that change - the automated checkout line at various grocery stores and such.
1 reply
moorewr
We just had a meeting today where we dropped one student employee from our plans for 2009-10, both because the minimum wage went up, and because our budget was reduced. Exhibit A.
The replacement of manual labor with service or technical jobs is far advanced in the US and Europe already. The US is a special case because we have a large class of jobs that American citizens wont fill (at any salary) that other workers are here doing.
The replacement of manual labor with service or technical jobs is far advanced in the US and Europe already. The US is a special case because we have a large class of jobs that American citizens wont fill (at any salary) that other workers are here doing.
2 months ago
in Web 2.0 RC1 on Web 2.0 RC1
Not to dissuade you ;-) but:
1. What is the antimony being used for? What are the substitutes - would a modest increase in price cause an easy switch to a different material ?
2. Why is the supply so low? How robust is this chart - is it based on faulty data? Would a modest increase in price cause a significant new source of antimony to open up?
3. There are people out there who make their living speculating on antimony futures. They know a lot about the "Antimony economy". Before you start buying antimony, it may benefit you to understand what it is that you know about the world's use of antimony that they do not know.
Having said all of that, if a bunch of people see this chart and fail to do the appropriate due diligence, they may bid up the price of antimony and create an antimony bubble. If you get in early enough, you might be able to ride that bubble to profit before it bursts.
1. What is the antimony being used for? What are the substitutes - would a modest increase in price cause an easy switch to a different material ?
2. Why is the supply so low? How robust is this chart - is it based on faulty data? Would a modest increase in price cause a significant new source of antimony to open up?
3. There are people out there who make their living speculating on antimony futures. They know a lot about the "Antimony economy". Before you start buying antimony, it may benefit you to understand what it is that you know about the world's use of antimony that they do not know.
Having said all of that, if a bunch of people see this chart and fail to do the appropriate due diligence, they may bid up the price of antimony and create an antimony bubble. If you get in early enough, you might be able to ride that bubble to profit before it bursts.
1 reply
moorewr
That was CNJ's idea too.. get in on antimony futures. They (New Scientist's contributor) did the math from known reserves and current usage (world and world at US rates - with the big "does not reflect changes in technology" caveat.
2 months ago
in Web 2.0 RC1 on Web 2.0 RC1
On the subject of Tea Parties, the fact that it was registered before all the bailouts, etc is evidence it was not a conspiracy. (http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/20...). Also, Ron Paul was hosting Tea Parties in 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_president...) [links 31 and 34]
On the Koch connection, Playboy took that article down, but it appears to have its own legs. (http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/20...)
On the "Freedomworks" are organizing the events... MoveOn organizes protests all the times - Anti-Oil protests (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-151663637.html) , Anti-War protests (http://alamedasun.com/index.php?Itemid=6&id=942...) . ACORN also organizes protests (such as the recent anti-AIG protests). They had some big names attached to their protests too.
Is it not acceptable that FreedomWorks organizes protests as well? Or should we tar MoveOn-organized protests as "astroturf" as well. After all, they had sponsors, media support and so forth too. Or is there some other difference that you feel makes left-wing protests legit, but right-wing protests not?
Just curious.
On the Koch connection, Playboy took that article down, but it appears to have its own legs. (http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/20...)
On the "Freedomworks" are organizing the events... MoveOn organizes protests all the times - Anti-Oil protests (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-151663637.html) , Anti-War protests (http://alamedasun.com/index.php?Itemid=6&id=942...) . ACORN also organizes protests (such as the recent anti-AIG protests). They had some big names attached to their protests too.
Is it not acceptable that FreedomWorks organizes protests as well? Or should we tar MoveOn-organized protests as "astroturf" as well. After all, they had sponsors, media support and so forth too. Or is there some other difference that you feel makes left-wing protests legit, but right-wing protests not?
Just curious.
1 reply
moorewr
(Heh, disqus flagged your comment - disqus and akamai don't want us talking to each other. :) )
Good questions. I claim no expertise in this matter.
Good questions. I claim no expertise in this matter.
3 months ago
in Web 2.0 RC1 on Web 2.0 RC1
Since you brought it up, I found this link the other day: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
Cherry picking? Sure, to some degree. That doesn't mean there isn't important information there.
And there's this:
In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don’t die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country. (http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_heal...)
And there's this: Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined (http://almaz.com/nobel/medicine/medicine.html)
Then there's the whole mess of medical device, biotech and pharmaceutical innovations. Right now, americans essentially pay for all of the R&D for virtually all of the health-related innovation in medicine. Every other country gets to free-ride off of our experimentation (because they have single buyer systems) . If we adopt a single-buyer system (i.e. the government) that pushes down the prices we pay for medical devices/biotech/pharmaceuticals, we can expect that the "market" will respond by producing fewer innovations.
At the end of the day, I'm saying that the American system, as crazy-stupid-expensive as it is, seems to have some (not all!) very good results (that is to say, we are paying a huge premium over everyone else, for a modest increase in lifespan, reduction in cancer mortality & infant mortality and better care in old age).
In essence, the data seems to say that if you want to reduce health care costs in the US by 30%, it's not a free lunch - we can assume, rationally, that a reduction in health care costs translates into: Americans will live somewhat shorter lives, die of cancer more often, win fewer Nobel prizes, see an increase in our infant mortality rates and have less pleasant health experiences in old age.
That may be an acceptable trade-off, but it is one that we need to approach with eyes open.
Cherry picking? Sure, to some degree. That doesn't mean there isn't important information there.
And there's this:
In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don’t die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country. (http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_heal...)
And there's this: Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined (http://almaz.com/nobel/medicine/medicine.html)
Then there's the whole mess of medical device, biotech and pharmaceutical innovations. Right now, americans essentially pay for all of the R&D for virtually all of the health-related innovation in medicine. Every other country gets to free-ride off of our experimentation (because they have single buyer systems) . If we adopt a single-buyer system (i.e. the government) that pushes down the prices we pay for medical devices/biotech/pharmaceuticals, we can expect that the "market" will respond by producing fewer innovations.
At the end of the day, I'm saying that the American system, as crazy-stupid-expensive as it is, seems to have some (not all!) very good results (that is to say, we are paying a huge premium over everyone else, for a modest increase in lifespan, reduction in cancer mortality & infant mortality and better care in old age).
In essence, the data seems to say that if you want to reduce health care costs in the US by 30%, it's not a free lunch - we can assume, rationally, that a reduction in health care costs translates into: Americans will live somewhat shorter lives, die of cancer more often, win fewer Nobel prizes, see an increase in our infant mortality rates and have less pleasant health experiences in old age.
That may be an acceptable trade-off, but it is one that we need to approach with eyes open.
1 reply
moorewr
No question that the people with access to top-notch care in our system have fantastic health care. The problem is that so many people have trouble obtaining the basics.. a system that costs double per capita what the British, French, Canadian, or German system costs and excludes 40 million adults can not be the right solution.
That's me to a T. :)
Actually, in the scenario we HAD to get through with that canon, or the fort we were marching to would fall. And in fact, thanks to some desperate bayonet work by my Marines we cut our way through.. the first time the US has won that scenario. The human cost was appalling though.. 40 US casualties and nearly 50 Seminoles.. historically they would never have risked such losses, with so few warriors left to them. The total Seminole population in the 3rd war was less than 300, counting women and children.