Wednesday, March 31, 2004
|
Sorry it looks so bad... |
Okay, I finally got the advertising up and running. It looks awful. I will try to improve the look when time permits.
In case you're wondering, right now the ad links to my company's old (but still-active and working) web site. It looks old fashioned, but you may find it fun reading anyway.
UPDATE: It apparently only looks "bad" (i.e. crowded) on old-fashioned lower resolution displays like mine at the office. All the other workstations report acceptable results. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:03 PM |
|
Some good stuff... |
at MaxSpeak, You Listen! For example:
GAS IS CHEAP:
Fun facts: in 1960, gas was 31 cents a gallon (regular, leaded), but in today's dollars, that would be $1.95. In 1980, it was $1.25 (unleaded, regular), or $2.82 in $2004. 1990, $1.16, or $1.65 today. The latest average is $1.72. There has also been a significant increase in miles per gallon. So cost per mile is lower on that account. If you're one of those enviro wackos, you don't want lower gas prices.
KERRY'S TAX CUT MAKES ME WANNA RALPH:
Kerry is foregrounding his corporate tax reform as a jobs measure. Right from the jump, he is mixing up the difference between an anti-recession, counter-cyclical policy, and a long-run structural one. His proposal is structural. As such, whatever its merits, it glosses over the fundamental issue of fiscal policy -- deficits and monetary expansion. The implication is that the latter run on automatic pilot. In other words, Kerry has no short-term fiscal policy. Insofar as Kerry fails to distinguish between the harm from long -- as opposed to short-term deficits, his fiscal policy stance is perverse.
Go there. Read. Enjoy. We may add this perverse pinko leftist to the blogroll because of two traits totally uncharacteristic of his side of the fence. These are: (1) he has a sense of humor (what?) and (2) he shows a glimmer of understanding of real working peoples' lives.
Via one of Max's college buddies. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:18 AM |
|
Structural/Cultural Roots of Outsourcing... |
It only took a few days for the obvious to be discovered by the press. Labor shortages are appearing in health care and education, two sectors harder to staff by extraterritorial outsourcing. The conclusion? The general under-qualification of the US labor force for potential US jobs, and not corporate greed, may lie at the root of the problem:
While job outsourcing fires up all-American outrage, it masks a more prevalent problem: joblessness among young people that's caused by high dropout rates. Each year, about 4 million 18-year-olds should graduate from high school. Of those, 1.2 million drop out without a degree. Estimates of the jobs lost each year to outsourcing vary, with many economists putting the figure in the hundreds of thousands. That's far less than the millions of young who are unemployed because they didn't finish high school. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:47 AM |
|
First sign? |
If the recovery were being choked off by rising energy costs, things like this would abe among the first signs:
The National Association of Purchasing Management-Chicago business barometer fell to 57.6 from 63.6 in February. Economists had forecast the index at 61.5. A reading above 50 indicates expansion...A feature was the jump in prices paid, to 75.7 from 67.5 in February, as rising prices for energy and many raw commodities start to bite. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:37 AM |
|
I don't get it... |
| Why doesn't this provoke wordwide protests against powerful business interests placing greedy pursuit of profit ahead of humanitarian concerns? |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:10 AM |
|
What you don't do says who you are... |
Be warned: they're terrible. Here are the awful mutilation photos.
A few years ago I read a serious proposal that we loudly announce all enemy corpses in our possession would be buried wrapped in pig skins to keep them from going to Paradise. Even though it would have saved some US lives, the idea went nowhere.
We don't do such things. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:02 AM |
|
Teaching Day |
First we park (off the picture at bottom, short beige arrow) and walk half mile N on Michigan Avenue (long yellow arrow) to school of business to teach MBA students from Peoples' Republic of China (3 hrs. approx). Then we walk half mile S (long green arrow) to Auditorium Building main campus to teach mathematical economics (3 hrs. approx). Then, after reclaiming car from parking (off diagram), we drive East to Lake Shore Drive (off diagram) and head home along the lake (red arrow) back to wife and kid (15 min. approx). |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:44 AM |
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
|
Newsday, February 5, 1994 |
In relation to Congress' consideration of further extending unemployment benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) , an anonymous reader sent us this reprint earlier today:
Forget About Emergency Jobless Claims
February 5, 1994
Newsday (New York)
By Jill Dutt. WASHINGTON BUREAU
Washington - New claims for emergency unemployment benefits are no longer being accepted because administration officials decided late last week not to extend the program.
The emergency program, which officially expires today, had been extended four times since it began in November, 1991. The latest extension had provided an additional seven weeks of benefits for those unable to find new work before their 26 weeks of regular benefits ran out.
Although the national unemployment rate has been dropping, the number of long-term jobless continues to grow. In New York alone, an average of 5,300 people exhaust their regular benefits each week, according to the state Department of Labor.
Officials at the U.S. Department of Labor informed Congress Thursday night that it would not recommend an extension. Legislative aides say there is little appetite and even less money available for Congress to extend the benefits a fifth time.
Although they aren't offering any more money, state employment services offices can provide job-search assistance and help in preparing resumes for those who have run out of benefits.
Let's make sure we understand two things. This article is from early 1994, when the unemployment rate was considerably higher than it is now.
If and when Kerry and/or others start leveling accusations of mean-spiritedness, it is important to remember the Clinton adminstration refused to extend benefits at a higher unemployment rate (6.6% compared with the current 5.5%). |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 2:43 PM |
|
Kerry calls for a cut in defense spending... |
Kerry's announced "plan to control gas costs" questions a basic security need:
Kerry called on President Bush to halt filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, which some Democrats contend drives up the cost of fuel for U.S. consumers in an already tight market with record prices. Gasoline prices reached a national average of $1.80 a gallon in the past two weeks, according the private Lundberg Survey.
There are many reasons why it's unwise to make even temporary adjustments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserves. As described in this Chicago Tribune article, however, the Kerry position can easily be characterized as a call to end the SPR program entirely -- leaving critics able to ask exactly what level of US military weakness "President" John Kerry would aim for.
UPDATE: I guess the operative quote, from the Kerry website, is the following:
We'll stop diverting oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until gas prices get back to normal.
We can only ask two questions: (1) what's "normal" for gas prices?, and (2) does this mean President Kerry would convert the SPR, designed for national security, into a petroleum price stabilization/control scheme? |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:54 PM |
|
Okay the deed is done... |
Finally we've added a tip jar. You can find it tastefully sitting toward the bottom of the blogroll sidebar, after EconoData and EconoPolitics, just over EconoEmail.
The creative way to imagine this is as follows. If ever EconoPundit's engaged your attention in a pleasant way, or if ever we've given you interesting back and forth by email, you know, the sort of stuff that's fun to talk about over a cup of coffee at Starbucks, then take a moment now and then to, you know, buy good old EconoPundit a virtual cup of coffee by putting a buck or two in the EconoTipJar! |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:51 AM |
|
If eyes glaze over skip to bottom for prediction... |
Here's a Kerry Kampaign totally mind-numbing point-counterpoint on gas taxes:
FACTS ON JOHN KERRY AND TAX CUTS
Bush Ad: Kerry "supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax."
TRUTH: John Kerry has never sponsored or voted for a 50 cent gas tax increase
-- Kerry Has Never Sponsored, Cosponsored or Voted for a 50 Cent Gas Tax Increase. Sen. Charles Robb introduced legislation in 1993 that phased in a 50-cent increase. John Kerry did not vote for or co-sponsor this bill. (S. 1068, Introduced 5/28/93) It's George Bush who has broken his promise to lead the way to a sustainable energy policy. His refusal to stand up to his big oil contributors has contributed to the highest gas prices in history - an effective $245 tax increase on American families and commuters.
-- Bush's top economic advisor backs a 50 cent per gallon increase. In Fortune Magazine, Gregory Mankiw, President Bush's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, argued that a 50 cent gas tax is a necessary component of income tax cuts. He explained that "cutting income taxes while increasing gasoline taxes would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming--all without jeopardizing long-term fiscal solvency. This may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer." (Fortune, 5/24/99)
Bush Ad: Kerry supported higher gasoline taxes 11 times.
TRUTH: Kerry's Voted for 23 Million New Jobs, a Balanced Budget, and LOWER Gas taxes
-- 1993 Vote balanced the budget and led to the creation of 23 Million New Jobs. The 1993 vote Bush criticizes put the U.S. back on track toward a balanced budget and fiscal discipline. The measure passed by one vote and did not receive ANY Republican support in either house of Congress. (Senate Roll Call vote, 1993, No. 247). But after turning the largest surplus in history into the largest deficits ever, we can't expect Bush to praise deficit reduction.
-- REPUBLICANS opposed repealing the gas tax. Another vote Bush criticizes was to repeal the 4.3 cents gas tax. Unfortunately, it was defeated when 15 Republicans crossed the aisle to join Kerry because repealing the gas tax would be a job- killing plan -- costing up to 50,000 jobs. Republicans who also opposed the temporary suspension were from a wide range of states and ideological bents, including Pat Roberts (KS), Craig Thomas (WY), and Chuck Hagel (NE).
-- Kerry actually voted for a LOWER Gas Tax & to Keep Medicare from Getting Cut. A third vote was actually for a LOWER gas tax. The tax that was in the bill was 9 cents per gallon. John Kerry voted for an amendment that would have replaced that with a 6 cent per gallon gas tax. And once other provisions of the bill were calculated in, it would have only been a 3.5 cent increase. (Associated Press, 10/18/90)
BUSH AND GAS TAXES: Bush only cares about the gas tax during election years
In 2000, George W. Bush promised to reduce the gas tax "as a means of helping motorists cope with the sharp rise in gasoline prices." But not one of his budgets or tax cuts have kept this promise. In fact, while families have been hurt by the highest prices in history under Bush, he has delivered far more for the wealthy and his contributors. Here is a sample of tax breaks he has delivered for the wealthy instead of keeping his promise to roll back gas taxes:
-- eliminate personal income taxes on dividends
-- reduce capital gains taxes on sales of corporate stock.
According to Citizens for Tax Justice, "these new loopholes would cost $364 billion over the next 10 years. In 2003, half of the tax reductions from these provisions would go to only one percent of all taxpayers, and almost three-quarters would go to the best-off five percent."
If you've managed to get this far you'll be interested in EconoPundit's take on all this: years ago Bush innocently (some might say "stupidly") proposed formation of something like an international steel cartel to offset OPEC's power.
This idea addressed a crucial point in a central fashion: what gives a political construct like OPEC the right to influence living standards in the rest of the world? If OPEC is legitimate, why might other similar strategic cartels not also be legitimate?
Operating in the background this Bush "simplistic" floating of the steel cartel idea almost certainly exerted a major impact on international prices of crude -- a much larger impact, one might add, than Clinton's showy but ineffective manipulation of the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
One suspects in coming months we'll see more Bush camp baiting, to encourage more of Kerry's numbing gas tax nitpicking, and then, at the right moment, a major Bush speech calling into question the entire legitimacy of OPEC-determined oligopoly pricing of world crude oil.
I can't wait!
UPDATE: A reader (whose arithmetic I can't check because it is teaching day) sends this comment:
Kerry's plan to "stop diverting oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until prices get back to normal" is, like Kerry himself, laughable.
What he seems not to understand is that contributions to the SPR account for about 0.02% of the nation's total oil usage. This means that for every million barrels we are currently using, Kerry plans to ease the supply shortage by tossing us an extra 200 barrels. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:23 AM |
|
Don't Tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve! |
Why not? Because:
[The] U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which was created after the Arab oil embargo in the early 1970s...was [designed] to stockpile oil to cope with any future emergency shortfall in supply -- not to mitigate short-term price spikes. As part of the run-up to the Iraq war, the Bush Administration decided to add to the reserves -- now about 650 million barrels.
But hundreds of millions of barrels of oil is a seductive target for political manipulation, as Bill Clinton proved when he released reserves to tame gasoline prices before the 1996 election. We hope President Bush resists that temptation, because in the long term such a response would be dangerous.
If every President turned to the oil reserve when prices shoot up, companies would reduce the amount of inventory they are willing to carry and exacerbate the supply problem. In the short term, there is also no economic need to draw on the reserve. The economy is humming along and panicking would only create other dislocations. The oil reserve was not designed, nor should it be used, to relieve consumers at the pump for a few weeks. (Emphasis added)
|
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:02 AM |
Monday, March 29, 2004
|
Oopsies... |
Drudge now reports in 1999 the Clinton White House refused to allow Richard Clarke to testify before a Senate Special Committee for the same reasons now cited by the Bush White House with regard to Condi Rice's appearance.
|
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:55 PM |
|
The Report came out in record time, but why followed no energy policy? |
| And the internal contradictions heighten as California bakes, you should follow the excitement in real time all day by clicking here. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:41 PM |
|
I can think of an even shorter one... |
David Frum:
This administration came into office to discover that al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into a full-blown menace. It lost six precious weeks to the Florida recount and then weeks after Inauguration Day to the go-slow confirmation procedures of a 50-50 Senate. As late as the summer of 2001, pitifully few of Bush's own people had taken their jobs at State, Defense, and the NSC. Then it was hit by 9/11. And now, now the same people who allowed al Qaeda to grow up, who delayed the staffing of the administration, who did nothing when it was their turn to act, who said nothing when they could have spoken in advance of the attack -- these same people accuse George Bush of doing too little? There's a long answer to give folks like that -- and also a short one. And the short one is: How dare you? |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 4:06 PM |
|
You know you're dealing with... |
a guy who voted for Al Gore when you hear:
Told that he had to vacate his warren of offices overlooking the Ellipse...in order to make room for the NSC communications and speechwriting staff, Clarke threatened to sue. (He cited an obscure statute that prohibits spending government money on office decorations.) (Emphasis added) |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:09 AM |
|
Rightly or wrongly... |
These two stories will be reported and interpreted together...
Police let Madrid bomb suspects go:
The boot of the Volkswagen was packed with 220 lb of industrial dynamite being transported to Madrid after it had been stolen from a coal mine at Aviles in northern Spain during the last week of February, the El Pais newspaper said...The car, which had been stolen, was stopped by two Civil Guard patrolmen near Benavente, in the province of Leon, north of Madrid...But their suspicions were not aroused when they checked the car's registration as the owner had not yet reported it missing. They failed to recognise that the driver was not the registered owner.
EU's 'Mr. Terrorism' Takes Office Pledging Liberty:
"I believe we have to be careful not to fall into the trap set by the terrorists," he told France-Inter radio. "Terrorists would like Europe to react by reducing our attachment to public freedoms and tolerance.
"However, we must absolutely preserve the open character of our society," he said in impeccable French.
Civil rights campaigners have accused the United States, and to a lesser extent the European Union, of sacrificing public liberties in the name of fighting terrorism since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
|
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:56 AM |
|
I need advice... |
I've never bothered with a tip jar or, more recently, with advertisements.
Should I change this policy, give in, and join all the other blogger kids on the block who've got these things? |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:21 AM |
|
Let's take a look... |
Electronic Countermeasures points out:
...while the spread between the payroll and household surveys has evolved over time, nowhere else on the graph but presently do we see the two data series moving in completely opposite directions for a four-year period such as 2000-2003. The mere fact that such an unprecedented divergence of the two series has been going on for so long demands our attention, and points to some highly unusual employment market developments. (Emphasis added)
This has already been discussed by those closer to the real responsibilities for gathering and analyzing this data, but briefly for the rest of us here's a time plot of the difference between the household and establishment surveys for the entire span of quarters for which data exist for both:
Viewed just as a series, differences between the two surveys are actually vanishing on a long-term basis, with a possible interruption in this trend following the last recession. The current uptick is sharp, to be sure, but we've seen at least one downtick (roughly '64-70) apparently just as sharp, and similar but smaller upticks following other recessions.
In short: neither data nor method seem questionable. If the two surveys correlated perfectly it would be a waste of tax dollars to collect them both. These are two useful and perfectly valid methods of measuring the same thing. Neither is "right." Neither is "wrong." The complement and validate each other. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:20 AM |
|
If voted against assassination back then, are you now beyond conspiracy to commit burglary? |
John Fund:
Normally, one shouldn't make too much of Mr. Kerry's inability to recall in detail events of 33 years ago, even though they were the most formative of his political career. But he has "misremembered" a lot of key facts about the period. The circumstantial evidence indicates that he is desperate to avoid discussion of those days. Two Kerry defenders called Mr. Lipscomb a "liar" on national TV. The candidate's veterans' adviser apparently tried to pressure someone to deny he attended the Kansas City meeting.
The story is unlikely to go away completely. Last week Gerald Nicosia, the historian who first uncovered evidence the FBI tailed Mr. Kerry back in 1971, reported to police that three of the 14 boxes of the FBI files he obtained under the Freedom of Information Act were stolen from his California home and that other individual files from the remaining 11 boxes were also swiped, including documents about Mr. Kerry that Mr. Nicosia hadn't yet reviewed. "Those revelations are lost now, at least to me," Mr. Nicosia told the Associated Press. Someone, either friend or foe of Mr. Kerry, apparently knew what he was looking for.
The ghost of Vietnam and the culture war it has engendered won't go away. Now the controversy over what Mr. Kerry knew and when did he know it has been spiced up by the whodunit of the third-rate burglary of his FBI files. Sounds like a story to me.
Back in the 60's we understood conspiracy laws as applying to discussions, not votes. In other words, if you were present at a meeting that discussed political assassination, even if you voted against it you could still be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit the act of assassination. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:14 AM |
|
Department of "...what?" |
Isn't this all rather rude? Showing, uh, something less than lots of respect?
Before church, Kerry stopped at Chris' Pancakes & Dining, where his physical appearance seemed to be the top concern among diners who agreed that he looked better in person than on television.
"That's the third time this morning I've heard that!" Kerry said after being complimented by diner Eda Grassi. He replied that he'd have to start working on his camera angles.
"You look like a good Italian in this neighborhood," said Caesar Valli. Then, taking a glance over Kerry's thin 6-foot-4 physique he said, "You need a little flesh on."
Kerry agreed. "I know. I'm working on it," he said. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:00 AM |
Sunday, March 28, 2004
|
Imagine an alternative... |
Jerry Taylor at Cato:
OPEC's defenders also contend that high oil prices bring political stability to the Middle East and that low oil prices bring political instability. Perhaps. But why is a stable Saudi, Iranian, or Libyan regime in our interest? While we could perhaps imagine worse regimes, we could certainly imagine better. But more to the point, the argument that these undemocratic, oppressive, ideologically bizarre, and terrorist-friendly regimes are propped-up by high oil prices is scarcely a strong argument for applauding the cartel's machinations. In fact, President Bush's program to encourage human rights, democracy, and peace in the Middle East will not succeed as long as these regimes remain in power in their current incarnations.
Let's be clear about what's at stake. If OPEC disappeared tomorrow, oil prices would drop to somewhere around $8 a barrel and gasoline prices would almost certainly be south of $1 a gallon. A price collapse of that magnitude would do more for consumer welfare and the overall health of the American economy than almost anything that's been put on the table by President Bush or his Democratic Party rivals. Accordingly, the OPEC cartel should be resisted, not embraced, and policy should aim at undermining it, not propping it up.
|
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:40 PM |
|
In Memoriam Punditwatch |
From this morning's Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Why do you think the Iraq war has undermined the war on terrorism?
MR. CLARKE: Well, I think it's obvious, but there are three major reasons. Who are we fighting in the war on terrorism? We're fighting Islamic radicals and they are drawing people from the youth of the Islamic world into hating us. Now, after September 11, people in the Islamic world said, "Wait a minute. Maybe we've gone too far here. Maybe this Islamic movement, this radical movement, has to be suppressed," and we had a moment, we had a window of opportunity, where we could change the ideology in the Islamic world. Instead, we've inflamed the ideology. We've played right into the hands of al-Qaeda and others. We've done what Osama bin Laden said we would do.
Ninety percent of the Islamic people in Morocco, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, allied countries to the United States--90 percent in polls taken last month hate the United States. It's very hard when that's the game where 90 percent of the Arab people hate us. It's very hard for us to win the battle of ideas. We can arrest them. We can kill them. But as Don Rumsfeld said in the memo that leaked from the Pentagon, I'm afraid that they're generating more ideological radicals against us than we are arresting them and killing them. They're producing more faster than we are.
The president of Egypt said, "If you invade Iraq, you will create a hundred bin Ladens." He lives in the Arab world. He knows. It's turned out to be true. It is now much more difficult for us to win the battle of ideas as well as arresting and killing them, and we're going to face a second generation of al-Qaeda. We're going to catch bin Laden. I have no doubt about that. In the next few months, he'll be found dead or alive. But it's two years too late because during those two years, al-Qaeda has morphed into a hydra-headed organization, independent cells like the organization that did the attack in Madrid.
And that's the second reason. The attack in Madrid showed the vulnerabilities of the rails in Spain. We have all sorts of vulnerabilities in our country, chemical plants, railroads. We've done a very good job on passenger aircraft now, but there are all these other vulnerabilities that require enormous amount of money to reduce those vulnerabilities, and we're not doing that.
MR. RUSSERT: And three?
MR. CLARKE: And three is that we actually diverted military resources and intelligence resources from Afghanistan and from the hunt for bin Laden to the war in Iraq.
Okay... let's see if we understand. Reason #1, we had all this "9/11 sympathy" in the Arab World, but we made them mad by inflaming their ideology. Reason #2 is that now there are many terror cells rather than just a few. (Somehow this is supposed to be different from reason #1.) Reason #3 is we diverted military and intelligence resources from Afghanistan and the bin Laden hunt to Iraq.
When you listen very closely, Clarke is little more than a sonorous voice, clearly in love with its own sound, capable of spewing hours of facts, but suprisingly incapable of lending convincing support to its strong partisan opinions.
UPDATE: Via Drudge:
...an insider explains how the contract called for bonuses to be paid to Clarke for "hitting The [NYT bestsellers] List" in its debut, a contact clause common in publishing.
"There are bonuses for each week the book remains on the charts," the source, who demanded anonymity, explains.
Clarke and Mel Gibson ought to join forces to teach marketing. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 3:51 PM |
|
It may have finally happened... |
If these new stories from Debka.com are true (and they seem well-documented) the much-feared-in-some-circles apocalyptic uprising of the Arab Street is finally talking place.
New Hamas Gazan leader Rantisi tells large rally Sunday President Bush is enemy of Allah, Islam and Muslims and calls for continuing jihad against "America and the Zionists"
DEBKAfile reveals: Order from Hamas, Damascus to Hamas, Gaza: Don’t squander resources on small operations. Take time to set up strategic knockout assault -- 800 suicide bombers to simultaneously blast Israel's urban centers.
If this interpretation is correct, we'll soon find out exactly what we should have been afraid of.
|
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:27 AM |
|
If you believe: |
1) The Bush response to Kyoto is as reprehensible as Hamas' sponsorship of child suicide bombers;
2) The phantom Prince Abdullah peace plan can contribute as much to world peace as frozen Israeli settlements;
3) General Motors would improve the world's environment if it just refused to manufacture Hummers;
4) Dick Cheyney ought to apologize to the UN for being wrong about Iraq WMD's and beg for help;
5) A Republican-sponsored tax hike on "the rich" would save Social Security, Medicare, and failing US primary and secondary education;
6) The Supreme Court is so "sacred" and "so vital to what makes our society special" that Scalia should recuse himself from ruling on Cheney's energy task force;
7) America is "addicted" to crude oil and should spend countless tax dollars to find expensive alternatives;
8) Mel Gibson should prove his love for the Jews by remaking "The Ten Commandments" and donating the profits to the Holocaust Museum
9) If McCain were to join the Kerry ticket it would become bipartisan in spirit;
then you are Thomas Friedman and you've demonstrated why everything you write is worthless. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:13 AM |
|
Could be more than you wanted to know... |
Handy summary of polls, with links.
What I'm waiting for is any polling information on unanticipated pre-election Kerry-tax/job-plan backlash. It seems to me all the celebrated, anecdote-based "jobs worries" have such an irrational and urban-legendary nature it is quite easy to generate unanticpated reactions.
Consider these possibilities:
1) The electorate has been massaged to the saturation point with the message Bush has lost the friendship of our traditional allies -- our traditional partners are angry with us, in other words. Kerry has spent millions getting this message out.
2) Additionally, the message of jobs anxiety -- that everyone ("Hey, including you, right?") has a job that may be gone within six months -- has been marketed at a cost of millions.
3) Why won't the electorate worry the Kerry tax plan will "anger our traditional allies" into relaliation? Why won't every Toyota employee, and every worker whose plant supplies Toyota directly or indirectly, start seeing Kerry as a dangerous wierdo whose radical tax policies might lose Americans their jobs?
Ever since the Clinton health care fiasco it's been clear to me top Democrats are completely out of touch with any but the very highest brackets of the US business community -- to the point where they and their advisors simply can't even imagine how real-world businesspeople and their employees think about things. It may be Kerry himself doesn't appreciate how globalized the US economy has become. It may be he can't appreciate the electorate's knowledge and sophistication as regards international business. It may be most workers have a better appreciation of their place in the global economy than does John Kerry. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:59 AM |
|
From the overnight email... |
Mr. Antler: The following is a message I posted on Brad DeLong's site tonight...watch him try to explain this!
"Don't you still claim to be an economist? You're getting to be as bad as Krugman with writing about everything but economics, and with the same heavy handed Bush-bashing---hmmm. How is it that you and Krugman have never been seen in the same room together?" |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 4:39 AM |
Saturday, March 27, 2004
|
Economic Analysis of the Kerry Jobs Plan |
This just in from Bruce Bartlett:
There are many problems with Kerry's plan to tax the unrepatriated overseas profits of U.S. companies. The main one is that few other countries tax the foreign profits of their companies at all. Consequently, U.S. firms are already at a competitive disadvantage tax-wise. Kerry's plan would make the situation worse, encouraging U.S. companies to reincorporate in other countries.
As far as jobs are concerned, the Kerry plan probably would reduce employment in the U.S. That is because a very considerable amount of exports go from U.S. businesses to their foreign affiliates. And, contrary to Kerry's implication, the bulk of earnings on sales by foreign affiliates are repatriated to the U.S. annually, thereby offsetting a significant portion of the trade deficit.
...U.S. companies exported just over $1 trillion worth of goods and services [in 2001, and of] this, $230 billion went to their foreign subsidiaries. In addition, U.S. companies earned $124 billion in profits on their foreign operations. In effect, the trade deficit is reduced by this amount. When the operations of U.S. affiliates of foreign companies are netted out, the Commerce Department found that the trade deficit was reduced from $358 billion to $251 billion in 2001 by the operations of the foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies.
These are important factors because exports add to U.S. economic growth while imports reduce it. Also, U.S. multinational companies are a major presence in the domestic economy, with internal sales of $2 trillion in 2001 and employment of more than 23 million Americans. Kerry is simply making them scapegoats for slow employment growth in the U.S. that they have nothing to do with. Imposing tax penalties on them is not going to create more jobs here, but more likely will reduce their exports and the employment it supports.
Read it all and check out all the abundant and informative links.
UPDATE: Here's Kudlow on the Kerry Kut. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 2:51 PM |
|
"It was as noisy as a synagogue" ...ha ha |
I know I'm thin skinned and oversensitive, but this got me mad:
A senior Republican official on Capitol Hill told Reuters on condition of anonymity that the principled stance by the White House may be understood by "Talmudic legal scholars, but not by the people on Main Street."
UPDATE: I know some of you young whippersnappers are scratching your heads at this point. That's good! It's a sign of progress, and it only demonstrates why all the fuss over Mel Gibson's movie was really unnecessary.
But let me briefly explain what's going on here, just for the sake of the historical record.
First off, it's a traditional European joke -- hurtful to Jews, I might add -- to compare any noisy situation, perhaps even a bad musical performance, to what a traditional synagogue sounds like. That this has to be explained, as I mentioned, is a sign of great progress. None the less, I sat quietly in place while an audience of 2,000 laughed at the joke in Canada in the 1980's, and in its minor way the incident played a part in my decision to return to Chicago after almost 20 years.
The reference to "Talmudic legal scholars" is a traditional way of dismissing Judaism as complicated legalism rather than true ethics or religion. It is the central contention of Paul's doctrine of a new covenant and supercessionism (the doctrine Judaism is invalid, superseded by Christianity). This is not a pretty reference, although -- thankfully -- in modern times few people understand its true significance. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:38 AM |
|
We should have heard by now... |
I have spent a little time over at Brad DeLong's weblog. Here's what I've found:
"The Clown Show that is the Bush administration continues. "
"Yet another former Bush NSC staffer denies that terrorism was a significant Bush administration priority before September 11, 2001"
"I don't know whether you have been following the California Glofish Controversy as the octopus of incipient fascism bans Californians from owning the world's first genetically engineered household pet. "
"Ted Miguel and Michael Kremer cast a jaundiced eye on the idea of "financial sustainability" in a development context..."
"Another Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia moment from the Bush administration."
But what don't I find? I don't find anything on the Kerry Tax Plan. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:34 AM |
Friday, March 26, 2004
|
A simple response to the Kerry Plan |
Here's the simplest response I can think of to the Kerry plan:
The green line shows the establishment survey. Since data start way back in 1939, this plot starts before that of the household survey (blue line), whose data go back only to 1948. As you can see, the surveys have diverged for most of their history.
The red line is total private sector employment not as measured by either survey, but as simulated by the Yale model. Why this simulation should start closer to the household survey and finish below the establishment survey is interesting but hardly crucial. Generally, all three series measure the same thing in different ways. Arguing whether the household or establishment survey is "right" or "wrong" is almost as silly as arguing metric is more accurate than imperial.
Most important: the red line shows the Yale model credibly simulates total private sector employment.
And this is my point. Look at the difference between the last trough and the final 4th quarter 2007 simulated level of employment: normal recovery job growth, without tax tinkering, equals roughly the employment the Kerry group claims will be "created" by their tax plan. Over roughly the period of time traversed by the upcoming administration regardless of party, as things stand now the economy will all by itself create the same number of jobs Kerry's tax plan purports to create.
UPDATE: On Fox News Special Report Jim Angle tied Roger Altman up in knots by confronting him with this simple point. Altman, who seemed rumpled and confused, conceded 3.5-4% real growth with no tax changes. Then he collapsed in a heap by agreeing 10 million jobs is likely job expansion under these rates of growth. Not an impressive performance. Altman: "We first of all, the, uh, you have to look at this as a whole package. It's the most sweeping, uh, corporate tax overhaul, corporate tax reform in about forty years..."
|
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:12 PM |
|
There are many stories in the windy city... |
and this is one of them.
We first saw these amazing birds nesting two years ago, briefly wondered at the phenomenon, but chalked it up to yet another example of wildlife adapting to city life. Anyway, I'm afraid my wife, myself, and my daughter have known the "secret location" of the nests for quite some time now.
There are many stories in the windy city, and this is one of them. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 2:52 PM |
|
Could be nothing, but then again... |
Debka.com reports the following:
Jerusalem police commander orders leaves cancelled, announces army reinforcements summoned to Israel capital. No explanation offered. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:40 AM |
|
Those who say don't know... |
Paul Krugman -- who has never lived in Canada, never waited six months before his infant daughter could be seen by a pediatrician, and never had a friend die waiting for a cancer operation -- says this:
There's a lesson in this experience. Sometimes there's no magic in the free market -- in fact, it can be a hindrance. Health insurance is one place where government agencies consistently do a better job than private companies. I'll have more to say about this when I write about the general issue of health care reform (soon, I promise!).
Yeah Paul. We're waiting. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:32 AM |
|
Kerry-style tax complification... |
A knowledgable source has sent us a draft of the new tax Kerry proposal to end "tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs overseas" by eliminating deferals of US taxes on foreign income. The source indicates Kerry proposal is largely based on this policy study from the Clinton administration.
There are many reactions to the proposal scattered around the web this morning, but the final draft of the proposal itself has yet to appear.
Meanwhile check out some of the comments here for example.
For what it is worth, EconoPundit's instant analysis is as follows: (1) this announcement will further slow the jobs recovery (albeit by a miniscule amount) because it additionally fuels uncertainty; (2) it is hard to see how additional complications in the US tax code can hurt, the whole already being for all practical purposes infinitely complicated, and (3) the law of unanticipated consequences says the proposals, if implemented, will wind up doing significant indirect damage to small business.
UPDATE: Here's an additional thought while we wait for the proposal to be posted somewhere. Voters everywhere poll as "trusting" Democrats "with the economy" far more than they trust Republicans with it, but such polling questions always (perhaps unintentionally) slant the issue by presuming a higher level of voters' valuation of government oversight than the voters themselves might feel.
The questions always seem to ask whom you trust with the economy, in other words, but never how strongly you feel the economy "needs to be entrusted" to someone.
To state all this simply: early polling may find voters astoundingly indifferent, perhaps even hostile, to any proposed increase in the tax system's complexity. They may wisely fear tax complification as having the potential to do as much harm as good.
UPDATE II: Here's what I mean. Consider this example of slanted reportage:
But he settled on a blend of loophole-cutting populism and business-friendly moderation, casting his package as jobs-producing tax reform. Polls show jobs are the top issue with most voters, and Kerry is viewed as best suited to improve the economy. Terrorism is the No. 2 issue, and most voters say they trust Bush most to protect the nation.
Polls show Kerry is "best suited to improve the economy"? Ask the same people to respond to statements like "government generally wastes taxpayers' money" and "changes in the tax code usually do as much harm as good" and you can easily generate a poll showing nobody is thought to be "best suited" to "improve" the economy.
|
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:19 AM |
Thursday, March 25, 2004
|
From the Onion? No. |
As this story tells us, fresh from his ski vacation John Kerry has really come out fighting! He is reaching out to energetically seek support from black newspapers, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Howard Dean, former presidents Carter and Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards, and Carol Moseley Braun.
What a worker. Imagine, drumming up all that new support!
"No more long answers," Kerry said. "It doesn't take me long to recharge my batteries."
That's right -- no long answers, just short & pithy statements which don't belong together, sort of like, uh, Captain Rex Kramer in the movie Airplane? |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:43 AM |
|
There are many stories in the windy city... |
And this is one of them.
And by the way here's one more.
Approximately 25 hours ago, at the start of teaching day, as I trudged across Madison St. in the gray drizzling mist I was cut off by a screeching taxicab aggressively fighting a well-dressed, attractive young woman for the same spot on the street. This woman seemed to have a silly idea pedestrians ought to be stopped for by taxicabs instead of simply run over.
So the cab bumps into her -- almost, but not quite, knocking her over.
Instant lawsuit? Instant victim? No way! This well-dressed attractive young woman lets out an earthshaking ejaculation of an obscenity (how can someone so slight sound so loud?) and crashes her umbrella down so hard and fast it demolishes the umbrella and dents the hood.
A satisfying moment. Like I say, there are many stories in the windy city.
This was one of them. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:27 AM |
|
Bad call... |
Frum:
Early on, the Bush team made a fateful decision about Clarke. They asked him to stay on at the National Security Council -- but demoted him from the high position he had held under Bill Clinton. Clarke had for eight years enjoyed more access to the president than the head of the CIA or FBI. Suddenly he found himself just another NSC senior director.
It's a general rule of management that you never demote anybody important: You fire them, and fast, or else they will sabotage your organization. If Bush wanted to retain Clarke's services, he should have kept him in his old job. Failing that, he should have pushed him out the door on the Monday after Inauguration day. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:46 AM |
|
The nature of nuance and its lack thereof... |
Peggy:
One summer day in the late 1990s I had a long talk with an elected official who was a friend and longtime political supporter of President Clinton. I asked him why, if Bill Clinton cared so much about his legacy, he didn't take steps to make America safer from terrorism. Why didn't he make it one of his big issues? We were at lunch in a New York restaurant, and I gestured toward the tables of happy people drinking golden-colored wine in gleaming glasses. They're all going to get sick when we get nuked, I said; they'd honor your guy for having warned and prepared.
Yes, the official said, but you have to understand that Clinton is purely a poll driven politician, and if the numbers aren't there he won't move.
Too bad, I thought, because the numbers will someday be there.
The lunch was off the record, and I appreciated the official's candor; he didn't try to spin me. I wasn't shocked by what he said--Mr. Clinton was a poll driven animal. But you didn't have to be psychic to know bad things were coming; you only had to be watching the world. I found myself marveling at Mr. Clinton's thinking, which in the short term was savvy and in the long term spoke of a kind of moral retardation.
It is not the job of a president to say, "I'd like to do what's necessary to protect our country, but the people won't understand it or appreciate it." It is the job of a president to say, "I have to do what is necessary to protect our country, and so I'll try to persuade the people as to the rightness of my thinking. But if it comes to that I'll do what's needed and pay the price."
Mr. Clinton did not do that. He did not attempt to rouse the American people. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:37 AM |
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
|
A means B. Not A also means B. There. |
Kaus (scroll down) has good discussion, lots of links, on the (very real to some) question of whether declining welfare rolls shows welfare reform has failed.
UPDATE: Out of curiousity I graphed the census data cited by Kaus. If you accept these data as at all valid, the results are striking. It looks like there were two distinct periods of poverty decline in the US, one ending at the point Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" began, the other starting just at the starting point of Clinton era welfare reform. Go figure.
 |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:28 AM |
|
Shouldn't he have anticipated this? |
H J Heinz & Co. outsourcing, or should we say "outsaucing?"
This is an obvious set of facts that Kerry (presumably?) knew about when he burped out the "Benedict Arnold" charge. Doesn't he have any politician's understanding of how poorly thought out statements can and will be turned and used against ones' own self?
Via Milt Rosenberg. (Milt, by the way, seems to share a problem I've been having in recent days. When I hear the words "Dick Clarke" I automatically think of a smiling guy playing 45 RPM records and girls in pony tails dancing the jitterbug on TV.)
UPDATE: A reader sets us straight on this:
Outsourcing by Heinz has no more relationship to Theresa Heinz Kerry than Goodyear Tire. It went public years ago, Theresa and the family have no remaining stake. The Heinz Foundation in which Ms. Kerry holds a positon has also disposed of its Heinz stock.
Okay, live and learn. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:57 AM |
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
|
Can't explain why... |
The price of toilet paper is going to increase by 6% in the very near future.
There must be at least 25 different funny ways to connect the two ideas "inflation" and "toilet paper," but I just can't think of any of them this afternoon. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 4:30 PM |
|
And on a lighter note... |
Associated Press reports Medicare is headed toward bankruptcy:
Medicare will have to begin dipping into its trust fund this year to keep up with expenditures and will go broke by 2019 without changes in a program that is swelling in cost because of a new prescription drug benefit, trustees reported Tuesday. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 11:12 AM |
|
Maybe I've just seen too many movies, but... |
| Isn't it obvious we should start practicing on these things -- you know, using current technology on the harmless ones to see how to blast the dangerous ones to smithereens? |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 11:01 AM |
|
Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear... |
A clear identifying flag of the 1960's New Left was factionalism. No meeting was complete without a dispute between the Steering Committee and the Trotskyites. No organization worth its weight in Foreign Languages Publishing House reprints of Marx/Engels could be called truly mature until it had split up into loud, angry splinters whose meeting time was largely taken up in angry mutual denounciation.
The top thinkers of the New Left worried about the phenomenon. Horowitz and Radosh have talked about it; Lowell Bergman must have written something on the subject somewhere or other.
Anyway, the childish factionalism of the New Left is now coming back to haunt the Kerry Kampaign:
Despite the presidential candidate's claim last week that Hubbard had not hurt the anti-war group's credibility in 1971, Kerry actually believed otherwise, according to Nicosia.
"There was a big fight with Al Hubbard in which Kerry confronted him and they were screaming at each other across the hall," Nicosia explained. Hubbard, who had ties to the radical Black Panthers group, and Kerry "couldn't have been more opposite personalities," Nicosia said.
The simmering tension between the two men finally reached a boil in St. Louis, Nicosia said, with Kerry shouting, "Who are you, Al Hubbard? Are you even really a veteran?
"So it was a big screaming match," he added.
Enjoy. There's more:
Nicosia also disputed Kerry's denial that he was in attendance when VVAW members met in Kansas City in November 1971 to discuss the possibility of assassinating U.S. senators still committed to the Vietnam War.
Kerry was at the meeting, Nicosia insisted, pointing to FBI files and the minutes from the VVAW meeting, which he has obtained. "The minutes of the meeting -- November 12th through the15th -- it's got John Kerry there, it's got John Kerry resigning there on the third day," Nicosia said.
Nicosia provided CNSNews.com with a copy of the FBI's redacted files of that November 1971 VVAW meeting. The files refer to the fact that Kerry had "resigned for 'personal reasons.'"
"You are talking to a Kerry supporter, but I will tell you, after everything that I have heard and seen, I would conclude that he was there," he added.
(Emphasis added. Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
UPDATE: These words close Kerry's 1971 Senate Testimony. You'll find them not at the end of his formal statement, but at the end of several hours' worth of mostly friendly back-and-forth with the Committee. I don't want to read too much into these words, but a reasonable person could find in these words threats not only of mutiny but of direct action:
There is a GI movement in this country now as well as over there, and soon these people, these men, who are prescribing wars for these young men to fight are going to find out they are going to have to find some other men to fight them because we are going to change prescriptions. They are going to have to change doctors, because we are not going to fight for them. that is what they are going to realize. There is now a more militant attitude even within the military itself.... (Once again, emphasis added.)
I think the John Kerry of 1971 had as much trouble keeping control of his public statements as does the John Kerry of 2004. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:08 AM |
Monday, March 22, 2004
|
$1 Trillion Gap |
| The Issues: Bush Aide Sees $1 Trillion Gap in Kerry's Plans: "Mr. Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, released an analysis that he said showed a $1 trillion gap over the next decade between spending increases Mr. Kerry has called for during the campaign and the tax increases he has already supported." |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 2:43 PM |
|
From the "Who are you gonna believe --- me or your own lying eyes?" Department |
| This fits into the famous "Jails Fill Up Even as Crime Declines!" category. It seems the economy has been so bad, so very, very bad, that welfare rolls have been declining for the past three years. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:25 AM |
Friday, March 19, 2004
|
The last thing a fish would discover is... |
I think it was Joan Robinson who once said being aware of one's own ideology is about as impossible as smelling one's own breath. Carl Bernstein certainly brings this to mind:
Bernstein said Bush "is radical in every degree," from a favoritism of the wealthy to a pre-emptive foreign policy to a lack of concern for civil rights.
"He certainly seems more ideological than any of our presidents," Bernstein said.
Even so, Bernstein said he hopes a genuine debate can take place this year about the future of the country, rather than the petty quarrels and meaningless accusations that so often dominate campaign coverage.
"Let's move beyond the absurd name-calling and sound bite journalism," he said. "It is our job ... to force a real debate." |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:41 PM |
|
Ask yourself this question... |
Read these two editorials -- one from Krugman, one from Krauthammer -- and ask yourself the question "What is this author's vision -- what is he in favor of?"
Events seem to be verifying the simple Rush Limbaugh truth that "there is simply no Democratic vision out there." What passes for "vision" on the left is simply child-like rage -- the pure, visceral anger some people experience when they're enjoying less power than their own self-image says they're entitled to. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:11 AM |
|
Church Burnings II |
Damjan de Krnjevic-Miskovic Kosovo in National Review Online:
A pogrom started in Europe this week, with one U.N. official being quoted as saying, 'Kristallnacht is under way in Kosovo.' Serbs are being murdered and their 800-year-old churches are aflame. Much of the Christian heritage in Kosovo and Metohija is on fire and could be lost forever. By these deeds too many of Kosovo's Albanians have shown that their rhetoric about 'democracy' and 'multiethnicity' is false, and demonstrates also that the international community's acceptance of them has been naeve. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:49 AM |
|
Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) |
As an economist who's done a little work on the economics of international fisheries I support LOST in principle. As a US citizen, however, I wonder whether security considerations have to come first:
[The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)] creates a new supranational agency, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which will have control of seven-tenths of the world surface area, i.e., the planet's international waters. That control will enable the ISA and a court created to adjudicate and enforce its edicts the right to determine who does what, where, when, and how in the oceans under its purview. This applies first and foremost to exploration and exploitation of the mineral and oil and gas deposits on or under the seabeds -- an authority that will enable the U.N. for the first time to impose what amount to taxes on commercial activities.
LOST, however, will also interfere with America's sovereign exercise of freedom of the seas in ways that will have an adverse effect on national security, especially in the post-9/11 world. Incredibly, it will preclude, for example, the president's important new Proliferation Security Initiative. PSI is a multinational arrangement whereby ships on the high seas that are suspected of engaging in the transfer of WMD-related equipment can be intercepted, searched, and, where appropriate, seized. Its value was demonstrated in the recent interception of nuclear equipment headed to Libya. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:46 AM |
Thursday, March 18, 2004
|
Rich Lowry doesn't know how right he is... |
Thanks to Charles Martin, who caught this even as I'd read it and moved on with glazed eyes. Rich Lowry comments on Al Franken:
Franken also says the North Carolina SCHIP "was limited to children residing in families with income below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, not 200 percent above the poverty line."
If true, this would mean that the program applied only to the poorest of the poor, leaving out many people who are below the poverty line. This is silly and incorrect, which Franken would know if he had even run a Google search.
I think this actually demonstrates a number of things. Franken clearly is so far removed from actual people he can't see how 200% of the federal poverty level (roughly $34,000 for someone with a small family) isn't a lot of money. Therefore he thinks the argument's got to be in the ultra-poor area, you know, among those below the federal poverty level.
But Rich Lowry, I'm afraid, demonstrates just a touch of innumeracy here. If, say, $17,000 is the federal poverty level, then 100% below this level is $0. And of course 200% below this level is minus or negative $17,000. Oopsies! |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 11:57 AM |
|
Someone other than Bill Clinton reports... |
| Church burnings are going on. In Kosovo. |
| Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:18 AM |
|
What does Kerry stand for this morning? |
Yesterday, after Cheyney's speech Kerry finally took steps roughly in accordance to what was called for in this earlier editorial. However his statement (which I heard on Fox News last night) appears hard (actually to this point impossible) to find on the web this morning.
Meanwhile this endorsement is making the rounds, despite Kerry's (thus-far-impossible-to-find) public urging that Spain stay the course.
In the economics trade we call these "information lags" and look for cyclical events largely attributable to such lags. I kinda have a feeling there's something building here in terms of the Kerry and Bush campaigns and the differing ways each handles news media and the web.
UPDATE: Great minds, as they say, travel in the s | |
