http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/shale-revolution-saudi-america-was-the-worlds-no-1-petroleum-producer-in-june-for-the-8th-straight-month/AMERICA NOW WORLD’S NUMBER 1 OIL PRODUCER
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-04 03:56:00 UTC
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/10/shale-revolution-saudi-america-was-the-worlds-no-1-petroleum-producer-in-june-for-the-8th-straight-month/AMERICA NOW WORLD’S NUMBER 1 OIL PRODUCER
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-04 03:56:00 UTC
http://www.economics21.org/commentary/longer-maternity-leave-not-so-great-women-after-all#.Uk50Mqb9F5Q.facebookANOTHER FALLACY: MATERNITY AND PATERNITY LEAVE
Contribute to glass ceiling. Have high career costs. Contribute to income inequality.
There is no free lunch.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-04 03:55:00 UTC
http://www.economicshelp.org/wp-comments-post.phpMORAL BLINDNESS OF MACRO ECONOMISTS
I try to convince macro people all the time: politics is a moral enterprise. If people want to punish immorality they will proudly suffer to do so. And americans feel in a punishing mood.
Your argument presupposes the absence of moral frustration in the populace. But every single measure that we have tells us that people see our elected officisls outside the local level as immoral. And the entire edifice corrupt.
If the choice is conquest of ones way of life, or ruin, plenty of people will choose ruin.
That is what is going on.
Do not mistake electoral minority numbers as insufficient. A desperate minority of five percent can quite easily bring a government to its knees.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-03 08:43:00 UTC
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/10/a_primer_on_mal.htmlMAL-EMPLOYMENT (OVER EDUCATED, UNDER EMPLOYED)
About 1/4 to 1/3 of people are overeducated for their positions.(weighted toward the social sciences).
But over-education only applies to College Level Occupations. Low and semi skilled workers are not sufficiently educated (as are germans because of their apprenticeship approach to education.)
American society envisions that everyone can join the middle class; that education is not job preparation, but indoctrination in the cult of democracy. And that we are all capable of learning independently. All three of these assumptions are empirically and logically false.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-03 03:22:00 UTC
AUSTERITY – WHY THE CONSERVATIVES WON.
In a series of posts in 2009-2011 on Paul Krugman’s blog on the NYT (who will not engage us), and Karl Smith’s (who at the time had the freedom and inclination to engage us), I argued that the only possible solution to the conflict between the short time preference of the left, and the long time preference of the right, was to propose a range of spending and saving options that gave something to everyone. I did this because back-channel conservatives were arguing that they would give into spending and redistribution if they could dismantle some part of monopoly on indoctrination held by the left.
And I know I sounded ridiculous at the time. But my argument was sound. And it’s been proven over time to have been correct: Haidt’s thesis that the conservatives have a lock on morality that can only be overcome by demographics is correct. The conservatives will happily bring the government to a craw, and possibly even bankrupt it, if it means fighting for what they morally believe.
We know that human beings will pay very high costs to punish cheating. This is why the middle doesn’t move. Free riding is cheating. Sure the bankers are bad. But that’s government’s fault. But free riding is also government’s fault. THere is no greater chance that americans will tolerate free riding than germans will.
MORALITY TRUMPS ECONOMICS.
Morality is a product of genetic distribution and family structure. If you don’t grasp and internalize that. Then you will never grasp and internalize politics. And you policy initiatives will always fail.
LIBERTARIANS AND PROGRESSIVES ALIKE
It may not be obvious that I’m criticizing both progressives and libertarians. I am. We are not equal. We do not possess the same moral codes. Our reproductive interests are not the same. And at some point there is a limit to the compromise we will pay to sacrifice our reproductive interests for others.
That we intuit these sensations as moral rather than biological is simply our own egocentrism playing games with us. We are intuitive creatures bound by a thin veil of reason, and enmeshed in a network of habits we call a socially constructed reality. But our justifications are little more than that. In the end, over time, we obey our selfish genes, or we will not exist.
He who breeds wins.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-28 08:27:00 UTC
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/build-we-wont/KRUGMAN WATCH: RESISTANCE TO SPENDING FROM 2010
People do not want to invest in infrastructure in the midst of a class war, even if it’s battles are conducted by policy rather than by violence. People do not have faith in the government. They cannot have faith in the government, because we have too disparate a set of interests.
You’re approaching the problem from the wrong direction. There is no ‘We” any longer. The use of factions and class warfare to undermine the old class, race and cultural power base was successful.
If people do not own their government, or feel that it represents them, then it is an external entity. They’re acting as if it is.
There is no “We”.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-25 20:52:00 UTC
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/soros-obama-and-me/KRUGMAN WATCH – FROM 2010
(Posted for archival purposes)
Small business people? Hardly. That writing provides a limited return is not a measure of its level of consumption by a large number of customers, but a measure of how little people are willing to pay for it.
The term Mitch is looking for is not “entrepreneur” it is “Schumpeterian Intellectuals”: people who bring about the destruction of capitalism, the market and the prosperity of national competitiveness by undermining both the sentiment of, and capital structure of entrepreneurship.
Unfortunately, we don’t have special taxes for Shumpeterian market destroyers like we have special taxes on entrepreneurial market creators. But we can fix that. Perhaps we should level the playing field by heavily taxing political, extra-market goods and services, and lowering taxes on apolitical intra-market goods and services?
Wouldn’t that be a switch? I mean, why should the amount of income be the axis of measurement, rather than the service provided to the market? Under that measure we could confiscate all of Soros’ money, recover our losses from the bloated financial sector, and reduce the media to non-profit status, and make political writing an unprofitable exercise.
As for putting capital to a better purpose, that’s not yet proven. Soros was not participating in the market for goods and services by creating unemployment and reorganizing that capital. He’s just using remunerative coercion under state protections. And extra-market remunerative coercion at that. A form of coercion made possible only by the restraint of violence by others in order to create the somewhat free market – a restraint he does not himself employ. And while that asymmetry of restraint may not be apparent to your cult of those who are incapable of holding territory and trade routes, or building an durable government, or durable institutions of calculation and cooperation, it is not lost on those of us whose ancestors have done so for a millennia or more.
It seems odd to me that so many people fail to grasp just how entertaining and enjoyable civil war is for those people who practice militial restraint – often at high personal cost of forgone opportunity. Modern war is a ‘hell’ only for people who fight in the western model. It’s not for warriors, terrorists and raiders. We forget that the reason we cannot conquer the Afghans is in no small part because raiding and killing are actually enjoyable, entertaining, status-enhancing pass times among practitioners. And creating markets and property rights, and philosophy and econometrics, is a poor substitute.
Then, perhaps some of us should put our capital stock of violence to better use, if in our restraint, we are disabused by men who simply take advantage of our creation – the market. It would be the optimum use of our asset.
Or those who put their financial capital stock, or political capital stock to such uses, could pay the opportunity cost of restraint, so that we do not have to. And can continue to devote our energies to the proxy of entrepreneurship and company building instead of the more enjoyable and rewarding use of our capital stock of violence.
π
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-25 20:42:00 UTC
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/defining-the-macroeconomic-problem/KRUGMAN RECAPTURE: FROM FEBRUARY 2008 – ON THE CRISIS
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/defining-the-macroeconomic-problem/#comment-19177
1) In order to sustain that spending you seek, and support reorganizing both production and consumption, all these groups need impetus that it no longer appears policy can quickly reorient. Our tools seem to have exhausted their usefulness:
-Monetary Policy and Bureaucrats
-Traders (private sector)
-Institutions (commercial banks and insurance)
-Merchants (Distributors)
-Producers (theory, capital and production cycle)
-Ordinary Consumers and Their Daily Spending Habits
-Interpersonal Networks (intertemporal theories)
-Common Sense and Traditions (long wave theories)
2) I would like to understand why we donβt just put the onus back on the debt market by authorizing a new set of banks or bank divisions to issue home loans at some fractional value, and forcing the previous lending institutions to write off the debt, rather than letting people get forced out of homes and have their equity destroyed β especially if the problem was created by monetary policy in the fist place.
If the asset bubble will evaporate anyway, why pay the knowledge-cost and related stresses? Instead, why not simply force the issue and make consumers elated (and make them into spending consumers) because of it. What you do to refinance the write downs is paid one way or another β either by market losses or by buying out the bad debt. But this is the only method by which I can see we can affect the entire chain of human behavior quickly and positively without paying the dreadful cost of uncertainty over a period of four or five years. (Roughly what I am able to calculate it will take β not the two years I see others coming up with.)
The problem I see on the horizon is the limited innovation going on in the economy outside of healthcare, and even that is under threat. This coming period of contraction and consequent distraction is time we cannot afford to lose. We need to be competing and we need to channel money into innovation rather than home construction. (This is a lengthy topic in itβs own right.)
There must be some variant of this solution that would be sufficient. Imagine all homeowners reducing their mortgages by two thirds, or perhaps better said, simply refinancing DOWN and retaining their equity, as often as possible, and what that would do to the economy. (I cannot go into detail on a blog but this is a solvable process.) Raise interest rates and give ourselves room to control inflation rather than deflation, which is the only choice we really want to make.
I understand the natural objections but hiding this deflation inside of market processes will still yield the same result and the consequential shock will be very hard on the average person. Demographically, I am very concerned that if we donβt do something like this many people will simply not recover their financial lives. Ever. There are just too many people too late in life with too little savings, and the savings they have in their homes looks like it is rapidly going to evaporate. They cannot afford the double loss of equity and earning remaining lifetime earning potential as all this works out β time being the ultimate scarce capital we all have to work with.
Cheers
β Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-25 20:40:00 UTC
“Down on the street, I interpret a lot of what Krugman says, to mean “make it/manufacture it/produce it it doesn’t matter if you can sell it for a profit or sell it at all, hell stash it in a warehouse until the aliens come, the idea of production is to transfer money to employees, not to sell things and make profit”. Shiit straight out of the old Soviet Union.”
-George White
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-25 13:14:00 UTC
WHY ISN’T REDISTRIBUTION SIMPLY CANNIBALISM?
Interesting.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-25 07:54:00 UTC