here we go guys
― El Tomboto, Thursday, 18 October 2007 23:44 (5 years ago) Permalink
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/10/more-inflation.html
personally I'm applying for a civil servant position ASAP
― El Tomboto, Thursday, 18 October 2007 23:45 (5 years ago) Permalink
Just FYI, during the 1930s depression, many civil servants were paid with vouchers rather than cash, because local governments were unable to collect property taxes and their receipts fell into the shitbin.
― Aimless, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:12 (5 years ago) Permalink
Economy's doing poorly enough as it stands, why do we deliberately want to roll it into the shitbin?
― Abbott, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:14 (5 years ago) Permalink
Because that way Hillary can rescue us all.
― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:17 (5 years ago) Permalink
lol property taxes
― El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
shitbin's a great word, BTW.
― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:20 (5 years ago) Permalink
you been loving my thread titles lately
― El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:26 (5 years ago) Permalink
i came to this country some time ago with little more than a crippling debt burden in GB Pounds and the shirt on my back. i used to have to send back $1,200 each month to pay off my UK debt, and now I'm sending back over $1,400 to cover the same amount of debt repayment. that's two and a half thousand dollars disappearing from my tiny disposable income every year, for no explicable reason. i *heart* the decline of the US economy.
― Roberto Spiralli, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:27 (5 years ago) Permalink
anyway why start this thread now because the bit where ritholtz points out that domino's pizza can't print new menus fast enough to keep up with inflation was pretty fucking amazing
I wish rasheed wallace was still around to show us the latest and greatest exploding bubble blogs
― El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:28 (5 years ago) Permalink
wow Roberto that was some shitty timing, that sucks
― El Tomboto, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:29 (5 years ago) Permalink
This was in the paper today:
Mortgage defaults
Hit an annual rate of 1.5 million in September. That compares with 900,000 last year from fewer than 800,000 in 2005. At the current rate, more than one million Americans will lose their homes to foreclosure, making this the worst housing recession since the Second World War.
Housing starts
Sank to a 14-year low of 1.19 million in September. Starts are a vital economic engine, creating jobs and growth as people stuff their homes with sofas and TVs. Starts peaked at 2.3 million in early 2006, and the decline will be a drag on the rest of the economy until the slide stops.
Mortgages
A quarter of the roughly 50 million U.S. home mortgages are subprime. That's seven times the number of high-risk mortgages there were in 2001. That means that many more marginal homeowners have mortgages, making it far more likely they'll wind up in default.
House prices
Fell 3.2 per cent in the second quarter. Prices are falling faster and more broadly than they have in decades, according to the closely watched Case-Shiller index.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071018.IBUSECONOMY18/TPStory/Business
― everything, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:29 (5 years ago) Permalink
where the hell is rasheed anyway?
economic blogs I read (they're all fairly liberal):
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/ http://angrybear.blogspot.com/ http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/ http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/ http://bigpicture.typepad.com/ http://www.janegalt.net/
― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:37 (5 years ago) Permalink
In regard to inflation, in the USA during the past three years inflation has been soaring - but almost entirely in the housing sector. The fact that people are encouraged to see their houses as investments rather than as expenses doesn't mean that skyrocketing housing costs weren't inflationary. They were.
As the bubble market bursts, I predict a recession with an extra added bonus of inflation running close to 10% - before the end of 2008. As it has for the past 30 years, the official CPI will understate the real inflation rate. It was rigged under Reagan so that government entitlement programs indexed to the CPI would not increase at the true pace of inflation.
If Bush continues to shovel shit on the dollar right up to the end of his term in January 2009, the inflation rate could hit 15%-20% by 2010.
― Aimless, Friday, 19 October 2007 00:55 (5 years ago) Permalink
There are some good economics articles put up here as well: http://www.VoxEU.org
― stet, Friday, 19 October 2007 01:02 (5 years ago) Permalink
Which shit on the dollar are you referring to?
― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 19 October 2007 01:02 (5 years ago) Permalink
As the bubble market bursts, I predict a recession with an extra added bonus of inflation running close to 10% - before the end of 2008.
lol
― aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Friday, 19 October 2007 06:11 (5 years ago) Permalink
this is why i live in canada!
― J0rdan S., Friday, 19 October 2007 06:13 (5 years ago) Permalink
oh wait.
Guys, this is a good time stay in academia right?
― Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Friday, 19 October 2007 11:51 (5 years ago) Permalink
It's a good time to learn a European language.
― Nubbelverbrennung, Friday, 19 October 2007 13:33 (5 years ago) Permalink
Prime shit examples:
When Bush was elected in 2000, the federal budget was in surplus and the national debt was being paid down. Had this state of affairs continued, as projected, it would have led both to lower interest rates and a strong dollar, together. Instead, Bush submitted a series of enormous tax cuts to the Republican-controlled Congress and lobbied them through. Immediately, the CBO's projected budget surpluses turned to projected deficits for the next decade.
Bush also initiated a war of choice, not necessity, in Iraq. This war has already cost well over $700 billion. Yet, Bush insisted on making his tax cuts permanent. Overall, the national debt has increased under Bush by about $2 trillion in seven years. This represents a difference of about $3 trillion of debt from what was projected at the start of his first term.
Because, due to Bush's tax cuts and other policies, the Federal government was in a far weaker position to stimulate the economy when the recession started after 9/11, almost the entire stimulus was delivered via lower interest rates. Because these rate cuts were artificial, and not based on a stronger dollar, this stimulus not only inflated the current housing bubble, but it also undercut the dollar even more than the ballooning national debt did.
Now the dollar is at an all-time low against the euro and the canadian dollar. However, the incomes of the top 10% of American households have increased at a good clip, while the lower 50% of households have seen a decrease in income after inflation. This is largely thanks to Bush's shitty policies. I expect more of the same mismanagement until he is gone.
― Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 18:36 (5 years ago) Permalink
I agree with everything you've just said. You're predictions still seem a tad extreme on the downside though, if I may so.
― aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Saturday, 20 October 2007 18:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
i wonder if income inequality will ever arrive as a political issue in this country. americans tend to not begrudge the rich - so it'll have to be more of a "for everyone's good" type of angle. no?
― jhøshea, Saturday, 20 October 2007 18:54 (5 years ago) Permalink
I remember the 1970s and early 80s quite well. Back then people couldn't belileve it, either. Bush has done a bangup job of recreating many of the same policy errors under Johnson and Nixon that led to raging stagflation back then, except the underlying economy is now weaker than it was in the 1970s and the oil shocks we are likely to get are not political, as when OPEC was formed, but structural.
Oil will exceed $100/barrel some time this winter. The ever-weakening dollar will lead to smaller profit margins and rising retail prices on all imported goods (which means almost everything we buy in the USA). Transport costs will rise with pil prices. Stock prices will erode along with profits. With so many savings tied up in stocks and home equity, consumer spending will be crunched, and personal debt and bancruptcies will rise like a tide. Businesses will retrench and unemployment will rise. No end in sight.
I hope I am wrong.
― Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:07 (5 years ago) Permalink
Anyone want to join my modern-day James Gang? We shall ride across the lower Midwest, robbing and pillaging.
― milo z, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:09 (5 years ago) Permalink
sounds fun
― jhøshea, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:13 (5 years ago) Permalink
Sorry, I don't want to relocate. But this scheme sounds ripe for franchising.
― Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:14 (5 years ago) Permalink
-- Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:07 (14 minutes ago) Link
The coming of $100/barrel oil is not Bush's fault. It's yours and mine and everyone else's for using too damned much energy. I agree Bush could and should have done a lot more with policy to encourage energy efficiency, but there's little he could have done to stop oil's eventual rise to that price level.
― Hurting 2, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:26 (5 years ago) Permalink
Part of the pricing of oil represents the weakness of the dollar. This hurts the USA more than it does other countries. US citizens are paid in dollars and the US government collects revenue in dollars, so they are stuck. EU countries can use euros to buy increasingly cheap dollars, so they don't see the same rise in prices as we do. The weakness of the dollar is mainly Bush's fault.
― Aimless, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:31 (5 years ago) Permalink
The US also uses way more oil than other countries.
― Hurting 2, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:33 (5 years ago) Permalink
he could have done to stop oil's eventual rise to that price level. Not starting a war in Iraq would definitely have helped here.
― stet, Saturday, 20 October 2007 19:57 (5 years ago) Permalink
― El Tomboto, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:47 (5 years ago) Permalink
arrgh, if that won't work then http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/10/imf-mortgage-reset-chart.html
tombot u r freakin me out
― gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
i hope my small apartment + modest savings plan + job in "information services" is enough to weather the shitstorm, if it comes. i got myself out of credit card debt a few months ago, at least
― gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:53 (5 years ago) Permalink
well if you can hold down a job and don't have to worry about an ARM reset you should be okay, it's the homeowner with kids and a subprime loan and two cars who ought to be shitting themselves
― El Tomboto, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:58 (5 years ago) Permalink
apart from some student loans and binging on credit cards over a few years, i'm kind of debt phobic.
which has actually made me lose out over the past several years, i realize, since i pay for EVERYTHING with a debit/check card... i could have just paid that balance on a credit card with some rewards scheme and has some air miles or something
― gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:00 (5 years ago) Permalink
rolling gff personal finances into the shitbin thread, ha
― gff, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:01 (5 years ago) Permalink
This will give you a boner Tombot
http://nymag.com/guides/money/2007/39952/
― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 11:30 (5 years ago) Permalink
the economy increased by 3.9% this quarter! bull market forever, baby. economy's better than ever. golden age.
yet me and so many people I know are getting laid off next month. granted we're all in the writing/design field, but urhhhhh. gggg.
― burt_stanton, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:58 (5 years ago) Permalink
^^^ lol
most of that guy's scenario is not really news to regular bigpicture/CR readers I don't think. But #5, the "we don't pay attention" thing, yeah, well, evidently the awareness campaign is underway, but hell if the big players are paying attention.
He also leaves out the approaching demographic catastrophe as millions of inexperienced thirtysomethings and even some late-twenties kids are forced to move into arguably tougher jobs that the boomers have been holding for two decades. Beyond the social security and healthcare costs associated with mass retirement, I don't really know if this generation has the work ethic and definitely not the rolodex to just start filling in and not fuck up royally. too busy updating their linkedin pages.
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 15:11 (5 years ago) Permalink
can someone explain what "being upside down on your mortgage" means, in plain English?
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 16:14 (5 years ago) Permalink
essentially, owing more than your home is worth.
― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
also Tombot I'm not going to blame this generation as much as I blame their parents.
― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:11 (5 years ago) Permalink
isn't that the way people buy homes? by paying for the privilege of a loan?
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:12 (5 years ago) Permalink
When you enter into a contract with a bank for a mortgage, both you and the bank assume that the property value will not plummet. The bank doesn't want you to default any more than you want to default. But if for whatever reason you need to sell your home, and you can't get what you owe on it, then you will owe the difference to the bank. And the bank knows that when that happens, you probably will not have enough assets to cover the difference.
Predatory-type loans (which seems like a nebulous description to me) typically compound the problem because they have higher transaction rates (points, etc.)
― Dandy Don Weiner, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:17 (5 years ago) Permalink
oh certainly! well played baby boom letting healthcare slide for the 20 years you've owned the electorate
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
yeah Tracer it's also called "negative equity"
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:19 (5 years ago) Permalink
It’s a huge number: if the government managed to collect taxes on all that income, the deficit would be trivial. This unreported income is being earned, for the most part, not by drug dealers or Mob bosses but by tens of millions of people with run-of-the-mill jobs—nannies, barbers, Web-site designers, and construction workers—who are getting paid off the books.
a lot of those people would wind up paying little or no federal income tax anyway (although they would certainly pay payroll taxes), so I think the deficit assumption here is a bit off
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Thursday, 25 April 2013 20:37 (1 month ago) Permalink
don weiner sometimes it seems like you believe you have been sent here to troll us into seeing the light, but that if we don't soon see the error of our ways, you will forlornly return to your home planet
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Thursday, 25 April 2013 20:39 (1 month ago) Permalink
Off-the-books activity also helps explain a mystery about the current economy: even though the percentage of Americans officially working has dropped dramatically, and even though household income is still well below what it was in 2007, personal consumption is higher than it was before the recession, and retail sales have been growing briskly (despite a dip in March). Bernard Baumohl, an economist at the Economic Outlook Group, estimates that, based on historical patterns, current retail sales are actually what you’d expect if the unemployment rate were around five or six per cent, rather than the 7.6 per cent we’re stuck with.
we're all undocumented now
― goole, Thursday, 25 April 2013 20:40 (1 month ago) Permalink
It's been 11 or 12 years. I must be very stubborn. Or very stupid. Likely both!
― The Great Natterer (dandydonweiner), Thursday, 25 April 2013 20:43 (1 month ago) Permalink
Being a moderate republican is a very cold and lonely place these days. We should allow don to come in and warm himself by the genial fire that is ilx. Like any moderate, his trolling is very pastel colored.
― Aimless, Thursday, 25 April 2013 21:33 (1 month ago) Permalink
i'm curious what don would do about income inequality
― reggie (qualmsley), Thursday, 25 April 2013 21:52 (1 month ago) Permalink
Like any moderate, his trolling is very pastel colored.
I voted for Obama twice, so I must be mellowing with age.
I'm not bothered much by income inequality per se; I'm more bothered at how the system is gamed. Maybe that's the same thing. I don't think raising taxes will control income inequality very much or even change it much. Is there an effective system where the rich don't get richer?
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Friday, 26 April 2013 01:16 (1 month ago) Permalink
heavily subsidizing higher education worked pretty well in the post-WWII years
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Friday, 26 April 2013 01:21 (1 month ago) Permalink
the united federation of planets
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 26 April 2013 01:22 (1 month ago) Permalink
how did that work? Across the board (scholarship, funding academic chairs, research, etc.)?
xp
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Friday, 26 April 2013 01:25 (1 month ago) Permalink
low tuition at public u's, pell grants, the gi bill, etc.
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Friday, 26 April 2013 01:29 (1 month ago) Permalink
even w/ heavily subsidized higher ed, there were fewer college grads back then then there are now
― iatee, Friday, 26 April 2013 01:31 (1 month ago) Permalink
like 'lots of people go to college' was part of the economic prosperity of the era but it wasn't something that happened in a vacuum, the us was in a fairly unique place in history post-ww2. 'get more people to go to college' might be as helpful for income inequality as 'fund more sockhops'
― iatee, Friday, 26 April 2013 01:33 (1 month ago) Permalink
imagine no student loans, but higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for higher education. more young people with greater spending power to keep the economy moving. it's easy if you try
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 26 April 2013 01:34 (1 month ago) Permalink
'young people don't have enough money' is definitely a problem but it's probably not the root of our economic malaise
― iatee, Friday, 26 April 2013 01:39 (1 month ago) Permalink
What do you think we could do to significantly shrink income inequality iatee?
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Friday, 26 April 2013 01:43 (1 month ago) Permalink
One characteristic of old people is that they spend very little on consumer goods compared to young people just starting a household or a family. otoh, old people with money are a huge boon to the pharmaceuticals industry.
― Aimless, Friday, 26 April 2013 01:46 (1 month ago) Permalink
soak the rich xp
― iatee, Friday, 26 April 2013 01:48 (1 month ago) Permalink
pretty much works by definition
maybe we should try it sometime then
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 26 April 2013 01:51 (1 month ago) Permalink
We did during WWII.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 26 April 2013 01:53 (1 month ago) Permalink
I think the idea that we'll create millions of middle class jobs through govt tweaking policy this was or that way is pretty much a dream. we're in the new normal, the question is how we deal w/ it. even w/ strong economic growth sometime in the future income inequality will continue to climb, as job creation will stick to a bipolar distribution.
― iatee, Friday, 26 April 2013 01:58 (1 month ago) Permalink
Aren't most of the significant gains in wealth inequality related to equity ownership? Or is it primarily wages?
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Friday, 26 April 2013 01:59 (1 month ago) Permalink
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2011.pdf
Interestingly, the income composition pattern at the very top has changed considerably over the century. The share of wage and salary income has increased sharply from the 1920s to the present, and especially since the 1970s. Therefore, a significant fraction of the surge in top incomes since 1970 is due to an explosion of top wages and salaries. Indeed, estimates based purely on wages and salaries show that the share of total wages and salaries earned by the top 1 percent wage income earners has jumped from 5.1 percent in 1970 to 12.4 percent in 2007.5
Evidence based on the wealth distribution is consistent with those facts. Estimates of wealth concentration, measured by the share of total wealth accruing to top 1 percent wealth holders, constructed by Wojciech Kopczuk and myself from estate tax returns for the 1916-2000 period in the United States show a precipitous decline in the first part of the century with only fairly modest increases in recent decades. The evidence suggests that top incomes earners today are not “rentiers” deriving their incomes from past wealth but rather are “working rich,” highly paid employees or new entrepreneurs who have not yet accumulated fortunes comparable to those accumulated during the Gilded Age. Such a pattern might not last for very long. The drastic cuts of the federal tax on large estates could certainly accelerate the path toward the reconstitution of the great wealth concentration that existed in the U.S. economy before the Great Depression.
― iatee, Friday, 26 April 2013 02:08 (1 month ago) Permalink
saw that link, those are only based on estate tax returns through 2000. Would be interested to see the effect of the past 12 years.
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Friday, 26 April 2013 02:14 (1 month ago) Permalink
a good way to solve income inequality is to take money from rich people and give it to poor people
― max, Friday, 26 April 2013 13:25 (1 month ago) Permalink
too complicated!
― Chuck E was a hero to most (s.clover), Friday, 26 April 2013 13:46 (1 month ago) Permalink
i still think we should tie the highest marginal income tax rate to unemployment. couldn't hurt
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 26 April 2013 14:25 (1 month ago) Permalink
or straight up tax wealth whenever unemployment rises above, i don't know, 3%. it's not like trickle down economics hasn't been totally disproved to work as advertised
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 26 April 2013 14:28 (1 month ago) Permalink
Re soaking the rich, the capital gains tax rate used to be higher (that's where the rich do especially well) and the percentage of income that is taxed for Social Security payroll taxes used to be higher. Capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as regular income-- there have been studies I believe showing that the Republican argument that lower cap gains rates will help create jobs and boost the economy does not work.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 26 April 2013 14:31 (1 month ago) Permalink
I get the feeling only the marks on the right believe that trickle down economics "works" as advertised
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Friday, 26 April 2013 14:32 (1 month ago) Permalink
i agree, but it's a zombie theory that still has way too much sway over public discourse
studies our GOP friends have suppressed, no less, curmudgeon
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/11/02/non-partisan-congressional-tax-report-debunks-core-conservative-economic-theory-gop-suppresses-study/
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 26 April 2013 14:34 (1 month ago) Permalink
They also have sway over Obama's White House. When he "compromised" for just taxing the income rate of the wealthy who make more than $400 grand, he also should have pushed for restoring cap gains rates higher at that time (they went up slightly but not to the same rate as income taxes).
My mba grad sister who always votes Democrat and is liberal on social issues, thinks raising the payroll tax cap on Social Security is unfair to the wealthy who got there by working hard. I want to give her the stats I read that at the beginning of the Reagan administration a higher percent of income was taxes for Social Security purposes than is now, but sometimes you just can't argue with family. The Washington Post editorial page is stubborn on this too.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 26 April 2013 14:46 (1 month ago) Permalink
was taxed
― curmudgeon, Friday, 26 April 2013 14:47 (1 month ago) Permalink
the norquistists have done a fine job conflating taxing labor earnings with property and inheritance. hats off to grover
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 26 April 2013 20:53 (1 month ago) Permalink
preach it brother matt
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-is-rigged-the-biggest-financial-scandal-yet-20130425?hatersgonnahate
― reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 27 April 2013 14:41 (1 month ago) Permalink
My experience in the past four years has been the exact opposite of this:
The Myth of America's Tech-Talent Shortage
anyone else on ILX in tech?
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Monday, 29 April 2013 16:18 (1 month ago) Permalink
complaining about stagnating wages in the ~90-120k range at the moment seems a bit...
― Chuck E was a hero to most (s.clover), Monday, 29 April 2013 17:10 (1 month ago) Permalink
I'm in tech and I think the article has some truth to it. Employers like the lower-wage, more docile aspect of foreign workers.
― nickn, Monday, 29 April 2013 17:16 (1 month ago) Permalink
also americans are terrible don't forget.
the worst.
― Chuck E was a hero to most (s.clover), Monday, 29 April 2013 18:39 (1 month ago) Permalink
I'm a tech person too and I generally agree with his argument.
― Elvis Telecom, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 07:27 (1 month ago) Permalink
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-professoriate-fails-us-again-this.html
In the more recent case involving Reinhart and Rogoff, it was left to three graduate students to check the facts and uncover the scam. Your economics professors all took a pass. The professoriate failed you again.In fairness to the nation’s professors, many of them have a good excuse for their failure to serve. They couldn’t check Reinhart and Rogoff—they were in the south of France! But all your clammy liberal bloggers have let the obvious question pass, as they so typically do in such cases:Why was it left to three graduate students to fact-check that very important paper—“the most influential economic analysis of recent years?” Maybe there’s an answer to that. So far, we haven’t seen the question asked. Why was it left to three graduate students? Here’s our provisional answer: At the top of our intellectual pig-piles, this latest failure is the norm. In large part, our intellectual elites stopped functioning a long time ago! At the top of our journalistic and academic pig-piles, our society no longer works.
In fairness to the nation’s professors, many of them have a good excuse for their failure to serve. They couldn’t check Reinhart and Rogoff—they were in the south of France! But all your clammy liberal bloggers have let the obvious question pass, as they so typically do in such cases:
Why was it left to three graduate students to fact-check that very important paper—“the most influential economic analysis of recent years?” Maybe there’s an answer to that. So far, we haven’t seen the question asked.
Why was it left to three graduate students? Here’s our provisional answer: At the top of our intellectual pig-piles, this latest failure is the norm. In large part, our intellectual elites stopped functioning a long time ago!
At the top of our journalistic and academic pig-piles, our society no longer works.
― j., Wednesday, 1 May 2013 19:29 (1 month ago) Permalink
well, it escaped fact checking because it was never peer reviewed. but in any case lots of nonsense economics is built on a foundation of peer reviewed fact-checked facts.
― iatee, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 19:41 (1 month ago) Permalink
Luckily it works remarkably well in every other hierarchic organization in the country.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 19:55 (1 month ago) Permalink
dean baker on reinhart and rogoff has been good as well
i have sort of turned to him permanently in favor of the daily howler, not sure why, he's not as funny or as vibrantly outraged. there is maybe a weird little pill of bitterness somewhere in the howler's work whose origin remains obscure but whose absence makes beat the press a slightly clearer read
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 20:40 (1 month ago) Permalink
Always seems like a lot of his bitterness is rooted in the way that his friend Al Gore got treated during the presidential campaign.
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 20:44 (1 month ago) Permalink
This could probably fit on multiple threads, but Felix Salmon is in fine form today on how labor has been taking it in the nads from capital for the past 40 years, and he throws in a masterful skewering of Tom Friedman's latest:
Friedman is a billionaire (by marriage) who — like all billionaires these days — is convinced that he achieved his current prominent position by merit alone, rather than through luck and through the diligent application of cultural and financial capital. His paean to self-motivation recalls nothing so much as Margaret Thatcher's "there is no such thing as society" quote: "parenting, teaching or leadership that 'inspires' individuals to act on their own will be the most valued of all," he writes, bizarrely choosing to wrap his scare quotes around the word "inspires" rather than around the word "leadership", where they belong.
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/05/01/the-systemic-plight-of-labor/
― o. nate, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 20:48 (1 month ago) Permalink
the employment-to-population ratio, which fell off a cliff during the Great Recession and which will probably never recover.
actually, the whole thing is quite depressing
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 21:02 (1 month ago) Permalink
A Story for May Day: The Fed, Apple, and Trickle-Down Economicshttp://robertreich.org/post/49368810890
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 21:08 (1 month ago) Permalink
in favor of over
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 21:24 (1 month ago) Permalink