tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-69896340906272273492024-03-05T13:13:46.674-08:00The Weekly ParticipantPOLITICS. ECONOMICS. CULTURE.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-18685162306988494852013-08-05T15:35:00.000-07:002013-08-05T15:36:06.902-07:00The Structural Unemployment Delusion <div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<a href="http://www.imperialmanagementreview.com/article/the-structural-unemployment-delusion/"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">My latest article in the Imperial Management Review:</span></a></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The lingering reverberations of the Great Recession continue to send an unpleasant sting throughout the global economy. Although in the United States we’re witnessing steady—albeit sluggish—growth, effective policy targeted at job creation is still very much needed to reduce ongoing unemployment, which currently stands at 7.4%.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Both the Federal Reserve and policy makers in Washington are meant to implement measures aimed at boosting employment. The efficacy of the policies that they offer depends upon a proper understanding of the nature of unemployment. Currently, a number of underlying causes have been attributed to the ongoing inertia of US jobs growth. On the one hand, sustained deregulation, a debt-driven housing bubble and fly by night activity on wall street—among a host of other factors—led to the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. Unemployment that results from these sources is termed cyclical unemployment.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">On the other hand, the transition from a labor-based economy to an increasingly more global and knowledge-based economy is beginning to require the workforce to possess fundamentally different skills. Some assert that these shifts have obfuscated the natural rate of unemployment; they argue that the ongoing high rate of unemployment has little to do with the lingering effects of the recession, but rather is the result of a skill shortage for available jobs. This type of unemployment, stemming from a mismatch between the supply and demand of skills, is termed structural unemployment.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<a data-mce-href="http://www.imperialmanagementreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/united-states-unemployment-rate.png" href="http://www.imperialmanagementreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/united-states-unemployment-rate.png"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><img alt="US Unemployment Rate" class="size-full wp-image-965 aligncenter" data-mce-src="http://www.imperialmanagementreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/united-states-unemployment-rate.png" height="325" src="http://www.imperialmanagementreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/united-states-unemployment-rate.png" style="border: 0px; cursor: default; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="710" /></span></a></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Each type of unemployment requires a different prescription to overcome. The classic remedy for cyclical unemployment is expansionary monetary and fiscal policy aimed at stimulating the business cycle and boosting aggregate demand. Once demand is restored, the thinking goes, firms will ramp up production and again begin to hire. Structural unemployment, however, is much different in nature and requires a fundamentally different prescription. Because this type of unemployment is the result of a mismatch between the supply and demand of skills, monetary and fiscal policy will do very little, if anything at all, to alleviate it. Instead, the existing incongruity must be reconciled with education and job retraining in order to provide the workforce with the required skills to secure employment.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">So, then, what is anchoring employment? Are structural or cyclical factors mainly to blame? The answer is a little bit of both, but, right now, the evidence tells us that it’s mainly cyclical.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: center;" style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"> *****</span></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: center;" style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: center;" style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><a data-mce-href="http://www.epi.org/publication/unemployed-workers-outnumber-job-openings/" href="http://www.epi.org/publication/unemployed-workers-outnumber-job-openings/">According to the Economic Policy Institute</a>, job vacancies are currently 16% below their prerecession levels. In 2007, there were 1.5 unemployed job seekers for every job vacancy in the US. This ratio jumped to 6.7:1 in 2009, and has since declined to 3.1:1 in April, 2013. As job seekers outnumber job vacancies in every sector, the data strongly suggest that cyclical factors are to blame for weighing on unemployment.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><a data-mce-href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/05/22-structural-unemployment-burtless" href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/05/22-structural-unemployment-burtless">Research from the Brookings Institute</a> has further substantiated this claim. “Even if we could magically endow all job seekers with precisely the skills needed to find work in expanding industries,” writes Gary Burtless, “we would not have reduced the unemployment rate in the Great Recession very much, and for a very simple reason: There were comparatively few job vacancies to fill.”</span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<img alt="Available Jobs to Job Seekers" class="size-full wp-image-967 aligncenter" data-mce-src="http://www.imperialmanagementreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/stateofworkingamerica.png" height="423" src="http://www.imperialmanagementreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/stateofworkingamerica.png" style="border: 0px; cursor: default; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="640" /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Does this mean that structural employment isn’t an important concern? No. Structural sources do have a role to play in unemployment, and they will likely become more relevant going forward. But attributing unemployment to structural sources alone, and discarding the efficacy of further monetary and fiscal policy in favor of job retraining—or nothing at all—is both shortsighted and ineffective.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Yes, we should encourage children and young adults to pursue a STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) curriculum, as STEM related fields are expected to be among the fastest growing jobs. But for the 3.6 million unemployed Americans between the ages of 45 and 65, the investment in retraining for a STEM career is unlikely to bear fruit. Return on investment for education is likely only to pay off after a long time horizon—perhaps spanning decades. The closer individuals are retirement, the more unwilling they will be to incur the cost of retraining.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Most notably, the sectors that are expected to have supply shortages in the coming years—including STEM related fields, such as computer science—<i>do not currently have</i> supply shortages. What does this mean? Well, even if an unemployed adult invested in an education in computer science, he or she would still face an environment with fewer jobs than applicants. Moreover, firms are much more likely to tender offers to recent graduates looking to build careers over older applicants nearing retirement.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #333333; line-height: 19px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">These findings tell us something very important; namely, expansionary monetary and fiscal policy can still play an important role in alleviating unemployment. Rather than a mismatch between the supply and demand of skill, it is depressed aggregate demand that remains the main source of lingering unemployment. Congress and the Fed must act accordingly if our economy is to recover.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-746512613411001662013-05-19T09:09:00.000-07:002013-05-19T09:09:01.964-07:00Hysteria in the Time of Austerity
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Originally published in the Imperial Management Review</span></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Prior to
the Great Depression, economists conceived of their field as something
bordering on a perfect science; capitalism, so it was thought, had proven to be
an economic system devoid of major inefficiencies. This point of view, buffeted
by the bull market of the 1920s, abruptly disintegrated at the end of that
decade, leaving economists aghast at the approaching Great Depression<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">With traditional monetary policy
ineffective, it took a fresh and invasive look at the capitalist system, most
notably by John Maynard Keynes, to understand the challenges that capitalist
economies faced. In his <i>General Theory of
Employment, Interest and Money,</i> Keynes attributed the depression to a lack
of private sector demand, which could only be made up by increased government
spending. It was the role of the government, said Keynes, to stimulate the
economy. This basic idea comprised the policy prescription taken by America and
Britain during the 1930s and 1940s.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">As memories of the Depression
dwindled, economic thinking shifted away from Keynesianism. The efficient
markets hypothesis, which conceives of markets as being rational, gained
traction. After World War II, monetary policy was effective in combating economic
challenges, including soaring inflation of the 1970s. Keynesian fiscal policy
no longer seemed necessary and soon fell out of favor. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The success of economics as a
field was again trumpeted, with major thinkers touting the merits of economic
policy for balancing employment, inflation and growth. The back patting
extended in to 2008, with a number of esteemed economists ardently believing
their profession to have reached a pinnacle. Complex and beautifully crafted
mathematical models conjured up just the right prescriptions to indefinitely
maintain the goals of central banks.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">And then the housing bubble burst.
And global credit markets dried up. And unemployment skyrocketed. And
unmanageable sovereign debt engulfed Europe. The Nobel garnished makers of
those mathematical models appeared worryingly close to cosmeticians caking on
layers of make-up to conceal a severely scarred truth. With the Fed lowering
interest rates near the zero-lower bound, monetary policy met its limits. And
thus our story begins. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">*****<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Austerians, who believe that in a
recession government should cut deficit spending and make room for private
sector investment, faced off against Keynesians, who believe that recessions
represent an absence of private sector demand; the government, according to the
Keynesians, must increase deficit spending to stimulate the economy. Which
policy is the right one is currently at the heart of economic debate. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Although the Austerity v. Stimulus
debate is not a new one, the global economic community has yet to reach a
consensus on which is really most effective. Context often compounds clear-cut
conclusions, and many adherents—in either camp—have a shifty penchant for
exaggerating contextual differences to resuscitate their beleaguered ideology.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">If the economic elite were to come
together to organize an experiment wherein two countries of similar context
were to receive two different policy responses during a recession—austerity for
one and stimulus for the other—ethical review boards would be spinning like
tops trying thwart it. Which country you believe would be the dead guinea pig
depends on your perspective. But it’s clear that one of the countries would
suffer unnecessarily. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Sometimes, however, the most
seminal of experiments occur naturally. Despite their differences, the
economies of the United States and the United Kingdom are similar in a number
of important ways, including having and borrowing in their own currencies. While
the relationship is not 1:1, those who would downplay the similarities will
have a fairly conspicuous agenda. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">And so the experiment begins. With
the inauguration of the coalition government, the United Kingdom began to
invoke fiscal austerity; they reneged on Labour’s stimulus program, which saw
GDP growth at 2.5% annually, in favor of across the board spending cuts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">George Osborne, Chancellor of the
Exchequer, instituted an aggressive policy of deficit reduction and tax
increases, effectively foisting contractionary policy on an already sclerotic
economy. Government spending, he argued, would crowd out private investment,
thereby thwarting further growth and prolonging recession. The answer was
simple: curtail government spending. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">How has this turned out for the
UK? Well, last year its economy shrank .1%, a far cry from the .8% growth it
had projected. The most recent report from the Office of National Statistics
revealed that the UK narrowly avoided consummating its ongoing flirtation with
a triple-dip recession. Despite lowering its growth forecast for 2013 from 2%
to 1.2%, Osborne maintained that <span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">“it’s a hard road but we are getting there.
Britain is on the right track. Turning back now would be a disaster.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Quite at odds with Osborne, the <span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">National
Institute for Economic and Social Research has attributed the UK’s sustained
depression and its worsening outlook to austerity. </span>Although most European countries followed a path of
austerity, some of them are now beginning to shy away from it, after years of negative
growth and rising unemployment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Portugal recently announced a
far-reaching stimulus package. Italy’s new Prime Minister has promised to curb
austerity programs and begin stimulus. Most notably, perhaps, the IMF has had
an about-face with regard to austerity. Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of
the IMF, recently impugned the efficacy of Osborne’s deficit reduction plan,
warning that cuts are likely hampering growth and prolonging recession. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Moreover, IMF Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard stated that
Osborne is</span> “playing
with fire” by remaining on a path of austerity. Blanchard, once a proponent of Britain’s austerity plans,
conducted a review of previous IMF projections. He found that countries that
engaged in austerity notably underperformed IMF projections of growth.
Conversely, countries that took a more Keynesian approach, like the United
States, tended to outperformed IMF projections. After reviewing the findings,
Blanchard has advanced the IMF’s evolving viewpoint on austerity, stating that
raising taxes and cutting spending succeed only is dragging out depression.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">*****<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Two notable papers serve as the
academic pillars for austerity: Alesina and Ardagna’s <i>Large Changes in Fiscal Policy</i> and Reinhart and Rogoff’s <i>Growth in a Time of Debt. </i>Both have been
championed as a coup de grace to Keynesianism. Both have been ignominiously
refuted. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">When we distance ourselves from
the dizzying political discourse and focus on the differential outcomes over
the last five years, it’s clear which side of the Austerity v. Stimulus debate
has triumphed. The United States, with its comparatively more Keynesian
approach, has had a comparatively stronger recovery. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">According to critics of the Obama
Administration, the United States was supposed to be Greece by now. Interest
rates were meant to have skyrocketed, deficits to have rapidly expanded, large
capital outflows to have abounded and the dollar to have deteriorated. But none of this transpired. Instead,
GDP growth averaged 2.1% since 2009, compared to .9% in the UK. Unemployment is
trending downward and is projected to reach 6.5% by next year, and the deficit
is expected to shrink to 4% of GDP by 2014.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">More than 5 years into the Great
Recession, the verdict is clear. The IMF, the World Bank and the WTO have all
warned that austerity will hamstring growth and exacerbate unemployment. They
were able to look at the data objectively and come to sensible policy
recommendations based on empirical evidence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Yet Austerians cling to their a
priori judgments and increasingly refuted ideologies. They refuse to
acknowledge the role austerity has played in hindering recovery. We’re hoping
to resuscitate our injured guinea pig, but the wheel of death spins on.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-77109482621553103832013-05-08T13:18:00.001-07:002013-05-08T13:19:03.240-07:00Technology: Friend or Foe? <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The Boston bombings have again led us to a serious question
that has yet to be seriously answered. Namely, what measures should be
implemented to more effectively preempt terrorism, and how do we balance those
measures with our civil liberties?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who is thought to have masterminded the bombings,
is now known to have engaged in a number of radical content on social media. Tsarnaev’s
YouTube account revealed a playlist labeled “terrorism”, videos of an obscure <span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Dagestani jihadist</span>, <span style="background: white; mso-bidi-font-size: 9.5pt;">and a song by Timur Mutsurayev</span> entitled “Life Devoted to Jihad.” Criticisms
about the failure to identify Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a potential terrorist are
starting to appear, with some commentators asserting that the “signs were
there.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">So how could federal authorities have done a better job at
fingering the Tsarnaev brothers? Could expanding provisions in the USA Patriot
Act have allowed them to identify Tamerlan as a potential terrorist threat and
monitor his activities? Perhaps this would have helped the FBI confirm Russian
suspicions that he was connected to Chechen militants.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">How about the increased use of technology for public safety? Following
the attack, the FBI and Boston Police Department were able to identify the
Tsarnaev brothers with the help of Closed Circuit Television, or CCTV. Some of
the CCTV footage of Dzhokar Tsarnaev’s reaction after the first explosion may
now be a key piece of evidence in his prosecution.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Would increasing the number of CCTV cameras in our cities
help authorities identify criminals more efficiently and effectively? Moreover,
to what extent would the presence of CCTV help deter future crime? CCTV has
already proliferated in a number of European countries, such as the United
Kingdom where it is welcomed by 90% of Londoners surveyed by UrbanEye. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Technology that improves the government’s ability to
identify and monitor criminal activity could reduce crime rates and help prevent
a catastrophe like the Boston bombings from occurring in the future. Of course,
while technology has an amazing capacity to hamstring crime, it also has an
uncomfortable ability to threaten our privacy and undermine fundamental civil liberties.
The primary criticism against increased surveillance is that the government
would be monitoring possible criminal activity, which may very likely turn out
to be non-criminal activity.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Following the Madrid bombings in 2004, Brandon Mayfield, a
lawyer from Portland, Oregon, became a suspect after the FBI had erroneously
matched his fingerprints with those found on a bag of detonators associated
with the attacks. Under provisions of the USA Patriot Act, the FBI began
wiretapping Mr. Mayfield’s conversations, conducting secret searches of his
home and gathering bank and phone records—acts that normally require probable cause
and judicial approval.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">While the inclination after a highly symbolic act of
violence may be to give the authorities carte blanche to prevent a similar act
from occurring again, we must be careful not to let fear shepherd our decision-making.
Nor must we fail to seriously consider the extent to which we can implement more
invasive security measures without jettisoning our privacy. How often have the
utopian societies of science fiction plummeted precariously into dystopian
nightmares? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In an ad hoc poll conducted by Marblehead, 69% of
respondents reported that Dzhokar Tsarnaev should not have been read his
Miranda rights at the time of his arrest. Whether the public safety exemption
is a key method for gathering intelligence or a pernicious dismissal of the
constitution is a question about which we should not be cavalier. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In the aftermath of September 11<sup>th</sup>, some of the
most important decisions we made were governed by fear. Justice was supplanted
by revenge and rational thought was demoted in favor of emotion.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The Tsarnaev brothers may be despicable. Their wickedness has
shaken our collective spirit in a way that we have felt far too often this year.
But it is precisely when our American spirit is shaken that our constitution
must stand firm.</span></div>
<!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-27808990500410294982013-05-01T12:15:00.001-07:002013-05-01T12:15:48.900-07:00Extreme Political Attitudes <br />
<div style="color: #383838; line-height: 18px; padding: 0px 0px 10px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Interesting article from the APS:</span></div>
<div style="color: #383838; line-height: 18px; padding: 0px 0px 10px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #383838; line-height: 18px; padding: 0px 0px 10px;">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Having to explain how a political policy works leads people to express less extreme attitudes toward the policy, according to new research published in <a href="http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/journals/psychological_science" style="color: #4ba6c6; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" target="_blank"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Psychological Science</span></a>, a journal of the <a href="http://www.psychologicalscience.org/" style="color: #4ba6c6; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" target="_blank">Association for Psychological Science</a>.</span></i></div>
<div style="color: #383838; line-height: 18px; padding: 0px 0px 10px;">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The research suggests that people may hold extreme policy positions because they are under an illusion of understanding — attempting to explain the nuts and bolts of how a policy works forces them to acknowledge that they don’t know as much about the policy as they initially thought.</span></i></div>
<div style="color: #383838; line-height: 18px; padding: 0px 0px 10px;">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Psychological scientist Philip Fernbach of the Leeds School of Business at the University of Colorado, Boulder and his co-authors were interested in exploring some of the factors that could contribute to what they see as increasing political polarization in the United States.</span></i></div>
<div style="color: #383838; line-height: 18px; padding: 0px 0px 10px;">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div style="color: #383838; line-height: 18px; padding: 0px 0px 10px;">
<a href="http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/extreme-political-attitudes-may-stem-from-an-illusion-of-understanding.html"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Read the full article here.</span></a></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-15139411095368929182013-04-28T11:00:00.000-07:002013-04-28T11:01:08.863-07:00The Reinhart Rogoff Response<span style="font-size: large;">The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/opinion/reinhart-and-rogoff-responding-to-our-critics.html?_r=0">Reinhart Rogoff response </a>in the New York Times. A bit flaccid for a blunder of this magnitude.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-55389479752182820752013-04-19T06:39:00.002-07:002013-04-19T06:41:32.239-07:00The Reinhart-Rogoff Danger Zone<br />
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; line-height: 1.467em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Paul Krugman's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/krugman-the-excel-depression.html?hp&_r=0">latest column </a>sheds some more light on the idea that we're approaching a danger zone with our national debt:</span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="background-color: white; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; margin-bottom: 1em;">
<br />
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="margin-bottom: 1em;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 35.203125px;">"</span></span><span style="font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em;">Finally, Ms. Reinhart and Mr. Rogoff allowed </span><a href="http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/31e2ff374b6377b2ddec04deaa6388b1/publication/566/" style="color: #666699; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em;">researchers at the University of Massachusetts</a><span style="font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em;"> </span><span style="font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em;">to look at their original spreadsheet — and</span><span style="font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em;"> </span><a href="http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/researchers-finally-replicated-reinhart-rogoff-and-there-are-serious-problems" style="color: #666699; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em;">the mystery of the irreproducible results was solved</a><span style="font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em;">. First, they omitted some data; second, they used unusual and highly questionable statistical procedures; and finally, yes, they made an Excel coding error. Correct these oddities and errors, and you get what</span><span style="font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em;"> </span><a href="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/public-debt-economic-growth-and-nonlinear-effects_5k918xk8d4zn-en" style="color: #666699; font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em;">other researchers have found</a><span style="font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em;">: some correlation between high debt and slow growth, with no indication of which is causing which, but no sign at all of that 90 percent “threshold.”</span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
In response, <a href="http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/04/17/the-reinhart-rogoff-response-i/" style="color: #666699;">Ms. Reinhart and Mr. Rogoff have acknowledged</a> the coding error, defended their other decisions and claimed that they never asserted that debt necessarily causes slow growth. That’s a bit disingenuous because they repeatedly insinuated that proposition even if they avoided saying it outright. But, in any case, what really matters isn’t what they meant to say, it’s how their work was read: Austerity enthusiasts trumpeted that supposed 90 percent tipping point as a proven fact and a reason to slash government spending even in the face of mass unemployment.</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.467em; margin-bottom: 1em;">
So the Reinhart-Rogoff fiasco needs to be seen in the broader context of austerity mania: the obviously intense desire of policy makers, politicians and pundits across the Western world to turn their backs on the unemployed and instead use the economic crisis as an excuse to slash social programs."</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-17113807411633314172013-04-17T10:55:00.004-07:002013-04-17T10:55:57.909-07:00Is Our Debt Really That Dangerous?
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><strike>Perhaps the most frequently asked question</strike> Perhaps the most frequently answered question by policymakers relates to the
paradox of preempting our long-term debt burden while continuing to stimulate our
currently depressed economy. (The asking part is usually omitted).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The deficit hawks assert that we need to cut spending, <i>and cut it now</i>. This, of course, is the
intuitive response. For the more money we borrow and spend now, the worse our
interest burden becomes in the future. More tax revenue will be used to service
our interest payments; we might even borrow to pay off interest on other loans.
To compound the issue, entitlement spending is ballooning
as social security and healthcare costs continue to grow.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">With more and more tax revenue being directed toward
interest payments and entitlements, investments in our future—like R&D,
education and infrastructure— will increasingly diminish. This combination of
slowing growth and dwindling revenue could mean that we are unable to service
our current interest burden, resulting in soaring interest rates and even a
default on our sovereign debt. The medicine that many prescribe for preventing
the chaos is an unpleasant decrease in spending—otherwise known as austerity. Sound
logical? Sure it does.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ-tR9bqJ70LeRBoTkPA3coAXuPy2bVER5DEaz1Sk9DVf9tWOiK5sh8j7igjLqlNm6S8xWn5nzjLHCFnDzE6MmZTLIEdTH7I_ESSDJrTsnENGo9KZRrbY1NQC_Z9qewlguf58vB5VnTVJ_/s1600/images-1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ-tR9bqJ70LeRBoTkPA3coAXuPy2bVER5DEaz1Sk9DVf9tWOiK5sh8j7igjLqlNm6S8xWn5nzjLHCFnDzE6MmZTLIEdTH7I_ESSDJrTsnENGo9KZRrbY1NQC_Z9qewlguf58vB5VnTVJ_/s1600/images-1.jpeg" /></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But wait a minute. We happen to be in the worst economic
downturn since the Great Depression. Although spending cuts may appear to be
the intuitive course of action, the reality may be quite different.<i> </i>In fact, many economists assert that
the immediate need for stimulus must supersede the hysteria about our long-term
debt.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Why? Because contractionary policies will put us back into
recession. The different outcomes between the policy responses of the United
Kingdom and the United States offer valuable insight in to what works. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The UK plans to cut the overall spending of government
agencies by 10% by next year. While the object of this policy is to bring the
deficit to 0%, it has instead only managed to hamstring growth. As a result, the
UK is currently about to consummate its ongoing flirtation with a triple-dip
recession. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The coalition government in the UK fails to understand that Britain’s
primary problem is not growing deficit spending, but a revenue decrease attributable
to a depressed economy—of which a growing deficit is a symptom. Foisting
contractionary policies on a beleaguered economy cripples recovery. Austerity
has left the UK with a sclerotic negative growth rate of -.3%, a far cry from
the 4.8% the government expected.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"> *****</span></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">During a debate with Joe Scarborough on Charlie Rose,
economist Paul Krugman forwarded the viewpoint that the immediate need for
stimulus must take precedence over the long-term debt challenge. He remarked
that focusing on improving employment now would generate sufficient revenue to
offset our deficit and to prevent a long-term debt crisis. Scarborough himself
conceded that during the Clinton administration the Republican Party spent years
trying to cut deficit spending, only to find that once the labor force was
fully utilized, the deficit was evaporated by the additional revenue</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">However, many deficit scolds are worried that in an effort
to stimulate the economy, accumulated debt will reach a point of no return—a
danger zone at which public debt-to-GDP will alarm investors who will then view US debt as riskier and lose confidence in US credit.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjFWJHnQLl5_0YDmhyZMPEn-xEzPaF9aV-_xl57sqS9TuE3nfJfEVA_iGHXZCZL47l-CJ60yTKlDHQg_LCbRDt56IrIVLvYacIt-4x52sz1f3cgP-1VF3_u3Z6qwH4SOVzxj4_r7fCLzIC/s1600/images.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjFWJHnQLl5_0YDmhyZMPEn-xEzPaF9aV-_xl57sqS9TuE3nfJfEVA_iGHXZCZL47l-CJ60yTKlDHQg_LCbRDt56IrIVLvYacIt-4x52sz1f3cgP-1VF3_u3Z6qwH4SOVzxj4_r7fCLzIC/s400/images.jpeg" width="400" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjFWJHnQLl5_0YDmhyZMPEn-xEzPaF9aV-_xl57sqS9TuE3nfJfEVA_iGHXZCZL47l-CJ60yTKlDHQg_LCbRDt56IrIVLvYacIt-4x52sz1f3cgP-1VF3_u3Z6qwH4SOVzxj4_r7fCLzIC/s1600/images.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">If the US were to hit that tipping point, the Treasury will
have to offer higher-interest rates to compensate investors for their risk,
effectively making borrowing more costly. With a more severe interest burden,
our debt would worsen leading to a vicious feedback loop in which confidence would
plummet, interest rates would sky-rocket and large capital outflows would
abound. With a current debt-to-GDP of 75%, some argue that we are close to that
danger zone and marginal increases in debt grow increasingly more pernicious. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">However, there is no clear consensus about where this danger
zone is. Neil Irwin cites a paper by David Greenlaw, James D. Hamlton, Peter
Hooper and Frederic S. Mashkin who state that this tipping point is around a
debt-to-GDP of 80%. Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff published a frequently
cited paper asserting the tipping point to be around 90%.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">However, many economists—including Eric Rosengren and Jerome
Powell—impugn these findings, charging that they ignore key factors that allow
the US to safely sustain a much higher debt-to-GDP ratio, such as its ability
to set interest rates and borrow in its own currency. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In fact, Krugman asserts that a debt-to-GDP of 100% is
acceptable, and notes that both Japan and the UK have sustained ratios of
around 200% without a serious rise in interest rates. If there is a danger-zone,
it is far above current level of 75%, which according the CBO, is expected to
remain steady. The perception of where that danger zone is will influence
policy. A higher danger zone implies more room for fiscal stimulus. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Nevertheless, this still fails to mention the icing on the
cake. Because of the instability in the Euro Zone, investors are flocking to US
Treasuries, which have seen their highest demand since 1995. The real yield on US
Treasury bonds remains negative—meaning we are borrowing without any real interest.
In other words, we can continue to borrow cheaply in order to stimulate the
economy and get employment back to a healthy rate. Instead, however, we are
fighting tooth and nail to cut a deficit that is accompanied by historically
low interest rates. As the global economy improves, and investors find other
safe investments, this opportunity will dissipate.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The deficit scolds have spun a touching narrative by framing
the depressed economy as a generational responsibility. But economic forces seem
to lack a corresponding empathy. Moreover, this argument ultimately falls into
a logical trap. By failing to stimulate our ailing economy <i>now</i>, we are only succeeding in exacerbating both our long- and
short-term challenges. It is akin to skipping the midterm so we can study for
the final.</span></div>
<!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-31327789966479764922013-02-27T07:22:00.000-08:002013-03-28T02:23:55.379-07:00Ernskine Bowles and Sequestration<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">On Monday night, Ernskine Bowles spoke to a packed crowd at the Kimmel Center in Philadelphia. He vividly highlighted the long-term danger of a growing national debt, as well as broadly outlined the <i>Simpson-Bowles</i> plan. However quaint his sweeping generalizations seemed, his prescriptions hardly withstood even the most perfunctory stress test—both from a political and economic point of view. </span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><i>Simpson-Bowles </i>marks another failure in an attempt to contain an economy that could eventually loose its traction. Which brings us to the sequester. Because an agreement couldn't be reached, we're now facing indiscriminate cuts in government spending. And if you think government spending are two words that should never be juxtaposed, consider the distinction between government consumption and government investment. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The sequester means a slashing of R&D, a crucial element to future socioeconomic growth. It is a cut in investment that private enterprise will not offset. The ITIF has asserted that the sequester will mean an <a href="http://www.itif.org/publications/eroding-our-foundation-sequestration">8.7% cut in R&D in 2013 alone</a>, stating that "r<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">educing the budget deficit is important, but it should not and does not have to come at the expense of growth-inducing investments in areas like federal support for R&D. In fact, undermining growth capability is disruptive of a deficit control policy."</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">Sequestration also has unsavory implications for education. </span><a href="http://www.nea.org/home/52610.htm" style="line-height: 18px;">The NEA warns</a><span style="line-height: 18px;"> of growing class sizes, diminishing support for underprivileged schools and significant cuts in financial aid. While the magnitude of sequestration has been downplayed, it is without question an ominous shift towards austerity. We are undermining the future innovative capacity of our country</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-76577098607314912732013-02-13T07:27:00.000-08:002013-02-13T07:27:08.315-08:00Government Spending vs. Tax Cuts
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Part I: The Opposing Schools<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Politicians,
commentators, aunts and uncles, and other constituents of my favorite
demographic—the questionably qualified—have been telling us we have a spending
problem; they assert that we are running up a catastrophic deficit that will
compromise the future for our children and send us, inexorably, down the
ruinous path towards Greece. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Curiously,
few of these commentators have economic backgrounds. Or read economic journals.
Or participate in economic forums. Good gov’ner! Where then are these diagnoses
about our destructive path, and the prognoses for its reconciliation, coming
from! This whirlwind broaches two primary questions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">First,
is our deficit actually <i>that</i>
dangerous? Will we be able to service our debt obligations, or are we already
facing the imminent demise of the full faith and credit of the United States?
Second, if our deficit is indeed dangerous and requires immediate and
significant action, how do we curtail it? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">We’ll
start by looking at question two. Whether its warranted or not, the federal
deficit is in the windshield of political discourse; it’s portrayed as the
steadily approaching iceberg that will debilitate our economic system. So let’s
pretend we’ve looked into question one and found that yes, we need to seriously
chip away at our growing national debt. So, how do we do it?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Fiscal
policy offers two approaches: We can cut spending and raise taxes. Through
these approaches, we could stem the tide of our growing deficit by spending
less, and pay down our debt by raising revenue through taxation. But this is
complicated by the fact that our economy is still depressed. Cutting spending
and raising taxes will curb growth, sending us further into depression. Thus, we
are faced with a difficult balancing act: how do we continue to stimulate our
economy while paying down our debt?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Harvard
professor Christina Romer asserts that both spending cuts and tax hikes will
damage our already frail economy. In deciding which fiscal policy measure to
employ, we need to ask: “what will hurt more, raising taxes or cutting
spending?” According to Romer, “<span style="background-color: white;">both
tax increases and spending cuts will tend to slow the recovery in the near
term, but spending cuts will likely slow it more.” In her view “if federal policy
makers do decide to reduce the deficit immediately, reducing spending alone
would probably be the most damaging to the recovery. Raising taxes for the
wealthy would be least likely to reduce overall demand and raise unemployment.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Romer cites a number of studies from economic
forecasters who “estimate that a tax increase equivalent to 1 percent of the
nation’s economic output usually reduces gross domestic product by about 1
percent after 18 months. A spending cut of that size, by contrast, reduces G.D.P.
by about 1.5 percent — substantially more.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Tax cuts can be hoarded, especially in a deflation-prone
economy, preventing banks from greasing the wheels of investment. Moreover,
financial intermediaries are bogged down with bad mortgages and—skeptical about
demand—are hesitant to lend, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Government expenditure, on the other hand, is paid directly to firms, leading
to a larger and more effective multiplier. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Ultimately, Romer takes a balanced approach to
deficit reduction, focusing on a combination of spending cuts and tax
increases. She argues that to curb our deficit while simultaneously bolstering
the recovery, it is necessary to cut wasteful government consumption and to focus
on government investment in basic research, education and infrastructure. For
these activities are essential to future productive capacity. Furthermore, Romer
is unequivocal about taxation. “Nearly every economist I know agrees that the
best way to raise revenue would be to limit tax breaks for households and
corporations…the bottom line is that tax increases should be part of any
comprehensive budget plan.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">However,
her Harvard colleague and fellow economist, Alberto Alesina has a different opinion.
Alesina espouses comprehensive cuts in government expenditure, stating that curtailing
government spending is the essential ingredient for curbing the deficit and
catalyzing economic recovery. “<span style="background-color: white;">Economic
history shows that even large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on
well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions, not recessions.
Fiscal adjustments based on higher taxes, on the other hand, have generally
been recessionary.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">Citing his research with Silvia Ardagna, Alesina
asserts that “over nearly 40 years, expansionary adjustments were based mostly
on spending cuts, while recessionary adjustments were based mostly on tax
increases.</span>” Moreover, he argues that government spending signals impending
tax increases, which will cause investors and consumers to tighten their
purses. According
to Alesina, “<span style="background-color: white;">Stimulus spending means that tax increases are
coming in the future; such increases will further threaten economic growth.” </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;">According to Alesina, “Europe seems to have
learned the lessons of the past decades: In fact, all the countries currently
adjusting their fiscal policy are focusing on spending cuts, not tax hikes.</span> <span style="background-color: white;">The
evidence from the last 40 years suggests that spending increases meant to
stimulate the economy and tax increases meant to reduce deficits are unlikely
to achieve their goals. The opposite combination might.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Romer and Alesina represent the polarized debate
among economists and politicians. Europe has tended more towards Alesina, whereas
North America has leaned more towards Romer. Part II will bring some more
economists into the mix and investigate to what extent our increased deficit
spending threatens future growth and prosperity. </span><span style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-48129952158258162032013-02-10T11:49:00.001-08:002013-02-10T11:49:30.232-08:00Why Is Gold Valuable? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0yA0gNtVYO79h4Xk7T8Bdd0YkI-v9kU7NKLXp7znCODLf-jwMR0X7buBQkAvZnx8nCA1HmMSPhntCwdwlVOXfMtD2i27yZ8la9G-8-ZwfQQReLzraa7nTc108XoVc9USpwKwsYo3n4ujw/s1600/PeriodicTableWallpaper.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0yA0gNtVYO79h4Xk7T8Bdd0YkI-v9kU7NKLXp7znCODLf-jwMR0X7buBQkAvZnx8nCA1HmMSPhntCwdwlVOXfMtD2i27yZ8la9G-8-ZwfQQReLzraa7nTc108XoVc9USpwKwsYo3n4ujw/s640/PeriodicTableWallpaper.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Opponents of fiat money are often found looking whimsically to the past, longing for the days of commodity-backed money, particularly the gold standard. But why is gold so valuable? Is it a matter of perception? Could people not just as easily have decided that Boron would be the most valuable element? <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-chemistry-behind-commodity-money.html">Greg Mankiw posted a great (4 minute) clip</a> from NPR's Planet Money, which looked at this question through the lens of chemistry. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-25375008073822373232013-02-05T14:32:00.001-08:002013-02-11T14:03:00.189-08:00Fragile Foundations<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Let’s suppose a half-baked version of the Myan calendar
thing came true, and we are now living in a post-apocalyptic dystopia in which
roaming motorcycle gangs from Mad Max may, at any moment, descend upon our
homes, pillage our belongings, kidnap our wives and daughters and leave us for
dead. If, in this world, Barack Obama were to sign a directive mandating
stricter gun control laws, I would very likely be acting the same way the conservatives
are today. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But we don’t live in that world. Nor do we live in the world
of our country’s founders, who were under very real threats from the British,
the French and hostile Indian tribes, all of whom were on the continent and
could attack—without the protection of a police force or a military. We also
don’t live in a world devoid of Acme, Smith’s and Ralph’s. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Nevertheless, many opponents of gun control react heatedly
to the prospect of stricter gun laws, fearing that we will be left vulnerable
and unable to protect our families. For they believe that without firearms, we
would be rendered susceptible to a host of dangers, from a 1984 style
totalitarian government to roaming packs of bandits. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Among the opposition to possible regulations, perhaps the
most difficult to understand is the resistance to a ban on assault weapons and
high capacity magazines. The Obama administration posits that revolvers,
shotguns and rifles are all sufficient for the purposes of protection. The response
from the right, however, is an unequivocal “NO!”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">When their usual platitudes and circular reason failed to
gain traction, the right ramped up their efforts, employing their regular go-to
strategy: fear. On <i>America Live, </i>Megyn
Kelly asked conservative radio host Lars Larson about the story of a woman and
her two children who were the victims of a home invasion. The woman defended her
family when the assailant found them, shooting him five times with a .38
revolver—a firearm that would be perfectly legal under the new regulations.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">When asked why we need assault weapons and high capacity
magazines when a .38 revolver worked just fine, Larson responded: “The problem
is she was confronting one intruder. If she had been confronting three people…she
would have been out of bullets way to early. This president wants to take away
people’s rights to own the appropriate tool to repel an invader or invaders.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Heck, why stop at 3? During a congressional hearing, Gayle
Trotter, founder of the Independent Women’s Forum stated that “an assault
weapon in hands of a young woman who is defending her babies in her home
becomes a defense weapon. And the peace of mind a woman has as she is facing 3,
4, 5 violent attackers…gives her more courage when she’s fighting hardened
violent criminals.”<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">To substantiate her position, Trotter recounted the story of
Sarah McKinley: “Home along with her baby she called 911 when two violent
intruders began to break down her front down…As the intruders forced their way
into her home Ms. McKinley fired her weapon, fatally wounding one of the
attackers. The other fled.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The purpose of the hearing was to ascertain whether an
assault weapons ban was in fact prudent legislation. Trotter sought to proffer
evidence underscoring the efficacy of assault weapons for defense purposes in order to
impugn the proposed legislation. The problem with Ms. Trotter’s example is that
Sarah McKinley used a Remington 870 Express 12-guage shotgun, which would not
be banned under the new firearm restrictions. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In response to Trotter’s histrionic testimony, Senator
Sheldon Whitehouse remarked: “the example you used is one that would not bear
an argument against the proposal that is before us, because that Remington 870 Express
is a weapon that would be perfectly allowed… she would clearly have an adequate
ability to protect her family without the need for a 100 round piece of
weaponry.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In an emotive tone, Trotter responded: “how can you say
that?”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Well…</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Trotter attempted to substantiate her position by painting an
illustrative image for Sen. Whitehouse. “You are not a woman stuck in her house
having to protect her child, not able to leave her child, not able to go seek
safety, on the phone with 911 and she cannot get the police there fast enough to
protect her child. And she is not used to being in a firefight. “ </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">While anyone of us would sympathize with the poor mother
in this example, it is a wholly fictitious example conjured up by Trotter to
support her own ideology. If Trotter had testified about instances in which
revolvers, rifles and shotguns had been inadequate for protection, the new gun legislation
would have been flummoxed and soon floundered. But no such example—<i>not one instance</i>—was reported throughout
the course of the hearing. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">When your case rests on a fictional anecdote and depends on
fear, it is because actual statistically significant evidence does not exist. We’re
not going to get evidence from the opponents of gun control. We’re not going to
get statistics. We’re not going to get numbers. We’re going to get like likes
of Larson and Trotter. We’re going to get the cool sensible Huckabee who leaves
us with significant questions to marinate: <span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">"If a band of marauders comes kicking
your door down and all you got is your double barrel shotgun with two shells,
God help you because Joe Biden won't." </span>Instead of real world
examples, conservatives have only been able to offer<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"> ginned up imaginary dramatizations meant
to inspire fear, because that is the only tactic they have left.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"></span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/6DNvMeT-wRw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Here is what I know about assault weapons: they’ve been used
to facilitate horrible massacres. On that basis, I’m led to believe they should
be banned. If you can present compelling evidence demonstrating that the use of
high capacity assault weapons plays a role in self-defense, then I’m wide open
to changing my stance.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But no one has been able to do that. Whereas gun control
advocates can easily point to instances in which assault weapons have been used
in massacres, no one can point to a real world example outside of military
combat in which they have been used for self-defense. The tired right-wing
refrain “it’s not a massacre weapon, it’s a defense weapon” has yet to be corroborated.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">There may be situations in which attacks by multiple
assailants do occur. And it won’t matter if you have a revolver, a 12-gauge, an
assault weapon, or a Gatling gun. </span>So unless the Canadians determine that
they have the resources and capabilities to invade Michigan, and for some
reason our national guard goes on vacation to Jamaica, I’m going to support
universal background checks, an assault weapons ban and a limit on high-capacity
magazines. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The case for gun control has been made and substantiated. Its opponents are trying to proffer reasonable doubt. But they can’t, so they’re relying on fear.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/zt-u2VhL70c?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-57165188721699272272013-02-05T07:21:00.001-08:002013-02-05T07:21:37.083-08:00Data Revolution<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHG8_BUdjxeVNBtLylA2wUAY3lpZlXIqBjHEd-t2mYPVbjDkByU3XL-yovh_ewV8jYks4NfsYOuw0OFwfEn3kq9DzxodsKy6k0C42IaJw3E-It6DyVZsCSWGG-lgJybhmmWqACofC8MJ6K/s1600/VI_BigData_Graphic_v3_low.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHG8_BUdjxeVNBtLylA2wUAY3lpZlXIqBjHEd-t2mYPVbjDkByU3XL-yovh_ewV8jYks4NfsYOuw0OFwfEn3kq9DzxodsKy6k0C42IaJw3E-It6DyVZsCSWGG-lgJybhmmWqACofC8MJ6K/s320/VI_BigData_Graphic_v3_low.png" width="320" /></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Good <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/opinion/brooks-the-philosophy-of-data.html?hp&_r=0">post in the Times</a> today by David Brooks. How is the increasing ability to gather and synthesize data going to affect (and possibly improve) our analyses and decision-making? Big companies are spending a fortune on software than can process Big Data. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-70604788126405849222013-01-31T09:20:00.001-08:002013-01-31T11:34:48.463-08:00Tidbits, Morsels and Jingles<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">A few days ago, Mike Huckabee stated on his show that more
deaths were caused each year in the United States from hammers than from rifles.
Let’s imagine for a minute that this is true (it’s not). It’s precisely the
kind of obscure and misleading tidbit that diminishes the very important debate
that we’re having in this country. More people were killed in 2011 from falling out of bed
(400) than from explosives (2). Does this justify the widespread dissemination of
dynamite? Huckabee’s trivia has already made the rounds on the blogosphere, and
I’ve had the misfortune of being further enlightened about this by a certain
unpleasant aunt.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Those on the right of the gun control debate soak up these little
morsels, because they intimate what many believe to be the key logical trap of gun
control advocates: If we get rid of guns, people will pick up knives; if we get
rid of knives, people will pick up bats. Where does it end? Do we sequester
ourselves in elaborate panic rooms? These are feckless attempts to paint the position of gun
control in a farcical light—one devoid of common sense. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">And then, of course, we have the pabulum: “Violence isn’t in
guns, it’s in people’s hearts.” “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” While
both have some merit, neither denies that guns play a critical role in
facilitating hatred, violence and exaggerating the consequences of emotional
reactions and rash behavior.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDTetI7BYBb-zPoKJ3sJF8Epbe6CsWCZC0Ltgcd0EbWmrJNNNvEg9jAR7Ujny64Eg-qkYP6TzTOeEC8aEeI0rL0cbqLVmBUXoKcvzZRB2PEQAbvA9vRkKKtk8E3MugxGekf5NySpstgZXL/s1600/mike-huckabee-with-rifle-big.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDTetI7BYBb-zPoKJ3sJF8Epbe6CsWCZC0Ltgcd0EbWmrJNNNvEg9jAR7Ujny64Eg-qkYP6TzTOeEC8aEeI0rL0cbqLVmBUXoKcvzZRB2PEQAbvA9vRkKKtk8E3MugxGekf5NySpstgZXL/s1600/mike-huckabee-with-rifle-big.jpeg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The right wing rely on tidbits, morsels and jingles that are catchy and convenient, but neglect to tell the whole story. Huckabee, for instance, got his morsel of trivia from a <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles">Breitbart.com article</a> by Awr Hawkins, which was then
picked up by Fox news. It stated that “I<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">n 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a
rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.”</span> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">While the
numbers are accurate, per se, they are selectively chosen, cherry-picking certain
data and relegating others in order to support a desired thesis, which draws a
deceiving picture. In science, we’re meant to disprove our hypotheses, or
desired findings. Just the opposite is true of propagandistic commentators. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm">The truth is</a> that in 2011, 32,163 people were killed by firearms in the United States.
Of a total of <span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">15,953 homicides in the same year, 11,101 were from firearms.</span> Of <span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">38,285 suicides,
19,766 were from firearms</span>. Moreover, there were an additional <span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">55,554 non-fatal
gun injuries in 2011.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">However, highlighting the preposterous amount of gun violence
in the United States is not the priority (nor the job) of Hawkins, Huckabee,
Brietbart or Fox News. Although they operate under the pretext of divulging information, they are actually concealing it. Consider
Hawkins’ starting fact: </span><span style="background: white; color: #111111; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">“Think about it.</span><span style="color: #111111;"> </span><a href="http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html"><span style="color: #0088bb;">In 2005</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #111111; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt;">, the number of murders committed with a rifle
was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605.</span><span style="color: #111111;">”</span> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Sure I’ll think
about it. In fact, I’ll go see what your source says. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">These numbers come
from an <a href="http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html">FBI report</a>, which reveals that in 2005, there were in fact 445 people
killed with rifles and 608 people killed with blunt objects, including hammers
and clubs. What is <i>also </i>in the report—which
neither Hawkins nor Huckabee mention—is that 522 people were killed with
shotguns, 7,565 people killed with handguns, 1,488 people killed with an
unidentified class of firearm, and 138 people killed with an uncategorized type
of firearm, totaling 10,158 people murdered in 2005 with a gun. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">So our 2005 homicide
count? Blunt objects: 608. Firearms: 10,158. And that number has only increased in the past 7 years. When we look at all the facts, the
gun control advocates don’t look so silly after all. Neither Hawkins nor
Huckabee outright lied. What they’re guilty of is truncating the facts and
omitting key elements of the truth…which is as good as lying. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-61652273319277629172013-01-30T16:04:00.001-08:002013-01-30T16:04:34.214-08:00Neil Heslin on Gun Violence in AmericaNeil Heslin, father of one of the Sandy Hook victims, provides his heartbreaking, but incisive view on gun violence in America. I'm not going to comment on it. Check it out. He boils all the nonsense down to common sense.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/nvT9peqTM5E?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-83177068203727964352013-01-29T15:48:00.000-08:002013-01-29T15:49:25.751-08:00The Weekly Rundown<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Was away for the past few days. Working on some articles about gun control, fiscal policy and the relationship between recessions and entrepreneurship.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Here are some neat things I found this week:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">CFA Institute's magazine features a story called <i><a href="http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/f841b56f#/f841b56f/40">The Biological Investor</a> </i>highlighting the growing research about the role neurobiology plays in all aspects of our lives. In particular the authors apply growing neurological understanding to behavioral aspects affecting investment choices. Was the recession attributable to biological whimsy?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Biopsychology/evolutionary psychology/neuroscience are going to increasingly provide insight into all aspects of our lives.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQrTpHLbzmktkhxvF9yj0Fu7qX6RJqj3axB0AwabcEGZkducNmXchDtKCO87-2zlyxQ6KWDSkH8iCO6nZgoG3weBqnGEfsVJ6CNDKEAHx6El19STjyT1l_fifF0wKvlEGNpHAQV-gW0RD5/s1600/Neuroplasticity+Habits.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQrTpHLbzmktkhxvF9yj0Fu7qX6RJqj3axB0AwabcEGZkducNmXchDtKCO87-2zlyxQ6KWDSkH8iCO6nZgoG3weBqnGEfsVJ6CNDKEAHx6El19STjyT1l_fifF0wKvlEGNpHAQV-gW0RD5/s1600/Neuroplasticity+Habits.tiff" width="286" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">David Rock of the<a href="http://www.neuroleadership.org/index.shtml"> NeuroLeadership</a> Institute has published some interesting articles applying the knowledge gleaned from neuroscience to productivity studies and leadership. Here's one example from the HRB blog entitled <i><a href="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/09/three_ways_to_think_deeply_at_work.html">Three Ways to Think Deeply at Work</a>.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Based on these articles I started looking into neuroplasticity and its implications for personal and professional improvements. Here are some good articles from <a href="http://www.refocuser.com/2009/05/neuroplasticity-your-brains-amazing-ability-to-form-new-habits/">the Refocuser</a> and the <a href="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/06/what_captures_your_attention_c.html">HBR blog</a> concerning what neuroplasticity means for habit formation. </span></div>
<!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-92158932268922292362013-01-15T06:56:00.001-08:002013-01-17T06:33:48.958-08:00Guns in the US and the UK: Piers Morgan vs. Larry Pratt<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">One of the big topics in the business world is how to deal with big data. I've been doing some reading about multimillion dollar software programs that larger firms are now using to handle the massive amount of information that they have, but can't digest. Entire branches of technology and professional services firms are dedicated to wading through big data in the pursuit of gleaning relevant information from an overwhelming heap of noise.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br />
Yet we are expected to sort out big data on a daily basis. This is most clearly evinced by the current debate about gun control, which is raging in the United States. Flick on any news program and you will be besieged with data about guns. Both sides of the debate cherry-pick statistics that help advance their positions. Curiously, some draw wildly different inferences from the same data. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br />
In the past month, I've heard a lot of different numbers thrown around about guns. For instance, I've heard no fewer than three different numbers tossed about regarding gun related homicides in the US. On my quest to find the<i> right</i> number, I realized that—well, there is no<i> right</i> number. Gathering this data isn't always easy, which might be why the FBI statistics vary from the CDC statistics, which vary from the United Nations statistics. Nevertheless, you're usually in the ballpark. While the numbers do show some variability, they almost never vary more than 5%. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br />
But in an interview with <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C1d4onZsyw">Larry Pratt</a>, President of the Gun Owners Association of America, Piers Morgan contended that there were 39 firearm related homicides in England and Wales in 2011. Pratt's number: 970. This number would represent a 2387% increase in the incidence of firearm related homicides when compared to Morgan's 39. These drastic differences are endemic of the gun debate in America. Both guys cited <i>data. </i>And if you're citing data, you must be credible, right? Turns out it's important to cite the right data. The Home Office of the UK—the governmental department responsible for immigration, crime and policing—published <a href="http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary">this report</a> listing crime statistics for 2010/2011. On <span style="color: #0000ee; text-decoration: underline;">Piers Morgan's blog </span>you can find a link to the most recent data for 2011/2012, which hasn't been compiled into an official report yet.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br />
I took screen shots of the relevant data:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br />
<br />
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2k-8JuMjDRgEN9slMVA5Wk0oh3FZSpOyFp5zpeDG3F3QFoFywim91SONDWEkVVf6JiS4sk2YVwF93FtEXK07RCSv5FSA-_Ny6QrQXFIdbkbSE0X1cMnLJPG-t2Hik1rXd7jXSdwWoFbQA/s1600/Home+Office+Data.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2k-8JuMjDRgEN9slMVA5Wk0oh3FZSpOyFp5zpeDG3F3QFoFywim91SONDWEkVVf6JiS4sk2YVwF93FtEXK07RCSv5FSA-_Ny6QrQXFIdbkbSE0X1cMnLJPG-t2Hik1rXd7jXSdwWoFbQA/s1600/Home+Office+Data.tiff" width="640" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLTwEVf2OizBYpabYpqKpLvSJljJFYKveTvaGfb4jzr3i74ttL5HvuROvEmodAKxKgRGPlTIuUzjWiztUc7_4szD4aRATYVDiAo7EtbB9I-GlUCOBwpmXOAfo0w6fckgYYtc81Da9WR9yE/s1600/Home+Office+Report.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><img border="0" height="446" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLTwEVf2OizBYpabYpqKpLvSJljJFYKveTvaGfb4jzr3i74ttL5HvuROvEmodAKxKgRGPlTIuUzjWiztUc7_4szD4aRATYVDiAo7EtbB9I-GlUCOBwpmXOAfo0w6fckgYYtc81Da9WR9yE/s1600/Home+Office+Report.tiff" width="640" /></span></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">These numbers corroborate Morgan's statement. So where on earth did Larry Pratt's 970 come from? Pratt asserts that: "<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">according to your investigator of your constabulary, the data that you’re using for the murder rate in England is a sham. There’s a monumental misreporting of what constitutes murder. If three people are murdered, it’s likely to be counted as one event."</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">Is this true!? No, not exactly. Pratt was referring to two articles from </span><i style="line-height: 18px;">The Telegraph. </i><span style="line-height: 18px;">The first is a seemingly extinct 1996 article in which UK police were accused of massaging crime statistics. While this may very well be true, these statistics mainly related to burglaries and vandalism, not homicide. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The second <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3222063/Gun-crime-60pc-higher-than-official-figures.html" style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">Telegraph article</a>,<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;"> which the GOA had archived on its website, gets to the heart of Pratt's assertion. Here are some excerpts: </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="firstPar" style="background-color: white; color: #282828;">
<div style="line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Figures to be published by the Home Office this week will massively understate the scale of the problem.</span></i></div>
</div>
<div class="secondPar" style="background-color: white; color: #282828;">
<div style="line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Data provided to The Sunday Telegraph by nearly every police force in England and Wales, under freedom of information laws, show that the number of firearms incidents dealt with by officers annually is 60 per cent higher than figures stated by the Home Office.</span></i></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 1.48em;"><i>The explanation for the gulf is that the Government figures only include cases where guns are fired, used to "pistol whip" victims, or brandished as a threat.</i></span></div>
<div class="fifthPar">
<div style="line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Thousands of offences including gun-smuggling and illegal possession of a firearm - which normally carries a minimum five-year jail sentence - are omitted from the Home Office's headline count, raising questions about the reliability of Government crime data.</span></i></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><i>"Firearms offences are comparatively rare in Britain, and the vast majority thankfully do not result in a serious or fatal injury. But if the police already collect this information it is difficult to understand why it should not be put routinely into the public domain."</i></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.71875px;"><i>The Home Office crime figures document states: "Firearms are taken to be involved in a crime if they are fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person, or used as a threat</i><i>."</i></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.71875px;"><i><br /></i></span></span>
<span style="color: #333333; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.71875px;"><i><br /></i></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.71875px;">While we thank Mr. Pratt for enlightening us on the current state of police work in Britain, the manner in which the Home Office reports non-violent gun crimes overextends the framework in which the current argument ought to be couched. Yes, England and Wales are not without their faults, and perhaps the Home Office should be more meticulous when it comes to accounting for non-violent firearm related crimes. However, it is important to note that the statistics that are underreported have to do with firearm related incidents that do not include a weapon being fired, used as a blunt object, or brandished. The underreporting</span><span style="line-height: 20.71875px;"> involves smuggling and illegal possession. </span><span style="line-height: 20.71875px;">Violent crimes involving firearms are, in fact, accurately reported. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 20.71875px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.71875px;">Let's stick to the question on the table. Where did Pratt get that 970? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.71875px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: transparent; line-height: 20.71875px;">Well Pratt was citing an article from </span><span style="line-height: 20.71875px;">(you guessed it!) </span><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html" style="background-color: transparent; font-style: italic; line-height: 20.71875px;">The Telegraph. </a><span style="background-color: transparent; line-height: 20.71875px;">This article reports that t</span><span style="background-color: transparent; line-height: 20.71875px;">he UK (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and some small islands) had 927 total murders in...2009. So, let's just throw all analytical structure out the window and arbitrarily cherry-pick data from whatever year, source and, hell, statistic, we feel like!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: transparent; line-height: 20.71875px;"><br /></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #282828; font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: 20.71875px;">Let's compares apples with apples. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br />
<a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_273169.pdf">According to the UK's Office for National Statistics</a> <span style="color: #282828;">there were 550 homicides in England and Wales in 2011/2012. (Looking back at Pratt's figure of 970, I find it very curious that there were more firearm related homicides in the UK than total homicides). </span><span style="color: #282828;">Guns accounted for 7.1% of total homicides. There were 640 homicides in all of Great Britain, of which guns accounted for 6%. (These numbers are corroborated by data from <a href="http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/">the latest Home Office report</a>, which extends to 2011).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: #282828;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #282828;">Let's compare these figures to the United States.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: #282828;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #282828;">According to the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm">Center for Disease Control</a> there were 16,259 homicides in the US in 2012. Guns accounted for 11,078 of those homicides, or 68%</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br />
<a href="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8">The FBI's latest crime statistics</a> show that there were a total of 12,664 homicides in 2011. Guns accounted for 8,583 of them, or 68%</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">The <a href="http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm">National Institute of Justice</a> cites a Department of Justice report, showing that 68% of homicides in 2006 were committed with a gun. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">And the final piece of evidence I will submit is this table from the <a href="http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html">United States Census Bureau</a>, illustrating that guns accounted for 66% of all homicides from 2000 to 2008. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifxf6z3sf14W-1gNrdk0c-iwfEooi-QwGjxr3LBLmxWJIk01JtYbN-GFz5BGbf1W54YW5huS29mp7CpWd_nThj6LvBYdOa3GYmQAWFloACHHIhyphenhyphencig1fVH_seX4VQgkH6n68zhyphenhyphenMIxYczJ/s1600/Gun+Violence.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifxf6z3sf14W-1gNrdk0c-iwfEooi-QwGjxr3LBLmxWJIk01JtYbN-GFz5BGbf1W54YW5huS29mp7CpWd_nThj6LvBYdOa3GYmQAWFloACHHIhyphenhyphencig1fVH_seX4VQgkH6n68zhyphenhyphenMIxYczJ/s1600/Gun+Violence.tiff" width="520" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">Larry Pratt may have been right to criticize the UK for certain practices that they employ. Heck, the UK might have some work to do itself. But we have a serious problem here, and the numbers attest to that fact. Whether or not conservatives want it, the gun debate is at the epicenter of public attention. Maybe the argument for stricter gun control won't be borne out by the facts. But let's have an honest debate. Let's get our numbers right. And let's show some intellectual integrity here. </span></span><br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-57838436007996415482013-01-11T06:53:00.000-08:002013-01-13T18:01:35.600-08:00Mint Condition <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">What's going on with the debt ceiling and this platinum coin thing?</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Paul Krugman has a</span></span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/opinion/krugman-coins-against-crazies.html?hp"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"> </span></span></span></a><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/opinion/krugman-coins-against-crazies.html?hp"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">nice article in the Times</span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"> today highlighting both the political context and economic realities surrounding the debt ceiling and the very strange loophole to circumvent the very unnecessary political posturing. </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Here's the political bit:</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Where does the debt ceiling fit into all this? Actually, it doesn’t. Since Congress already determines revenue and spending, and hence the amount the Treasury needs to borrow, we shouldn’t need another vote empowering that borrowing. But for historical reasons any increase in federal debt must be approved by yet another vote. And now Republicans in the House are threatening to deny that approval unless President Obama makes major policy concessions.</span></span></i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></i></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Just consider the vileness of that G.O.P. threat. If we were to hit the debt ceiling, the U.S. government would end up defaulting on many of its obligations. This would have disastrous effects on financial markets, the economy, and our standing in the world. Yet Republicans are threatening to trigger this disaster unless they get spending cuts that they weren’t able to enact through normal, Constitutional means.</span></span></i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></i></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></i></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">This is the political context that we're operating in—recurring games of chicken that just about everyone is tired of. But, the Republicans are looking for leverage where ever they can find it, and they don't seem to be concerned about the damage that it's doing to their Party, the country, or—as they constantly remind us—the children, dear, the children. Moreover, they continually justify these games by stating very genuinely that the long-term consequences of our economic situation far outweigh the short-term consequences of these relatively minor actions. Again, sensible, pragmatic Republican's at work.</span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Whether this is right or wrong is entirely besides the point. This is the situation we're in. We're forced to play the game, so how do we end it as soon as possible?</span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Answer: the 1 trillion dollar platinum coin. Here's Krugman:</span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;"></span></span></span><br />
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="line-height: 1.467em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Here’s how it would work: The Treasury would mint a platinum coin with a face value of $1 trillion (or many coins with smaller values; it doesn’t really matter). This coin would immediately be deposited at the Federal Reserve, which would credit the sum to the government’s account. And the government could then write checks against that account, continuing normal operations without issuing new debt.</span></span></i></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="line-height: 1.467em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">In case you’re wondering, no, this wouldn’t be an inflationary exercise in printing money...the Fed could and would offset the Treasury’s cash withdrawals by selling other assets or borrowing more from banks, so that in reality the U.S. government as a whole (which includes the Fed) would continue to engage in normal borrowing. Basically, this would just be an accounting trick, but that’s a good thing. The debt ceiling is a case of accounting nonsense gone malignant; using an accounting trick to negate it is entirely appropriate.</span></span></i><br />
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="line-height: 1.467em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">So why isn't it inflationary? It certainly seems like printing money. More money chasing a fixed number of goods equals inflation, no? Supply and demand, right? Etc. Etc. Etc. Here's a </span></span><a href="http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/monetary-theory-and-the-platinum-coin/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">blog post </span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">to The Everyday Economist, arguing that the coin would indeed be inflationary. When I read this, a line from </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 24px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Lester Thurlow and Robert Heilbroner that I read way back echoed in my head: "The specter of inflation has to be looked at knowingly." </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Compare The Everyday Economist to a </span></span><a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/rage-against-the-coin/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">blog post </span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">by Krugman.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody" style="line-height: 1.467em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">But what if the Fed decided not to shrink its outside balance sheet? Even so, under current conditions it would make no difference — because we’re in a liquidity trap, with market interest rates on short-term federal debt near zero. Under these conditions, issuing short-term debt and just “printing money” (actually, crediting banks with additional reserves that they can convert into paper cash if they choose) are completely equivalent in their effect, so even huge increases in the monetary base (reserves plus cash) aren’t inflationary at all.</span></span></i></span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;"></span></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;"></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 15px;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 15px;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 15px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">And if you’re tempted to deny this diagnosis, I have to ask, what would it take to convince you? The other side of this debate has been predicting runaway inflation for more than four years, as the monetary base has tripled. The same people predicted soaring interest rates from government borrowing. Meanwhile, the liquidity-trap people like me predicted what would actually happen: low inflation and low rates. This has to be the most decisive real-world test of opposing theories ever.</span></span></span></i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 15px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><br /></span></span></span></i></span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; line-height: 15px;">
<div style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">When this argument is posited to the pundits (the questionably qualified) on the cable news shows, they usually fire back with a more visceral question: Is this gimmick worthy of the US? Is a quick fix solution not below us? I'm sorry to go so heavy on Krugman in this one, but he might just have the best answer to this that I can imagine:</span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">Here’s how to think about that: we have a situation in which a terrorist may be about to walk into a crowded room and threaten to blow up a bomb he’s holding. It turns out, however, that the Secret Service has figured out a way to disarm this maniac — a way that for some reason will require that the Secretary of the Treasury briefly wear a clown suit. (My fictional plotting skills have let me down, but there has to be some way to work this in). And the response of the nervous Nellies is, “My god, we can’t dress the secretary up as a clown!” Even when it will make him a hero who saves the day?</span></span></span></i></div>
</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-11533713412050943112013-01-10T10:24:00.001-08:002013-01-10T10:26:38.728-08:00Questions from a Rookie Economist<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Fiscal policy debates have become a common focus of political and economic commentary. One of the polarizing issues regarding fiscal policy is the question of which measure--tax cuts or government expenditure--of fiscal policy is most effective in shoring up our depressed economy. </span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In an upcoming article that I'm working on, I will explore that question further. For now, let's just say that I come down on the side of government expenditure, based on <a href="http://theweeklyparticipant.blogspot.com/2012/12/tax-cuts-vs-government-spending.html">these reasons.</a> If you can rout my reasoning, I'll be more than happy to hear your point of view.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I'm trying to find an instance in which taxes were higher--especially on individuals with the lowest MPCs--and government expenditure was the predominant dimension of fiscal policy being used to stimulate the economy. I'd like to compare that to a period during which the reverse was true: both government expenditure and taxes were cut. Of course, it's likely that other contextual factors will confound this endeavor. Can anyone point me to some empirical evidence that might enlighten this tax cuts vs. government expenditure debate?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Secondly, I'm interested in comparing average annual disposable income during the Clinton years, to average annual disposable income during the Bush years. I'm wondering if despite having had higher marginal tax rates, disposable income for median income households was greater than it is today, adjusting for inflation.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div style="direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Ho: for median income
households, real average annual disposable income was higher during the Clinton
years than during the Bush years.</span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-top: 0pt; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">H1: for median income
households, real average annual disposable income was not higher during the
Clinton years than during the Bush years.
</span></div>
<!--EndFragment--></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-12739486647432149642013-01-09T14:22:00.001-08:002013-01-10T10:27:54.805-08:00The Weekly Rundown <span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Here are a few things I'm onto this week.</span><br />
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I finally remembered to check out Michael Lewis' <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama">Vanity Fair story</a> on Obama. It's 9 pages and I have things to do, so I'm plodding along. </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/">Here's a new blog</a> I came across that I really enjoy, called Adam Smith's Lost Legacy. It follows modern and relevant takes on Smith's seminal work and adds some good commentary. It seems like the writer is a genuine Smithophile (Did I just coin that?) and really adds some good insights. I particularly liked the entry "Another Poor Darwinian Application," regarding a paper that attempts to put Smith's work in the context of Darwinism. </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The Everyday Economist is a good blog I check out pretty frequently. I suggest comparing <a href="http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/monetary-theory-and-the-platinum-coin/">his entry </a>about this platinum coin business to <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/rage-against-the-coin/">Krugman's perspective</a> on the issue. </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">And, here is my favorite tidbit from the week and the reason why I like ultra-conservatives. Listening to guys like Alex Jones is like gorging yourself with candy. It's delightful. It's also terribly unwise. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y">Here's a clip </a>of Jones on Piers Morgan, erm, "talking" about guns. A few comments on this one:</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The fact that Alex Jones is allowed to own a gun is perhaps the most persuasive argument for stricter gun control. </span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="p1">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Apes will most likely take over the planet before the Associated Press does. </span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="p1">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Jones mentions (forcefully asserts) that the government is buying 1.6 billion bullets and building high-tech predator drones to possibly use against US citizens, a la Mao's Great Leap Forward. So, according to Jones, we better be armed to fight them off! 1.) That's a little too far-fetch to dignify a drawn out response about why that won't happen and, 2.) if the government decided to unleash its Navy Seals, F 16s, Predator Drones and whatever other high-tech Batman-esque weaponry they have, a bunch of hicks with guns won't make much of a dent in terms of fending them off or serving as a deterrent. </span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="p1">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In my article <a href="http://theweeklyparticipant.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-cost-of-second-amendment.html">"The Cost of the Second Amendment" </a>I made it clear that I'm not in favor of banning guns. What I'm against is the unfettered access to semi-automatic firearms, which were not even a speck on the horizon when the founders composed the second amendment. Overextending the definition of "arms" is a constitutional travesty, which undermines our founding document. </span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-5249577730915409062012-12-30T22:46:00.000-08:002013-01-03T20:31:03.332-08:00Tax Cuts vs. Government Spending <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">If politicians in Washington want to avert the fiscal cliff
and have a chance of keeping their jobs, a resolution will be struck sometime
tomorrow, likely late in the day. After
devising a possibly very destructive strategy, which entailed backing
themselves into a corner, the denizens of DC are in a position in which they
must do what appears to be politically destructive: agree! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In aggregate, the
country chides Washington for failing to work together. But many politicians
fear that pleasing the general population by working together would ostracize
their constituency and endanger them in their own district—a catch 22 that
should encourage us to start thinking about term limits for all members of
congress. Everyone is pulling their punches, conserving their energy for the
next big fight. We’d get more out of them if we encouraged stirring sprints
over monotonous marathons. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Aside from political maneuvering, what ideological differences
are at the heart of the fiscal cliff stalemate? That question frequently yields
a common answer: taxes vs. government spending. In general, the Republicans
seem to believe that slashing government spending and cutting taxes is the best
remedy for stimulating the economy while narrowing our deficit. They contend
that a lower marginal tax rate incentivizes entrepreneurship and innovation,
whereas higher taxes bleed the ambition of potential job creators. Government
spending, say the Republicans, is often wasteful and succeeds only in crowding
out private enterprise. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats believe that
government spending is a more effective fiscal policy for stimulating the
economy, and that a marginal tax hike—on those who can afford it—is a responsible
measure to curb our deficit, and will have a negligible effect on
entrepreneurship. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">As a rookie economist, what I do not understand is the logic
behind the right’s fiscal policy argument, espousing tax cuts while tempering
government expenditure. Economics 101 tells us that when the economy is stuck
in a recessionary gap, the government may invoke fiscal policy to shore up
aggregate demand, which leads to more goods and services being purchased at any
given price level. It would look a lot like this:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSaYD6z1RepxwGBLJPtz0TLifTimlIokB8I4CYZuSTnJAHGZU_1aBUiApC3px7p4kC4OA1F70viid38uX1fvwZp_kdNe4PNVzfl8-6gAmM-65HnEB0YyXN67oE25EeIjpggVYtXpTxHZij/s1600/AD1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSaYD6z1RepxwGBLJPtz0TLifTimlIokB8I4CYZuSTnJAHGZU_1aBUiApC3px7p4kC4OA1F70viid38uX1fvwZp_kdNe4PNVzfl8-6gAmM-65HnEB0YyXN67oE25EeIjpggVYtXpTxHZij/s400/AD1.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /><!--[endif]--></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The question on the table is: Is it better to use tax cuts
or government spending to increase aggregate demand? Many on the left, and it
seems most economists, say government spending is more effective. Most on the
right claim that tax cuts are more effective. My confusion with the right-wing
economic ideology arises when we consider the multiplier effect of fiscal
stimulus. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">An increase in goods and services purchased by the
government tends to lead to an even greater increase in the total goods and
services purchased by the aggregate economy. If the government increases its
spending by $10 billion, the total effect on aggregate demand will be even greater,
depending on the marginal propensity to consume. If consumers spend two thirds
of each extra dollar of disposable income they receive, then the marginal
propensity to consume is 66.7%. Operating under this assumption, the total
effect of the government’s $10 billion expenditure will be $30 billion: </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">1/(1-MPC) =
multiplier </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">1/(1-.667) = 3</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 2.0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">$10b x 3 = $30b </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">For example, if the government pays a defense contractor $10
billion to supply tanks, the defense contractor may in turn spend 2/3 of that income
(our MPC) buying new computer equipment from a computer manufacturer. The
computer manufacturer may then spend 2/3 of his income on labor. A new hire
may then spend a proportion of her income on a home remodel. The contractor for
the home remodel may in turn spend some of his additional income on a new car. The
lucky car dealer may spend a fraction of his new income at the corner store… If
the MPC is 66.7%, the ripple effect throughout the economy would look something
like this:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /><!--[endif]--></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxS1Rj0mEjktIp5cmgC0ihhUcItmI6sFKaKd7sJL2wzVyljlDoltS_XdhWPD6GbkROOT9T2Y14hTcYklGS6VbwI9Ma4IkwFRRKk_8xNGZ_unEWMn5ejeWlFfmLeUIOhee9zxrw0PW1b93Z/s1600/M1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="147" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxS1Rj0mEjktIp5cmgC0ihhUcItmI6sFKaKd7sJL2wzVyljlDoltS_XdhWPD6GbkROOT9T2Y14hTcYklGS6VbwI9Ma4IkwFRRKk_8xNGZ_unEWMn5ejeWlFfmLeUIOhee9zxrw0PW1b93Z/s400/M1.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /><!--[endif]--></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The $10 billion in government spending results in a $30
billion increase in the purchase of goods and services in the economy. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfwJh87Uxt73uVKVlFuufaU4YSUNqWCJTJjwfP2CAJH3JdsFe8jPENEWa7AN-2O8fNfygCGZAwQrdDKbwAbiopJTbifa9ilCEdc5NlWc9vdPueUkO2YVD2UV0BwAqnsn1_TmOuzGtrvWgu/s1600/M2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="317" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfwJh87Uxt73uVKVlFuufaU4YSUNqWCJTJjwfP2CAJH3JdsFe8jPENEWa7AN-2O8fNfygCGZAwQrdDKbwAbiopJTbifa9ilCEdc5NlWc9vdPueUkO2YVD2UV0BwAqnsn1_TmOuzGtrvWgu/s400/M2.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Alternatively, if the government decided instead to give $10
billion in tax cuts, the initial boost in aggregate demand would not be $10
billion, but $6.67 billion. This is because households and businesses would save
1/3 of each additional dollar earned (their marginal propensity to save). The
multiplier would work the same way, but it would be less significant. Instead
of a $30 billion total increase in the purchases of goods and services, the
increase would only be $20, which we get by multiplying our initial boost to
aggregate demand by our multiplier ($6.67b x 3 = $20.01b).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">So why, then, do conservatives advocate tax cuts, but
dismiss government spending? Is it to allow private enterprise to decide where
capital flows? With deficit spending at an alarming rate and the economy still
depressed, what is the right balance for fiscal stimulus? How do we shore up
the economy without generating deficits that will compromise our future? Given
that government spending has a greater effect on aggregate demand, it seems
like we should raise taxes to increase revenue while honing government
spending. Specifically, it seems like we should raise taxes on consumers with a
lower marginal propensity to spend. For each extra dollar of income, who is
more likely to spend it: the single mother making $30,000 per year and spending
all of her disposable income, or the CEO of Wal-Mart, who would be hard pressed
to spend the majority of his income? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Of course, these broader questions lead to an unsavory break
out of more specific questions. Would the wealthy spread their delicate wings
and flutter away if their marginal tax rates increased by 6%? And if this did
happen, who on earth would create jobs! After all, it is the wealthy who create
them jobs. Can anyone name a single person from the middle class who started a
viable business that employed other people? (Hint, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs">this guy</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton">this guy</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison">this guy</a>).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The GOP propaganda machine (cough cough) has propagated a divisive
and contorted version of reality. They have managed to paint tax increases, of
any magnitude, as class warfare—punishing the wealthy for having made it. But
the grown-ups out there know that our economy is weak and in peril. We’re faced
with the unenviable task of jump starting the world’s biggest economy, while
simultaneously curbing our deficit. Marginal tax hikes on the 1% are not meant to
punish the rich who, in most cases, have worked hard to achieve their net worth
and do employee people. But from a cold, depersonalized approach, which fiscal
policy measure gives us the most bang for our buck(s)? </span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-12002352431148611912012-12-18T18:51:00.001-08:002012-12-24T11:08:11.171-08:00The Cost of the Second Amendment <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Two weeks ago, Bob Costas ignited the ire of the questionably
qualified by reciting an article by Jason Whitlock during Monday Night Football.
The excerpt he chose was:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="background: white; color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">“Our current gun culture ensures that more and more domestic
disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience store
confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys
bloodied and dead. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our
flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation
rather than avoiding it.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="background: white; color: #333333; mso-bidi-font-family: Helvetica;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Costas was then roundly lambasted by a range of commentators
for having had the gumption to moralize the American people and for mixing divisive
political issues with an apolitical event. And perhaps it would have been an
inappropriate place to speak one’s mind about gun control, had Jovan Belcher of
the Kansas City Chiefs not, only nights before, shot and killed his wife in
front of his mother and daughter before taking his own life. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Despite its direct relation to Monday night’s game, a number
of talking heads, from Laura Ingram to Bill O’Reilly, were adamant that this gruesome
act did not warrant the one minute and thirty-three seconds that Costas devoted
to the issue. After all, it was Jovan Belcher who killed his wife. His gun just
happened to be the instrument with which he chose to do it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The stubborn “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument
is endemic of the gun control debate in the United States. Yes, people kill
people. And frequently with guns. Like the tax debate, the question of gun
control is painted in black and white: taxes vs. no taxes, guns vs. no guns.
These simplistic approaches to important question omit the crucial importance
of magnitude. The children in Newtown, Connecticut
were killed with a .223 caliber Bushmaster rifle. If you’re not familiar with
the .223 Bushmaster, it is an advanced semi-automatic firearm designed for use
in combat and capable of firing 6 bullets per second. Despite its intended use,
it is widely available at your local Walmart. Questioning the legality and
wide-spread availability of this type of semi-automatic firearm is distinctly
different from impugning the second amendment. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Nevertheless, gun advocates, enthusiasts, and people who
just don’t like democrats, will find a number of ways to evade the crux of the
matter. They will play the constitution card and overextend logic to such
a ludicrous degree that all sensible negotiations about gun control will break
down entirely.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Last year, a story was swirling around detailing the events
of a young boy who accidentally shot and killed his younger sister after getting
into his father’s gun cabinet. This unfortunate occurrence briefly piqued national
interest about gun control. However, advocates and lobbyists quickly deflated the
matter with a tired line of questions: do we also take away matches, sharp objects,
trampolines? Kids, they argue, get in to mischief and occasionally things go
terribly wrong. And, hey, what about the bad guys? “The only thing that stops a
bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” right? Wouldn't you rather have
had a gun in that Aurora theater? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">These aren't completely unfair points. No, we can’t live in
a bubble. But let’s not find satisfaction in simplistic rationale that routs
common sense. The cold truth is that guns in the home are more likely to harm
someone in the home than an intruder. They facilitate accidents and embellish our
emotions.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The children who were slaughtered in Newtown deserve a
reasonable discussion—one that sidelines the rhetoric and homes in on constructive
questions. How many accidental gun deaths occur per year compared to accidental
deaths caused by those matches, sharp objects and trampolines? Do limitations
on the sale of semi-automatic firearms impinge upon the second amendment?
Should we not have stricter background checks and more extensive requirements
for gun purchases? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Very few advocates of gun control are lobbying for an
outright ban on the sale of guns. On Monday night, Costas posited no
prescriptions. He merely pointed out that maybe, just maybe, the US has a gun
problem that we should start talking about. What advocates of gun control believe,
is that the costs of nearly unfettered access to firearms far exceed the benefits.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">There are good arguments, both practical and
constitutional, on each side of the gun control debate. But failure on both
sides to jettison stubborn preconceptions and cherry-picked facts is an affront
to the children who have become the victims of our lack of action. No, violence
won’t be uprooted, but let’s ask what role the prevalence of guns plays in earning
us the highest homicide rate due to firearms of any developed country. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">*****</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">Reading about the history of guns in the United States, I
came across a good article in “American Rifleman,” the official journal of the
NRA, which states that “to the American Colonists the hunting gun was his
primary food source or the critical supplement to an unreliable crop yield.” Walter
Isaacson, in his book “Benjamin Franklin,” discusses life in the colonies
during the latter part of the 18<sup>th</sup> century. He tells us that </span><span style="background-color: white;">for homes
outside of urban communities, a gun was necessary for survival. For </span><span style="background-color: white;">there was, at the time, no organized
police force of which to speak. A militia had be assembled to keep the peace
and protect the colonies. </span><span style="background-color: white;"> Many of the
framers of the constitution grew up during a time when French and Indian raids
on Colonial towns were commonplace. Perhaps that is what influenced them to
write:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>"A well regulated militia being necessary to
the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed"</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">At the time of its writing, <i>arms </i>meant muskets and clumsy pistols, both
of which required a detailed reloading process after every shot. <i>Semi-automatic</i> was not part of the
vocabulary of the 18<sup>th</sup> century colonist. Even the most ardent gun
enthusiast probably hadn't dreamed of the .223 caliber Bushmaster.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Given the situational discrepancy, maybe it’s
about time to inquire whether our current gun culture overextends what our
founding fathers had intended. Those who consider open and unquestionable
access to guns part of our national DNA need to ask whether they are willing
to accept the collateral damage. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-74659244104550633482012-12-03T14:48:00.000-08:002012-12-03T14:51:47.985-08:00The Republicans' Cholesterol Problem <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Despite the onslaught of early obituaries for the Republican
Party, the GOP is far from dead. Nevertheless, a shift in strategy is certainly
in order. In the aftermath of the election, conservative hounds like O’Reilly, Hannity
and Limbaugh have been commenting on a disappointing shift to the left of the
American electorate. Throughout the past month, a swarm of questionably
qualified pundits have visited nearly every political show on TV alerting the
country that the winds are blowing in a new direction—a leftward leaning
electorate is emerging, shored up by procreating minorities. The Republicans,
they say, have a demographics problem.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I don’t buy in to this tectonic shift theory. The electorate
hasn’t moved to the left—the Republican Party has moved to the right. And they've moved this way at such a dizzying speed that they now seem to be the
victims of a vertiginous delusion that they are still wholesome apple
pie loving centrists.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">After a decade of war, hard-nosed stances on the Middle East
and tough-guy ultimatums no longer have the rugged cowboy appeal that they used
to. When open diplomacy can avert war and prevent children from being sent to
some far off desert to fight an anonymous enemy, the electorate may just be
more inclined to take that option. Reigning in the foreign policy swagger of
the Bush administration is hardly a liberal loving hippyish stance after more
than six thousand American casualties. So when Americans vote for opening
communication channels with the “world’s worst actors” in the hope of
diplomatic resolutions, well hey, that doesn’t sound like a leftist commie move.
That’s balanced judgment. That’s conservative. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Similarly, when the American electorate assesses the
economic predicament of a growing deficit and a lingering recession, does it
sound like a leftward leap to insist on coupling marginal tax increases on the
people who will be least affected by them with balanced spending cuts? Do
directed entitlements that keep the least vulnerable Americans safe, sound like
a socialist policy? Or does it sound like the Christian ethic that this country
claims to have been founded on?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">How about the gumption to assert that the wealthiest country
in the history of the world should join the ranks of less affluent countries
and provide basic healthcare for its citizens? Does that sound like a
socialist manifesto? Have you ever participated in the Pepsi taste
test? When you remove the propaganda that informs your preconceptions, you often
get a disillusioning surprise. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Despite his failure to evince his deep-rooted socialist
ideologies, many on the right still believe that Obama is suddenly going to
juke to the left during his second term, establish a Duma, cap profits, raise
the marginal tax rate to 100% and incentivize working people to stop working. Nevertheless,
the majority of Americans saw Obama as the most sober-minded candidate with the
best chance of taking the country in the right direction. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The election was a wake-up call for the Republican Party. Karl
Rove seems to have slithered back into his den. The GOP’s shift to the right
has been tempered, and the tea party is increasingly perceived as a stigma. America
is a centrist country and the party that best caters to the center will have
the best success rate.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Perhaps now more true conservatives will be able to free
themselves of the shackles of the Tea Party and begin the slow journey back to
where they claim to have always been. The Tea Party is like cholesterol for the
Republicans. It’s sticky and difficult to break-up. But it needs to be done if
the Party is to revive itself.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-74099829857278403122012-11-30T12:21:00.000-08:002012-11-30T12:22:09.062-08:00Jon Huntsman: Barriers to Entry<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">When people are down, it is enjoyable to kick them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Jon Huntsman criticized his fellow 2012 presidential aspirants
when he stated that “the barriers of entry to this game are pretty damn low.” This
sentiment can probably be extended further than to just the Republican
presidential candidates. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">In an interview with the Huffington Post, Huntsman said:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">"Some do it professionally. Some were entertainers. I looked down the debate stage, and half of them were probably on Fox contracts at one point in their career. You do that. You write some books. You go out and you sell some more. You get a radio gig or a TV gig out of it or something. And it's like, you say to yourself, the barriers of entry to this game are pretty damn low."</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Among Huntsman’s finer points:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;">“Huntsman described the Republican
primary process as corrosive, producing pledge-signing, cookie-cutter
candidates more interested in money and publicity than policy.<span class="apple-converted-space">”</span></span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">But he also had some constructive advice for the
Republicans. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/jon-huntsman-republican-primary-2012_n_2206336.html">You can read about it here. </a></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-75178807460583457242012-11-29T16:57:00.001-08:002012-11-29T17:00:06.713-08:00Peter Schiff v. Paul Krugman<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">A Peter Schiff v. Paul Krugman match-up may be on the horizon. Throughout the last four years their exchanges have evolved from constructive professional criticism to quasi-vendetta. (Actually, they may not have ever been professional). Krugman, never timid to ruffle a few feathers, is periodically prone to deriding Schiff's take on economic theory and practice. Schiff, never a stranger to the stage, is perpetually primed for a mid-day show down. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Last year, Schiff chided the Nobel laureate for "taking pot shots at a punching bag" and challenged to him to a real live duel -- or the closest thing to it in 21st century academia. Nevertheless, Professor Krugman took the, erm, high-road, determining a face-to-face smack down to be beneath his Nobel-feathered status. A disappointing decision to us prospective onlookers.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Today, Krugman's irascible side again surfaced, when he gave Schiff a shout out in his latest blog entry, "<a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/varieties-of-error/">Varieties of Error</a>". Schiff shot back on facebook: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">"Paul Krugman - T<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">hanks for the shoutout. Now how about you stop hiding behind your keyboard and agree to debate me in public? At the very least, run my rebuttal on the Times' op/ed page. (They already have it.) "</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">We'll see if Krugman decides to get in the ring. It's unlike the heavyweight to stride through the ropes without reflection. Choosing one's battles wisely comprises half the victory. Schiff is an entertainer more than an economist. He's well versed, but doesn't always seem to understand the deeper meaning of the verses he recites. His points are a great springboard of academic discussion for burgeoning economists, but when it comes to rigorous analytical argumentation, Schiff tends to be on the cheeseclothy side. My hope is that Krugman doesn't get blustered by a bloviator. Whether or not Schiff is in Krugman's weight class, I care not. </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">I want to see a showdown. </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">The title-holder can only rebuff affronts so many times before his honor is questioned. </span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6989634090627227349.post-55591204638244782732012-11-18T13:34:00.002-08:002012-11-29T10:36:11.708-08:00The Fate of the Neanderthals<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">30,000 years
ago the Neanderthals roamed the earth. They were thought to have been a robust
species that evinced some sophisticated practices like tool-making, controlled
fires and ceremonial burials. The fossil record shows that they even had brain
sizes comparable to those of modern humans. Yet it is widely believed that
Neanderthals were unable to adapt to their changing environment and, around
24,000 years ago, went extinct.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Like the
Neanderthals, the Republican party has failed to adapt to their current
environment. While a major reconfiguration in an established power regime is
usually a slow and gradual process, last Tuesday’s election delivered an acute
blow to the Republican base, sending party leaders in to a justified state of
alarm. The dwindling prominence of the tea party caucus has signaled a shift
away from the empty ideology, inflammatory rhetoric and uncompromising gridlock
that had become a mainstay of the far-right in Washington. Instead, voters
seemed to have preferred candidates who displayed more grown-up behaviors. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Allen West
was among one of the most incendiary tea partiers to have been ousted by his
constituents. Rod Smith, Chairman of the Florida DNC didn’t hesitate to throw
salt on West’s festering wounds, saying <span style="background: white;">“tonight,
the people of this district rejected divisive, hateful rhetoric in favor a
fresh-faced, bipartisan approach centered around the issues important to
Florida’s middle class families.”</span> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background: white;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Those candidates who, on the election trail, demonstrated a bewildering
understanding for rape and a remarkable lack of empathy for rape victims, were similarly
dismissed by the American electorate. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were among
tea partiers favored to win, only to be relegated by voters after declaring
their faith in God to selectively impregnate women through rape.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Tea party favorite Sharron Angle decided to sit out the election and
instead make a documentary about voter fraud in her home state of Nevada, which
she attributes to her failed Senate bids. “</span><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Over the past 18 months,” she said, “I’ve become keenly aware of an epidemic that has
swept our nation, eating away at the very fabric of our freedom</span><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"> …</span><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">The progressives in the media would like
us to believe that voter fraud or election tampering either do not exist or represent
such a small portion of our election process we should just sweep them under
the rug.” </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">It is of course unthinkable that
her failure to win public office had anything to do with the principles that
she ran on. Whether it was her <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUUB0MSWNHQ">unique mutation of visual perception or her outrightracial prejudice</a> that turned voters off, we will perhaps never know.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">What was perhaps one of the closest calls for the tea party caucus was
Michelle Bachman, who—after becoming the de facto tea party spokeswoman after
the tragic death of Sarah Palin—hung on to her House seat by a very thin
thread, winning by a margin of only 3000 votes. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Despite losing
the White House by a sizeable margin and witnessing its waning power in both the
House and the Senate, the Republicans seemed shocked by Tuesday’s results. Do
surprises like this still happen with all our advanced statistical tools? No,
not really. In fact, Nate Silver of the New York Times accurately predicted the
outcome in 50/50 states as well as in the District of Columbia. So how is it that
the Republicans were so surprised? Simple, they looked at hundreds of years of
mathematical certainty and decided to ignore it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">What big-wig GOP
players like Karl Rove thought was going to be a conservative redux turned out
to be a fad just as transient as razor scooters, laser pointers and butt pants.
Instead of exploding like a grand finale on the fourth of July, the tea party
movement fizzled like a sputtering sparkler. It may be too soon to call the time
and date, but it is safe to say that the conservative movement is in critical
condition. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The catatonic
state of the Republican party has caused even the <a href="http://natmonitor.com/2012/11/13/sean-hannity-ive-evolved-on-u-s-immigration-reform/">most ideological propagandists to “evolve”</a> on issues that, two weeks ago, they were stubbornly
unwilling to compromise on. Evolution, even in figurative cases, is a gradual
process. We should be suspicious when it isn’t. But the Republicans must modify
their message. This entails jettisoning ideologies that don’t really matter to
them, like immigration and gay marriage, in order to safeguard the one’s that they
actually care about, like tax breaks for the wealthy. Their cat’s paw strategy with the tea party
failed to achieve its desired effect. The GOP leadership was hoist by its own
petard and the reaction has been one of two things: either <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSiVhJq4tos">full-fledged denialism</a>,
or practical, albeit disingenuous, back-peddling.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">We are
witnessing a shifting social landscape in America, wherein the trend—despite short-term
fluctuations—is one of growing tolerance. Around the time of the ratification
of the thirteenth amendment there was wide-spread outrage about what doors freeing
black slaves would open. Among the items in Pandora’s box were inter-marriage
and the woman vote. And the darkest fears of the sexists and anti-abolitionists
were realized. As we know, when black women were able to marry white men and
women were able to vote, America abruptly shriveled up in to the fetal position.
If gays are allowed to marry and young children of illegal immigrants are given
amnesty, America just may vaporize into the ether. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Although
Chick-fil-a and the far-right conservatives who hold the “God hates fags” and “Adam
and Eve not Adam and Steve” signs still curry some favor, they will, as time goes
on, be relegated to backward thinking bigots in the minds of their progeny. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The Neanderthals
were unable to adapt to their environment and eventually tapered out. If the
GOP doesn’t change its tune, they may very well face a similar fate. The
question is, after their inflammatory rhetoric and fervent denial of equal rights,
who will believe them? </span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08473569285990076099noreply@blogger.com0