old dimensions."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Showing posts with label growth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label growth. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Quote Of The Day
July 10th, 2012
"A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its
old dimensions."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
old dimensions."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Getting Back To "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs"
Oct 1st, 2011
Krugman makes an accurate observation in his latestet critique of GOP obstructionism and self-delusion:
"The starting point for many claims that antibusiness policies are hurting the economy is the assertion that the sluggishness of the economy’s recovery from recession is unprecedented.
But, as a new paper by Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute documents at length, this is just not true. Extended periods of “jobless recovery” after recessions have been the rule for the past two decades. Indeed, private-sector job growth since the 2007-2009 recession has been better than it was after the 2001 recession."
I have pointed out, time and again, that job creation ended as we once knew it a decade ago. We are now, in fact, on track to add more jobs to the American economy in a single Obama term than were added under eight years of Bush II.
Krugman makes an accurate observation in his latestet critique of GOP obstructionism and self-delusion:
But, as a new paper by Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute documents at length, this is just not true. Extended periods of “jobless recovery” after recessions have been the rule for the past two decades. Indeed, private-sector job growth since the 2007-2009 recession has been better than it was after the 2001 recession."
I have pointed out, time and again, that job creation ended as we once knew it a decade ago. We are now, in fact, on track to add more jobs to the American economy in a single Obama term than were added under eight years of Bush II.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Obama's "Failed Stimulus?"
Sept 1st, 2011
To call the stimulus a "failure" is to surrender all reason.
To call the stimulus a "failure" is to surrender all reason.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Austerity Now?
Aug 28th, 2011
The Economist laments the current obsession with reducing debt in Western economies generally, but their harshest critique is directed at our own:
"America... has done virtually nothing to deal with its medium-term deficit, but on current policy will see the biggest short-term tightening of the big rich economies next year. That would have been a poor choice even in a reasonable recovery. Given the economy’s weakness, it looks daft. But it could be fixed. The congressional supercommittee charged with finding ways to trim the ten-year deficit as part of the recent debt-ceiling deal could agree on a bolder package of entitlement cuts and new revenue, while Barack Obama and the Republicans could limit the short-term squeeze by extending the temporary payroll-tax cut and boosting spending on things like roads and school repairs."
I part ways with their editors on issues of "entitlements" but they are otherwise dead on.
Matthew Desmond notes how eerily similar this preoccupation with debt reduction at the expense of all other policy initiatives is to the disastrous path once taken by the Hoover Administration.
Alas, we are now in a climate dominated by zealots who proceed as if they worship Murray Rothbard's historical revisionism and laissez-faire extremism. That is to say, the debate has been hijacked by people who actually don't believe in government directly stimulating the economy in any form to alleviate the crisis.
The Economist laments the current obsession with reducing debt in Western economies generally, but their harshest critique is directed at our own:
"America... has done virtually nothing to deal with its medium-term deficit, but on current policy will see the biggest short-term tightening of the big rich economies next year. That would have been a poor choice even in a reasonable recovery. Given the economy’s weakness, it looks daft. But it could be fixed. The congressional supercommittee charged with finding ways to trim the ten-year deficit as part of the recent debt-ceiling deal could agree on a bolder package of entitlement cuts and new revenue, while Barack Obama and the Republicans could limit the short-term squeeze by extending the temporary payroll-tax cut and boosting spending on things like roads and school repairs."
I part ways with their editors on issues of "entitlements" but they are otherwise dead on.
Matthew Desmond notes how eerily similar this preoccupation with debt reduction at the expense of all other policy initiatives is to the disastrous path once taken by the Hoover Administration.
Alas, we are now in a climate dominated by zealots who proceed as if they worship Murray Rothbard's historical revisionism and laissez-faire extremism. That is to say, the debate has been hijacked by people who actually don't believe in government directly stimulating the economy in any form to alleviate the crisis.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
"I'll Eat Your Shoe"
Aug 23rd, 2011
Any regular reader can tell you I have no great love for Ben Stein. He is vulgar and elitist. However, he has come hurtling back to the truth regarding taxes. On O'Reilly last night, it was clear that Stein has simply had enough of Fox's economic propaganda. Dynamite stuff.
"There is no correlation, Mr. O’Reilly, between taxes rates on millionaires and people above that level, billionaires, and the growth of the economy… Higher taxes have historically correlated with more growth."
"Mr. O’Reilly, sir, there is no correlation of raising taxes and unemployment. If you can show it to me, I’ll eat your shoe."
via Media Matters
Any regular reader can tell you I have no great love for Ben Stein. He is vulgar and elitist. However, he has come hurtling back to the truth regarding taxes. On O'Reilly last night, it was clear that Stein has simply had enough of Fox's economic propaganda. Dynamite stuff.
"There is no correlation, Mr. O’Reilly, between taxes rates on millionaires and people above that level, billionaires, and the growth of the economy… Higher taxes have historically correlated with more growth."
"Mr. O’Reilly, sir, there is no correlation of raising taxes and unemployment. If you can show it to me, I’ll eat your shoe."
via Media Matters
Monday, August 22, 2011
Repulslican Economics
Aug 22nd, 2011
Proving, for the umpteenth time, that contemporary elected Republicans simply don't understand the college freshman concept of aggregate demand comes this little excerpt from the HuffPo today:
"...many of the same Republicans who are fiercely protective of tax cuts for the wealthy have already said they oppose Obama's plan to extend the payroll tax cut for low income Americans.
"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) told the AP, "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again."
Amazing. I am compelled to give a lesson. For all the "rich" people and their mouthpieces that call the President a "socialist" but fail to grasp even the most childlike fundamentals of consumer society (psst, that's called Capitalism, by the way), here's a primer:
Proving, for the umpteenth time, that contemporary elected Republicans simply don't understand the college freshman concept of aggregate demand comes this little excerpt from the HuffPo today:
"It's always a net positive to let taxpayers keep more of what they earn," Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) told the AP, "but not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again."
Amazing. I am compelled to give a lesson. For all the "rich" people and their mouthpieces that call the President a "socialist" but fail to grasp even the most childlike fundamentals of consumer society (psst, that's called Capitalism, by the way), here's a primer:
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Maybe Ryan Really IS Through The Looking Glass
April 16th, 2011
In economics there is the theoretical future and the provable past. It's generally wise to base proposals for that future on what we have learned so far. Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) Path To Poverty is most striking in it's devotion to philosophies that we know to be destructive and ineffectual. Take a look at the cost-benefit analysis across a variety of forms of deficit spending. Make no mistake, the tax cuts called for in the "Path" are deficit spending.
The Ryan plan seems to take these facts and literally flip them. Every proposal he describes as most stimulative has been proven to be the least likely to spur growth. Everything he has targeted for elimination has the greatest immediate benefit to the economy. The problem for Ryan is that he just doesn't like these facts. As Tim Tankersley and Katie O'Donnel of the National Journal observed, the Ryan Plan is predicated on a faith in "bedrock principles of supply-side economics."
Which is how we got here in the first place.
In economics there is the theoretical future and the provable past. It's generally wise to base proposals for that future on what we have learned so far. Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) Path To Poverty is most striking in it's devotion to philosophies that we know to be destructive and ineffectual. Take a look at the cost-benefit analysis across a variety of forms of deficit spending. Make no mistake, the tax cuts called for in the "Path" are deficit spending.
The Ryan plan seems to take these facts and literally flip them. Every proposal he describes as most stimulative has been proven to be the least likely to spur growth. Everything he has targeted for elimination has the greatest immediate benefit to the economy. The problem for Ryan is that he just doesn't like these facts. As Tim Tankersley and Katie O'Donnel of the National Journal observed, the Ryan Plan is predicated on a faith in "bedrock principles of supply-side economics."
Which is how we got here in the first place.
Friday, October 8, 2010
The Enemy of Growth, ctd.
Oct 8th, 2010
by F. Grey Parker
Several days ago, I noted the announcement of stunning profit gains amongst the S&P 500. I used the figures coupled with the apparent disinterest amongst those companies to hire or expand to advance my theory that their is a now a slavish and crippling devotion to stockholders over all other concerns. It is, in my estimation, the real enemy of growth.
In spite of some blowback from readers (one chastised my "simplistic thinking"), I was not alone in expressing alarm at the "hoard and keep" phenomena.
Jia Lynn Yang writing in the Washington Post yesterday:
"Sitting on these unprecedented levels of cash, U.S. companies are buying back their own stock in droves. So far this year, firms have announced they will purchase $273 billion of their own shares, more than five times as much compared with this time last year, according to Birinyi Associates, a stock market research firm. But the rise in buybacks signals that many companies are still hesitant to spend their cash on the job-generating activities that could produce economic growth."
Over at the Daily Beast, there was a blurb earlier in the week stipulating a causal relationship between higher unemployment and higher profits. That it's plausible these companies are making more money because they are not hiring bodes poorly for recovery any time soon.
by F. Grey Parker
Several days ago, I noted the announcement of stunning profit gains amongst the S&P 500. I used the figures coupled with the apparent disinterest amongst those companies to hire or expand to advance my theory that their is a now a slavish and crippling devotion to stockholders over all other concerns. It is, in my estimation, the real enemy of growth.
In spite of some blowback from readers (one chastised my "simplistic thinking"), I was not alone in expressing alarm at the "hoard and keep" phenomena.
Jia Lynn Yang writing in the Washington Post yesterday:
Over at the Daily Beast, there was a blurb earlier in the week stipulating a causal relationship between higher unemployment and higher profits. That it's plausible these companies are making more money because they are not hiring bodes poorly for recovery any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
