The Best Cheap Booze

With all the doom and gloom found on the pages of KP, I figured this was a highly appropriate feature that will assist in assuaging angst and mitigate against market meltdown.  

If I recall correctly VD was a big fan of Evan Williams. 

 

 

The Best Cheap Booze

via Esquire.com|Features Article Feed on 1/30/09

Fifteen bucks, it turns out, can buy you some damn decent liquor. Our drinks correspondent brown bags it for the recession, with a recipe and a history lesson to boot.

 

 

Black Swan author's rules for living

I guess looking your best does not include wearing at tie.  I like ties.  I wear them every day.  I've got a particularly nice Black Fleece number on right now.  Of course, I am a serious person with serious knowledge. 

 

 

Black Swan author's rules for living

via Boing Boing on 1/30/09

Avi sez, "Nassim Nicholas Taleb, gadfly author of The Black Swan, gives his 10 rules for surviving an unpredictable world with dignity."

1 Scepticism is effortful and costly. It is better to be sceptical about matters of large consequences, and be imperfect, foolish and human in the small and the aesthetic.

2 Go to parties. You can't even start to know what you may find on the envelope of serendipity. If you suffer from agoraphobia, send colleagues.

3 It's not a good idea to take a forecast from someone wearing a tie. If possible, tease people who take themselves and their knowledge too seriously.

4 Wear your best for your execution and stand dignified. Your last recourse against randomness is how you act — if you can't control outcomes, you can control the elegance of your behaviour. You will always have the last word.

5 Don't disturb complicated systems that have been around for a very long time. We don't understand their logic. Don't pollute the planet. Leave it the way we found it, regardless of scientific 'evidence'.

6 Learn to fail with pride — and do so fast and cleanly. Maximise trial and error — by mastering the error part.

7 Avoid losers. If you hear someone use the words 'impossible', 'never', 'too difficult' too often, drop him or her from your social network. Never take 'no' for an answer (conversely, take most 'yeses' as 'most probably').

8 Don't read newspapers for the news (just for the gossip and, of course, profiles of authors). The best filter to know if the news matters is if you hear it in cafes, restaurants... or (again) parties.

9 Hard work will get you a professorship or a BMW. You need both work and luck for a Booker, a Nobel or a private jet.

10 Answer e-mails from junior people before more senior ones. Junior people have further to go and tend to remember who slighted them.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb: the prophet of boom and doom (Thanks, Avi!)

 

 

 

Re: Education

Since I commented that I totally disagreed with R. Native's post, here is my response. To keep it from getting to free-wheeling (read rantish), I am going to respond to specifics in Native's post.

I am thrilled that $150,000,000,000 in federal funds are slated to be disbursed for education. This is the single best investment that this country can make at this time. Public schools are what makes America what it is, and this money is desperately needed, all over the country.

I need to correct my earlier comment. I do agree with one statement, that education is the single best investment we can make as a country. But the suggestion that flooding the existing school system with more money is the answer is completely misguided.

Republicans are screeching that this is going to radically change the nature of federal involvment in education. Good. Why, besides being the default setting, should local and state governments have sole discretion on this issue? Why should we let Mississippi elect to have shitty schools? Because local people know best how to educate (or not) their children? Why should Kansas be able to mandate creationism be taught in science classes?

The arrogance of this paragraph is breathtaking. You are implicitly suggesting that a federal education department staffed by career bureacrats located in D.C. has more concern for a child's welfare than his own parents. But that is completely backwards. The people most concerned with the welfare, values, character, and success of any particular child are the child's parents. Next in rank would be the wider family. Then the local community. Then the county and then the state. The federal government is at the very end of the list. My suggestion would be that the closer the party is to the child, the more power and responsibility they should have in the child's education.

So what if people in Kansas want to teach creationism. How is that your problem or your children's problem? I certainly encourage you to talk to the good people of Kansas and explain to them the error of their ways, but in the end, the decision should be theirs and not yours. That is the nature of liberty.

Besides the principle, local autonomy allows for much more experimentation then you would find in a monolithic national system. The charters are a result of experimentation. I think it is safe to say that if we had a single national system, charters would never have been given a chance.

Again, I am reverting to East Coast liberal egg-head status, but I honestly think there should be national standards (oh, and that they be funded). The state testing for monitoring NCLB is wildly inconsistent. Not to pick on Mississippi again, but apparently their test is considerably less, ahem, demanding than most other states.

Again, your reasoning seems to assume that things would be better if the nimble and wise federal government would step in a save the incompetent states from their foibles. But what if the federal government is, in fact, even more incompetent than the state governments? And how could you tell since there would be no competition between school districts, so it would be impossible to tell what was working and what wasn't.

Why do kids in Montgomery County, MD have a different deal in education than those from DC, or Prince Georges? Talk about un-American. This most basic opportunity is a sham for most kids in inner cities or rural areas. I know some favor vouchers for private schools. I think this would effectively gut public education and produce an inevitable, protracted decline in our national education. Sure, some would likely benefit in the immediate term. The cost to society as a whole over the longer term would be incalcuable. Charter schools are great. Innovation is great. I am not advocating a NEA position where the status quo is fantastic and no one should be held accountable, but public schools are way too important to give up on.

Here we agree again - "This most basic opportunity is a sham for most kids in inner cities". Absolutely. Some inner city schools are a travesty. But some of these same schools have some of the highest per student spending. The correlation between spending and student achievement is terrible. America's educational problems are structural, not financial.

Since you support charter schools and innovation, may I suggest that rather than throwing money down the existing rabbit hole, you restructure the education system so that EVERY school is a charter school. Every student gets a voucher, every school is autonomous in most decision-making, and students apply to the schools that meet their interests. Good schools with good teachers would attract students and funding. Crappy schools would be closed. Teachers are regular employees judged purely on merit and paid competitively (so a good teacher might be recruited by a neighboring school). The principal is the effective CEO of the school and has wide decision-making power to structure the school as he see fits. These types of schools are already popping up all over the country.

I have never understood why people fight this kind of structure, which seems an obvious one to me. It is still a "public" school, since the state is financing the student's education. The difference is that the decision-making power on the student's education is moved from the school system to the parents and their children. How is that not sensible?

Again, I am ecstatic that the new administration has stated that education is a top priority and, incidentally, is putting its money where its mouth is

Despite whispers to the contrary from the administration, until I see hard evidence otherwise, I will continue to believe Obama and the Democrats are in the teacher's union's pocket. Your extra spending will mainly go to buttress collapsing teachers' pensions. And one-third of American high-schoolers will still drop out of school. Congrats on that.

Housing prices-to-income ratios

How the hell did no one notice this? From roughly 3.25 to 4.75, most of which came sharply between 2000 and 2006. Gams, were people talking about this? What was the CW on the "why"? How were people justifying this in their head?

Education

I am thrilled that $150,000,000,000 in federal funds are slated to be disbursed for education. This is the single best investment that this country can make at this time. Public schools are what makes America what it is, and this money is desperately needed, all over the country.

Republicans are screeching that this is going to radically change the nature of federal involvment in education. Good. Why, besides being the default setting, should local and state governments have sole discretion on this issue? Why should we let Mississippi elect to have shitty schools? Because local people know best how to educate (or not) their children? Why should Kansas be able to mandate creationism be taught in science classes?

Again, I am reverting to East Coast liberal egg-head status, but I honestly think there should be national standards (oh, and that they be funded). The state testing for monitoring NCLB is wildly inconsistent. Not to pick on Mississippi again, but apparently their test is considerably less, ahem, demanding than most other states.

Why do kids in Montgomery County, MD have a different deal in education than those from DC, or Prince Georges? Talk about un-American. This most basic opportunity is a sham for most kids in inner cities or rural areas. I know some favor vouchers for private schools. I think this would effectively gut public education and produce an inevitable, protracted decline in our national education. Sure, some would likely benefit in the immediate term. The cost to society as a whole over the longer term would be incalcuable. Charter schools are great. Innovation is great. I am not advocating a NEA position where the status quo is fantastic and no one should be held accountable, but public schools are way too important to give up on.

Again, I am ecstatic that the new administration has stated that education is a top priority and, incidentally, is putting its money where its mouth is.

Where's The Liberal Media When You Need it?

 

 

81 Times

via Matthew Yglesias by myglesias on 1/27/09

Remember when conservatives were saying there was a CBO report out debunking the claims of the stimulus plan's authors even though there was no such report? Ah, good times. Turns out that this information was broadcast at least 81 times on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and the Sunday shows.

That's based on a study done by my ThinkProgress colleagues. And of course they had a limited number of media outlets they could monitor. There's no telling how many times this myth was pushed on local television or talk radio or newspaper columns and the like.

 

 

 

 

Card Check Union Elections

Email from Hoss:

"Card Check: Obama is 100% behind the Employee Free Choice Act. This is about as left as it gets.
Taking away private balloting is about as undemocratic as it gets. I find it hilarious that the democrats
held private balloting when they changed house leadership, yet want to make workers declare publicly if they
don't support unionization. Go ahead, [Tomb]. Spin away..."

I promised to respond to the question from memory and I have - for the most part.  I did wait to confirm a couple of things with the union-busting attorney down the hall (he's a labor attorney and a union-buster in the literal sense), so here it goes.

First off all, the Hoss' initial statement is factually incorrect.  During the campaign, Obama indicated that he would sign the EFCA if placed on his desk.  Since the election, however, he has softened his position.  He stated that if there is a way to achieve the same goals with a measure that doesn't anger business quite as much, he would consider it.  He has also stated that the EFCA is not an administration priority at this point.  So, he stills supports it, but it's not the 100% support Hoss alleges. 

Second, many KPers might be shocked to learn that card check elections already exist [gasp]!  In fact, organizers use card check procedures to demonstrate consent for the 30% of employees needed to obtain an NLRB secret ballot election.

Now, under current law, if organizers obtain the consent of the majority of workers using card check procedures, the organizers can submit the results to the NLRB for certification.  Existing rules allow a large percentage of employees or the employer to challenge the card check election and request a secret ballot.  Employers almost always demand a secret ballot.  According to labor advocates, employers use the previously signed cards to identify union supporters and use the extra time before the next NLRB election to apply pressure to employees and influence the outcome of the final ballot.

So, here is the requested spin: union supporters believe that providing employers the right to demand an NLRB election even after a majority of workers have already indicated their desire to organize provides employers with an unfair advantage.  In effect, it provides employers with two bites at the apple, even after workers have already spoken.

The EFCA would require the NLRB to certify a majority vote obtained through card check procedures.  Employers can still challenge the results by citing evidence of coercion or fraud in the card check process.  In those instances, a secret ballot NLRB election would follow.  Absent that, certification and collective bargaining would proceed. 

Thus, the EFCA does not do away with secret ballot elections.  They would proceed either under the 30% rule or if it appears there were irregularities in obtaining a majority of card check authorizations. 

What is curious is how so many opponents have seized on the notion that the EFCA does away with secret ballots.  In addition to being factually inaccurate, the argument is a bit of a red herring.  Based upon personal experience and familiarity with Roberts Rules of Order, elections by secret ballot within private organizations are the exception, not the rule.  The default is a voice vote, which is followed by a roll call vote if the voice vote is not definitive.  The idea that a vote to organize must be secret simply does not find support in practice or in history.

Finally, I think we can all agree that employers and unions have a strong sense of mutual distrust.  Employers will argue that the EFCA subjects employees to coercion.  Organizers say the the EFCA would have the opposite effect and actually decrease the amount of employer coercion.  What is clear is that the EFCA does provide a secret ballot election in those cases where there is objective evidence of unions attempting to obtain card checks by dishonest means.  This appears to strike a common sense balance. 

500 days and counting...

Dust off your American flags, Croatia jerseys and Viking hats. Cataclysmic worldwide recession or not, the World Cup is only 500 days away.

Isn't Gamma From Iceland?

Gamma earlier posted a comment along the lines of, "There is no good government but smaller government." This editorial does a good job of responding. There is always a problem when you speak in absolutes, and Gamma, while your statement may have been true at some point, I don't think that is the present case. Obama says you can fix goverment, and we have no other choice but to believe him. Otherwise, I think many of your improbables become that much more likely.

Inauguration Speech

The Tomb is friends with the managing editor a major conservative news magazine. He asked for my thoughts about Barry's inauguration address. Here's my response.

"Wow. I'm honestly excited that you would ask.

I just got finished watching it for the second time. I watched it live and the left for a depo, which lasted until 6:30. I haven't read any coverage and so the following is pure, unfiltered first impression.

I think it struck the right tone. Ever since he accepted the Democratic nomination, he has dialed back the soaring rhetoric that we saw at the 2004 convention and in the primaries. And since he won the election, all of his nationally-aired speeches have taken a somber tone.

This is very smart. In his desire to build consensus and broad-based support, he as been painfully careful not to present an air of self-congratulation or to foster a sense that he and the Democrats are on a victory lap. And I think that today's speech definitely falls into that mode.

If one takes a look at the substance, much of what he said today should provide heart to conservatives. He made an unequivocal declaration that America will win the war against terrorism. He explicitly rejected the foreign "blame the west" crowd and implicitly rejected their domestic counterparts. He acknowledged patriotism as a core American value and free markets as the best generator of wealth. He acknowledged that it is the American people, not the government that makes our country great. And, most memorably, he promised to help usher in a new era of personal responsibility.

What was missing was a memorable phrase that will sink into the national consciousness (although an era of personal responsibility comes close). Many were looking forward to such a moment - a moment that never really came. I'll reiterate, this was likely by design. Fewer rhetorical flourishes leaves Obama less open to the criticism that he purely form over substance. I don't think we will see the call and response style or the joyful energy of the primaries until the economy is in better shape, we have victory in Iraq, and he identifies a core group of centrist Democrats and moderate Republicans that will help him enact his agenda.

All that being said, today's speech raises an interesting question - just how much original drafting were John Favreau and Ben Rhodes doing last year? After all, knowing what we know about BHO's self-regard, one has to assume the last few major speeches were all penned by Barry. Could it be that many of the high notes reached last summer were composed by a recent Holy Cross grad? Ultimately, I would say no. Obama's 2004 convention speech was all his own and Favreau never made Kerry sound half as good. But perhaps Obama will need learn how to delegate and collaborate (like he did while on the trail) in order to achieve the same level of oratory we saw last summer.

Why Ron Paul Will Never Win

Because Ron Paul would never do this:





And Jay-Z returns the favor at the Obama Staff Ball (99 Problems But a Bush Ain't One):

Obama Stimulus Math

One problem with government spending is that it is usually so gigantic that is nearly impossible for people to put their minds around it. It's hard to differentiate between a sum like $25 billion and a larger sum, such as Obama's propose stimulus, of $825 billion. Certainly, it's difficult to personalize an astronomical number like that. Here is my attempt. I have done this routine before on here, but I am doing it again because I think it is easy to forget just how big a stimulus package this is.

The current U.S. population is about 305 million people. At $825 billion, that comes out to about $2700 per person- that's over ten grand for a family of four!

Redonkulous.

P.S. Despite my unrelentingly bleak viewpoint, I feel like America's great political hope lies in initaitives like this. Look at the spreadsheet that is linked. First, it is remarkable that kind of information is now available at your fingerprints and that it has been supplied (and will be supplied going forward) by a growing army of volunteers. Second, one glance at that spreadsheet should make it clear that the stimulus is being pumped based completely on politics and not economics. Virtually all that money will be wasted.

GammaBoy's 10 Outrageous Predictions for 2009

Saxobank published a list of 10 outrageous predictions every year. "Outrageous" as in unlikely, as their call in 2008 that Ron Paul would win the election. Here are their 2009 calls. In the spirit, I have decided to create my own list of 2009 predictions. These are relatively low probability, or at least, if probable, are far from being conventional wisdom. Most likely I am setting myself up for well-deserved ridicule on January 1, 2010, but here goes...

A major riot in a U.S. city

I made this prediction for end of 2009 way back end of 2007. It sounded crazy then. Not so much now. There are numerous potential drivers for a riot (shortages, bank runs, dollar collapse, general shock and disappointment that Obama is not the messiah), but I am thinking the odds are good several come together to drive people into momentary insanity. It is already happening in Iceland, Greece, and the Baltics. Iceland has been the canary in the coal mine for this whole global crisis. Odds are good the contagion of violence spreads to the the UK first, and from there to its former colony. Just pray China doesn't catch the bug.

Shortages of Goods/Supply Chain Breakdowns

Between the turmoil mentioned above, waves of bankruptcies, and a breakdown in global credit finance, there is a very significant risk of breakdowns in global supply chains. Either suppliers in a specialized niche of a supply chain will disappear, or as has already happened in a few cases, buyers will be not be able to get the credit necessary to complete a purchase. Considering the complexity of modern supply-chains, a few broken cogs can lead to unexpected and chaotic outcomes. The risk of goods shortages is high, particularly in agricultural goods.

Pensions are the #1 financial crisis story

Pensions will be to 2009-2010 what the mortgage crisis was to 2007-2008. Most pensions are ridiculously underfunded, and the market events of 2008 destroyed what meager hopes some pension managers had for recovery. Public employee pensions, which have been much more generous to employees than their private counterparts for years, are in particular peril. CalPERS, the California Public Employees' Retirement System is a textbook case. There is simply not enough money in pensions to pay out anywhere close to what retirees are expecting. A battle is brewing between working people/taxpayers and retirees. Somebody is going to get the shaft. The media is still pretty silent on this crisis, but that will change, and pensions will start to steal the headlines. [The only good news is that most retired people are not up for rioting.]

Inflation/Deflation mix

If you follow economic blogs, there are ongoing debates about how this crisis will unfold. Will the government start printing money to make up for all the shortfalls leading to inflation (and maybe hyperinflation) or is the destruction of wealth so complete that we are headed for massive deflation? Personally, I have no idea. The wild card is the federal government, and since their economic initiatives seem to change daily, you need to be a Kremlinologist to even begin to discern the way things are going to play out.

Nonetheless, as a trader, you learn to think in terms of "spreads", the comparative price difference between two separate things. In that framework, it matters less whether the absolute price of A and B go up or down but how they behave in relation to one another. So here is my inflation/deflation theory. The price spread between goods is going to follow Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The more basic a good is for survival the better it's relative value is going to hold up. The more inane, luxurious, or superfluous a good, the more the relative value of the good will decrease. For example, the price spread between a used Ford F-150 and a new BMW 7-series will decrease. And so with a penthouse in Manhattan and a flat in Oklahoma City. A Cartier watch and a Seiko. Granite counters and laminate counters. Etc.

In short, I'm not sure if the price of gasoline will go up or down. But if it costs 25,000 gallons of gasoline for a BMW today, rest assured, the price of the BMW in terms of gasoline will drop over the next several years.

Russia goes nuts

Russia is going to step back on to the world stage in a big way in 2009. Their affair with Georgia and their recent tiff with Ukraine are just initial feints in what I expect to be a crazy and tragic year for Russia and its neighbors. Even as the country continues to hollow from the inside out, I expect it to become much more aggressive with its ex-satellites. Their tanks will roll again this year.

The Euro crumbles

2009 will be the beginning of the end of the Euro as a functional currency. I expect at least one country currently using the Euro to pull out. Once the first country (perhaps Italy) has the courage to do it, other countries will fall like dominos. This will set stage for a new era of intra-European squabbling, as the Irish realize they actually dislike the French and the Polish rekindle their fears about Germany and so on. The framework of the EU will slowly fall to pieces (although not until after 2009).

Crude trades above $100 again

If I was more certain of this one, I could make a lot of money, but my sense is that the recent fall in crude prices is a short-term anomaly and prices will rise again. Along with all other commodities actually. This again is a spread view - commodities, which are always needed and a limited resource, versus fiat currencies, which are being printed by the wagonful in Europe, and shortly, the U.S. I realize this contradicts my "no idea" statement above, and admittedly, this is very speculative. Nonetheless, given the choice now, I would trade my greenbacks for gold, an oil company, or a future delivery of food.

War and more war

If history is a guide, times of economic despair often breed militancy, and I expect that pattern to re-emerge in 2009. There are plenty of candidates (India/Pakistan, Russia/Ukraine, China/Taiwan, countless civil wars, and even (gasp), U.S./Mexico), but somewhere on this planet, recession, shortages, and the political expediency of deflecting the resulting anger at a foreign country, are going to lead to violence. 2009 will be a violent year. Bonus prediction: Crime levels explode in the United States.

Ron Paul movement strengthens

The Ron Paul arm of the GOP will gain traction and begin to become a larger presence on the political scene. He was virtually blacked out by the media during the campaign, but as the recession has deepened, he is starting to become a fixture on cable news. I would expect that presence to grow throughout 2009, although this may just be wishful thinking on my part.

Secession discussions begin

Of all the unlikely happenings suggested above, this is by far the least likely, but it will eventually happen, just maybe not in 2009. As it becomes increasingly apparent that the federal government cannot meet its obligations, or conversely, as the tax load required to meet those obligations explodes, there will start to be discussions in states about secession. At first, it will be quackery, but as the situation worsens, it will gain traction with people. It is unlikely to actually happen, but the thought alone that people might start to take the idea seriously is by itself remarkable. The most likely candidate, of course, the Republic of Texas.

How stupid is Ken Lewis?

(a) marginally
(b) pretty
(c) really
(d) extremely
(e) galactically

The answer is "e." He is galactically stupid.

Ken Lewis is the CEO of Bank of America. In September, Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain watched as Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. That is, its common stock was completely worthless because of overwhelming debt obligations on its balance sheet--primarily due to the "toxic" mortgage-backed securities and related derivatives we've all been reading so much about. Thain thought, "Wow, our risk management is just as bad as Lehman's, if not worse, and we're also up to our eyeballs in CDOs. The government will probably opt not to bail us out either. I better find some sucker to buy our steaming shit sandwich or we're going to go bankrupt too."

So, Thain called Lewis and, over the course of a few hours, got him to agree to buy Merrill Lynch for $50B. The deal was announced that Monday and closed January 1. So Merrill's closest peer in the broker-dealer business was worth nothing, but Lewis spends $50B--WITHOUT DOING ANY DUE DILIGENCE. Who does that?

Surprise! Merrill posted a "worse-than-expected" $15.3B loss in Q4. Even though he had a chance to walk away from the deal before it closed on January 1, he declined. Sure, the government eventually pumped in (a probably-insufficient) $20B from the TARP, but the damage to BofA's stock price was done. It's down 83% since doing the Merrill deal in September.

This is who we're bailing out. He fired Thain yesterday. If Lewis himself isn't ousted next week, Obama should be held to account until it happens. This is long past absurd.

Anybody want to join me in starting a bank? There's really very little risk. Even if you're a total douchebag.

Editorial from the London Daily Mail, 3 Jan 2009

A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.

A victory for Hollywood, the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.

Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition.

A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity.

A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.

Congratulations America!

London Daily Mail

70's Flashback

Y'all gotta read this. Funniest thing I've seen in a while.

http://15minutelunch.blogspot.com/2007/10/strap-in-shut-up-and-hold-on-were-going.html

Searching for Stimulus Opponents

Pretty telling if you ask me.

 

 

 

 

Searching for Stimulus Opponents

via Matthew Yglesias by myglesias on 1/11/09

The House GOP's efforts to publicly solicit the names of economists opposed to the idea of an economic stimulus package is an interesting gambit. On the one hand, it reveals how crass and political John Boehner really is—he picked his policy position first, and then started looking for experts to back him second. Beyond that, it reveals how shallow the depth of opposition really is.

Brad DeLong observes that "no current or former member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers–Democrat or Republican, living or dead, sane or insane–has signed up for the Republican House caucus's list of economists opposed to the stimulus package."

 

 

 

 

Reshaping the Economy

Interesting piece on Pittsburgh in the Times yesterday. Made me think about growing up in Houston during and after the oil boom. Houston remade itself much the same way Pittsburgh has, by reducing dependence on a single industry and diversifying into cleaner, more sustainable industries, like computers, education and healthcare. While for both cities there was a ton of painful dislocation, both have emerged as much better places to live and work. Obama and the circus they call Congress should make a concerted effort to do for the nation what these cities have done for themselves.

Investment, government or private, into "green" technology (and I don't mean ethanol from corn, I mean genuinely beneficial stuff), healthcare and education are critical and will pay dividends for decades. Tax the shit out of oil if you don't want the gov't spending money, so that the "market" will be incented to develop the technology. We need a coherent approach and not to rely on the fits and starts of the price of a barrel of West Texas Light Sweet Crude. Provide for universities to really ramp up their research. Do it in places that are currently dependent on a single, or precious few, industries that do not have real good prospects (automakers in Michigan come to mind). Give EMU a boatload of cash to start a fuel cell research center. Retrain the auto workers to be the labor for these new industries. Gamma Boy's take on college as an investment notwithstanding, let's do something about it.

If we take the examples of H-town and the 'Burgh as our map, we should be able to develop something thoughtful and coherent that makes solid, lasting improvements to peoples' lives and to the economy.

My Top 30 CFB Rankings

I haven't looked at the post-season polls, just the results of the bowl games and follows my final top 30 of college football. Discuss.

1 Utah
2 Florida
3 Texas
4 USC
5 TCU
6 OU
7 Ohio State
8 Penn State
9 Ole Miss
10 Alabama
11 Oregon
12 Iowa
13 Georgia
14 Texas Tech
15 Oregon State
16 Boise State
17 Virginia Tech
18 Mizzou
19 Florida State
20 Oklahoma State
21 Pitt
22 Georgia Tech
23 Tulsa
24 Cincinatti
25 Michigan State
26 West Virginia
27 Cal
28 Rice
29 Nebraska
30 Rutgers

All the news that's fit to print

Good stuff from the NY Times this Sunday illustrating how fucked we are. KP friend Michael Lewis co-authors a two-part op-ed with David Einhorn, a hedge fund manager (not sure why it's two articles). Joe Nocera has a lengthy article for the magazine on Value-at-Risk (VaR) and its role in the financial crisis; KP friend Nassim Nicholas Taleb--the Black Swan guy--is prominently featured as both a VaR critic and an asshole. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman says Obama's fiscal stimulus package must be big and quick to prevent "Great Depression II." Lastly, the Business section gives a good overview of the commercial real estate market's growing vacancy problem and its effect on the viability of both large national banks and smaller regional banks. Happy New Year!

Yo Gabba Gabba sees Tinseltown in his Future

The bright lights, the Greyhound Station... YGG, your dreams aren't dead

Little Girl Calls Gamma Boy Out

I hate to be the one who posts this, but better a fellow-KPer than to see it on some sordid website. Gams, you've been served.