tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.comments2023-03-11T10:23:19.249-05:00Bipartisan SoapboxThe Soapboxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02631582150340679323noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-2663732345186152512020-06-19T10:04:16.523-04:002020-06-19T10:04:16.523-04:00More kindness quotesMore kindness quotesAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08120458186798996289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-40712016947987410252016-06-10T12:12:01.861-04:002016-06-10T12:12:01.861-04:00I'll just leave this here.
http://www.salon.c...I'll just leave this here.<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/the_democrats_party_derailed_bernie_how_the_establishment_has_worked_to_discredit_sanders_movementImWithHernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-24144433825426241682016-04-26T20:42:48.585-04:002016-04-26T20:42:48.585-04:00You sound like a Reagan RepbulicanYou sound like a Reagan RepbulicanWP Knabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569128728348599313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-47482456477894783832015-11-14T12:35:37.938-05:002015-11-14T12:35:37.938-05:00i'm not convinced. glenn uses a common logical...i'm not convinced. glenn uses a common logical fallacy of relaying an anecdote and then assuming it indicates a large-scale trend. there are plenty of people old enough to vote who demonstrate both maturity and immaturity. i have 60-year-olds on facebook who seem appallingly unable to demonstrate critical thinking--maybe we should have an upper age limit on voting, too?Milksopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-77623769558096885612015-11-14T12:32:52.761-05:002015-11-14T12:32:52.761-05:00but why the assumption that capitalism isn't a...but why the assumption that capitalism isn't all those things? surely there's an argument to be made for it. it's not like capitalism was handed to us by G-d; it evolved in response to social and economic factors, and if we've come to a point where it's no longer viable, well, we don't want to find ourselves clinging desperately to it while the earth crumbles around us.Milksopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-28004279126994662972015-07-25T14:20:05.160-04:002015-07-25T14:20:05.160-04:00An alternative explanation of why legislation is m...An alternative explanation of why legislation is moving is that Republicans don't mind holding everything up when they don't get their way, whereas Democrats are unwilling to be that stubborn. According to that theory, when Republicans are in the minority but strong enough to block legislation, nothing will get done, but when Republicans are in the majority, stuff will get done. Potentially it could be the political equivalent of what some articles say, that being a jerk is actually (and unfortunately) the best way to get to the top.Milksopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-73255657454215074302014-11-05T15:55:04.128-05:002014-11-05T15:55:04.128-05:00You are quite the catch. You are quite the catch. WP Knabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569128728348599313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-77717002685439490252014-09-11T22:18:23.099-04:002014-09-11T22:18:23.099-04:00Very moving...I criedVery moving...I criedMilksopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-62986400629572794402014-06-12T10:08:18.423-04:002014-06-12T10:08:18.423-04:00I agree, this is a good example of how destructive...I agree, this is a good example of how destructive regulations can be to true progress and improvement in society. Yet there are many examples of companies that regularly make their customers miserable (Comcast, Verizon, Nintendo, Microsoft, etc.). So how does Uber become Comcast? It seems to me that it's slightly different than what you said: it's not that companies are focused on providing a service that customers want, but rather that companies are focused on making customers pay for their service. That can be done one of two ways: provide a better service than everyone else, or use various legal and social coercive measures to leave customers in a position where their least-bad option is to buy the service.<br /><br />It seems that as long as companies are in something of an "underdog" position, the best option for making customers buy their service is by providing the best service they can. But once they become successful and achieve a position of dominance, it starts to become easier to use laws, free trade agreements, lack of alternatives, collusions with the other dominant companies, etc. to force customers to choose them. Yes, theoretically customers could still choose by refusing to buy from the dominant company (for example, Comcast), but it many cases that effectively means refusing to have that kind of service at all. It's a possible choice, but because of the structure of our society, with its pressures and stresses and fragmented social order, it's not really a real choice. Due to phenomena like "ego exhaustion", one very literally cannot make very many of the kinds of choices that require one to behave so differently from everyone around, because people don't have an infinite store of willpower.<br /><br />Regulations are an attempt to fix that, by providing a minimum standard that the now-essential service that the company provides must meet. But they're clearly a bad solution to the problem (not least because the dominant companies find ways of getting regulators friendly to them, and then regulating their opponents into oblivion). We need a better solution. What should it be?Milksopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-48022799242633556862014-05-31T11:08:18.256-04:002014-05-31T11:08:18.256-04:00Interesting. I just read a statement about Obama&#...Interesting. I just read a statement about Obama's election campaign that seems to fit:<br /><br />"The Obama campaign greatly impressed the public relations industry, which named Obama ‘Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008,’ easily beating out Apple computers. A good predictor of the elections a few weeks later. The industry’s regular task is to create uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices, thus undermining markets as they are conceptualized in economic theory, but benefiting the masters of the economy. And it recognizes the benefits of undermining democracy in much the same way, creating uninformed voters who make often irrational choices between the factions of the business party that amass sufficient support from concentrated private capital to enter the electoral arena, then to dominate campaign propaganda."<br /><br />- Noam ChomskyMilksopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-55725188737141297392013-11-16T12:49:08.365-05:002013-11-16T12:49:08.365-05:00I hadn't seen this argument before today, but ...I hadn't seen this argument before today, but an article on Salon says that the ACA grandfathered in individual policies that existed at the time the ACA was passed (with some requirements that could possibly be seen as overly stringent). The plans that people are losing now are plans that insurance companies offered after the ACA was passed, and are ineligible for the grandfathering. If that's true, that seems to change Obama's promise that "you can keep your plan" from an outrageous lie to an understandable PR attempt that's been taken out of context for the benefit of his opponents (an unfortunate but common occurrence in politics).<br /><br />http://www.salon.com/2013/11/15/no_obama_didnt_lie_to_you_about_your_health_care_plan_partner/Milksopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-49591894746120686932013-11-16T09:49:28.265-05:002013-11-16T09:49:28.265-05:00Love the last line, so true. I would argue that a...Love the last line, so true. I would argue that after 3 years and countless attempts to block any changes in the law, that ignorance of the consequences of this law is worse than deliberate deception. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-7576963972853520062013-11-08T22:44:10.567-05:002013-11-08T22:44:10.567-05:00CBO predicts 40-67 percent of individual market he...CBO predicts 40-67 percent of individual market healthcare policies will become illegal under ACA, we're right on track for that estimate. 2010 federal register predicts 66 percent of small employer market and 45 percent of large employer market policies will be illegal under the ACA (Forbes Oct 31). If this is true, Forbes reports as many as 93 million will loose their current coverage. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-28825891589838657952013-10-20T21:09:32.049-04:002013-10-20T21:09:32.049-04:00Here's how I saw it. His view on what a group ...Here's how I saw it. His view on what a group believes is driven by personal ignorance-he knows not a single individual who identifies with the Tea Party and suspect sources-publications with obvious animosity towards the Tea Party. Yet when he is confronted with evidence that counters his belief his response is to ignore that evidence. It's a curious response and one I found amusing.<br /><br />I think the reason you are seeing such a harsh negative response to his article is the constant drumbeat that Tea Partiers are "insane, stupid, treasonous, deniers." I think you are seeing the Internet equivalent of those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.<br /><br />There are plenty of very well written and well argued sites. Try The Hoover Institute, Mark Perry's blog at AEI, Carpe Diem, Cafe Hayek, John Cochrane, Casey Mulligan, The Weekly Standard, John Goodman Cato Institute. <br /><br />Bill<br />WP Knabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569128728348599313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-25783111573699466062013-10-20T17:18:00.084-04:002013-10-20T17:18:00.084-04:00I'm surprised at the number of harsh, negative...I'm surprised at the number of harsh, negative comments to the article. My impression, reading the article, was that Dan was pretty open about what his ideas were, and didn't show any interest in portraying his views as the only "obviously right" views that need no justification (an attitude I get far more from both Fox News and the Huffington Post). Don't we want more people who are willing to admit both what their positions are and that said positions are based in subjective, as opposed to pretended objective, bases?<br /><br />It doesn't surprise me that the results don't change his views. It seems unlikely that his views of the Tea Party were solely based on his opinion of how scientifically literate they are, and it's possible that it wasn't based on that at all. Perhaps his views of their scientific literacy were more useful to him to explain why they hold such objectionable (in his opinion) political views, as opposed to forming the foundation of his opposition.<br /><br />Personally, the government shutdown did a lot to substantially decrease my respect for the Tea Party. I don't know exactly why, and I certainly wouldn't try to claim that it's based on some objective standard that everyone agrees to. But something about the way they conducted themselves felt disingenuous and dishonest.<br /><br />In the interest of full disclosure, I probably also got most of my information about the shutdown from sites like the Huffington Post and Salon. That was largely because whenever I went to Fox News (which I did to try to get a fuller understanding of what was happening), they didn't seem to have anything interesting to say. The articles on their site seem to lack a certain kind of substance--which I don't say in a necessarily polemical way, but just as an observation which to some extent surprised me.Milksopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-1793738233655009112013-08-09T10:52:07.570-04:002013-08-09T10:52:07.570-04:00Because even a broken clock is right twice a day?
...Because even a broken clock is right twice a day?<br />Because even the best hitters bat 300?<br />Because the financial crisis was a result of a run on the shadow backing system and the collapse of the housing market was a catalyst, not a cause, so who cares if they were correctly or incorrectly calling the peak of the housing market? Which, by the way, peaked well in advance of the run on the shadow banking system.<br />BillWP Knabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569128728348599313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-51095002266447702502013-04-22T10:05:31.599-04:002013-04-22T10:05:31.599-04:00Well said. I was very discouraged that the same gr...Well said. I was very discouraged that the same group of people who were horrified at the idea of only being allowed to use their high-power assault rifles 10 shots at a time (or whatever) not only passed a bill protecting companies from legal action for sharing people's private information with the federal government, but were also falling over themselves in eagerness to demand that an American citizen, who attacked no military bases, be treated as an enemy combatant and his constitutional rights be stripped away. Why is using an assault rifle considered criminal but using a bomb is considered terrorism, or even an act of war?<br /><br />At least I've realized that despite the many disappointments of President Obama's presidency, the one bright side is that John McCain didn't become president.Milksopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-74234712407197752542013-03-22T16:30:09.751-04:002013-03-22T16:30:09.751-04:00Assuming all the funds ultimately went to support ...Assuming all the funds ultimately went to support Volt technology, and nothing is or was involved with any other EVs - passenger cars, service and utility vehicles etc. And none of the funds were involved with any other types of applications, then today your headline should read:<br /><br />"Chevy Volt Costing Taxpayers Up to $47,500 Per Vehicle"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-78907249005426991002013-03-22T15:56:20.626-04:002013-03-22T15:56:20.626-04:00This chart would be so much simpler under the Repu...This chart would be so much simpler under the Republicans. There would be one box with the word "NO". Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-55389435395936399832013-02-22T16:38:40.524-05:002013-02-22T16:38:40.524-05:00What's particularly frustrating about this is ...What's particularly frustrating about this is the typical inconsistency. The recent rhetoric had been about saving the middle class from disappearing, partially by maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. Now that all appears to be a farce. I wish someone would just stand by a single position. These sorts of flip-flops are what drive my pessimism about our political parties. They give every indication of having some ulterior plan that they want to implement, with all the campaign slogans being merely an expedient to get into office so they can implement their real plan.<br /><br />As far as sequestration goes, I don't understand why liberals are so against it. From my semi-liberal, pseudo-libertarian perspective, sequestration is the best way to achieve a desperately-needed cut of defense spending, which is an opportunity guaranteed not to arise again as long as the Republicans have any control.Milksopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-52250525887442147662013-01-28T11:09:06.062-05:002013-01-28T11:09:06.062-05:00But wait, it's not that simple. A government t...But wait, it's not that simple. A government that represses political opponents or conducts police brutality may not be corrupt in the technical sense of the term, but it's just as (or more) problematic for liberty as a technically corrupt one. Whatever such a government is called, it ought to be included in the category of "governments we don't want because of their negative effect on society."Milksopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-54334162030835763672012-12-31T20:35:37.500-05:002012-12-31T20:35:37.500-05:00Well, you are half right. I don't want to retu...Well, you are half right. I don't want to return to the 1800's.<br />WPKWP Knabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03569128728348599313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-56588624432954184772012-11-18T10:12:07.195-05:002012-11-18T10:12:07.195-05:00Re: "trickle-up" economics Dear Eli &...Re: "trickle-up" economics Dear Eli & Bill, Responding to the Blog's post of Nov. 15, 2012 concerning a proposed increase in government outlays for college education and health care (and, of course, the bottom 48% who want this "stuff"). I have spent my life outside the realm of economics so am not informed re: economic theory and discourse, but I have wondered why there is never a reference to what I'll call "trickle-up economics." After all, it *does* matter that whatever products or services made or offered by those individuals in the upper percentiles of the economy (the "producers") can be paid for and consumed. If American buying power decreases due to an dramatic imbalance in wealth and ability to participate in the market (the bottom portion disproportionally sick, disabled, financially ruined by medical bills, and with hs educations), the economy will fall flat. So, lots of great "stuff" to buy, but buyers situated principally at the top will be disproportionately the (continued from above) Moving on to today's problems -- reportedly, some U.S. car manufacturers have claimed they cannot compete with foreign manufacturers because a significant percentage of the cost of producing a car goes to paying health care expenses for their workers. Logically, if that burden was removed or lessened, auto manufacturers could compete more successfully in global markets. And, if U.S. workers had more access to education, the U.S. economy could expand with direct benefits to U.S. corporations. Are these corporations going to be nothing but free-riders? Is there no expectation that they should have to help pay the cost of the benefits they reap from bearing less of the cost of health care for their workers? And are there any arguments that they should help pay the cost of student loans for workers? Who is to pay for these "gimme's"? Re: education, we are now on the cusp of the broad adoption of online education, which may revolutionize problems of cost.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-81249281050409359502012-11-17T18:34:43.945-05:002012-11-17T18:34:43.945-05:00(continued from above)
Moving on to today's p...(continued from above)<br /><br />Moving on to today's problems -- reportedly, some U.S. car manufacturers have claimed they cannot compete with foreign manufacturers because a significant percentage of the cost of producing a car goes to paying health care expenses for their workers. Logically, if that burden was removed or lessened, auto manufacturers could compete more successfully in global markets. <br /><br />And, if U.S. workers had more access to education, the U.S. economy could expand with direct benefits to U.S. corporations.<br /><br />Are these corporations going to be nothing but free-riders? Is there no expectation that they should have to help pay the cost of the benefits they reap from bearing less of the cost of health care for their workers? And are there any arguments that they should help pay the cost of student loans for workers? <br /><br />Who is to pay for these "gimme's"? Re: education, we are now on the cusp of the broad adoption of online education, which may revolutionize problems of cost and access to college and graduate level educations. The costs of a college education could virtually plummet. But if the costs do not plummet, is it fair to place the total cost on the backs of each individual when there are economic benefits reaped by the American taxpayer and private corporations? <br /><br />In this theory of "trickle up" economics, one would expect to see increased revenue for corporations across the board (small to large cap), and the growth of new corporations --- all of this causing IRS coffers to grow with corporate tax monies helping to ameliorate our problem with deficit spending. <br /><br />One would also expect market equity indices to rise with benefits to private and institutional investors.<br /><br />Theoretically, one would expect to be able to calculate at what point there is the ideal balance between the "takers of stuff" and the "producers of stuff" (you know -- the way economists draw those charts . . .)<br /><br />Of course, there are some at the top who are not producers, but are merely the takers of stuff, also, which might skew an attempted calculation, but economics seem to be good at all that math.<br /><br />This is slightly off topic, but there is concern that the "producers" of "stuff" will leave the U.S. due to any tax increase. Surely, it must be possible to calculate to what degree this is a factor. Just *how many* will leave, and what will be the cost? I did see a story about an extremely wealthy female song writer who is leaving her US passport for a life in London in order to escape US taxes. This appeared in Bloomberg or Forbes in a story regarding David Geffen's purchase of her NYC townhouse. but news of those desiring to leave the US is rare. I more often hear of people at the*low end* of the tax spectrum desiring to leave in order to stretch their retirement dollar.<br /><br />So - what about "trickle up" economics? Yes? No? Is it that our poorly educated masses (and educated) won't find it plausible in the least because the theory, even though the language is just a metaphor, defies the law of gravity (i.e., Newtonian physics, but let's not go there with these muppets), and from about age two, we've all observed everything goes to ground. <br /><br />Could that be the special power of the argument for "trickle DOWN" economics? "Trickle-up" goes against the law of nature!<br /><br />I await your gracious comments. <br /><br />Dr. Schlepper<br />Tucson, AZ<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4410330000812233955.post-88968164056531373152012-11-17T18:29:47.592-05:002012-11-17T18:29:47.592-05:00Re: "trickle-up" economics
Dear Eli &am...Re: "trickle-up" economics<br /><br />Dear Eli & Bill,<br /><br />Responding to the Blog's post of Nov. 15, 2012 concerning a proposed increase in government outlays for college education and health care (and, of course, the bottom 48% who want this "stuff"). I have spent my life outside the realm of economics so am not informed re: economic theory and discourse, but I have wondered why there is never a reference to what I'll call "trickle-up economics." <br /><br />After all, it *does* matter that whatever products or services made or offered by those individuals in the upper percentiles of the economy (the "producers") can be paid for and consumed. If American buying power decreases due to an dramatic imbalance in wealth and ability to participate in the market (the bottom portion disproportionally sick, disabled, financially ruined by medical bills, and with hs educations), the economy will fall flat. <br /><br />So, lots of great "stuff" to buy, but buyers situated principally at the top will be disproportionately the only consumers. Only the top will be producer and consumer --- the remainder of individuals largely left out of the market. <br /><br />Seems that for the health of the market it would be preferable to open up the market and allow as many people to buy washing machines, toasters, and cars as possible. <br /><br />There is an interesting publication referencing the problem of wealth imbalance as a cause of the Great Depression found in the New York Times reference section on the Great Depression ---- "Main Causes of the Great Depression" by Paul A. Gusmorino III, May 13, 1996, published in Gusmorino World. <br /><br />Who is Paul Gusmorino III? According to a Harvard Crimson entry, he studied at Harvard circa 2000 and concentrated in computer science. "Gusmorino's World" was his website. Beyond that, I found scant information, but his paper remains at the New York Times webpage on the Great Depression and is an interesting read, particularly apropos our times.<br /><br />See, http://www.gusmorino.com/pag3/greatdepression/index.html. See, also, reference to Paul Gusmorino III at "Election Profile: Paul Gusmorino & Sujean Lee | News | The Harvard Crimson,"<br />http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2000/12/4/election-profile-paul-gusmorino-sujean/<br /><br />Gusmorino makes the point that there were very large imbalances of wealth globally at the time of the Great Depression --- these imbalances affected all economies, and were a significant cause in precipitating the economic collapse of those times. <br /><br />(continued on next post)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com