Eli,
I suspect the number of intelligent things Al Franken has said can be counted on one hand, and one of them is the title of his book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot."
Obama handed the Republican's a lay-up with the HHS decision on birth control. The Republicans could have first portrayed this as a violation of religious freedom. Then they could have pointed to the decision as the inevitable consequence of Obamacare and asked, what next will the government demand you do and what next will the government demand you can't have. Because if the law says an insurance company or employer is required to provide something, certainly it can prevent an employer or insurance company to not provide certain services. Heck, they could have shifted the debate by invoking death panels again, and as proof it was possible by pointing to this decision.
But no, too many Republicans and that big fat idiot focused on the one aspect of the decision that is guaranteed to resonate least with independents and guaranteed to turn the stomachs of a vast majority of Americans. Roe v Wade is settled and will not change. People will use birth control, that is settled and will not change. Why are we even talking about this when there are such larger issues to focus on?
Bill
Sunday, March 4, 2012
What's More Fiscally Responsible: Obama's Real Budget or the Interpretation of the Republican Candidate's Campaign Speeches?
Eli,
You asked me if there is "any reason to believe that the any of the current Republican alternatives will be more fiscally responsible than the current occupant of the White House?" and cite the CRFB report that analyzes the actual budget Obama submitted to Congress to the "detailed, albeit still incomplete, set of proposals to reduce both taxes and spending," from the Republican candidates.
My simple answer, except for Ron Paul, is no, I don't have reason to believe they will be more fiscally responsible. But I'm not going to pay too much attention to the CRFB report, which is comparing a real budget to an interpretation of an outline of a portion of a budget. So of course, it's a totally unfair comparison, to both Obama and the candidates. I know Krugman and Klein really enjoy the CRFB report because it helps remove the cognitive dissonance they have over Obama's purported fiscal responsibility.
Generally, they seem to have the same something for nothing promise employed by our politicians since FDR that have led us to budget deficits that are now 10% of GDP. And it makes it more likely your prediction of how it will end is correct. It's very disappointing.
Bill
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Ryan Lizza is Confused
Eli,
I read the New Yorker piece by Ryan Lizza you suggested. I usually don't read many pieces like that because more often than not I get bored. But since I respect your opinion, I gave it a shot. Boredom won.
It just seems like another one of those ever-present lefty pieces that desperately attempts to self-validate its own opinion by calling the right crazy or extreme.
Along the way he repeats the conventional wisdom that Romney is hated by his party, despite the high likelihood that Romney is going to win the nomination. Just who does Lizza think is voting for Romney? Someone must be voting for him since he has more delegates than anyone else. Someone must be working for him since he has a better organization than anyone else. I just don't understand how Lizza and others think Romney is winning without support of "The Party."
Along the way he repeats the conventional wisdom that Romney is hated by his party, despite the high likelihood that Romney is going to win the nomination. Just who does Lizza think is voting for Romney? Someone must be voting for him since he has more delegates than anyone else. Someone must be working for him since he has a better organization than anyone else. I just don't understand how Lizza and others think Romney is winning without support of "The Party."
Then he gets really confused because he characterizes the Republican Party as "almost entirely composed of ideological conservatives," but earlier he called Romney's position, "unreliable conservatism," and to point out again, ROMNEY IS WINNING. So how can this unreliable conservative be winning in this party that is a super-majority of ideologues.
Somehow this "shift to the right" has "brought risks" and the example Lizza brings up is absurd: the 2010 election. This was the election the Republicans "shellacked" the Dems. But Lizza is convinced the Republican strategy has risk because.... they didn't win the Senate and capture even more of the House? I mean, this is all so laughable. The Republicans nominated some truly loopy candidates: Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell. And the loopy candidates lost. But at times it was close. Remember this. Reid beat Angle 50% to 45%. In the 2004 election, the election Bush beat Kerry, Reid won with 61%. How is it Lizza concludes the shift to the right as brought risks when the Republicans nominate a completely incoherent candidate to run against the Majority Leader of the Senate, and he has to sweat it out. Good God, which party is the one really running risks?
Lizza has conjured up a Republican Party out of touch with America, but one that gets more votes than the Dems, but Lizza's solution to correct this mistake of not winning enough is to nominate more Democrat-looking candidates. Huh?
Lizza has conjured up a Republican Party out of touch with America, but one that gets more votes than the Dems, but Lizza's solution to correct this mistake of not winning enough is to nominate more Democrat-looking candidates. Huh?
He says political parties aren't supposed to act suicidal, implying the GOP is acting suicidal. But what single piece of evidence does he have that the GOP is acting suicidal? Maybe the Republicans will lose the House, but I've seen little to predict that. Maybe the Republicans won't take the Senate, but it still seems most predictions are for the GOP to re-take the Senate. And as far as the Presidency goes, I still think Obama will win, but what surprises me is how weak he still seems to be. So where is the suicide?
I really don't like defending the Republicans. I don't think they, as a massive over-generalization, are as free market as I. I don't care much for cultural issues and cringe whenever they start preaching morality to me.
But let's say everything Lizza says is true. So what. The Republicans will lose, which Lizza I suspect would applaud. And at that point the Republicans would get a new message, get a new messenger or get a new party.
Friday, March 2, 2012
The Decline of Party Influence and Its Consequences
Bill
Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker has an excellent piece on the decline of party insider influence and its effect on the nominee selection process. He makes the point far better than I have that the loss of central control has the net effect of producing nominees that cater to extremes within the party bases rather than to broad ideological coalitions.
As we both understand by now, I indeed have less faith in you in some sort of organic (market like as you like to say) sorting out of the country's direction by the electorate. You may be disgusted by Obama and the accomplishments of the 111 congress, but you don't seem particularly happy with its successor, not to mention the presidents likely opponents
I don't have a prediction on the 2012 election either, but I do believe it will have consequences, and some of those potential consequences strike me as disastrous in ways in which I'll wager we are likely to agree upon.
BTW, is there any reason to believe that the any of the current Republican alternatives will be more fiscally responsible than the current occupant of the White House?
Eli
Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker has an excellent piece on the decline of party insider influence and its effect on the nominee selection process. He makes the point far better than I have that the loss of central control has the net effect of producing nominees that cater to extremes within the party bases rather than to broad ideological coalitions.
As we both understand by now, I indeed have less faith in you in some sort of organic (market like as you like to say) sorting out of the country's direction by the electorate. You may be disgusted by Obama and the accomplishments of the 111 congress, but you don't seem particularly happy with its successor, not to mention the presidents likely opponents
I don't have a prediction on the 2012 election either, but I do believe it will have consequences, and some of those potential consequences strike me as disastrous in ways in which I'll wager we are likely to agree upon.
BTW, is there any reason to believe that the any of the current Republican alternatives will be more fiscally responsible than the current occupant of the White House?
Eli
The Extremism Canard
Eli,
I know your prediction on the death of the Republican Party was based on a big assumption, that it wouldn't change. But that's true of both parties. True of any competitive enterprise as well. Which is why I think this huffing and puffing by the Left over the purported shift to the right by the Republican Party is all rather amusing.
Has the GOP shifted rightwards? Maybe. I'm not a registered Republican, never have been, but let's use me as a proxy. Have I shifted right since January of 2009? Absolutely. The obscene increase in Government spending, the shocking increase in debt, the (in my opinion) blatant dis-regard of the markets and contracts and the bullying way Obamacare was passed resulted in me moving from what would be described as a moderate Republican to a Tea Party adherent. Notice what happened. I moved first. I didn't follow the Party. I moved and clearly I'm not alone.
So what has been the GOP's reaction to this movement by their constituent's move to the right? It moved to the right. It had to if, as you point out, it wanted to survive. This is why I find the criticism of the Tea Party and the rightward movement of the GOP as amusing. In essence, the Democrats are saying, not to the Republicans, but to the electorate, "You are stupid robots controlled by evil Fox News and the Koch Brothers." To me, they (and you) are mis-understanding, at the most basic level, why the GOP is where it is. The GOP is reflecting the wishes of Americans and the Democrats are insulting the electorate. FYI, insulting me is not the best way of persuading me.
I won't predict what happens in 2012. Maybe the Tea Party reaction will cause a counter reaction, which will cause another reaction, the dialectic process that brings us to the middle. You seem to worry about partisanship and paralysis. I don't. All that's happening is the country is trying to figure out its path forward. In many ways, it's like the market. Lots of individual decisions arrives at a consensus (or equilibrium in economics jargon) that splinters, then reforms via constant iteration to another consensus, and so on.
Bill
Does The Decline Of Political Parties Contribute To The Current Paralysis
Bill
Nice to know I'm in such august company. To be fair, I gave myself more than a little wiggle room when I stated that the Republican Party was doomed in its present form. It is the enduring ability of both parties to transform themselves that has produced their longevity. Just think of where all those yellow dog Democrats have gone. It's hard to imagine though, that a party comprised of mostly male, middle aged and older, hyper religious anti immigrant whites will compete very well in a nation that is destined to become minority majority in a very short time.
The vital story of this Republican primary season is the loss of the ability of the party itself to control the agenda as it has done so effectively in the past. Jay Cost, a staff writer at the Weekly Standard, and former blogger at Real Clear Politics, has written extensively about the decline of the power of party elites on both sides to mold the agenda. That loss is what leads to the fractious competition of the current primary season and the ridiculous pandering of candidates who know better (think Romney) to every extreme notion that's out there. The Dems experienced the same fragmentation in the late 60s that reached its apex with the McGovern debacle in 1972. It may be undemocratic of me to say so, but it's easy to argue that such a decline in centralized party power erodes the possibility for compromise in a nation already deeply divided over how to solve its problems.
Eli
.
Nice to know I'm in such august company. To be fair, I gave myself more than a little wiggle room when I stated that the Republican Party was doomed in its present form. It is the enduring ability of both parties to transform themselves that has produced their longevity. Just think of where all those yellow dog Democrats have gone. It's hard to imagine though, that a party comprised of mostly male, middle aged and older, hyper religious anti immigrant whites will compete very well in a nation that is destined to become minority majority in a very short time.
The vital story of this Republican primary season is the loss of the ability of the party itself to control the agenda as it has done so effectively in the past. Jay Cost, a staff writer at the Weekly Standard, and former blogger at Real Clear Politics, has written extensively about the decline of the power of party elites on both sides to mold the agenda. That loss is what leads to the fractious competition of the current primary season and the ridiculous pandering of candidates who know better (think Romney) to every extreme notion that's out there. The Dems experienced the same fragmentation in the late 60s that reached its apex with the McGovern debacle in 1972. It may be undemocratic of me to say so, but it's easy to argue that such a decline in centralized party power erodes the possibility for compromise in a nation already deeply divided over how to solve its problems.
Eli
.
Obama Did Not Save the Auto Industry. He put GM Under and Sold Chrysler to the Italians.
Eli,
Obama did not save the auto industry. He put GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and then sold Chrysler to an Italian company, Fiat.
Since the mid 70's US auto sales have been between 10 and 20 million units per year. In the recession years of 1980 and 2009 sales fell to 10 million units. While the 2009 downturn was severe, it wasn't Obama's favorite word: Unprecedented.
What did change between 1980 and 2009, for GM, was its US market share. Here's the way I look at it. Every day consumers decide which car they want to buy. And for the past 50 years consumers have said, "something other than GM." That's 10 to 20 million purchase decisions every year times, let's call it $30,000 per car, or $30 to $60 billion per year. The decision to interfere in those individual purchase decision is what I like least about bail outs. In essence the government substitutes its judgement for the individual.
At the cyclical peak in 2007, GM and Chrysler comprised 36% of the US auto market. Obama didn't even save half of the auto industry. Arguably he saved the most inefficient producer(s). Bailing out GM and Chrysler is like supporting Blackberry because it used to have high market share, but now consumers prefer Apple and Android. It's like saving the Black and White TV market when everyone wants color. It's like saving the bank teller industry when consumers prefer ATMs.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US auto industry employs about 670,000 in auto, auto body and trailer and auto parts manufacturing. The numbers include white collar workers who work at manufacturing concerns. Most of the workers are in auto parts.
How many does GM employ? At the end of 2011, about 77,000 in the US, of which, 29,000 were salaried and 48,000 were hourly. In 2006 GM had about 152,000 North American employees. The comparison is not fair since the 2006 amount is total North American headcount, which includes Canada and Mexico, and also includes some units not counted in 2011. But the trend is the same. Even after the bailout, headcount is lower, much lower.
GM and Chrysler are not the auto industry. Not even close.
Here's what Rick Wagoner said about GM going into bankruptcy (From "Overhaul," by Steve Rattner, Obama's auto czar). "Bankruptcy would sink the business by scaring off customers." GM's market share had declined from 50% to 20% without the threat of bankruptcy. I'd remind Wagoner something else was scaring off customers long before the recession hit. Secondly, GM is 20% of the industry, not the industry, and what would customers have done? Buy something else. What would competing auto makers have done? Hire more workers to handle the increased demand.
What did Obama do? He put GM in bankruptcy. He put Chrysler into bankruptcy. He sold Chrysler to the Italians. He fired workers. Since the end result is possibly the same thing as would have happened if Obama had ignored the whole issue, why am I unhappy with the intervention?
It put taxpayer money at risk, and the Government should not play venture or vulture capitalist. This is a centuries-old argument, but the long experience teaches us the Government is a poor capitalist. Second, it explicitly says to consumers, "Your choice has been wrong, and will we decide what is best for you." For 50 years consumers have been telling GM, we prefer something else. Obama's response: Too bad. Eat your peas. Third, it made the car companies political entities. Obama decries Citizen's United, but somehow thinks the direct intervention into private business that will be a source of political patronage and votes is a good thing? Fourth, it is unfair to the 400,000+ non GM and Chrysler auto workers. Last, it makes it more likely others will ask for government support. Which is bad for consumers. 10 to 20 million purchase decisions are distorted to benefit less than 100,000. How is that fair? How is that playing by the same rules?
Bill
Obama did not save the auto industry. He put GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and then sold Chrysler to an Italian company, Fiat.
Since the mid 70's US auto sales have been between 10 and 20 million units per year. In the recession years of 1980 and 2009 sales fell to 10 million units. While the 2009 downturn was severe, it wasn't Obama's favorite word: Unprecedented.
Source: Wolfram Alpha
What did change between 1980 and 2009, for GM, was its US market share. Here's the way I look at it. Every day consumers decide which car they want to buy. And for the past 50 years consumers have said, "something other than GM." That's 10 to 20 million purchase decisions every year times, let's call it $30,000 per car, or $30 to $60 billion per year. The decision to interfere in those individual purchase decision is what I like least about bail outs. In essence the government substitutes its judgement for the individual.
Source: Ward's Auto Data
GM has about 20% market share, where's the rest? Ford is 16%, Toyota 13%, Chrysler 11%, Honda 9%, then a whole bunch of others. But GM, Ford and Chrysler are American you may say, so they deserve special treatment. Maybe. Chrysler used to be owned by the Germans, remember Daimler Chrysler, and is now owned by Fiat. The Japanese and German auto companies have manufacturing plants in the US, so in that sense they are as American as GM and Ford and Chrysler.
Source: Ward's Auto Data
At the cyclical peak in 2007, GM and Chrysler comprised 36% of the US auto market. Obama didn't even save half of the auto industry. Arguably he saved the most inefficient producer(s). Bailing out GM and Chrysler is like supporting Blackberry because it used to have high market share, but now consumers prefer Apple and Android. It's like saving the Black and White TV market when everyone wants color. It's like saving the bank teller industry when consumers prefer ATMs.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US auto industry employs about 670,000 in auto, auto body and trailer and auto parts manufacturing. The numbers include white collar workers who work at manufacturing concerns. Most of the workers are in auto parts.
Source: BLS
How many does GM employ? At the end of 2011, about 77,000 in the US, of which, 29,000 were salaried and 48,000 were hourly. In 2006 GM had about 152,000 North American employees. The comparison is not fair since the 2006 amount is total North American headcount, which includes Canada and Mexico, and also includes some units not counted in 2011. But the trend is the same. Even after the bailout, headcount is lower, much lower.
GM and Chrysler are not the auto industry. Not even close.
Here's what Rick Wagoner said about GM going into bankruptcy (From "Overhaul," by Steve Rattner, Obama's auto czar). "Bankruptcy would sink the business by scaring off customers." GM's market share had declined from 50% to 20% without the threat of bankruptcy. I'd remind Wagoner something else was scaring off customers long before the recession hit. Secondly, GM is 20% of the industry, not the industry, and what would customers have done? Buy something else. What would competing auto makers have done? Hire more workers to handle the increased demand.
What did Obama do? He put GM in bankruptcy. He put Chrysler into bankruptcy. He sold Chrysler to the Italians. He fired workers. Since the end result is possibly the same thing as would have happened if Obama had ignored the whole issue, why am I unhappy with the intervention?
It put taxpayer money at risk, and the Government should not play venture or vulture capitalist. This is a centuries-old argument, but the long experience teaches us the Government is a poor capitalist. Second, it explicitly says to consumers, "Your choice has been wrong, and will we decide what is best for you." For 50 years consumers have been telling GM, we prefer something else. Obama's response: Too bad. Eat your peas. Third, it made the car companies political entities. Obama decries Citizen's United, but somehow thinks the direct intervention into private business that will be a source of political patronage and votes is a good thing? Fourth, it is unfair to the 400,000+ non GM and Chrysler auto workers. Last, it makes it more likely others will ask for government support. Which is bad for consumers. 10 to 20 million purchase decisions are distorted to benefit less than 100,000. How is that fair? How is that playing by the same rules?
Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)