This is Gibbon's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Gibbon's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Gibbon
Recent Activity
Since no one it talking murder charges, must be live boy.
1 reply
I read this earlier, stand by my comment Pareto optimal should be called Pareto Attractor because the words efficient and optimal have anthropomorphic value judgement baggage. "an attractor is a set of numerical values toward which a system tends to evolve, for a wide variety of starting conditions of the system." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor
1 reply
I think I would refer to that as the Pareto Attractor since optimality and efficiency carry meanings that are definitely not applicable. Seriously Pareto Attractor sounds very much more like Benford's law than anything.
1 reply
30:1 leverage, not regulation, not transparency, what could go wrong. Also political capture by the finance sector meant Congress, Obama, Ben Bernanke and Timothy F. Geithner made sure that underwater homeowners couldn't get out from under ruinous mortgages via the bankruptcy process. Forcing homeowners to make the banks whole probably, a 200 billion/yr drag on the economy.
1 reply
There of course the follow on Proposition 58 that allows ones heirs to inherit the property tax exemption as well, in perpetuity.
1 reply
This of course is a good one, http://blogs.wsj.com/pharmalot/2015/05/08/to-what-extent-should-a-drug-maker-be-allowed-to-convey-off-label-info/ tl;dr: The FDA doesn't have the power to interfere with a drug companies freedom of speech when it comes to promoting off label uses.
1 reply
One thing I remember my Grandmother a renter on a fixed income saying. Every time there was a social security cost of lining increase the landlord would raise the rent by the same amount. Which instilled in me the idea that any benefits you want hand over to low income people need to somehow be protected from the landlord, etc etc etc. Better to tax wealth and property and use the money to pay for the poor folks kids to go to school, then to give poor folks an income tax break. Second best is to tax the poor and use it to pay for stuff they use. Social Security is exactly the latter. The government takes some $$$ which in reality comes out of the landlords pocket. And in return promises some income during retirement. probably all of Social Security really comes out of the landlords pocket.
1 reply
My feeling too, at nominally zero they are still on the wrong side of the curve, raise rates economy crashes. Yet they are under a lot of pressure to get interest rates back up so the rentiers can makes some f*king money.
1 reply
0. John Cochrane falls into the trap of thinking that energy, resources, and labor flow through the economy like money does through a set of double entry ledgers.
1 reply
> His claim to be "well" was a falsehood. The denial is an acknowledgement
1 reply
I can't help but read this stuff and think that the Chicken Littles have this idea that there is some perfect monetary policy that needs to be followed at all costs. Since they have been trained to fear the inflation monster, they fear any policy that could under some future circumstance fail under inflationary pressure. Ignoring that in the face of inflation the central bank could (Bring my smelling salts, and cover your ears Martha) *change it's policy* Anothercritque I see and me answer. Q: B..Bu But what is the investors don't want to do what the central bank wants? A: The Nice Mr Central Banker being able to print at will, will totally ratf*ck you if you don't play along. 'What if I get another sax player' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgfZVNv6w2E
1 reply
Please Neanderthal is a slur, the proper term is Yeti http://subgenius.wikia.com/wiki/Yeti *cough*
1 reply
There is only one set of four anti-aircraft guns in the flak tower, makes me think this is after the war.
1 reply
You really need to be able to click on those graphs to see a larger version.
1 reply
Problem with metrics, measure something and then comes the urge to control the number to three decimal places. Same prob;em with test limits, limits are 1.56 2.17, thus 2.16 is okay and 2.18 is fail. I would say disposable income is a good metric. Or savings rate.
1 reply
One of my old college professors pointed out, your average car has 100 HP worth of gas and 400 HP worth of brakes. In this case the economy is missing on a couple of cylinders and the Fed is afraid to take it's foot of the brake, cause... Actually my thought has been, if yields on new bonds ever went to 5% the 'value' of old ZIRP paper, and fixed assets like housing would plummet. If mortgage rates go from 3.5% to 7% what does that do to the asking price of a house? Ans: Price has to drop 33% to keep the same mortgage. Same time a bunch of people in variable rate mortgages become insolvent.
1 reply
My personal hunch is minimizing deviations from 2 percent and 6 percent is probably bad. As a young engineer I remember being asked repeatedly where my design parameters and test limits came from. How does the fed know that the correct numbers are 2 and 6 percent? And why is tight control of those parameters important? I remember reading old stuff from 70-50 years ago. It seemed then focus was on raw economic output, tons steel, disposable income, and the ability of workers to find well paying jobs. Not inflation and unemployment.
1 reply
The Haiti response was kinda the World Health Organizations Katrina after the aid workers from Pakistan dumped their latrines in the river thus starting huge epidemic of cholera. Followed by not owning up for it and accepting responsibility. Hint Haiti had many many problems before the earthquake but cholera wasn't one of them.
1 reply
I always think back to the letter from FDR to Stalin promising 12,000 tons of lard a month. My rough calculation is that alone was 1% of the calorific needs of the Soviet union. Assume 1lb of lard is 4000 calories. So 12,000 tons is 24,000,000 lbs. month or 800,000 lbs a day. Or 3.2 billion calories a day. Divide by what google says is the population of the soviet union 1940 191 million is 16.75 calories per day per person. Required calories is 1800/day. So 16.75/1800 is 0.0093 or about 1%. Just the lard.
1 reply
Um... err... I tried I really tried... but https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6116/6268448400_c48ded24bb_z.jpg My attempt at a Friedmanizum, You know I've learned to be careful when trying to reason about other peoples and places. Because here in Northern California the sharp edges of suck on this have been worn smooth. So the response is 'ow quit it' In places like Iraq being to told to suck it is rough trade and results in shrapnel sent you way. I think I failed. Ow quit it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT96xH8UoeY
1 reply
The paid down by the rich isn't really true as much that the debt was inflated away over time. Both by real inflation and also because the economy grew over time. So that idea that debt can only be reduced by cutting spending or increasing taxes is false. Not to mention the falsehood that all government spending is a dead weight loss to the economy. Some is, some isn't. One notes that Conservative economisticators love 'defense spending' which often is a dead loss. Vs say science, infrastructure and education, which over long haul are highly positive. The other consideration is government debt is a form of safe and liquid paper which is good using as financial reserves. If the economy were growing faster likely we could do with less treasuries. So if you want to reduce that amount of government debt a growing economy is a good way to do it. (More growth, more income, more tax revenues and the percentage falls because the denominator gets bigger. Any event borrowing costs are extremely low. Which means it's a good time to build infrastructure, yet we aren't. Friend mentioned that the largest public infrastructure project in the US currently is the Fleamont BART extension. *boggle*
1 reply
I think the blind squirrel found a nut actually.
1 reply
"Sometimes the blunders of your enemies outweigh your own foolishness." That's my refrain when people bring up competitors at work. Sure if your competitors nail it, you're hosed. But usually they don't. Also as I point out, nothing was going to make the war in the Pacific last beyond August 1945. Though I'm betting Nimitz had no idea what the nerds at Los Alamos were up to. If I were Nimitz I might have been pissed about that.
1 reply
The Crimea seems like a geopolitical attractive nuisance to me. As I grow older I get really tired of arguments that assume leadership competence. Anyway I think what the hard power nitwits never get is soft power means not having to watch your back. where hard power reminds me of Bill Hicks talking about how he learned to tone it down. 'First joke, 90% of the audience laughs and 10% are mad. At the end of the show 10% are still laughing, 90% are mad, and there's three guys waiting for me out back." Interestingly though far as I can tell, neocons in the US, the Turks and House of Saud gambled on hard power to topple Assad and install an Wahhabi/Sunni based government in Syria an now are looking at an Iranian dominated Iraq and a Kurdish state. And Assad isn't going anywhere. Worse of the neocons and the Saud's I'm sure Obama has changed his attitude towards Iran. Not good for the Saudi's. The Cuba problem is gone. It might not take much ($$$) to solve the North Korea problem. After that the global 'problems' are Putin and the House of Saud. howard said... 'i understand that your lead is rhetorical, but it's one you use a lot, and really, for an economist' True Delong argues policy, most of the rest argue 'good for me personally'
1 reply
Why don't more people read delong that's the question. Granted 8 years ago I though he was politically naive, but he's learned.
1 reply