This is Gibbon's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Gibbon's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Gibbon
Recent Activity
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
> The wealthy fear that "soak the rich" policies would mean ever expanding social expenditures and higher taxes on the wealthy. I don't think it's that complicated actually. Lot of wealth got that way by squeezing rents out of workers and squeezing wages (same thing). So to a certain extent it's just reflexive thinking.
1 reply
Matt is a Calvinist true believer who worships the Magic Hand. A phrase I use is, if you're honest. When you think of a theory, you'll try to 'drown your baby in the bath tub.' Actively look for data to disprove your theory and thus kill it. Matt only looks at data to confirm his morality based economic theories. You can convince him of nothing.
Toggle Commented Dec 24, 2014 on 'More Piling On Cochrane' at Economist's View
1 reply
Israel is a good mention. She has spent the last 40 years attempting to digest her conquests, one has trouble seeing how this has been at all profitable on the whole. I think at one time I estimated the cost of buying out the settlers on the west bank would be perhaps $5-10 billion. That's not a lot of money. Not to mention the cost of the Iraq occupation ran the US about $40,000 per Iraqi....
1 reply
"Okay, then. Economics missed the financial crisis, and now the economy has increased the number of undernourished young children, and it has increased the number of teenagers unable to afford college, and the few lucky ones who can afford to go to college will be saddled with so much debt that a new business start-up is almost out of the question. So, in this semester's course we will ask, "Why in god's name isn't every economist screaming from the rooftops about this?" Sigh you don't really understand. The parents of those undernourished young children have decided that it's in their best interest to take lower paying jobs and forgo feeding their children. What is important is world wide the situation of the average child has improved. And those teenagers have decided their leisure time is more valuable to them money they might earn at a job.
1 reply
""But I have the same questions you do and surprised very few economists even talk about the implications of NAFTA."" I am just a somewhat humble engineering monkey. And having driven across the bay I have a few thoughts along this line. I think a good point is, no one cares about Karl Whelan and his models and statistical analysis. It's kind of like how no one cares about string theory anymore. If you can't use the output to guide policy or design falsifiable experiments, what are you doing exactly? Not economics, not physics. Mathematics is what you are doing. So the point is, markets are something created by politics, policy, and law. A huge amount of the economic inputs to markets aren't provided by any market mechanism but by the command economy side of things. The problems we face aren't usually due to functioning markets, but to those outside contributions. It appears at least from the outside that the the influential members of the economics profession are hostile to those problems. They only want to study the market part not the overall economy. Standard response to any suggestion of collective action or policy contributions is 'that would interfere and distort the market and that would be bad' If you don't believe, there is a video of Allan Greenspan complaining about California's onerous building standards. tl;dr Earthquake safety standards distort the market and waste resources because most buildings will be torn down before an earthquake hits them. Side note: Karl Whelan thinks the reason why students complain is because economics is special. Having been an engineering student students complain and professors fret about course work that we feel is obsolete or doesn't contribute much usefulness. Especially in the last four decades the techniques used in practice have changed radically. Much fretting ensued. What is notable is outsiders are noting a rank smell emanating from the economics field.
1 reply
""I start my class with a 30-minute discussion exercise along these lines about what's involved in getting a pencil onto the store shelves, which suffices to make the point that economies are very complex systems that nobody could succeed in centrally planning. "" Oh my god....
1 reply
[what does that mean through a time when information technology is so focused on?] I'll provide an anecdote from the cesspit that is the bay area. Here is... wait for it... Anecdote: It seems to this small brained monkey (simia parum inbecilli engineerous) that huge amounts of development effort is not focused on increasing economic productivity, but instead more efficient ways extract money from the pockets of the suckers.
1 reply
At the Mountains of Madness - Short Animation Movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvpBDopIMxw (Warning French)
1 reply
In mechanical engineering there are two concepts of equilibrium, static and dynamic. And there is also this thing called friction. One often uses simplified linear equations to describe stuff. You hope that, that's good enough because when it isn't things get really weird and stateful. So to me the idea that the economy would have multiple 'equilibria' makes a world of sense. And very very very distrustful of anyone claiming otherwise. You can show me any set of equations you want that show otherwise and I'll say either you don't understand your model, or your model is too simple to capture relevant behavior.
1 reply
I totally agree with that. Likely the lack of screw driver tools vs hammers is because we gave the central bank too much 'independence' meaning they aren't independent just mostly beholden to the large banks. Who I'm sure do not want the Fed telling them what to invest in. I'm reminded of a letter from an official of the British central talking about dealing with an early banking crisis. A large part of the solution was forcibly ramming money up banks and industries backsides. All but ordering them to build stuff.
1 reply
The Fed will let rates rise to 4-5% Bwhahahahahahaha!!!! The fed can try to raise rates and watch the economy tip into a recession. Put it simply, no one wants the Feds money at 4% No one.
1 reply
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! The Iraq war was nothing more of anything but a huge give away to the war industries. A military bridge to no where. They took the Treasury for 1 Trillion. Oh sure the the war mongering pols on the right were sure that by giving war a chance, they'd be able to walk around Washington with big swinging dicks, they'd coast to reelection, and their friends in industry would get rich. So the big swinging dick part didn't work out. 2 out of 3.
1 reply
"The essence of state action is that it operates by compulsion/force, while things done outside the state are voluntary. This reality" And I kinda skimmed after this to make sure you weren't being sarcastic. And you aren't, which means you're a nut. Hint many things done outside the state are just as coercive if not more so. I would say you are exhibit A as to why small staters are loons. The rest of my comment, not on you, since I am done. But to competence of the state. Good Socialism: Sewers, street lights, dog catchers Bad Socialism: The Peoples Dry Cleaners #14692
1 reply
Higher inflation tramps down the long tail of debt. The way I think about it is, businesses and households have income streams and they have debt typically. Inflation tends to push the ratio of income to debt in favor of income.
1 reply
The Wall Street casino finance as waste of otherwise productive resources harkens back to an observation I made about 1980 about the USSR and US's nuclear weapons programed. Namely 200-250,000 highly trained engineers working on what the fuck? Work some of this stuff through, how many solar panels could you buy with the 800 billion the US is committed to the nuclear weapons industry? Also side comment about the engineer shortage in tech. Some the hunger for H1B visa's in the tech industry is due to the military industrial complex hoovering up the native born engineering talent. Foreign born engineers typically can't work on classified stuff. What gets me is I read economist talk about finely tuned perfectly adapted economies where I see vast oceans of waste. Reminds me of a comment by an artist that does reconstructions of long dead creatures. He hates when he hears people say animals being evolutionarily perfectly adapted tot heir environment. Because they aren't, they're just better than anything else that has access to it.
1 reply
I'm reminded of a comment from a friend who went to work for Japanese auto company. He made some comment when he started working about 'competition' and his boss said, 'This year we announced a dozen models will be switching to hybrid in five years. GM announced the H2' China response to peek oil, climate change, pollution, was to spend 100 billion on solar technology and manufacturing. The US response was a fracking spree funded by extremely loose credit. Nimbism is alive and well in the US but it isn't the Hippies that are the worst offenders. It's Republicans making sure none of their clients apple cart gets tipped over.
1 reply