This is erich's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following erich's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Hmm.. I guess one can dream. Then there is the FACT that despite all the lofty rhetoric about "people matter", the Obama Administration picked from the narrow pool of Rubin, Michael Froman, Citi Bank, hard core economists advocating "The Banks Get it ALL". Stiglitz, LOL. How it worked last time:
1 reply
This is especially disturbing that it occurs on Roberta Ramos' watch as ALI President. I'm from New Mexico where both Roberta (also the first woman president of the ABA)and her husband Barry have contributed so much (eg, supporting important speakers for the UNM Peace and Justice Center).
Hmmm... Most corrupt dictator? Here is the 2003 Parade Magazine's ranking: 1. Kim Jong Il, North Korea. 2. King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia. 3. Saddam Hussein, Iraq .... 8. Muammar Al-Qaddafi, Libya That was before we invaded Saudi Arabia, to take out the #2 worst dictator- or was it they that took us out.....It gets so confusing ;-)
1 reply
" That so many senators have balked is a bad sign for the economy and for the most vulnerable Americans. The fact that lawmakers are not willing to ask the nation’s wealthiest to pay their fair share of taxes also makes a mockery of all their talk about deficit reduction. " It is indeed. Kudos to Linda Beale (and Mark Thoma) for connecting the federal deficit with wealth capture by the wealthiest Americans. In addition to lawmakers, it is also too many economists that are failing to raise that issue that it is ONLY by redistributing wealth through a more equitable tax structure (clawback) that one can have a stimulus program without increasing the deficit. Perhaps OT, but also related (especially as it pertains to the NYTimes) is the reluctance to take a stronger position on opposing the effort by Pete Peterson's "America Speaks??" forum to shift the cause of the deficit from this wealth capture AND Military expenditures to an entitlement problem. To see how misleading this is, compare the very different impression given by reading the NYTimes highlights vs. the readers recommendations in the recent Bob Herbert Oped, "A Very Deep Hole". Why does the NYTimes think comments supported by less than 100 readers are more representative than those supported by more than 700 readers? Ditto for his most recent oped "Unfazed by Reality". Here the "highlights" are supported by only TWO readers, and give a VERY different impression than the reader recommended comments. Here the highest support is given to the comment that begins with (it received 493 votes): "Why talk deficits and budgets yet omit mention of the Pentagon?" Number two (461 votes) and three (183) likewise received way more votes than the NYTimes idea of representative (2 votes each). Is it because they dare focus on "bloated military expenditures", and "cut military spending by 75%", a subject that seems to be censored by the NYTimes?
Toggle Commented Jun 15, 2010 on Don't Kyl the Estate Tax at Economist's View
1 reply
John Fleck just wrote saying: It ran on the front page of all editions. On line, linked off the Journal home page:
Excellent. I suspect POGO staff knows this, but your readers may want some NM sites that track LANL and CMRR closely: and Nuke Watch's Jay Coghlan was on Democracy Now today (Feb 2) and the 10 min clip is here: John Fleck wrote an excellent piece for the ABQ Journal which quoted Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group, but so far the story has only appeared in the North (Los Alamos) section, and not online or in the greater metropolitan area. One could contact him directly at:
While it may make one "feel good" to remember Dec.7, 1941 as "unprovoked", it seems to me such false patriotism clouds our judgment as to the appropriate use of force. Why is the July 1941 embargo of the island of to prevent petroleum products from reaching Japan usually ignored? Would not a more meaningful discussion of events begin with that embargo, forcing Japan to either surrender or attack that embargo, ie the U.S.? Did the U.S. thus, not in fact, declare war on Japan five months earlier? Is that not similar to viewing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a war criminal for the murder of 3,000 Americans, while ignoring the murder of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five by Bill Clinton? Shouldn't we at least consider the possibility that a reasonable response to Osama's three grievances stated in his 1998 Fatwa might have avert 9/11,$2-4Trillion dollars and additional loss of life? Does such omission, viewing the U.S in a favorable, but hardly objective perspective, not contribute to repeating mistakes, and in the long run, do a disservice to America?
1 reply
In response to CF's concern re the empirical basis of "the output potential of the United States?" I would respond w/ Kenneth Boulding quote: "Mathematics brought rigor to Economics. Unfortunately, it also brought mortis." Until we are clear on the relationship between variables, precision, especially in regards to "predicting the future" is mere mental masturbation. To talk about "lagging variables", and worry about "the fatal conceit", as David Brooks frames the executive compensation issue, or to worry about "the slippery slope of socialism" is lunacy. Peter Drucker, decades ago found out that compensation in excess of (i believe ) 30 tiimes average wages was essentially rent, and unearned income. yet in 2007? we have the top fifty hedge fund earning 19,000 times average earnings. As a starter, I suggest be begin with the assumption that we would move in the right direction in realizing "the U.S. output potential" by putting more UE labor to work. To use this recession as an excuse to layoff teachers and stop education seems to me to be shear lunacy. While we worry about "preserving the free market" we are unwilling to explore the possibility that while the market often produces optimal results, there are cases where it produces undesirable result, and centralized decision making is superior. A case in point, as Kenneth Arrow pointed out almost half a century ago is health care. Often overlooked in the current advocacy of "Medicare for all" and the illusion that it is "competition" that we are seeking with the public option, is the fact that in this specific case, competition is actually destructive. In terms of delivering better OUTCOMES it is actually our SOCIALIZED model, the VA, that produces more bang for the buck than even Medicare. But I digress. The first priority when we have a large pool of folk with merely "notional demands", and a monetary system that is broken, is to put idle manpower to work. Distributional aspects (as important as they are, and I do hold that inequity is even more at the core of the financial meltdown than leveraged and unsecured risk)can always be fixed later. What can't be fixed is the lost output from idle workers, and more important, the depreciation of human capital in terms of their work skills. Perhaps we need to "swallow our pride", eat a bit of crow, and decide that we are not the smartest folk on the planet, and take a cue from others in terms of "what works".
1 reply
From Zachary Karabel's post at Forbes: "China put its $600 billion package to work almost immediately and backed that up with more than $1 trillion in loans. American banks, in contrast, have been hoarding deposits and loath to loan." full article here: But then, they are more concerned with science, or what works rather than ideology. as Deng Xiaoping said long ago: 不管黑猫白猫,能捉老鼠就是好猫. Translation: It does not matter whether the cat is black or white; as long as it catches the mouse, it is a good cat. (Commenting on the whether China should turn to capitalism or remain strictly in adherence with the economic ideologies of communism)
1 reply