This is Morganwarstler's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Morganwarstler's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Morganwarstler
Recent Activity
Brad runs into the flaw of democracy as practiced 1913-1980. As soon as the GOP hacked the Dem strategy of trade votes for free stuff, since 1980 they have gone for massive deficits from tax cuts, trained people to dislike govt. and now Dems can't deliver the goods, no pay-off for their votes. The fair LESSON is to go back and rethink what a deal looks like where the Dems lose part of what they gained from 1913-1980, and we diarize on that. That's fair play.
1 reply
I have been saying this for 5 years now (look it up): The ONLY outcome health care solution is to PUBLICLY give the 40M uninsured slightly lower quality care - almost as good "pretty good" - xrays not mris -out of patent medicine, the equivalent of Lasik WITH blades. Big scar heart surgery. The used car version of healthcare you get in as middle class in France, Cuba, India, etc. Then SELL it as not as good. The Soup Kitchen version of health care. The more you ADMIT it isn't as good, the more people paying like it. No free rider problem. The craz shit problem is even if Obamacare survives we get the same Thing. The top half in America (owns everything and 75% of voted) currently used to getting MRIs will riot if a have not gets the MRI machine first. Liberals will NEVER get o give a top half's MRI to a bottom half on a ongoing power trip. So GIVE IT UP. haves have have nots have not Accept that and you can deliver Obamacare tomorrow
Toggle Commented Mar 29, 2012 on "Healthcare Jujitsu" at Economist's View
1 reply
Big Business = Big Government That is WHY we need tax laws that favor small business over big business. There is an obvious piece of logic here. Any problem with capitalism occurs only when there are too few capitalists.
1 reply
money doesn't exist for people without money, regardless of its effects, money is indifferent to people without money. Monetary policy (as understood by the study of monetary theory) is NOT a tool for social justice, regardless what a law says. if you want it to be one, like economics, it ceases to be a science... And it is precisely because econ is the process of meeting unlimited wants with limited atomic and "unlimited" digital supply - that I say social justice is not a valid goal of economics, econ is about what businessmen and their consumers and their labor do. Math does not have goals. One does not study math in order to make 2+2=5.
Toggle Commented Jan 17, 2012 on "Ideology and Demand Denial" at Economist's View
1 reply
You'll see above a post entitled, "Is Economics Values Free." I'm glad to have caused it! In it, your own argument is repudiated - eve without toughing mine. There is no equivalence. Economics is about the free trade of creator/inventors, consumers, investors and labor in that order. If X does Y, Z does A. It has no feelings, like math. Math doesn't care if the bottom half gets more stuff. Once there is rogue agent involved, gvt. that worries about such things, once values are included, it is something, but that ain't economics. I UNDERSTAND that to someone who doesn't like the brutal feeling-free aspects of ECON, there is a need a desire to bastardize it - to try and upvote "peer review" a topic like, "what is the most taxes paid before there is an effect on the payer?" But the answer is 1. And anyone who doesn't admit it, and say they have OTHER GOALS than what economics has to brutally compute - is simply ending the awesome "science" part of the discipline. Economics = Business Economics ≠ Social Justice also, macro is a mirage. Just assume a single infinitely divisible currency that can't be printed by any public authority, that's what money wants to be.... note, money is only what money holders want it to be, no one else matters.
Toggle Commented Jan 17, 2012 on "Ideology and Demand Denial" at Economist's View
1 reply
Good christ, you silly old gheezer, I simply meant "soon" Saez IS an ideologue. Period the end. DeKrugman is not an economist, not by my definition explained above. Economists study to encourage markets, not to get free shit for the bottom half. That can be called something, but it is not economics. And where I come from economists at college are guys you pay to say whatever the hell you want. NOTICE. I made arguments. You made shitty non-responses. Let me make this clear for you - oh ye the of greediest generation known to human history - take a Computer, smart phone, or big screen TV. In 5 years time, the poorest amongst us can have something better than the richest today... at poor folk prices. In 15 years time, the cost of the education you think is out of the grasp of the poorest - will be standard fair, it will come free when you buy a new TV at Wal-mart. That you can't grasp this, or bank on it, is because you are old. In 10-12 year time all the newest drugs today will be out of patent tomorrow - the poor can wait 12 years. And once more time, there is a LIMIT on the stuff a human being should be promised just for being human, it is not a sliding scale, it doesn't grow forever. I use only logic, FOCUS.
Toggle Commented Jan 14, 2012 on "Ideology and Demand Denial" at Economist's View
1 reply
Broadly shared prosperity is a purely a function of the rate of technical innovation. It is very hard for the super rich to see a movie, have a phone, a TV, or eat meal that doesn't tend to be soon created / distributed to the masses. Literally, the only thing that truly improves the lives of people at the bottom is invention. Technical innovation is categorically better served by the private market. And income inequality will soon matter not a single iota, not after we achieve a certain market basket of opportunities and sustenance. Once people have a 2 bedroom apartment, food, low end out of patent health-care, 500 channels, a smart phone and broadband - worrying about the have-nots ceases, after all beggars cannot be choosers. Son, we will use technology to gut Education - teachers will be outmoded, and personally driven edu-training will be the DEFINING characteristic - those who can teach themselves WILL BE the most sought after workers. --- Saez is an ideologue with a political agenda. Economics, if it is to be a science, is about the free trade of men, their inventions, their trade of time and talent, and their unlimited wants in the scarce atomic world and unlimited digital world. --- THE POINT is that Wren-Lewis showed his mental panties, he thinks the issue began a few decades ago, not when the income tax started. More the THE POINT, the GOP was under no obligation to play by the rules they played by 1913-1980, and since 1980, they have adopted a superior strategy that the Dems are still struggling to fight - the right is winning. And thats WHY Wren-Lewis even sees a problem.
Toggle Commented Jan 14, 2012 on "Ideology and Demand Denial" at Economist's View
1 reply
"Now while I think seeing economics as a morality play is generally unhelpful, in the case of fiscal policy there is a problem of deficit bias: governments over the last few decades have tended, on average, to spend too much or tax too little." This is incorrect... Since 1913, the problem was spending too much, and since 1980 the GOP has figured out they can short circuit spending - and weaken the left - by taxing too little. The issues is "who started it?" and the answer is Democrats.
Toggle Commented Jan 14, 2012 on "Ideology and Demand Denial" at Economist's View
1 reply
Nick, 1. You must be Canadian. If you argue end game, the final trump card played is always the Tea Party grab their 200M guns and the fed (bankers) eats donkey dick. Repeat after me: the A power (the Tea Party) has votes and money. The B power (the oligarchs) have only money. The C power (the Dems ) have only votes. If you don't properly weight power, you can't really do economics. 2. Since you end game Fed own everything argument is off the table, you got anything else? 3. So far my point stands: lower target, more recent date of start (Q1 2011) is BOTH more politically viable and more Fed credible (less future cloudiness). C'mon Nick, be strong enough to consider what this means... what if level target 4% NGDP from Q1 2011 means we raise rates when unemployment is 8.5% Why the rush to see Sumner's win as a liberal win? an adoption of bigger focus on employment by the Fed? It can easily be just a good excuse to lock in 1% inflation going forward. My narrative make far more sense.
1 reply
It is an idiot tax.
1 reply
The consistent mistake made in this discussion is that: 1. the LOWER the future NGDP level target - towards 3%, not 4.5% like GS wants. 2. the LOWER the trend line - so not from a hot money peak like 2008, but some lowered assumed trend, or just abasic giveback. Like since Q1 2011. The more CREDIBLE the threat is. And the more politically ACCEPTABLE it is. I've yet to see its champions consider that we may get level target NDGP with 8.5% unemployment, which proves according to the hawks the problem is structural.
1 reply
The problem is a central bank that is allowed to choose to catch cooties. They should be screaming sell! into the phone.
1 reply
"Half the population is in debt to the other half. Then something happens and the debtors can't continue to borrow and dissave. Nobody will lend to them, so they are borrowing-constrained. So they consume less. Aggregate savings rises, and the central bank has already pushed the rate of interest down to 0%, so can do nothing. So there's a recession, unless the fiscal authorities do something. "The debtors stop borrowing from the creditors". "The creditors stop lending to the debtors". Those are two different ways of framing the same event. The first sounds like it would lead to an increase in aggregate savings, as the dissavers stop borrowing. The second sounds like it would lead to a decrease in aggregate savings, as the savers stop lending. What are the savers going to do instead, if they can't save by lending to the debtors? They can't just do nothing?" This sounds smart but it isn't. WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT: the 50% of the savers - the ones who have hard assets to their name - have been playing musical chairs, and the music stopped, BUT the over-leveraged did not get guttedlikefish. Instead the 50% who don't have anything were used as an excuse to save the over-leveraged "savers" (read bankers). IF you are serious about getting the music going again, you HAVE TO FORM POLICY to gut the losers like fish. if you won't do it, you aren't serious about starting the music.
1 reply
Metcalfe gets right how impressive Nozick's work was. Metcalfe gets wrong that he's up to the task of critiquing it.
1 reply
You cannot fiat the value of human labor in a global market place. The job will leave... better to keep the cheap jobs here, and offset their earnings with AID. This price signalling also better helps workers understand which jobs are actually more productive and which ones aren't.
1 reply
"It's that upward revision of people's beliefs about permanent income that permanently cures the recession." This is true. That's why we need liquidation... fast and furious. Take the 7M foreclosed homes, and IMMEDIATELY auction them in $1 auctions to guys with dry capital: 1.this kills insolvent banks. 2. it creates upward revision in the minds of the people WHO HAVE MONEY TO SPEND. That's what's missing - they all know there are "deals of a lifetime" hanging out there. Stop letting the surviving banks buy up bad loans cheap of the banks being closed. INSTEAD, pump the assets directly into the the hands of millions of local rich guys. Printing money doesn't increase demand, it just increases uncertainty. We need to serve the DEMAND(S) of the money that's already out there - and those guys want to buy houses for pennies on the dollar.
1 reply
Whats amazing to me is that the press hasn't verified the quality of embedded yt video vs. youtube's domain. I categorically see better quality inside their site, and I'm left wondering if it is done on purpose.
1 reply
Morganwarstler is now following The Typepad Team
Jan 29, 2010