This is mulp's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following mulp's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
mulp
Recent Activity
The private sector did a great job in the 60s, so great that Milton Friedman was outraged at the 8% profits on way too much capital investment from paying workers way too much to build capital that was too reliable, and inventing new technology that provided too many unneeded features by paying way too much to workers doing research like Bell Labs, and paying too much in wages to too many workers keeping the grid and telephones working in bad weather. The wasteful spending by the utilities to replace depreciating capital assets created too much demand for workers driving up wages generally. If you compare the 60s spending on capital and labor in the for profit sector compared to the city owned utilities, the for profit utilities paid more workers more and delivered more features to customers to get them to use more electricity and telephone. But if you wanted a definition of crony capitalism, look at the 60s utility regulations for the most perfect example. If AT&T and Bell had not been broken up and the nonsense of deregulation happened, 80% of US homes would have Fios for a decade and 100 megabit Internet would be part of the basic "lifeline" package. (They had 80% of the US market in 1980, and laid out plans for replacing all copper with fiber by the end of the 80s. They did the planning based on multitude fiber (cheap) and 20 megabit transceivers (cheap) but by the end of the 80s single mode and 100 megabit was cheaper. The cost of the build out of a "new grid" was less than the price per customer the broken up Bell companies were bought for in mergers. Apples to oranges, but still indicative of how much Wall Street would pay for obsolete infrastructure based on rent seeking decaying value capital assets.
1 reply
Summer demonstrates again that since 1980 all economists have been required to be lobotomized. The number one reason to tax and spend on infrastructure is to grow gdp by putting money in the pockets of consumers by paying them to work. He does the one hand waving supply side argument instead of the two handed argument of FDR and Keynes. Except without private profit, the supply side argument fails. Of course it fails for a different reason on its own as the 21st century of almost pure supply side economics proves. The biggest opportunity cost of failing to tax and spend is the trillions in income boomers will never have to pay off debts and save to get ready for old age. Taxes hit only people with money, and spending by paying people to work puts money in the pockets of workers who would not otherwise be paid. Again, the 21st century has proved that government not paying workers does not result in those same workers being paid more by the people who got the tax cuts. When reading Keynes, he constantly switches from "supply side" to "demand side" because they are tied together in zero sum. Supply side can only increase if demand side increases, but most of supply side economics focuses on cutting the size of the demand side. Tax cuts are advocated to increase supply by supply side economics, but tax cuts must lead to demand cuts. Thus the cuts in taxes since 1980 have led to lower demand as seen in the lower gdp growth. And the demand side is government spending on infrastructure which puts living wages in the pockets of millions of workers thanks to the Fair Labor requirement in Federal spending. To say there is no chance of government investing too much is true regardless of time period, assuming We the People are being citizens. The government was not investing too much in 1943 or 1967, so with far less investment today, Summer is arguing against economic theory he has been part of for decades. He was not making a Keynesian argument during his long career as economist but has been echoing Milton Friedman. We have the economy Milton Friedman wanted in the 60s, 80s, 90s.
1 reply
If Clinton were to propose $2 trillion in infrastructure spending, do you think Sen Cruz will support $500 billion and stop filibustering the $60 billion he opposes today? Or is your reasoning that if Clinton were to propose $2 trillion then progressives would suddenly realize that there are no Green Party candidates for Congress and go out in droves and vote straight party Democratic?
1 reply
By "demand it" I assume you mean "buy it". So, how is your electric car running? How about your solar roof, batteries, and heat pump? Where did you find the water recycling system to turn your poop into drinking water? How much did it cost you?
1 reply
Cowen-Tabarack call for hiking taxes and expanding government to create higher gdp growth? The books of those guys blogging at Econlog? Caplan? I took a macro econ class within the last decade and the book and instructor was anti-tax to create higher growth and more business opportunity. This was at a State (NH) community college, so it represents the econ for the masses who vote. (The legislature and executive do little to set curriculum and pretty much take anyone theoretically qualified to teach as adjuncts unless students objected previously or they failed to do paperwork, like grades, on time.) The economics was much worse than what was covered in my middle school civics which covered everything from the State Constitution of Indiana, to crop rotation, to ecology, to economics. That was set by the government based on things farmers needed to understand, and the people who served them. Then, the concern was as much on demand as on supply because farmers could not survive if all their customers had little income. Today, economics treats demand as coming out of the mists of the market in the middle of the corn field. Customers are never workers in current economic theory.
1 reply
You don't understand the point of tax dodges, do you? The tax dodges are rewards for paying workers to build capital assets. But they need high marginal rates to justify paying workers. Capital gains needs to return to the hold for five years or more to get the incentive. It isn't really "capital" if not held because it's productive. However, if inflation in the price of productive capital that barely retains its value is taxed as income, you punish building productive capital. Asset basis price can be inflation adjusted reasonably well these days thanks to computer technology making detailed calculations simple for humans. I'd have loved to pay workers to install solar and batteries to dodge 50-70% marginal tax rates in the 90s. Much better than the best case 30% tax credit for paying workers these days. Of course, given the penalty for paying workers due to low tax rates, I have no high wage income to be taxed at high rates. As Milton Friedman pointed out in the 60s and then later in the 80s as I recall, the 50-70-90% tax rates never raised much revenue because the tax dodges rewarded paying worker to do wasteful things, in his opinion, like production too much cheap energy, producing too much innovation which ended up in too many new consumer products the wastefully overpaid workers bought.
1 reply
I don't see your call to take America back to the 60s and tube radios and TVs because they are cheaper than semiconductor manufacturing because all the tube electronic factories already exist. Nor do I see you extolling the virtue of $8 gasoline and heating oil thanks to the total ban on fossil fuel imports. I'd love someone to ask Trump if he would ban imports of oil and iPhones and Samsung electronics in his first 100 days as president. If he says yes and doesn't lose popularity, I'll make sure to buy all the electronics I'll want for a few years. I've already sworn off gasoline.
1 reply
Which candidate has no record? Jill Stein? Which candidate isn't running on his record? Gary Johnson?
1 reply
The biggest problem is the media have taken the cue from the right wing conservatives and the left wing conservatives and made elections about selecting a dictator. Before Reagan we had liberals and conservatives as code for Hamilton and Jefferson or variation, split between Democratic and Republican Parties with the focus on electing legislators first, and then an executive to implement the laws. The executive selection was done in the back room. Now the candidates for legislators is done in the backroom because the media refuses to tell voters that the really important elections are happening around now in many States, or happened before summer in the late presidential primary States.
1 reply
I doubt they call themselves liberal, instead usE "progressive". Progressives are conservatives with leftist views as opposed to the conservatives not called rinos who are of the right. In both cases they hold ideas that quickly come into conflict on examination. I was thinking of what Jill Stein would say if activists blocked her and her supporters from accessing "criminal" gasoline for their vehicles, and were blocked from flying criminal powered planes. The right-wing argues that by eliminating all welfare and eliminating minimum wage and OSHA, everyone will be middle class full time workers. The left-wing argues that banning fracking, pipelines, etc, the gasoline for their cars will be cheap and green because it won't be produced by drilling and fracking and refineries and moved by pipeline or train. I am a liberal, and thus a capitalist. Trump is not a capitalist. Nor is Apple a good example of capitalist as run by Tim Cook. Jobs got fired in the 80s for being a capitalist. Elon Musk is the best example of capitalist today. Jeff Bezos was number one, but is now two because Elon is more extreme. Elon and Bezos have had more impact for good than any president can. Pretty much the best case is a president doesn't do stupid stuff. Congress can have big impact, but that requires about 300 members of Congress acting together, and that requires about 60 million voters voting for them given the progressives constantly arguing against voting.
1 reply
In your view, Trump has gotten himself into a position he does not want to be in because idiots believed him?
1 reply
Which office are you running for? Or is voting for anyone running for office simply voting for more of the same? What is the alternative?
1 reply
Which Republicans would happily take President Stein legislation and get it passed in Congress? She can't could on any Green Party Congress people passing anything because 100% of Greens winning would mean 0 Green Party members in Congress. The idea a Green Party exists is a joke.
1 reply
List the 3rd party candidates for Senate for any of the 33-34 seats, for any of the 435 voting House seats, for any governorship, for any State legislatures? There is zero third party. Nada. Zippo. Third parties no not exist. All you are advocating is a vote against republican government. You want someone else to dictate exactly what you alone demand, which you know is impossible, so you refuse to take responsibility for your beliefs and run for office and get all the others who claim they want a third party to run for office, just that they must take orders from you because you are the decider of what is a legitimate third party. If you want anarchy, why not move to Afghanistan or Syria or Libya. There you will not be oppressed by the Republican and Democratic parties.
1 reply
Which office are you running for, given you are so smart in public policy?
1 reply
So, you agree with me that the Congress has declared war many times since 1945, and that all the people claiming we have not been continously at war non-stop since 1942 are liars?
1 reply
Well, in China, corporate leaders are ordered to hire many thousands of workers and given credit lines to do so, but they keep their jobs only if they create the jobs and get revenue to service the debt over a long enough period of time for share prices to rise to make you rich from your share holdings. In the US, conservatives give corporate leaders quotas for workers to fire and pay to cut, and then given credit to buy competitors to cut production to hike prices and profits.
Toggle Commented Sep 8, 2016 on Links for 09-07-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
So, as a shareholder getting profits accruing to you, you immediately go out and pay American workers with those profits because you know that the only way Apple product sales will create American jobs is from shareholders paying Americans to work, and the only way American workers will get great jobs is if you pay them $250 an hour for a 40 hour week? After all, buying Apple products results in very little money being paid to American workers.
Toggle Commented Sep 8, 2016 on Links for 09-07-16 at Economist's View
1 reply
Yep, use the cheap money the Fed has created to pay Chinese workers and to park a few hundred more dollars in an Apple offshore tax haven where the cash is laundered back into the US to buy t-bills to fund tax cut deficits. DO NOT BUY A TESLA! Paying American workers to build a capital asset that is all labor cost is insane!
1 reply
What was bad about the late 60s?.... Oh, you are being sarcastic and speaking like a conservative outraged at workers having the power to eliminate the monopoly profits of businesses...
1 reply
Oh, the 60s were so horrible! Crushing taxes made hiring workers too expensive! Union rules that forced employers into bankruptcy paying benefits! Tax dodges that misallocated resources into wasteful investments! Government spending on job killing programs like going to the moon-every job to get to the moon killed ten productive jobs working as migrant labor! Unrestricted Mexican immigration taking great farm labor jobs from Americans! Useless spending building bridges and roads to nowhere! Highly subsidized tuition at land grant colleges leading to wasted years for the young! Thank god conservatives have fixed most of those disasterous policies and activities.
1 reply
You think it would take Republicans to pass Trump's one trillion per year increase in government spending on labor costs? He will stop all imports from China then boost infrastructure spending which will mean cranking up the steel mills and boost military spending on weapons which means cranking up steel, aluminum, and titanium mills plus add hundreds of thousands to the military and open the flood gates on paying vets to see any medical provider they want as much as they want. On the other hand, if Clinton takes office, figure Republicans will double down on slashing labor costs to pillage and plunder the nation's capital assets, just out of spite of We the People. And there's nothing the Fed can do about it.
1 reply
"Nope" OK, where do you see places to slash labor costs to create jobs? Only by lower prices can gdp growth faster and create jobs and that requires cutting labor costs. I know that's true because that's what Reaganomics says.
1 reply
Imagine of Trump had Republicans fall behind him and agree to his added trillion in labor cost for infrastructure and military spending! That would not result in a jump of 20% in EPOP. Millions of marginal jobs would vanish.... But inflation would soar. I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't hit 5% real quick. Maybe 10%. The super low velocity would give inflation lots of string to run with.
1 reply
Very little investment. A uptick in asset churn price inflation. Few jobs result from asset churn. Jobs come from paying workers to build assets, but building assets that buyers can afford will yield zero profits, just enough to pay labor costs and deflated prices for land. Those with land worth $1000 an acre because it has no services are still holding out for the $10,000 nearby land was selling for a decade ago, but tax cutters are even less willing to build infrastructure to make the land development not cost a small fortune.
1 reply