The Clinton economy of the 90’s was the doppleganger of the Bush economy. It existed to solve the same problems that the Bush economy attempted to solve. The first was labor arbitrage, which was not invented in 2000. Labor arbitrage helped keep inflation under control – the US imported goods from low cost domiciles after shipping the production of those goods there. It paid for the goods with dollars and the rich of those nations promptly shipped those dollars back into the US – and then some.
They did so because the US offered two things – fantastic investment opportunities in the bleeding edge industries of the day; and a stable regime with a strong, indeed usually appreciating, currency. The Asian currency crisis taught everyone who didn’t already know, why you didn’t want to keep your money at home, even if you thought your economy was pretty strong. The money flooded back into the US but it was largely sterilized because it flowed into the equities and bonds and thus had much less effect on the economy than it would have otherwise (though it certainly had some, as those who lived in San Francisco at the time can attest.) Because it was going into largely paper assets, it didn’t generate much real world inflation and because it was going into paper assets it didn’t generate much in the way of increased energy use. It was also necessary to have assets that foreign investors could buy, because Clinton wanted to work on the federal deficit – so foreign investors had to have some other way to park their money in the US.
The IMF and the World Bank, along with the WTO, continued their long term management of the world economy. They opened up markets to US agricultural goods, they extended US intellectual property laws overseas to ensure that the US got paid for what what it was producing (a pattern which should be familiar to those who have studied Britain in the late nineteenth century) and they encouraged commodity producers to increase production and use the money they earned to buy goods from the developed world (notably agricultural goods). In other words, the world trade regime was used to push commodity prices down and open up markets to the two main things the US still sold – intellectual property and certain agricultural items.
Meanwhile the other leg which had to be managed was energy. Put simply, growth faster than energy supplies grew couldn’t be allowed. If demand was allowed to outstrip supply for energy (most importantly in oil, but also in natural gas) then producers would regain pricing power. The 70’s had taught the world what happens when oil producers have pricing power and the Clinton administration didn’t want a repeat.
The last twenty years had seen the amount of oil required to support a dollar of constant GDP drop significantly. The goal was to continue that trend. This was done in three primary ways. The first was the equity boom – Wall Street doesn’t use a lot of energy, flipping electrons and selling shares and bonds generates dollars without increasing energy inputs significantly. The second was to allow growth overseas – not only did you get the deflationary effects of labor arbitrage but improving standards of living in Asia used less energy than such production would have done here – North Americans are notable energy hogs. The third was the great internet gamble – the bet was that the virtual economy wouldn’t use up a lot of energy – flipping bits around doesn’t. That bet is one the Clinton administration lost, because what people decided to use the internet for (other than porn) was for storefronts. They sold people stuff on the internet – then shipped physical goods to them.
But, overall, it worked. It was based on labor arbitrage. It was based on making sure oil producers didn’t gain pricing power. It was based on having a way of sterilizing excess money which didn’t generate excess inflation in the economy proper (they shoved it into the internet bubble – an asset bubble with as few real-world effects as they could manage), so that monetary expansion could be pursued and that was based on having both a technological sector which everyone wanted in on and having a stable polity where people felt safe parking their money.
When the Bush administration came in they looked at the Clintonian economy and they decided to make some changes. But the basic problems they had to deal with were the same – how to deal with the oil problem, how to get the rest of the world to send money to the US, how to sterilize that money. Their solutions to those problems set the stage for the bushconomy which is currently unravelling before your eyes. More on that another week.
Related posts:
- Superfusion: How China and America Became One Economy
- World Economy Finding a Bottom Because the Keynesians are in China
- The Song Remains The Same: Too Much Money At The Top of The Economy
- Earth to CBO, Senate Finance and WaPo: “It’s the Economy, Stupid”
- Obama: Fast-Tracked Chrysler Bankruptcy Worked, Now I’m Doubling Down with GM





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

yo
How to deal with the oil problem. Yes indeed. I’d sure like to hear much more talk from the Dems about the oil problem.
Hi Ian
If we had a government that embraced pro-environmental innovation, we could have the kind of economic boom the computer revolution brought to the 90s.
As The Onion presciently put it, Bush decided to make sure that “the long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over.”
Ian, could please explain to me what you mean by “sterilizing” money here?
What part if any does outsourcing play in labor arbitrage?
So. Is the WTO a good thing for this country, or not?
I disagree. The Clinton economy set the stage for the Bush economy.
Elliott @ 6
If you get a large influx of money into an economy you should get inflation. More money/same amount of good services – there should be a general increase in prices.
But you don’t want that. Inflation is bad, mmmkay, and especially in the 90’s the hangover from stagflation still had central bankers and governments completey spooked – they were willing to do almost anything to strangle inflation in the cradle.
So you’ve got a big influx of money and you need to get rid of it somehow. You need to “sterilize it”. Putting it into the stock market is a good way to sterilize it, because most of it (not all by any means) doesn’t get into the general economy and cause normal people to buy a new car, bigger house, SUV, consumer goods, etc…
There are different ways to sterilize money (a very good way is to give it to the rich, then tax their butts off immediately after, which is what should have happened after Uncle Greeny openned the spigot in 98) but the stock market is the main way the Clinton admin did it. Bush chose to try and sterilize money into the housing bubble. That wasn’t 1/4 as smart, and didn’t work, for various reasons. But if I tell you all about that, I won’t have a post for next week ;)
joseph stiglitz (who was chair of clinton’s economic advisors) has said that they (the econ advisors) all thought that the US intellectual property laws pushed here and in our trade agreements were really, really stupid… and not just because people in developing nations would die for the lack of generic medications, but because the laws would, in the long term, undermine scientific research and stifle techological innovation here in the US.
Greenspan bashes Bush policies in memoir
Someone earlier made this comment at No Quarter:
Let’s just call Iraq our Gas Station.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 7
Outsourcing and offshoring is a big part of labor arbitrage. Basically any time you produce products or services overseas, or buy them from overseas rather than produce them at home when you would normally have produced them at home, that’s labor arbitrage.
All it means, really, is that there’s money to be made by making things cheaper – and if there’s a huge difference in labor costs, it only makes sense to run to where it is and ship the stuff back.
Should write an article on arbitrage some day. It’s a very interesting concept and ties into a lot of what’s going on, and wrong, in finance and trade. Arbitrage should close gaps. It’s not happening fast enough, and in many cases political forces are intervening to make sure the gaps dont’ close.
And, of course, if you’re an American, you don’t want to average your standard of living with the Chinese and the Indians. Where they meet won’t even be the middle.
cahuenga @ 9
The Bush economy had to solve the same problems, and it set the stage, yes. But the Bush economy was did not logically follow by necessity from the Clinton economy at all. If Gore had won (or if Clinton had been allowed a 3rd term) they would not have followed Bush’s economic policies and the results would have been quite different. That’s not to say Clinton did things the way I would necessarily have liked (I had criticisms at the time that were quite sincere) but it was a competent way of handling the problems that needed to be handled.
Gore would probably have been a fair bit more radical.
john in sacramento @ 12
Ya left out the best part…
“Republicans in Congress, he writes, ’swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose.’”
8-)
demi @ 13
And let’s just call this a Resource War.
Resource War I in the era of global warming.
selise @ 11
Agreed. But they did seem to help with the balance of payment issue in the short run. And the long run is so…. long.
Stiglitz is a fair bit more radical than, say, Rubin.
By the way folks, it’s 9-1 Bosox in the bottom of the 8th…!!! 8-)
Five year chart of the dollar against the Euro.
Heckuva job, Bushie.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 8
It’s a good thing for some people in the country. It’s probably not a good thing overall. It aids an abets the financialization of the US economy, which is not good for 95% of the population.
Ian Welsh @ 15
how about clinton made possible the bush economy?
Ian Welsh @ 10
Thank you for explaining that (and in a way I can understand:)
My mind was thinking along the lines of laundering and, well, that didn’t make much sense.
.
I will say it is unfair for you to leave us hanging, tho!
john in sacramento @ 12
Hahaha. Another rat fleeing the sinking ship. Greenspan aided and abetted him, and I ain’t letting him on the life raft.
Ian Welsh @ 15
If I may extend this a bit – in the absence of sound fiscal policy, how much easier was it to essentially loot the treasury for these chumps?
Ian Welsh @ 18
yeah, but stiglitz is still a reformer… so he’s not very radical. i confess to liking stiglitz, which of course means nothing, since i don’t know enough to be a good judge.
Now this might be a stretch, but would throwing a ton of money into the Iraq War as part of a stratgy to gain a foot hold near the Caspian Sea while at the same time importing a bunch of cheap (lead ladened) crap from China be considered Sterilizing Money?
selise @ 22
Yes. In the sense that saving money makes it possible for your wastrel son, when he inherits it, to go on a drinking and gambling and fighting spree…
Well, to be fair, also the money going to the rich made Bush possible in a lot of respects. But that didn’t start with Clinton. He did continue the policy and I disagree with it.
Clinton, in economic terms, was a damn good responsible moderate conservative (in the old sense) President.
Bush was the drunken younger brother who thought money grew on trees; us power was unlimited and that America’s credit was endless.
Clintonian style policies won’t fix the current bind, imo, it needs something more radical now. If Gore had gotten in a gradual transition might have been possible and a lot of pain could have been avoided. Now we’re going to have to take it on the chin (and somewhat farther south.)
Ian Welsh @ 15
One problem which neither addressed is the stagnation in real wages of the middle class.
demi @ 27
I would tend to put it in the “Keynesian stimulus” camp. But it does have a slight sterilizing effect, in that the amount that gets into normal people’s hands is quite low (which is why orthodox economists hate it as a stimulus measure.) It also has the advantage of pumping money into Republican constituencies and donors – the best type of stimulus – starve those who support the Dems, while rewarding your own base and donors.
Ian Welsh @ 24
It’s rather like all those conservatives who anointed Bush as the embodiment of all things conservative and who now say he never was a real conservative.
newtonusr @ 25
Much easier. Clinton saved so Bush could loot. That’s the problem with just “letting bygones be bygones” and having Dems spend the next eight years cleaning out the Augean stables the Bushies left behind. The next bunch of Republicans will just do it again. People forget that Reagan also ran up huge deficits, which Bill had to clean up. The cycle cannot be continued, each time it is worse.
Ian Welsh @ 24
calculated risk blog has been a feast of greenspan snark. here’s a recent one:
john in sacramento @ 12
And what’s the Big Fat Crushing Irony of that statment, kiddies?
In 2003, when a word from him could have stopped the madness, Greenspan (after opposing Bush’s 2001 tax cuts and making early rumblings of opposition to Bush’s planned extra round of tax cuts) shocked sane economists the world over and backed Bush’s tax cuts for the rich during a time of war even though any thinking human knew this would lead to skyrocketing deficits. (And as recently as 2005, he endorsed them again.)
Greenie is trying to pretend he never did this, but he did.
Since oil has a bit to do with this discussion, would I be right in agreeing with Alan Greenspan’s assertion in his recent book that the Iraq war is mostly about oil?
Ian, what do you think of Paulson?
Snoopy Dance, 10-1 final in Fenway!!! 8-)
Oklahoma kiddo @ 35
I don’t know if it was mostly about oil, but it was certainly about oil. If Iraq did not have oil, ask if it would never have been invaded. Doing the counterfactual tells you oil was one of the decisive factors.
You guys are going to make me give away my next post in comments. ;)
Phoenix Woman @ 34
another one for the gallery of American Traitors
Is it a true statement to make “that economically, the middle class is disappearing”?
Hugh @ 31
A-yep. When in fact Bush is the perfect embodiment of every major conservative principle, developed to its fullest extent.
Didn’t Clinton simply ride the current of technological evolution in the 1990s?
When buying a new computer every 12 months made great sense. And Sprint, et al, were re-wiring the country with fiber optic cable.
Hasn’t outsourcing simply been a function of captialism?
Haven’t both Bush and Clinton been pretty much bystanders insofar as the economy is concerned?
I don’t know if Stiglitz said this, but I also think the confounding of intellectual property laws (and a proomise of no-cost near 100% no-fault corporate international investment insurance) with the policy of free trade for goods and services was bad for two additional reasons:
1) in practice it denied benefits of expanded free trade to small farmers, businesspeople and workers in third world countries. with NAFTA, this produced renewed problems with unodcumented workers
2) may have seriously distorted real investment for purely financial reasons and insurance give-aways. In other words, how much labor arbitrage was due to real difference in real marginal labor cost of production, and how much to more competition for cheap jobs in third world because of 1) above, and perceived reduction in risk in starting up overseas operations becuase of financial market crony capitalism (excpet the cronies are multinational organizations, not only national governments).
Stiglitz, along with some others, won Swedish Bank “Nobel” economics prize for how incomplete information effects markets, including labor markets. Everyone agrees that it is sound and brilliant research. But when he tried to work through implications of his theories at World Bank, they ran him off after 3 years, rather than give his ideas reasonable consideration. I remember quite a bit of pompous huffing based on bare assertion from conservative free market macro economists.
Elliott @ 39
Give Greenspan a break.
If Bush had followed Clinton’s policies and paid off the national debt,
the implications would have been catastrophic.
Elliott @ 36
He’s competent, but he’s agreed to be a team player and that limits his competence. He is also, fundamentally, a right winger who seems to believe in financialization as the way to go and that the rich getting richer and the middle class geting smushed isn’t that big a deal.
Not a fan, but for a Bush secretary he’s not half bad. Er, so to speak.
Is there a remedy for the foreclosure overlaod?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 40
What middle class?
T’ain’t no thing no mo.
Hugh @ 29
Yep. Real median wages for men has been essentially flat since 1974. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush… Made no difference.
Did Big Blue just rebound from their dismal start… 38-0 over Notre Dame? Is there still life in the Big House???
Ian Welsh @ 28
i really hate clinton’s trade policies and the imf’s (controlled by the usa) shock therapy…. but comparing him to what came before and after i suppose i should cut him some slack.
Are we in for a major recession, or worse?
Jonathan @ 42
No, you can do things to make tech revs possible, or you can do things to make them difficult. Clinton (and Gore, who deserves huge credit) deserves credit for doing what they could to make it possible.
The Bush administration otoh, has done everything possible to strangle the telecom revolution which should have occured in this decade. And pretty much succeeded.
The whole “do presidents matter” thing is to big to do justice to in a comment, but the short story is “yes, they do, and Bush proved it”. The reason it didn’t look like they mattered much is because of consensus politics – when there was a consensus about how to do things it looked like Presidents didn’t matter much.
Outsourcing is not a simple function of capitalism. China is spending 10% of its GDP to keep its currency stable with the US dollar. Japan has had its prime at 0 or .5% forever. That’s massive government intervention and is not indicative of free markets (it might be indicative of managed capitalism, but that’s another conversation…)
selise @ 50
Nafta, was the worst treaty Clinton coulda formulated…!!! 8-(
Oklahoma kiddo @ 46
Try here.
Ian, Do you think that it’s possible POLITICALLY to develop alternative fuel sources. There are some parts of the country that could benefit from wind, others sun, and others ethanol. It seems to me that it would also create better paying jobs. What do you think?
CTuttle @ 49
we’ll find out next week
Oklahoma kiddo @ 51
Unfortunately, we haven’t learned, so we’re doomed to repeat… …the Gilded Age ushered in the Great Depression… …all the prime indicators are there…!!! 8-(
Oklahoma kiddo @ 51
Yes. The only question is when (starting this year, or can they hold the worst of it off till late next/early 09) and how bad – and whether we get stagflation. But it’s coming and it is going to be ugly.
I’m tending towards “they’ve lost control”. I think even the pork Congress has and will vote, plus Fed intervention may not be enough.
But then, there’s an old saying “don’t bet agains the Fed” so I may be wrong. Hard to tell. Is the junkie so strung out it can’t get one more rise out of a hit of stimulus? We’ll see. I’ve been burned before by thinking the answer must be no.
OT, Tuttle after last night until the Sox got the tenth run, I wasn’t sure.
cahuenga @ 48
Actually, real wages under Clinton did reverse the downward trend and actually went up, particularly in the second half of his term (1998 saw a rise of nearly 3%, the biggest since, well, 1974). Bush came into office and the downward slide recommenced.
JPL @ 55
The problem is that a “poltical” consensus is gathering for coal – because “clean” coal allows politicians to give a huge subsidy to the adirondacks.
However, it is possible, and could lead to a huge economic benefit if done right. And benefit far more than just one region. But right now no politicians seem to really have the vision. Playing pork barrel is much easier.
Be very wary of the “energy independence” meme – it is likely to mean huge amounts of coal.
JPL @ 59
I know, I didn’t want to jinx’em by gloating earlier…!!! ;-)
Ian Welsh @ 54
Good Link.
I somehow agree with the comment about rewarding those too stupid to do the math, tho.
Notwithstanding the lending institutions which suckered those who chose not to think and only wanted more money in pocket to spend on Dumb Stuff, I don’t want to see people thrown out of their homes.
Do ya think some of those people voted for Bush?
This is a great overview post. I would like some links so can get facts and figures easily. What is the evidence that commodity prices fell mainly due to the international Clinton-Rubin rules? There was also a long term investment cycle going on. For minerals and farming, the length of investment cycles can be 20-30 years. (by investment cycles, I mean boom-bust because of time it takes to build, resulting excess capacity, and lag time waiting to make sure profitable to rebuild or renew capacity).
But I agree that there was some fraud in the Washington Consensus neo-free market approach to the international economy, and it worked in favor of the US and its pals.
Another result of that was that it organized less developed countries (some of whom are not really less developed at all in many ways, just poorer in terms of average income) to organize and revolt. I think Brazil is the leader and the current situation is basically a stalemate on trade talks -the infamous “Doha Round” I think it is called, with both sides holding their lines. That is not good. Not good in terms of more opportunity to make real progess on real problems. Also not good from plutocrat perspective, because I am sure they thought they had embarked on their thousand year reign, and their plans for expanding power have ground to a halt on that front.
It might also be an underpublicized source of the plutocrat and neocon panic. Our international help is getting uppity, lead by Brazilians, who are supposed to stick to providing fashion models, vacation resorts, cheap commodities with no fuss, and carnival. How soon before OPEC takes up the example and gets uppity again?
Paying off the on-book national debt was good policy, especially since the primary method for doing so was social security taxes. If that debt were paid, the amount put into the social security trust fund would be quite manageable. Of course, it is still manageable, but a few more years of republican government, and the only solution will be means testing, which is grossly unfair to those of us who diligently saved for the future.
Phoenix Woman @ 60
Clinton managed to bump it back up to 1975 levels. No matter how you paint it and no matter how partisan you are it is still pathetic.
Ian Welsh @ 54
I have looked at that. And it sounds good. But where does the billion come from? Is it just a case of ‘a billion here and a billion there’?
And you like this remedy? Bush claims we can’t just bail out people who have made bad decisions and bought houses they could not afford.
Will the bailout go to those with small homes as well as to those with large houses with huge mortgages? And will a billion be enough?
Wow, you guys are amazing. This is way over my head. When a financial dummy like me looks at the economy and the results of these W years, I see this:
The incentives to produce goods to sell lies in “buy low, sell high”. Cheap labor and cheap parts is low overhead, and then sell high to whoever can afford it. There went the jobs.
Clinton and Bush’s support of NAFTA is devastating – for many reasons, I think.
When the jobs went, the ability to purchase went, the access to healthcare went, the ability to keep up with mortgages and credit cards went away and are still going away.
The mega corporations, like Monsanto, have usurped the agricultural world. They have patented seeds. How the heck can you patent a seed. It is affecting people all over the world, because they have patents on rice.
People with money to invest in the Bush economic venture, invested overseas…buy low…now that those companies have profited (because we are forced to buy their goods at a huge profit margin)…sell high.
Bush and his cronies are all about wheeling and dealing in personal fortunes. They have created an economy that has paid them well. Perhaps the investments that are not based upon anything tangible will come back and bite them in the ass, but I don’t think the Bush cronies will suffer. The upper middle class wealth will be the ones who suffer from things like investment in mortgages with no value behind them, but the Bush cronies have their hands on the energy. They own the life blood of the world.
I’m thinking it sounds like a bunch of desperate “used to be living the American dream” people…destitute and having to either join there armies or work for their mega corporations, and genocide in places where they can no longer grow rice and other agricultural products, because some mega corporation has a freaking patent.
I’m sure that I am way, way radically, off-base on all of this, because I really don’t understand the financial world, but it sure stinks.
Hey Ian,
Do you see hyperinflation in our future? I don’t see any other way to pay down the national debt.
A very thought provoking piece – I’m gonna have to read it a couple times to get a handle on all the points Mr. Welsh has made here.
Phoenix Woman @ 60
Some charts in two posts I did a long time ago for FDL (one and two). PW is correct, however inequality also soared during Clinton’s period. But he did do a good job with an essentially conservative economy and he did do what he could for average folks.
There was more than a trickle down.
wesgpc @ 64
I concur, the elite are feeling the tremors of their failed trickle-down scenarios… Globally!!! 8-)
The foreclosure problem has a real solution, to be introduced by Senator Durbin. This bill will enable people to file Chapter 13 and change the terms of their mortgages to match the value of their homes and pay that off in 30 years at a court-approved market rate. It has a number of other valuable provisions.
The main advantage is that it will only help people who did not act too stupidly in purchasing their homes. It screws investors, but not as badly as they would be in the event of foreclosure, and it cuts the Gordian Knot of CDOs. It won’t help rank speculators who bought condos planning to flip them.
Ian Welsh @ 61
Don’t you think that we can lessen our dependence on the middle east if we persued multiple sources, if we lived in the magical world where politics didn’t play a part?
Hmmm… Huskers or Trojans…???
Ian Welsh @ 61
The pity is that there have been big breakthroughs in solar technology lately — including one where a thin film can be placed onto most any window to turn it into a solar collector — and also efficiently collect UV energy without allowing it to degrade the cell (UV is notorious for damaging conventional solar cells). Suddenly, windows go from being mainly energy leaks to energy collectors.
Corporations exist to make profit.
The U.S. government supports this goal in order to grow the economy, in order to manage the national debt and in order to manage entitlement programs.
Everything else is just detail.
CTuttle @ 75
CT, we’re talking about Money here! ;)
If there anthing I understand less than economics, it’s sports!
(But, I vicariously feel your joy.)
Tuttle, Trojans!
58 Ian Welsh says: September 15th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I’m tending towards “they’ve lost control”. I think even the pork Congress has and will vote, plus Fed intervention may not be enough.
—-
I agree, certainly with respect to securitization of mortgage debt, and the rather new macro-finance field of ‘bubble-mangement’. I think Greenspan just issued a mild mea-culpa on the latter.
The interesting question is -how much have the economic and fianancial technocrats lost control of?
I think they were forced to wander into uncharted territory wrt to bubble-management, securitization and internatinal finance to keep the ship uprigtht in the face of incompetnet, incoherent and dishonest fiscal policy of the Cheney-bush administration.
Cheney’s fiscal policy is summed by the famous words “It’s our due.”, that is, what can my pals grab as function of latest election reults. That is worth impeachment right there, in my book.
CTuttle @ 75
haven’t decided yet
demi @ 78
Spoil Sport! The fdl sports fanatics just seem to be absent this thread, prolly watching the action…!!! 8-)
Ian Welsh @ 71
And from what I’ve seen Clinton was the one who really put the gini index pedal to the metal.
wespgc
Agreed on the long term cycle. And, in fact, there was a long term downward commodity price cycle going on that started around 70 and ended around 2000. However it was aided and abetted very strongly by IMF/World bank policy (which as I note in the article started before Clinton/Rubin) and by the way WTO (and in the old days, GATT) rules work.
I’m embarassed to admit I wrote this mostly from my head, so I don’t have links to hand, but there’s an overview here:
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ird-world/
I’ll think on some sources (I get more of this from books than from online) and see if I can stick it in a future post.
Phoenix Woman @ 76
please please! We just can’t level West Virginia.
Ian Welsh @ 61
I think you meant the Appalachians. The other huge coal reserves are in Wyoming, and there are a few other huge deposits. Of course the problem with coal is the enormous amount of pollution it creates. There are no realistic cleaning methods as of yet.
egregious @ 69
Or deflation, or stagflation. But one of the three. Yes. Right now the bets seem to be against deflation and for some sort of inflation. That’s Bernanke’s bias.
masaccio @ 73
That’s a good plan. He deserves credit.
Elliott @ 85
How many Ranges have been razed to date…? How long can U-WV keep calling themselves the Mountaineers…???
“Be very wary of the “energy independence” meme – it is likely to mean huge amounts of coal.”
Think about this. We in Oklahoma sit atop the second most abundant natural gas reserves in the U.S. Yet we import coal from Wyoming to satisfy almost all of our electrical needs.
Generally speaking, I’m not a fan of loose money, whether Clintonian or shrubbish loose money.. and the asset bubbles that inevitably accompany them, but shrub’s assinine policies effectively undermined the ability to use either fiscal or monetary tools as effective levers of policy. I’m not sure why he did this — other than to artificially prolong the bubble, at any cost, by any means necsesary. Maybe they wanted an uncontrolled hard landing to test our faith or something.. just one of the many disadvantages of living in a country ruled by militant jihadists.
masaccio @ 86
Er, yes, Appalachinas. Brain circuit cross-fried there. I agree it’s very polluting. I just don’t think, compared to the possibility of using pork to buy votes, that ranks as a major concern with enough politicians to matter. I’m also not a fan of chopping the top off mountains.
Ian, in the FWIW category, the bill has a lot of academic support, and support from bankruptcy professionals. Barney Frank has said he would support the Chapter 13 part of the proposal. The banking and credit industries are desperately anxious to prevent any adjustment to the Bankruptcy Code. Their chief monkey supporters told Congress that it was perfect in every word and comma, and should never be changed.
CTuttle @ 89
707!
wesgpc @ 64
that’s an excellent point. by the end of clinton’s term (or at least by 2002), i think the “washington concensus” had been pretty much rejected. and now, in latin america, venezuela seems to be the lender of choice (instead of the imf – and unlike the imf, venezuela’s loans do not come with policy requirement). from cepr:
Phoenix Woman @ 76
… And keep the inside cool by filtering and absorbing the heat…!!!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 90
Why aren’t these gas reserves being exploited?
84 Ian Welsh says: September 15th, 2007 at 5:03 pm:
Books are fine! Support your local library!
I am ashmed to admit I have not followed this at all for over a year. I should no where to get them myself, but booknotes are lost and papers buried under piles.
If you could help out with providing some links or good book references in future posts, I wouls surely put them to use.
thanks.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 90
That’s amazing.
Phoenix Woman @ 60
There may be some distortion in the Clinton numbers due to the dot com bubble. Even so he had only a couple of good years and with the bursting of the dot com bubble growth in wages growth went away.
I would like to add that the dot com bubble like most speculative bubbles could be seen for miles and developed over years. It was a real failure on Clinton’s part that he decided to ride it rather than fix it.
I’m just a mom and definitely not an economist but recently I have been noticing that our GNP has had a downward trend in consumer spending and an upward trend in gov. spending and trade. Our democracy after FDR allowed for a strong GNP based on consumer spending because we have had such a strong middle class and it has been disappearing for awhile. IMO upward mobility occurs for all classes because of the strength of the middle class. Unfortunately the BUSHIES just got greedy.
Jonathan @ 77
It sure looks that way, especially under republicans, but also when democrats are in charge. I think the problem is exactly what Michael Moore said in Sicko: In France, the government is afraid of the people. In the US, the people are afraid of the government. Generally, we just get up and go to work. No one here is willing to risk whatever they actually have in the hope of improving things. It makes me want to move to France.
Heh, Larry the Cable Guy, introduced the the Huskers, Reggie Bush intro’ed the Trojans…!!!
More from “Bubbles” Greenspan:
Iraq war was about oil: Greenspan
Elliot, as to:
Better ask Christy about that one, if she wanted to live in the flat lands she would move to Husker Ville…….KneeHiBraska
JPL @ 101
Yes’m, that’s exactly what happened…!!!
Hugh @ 100
He was crippled. When Greenspan opened the spigot in 98 , the correct thing to do fiscally was to raise tax rates on the rich. Instead Clinton had to spend all his time fighting off spurious impeachment charges. Raising taxes was out of the question politically. I lay this one not at Clinton’s hand, but at the GOPs.
theExile @ 105
that was cute
theExile @ 105
I thought shrubbuds Massey Coal and company were already doing a good job levelling that state, and much of Kentucky to boot, what with their mountaintop removal tactics…
Ian, I checked out your suggestion. It looks like something a vulture capitalist might want to do. It would be easier for the government to do it, though. Maybe we could earn a profit off it.
I do enjoy your posts, but now I’m off to the movies.
Blub @ 109
Touche, Blub!
95 selise says September 15th, 2007 at 5:09 pm:
“i think the “washington concensus” had been pretty much rejected. and now, in latin america, venezuela seems to be the lender of choice (instead of the imf – and unlike the imf, venezuela’s loans do not come with policy requirement)”
—–
I agree. And the idea that the imf policy requirements may not have been good medicine is not soc*alist or hippie bullshit. I know for a fact that there has been a huge amount of academic economic and statistical research on whether the imf policies can be shown to make any difference at all.
If the imf policies were sound, it is hard to make a convincing case from the historical record. Hard to make a convincing case that there are uniformly bad, as well. But on the other hand, the costs of the imf policy requirements were immediate and obvious. If the benefits are only barely apparent long term after lots of statistical fiddling, is it any wonder that there was widespread resentment and resistence to them? And that they were administered arrogantly, and any deviationists were driven from the Temple (see Stiglitz, Joseph), that added insult to injury.
~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~
NYT
Blub @ 109
Yes to Kentucky being leveled. And aided and abetted by Senator Toothless Mitch McConnell, R-
Big BidnessKentucky. Fortunately, it is slowly looking as if his constituents are catching on that Mitch ain’t on their side in most issues.Ian, I’m sorry if I’ve distracted your thread, from an ex-pat(Alta) to you!!! Excellent Post!!! *g*
Elliott @ 97
That is the relevant question. ;0)
Ian Welsh @ 107
PH’s numbers are “real wages” not real “median” wages, and certainly not real median wages for males. No doubt real wages went up under Clinton, but averages (not median)figures hide the fact that the vast majority of the gains are concentrated at the top.
CTuttle @ 103
Cable guy running his mouth about the Husker D while SC skeedaddles up the field 95 yards in what, 4 plays!
dakine01 @ 114
yeah.. you’d think that constituents might object sooner if their elected politicos mass-cleanse them from their homes and then salt the land they left behind, but I guess some of them do catch on eventually.
raven @ 118
Heh, and they had’em pinned inside the five, first run, 50 yarder…!!!
Ian, I still think that all income should be taxed the same with one deductible of 60000. That would take politics out of the equation. Anything above 60000 would be taxed probably at 20 percent. The deduction would have to change with inflation of course. I’m not sure how I would tax corporations though. For those that think that’s not progressive just calculate what rate you are paying. If you earn 100,000 and pay 10000 in fed taxes that’s 10 percent.
cahuenga @ 116
A great graphical portrayal of the income distribution in the US can be found here.
CTuttle @ 119
Rut ro, better get back to the “dismal science”!
Ian, One more thing maybe two rates one over 400,000 also. I have a real problem with unearned income taxed differently than earned income.
JPL @ 121
The EIC is a necessary financial boon for many families… It usually staves off crucial debts…!!! 8-(
Ian Welsh @ 107
He could have used the bully pulpit. I mean how much does it take to point out that some storefront whose only equity was the furniture capitalized to the tune of hundreds of millions is just insanity. And that investors should wake up. He probably could have threatened to have the SEC take a look see, but he didn’t. Like I said, he rode it rather than try to fix it. Tax policy had little to do with it.
Hey, what is with these nerds and their football? We are talking economics and finance here. Hot hot hot times.
The Trojans have to start pinned deep or else the running backs don’t get warmed up or have any exercise.
I never understood why anyone would want to go to SC, but they’ve certainly had some kick ass football teams. In recent years it seems they should play in the NFL, just for competition, well until they meet the Ducks of course.
theExile @ 128
Dan Fouts agrees with ya…!!!
Tuttle, Correct me if I’m wrong but the EIC was part of welfare reform so that could be treated differently.
theExile @ 127
The Ducks are all over Fresno State like a cheap suit!
Ian:
What might the more ‘radical’ Gore economics have looked like?
Given the glaring and obvious Bush ‘failures’
(disasters) how might any future US politician be honest with the American people and , at the same time step free of the ‘divine right’ of money – articulated clearly by the so-called ‘neo-liberals’ from Reagan onwards including Bill Clinton and, presumably, HRC?
JPL @ 130
No, it’s an IRS entity entirely…!!!
Last week the Bushies ruled to make mountain/valley destruction even easier.
Before the “tailings” (rockpiles that used to be mountaintops) had to be dumped more than a scant 100 ft from the streams that run through the valleys.
Now Big Coal can just bury the ancient streams and rivers of Appalachia.
resulting in drier, hotter land…
ensuring less rainfall in adjoining watersheds…the ones serving the Mid-Atlantic and Ohio Valley urban areas..already running short on water supplies.
To keep Big Coal down and the mountains tall, please help the good folks at Mountain Justice Summer.
They’re the real deal.
I am led to understand that we spend $12,000,000,000 per month on the wars. If that suddenly stopped, what effect if any would that have on our economy?
raven @ 131
Hawaii-Fresno State rivalry is legendary…!!! Go, Ducks…!!!
David W. Bartoo @ 132
I think Gore would have moved strongly towards renewable energy and carbon emission controls. At the time (remember oil was still low) that would have been pretty radical.
(Aside, not radical): note also that MS would probably have been broken up, sparing us all the horror that is Vista and spurring on the real possibility of some actual technological advances rather than MS bloatware.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 135
…uh, free up $12 Bil for domestic consumption, per month…???
Oklahoma kiddo @ 135
Recession.
Ian Welsh @ 138
JPL @ 139
I’ve heard of a person of few words but this is ridiculous!
this is a fascinating article. i haven’t read the likes of it before.
“… a way of sterilizing money so it did not generate inflation..”
that’s a new idea for me.
i wonder if the chinese gov’t, with its enormous infrastructure expenditures, is considering this “solution” to inflation. or maybe they have another.
could one infer that greenspan and clinton/rubin allowed the u.s. technology bubble to proceed so that foreign investment could be “reduced” in the trillion dollar losses of the tech bubble bursting?
Kirk at 134
Thanks much for the heads-up and info.
Re the energy component of this discussion if you want a sobering assessment on “peak energy” (different from peak oil), you can lok here.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2960
I don’t agree with everything it says but I do agree that both in terms of population and energy use we are living way beyond our means and it can’t last.
I would also point out that ethanol is a boondoggle. Coal liquefication is a big time con. Clean coal is essentialy untested. And while carbon sequestration is a good idea all the carbon associated with the energy going up to the point of sequestration still adds to the environmental carbon load.
A good point Ian, ah, it is to dream….
BTW, last week Michigan, this week Fresno State, your time is coming Trojans, quack, quack! Didn’t the Wolverines carnivorize the Pope’s team today? I couldn’t watch after 31-0 at halftime, and the Wolverines couldn’t beat anybody till they met the
FightingBarely Breathing Irish.Ian;
God’s unseen hand certainly does not allow us many options.
Might it not be time to encourage more debate as to the role economies could play in an more egalitarian societies? After all economies are manmade. Why not insist on a better product?
orionATL @ 142
The Chinese have very significant inflation. The headline numbers underplay it – there’s practically no inflation in the interior, but on the coast you’ve got 18-20% real estate inflation a year, for example.
Chinese are openning huge amounts of brokerage accounts, I’d say that’s definitely one way the Chinese government is trying to sterilize the money. The problem they have is keeping the Yuan steady requires them to pring a ton of money, and much of it inevitably finds its way back to the economy proper.
Are we prepared to say that the wars must continue to avoid recession?
Hugh @ 144
True, case in point is Brazil is decimating the Amazon Basin to plant Sugar Cane to produce the ethanol they’re so reliant upon now…!!! 8-(
CTuttle @ 138
First,it won’t stop suddenly. Second, $150 billion is not going to break the government or the economy. But I do agree that it could be spent in much better ways.
David W. Bartoo @ 146
Always willing to think about it. Capitalism won’t last forever, it wasn’t made by God for all times. But so far other than capitalism tempered by socialism we don’t seem to have figured out a better model.
And getting it wrong in practice can have very severe consquences (see: USSR).
Oklahoma kiddo @ 51
Or worse.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 148
Of course not. Just know that ending the pork will cause a recession. Nothing wrong with recessions, they always happen. They key is making sure the recession isn’t worse than necessary, that people are taken care of, and that the next expansion is actually a good one rather than the crappy we one just had.
David W. Bartoo @ 146
It seems to me any number of economies can be invented.
The real question is, to which economies will people subscribe?
Ian Welsh @ 150
What does god have to do with this?
~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~
Perhaps we could put the 12 billion dollars per month savings on ‘no war’ into WPA type projects and health care, etc.
Ian;
I agree with your assessment, but wonder what example you might suggest showing a successful marriage of that type? What chances have we that
such a creature might develop here? Barring catastrophe?
Sorry Raven but I was watching the game and hit submit in error. I was hoping that nobody would notice but of course the raven would. Have you been outside to enjoy our cool weather?
Jonathan, how was the march? If you already told everyone, which article and comment # approximately?
TD, Huskers!!!
Huskers keeping up with the Trojans
Ian Welsh @ 151
There are taboo words in our discussion of economics. One of these is soc*alism. We have to call it federalism and even then there is a bad connotation for many. Still there are many things the government does better than the private sector. Social Security and healthcare both come to mind. The other thing is that capitalism has a boom to bust cycle built into it. This continues as the bubbles which form every 5-10 years attest.
~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~
raven;
I was being tongue in cheeky,very!
raven @ 155
Sorry, what is the G word a no no if it’s not in caps?
David W. Bartoo @ 162
Snarky…
raven @ 155
A rhetorical flourish. If God hands down a system for all time, then presumably it is eternal and perfect and cannot be improved on. A lot of people act as if Capitalism is the end time economic system and that there can never be anything better. I think it’s an economic system created by specific historic circumstances and that it will neither last forever nor prove to be the summit of human creation (unless we kill ourselves off soon.)
David W. Bartoo @ 146
I think that an economy that rewarded the production of “real” goods that are useful to “real” people (creating “true” value) instead of rewarding those who shuffle paper and electrons would be a good start!
The more useful a person’s position is to a healthy society, generally the more undervalued is his/her contribution. Meanwhile the Ken Lay types are rewarded for being parasites. I took some business and accounting and constantly argued with my accountant instructors because I didn’t feel that learning how to “exploit” people and situations was an honourable approach to life.
There are some professions that do good work and are rewarded pretty well like medical doctors, some engineers and the like. But nobody really gets rich by contributing much to society and the scammers or “business folk” walk away with the lion’s share of the proceeds. Once everything is outsourced to the cheapest producer, who is going to buy any of the cwap (as Elmer Fudd would say)?
JPL @ 159
Yea, I took a fifth grader to her first Georgia game. We got there just in time to get a picture of her with UGA and she seemed to enjoy the game even though she is much more artsy than sportsy!
Okay, okay.
CTuttle and Raven.
Ya got me.
I’m watchin’ ABC and the you know what game.
(but, I’ve got the sound off, ’cause Mr. Moore’s at the B-3.)
Loo Hoo. @ 159
Loo Hoo,
My immediate take, without much reflection, is at comment 46 in the previous thread.
so,
if the stock market is used, or can be used, as a monetary policy device -a way to avoid inflation,
what would happen if i innocently meandered into the stock market with my life savings,
as i think the bush plan for social security would have encouraged me to do?
would i have been a little old chump who would have just had to bear his (and her) loss so the economy could remain relatively price-stable?
David W. Bartoo @ 157
I think the Scandinavian countries are doing pretty well. Some problems, but overall they’re pretty happy with their systems. Most of Western Europe has systems which seem to work pretty well. So does Canada, for that matter.
For the US… well, I actually expect catastrophe, and that will either turn the US towards something better or something worse. Not sure which it’ll be. In a very tiny way, trying to put my finger on the scale towards “better”.
And a lot of poeple are getting tired of things like the health care system. They may wind up getting sold “universal insurance” which won’t solve the problem, but they might get universal healthcare. The frog is being boiled, but I think it’s beginning to notice.
Then if we have the right (advance and anticipatory) economic plan in place we could stop the wars quickly with no harm to the economy?
raven @ 164
Word within the edited word…
That is hysterical. I was saying in my comment at #162 that s*c*alism was a taboo word and in fact it gets caught in the sp*m filters. Thanks for the confirmation.
~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~
Ian Welsh @ 166
Thanks. . .I think! The furthest I got with econ was Father Guido Sarducci’s 5 minute University. Economics, buy low sell high!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 148
This war has nothing to do with economic prosperity, aside from the dubious connection with oil prices.. and even then, one could make a very good case that the oil price volatility from the political uncertainty created by the war is worse for the markets than just not buying oil from Saddam.
Simply speaking, this war does not — and will never — require anywhere near the “total war footing” of the second world war, which would be needed to create any perceptable economic boost. ..nor will any war shrub could start aside from picking one with Russia or China… and I don’t think either of their rulers are stupid enough to get gulled into one.
demi @ 168
Didn’t mean to entice… yet, it is a vital game for both…!!!
raven @ 174
Excellent. I ‘member that.
Jonathan @ 170
But did you wear your jungle fatigues?
Exile @ 165
Most excellent! Yes, maybe there really can be a debate. There SHOULD be. There NEEDS to be. Thank you!
orionATL @ 170
You would have received earnings under the stock market average and vultures would have slowly leached away your money with management fees. On average. A lot of people would have lost their shirts, a few would have done very well.
But the house (Wall Street) would have done great. It’s wonderful when you get your cut no matter whether your clients do well or not.
Someone once wrote a book on Wall Street asking “Where are all the client’s yachts” iirc…
SS privatization was about creating another bull market to draw in foreign equity and give foreigners a reason to park their money in the US again other than CDOs, Treasuries and so on.
CTuttle @ 177
I have the picture in picture going on. Alabama-Arkansas is a brawl too.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 172
In principle, yes. In practice, probably not. You really do need to reduce spending for a time, and reduce Keynesian stimulus. Sometimes a junkie just needs to come down. But you can reduce the bad times significantly, aye.
raven at 179
nein, mein frere
Jonathan @ 184
I like wearing mine to stuff like that, pisses people off.
IAN @ 170
I suspect you are correct, but a healthy, informed debate might help tip the baalance a bit. What do you think?
Ar* th*re *ny w*rds th*t d*n’t tr*gger th* sp*m f*lters?
CT
Played my flute in Marching Band.
Took till my Senior year to ask what a first down was.
I followed the game the rest of the season.
acourse, I was a Senior, and above all the rest of the youngins and the cheer, cheer, rah, rah stuff! Ha!
(BTW, my friend Greg P. was a drummer and he got kicked out causa his hair was too long!)
What about if we end the pork and the war and raise taxes?
Hugh @ 185
Ah, like George Carlin’s routine?
David W. Bartoo @ 187
Oh I agree. The country definitely needs more economic literacy. 19th century Americans could debate inflation, gold vs. silver, etc… very well and very literately.
Seems to me that the word “capitalism” is virtually meaningless and should be avoided..
Better to discuss the many countless degrees of govt. contribution to the key economic decisions…All governments do it- some are just more subtle about it. The US tries to support prices in agriculture and profits in energy etc etc..The Japanese determine exactly which industries the country will excel in. Some countries virtually dictate the price and production quantities of all key commodities…
So which are “capitalist”- well all of em and none of em.
As usual- it is popular to use language that suggests black/white—all/nothing—on/off…
If fact- it’s a matter of countless shades of grey.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 189
More likely the repubs will pork the end if you know what I’m sayin!
Oklahoma kiddo @ 189
If you raise taxes you need to start spreading it around. Number of ways you can do that. I’d rebuild the country’s energy net, and set up a way to refit all buildings for energy efficiency and production (there are market ways to do this, another post perhaps). But in gross economic terms – take the money, spend it on other things – schools, infrastructure, research, etc…
Are goopers the porkers or the porkees?
Thanks, Ian, for a really good post. I need to learn more about the economy and how it all works. Can’t wait to read how Bush ruined the economy when you get that up. I don’t suppose it will be a pretty thing.
Thanks, too, to Jonathan. Great news about the march, too bad it wasn’t covered properly by the MSM. Are they seriously trying to go out of business?
damn.
i’m learning a lot here.
but a lot of what i’m learning don’t sound good for folks like me and the missus.
it’s really scary to think how little protection us ordinary folk have vis-a-vis these national and international policies, if indeed they can be called “policies”,
rather than accidents of the stock and bond markets.
BTW what I remember of the Bush privatization plan only a portion of someone’s social security payment would be available for investment, he/she would have little or no control of where it was invested, and little of the capital gains would go back to the private investor. In short, it was an even bigger shell game than advertized.
rwcole @ 196
i’d say the “merican” public is the porkee.
Golly gosh, Ian, every time I encounter one of these posts, I learn more.
I really should thank Greenhorn for that October “the “worst may well be over” for the U.S. housing industry” because that’s when I said uh oh! and started delving into it extensively.
It just seemed like Enron redux … and even now, all the MSM misdirection has mostly been “the sub-prime market”. Even today, that damnable phrase is the focus. It’s not dissimilar to every news article about Padilla always mentioned “the dirty bomb”. Look over here, shiny!
The clues were there and once I started connecting the dots, it was evident sub-prime was one one factor in the debacle.
Nonetheless, untold commenters on the high moral ground sneered at the stupid and greedy. Rather in the find old British tradition of “I’m all right, Jack!” My rebuttal to those predicted the meltdown that we see now — including the damage to pension funds.
I find it passing strange that all the financial pundits praised Enron’s smoke and mirrors, right up to the collapse. Even the SEC gave the nod to the Arthur Anderson firm’s bizarre accounting practices.
And when the smoke cleared, it was another kind of ’shock and awe’ but no-one was responsible. Same now.
“This has been a drag on the economy,” Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said at a press briefing today after he testified in front of the House Financial Services Committee. “I do believe that we are at or near the bottom.”
from Bloomberg.com 21 Jun
Whistling in the graveyard.
When the stock market started going down, and the spot price of gold followed suit, I said, WTF?
Aug 8: the FED and the Treasury have assured us that all is well and the sub-prime worries well contained. Meanwhile, the four “Men in Black” of the Plunge Protection Team had to have been making interventions.
Then the not-so-well contained disaster required several very visible interventions.
Well, people are now learning that when you follow the government’s example of spending more than you earn, pain will follow.
Ian Welsh @ 195
That is the answer I was looking for. Good discussion.
It is interesting to me that Bush hit the wall in terms of public support- not when he invaded Iraq- or not even after many fuckups there- but rather after threatening to fuck over social security..For some reason no one wants to talk about what a huge miscalculation that was politically and how the grey ghosts ate him for lunch….
Why? My guess is that many hope another gooper prez will try it again with a better political approach- so they don’t want to give it a decent burial.
Ok Ian
you got us
Same time next week for the next episode?
Elliott @ 204
Unless there’s breaking news, aye, next week is “how the Bush economy worked” (it ain’t really working any more)
Ian Welsh @ 205
I know, I’m feeling the pain…
Thanks so much!
Keynesian economics and US New Deal still considered not only s*c**l*sm but downright commie Red in US. That attitude was behind political support for US privatization of social security and attempts at stealth elimination of medicare. Besided desire of investment firms to have a captive market of new investors. Can’t worry about the jargon, you will be called a soc*alist no matter what, unless you are following the corporations’ script.
I think the soc*alism/capitalism dichotomy is outmoded, in the real world, as opposed to the fantasy world of officially sanctioned US policy discussion. The “Scandinavian model” has been quite successfull recently. But they are different countries, and each has combine a unique mix of capitalism and what we would call soc*alism. Some of Danish labor market innovations would be called ‘right winng’ here but they are combined with a robust social safety net. Swedes will get pissed if you call them socialists. They are VIKINGS, don’t you forget it, and if they are such namby pamby soc*alists, how come they have bought so many of our failing companies and made them successful?
Canada and Sweden have introduced partial social security privatization. But it was done right, and did not endanger the basic policy for people with low incomes. They were not scams designed to steal peoples’ money, so of course, Bushco paid no attention to them.
We heard a lot about the Chilean approach, which is more scam than real honest privatization. Didn’t hear much about UK attempt, which was half scam, and parts of it blew up very quickly.
~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~
Ian;
I’ve really appreciated your perspectives, insights and clarity. A true pleasure.
Phoenix Woman is upstairs
have a few things to say, first about labor arbitrage and then about greenspan
it’s fine to export jobs and import product ONLY if that respecitve country has collective bargainng
otherwise we are creating robber barron economics and we are saving money off the backs of slave and child labor
when we need to buy from a country that does not have collective bargaining we have to tariff the product and bring it to the proper playing field
now about greenspan
it’s greenspans policy that gave us borrowing against social security to pay for “tax breaks” for the wealthy
now, it’s fine to invest assets but they must demonstrate postitive return, otherwise it’s stealing
a “tax break” by the way CAN help the economy buy ONLY when that break is targeted toward a SPECIFIC industry that needs to be deleloped
for instance, it is a fine idea to give tax breaks for industries that are developing alternative energu
HOWEVER, when that industry does beging to thrive, that investment MUST be returned, WITH INTEREST
off to bed, g’night
Netherlands also an interesting mix of what here would be considered ‘conservative’ (macro economic policies) and very liberal (social insurance).
What has the world come to? Why is s*ci*l*sm caught by filters. Has it joined l*ber*lism and dare I say it wobbly as “bad” words. It is a perfectly normal word, with a definition and not considered obscene, or am I hopelessly stuck in the past?
theExile @ 212
The spam filters trip on that word because there is a brand name drug, frequently used by spammers, inside the word.
perris @ 209
Excellent points.
And good nite.
Thanks RBG, I got it now, and see the word you are referring to. That’s a bit of a relief.
RBG @ 212;
Ah, so! That is why we are asked to consider the ‘words’ inside. Somebody should just patent every word that ever there was. Some of the ‘inside’ words still have me stumped.
RBG:
Just out of perverse silliness; does a list of the star* words exist? It would be interesting to see all those stars.
David W. Bartoo @ 217
And Barry Bonds name is in that list, too, I hope.
Welp.. this sums up this topic quite nicely, I think:
“They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither.”
- Alan Greenspan, former Chairman, US Federal Reserve, on shrub and rethugs, in his new book
David W. Bartoo @ 217
Imagine the terms used most frequently by spammers who like to promote gambling and sex. That’s the preponderance of them.
If you go to The Nixon Center website and click on “Experts”, Alex “The Bat” has had his named scrubbed.
bbbwwwwwwaaaaaahhhhhhhh
EPUd…. Ian, if you perchance return to the thread, please know how grateful I am for your timely, interesting and *cogent* posts. You deserve extra high praise for hanging in there, answering questions and demystifying things for the slow learners, such as I..
Marking Down Wall Street
Recession, deflation, political upheaval…How could we have known??!!
(Plus, what Sunny says goes for me too. Dismal science, heh heh…)
Ian Welsh @ 58
I’ve been pondering the question of timing. There is an upcoming astrological configuration that occurred twice during the 20th century: 1965-1966 and 1929-1932, with the concurrent overlapping of two major planetary formations. In 1965 and 1966, the country was in another quagmire of an unpopular war. The stock market crash and depression occurred in 1929 and early 1930’s respectively, which given the archetypal character of these configurations would suggest that we are in for extreme volatility in the markets for years to come, if not a collapse, particularly in 2009-2010. To what extent manipulations by the Fed or other factors that didn’t exist in the ’30s can mitigate this I don’t know.
SunnyNobility @ 222
Thanks for the kind words Sunny. They are appreciated.
perris @ 209
Good comment but you just scratched the surface.
Collective bargaining
Worker Safety
Environmental Protections
Child Labor laws
These are just the most obvious ways costs are shifted or avoided in “labor arbitrage”. The battles that American workers and the American people fought to gain these protections will have to be fought again by the workers in these “arbitraged” countries and the bloodshed will be even more horrific.
Regarding the “flat tax” proposal from above. The one thing all the flat tax proposals have in common is that the highest incomes are taxed even less than they are today. The flat tax is just one more scam to reduce taxes on the very wealthy. There was at least a grain of truth in the supply-side argument that there was an optimal tax rate that would stimulate the economy, it’s just that it’s a different rate at different levels of income and the wealthiest are very much on the lower side of that optimal rate. It was used as another scam to reduce taxes on the wealthiest. One thing that will never change is the wealthiest using their money and power to shift government actions to their advantage.
Finally, look at Mr. Greenspan. His book is just an attempt to distance himself from bush* and all of the sound principals and policies Mr. G rolled over on to prop up the economy and temporarily hide the deflationary impact of bush*-o-nomics. He was just trying to regain his boni-fides with his RW patrons for not helping daddy-bush* get re-elected. One thing to never forget, Greenspan is a hack.
A close look at Greenspan’s career will show clearly how big a hack he really is. Under Raygun, he led the commission that recommended that SS taxes be increased significantly. The impact of this was to hide the huge deficits raygun ran up and raygun still ended up raising taxes at the end. When he was appointed to the Fed, he inherited a strong anti-inflation regime. He thought he could do better so he pushed rates up until HE CRASHED THE STOCK MARKET. He tried to stimulate the economy but was ineffective using the economy to get daddy-bush* re-elected. He tried to sabotage Clinton with his anti inflation and anti deficit mantra but Clinton played G like a cheap whore while his economic team structured policies that successfully fought both inflation and the deficit. They let Mr. G take the credit and run around spouting things like irrational exuberance and other ineffective things he tried to sink Clinton with. Of course when w* was selected, he threw all that out the window to try to make the boy king look good. The bill for that is coming due.
Did I say that Greenspan is a hack?
Good article Ian. You stimulated some excellent comments.
Oh yeah, this may be EPU’ed but I still had to get it off my chest. Thanks to all who got this far.
masaccio @ 65
There is a way round that and is an alternative pursued in many countries. If you simply save, then you are liable for tax on the income that that saving generates, and it is also taken onto account for social security payments. If, however, you save in a superannuated fund, the savings earn interest but since the funds cannot be touched until retirement, they do not attract income tax. Eligibility for social security payments on retirement is not affected by indexed (for CPI) pension payouts from rolled over superannuated funds and are tax free since the savings were made from disposable income after tax in the first place.
Phoenix Woman @ 76
These films have been available since the 1980s. The more recent ones, since the late 1990s, do not affect visibility from inside out but block out visibility from outside in, reduce heat/cooling loss by upto 95% (they come in various gradations) and block out UV. They are great and I use them everywhere in my house and in a place like Australia with freezing night temperatures and searing summers they are godsend.
Ian Welsh @ 87
My bet is stagflation.
JPL @ 121
Totally disagree. That sort of flat rate direct taxation is very regressive. One’s propensity to save increases with income and so does one’s ability to contribute to the greater good – that is the essence of progressive direct taxation.
I have very little time for those shout unfair to progressive direct taxation because they ignore that most wealth, and with that the ability to generate higher incomes and cultivate higher social status, is inherited, not earned. What is so fair about inherited wealth trumping those not born into the aristocracy?
raven @ 155
What does god have to do with this?
~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~
This is a reference to Adam Smith’s invisible hand of market forces in his seminal treatise, The Wealth of Nations.
Adam Smith was no right wing neo-con, his book was a push back against the Hobbesian doctrine of authoritarian control to keep barbarism at bay.
Another denier of historical change.
masaccio @ 73
Durbin is a great Senator!
This plus Senator (and presidential candidate) Chris Dodd’s recent work makes Progressives proud!
Ian Welsh @ 87
It seems to me, at least with regard to the housing market, there has been inflation and it has to deflate. That means somebody is going to lose paper wealth. If Durbin’s bill is good and effective it will be the speculators who lose and not people who just wanted to have a nice home to live in.
With respect to the rest of the economy I see some inflation, but it keeps on clicking at a good pace, so it must not be outpacing incomes by very much.
But, with the growing world economy and consumption of natural resources at a faster pace there could well be inflation on a world scale. In any event, the big picture is much bigger now and much more complicated. I hope we have a lot of people looking over these issues (and that includes bloggers).
Still, what’s next is more of Bush, so we might easily end up in a recession before his term is over. It’s very unpredictable since this administration’s thinking has been so devoted foreign affairs.
JPL @ 124
To me the difference isn’t in what was done to earn the income/interest, so much as what activity we decide to tax. We don’t want to disrupt the economy in any significant way and we don’t want to tax part of our people more than others (in general). So, do we tax consumption, investment, profits, all revenues, or what?
Generally we’re coming to the conclusion that we shouldn’t tax a person’s basic cost of living at a standard Americans feel is deserved, but that we should tax “profits” regardless of how they’re “earned”. This includes newly begotten inherited income.
So, decide what is needed for a decent standard of living and exempt that — maybe 35,000, maybe 60,000. Then decide what rate we need to tax everything else at to get the needed revenues for government without harming business too much.
Another way to accomplish much the same thing is to tax consumption (one rate for all), but to exempt certain kinds of “necessities” like housing, food, medical care, gasoline, etc.
I’d prefer, over time, to get away from an IRS which has an incredible database of people’s financial information and to an anonymous system. It might not be easy to do in one step, as the latest presidential commission on tax reform suggests, but it might be a long-term goal achieved in increments.
It probably wouldn’t pay to change the tax system dramatically in the midst of also changing the health care system.
CTuttle @ 138
Not really. We’re borrowing it, so our national debt would stop growing. But, we borrowed real money from somewhere and if they stop lending they have to find somewhere else (hopefully productive) to invest. Think of all the lost productivity tossed down the black hole of Iraq.
orionATL @ 142
I think the idea of having national health care or an insurance policy or a nice big home is another way to sterilize money, except the speculators found a way to interfere by pumping and dumping.
We need more ways for people to have wealth, not just here in America, but anywhere, so we can have a money supply which grows and grows with our wealth, but doesn’t interfere with the cash economy (causing disruptive inflation).
It wouldn’t be the first time the Wall Street wizards encouraged investment from abroad, only to ‘dissipate’ it into their pockets. Remember what happened the last time Japan’s economy was really clicking? There’s a lesson in that: it’s that free market economics is somewhat akin to a mugging and it doesn’t work as well as when government is there as a policeman.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 202
This way of “sanitizing” money can be fantastically great, as FDR showed. But, if it’s just wasteful ‘bridges to nowhere’, then it’s just wasteful and stupid. Common wealth has been easier for government to manage, but finding ways to allow individuals to build wealth without so much risk and without it contaminating the basic cash economy is needed too.
We used to save in banks. That was pushed aside as people found that moving that money into the economy stimulated the economy and everyone wanted that. Now we have a thriving economy, so maybe we should re-stimulate savings in various forms. Savings invested in homes can still work, but only so long as Street manipulators can’t ruin it for everyone (as we’ve recently seen in the ‘mortgage crisis’).
Other ways to manage wealth should be found too. After all, there’s a whole world out there that’s not yet developed in a big way. What is everyone to do when it does develop?
Sona and Mark, thanks for your comments.
Stagflation – Argument for: Bernanke is inflating into a coming recession. voila – stagflation.
Deflation: as Mark points out – deflating housing market.