Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Yeah, Obama hasn't looked this good since back when Palin was on the opposing ticket!

That's pretty insightful.

I think 2012 is going to be a variation on the theme of who can get their base out. It will be who can get their base to hold their nose for long enough to pull the voting lever.

Crap, what a country.

Krugman gets the GOP field exactly right -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...e-gop-primary/

The FOF Theory of the GOP Primary

Steve Benen notes that by normal standards, Mitt Romney is a terrible candidate — but just not as bad as his rivals. He adds,

I often wonder what the race for the Republican nomination would look like this year if Romney had just one credible opponent.

But that wasn’t going to happen! The weakness of the GOP field is not an accident.

I view the primary race through the lens of the FOF theory — that’s for “fools and frauds”. It goes as follows: to be a good Republican right now, you have to affirm your belief in things that any halfway intelligent politician can see are plainly false. This leaves room for only two kinds of candidates: those who just aren’t smart and/or rational enough to understand the problem, and those who are completely cynical, willing to say anything to get ahead.

What sort of things am I talking about? They range from the belief that Obama is a socialist who will destroy America with his dastardly Heritage Foundation devised health care plan, to the belief that unemployment is high because lazy people prefer their unemployment insurance checks. On budget matters, you have to claim to believe that we can cut taxes sharply, maintain high military spending, and eliminate the deficit — all without upsetting those Republican-voting Medicare recipients.

Notice that in the end, when it came to budget claims, even the supposedly hard-headed types — (cough) Paul Ryan (cough) — ended up relying on gigantic magic asterisks.

So what you have are fairly dim types like Perry, on the one side, and the utterly cynical Romney, on the other. (Gingrich manages to be both a fool and a fraud). Maybe, just maybe, the GOP could have found someone able to achieve Romney-level cynicism while coming across as sincere; but political talent on that level is quite rare. I mean, the various non-crazy-non-Romneys who were supposed to have a shot all turned out to be duds, e.g. Pawlenty.

The weakness of the GOP field is, in short, structural. Without the still-terrible economy, they wouldn’t have a chance.

First, you need to grasp what is an economic depression -

http://pragcap.com/is-this-a-depression

IS THIS A DEPRESSION?
.
.
...the condition of depression — separate from recession — has little to do with GDP, employment rates, and the bevy of macroeconomic data that is commonplace in analyzing the national economy. Standards such as a 10% unemployment rate or four or more consecutive quarters of contraction are arbitrary markers that seek to delineate recessions from bad recessions without marking a difference of type.

That there is a difference of type should now be clear. Richard Koo was among the first to my knowledge to articulate that difference, but with the spread of his ideas anyone paying much attention to macroeconomics should now realize that his concept of a “balance sheet recession” is not at all like a standard recession.

and understand that while there may be bouts of "good economy," we are in a long economic depression -

....define a depression as an episode of prolonged private sector deleveraging. and there can be no question that that is exactly the current condition, not only in the United States but virtually the entire first world.

Within that episode there may well be periods of expansion as well as recession — much like the roaring but forgotten expansion of 1933-36 or the rather more tepid US expansion of 2009 through today. Indeed there is no reason that the economy of a country might not grow on a real per capita basis during a depression with the help of productivity gains.

and then you have to come to terms with the most basic fact about getting through a long economic depression -

throughout a depression episode it must be realized that, in order to satisfy the balance of payments, the public sector must run a fiscal deficit which inversely corresponds to the private sector’s newfound preponderance toward surplus (that is, savings and debt repayment in excess of investment and net exports) in order to prevent a deflationary collapse of income. If the government fails to do so — through tax cuts or spending initiatives — a sudden lapse back into recession is the sure and immediate consequence.

Got it?

Now the author puts it another way -

if the federal government continues to run a deficit in the area of 9% of GDP, we will continue to lumber along a slow growth trend with vacillations over and under the trend as private sector deleveraging either decelerates or accelerates. this will continue until the private sector has reduced its vast debt hoard to something far more sustainable on a discounted cash flow basis — a process likely to take many years.

if instead the federal government undertakes to reduce its deficit — either by raising taxes or allowing tax breaks to lapse or reducing spending — we will see private sector incomes drop, delinquencies and defaults rise, deleveraging accelerate to compound the public contraction, and recession thereby powerfully return as the deflationary circuit broken by 2009′s ARRA spending reasserts itself.

But here's the bottom line and why the 2012 election is so important -

the economic forecast for the United States in 2012 (and 2013 and some years beyond) hinges entirely on the political calculus of Washington. Any and all such forecasts are entirely reliant on that one factor.

Pretty damn scary.

What's interesting is that Japan, with 10X the debt bubble pop on a relative basis, has been in its 'Lost Decade' for about 20 years BUT with price stability and unemployment rates that the US or Europe would kill for. They did make some big "austerity" mistakes along the way including pulling back fiscal spending, higher taxing, and going overboard in hindering credit extension that may have prolonged their muddling through. Does anybody think that are politicians can do better? Does anybody doubt that the current mindlessness of the GOP candidates when it comes to federal spending won't make things much worst for us over the coming years? Just something you might want to keep in mind when you draw the curtain to the voting booth.

Originally Posted by James50

I knew it would not take long to get back to those evil 1% folks. Do you think the sports stars and entertainers are evil too? I mean what do they contribute that helps anyone? All they do is sing, act, catch footballs, throw baseballs and the like. Are they evil?

James50

You can use the word evil if you want. The question is whether they are earning more than their share. I think they do. So it doesn't matter whether they are evil or not (some are doing evil things, I'm sure, but that's beside the point). The point is they should be paying more taxes. The right likes to call that "punishment," but it is not. It is just contributing your share to the commonweal.

The CEOs and financiers like Romney make a lot more than the entertainers, according to stats I've heard reported.

The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that 54 percent of Americans consider George W. Bush primarily responsible for the problems facing the economy, while only 29 percent put the blame on President Obama. Even one in five Republicans blames Bush rather than Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...66P_story.html

That might be good news for Obama, but the fact that Clinton and his federal surpluses (i.e. pulling money out of the economy so people had to borrow to sustain living standards) wasn't a choice in the polling just goes to show how prevalent the ignorance of monetary macro-economics. Until we overcome that ignorance our balance sheet recession (i.e. the long depression) will be just that - prolonged.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You can use the word evil if you want. The question is whether they are earning more than their share. I think they do. So it doesn't matter whether they are evil or not (some are doing evil things, I'm sure, but that's beside the point). The point is they should be paying more taxes. The right likes to call that "punishment," but it is not. It is just contributing your share to the commonweal.

The CEOs and financiers like Romney make a lot more than the entertainers, according to stats I've heard reported.

I think when it comes to evil amongst the rich, Jeremy Irons puts it best for the rest of us -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTFflehHtvI

Oh, and for the Millies -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy1o-...eature=related

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

There are three reasons why this disappoints me.

First of all, two terms was enough for George Washington but apparently not enough for Perry here in Texas, so maybe it would be good to move him to where terms are Constititionally restricted. Second of all, I was hoping we could get rid of him. And thirdly.... wait, I forgot. Oops.

He he very good.

No thanks; you can keep him. You guys are used to governors like him. Foisting him on the whole country would be worse, and you wouldn't be getting rid of him anyway since presidents are more influential than governors wherever you are-- unless of course you take Perry's advice and seceed (not a bad idea).

Things are going along as I predicted. I predicted Huntsman and Perry would drop out, more or less in that order, and they did. I also predicted Gingrich still had the best chance to stop Romney, and despite a poor showing in NH and Iowa, that is proving true. Now the question is how important Jupiter is going to be, in addition (of course) to how the primaries are laid out (I am an expert on presidential elections, as well as astrology). I said Santorum could benefit at least through March, since Jupiter is in his sign Taurus. It is most powerful, like all planets, when stationary (just before and after it's closest passage to Earth), which was early this month. So although it will pass over the exact degree of his natal Sun in March, its stationary-direct position in January could mean his best days are past. Besides this temporary benefit of beneficial lucky Jupiter in his sign, Santorum doesn't have a prayer, according to his natal birth chart. I am predicting he will drop out after March, although it could happen sooner.

But Gingrich does have a prayer. His chart has the same 11-5 rating, according to my scale resulting from my extensive analysis of candidates' natal birth charts, as Romney (Obama's rating is 8-2). But his strength lies only with conservatives (strong Saturn and Mars in his chart), where as Romney has the edge with moderates (Jupiter strong in his). If Gingrich can keep battling him and Ron Paul past March, his fortunes will improve, as Jupiter leaves Santorum's native sign Taurus, and moves into Gingrich's native sign Gemini by June. That could give him an edge for the nomination.

I still think Romney has a better chart overall, if the voters decide to pick a candidate that has a better chance to win in the Fall. That advantage in his chart was why I picked him to win the nomination. I still stand by that, although I didn't give enough consideration to Jupiter's current place originally. It is still very unclear whether the race will still be going in June, when Jupiter gives Gingrich the edge.

Also, Santorum is benefitting by auxilliary aspects along with Jupiter. I'm not sure Gingrich's benefit will be as strong.

Although the Palmetto state favors conservatives, Florida-- although a southern state-- is much more moderate historically, and has older voters that favor Romney. Gingrich can keep the race alive by winning SC, but I think Romney will still win FL, and get another boost in turn. He can always trot out more negative ads too.

Originally Posted by playwrite

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...66P_story.html

That might be good news for Obama, but the fact that Clinton and his federal surpluses (i.e. pulling money out of the economy so people had to borrow to sustain living standards) wasn't a choice in the polling just goes to show how prevalent the ignorance of monetary macro-economics. Until we overcome that ignorance our balance sheet recession (i.e. the long depression) will be just that - prolonged.

I'm not sure I buy the "spending is always good, austerity is always bad" idea. I agree with your diagnosis for the current state of affairs, and your recommended remedies, because inflation is low. Were it to increase, then the national debt could be a problem, because the Fed would likely boost interest rates to deal with inflation, and because the debt would cost more to service. That could cost the government a lot of money. Printing more money to pay this at that point would cause a vicious cycle of inflation and high interest rates, and inflation damages people in the pocketbook.

You are correct that inflation is mainly the result of other factors besides printing money-- the high cost of transportation, housing, education and health care are driven by speculators and greed. Still, I don't agree that "spending is always good, austerity is always bad," if that's your position. Balance is inherently a good idea, in any field; that's a philosophical, axiomatic given IMO. There comes a time to trim spending and/or raise taxes. I don't see that taxes take money out of the economy, because the government puts it back in by spending the money it collects. The Clinton years were good for people; the economy was working under his policies, despite some longer-term bad effects from things like the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

So where am I incorrect, Mr. MMT expert?

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Depends. Are they Warren Buffett or Steve Jobs?

I would agree that many CEOs have compensation that bear little resemblance to the value they truly add. But a few do.

Buffet is an investor first and foremost. Jobs was an innovating entrepeneur. CEOs tend to be MBAs in nice suits with good schmoozing skills.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

There are many ways we can go with this one. As critical as I am of today's so-called corporate jungle, I don't agree that CEO's don't do anything. They are the equivalent within their organization of what the President is to the nation. But most do make considerable more than the President does even though some folks like to complain about the pay that especially Congresspeople are getting. And aren't many of those same CEO's the ones who complained that the pay of union shop workers was outrageous? Where sports stars and entertainers are concerned, a lot of that falls into the lap of free agency, even though I believe in that principal up to a point. These folks have agents that wheel and deal to get the most money they can, and that is why you pay outrageous ticket prices for attending a big-league sporting event or a big-name music concert. Back in the 1970's I went to see some of the bigger names in music at the time and these concerts weren't anywhere near the budget-buster that a similar experience would be today. For more on this topic I would recommend the book "Ticket Masters" which delves into this scenario in great detail.

I appreciate your comments. If enough people want to change the entertainment salaries, there is a direct fix: boycott them.
Alhough my sense is that the the top corporate salaries are too high , I don't see a simple fix . I prefer the minimum government possible after our national defense is covered. The shareholders might weigh in on a case-by-case basis, but this would be difficult. The labor Unions were created to provide a balance of power between the employess and the corporations . Perhaps we need some kind of Union of individual buyers/customers to provide a balance of power with the modern corporations.

Associations of consumers? Something analogous to labor unions?

Originally Posted by radind

Perhaps we need some kind of Union of individual buyers/customers to provide a balance of power with the modern corporations.

Interesting thought. Clearly *individual* level consumer choices are failing to protect middle/working class labor. And the sad thing is that the more we get squeezed -- the more employers use high unemployment as an excuse to cut real pay -- the more we feel we *need* to buy everything made by the "lowest bidder" in the labor market. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I think there is a strong "tragedy of the commons" aspect to consumer behavior when it comes to paying more for "socially responsible" products and services. We don't feel like we alone can make a difference if we make different decisions -- like willingly pay a little more for an item that was made by "living wage" laborers instead of saving a few bucks for "Made in China" -- so we don't do it. And when enough people "justify" their consumer choices that are arguably socially irresponsible, there go all the good jobs, off to China and India and wherever else the consumer demand for "the lowest price" can be met. And the few people left who have decent jobs watch as their deal gets worse and worse -- less and less real compensation for more and more work -- and get told they should feel lucky to have a job at all.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm not sure I buy the "spending is always good, austerity is always bad" idea. I agree with your diagnosis for the current state of affairs, and your recommended remedies, because inflation is low. Were it to increase, then the national debt could be a problem, because the Fed would likely boost interest rates to deal with inflation, and because the debt would cost more to service. That could cost the government a lot of money. Printing more money to pay this at that point would cause a vicious cycle of inflation and high interest rates, and inflation damages people in the pocketbook.

You are correct that inflation is mainly the result of other factors besides printing money-- the high cost of transportation, housing, education and health care are driven by speculators and greed. Still, I don't agree that "spending is always good, austerity is always bad," if that's your position. Balance is inherently a good idea, in any field; that's a philosophical, axiomatic given IMO. There comes a time to trim spending and/or raise taxes. I don't see that taxes take money out of the economy, because the government puts it back in by spending the money it collects. The Clinton years were good for people; the economy was working under his policies, despite some longer-term bad effects from things like the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

So where am I incorrect, Mr. MMT expert?

Actually, you are raising the only constraint to federal deficit spending recognized by MMTers which, when added to private spending, is the concern for inflation. The federal govt has the tools to deal with that through interest rates (as you noted) and taxes - they've actually gotten pretty good at it It is important to keep in mind, however, that when inflation begins to become an issue the economy is going gang busters with near full employment and people making money hand over fist - not exactly a bad time to raise interest or tax rates, particularly compared to now, right?

But anyway, here is the correlation between federal deficits and inflation for the last 80 years or so -



- i.e. there is none. But feel free to 'lag' the data all you want to see if you can get some correlations - lots of folks have tried.

Now if you want to graph inflation against oil prices in the last 80 years or so, you'll get your correlation, but that has nothing to do with federal deficit spending - well, except for the lack of it preventing us from doing the research to find ways to stop mainlining that heroin every second of every day.

Recent polling shows Gingrich taking the lead in SC.

My favorite headline today -

"Newt & His San Francisco Values"

- regarding his proposal to Mrs. Newt 2 for an open marriage.

5-alarm bells going off at Mitt'ens -

Pro-Romney Super PAC Drops Big Money On Anti-Newt Ads In Florida

The Romney-backing “super PAC” Restore Our Future is spending big in Florida, dropping $1,539,255.73 in Florida media buys to oppose Newt Gingrich on Wednesday and Thursday, according to FEC filings. Restore Our Future also spent $83,271.37 for Florida direct mail opposing Santorum and $214,377.56 in support of Romney

I wonder if Mitt'ens had to tap his Caribbean Initiative monies, hum.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Recent polling shows Gingrich taking the lead in SC.

My favorite headline today -

"Newt & His San Francisco Values"

- regarding his proposal to Mrs. Newt 2 for an open marriage.

Hey, maybe that means Gingrich will do well in CA, which votes in June (and providentially, Jupiter enters his sign that month!) There's hope for the pioneer-boomer closet hippie yet! Cheaters unite!

Another thing I notice is that the aggressive Mars, so strong in Gingrich's native birth chart, is going to be stationary and square to his Sun in the coming months. Gingrich is going even-more on the attack. How will this make him look in voter's opinions? Could he shoot himself in the foot with his anger and negativity? The battle certainly will benefit Obama, and Mars is now conjoining Obama's own Mars position in Virgo right now. Active aggressive policies by Obama himself benefit Obama right now!

MIAMI (CBSMiami) – As the Republican Party looks to wind up its nominating process after the January 31 Florida GOP primary; the enthusiasm amongst Republicans for the coming election is starting to cool.

In a new CNN poll released Monday evening, enthusiasm amongst registered Republicans has dropped by 10 points from the same time in October 2010.

Still, roughly 54 percent of Republicans are enthusiastic about the coming election.

According to the poll, the most enthusiastic support amongst Republicans has dropped every month since March 2011.

The problem for Republicans is that while their enthusiasm has been falling, enthusiasm amongst Democrats has continued to rise.

Since October, Democratic enthusiasm has risen by six points according to the CNN poll and is now 49 percent.

What will be Pickett's charge should be interesting.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

LOL!!

I still think this is basically Romney's nomination to lose.

Always felt this was the case.

Best...

Originally Posted by playwrite

What will be Pickett's charge should be interesting.

OK, I give. You will have to explain that metaphor to me. Or to be particular - Who is Lee? Longstreet? Pickett? Armistead? Meade? Chamberlain? Where is Little Round Top and Cemetery Ridge? I am sure you know that Pickett's charge was on day 3 of the Gettysburg battle and that Pickett himself was not the brightest bulb in the box (graduated last in his West Point class). The charge itself was the height of folly and its failure should be laid at the feet of Lee. Are we on day 3 already?

If you are going to use this metaphor, please give it all the richness it deserves.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

OK, I give. You will have to explain that metaphor to me. Or to be particular - Who is Lee? Longstreet? Pickett? Armistead? Meade? Chamberlain? Where is Little Round Top and Cemetery Ridge? I am sure you know that Pickett's charge was on day 3 of the Gettysburg battle and that Pickett himself was not the brightest bulb in the box (graduated last in his West Point class). The charge itself was the height of folly and its failure should be laid at the feet of Lee. Are we on day 3 already?

If you are going to use this metaphor, please give it all the richness it deserves.

James50

Well, let's see; we're on primary #3! And Gingrich is charging!
(maybe ruining Romney's chances by so doing; we can all certainly hope!!)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, let's see; we're on primary #3! And Gingrich is charging!
(maybe ruining Romney's chances by so doing; we can all certainly hope!!)

Eric, don't be a butt-in-ski ! It was Playwrite's metaphor. Let him explain it (if he can).

James50

I linked this campaign video about a week ago and finally got around to watching some of it. It's from the Gingrich PAC (unattributed) about Mitt and it's an interesting example of the Joseph Goebbels-style of propaganda to which our political life has sunk. It's not that I don't agree with much of what they said, but the style of the presentation is really something else, and I'm afraid of a portent of the cable docs on Obama's birth, socialism, communism, etc., which will be running around the airwaves come fall.

Meanwhile I'm watching, off and on, the latest elephant parade, and the audience is even scarier than the candidates. Newt got them ready to lynch the host in the first minute when he asked about his ex-wife, by saying such "garbage" should not be part of a debate. The host was not sufficiently self--possessed even to ask, "But Mr. Speaker, wasn't this the exact moment at which you were leading the impeachment of President Clinton for a personal indiscretion?"

I really would like to know why Perry endorsed Newt.

The vicious, hateful mobs attending these Republican debates would not be out of place at a KKK rally.

Originally Posted by Odin

The vicious, hateful mobs attending these Republican debates would not be out of place at a KKK rally.

Flying close to the Mike Godwin moment for this thread.

Originally Posted by James50

OK, I give. You will have to explain that metaphor to me. Or to be particular - Who is Lee? Longstreet? Pickett? Armistead? Meade? Chamberlain? Where is Little Round Top and Cemetery Ridge? I am sure you know that Pickett's charge was on day 3 of the Gettysburg battle and that Pickett himself was not the brightest bulb in the box (graduated last in his West Point class). The charge itself was the height of folly and its failure should be laid at the feet of Lee. Are we on day 3 already?

If you are going to use this metaphor, please give it all the richness it deserves.

James50

Really haven't thought it through that much beyond 2010 as the GOP's "high water mark" and the intrigue of what will be Pickett's charge. However, you have perked my interest on the possibilities.

One key question from the other side is Obama - a Lincoln or a Grant (the war version, not the post-war one) or more like a McClellan or even a George B. Butler. He's my guy, but I lean more to his being a too- cautious McClellan, but hope a war-time Grant emerges after the election. Although to be completely honest, I would really be pleased with a slash and burn Sherman.

Karl Rove or is it Rush Limbaugh as Lee??? I have too much respect for Big Bob to go any farther with that aspect of it. Yuck.