...there are other options besides this. Interesting news today: I had forgotten that after the Senate passes whatever version of the stimulus package they like, and theirs already differs from the House version, both bills go to a conference committee.
Now Obama is giving every indication that he's not too happy with the Republicans. And....
It's reported that more than a few of the Republicans in the House voted no on the package knowing full well they'd get another shot at voting yes.
I you've got problems with the 'package' as it is now...
With a huge 1000-mile wide expanse between mountain ranges, is an excellent place to site a ring of windfarms on the outer edge. It's almost, but not quite, as nice as windfarms and wave farms on the coast, where the wind has thousands of unobstructed miles to build up speed.
as long as it's based on economic reality. The only sacrilege is to write economic fiction, really.
I don't really understand the entire cap and trade thing. I am pretty much only aware in a global scale that skirting around any environmental protection is something MNCs hunt high and low for, along with cheap, exploitable labor and financial/tax advantages and any other game they can play to pit differing nations against each other.
I'd think it would be cool at least for me to read on kind of a tutorial on the entire concept, esp. w/ an economic/global macro economic focus.
Yeah, the issue I have (which are many) with the Stimulus bill is making sure they use US companies, US workers and US raw materials and beyond the idea that stimulus should first and foremost give jobs to it's citizens....
is really more long term strategy to give the United States something to trade, including new intellectual property, patents in addition to finished product.
I'd like to see precisely on each component how many jobs, specfics on deployment and the NSF, NIS, NIH literally if you can believe this have been pushing labor policy to repress wages, esp. of post docs, researchers, graduate students and also some of our major universities are more busy building campuses in Dubai, India, China than paying attention to the fact they are federally and state funded for the United States and first, foremost have a responsibility to educate it's citizens, provide raw, fundamental research for the United States various interests...well, it's enough to make one puke (at least me).
The higher education "market" is estimated to be in the trillions, only below the financial sector (and this is before meltdown) in profits and I think that's a hidden motivator, despite the non-profit/public status of many of these higher educational and research institutions.
I don't know if batteries made it in, but a. it should and b. very specific terms like the above need to be done.
There is actually an unemployed glut of STEM people and it really isn't too bad, maybe an additional Masters degree, to move from say software engineering to power engineering and so on because the raw science undergraduate background is the same.
This is a side note but I thought of writing up a joke post on STD ed as an example. How many jobs created, how many workers, what kind of skills are required, esp. those demonstration skills. I mean seriously. One can put a few education videos on youtube and maybe some public service announcements to be shown in a study hall and be done with some of this. That is an absurd amount of money on something that is pretty easy to explain and "demonstrate".
$335 million. Give me the $335 million as a contract. I can put together some highly educational youtubes in no time that could also be entertaining!
Those who follow the legislation don't think that anything will come up until 2010. I think that the times have probably passed cap-and-trade, although I'm still too wimpy to say so on Grist-- cap-and-trade was developed during the "Reagan era", if we want to call the years 1981-2008 something, when the market was alleged to be king. But the problem with cap-and-trade (and carbon taxes) always was that it would increase costs. That doesn't sound like something politicians like, and it isn't; and in the place it has been pushed the most, Europe, cap-and-trade has been something of a disaster because anyone who is really polluting gets a break.
I've always pushed public investment over carbon pricing, and there are a few other people at Grist who do. Gar Lipow has excellent posts, if you want to check out his stuff there. He puts carbon pricing behind public investment and regulation as an effective strategy to counter global warming.
Sherrod Brown won't be the only one to point out the problems with cap-and-trade. In these "new" times, "stimulus" is a more popular concept than "market", and the stimulus bill actually has some stuff to help bring in clean energy (although not enough for mass transit, as has been noted). So I think that the choice is rather stark, and I hope the environmental groups in general start to move from "market-oriented" solutions to more government-directed ones.
When you break this up in a series like this, I feel like I'm watching some mini-series on TV where the suspense is left for the next episode. ;)
another tutorial type of post that might be cool is reviewing Bernanke's paper/conclusions and see just how well they correlate to current economic reality. Just a suggestion.
I just get the feeling that autarky is looking possible.
I don't know if this movement is necessarily a bad thing...
it would assuredly be cool is nations started trading finished, final product which would start a better alignment with actual trade theory...
But your report on the jugular vein of international trade is shocking and I am wondering if that is the overall implication here.
and he completely soft peddled the interview as if her book is valid.
I think there has to be somewhere, some corporation or some sort of high power demands to put some of these idiots on TV and soft peddle their economic fiction.
Take Ann Coulter. I mean why would anyone, anywhere, even a conservative take more than 30 seconds to listen. it's just mini-skirt shock jock bullshit.
Same with this book so how can these people pull in half a million or million peddling their fictional products as if they are worth more than the recycling bin?
I think many of us will agree with Sherrod Brown. I also do not think they are saying "no legislation to address global warming" here, I think he is saying one must take into consideration China, how that country will poison itself to make a buck and creation of a strategy to deal with that and not shaft the already decimated Midwest manufacturing sector.
Uh, they could start by modifying trade terms with China right now. That would help.
Then, possibly fund some raw research projects, located in the Midwest (there are some awesome research institutions in the Midwest, they could handle it) to try to generate cleaner energies that are super cheap and could handle the manufacturing sector needs.
Then, well, for example, there might be trade offs with dirty manufacturing energy requirements versus their final products which are more energy efficient.
But I get what they are saying is "don't screw us to poverty" while you try to push through your agenda, one must take into account overall economic energy models.
It can be done but so far, in my opinion, manufacturing generally gets the shaft from both parties and that includes just trading away highly secret, critical advanced technologies that are also a national security issue....
and of course many of these were original done in the Midwest.
But I do not believe this Senate caucus, Sherrod Brown, is saying at all "hey let's poison the planet to make a buck"..that's China's line frankly (see shipwrecking in Bangladesh as another example of the Poison to Profit model).
if they are not clearly stating them or using conditions when assumptions are incorrect....that too is bad math.
But I think people need to clarify the fact that there are three major components to a systems model.
The input
The model
The output
Bad data (input in) = bad data (output out)
for software people this is garbage in = garbage out.
I pointed to Samuelson's paper just an example. In all seriousness...all he did was play around with some assumptions, some "input data" scenarios and came out with his result showing offshore outsourcing (or global wage arbitrage) is not always good for the more industrialized, stronger economy.
But it's really the same fundamental mathematical model...it's just that Mankiw/Bhagwati choose to ignore some critical data assumptions.
It's assumption bashing. You might be able to generate some elegant math from an earth-centered universe, but graduate physics students might not want to go into a career that requires that assumption.
And I note you fail to acknowledge the $300 billion estimate in interest on the debt also in the CBO report.
The idea of linking to a report is for people to read the details not highlighted.
If you wish to amplify something else, and once again, I question the entire validity of claiming a 1% increase in government spending equals a 1% increase in GDP equals 1 million jobs which many are basing their analysis on...
Ya all, for full disclosure I happen to have an additional degree in mathematics and I have no idea why people are trying to bash a very useful branch of science.
Of course one can learn "fast amounts of math" and question the validity of the model. In fact, if they have had any real analysis, that's the whole damn point of mathematical proofs. The fact the Chicago school suffers from bad math, isn't objectively weighing their models does not mean math is bad.
In fact Stiglitz, Krugman, et. al, are using the same mathematics when arguing fundamentals and they are saying, in a nutshell, these guys are ignoring major assumptions.
But dealing with bounded conditions, quantities of unknowns etc. is all well known in mathematics and possible.
I postulate that economics undergraduates do not have enough mathematics and hence one gets inaccurate or flawed models.
It is like Ricardian equivalence. Because the model people (person) rationally saves to pay future taxes, we are supposed to assume this has a connection to reality?
The fatal flaw in this post is the author believes the Ricardo model predicts some win-win equilibrium. This is false. So he attacks Ricardo model without understand the underlying mathematics behind it.
I am starting to think because others do not understand advanced mathematical concepts, proofs, modeling, probability and stochastic processes that somehow people are promoting an idea that all economic models based on mathematics are bad. Well, that's simply not the case.
what's in, what's out. One thing to note is when the Senate, House pass different versions. There are these nondemocratic creatures called conferees, just a couple of Senators, House Reps. who "resolve the differences" between the two bill versions.
This is a major place where amendments, provisions get ripped out after passing both houses and/or corporate lobbyists get in something they want after the bills have been passed.
The Buy America provisions, as noted by many of our middle column blogs, is strongly under attack by corporate lobbyists.
And still there is no provision anywhere to ensure these jobs go to Americans. Nothing. I envision the offshore outsourcing companies simply lining up at the White House door on that one as a result.
... a statement that repeats the information laid out as the CBO must lay it out, without unpacking the info, is certainly going to mislead someone who is not used to that style of reporting. It will give the impression that a substantial amount of the spending is occurring more than four years in the future.
The numbers are:
half of 2009 (2009 Q2 and Q3), $93.1b spending, $76.5b tax cut
full 2010 (2009Q4 to 2010Q3), $224.6b spending, $131.3b tax cut
full 2011 (2010Q4 to 2011Q3), $159.5b spending, $14.5b tax cut
full 2012 (2011Q4 to 2012Q3), $60.7b spending, $12.2b tax increase
full 2013 (2012Q4 to 2013Q3), $33.4b spending, $8.1b tax increase
2014-2019 (2013Q4 to 2019Q3), $16.4b spending, $13.8b tax cuts
The glaring problem there is not the shape of the spending curve, its the size of the spending in each of the next two and a half years with reference to the size of the economy. We certainly have more than a 5% output gap, and in a $14T economy, that is more than $700b output gap to fill. And with the gutting of our production of domestic consumption, we have very low multipliers ... from 1.5 to 1.7 for various government spending programs to around 1 for broad tax cuts and under 0.5 for corporate tax cuts.
And the Republicans in the Senate are OK with the deficit getting bigger, provided that the stimulus bill provides for more ineffective welfare for the rich.
I don't think you have to remove anything. All I'm saying is we're being included in some pretty large financial news aggregators so it's clear we have credibility. I got the same thing, major accusation what I posted was fiction...
so I put in the criticism but I went and triple checked those sources. I could find no GM press release, no refuting by the Brazil GM division, nothing to say the Herald news article was false.
It's more a "check your sources".
On the other hand, stoicism in Estonia is well known. Their economic "free trade" has worked for them, but it's a small country, surrounded by other nation's absurdly high taxes, especially on certain goods. Estonia is a Ferry ride from most of these countries, kind of like us driving to the Costco that's maybe an hour away. Finland, the culture built on top of an ice cube machine, has a luxury tax on cars and it's massive, like 70%. So, if you can imagine being in -40 degrees Fahrenheit and being told a nice warm transport device is luxury....well, they flock to Estonia to avoid taxes. This is especially true on things like Vodka!
well, the economic results of Bush are apparent, no?
EP is not a partisan blog. The goal is to focus on historical statistics, economic reality, not partisan politics. It is also a community site so others partisanship maybe will imply The GOP leadership and some of the economics they have attached themselves to are dead wrong for the national interest.
;)
The Community Reinvestment Act is now added to the poll, but I need to see the proof on how specifically, what specific economic harm this act caused.
There has been documented predatory lending, but the biggest cause of the financial crisis is currently the estimated $65 trillion dollar shadow banking system, otherwise known as derivatives.
The idea lenders were making loans, predatory loans to borrowers with no proof of income, no identification and even dead people is also obviously a real problem but what the percentage is, I do not know at the moment.
Bottom line message is to be objective, find out the real data, real statistics as well as the details of bills like this.
Case in point (since you are implying you are a Republican) is "amnesty". The problem does not seem to imply the original "amnesty" but in the fact that they did not enforce employment law, improve the entire legal immigration process or do anything with border security, they ignored huge sections of that bill. Did at that time "amnesty" lower wages? I do not think so, the numbers were too small, but has illegal immigration since that time lowered wages? I believe one has a very good case w/ 9-20 million illegal workers to claim illegal immigration has lowered worker wages as well as created a massive underground economy.
Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- The Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are facing unrest and street protests over government austerity measures that may make political leaders casualties of the worst economic collapse in the European Union.
However, it's not critical to the diary that I include this, so I'll just remove it and make your life a little easier Robert.
By the way, I just spotted this today. Check out the Youtube videos. Could this be America's future?
...there are other options besides this. Interesting news today: I had forgotten that after the Senate passes whatever version of the stimulus package they like, and theirs already differs from the House version, both bills go to a conference committee.
Now Obama is giving every indication that he's not too happy with the Republicans. And....
It's reported that more than a few of the Republicans in the House voted no on the package knowing full well they'd get another shot at voting yes.
I you've got problems with the 'package' as it is now...
....why, let your reps and Obama know.
Game has only just begun.
...for the huge solar array called for by The Solar Grand Plan would cover approx. 30,000 square miles of area. But...
No bird problems...
No water needed...
Very little impact on the environment. The authors answer some questions here....
page down a bit to see their answers about change in albedo etc.
and so, it's their choice, not ours. They could not care less about the rest of the world, which is the problem.
And I recognize there are really two forms of input:
1. Model instructions
2. Data
Or to put it in OOPS terms that any Macintosh user will recognize, the code fork and the data fork.
Bad input (garbage) on EITHER fork will yield garbage out.
I suspect strongly that the Chicago folks have corrupted both forks.
With a huge 1000-mile wide expanse between mountain ranges, is an excellent place to site a ring of windfarms on the outer edge. It's almost, but not quite, as nice as windfarms and wave farms on the coast, where the wind has thousands of unobstructed miles to build up speed.
as long as it's based on economic reality. The only sacrilege is to write economic fiction, really.
I don't really understand the entire cap and trade thing. I am pretty much only aware in a global scale that skirting around any environmental protection is something MNCs hunt high and low for, along with cheap, exploitable labor and financial/tax advantages and any other game they can play to pit differing nations against each other.
I'd think it would be cool at least for me to read on kind of a tutorial on the entire concept, esp. w/ an economic/global macro economic focus.
Yeah, the issue I have (which are many) with the Stimulus bill is making sure they use US companies, US workers and US raw materials and beyond the idea that stimulus should first and foremost give jobs to it's citizens....
is really more long term strategy to give the United States something to trade, including new intellectual property, patents in addition to finished product.
I'd like to see precisely on each component how many jobs, specfics on deployment and the NSF, NIS, NIH literally if you can believe this have been pushing labor policy to repress wages, esp. of post docs, researchers, graduate students and also some of our major universities are more busy building campuses in Dubai, India, China than paying attention to the fact they are federally and state funded for the United States and first, foremost have a responsibility to educate it's citizens, provide raw, fundamental research for the United States various interests...well, it's enough to make one puke (at least me).
The higher education "market" is estimated to be in the trillions, only below the financial sector (and this is before meltdown) in profits and I think that's a hidden motivator, despite the non-profit/public status of many of these higher educational and research institutions.
I don't know if batteries made it in, but a. it should and b. very specific terms like the above need to be done.
There is actually an unemployed glut of STEM people and it really isn't too bad, maybe an additional Masters degree, to move from say software engineering to power engineering and so on because the raw science undergraduate background is the same.
This is a side note but I thought of writing up a joke post on STD ed as an example. How many jobs created, how many workers, what kind of skills are required, esp. those demonstration skills. I mean seriously. One can put a few education videos on youtube and maybe some public service announcements to be shown in a study hall and be done with some of this. That is an absurd amount of money on something that is pretty easy to explain and "demonstrate".
$335 million. Give me the $335 million as a contract. I can put together some highly educational youtubes in no time that could also be entertaining!
;_)
Those who follow the legislation don't think that anything will come up until 2010. I think that the times have probably passed cap-and-trade, although I'm still too wimpy to say so on Grist-- cap-and-trade was developed during the "Reagan era", if we want to call the years 1981-2008 something, when the market was alleged to be king. But the problem with cap-and-trade (and carbon taxes) always was that it would increase costs. That doesn't sound like something politicians like, and it isn't; and in the place it has been pushed the most, Europe, cap-and-trade has been something of a disaster because anyone who is really polluting gets a break.
I've always pushed public investment over carbon pricing, and there are a few other people at Grist who do. Gar Lipow has excellent posts, if you want to check out his stuff there. He puts carbon pricing behind public investment and regulation as an effective strategy to counter global warming.
Sherrod Brown won't be the only one to point out the problems with cap-and-trade. In these "new" times, "stimulus" is a more popular concept than "market", and the stimulus bill actually has some stuff to help bring in clean energy (although not enough for mass transit, as has been noted). So I think that the choice is rather stark, and I hope the environmental groups in general start to move from "market-oriented" solutions to more government-directed ones.
JR on Grist
When you break this up in a series like this, I feel like I'm watching some mini-series on TV where the suspense is left for the next episode. ;)
another tutorial type of post that might be cool is reviewing Bernanke's paper/conclusions and see just how well they correlate to current economic reality. Just a suggestion.
I just get the feeling that autarky is looking possible.
I don't know if this movement is necessarily a bad thing...
it would assuredly be cool is nations started trading finished, final product which would start a better alignment with actual trade theory...
But your report on the jugular vein of international trade is shocking and I am wondering if that is the overall implication here.
and he completely soft peddled the interview as if her book is valid.
I think there has to be somewhere, some corporation or some sort of high power demands to put some of these idiots on TV and soft peddle their economic fiction.
Take Ann Coulter. I mean why would anyone, anywhere, even a conservative take more than 30 seconds to listen. it's just mini-skirt shock jock bullshit.
Same with this book so how can these people pull in half a million or million peddling their fictional products as if they are worth more than the recycling bin?
I think many of us will agree with Sherrod Brown. I also do not think they are saying "no legislation to address global warming" here, I think he is saying one must take into consideration China, how that country will poison itself to make a buck and creation of a strategy to deal with that and not shaft the already decimated Midwest manufacturing sector.
Uh, they could start by modifying trade terms with China right now. That would help.
Then, possibly fund some raw research projects, located in the Midwest (there are some awesome research institutions in the Midwest, they could handle it) to try to generate cleaner energies that are super cheap and could handle the manufacturing sector needs.
Then, well, for example, there might be trade offs with dirty manufacturing energy requirements versus their final products which are more energy efficient.
But I get what they are saying is "don't screw us to poverty" while you try to push through your agenda, one must take into account overall economic energy models.
It can be done but so far, in my opinion, manufacturing generally gets the shaft from both parties and that includes just trading away highly secret, critical advanced technologies that are also a national security issue....
and of course many of these were original done in the Midwest.
But I do not believe this Senate caucus, Sherrod Brown, is saying at all "hey let's poison the planet to make a buck"..that's China's line frankly (see shipwrecking in Bangladesh as another example of the Poison to Profit model).
if they are not clearly stating them or using conditions when assumptions are incorrect....that too is bad math.
But I think people need to clarify the fact that there are three major components to a systems model.
The input
The model
The output
Bad data (input in) = bad data (output out)
for software people this is garbage in = garbage out.
I pointed to Samuelson's paper just an example. In all seriousness...all he did was play around with some assumptions, some "input data" scenarios and came out with his result showing offshore outsourcing (or global wage arbitrage) is not always good for the more industrialized, stronger economy.
But it's really the same fundamental mathematical model...it's just that Mankiw/Bhagwati choose to ignore some critical data assumptions.
It's assumption bashing. You might be able to generate some elegant math from an earth-centered universe, but graduate physics students might not want to go into a career that requires that assumption.
And I note you fail to acknowledge the $300 billion estimate in interest on the debt also in the CBO report.
The idea of linking to a report is for people to read the details not highlighted.
If you wish to amplify something else, and once again, I question the entire validity of claiming a 1% increase in government spending equals a 1% increase in GDP equals 1 million jobs which many are basing their analysis on...
write it.
Ya all, for full disclosure I happen to have an additional degree in mathematics and I have no idea why people are trying to bash a very useful branch of science.
Of course one can learn "fast amounts of math" and question the validity of the model. In fact, if they have had any real analysis, that's the whole damn point of mathematical proofs. The fact the Chicago school suffers from bad math, isn't objectively weighing their models does not mean math is bad.
In fact Stiglitz, Krugman, et. al, are using the same mathematics when arguing fundamentals and they are saying, in a nutshell, these guys are ignoring major assumptions.
But dealing with bounded conditions, quantities of unknowns etc. is all well known in mathematics and possible.
I postulate that economics undergraduates do not have enough mathematics and hence one gets inaccurate or flawed models.
I will take this Angry Bear post.
The fatal flaw in this post is the author believes the Ricardo model predicts some win-win equilibrium. This is false. So he attacks Ricardo model without understand the underlying mathematics behind it.
I am starting to think because others do not understand advanced mathematical concepts, proofs, modeling, probability and stochastic processes that somehow people are promoting an idea that all economic models based on mathematics are bad. Well, that's simply not the case.
what's in, what's out. One thing to note is when the Senate, House pass different versions. There are these nondemocratic creatures called conferees, just a couple of Senators, House Reps. who "resolve the differences" between the two bill versions.
This is a major place where amendments, provisions get ripped out after passing both houses and/or corporate lobbyists get in something they want after the bills have been passed.
The Buy America provisions, as noted by many of our middle column blogs, is strongly under attack by corporate lobbyists.
And still there is no provision anywhere to ensure these jobs go to Americans. Nothing. I envision the offshore outsourcing companies simply lining up at the White House door on that one as a result.
... a statement that repeats the information laid out as the CBO must lay it out, without unpacking the info, is certainly going to mislead someone who is not used to that style of reporting. It will give the impression that a substantial amount of the spending is occurring more than four years in the future.
The numbers are:
The glaring problem there is not the shape of the spending curve, its the size of the spending in each of the next two and a half years with reference to the size of the economy. We certainly have more than a 5% output gap, and in a $14T economy, that is more than $700b output gap to fill. And with the gutting of our production of domestic consumption, we have very low multipliers ... from 1.5 to 1.7 for various government spending programs to around 1 for broad tax cuts and under 0.5 for corporate tax cuts.
And the Republicans in the Senate are OK with the deficit getting bigger, provided that the stimulus bill provides for more ineffective welfare for the rich.
I don't think you have to remove anything. All I'm saying is we're being included in some pretty large financial news aggregators so it's clear we have credibility. I got the same thing, major accusation what I posted was fiction...
so I put in the criticism but I went and triple checked those sources. I could find no GM press release, no refuting by the Brazil GM division, nothing to say the Herald news article was false.
It's more a "check your sources".
On the other hand, stoicism in Estonia is well known. Their economic "free trade" has worked for them, but it's a small country, surrounded by other nation's absurdly high taxes, especially on certain goods. Estonia is a Ferry ride from most of these countries, kind of like us driving to the Costco that's maybe an hour away. Finland, the culture built on top of an ice cube machine, has a luxury tax on cars and it's massive, like 70%. So, if you can imagine being in -40 degrees Fahrenheit and being told a nice warm transport device is luxury....well, they flock to Estonia to avoid taxes. This is especially true on things like Vodka!
well, the economic results of Bush are apparent, no?
EP is not a partisan blog. The goal is to focus on historical statistics, economic reality, not partisan politics. It is also a community site so others partisanship maybe will imply The GOP leadership and some of the economics they have attached themselves to are dead wrong for the national interest.
;)
The Community Reinvestment Act is now added to the poll, but I need to see the proof on how specifically, what specific economic harm this act caused.
There has been documented predatory lending, but the biggest cause of the financial crisis is currently the estimated $65 trillion dollar shadow banking system, otherwise known as derivatives.
The idea lenders were making loans, predatory loans to borrowers with no proof of income, no identification and even dead people is also obviously a real problem but what the percentage is, I do not know at the moment.
Bottom line message is to be objective, find out the real data, real statistics as well as the details of bills like this.
Case in point (since you are implying you are a Republican) is "amnesty". The problem does not seem to imply the original "amnesty" but in the fact that they did not enforce employment law, improve the entire legal immigration process or do anything with border security, they ignored huge sections of that bill. Did at that time "amnesty" lower wages? I do not think so, the numbers were too small, but has illegal immigration since that time lowered wages? I believe one has a very good case w/ 9-20 million illegal workers to claim illegal immigration has lowered worker wages as well as created a massive underground economy.
There, how's that for some acknowledgment!
Well, it's not like I made things up.
However, it's not critical to the diary that I include this, so I'll just remove it and make your life a little easier Robert.
By the way, I just spotted this today. Check out the Youtube videos. Could this be America's future?
Pages