Stop Me Before I Vote Again

I was going to write a similar post a little while back, but figured that I would get flamed for being a roader.

I've done plenty of BDL bashing, but lately I find him a lot less odious. I think that the break came with this crisis and the Obama administration. He's toned down the neo-lib attack pug routine after being forcefully disabused of the notion that he is playing for team Treasury, or team Dem, or is even on anyone's farm team roster. I remember a post of his from a year or two back where he exclaimed that he was 'sick of carrying water for you (treasury) guys'. He's also been fairly candid about admitting his mistakes and criticizing the neo-liberal doctrine that he once promoted.

That said, he's still a turd.

Awesome find - summing up the American multi-trillion-dollar higher education boondoggle within two minutes of this absurdist masterpiece.
The way this George H.W.-aping no-personal pronoun nincompoop holds his hands is the definition of merit-class discomfiture - and this wasn't even a job interview (dude had tenure)!
What was "international" about this "School of International Studies" bore-a-thon - Bradley had just come from eating 14 Mucho Grande tacos?

Actually, I shouldn't say "that he once promoted":

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/11/why-are-the-technocrats-of-the-center-missing-in-action.html

old habits die hard, I guess

fb
u had me gibbering there for a second
but you were just toying with me

this is amazing long island lock jaw neoglib :
"....Ten-Year PAYGO: a 2/3 supermajority in both houses commitment to ten-year PAYGO starting now,

a pledge by every president and presidential candidate that they will veto all bills that do not meet ten-year PAYGO standards.

Everything Congress passes must be projected to reduce the outstanding national debt within ten years.

no middle-class tax cut this month or next month without a pay-for within ten years. "

why ???
" ..requiring PAYGO for everything gets our 25-year fiscal gap down to 1.2% of GDP (as opposed to 4.8% of GDP) and gets our 50-year fiscal gap down to 0.8% of GDP (as opposed to 6.9% of GDP)."

"Our long-run deficit problem is overwhelmingly due to things that Congress is about to do, not things that Congress has done "

" ..1.0% of GDP carbon tax is the best policy to provide American businesses with the incentives they need to invent the clean energy technologies of the future. Half of it should be channeled into the Social Security Trust Fund to improve its solvency."

"Half should be used to help close our remaining operating fiscal gap."

"Pick-your-poison: Additional stand-by tax increases and stand-by spending cuts to close the remaining 0.3% of GDP long-run fiscal gap."

"Private add-on Social Security accounts: At their option, all Americans can add up to 2% of their Social Security wages to a private Social Security account run through the U.S. government's Thrift Savings Program. Private contributions will be matched two-for-one by the federal government out of carbon tax revenue"

all that is pure shit sluicing
but here is the nut :

"Recovery: when every fired local, state, and federal worker takes a private sector job down as well and when the U.S. government can borrow at today's absurdly-low terms, it is criminal stupidity not to pull government spending forward into the present and push taxes back into the future (all within the ten-year PAYGO rule, of course)."

reasoning ??

" since the macroeconomic situation is worse now than it was ever projected to get when the first Recovery Act was passed and since the U.S. government can borrow on better terms now than it could at the time of the first Recovery Act, it is time for a second Recovery Act"

size ???
not stated beyond
this "somewhat larger than the first was"
a trillion in deficit thrust over 18 months ??

composition ??
vapidly CW
a double down solomon like split between
goo goo and what ??? supply side tax cut magic
or just effective demand max ??

"fifty percent federal government purchases and aid to the states, fifty percent tax cuts "

" The principal sources of uncertainty in American economics right now are three: we don't know how the long-run fiscal gap will be closed (but we think it will be), we don't know how our health-care system will be reformed and transformed (but we know it will be), and we don't know what our policy toward global warming will be in a generation (but we know that we will have one)."

The best things the government could do to diminish uncertainty would be to:
(1) commit immediately to the full implementation of the version of RomneyCare-plus-cuts-in-Medicare-and-taxes-on-gold-plated-health-plans that was this year's PPACA,

(2) commit immediately to a long-run climate policy in the form of a carbon tax coupled with research incentives for future energy technologies, and

(3) commit immediately to a plan to cover the long-term fiscal gap

three strikes you're out

1% carbon tax ????

"..1.0% of GDP carbon tax is the best policy to provide American businesses with the incentives they need to invent the clean energy technologies of the future"

150 billion tax peanuts
even if all recycled to us
it amounts to only 500 bucks per citizen

and this on a energy cost that is now
about 1.5 trillion

who's shittin who here ???

sounds hugely too small
surely the user cost needs to be doubled
at least

bondage bobby's op ed
that triggered this toxic spill by retro brad
is behind a pay wall for me

but i suspect its a pip

"After the worst economic downturn in 80 years, which continues to cause immense hardship, the prospects for the US economy are the most complex and uncertain in my adult lifetime, creating a difficult decision-making environment for policymakers and markets. There are realistic chances of a healthy recovery in the shorter term. However, we face enormous headwinds: high unemployment and low job growth; both a decline in fiscal demand and unsustainably high federal deficits; excess capacity; business uncertainty; weak consumer financial conditions; and much else.

So, the probabilities are much greater that growth will be slow and bumpy, and unemployment high, for an extended period. A double dip, however, seems relatively unlikely, because jobs and investment show some growth, and exports are strong.

I agree with the administration’s targeted budget additions that might be particularly powerful economic catalysts, such as small business support, or might meet other immediate imperatives, such as extending unemployment insurance and state aid for teachers. Hopefully, other targeted proposals will be developed with especially strong economic impact or hardship relief. More broadly, a major new stimulus could well be constructive, if it is tied to real, trusted and enacted long-term structural deficit reduction. Otherwise, a major new stimulus is likely on balance to be counterproductive, initially or over time. It could seriously increase business uncertainty about future economic conditions and policy, or change market psychology unexpectedly and dramatically, causing serious market disruptions. Or, even if a major new stimulus worked initially, it could fail to generate lasting momentum due to the headwinds, leaving us worse off than we would have been, with more debt but no greater gross domestic product.

Another macroeconomic tool, quantitative easing, has been used aggressively. The much-discussed extension could work. Alternatively the economic effect could be quite limited, since interest rates are already very low, the stock market impact and consequent effect on consumption are uncertain, deflationary expectations are not currently significant economically, and weakening the dollar could generate harmful reactions elsewhere. And a large, new round of quantitative easing has real risks: undermining confidence in the Fed’s ultimate refusal to monetise our debt; undesirably heightened inflationary expectations more broadly, now or later, or actual inflation; and competitive devaluations and trade restrictions.

Beyond macroeconomic policy, action in other areas could significantly enhance our prospects. The administration’s response to the financial crisis, last year’s stimulus, and this year’s financial reform have, on the whole, been sound and effective. Nonetheless, there is strain between business and the administration, which could be reduced by each better understanding the other’s perspectives and difficulties. Relatedly, the administration, business, and all other interested parties, should work together more effectively on regulatory issues, to promote strong protection while also taking into account the effects on economic activity. With close to $2,000bn of cash on non-financial corporate balance sheets, bolstering confidence and improving the business environment could significantly affect investing and hiring. Enacting trade agreements would also be constructive. But, more broadly, there are complex issues with respect to other countries’ non-market policies that affect trade. In addition, the trade area poses global risks of protectionism or competitive depreciation.

The administration and Congress should work over the next six months to enact the first phase of a serious fiscal plan, to take effect in two or three years, that must also include room for critical public investment. This first phase of deficit reduction should work towards a gradual decline in the debt/GDP ratio, not just stabilising it at a relatively high level that will inevitably ratchet up. The long-term objective, in a later phase, should be a balanced budget.

Even this “first phase” will be difficult. But it can buttress business confidence, reduce shorter-term market risks and start building the fiscal base for longer-term economic success. In that context, I think the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts on incomes over $250,000 should be allowed to expire, to avoid the appearance of the political system being unable to follow through on planned fiscal constraint even on what should be a relatively less difficult issue. The remaining tax cuts should be extended for two or three years, and reviewed in the “first phase” fiscal plan.

For the longer term, the US has a dynamic and entrepreneurial culture, flexible labour and capital markets, the rule of law, relatively favourable demographics and other great strengths. But, in a global economy undergoing historic transformation, we must meet hugely consequential challenges to realise our potential for competitiveness and growth, and to achieve widespread income gains rather than the lagging middle income wages experienced over most of the last 30 years.

Meeting our challenges means moving from our current risk-laden fiscal trajectory to a sound fiscal regime and public investment and reform in economically critical areas, such as education, healthcare costs, infrastructure, immigration and others. Effective government to undergird a market-based economic system is not a liberal idea, but a practical imperative to meet the needs for a successful economy that markets won’t fulfil.

Thus, our most fundamental challenge is the effectiveness of our political system. Despite substantial legislative actions over the past year and a half, there is widespread and serious concern about the willingness to work across party and ideological lines and to make the tough decisions, necessary to meet our challenges. The historic resilience of our political system, our economy, our culture and our society is a hopeful augur. We have risen to difficult challenges many times in the past and we can do so again. But there is much to do."

thanx
rivers

this is like dropping a safe on my chest
the thought of ripping this apart
at the joints between its disinct
members fills me with longeurs
its clearly the staff effort aspect of it
that gives it such endurance

stimuless ??

"a major new stimulus could well be constructive, if it is tied to real, trusted and enacted long-term structural deficit reduction. Otherwise, a major new stimulus is likely on balance to be counterproductive, initially or over time."

ugh

" (broad stimulus) .. could seriously increase business uncertainty about future economic conditions and policy, or change market psychology unexpectedly and dramatically, causing serious market disruptions "

i love that "or"

quantitative easing ???
"undermining confidence in the Fed’s ultimate refusal to monetise our debt"

thud
"in a global economy undergoing historic transformation, we must meet hugely consequential challenges ...Meeting our challenges means moving from our current risk-laden fiscal trajectory to a sound fiscal regime..."

clink

just how much monetizing could the fed pull off short of run away innflation ???

looking at the japanese CB's purchases
these last 15 years
5-7 trillion i'd say is not even close to a reach
yes the fed oughta "own"
around half of uncle's outstanding debt
by 1015 and that's with in addition to buying 5 trills of existing t debt
buying all the 5 trills
in t financing of a realistic
recovery to full employment
deficits between now and then

If Keith Hernandez has a callous on his left heel, he tends to hit singles into short right field.

Private SS contributions, double-matched, with no mention of uncapping (not to say making progressive) FICA?

This guy is simply dangerous, as well as one of the more baseless of our overflowing cornucopia of American ego-maniacs.

Let us pause a moment and pay due homage to the breathtaking fool conducting the interview, who certainly enabled Brad to show himself at his incalculable worst. If anybody wants a good reason to bail out of academia, these two tattered ragamuffin Punchinellos certainly provide it.

And how about the comic grandiosity of the series title -- "Conversations With History"! Brad The Not So Long But In Fact Rather Schtumpy is... history?

If only it were so.

"Breath-taking fool" - exactly, precisely, MJS.

Jesus, how do you have a "conversation" with a nonperson and not get carted off to the nuthouse?

So international Brad personifies "history" - kind of a tall function.

Off topic:
Are there any hedgefund managers in NYC?
Should NYC cyclists wear helmets?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/wealthy-fund-manager-avoids-felony-charges-running-cyclist/

who's to say the driver was sober enough
to notice the passing swipe

An appeal to authority, related to a thread of late October:

http://www.zcommunications.org/outrage-misguided-by-noam-chomsky

UC Berkeley is a public Ivy. If it happens there, it is History in the making. Even if it is rank and rote bullcrap.