I’m reading quite a bit of harsh, even desperate language on the part of econbloggers these days. From Mish Shedlock:
Suppose you own a profitable, legal in all 50 states, business and want to expand or reorganize your operations.
Now let’s suppose that someone came up to you and said “Sorry boys, but you cannot do what you want with your business. You cannot go anywhere you please. See those balls and chains on your feet, boy? I have the key and I say you are staying right here. I am the slave master and don’t you forget it.”
That is exactly what President Obama said to Boeing.
Do you now see how you are manipulated? The Fed/TBTF/Govt/Media Complex is desperately clinging to power. Again, anyone with a brain knows that oil is rising because its denominated in dollars. It’s the reason corn is rising. It’s the reason gold is rising. It’s the reason the stock market is rising. The world is awash in dollars, willfully printed by the Federal Reserve, to fund the U.S. government ponzi scheme. If you want to control inflation and bring the cost of crude oil down, you stop printing money and make the U.S. government function on revenues alone.
But that’s not going to happen, now is it? Nope. No way. So long as the politicians and their willing accomplices in the media can construct straw men upon whom you can vent your anger, change will never come. Your politicians will distract your neighbors from focusing on the real problem (the politicians) by encouraging them to chase dead ends and ghosts, instead.
Our only hope is each other. We must educate and help each other and then we must help as many of our friends, family, neighbors and coworkers as we can. It is up to us to do it ourselves. I’m willing to risk everything trying to help. Are you? Do you know what you believe? What is it that you know to be true? Are you willing to stand in front of others and proclaim this truth, knowing that you will be criticized, ridiculed and marginalized by those who choose to let normalcy bias rule them? We must try. If not for ourselves, for posterity.
and then quotes the opening words of the Declaration of Independence which in the context is pretty inflammatory.
Even the normally extremely measures Tyler Cowen has what is by his standards pretty harsh words about the “People’s Budget” presented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus:
There have been some good criticisms of the funny assumptions behind the Ryan plan, but actually this budget isn’t better, either in terms of its final conclusions, its adherence to best scientific practices, or its transparency in getting to its results. Should we not apply equally high standards to both the Ryan budget and this? There are plenty of good arguments that taxes have to go up, but this particular proposal isn’t one of them. INSERT SNARKY CLOSING OF YOUR CHOICE I WON’T DO IT FOR YOU.
“Again, anyone with a brain knows that oil is rising because its denominated in dollars. It’s the reason corn is rising. ”
It is almost as if the US is the only country in the world.
Steve
and then quotes the opening words of the Declaration of Independence which in the context is pretty inflammatory.
The opening of the Declaration of Indepedence is about as inflamatory as it gets. Some Twenty-first Century blog post could hardly make it moreso.
It is almost as if the US is the only country in the world.
There’s been a fair amount of currency pumping going on for many countries, IIRC. Plus the second largest economy in the world pegs its currency directly to ours. That’s a big fucking currency pump going on.
China and India alone have increased their percentage of global oil consumption quite a bit.
Steve
The graf preceding that bit from Zero Hedge (originally published here makes me think that ‘desperate’ is not really the adjective for this guy’s rant, ‘unhinged’ maybe. The rant was prompted by Dobbs appearing on O’Reilly:
But then came the announcement that the Obama administration would be looking into oil speculation and price rises.
Pretty loopy, huh?
It’s a sign of progress IMO. Expect language to get a lot more desperate.
I think Steve/Icepick made the right observation that if this is a currency problem, it is really a OECD currencies problem. At least I doubt that there is one member who is enjoying lower oil/gold prices in their currency.
That great global pool of money is still sloshing … as are many nations’ central bank balance sheets.
I know! We need QE3 and more stimulus spending!
There’s nothing particularly desperate about the Tyler Cowen post. As for the other two – they both read like what you would call Right Bolsheviks. I don’t see why you think they’re worth such attention.
well, all caps in blogospheric terms is shouting. When Tyler shouts it looks a mite desperate to me. But my reaction was mostly because they’re pretty outrageous by econblogger standards, Maxwell James.
jp:
I think the issue is mostly a quantitative one. If by far the greater part of the actions the Fed is taking is to offset previous errors made by the Fed, it’s pretty hard for me to see the argument for retaining it.
Now I don’t know that’s the case. But some days it sure seems to be.
My impression of most econbloggers (Tyler & very few others excepted) is that they blog because it allows them to yell more often than they’re allowed to in ordinary life.
As I say in the other thread, I think the no-fed counterfactual is too hard to cipher. It would be a totally different world.
And yet here we see Tyler Cowen shouting.
Serious question:
Those on the Left side of the political spectrum like to ask,
“Why would it be so bad letting the top tax rates return to where they were in the late 1990s?”
Well, here is the flip side of that question:
“What is so bad about letting spending return to its level, as a share of GDP, to where it was in the late 1990s? A period of prosperity and economic growth…what is wrong with government spending at 20% of GDP?”
Nothing wrong with that, but to the extent that some expanded spending (food stamps, unemployment) is essentially linked to misery indexes, then “letting spending return” means waiting out the misery.
(IIRC correctly, Rand Paul proposed pushing foot stamps back to earlier spending levels, regardless of current enrollment.)
The Ryan plan, if it is indeed the one in this WSJ article (see the red line) by John Taylor, shows a multi-year glide path to achieve the 20% range. What is wrong with that?
Here is a proposal, raise taxes over the next 3-4 years so that they approach the Clinton era levels and at the same time reduce spending so that federal government expenditures return to 20% of GDP. What is wrong with that?
Yes, it might mean decreasing food stamps, but really that is a small side issue. The biggest problem is going to come from things like rising expenditures for Medicare, Obama Care and our continuing foreign adventures around the world.
I’d accept your (steve v) middle paragraph.
I’ve come to think Ryan’s plan “works” to the extent it does by hitting Medicare with a rude hammer. Hardly elegant.
If you can think of an elegant way to reduce food stamps (finally taking soda pop off the list?) I’d be ok with it. But … no rude hammers.
Which Federal Reserve do you like, jp? Since 1913 there have been more than 200 amendments to the original empowering legislation, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
The Federal Reserve didn’t get the responsibility for maximizing employment until the 1970s. Why not just reduce the Fed’s responsibilities so that they’re at least not in conflict with on another?
I think I’m being accurate(*) when I don’t say I like the Fed, but just that I can’t picture the alternative.
* – introspectively speaking.
@SV
“Here is a proposal, raise taxes over the next 3-4 years so that they approach the Clinton era levels and at the same time reduce spending so that federal government expenditures return to 20% of GDP. What is wrong with that?”
Nothing at all. And let’s all hope something like that is hammered out, voted out, and signed into law.
The food stamps issue is a trivial issue in relative terms. So much so that it should be ignored by and large.
Yes, Ryan’s plan is a “rude hammer” but what do you think will hit Medicare in 20 years or so? This pain has to be shared and that means hitting the recipients of Medicare as well as those who are funding it. I’d be in favor of doubling the cap on income that pays into Medicare/Social Security however as a first step. I’d even consider a rise in the tax rate, or making the tax somewhat progressive. But at the same time there have to meaningful changes to Medicare that will reduce not only the level of expenditures but their growth rate.
Will any of this be easy? No. Will any of it be done? Not at all likely.
“Will any of it be done? Not at all likely.”
Sure it will. When the bond market spikes.
Steve
Right, how well did that work in Greece (which relatively speaking is a miniscule problem, and amusingly the Greek solution appears to be…wait for it….keep waiting its good…privatization, lawl)? How are things looking in Japan?
No politician will commit political suicide.
I’d prefer a means test for Medicare. I think that would be fair. It would bite me in my best possible future … but it would be there for me in less optimal outcomes.
China and India alone have increased their percentage of global oil consumption quite a bit.
Okay, oil is up about 36% from this time last year. Have the Chinese and Indians increased their consumption that much in hat space of time? Or are supply concerns and currency pumping more of the immediate issue? And I was hearing some experts at the start of the year predicting $4/gallon gas this summer before we knew MENA was going to go to Hell.