Tonight President Obama is scheduled to give a speech before a joint session of Congress, something of a rarity other than for a State of the Union message or national emergency. Is there something he could say that I’d support? Or, at least, not kvetch about?

I’ve made no secret of my skepticism about the effectiveness of Keynesian stimulus, largely on pragmatic grounds. Among the reasons for my skepticism are those of timing, effect, and the likelihood that large spending bills will be used to cultivate political goals rather than to maximize their economic impact. Nonetheless, I think it’s only fair if I outlined the general characteristics that I think an acceptable bill should have.

Actually, it’s pretty simple. I think that any acceptable additional fiscal stimulus should be large enough to matter, highly targeted, should not put us in primary default, and should optimize inputs and outputs. That’s essentially the opposite of the 2009 stimulus bill which was too small and diffuse to produce the results its economic proponents predicted, produced too much debt relative to its impact, apparently concentrated mainly on maximizing inputs, and ended up as a Congressional Christmas list.

What we’re likely to get, if early hints are any indication, is a bill that’s absurdly small relative to the theoretical requirements, is another grab bag, and functions mainly as a red cape to wave in front of the deficit hawk Republicans in Congress. Leveling the charge of doing nothing when the fate of the nation is at risk (when the alternative you’re presenting is doing something fatuous) is a good trick if you can make it stick.

I was going to publish a Labor Day post but my heart just wasn’t in it. Rather than post the whole long thing I’ll just put in the key bullet points.

What happened to organized labor? I think that a number of things happened: success, competition, professional labor organization, a narrowing of goals. In essence the industrial labor movement succeeded in its goals: conditions and practices improved, wages rose. For a generation or more it was possible for members of industrial trade unions to live prosperous lives and reasonably graceful retirements. The unions’ successes were matched by improvements in conditions, practices, in wages in non-unionized companies and industries.

However, that took place in a hothouse environment. When competition arrived variously in the form of workers overseas or newly immigrating workers, it couldn’t persist. It’s remarkable to me that the wage and price controls imposed by the Nixon Administration aren’t mentioned more when discussing this process.

A transition has also occurred in union organization. Just look at the difference between Jimmy Hoffa and his son, James P. Hoffa. Jimmy Hoffa came up through the school of hard knocks. He began as a working man and union organizing was an outgrowth of what he encountered. His son is a lawyer. When he speaks about “the workers”, it doesn’t have the ring of authenticity it did when Jimmy Hoffa did.

Finally, I don’t know about you but I certainly don’t here as much about the international labor movement from American labor leaders as we used to. A sense of proportion would put a lot more emphasis on securing rights for Chinese workers than I’m hearing these days.

I’m being lambasted again, this time in the comments to a post at OTB for having the temerity to suggest that we might think about something other than fiscal stimulus to increase aggregate demand as an approach to dig us out of the hole the economy is in. I can’t help but think that the difference in views isn’t just ideological or political but exhibits the difference between the way a staff guy views a problem and the way an entrepeneur does.

Staff: There isn’t enough demand.

Entrepeneur: Sell more.

These are fundamentally different ways of looking at the same circumstances. Yes, taking steps to sell more involves risk. That’s the definition of being an entrepeneur. IMO that’s one of the big changes in the U. S. over the last several decades. Nowadays we’re looking for sure things; we’re extraordinarily risk-averse. We have outsized expectations on what we should expect in the way of return. That’s supported by the much slower rate of business formation.

It occurs to me that there are probably dozens of such differences. I’m taking suggestions in comments.

Pundita weaves together a number of recurrent themes I’ve sounded here, the shortcomings of infrastructure building for producing economic growth, the antique model used by our system of higher education, and the misconceptions about U. S. manufactuing, (along with several quotes from this blog) into a single post on the obstacles faced by the U. S.:

I think the above illustrations are enough to convey the crux of the problem. The USA has long been considered the most advanced among First World nations. But the advances spawned huge industries and a social system that in many important ways hasn’t advanced beyond the advances of more than 30 years ago. Just because of this — entrenched advancement, shall we term it, the USA is now finding it very hard to adjust to the present era.

The USA is such a vast country with such a large population and such an abundance of natural resources that I’m sure Americans will muddle through somehow. But I think we’d muddle faster and with less pain if we became more flexible as a society. How to do that quickly without bringing down havoc on our heads?

There’s one aspect of her post with which I’m a little more troubled: the Bloom Box. If you’re not aware of it the “Bloom Box” or Bloom Energy Service is a fel cell device for producing electricity using a variety of different fuels, e.g. natural gas, biological sources. The gadget now costs about three quarters of a million bucks (although smaller scale, less expensive versions have been promised in the future for home use) and something like 100 have been installed, mostly in California. I don’t think I’m as sanguine about it as Pundita is. I think my views on the Bloom Box can be summarized as “we’ll see”.

I’m not resistant to the technology; I’m just not sure that this particular device is a viable solution without federal and state subsidies. Once you’ve deducted the various subsidies the gadget is eligible for its cost per kWh appears to be about the same as natural gas gensets and other competitive technologies. Should we be subsidizing particular solutions at the expense of other solutions? Or should we just let the market decide?

Further, at the present state of the art massive adoption of distributed power generation will exacerbate the problems with our energy grid. As I’ve said before, I’d rather see the jack applied to updating the energy grid than to subsidizing specific companies and specific solutions, some of which might eventually pay off but most of which will almost inevitably fail.

I’m not sure there’s much advantage in being an early adopter of a losing technology.

The Watcher’s Council has announced its winners for last week. First place in the Council category was Joshuapundit’s Do Blacks Realize They’ve Been Played By Obama?.

First place in the non-Council category was with New Blue Nightmare: Clarence Thomas and the Amendment of Doom, which I nominated.

You can see the full results Israel In The Crosshairs.

First place in the non-Council category was Victor Davis Hanson with Obama’s Paradoxes.

You can see the full results here.

There’s an interesting post over at naked capitalism on the decline of Mead Corporation, a manufacturer of specialty papers. I wish I were knowledgeable enough to comment on it.

The “case study” raises all sorts of interesting questions include where the responsibility for Mead’s problems resides and what the relationship between management and labor should be. I think it also supports something I’ve mentioned around here from time to time, namely that sector expertise is a relevant factor.

The only other thing that occurred to me was the analog to the “don’t confuse genius with a bull market” advice. It might be that a company that succeeded during the enormous explosion in niche magazines in the 1980s (magazines are the primary use of the coated papers that Mead made) might not be able to maintain that success in an Internet age.

Last night my wife and I watched an Indian picture you may or may not have heard of, My Name Is Khan. It’s about Muslim man with Asberger’s Syndrome, born in India, living in the U. S., and how he is affected by the events of 9/11. Like many Indian pictures it is long and full of twists and turns. It presents, shall we say, a different point of view.

I suspect it might prove controversial to many in the U. S. for its fictive account of American reactions to 9/11. It’s a movie, not a documentary, and I think it’s probably a realistic depiction of how many Muslims felt after 9/11 if not what actually happened here.

My wife and I enjoyed the picture and I recommend it highly. I wept through about two-thirds of the picture. Streamable via Netflix.

I don’t venture into posting on popular culture too frequently. It’s not my competitive advantage and, honestly, I’m really not terribly in touch. However, the news these days has been so depressing that I thought that lightening things up on a holiday weekend might be nice.

To that end I started thinking about television’s greatest moments. I don’t mean the greatest historical moments covered on television. There are plenty of those including the assassination of President Kennedy, landing on the moon, Chuck and Di’s the Prince of Wales’s and Diana Spencer’s wedding, and the coverage of the attacks on 9/11.

What I mean is the greatest moments on entertainment television. Off the top of my head here are a handful.

Great Moments in Comedy

Vitameatavegamin (May 5, 1952)

This episode of the original I Love Lucy remains one of the highlights of television comedy. Interestingly, it bears a striking resemblance to an episode of another, largely forgotten early sit-com featuring a female lead, I Married Joan.

Went With the Wind (November 13, 1976)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH6TBEbP77Q

An uproariously funny send-up of Gone With the Wind from Carol Burnett and her cast.

Chuckles Bites the Dust (October 25, 1975)

Inappropriate hilarity is the central idea behind this hysterically funny episode of The Mary Tyler Moore program.

Cybill With an S (October 8, 1995)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0iT-Hxxvyg

A snippet from an episode featuring the remarkable Wendy Malick as Cybill’s ex’s new girlfriend who has one, little, tiny quirk.

Last Episodes

The Fugitive (October 29, 1967)

The last episode of The Fugitive was one of the relatively few satisfying endings for a drama series. It actually tied up all of the loose ends, a rarity.

Newhart (May 21, 1990)

The last episode of Bob Newhart’s second television series was a send-up of Dallas, the program itself, and Newhart’s previous program. A tour de force. Probably the all-time cleverest episode of any comedy series.

Under the category of “Last Episodes” I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the group hug that ended Mary Tyler Moore Show.

The Mother of All Cliffhangers

Who Shot J. R.? (March 21, 1980)

Television merchandising genius, this season-ending episode of Dallas set the standard for every subsequent cliffhanger episode. It literally brought governments to a screeching halt (the Turkish parliament needed to be suspended to allow its members to watch the revelation of the culprit).

The End of an Era

Carson’s last show (May 22, 1992)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSqXhzZRhec&feature=related

Johnny Carson’s retirement after 30 years of hosting The Tonight Show marked a generational shift in late night viewing.

Cronkite signs off for the last time as anchor (March 6, 1981)

Late Night’s Greatest Moments

Letterman’s first program after 9/11 (September 17, 2001)

The emotional beginning of this program was, I think, one of the important steps in the national healing process after the attacks on 9/11. Then Mayor Giuliani characterized it well: he gave us permission to laugh.

Jack Paar quits the Tonight Show (February 11, 1960)

I wish I could have located a video of this online. Jack Paar announced he was leaving The Tonight Show, said “There must be a better way of making a living than this”, and left poor Hugh Downs to finish the rest of the program alone. It was cited as the most memorable moment in late night television for years afterwards.

Reality was never like this

Richard Hatch wins the first season of Survivor (August 23, 2000)

Susan Hawk’s bitter and apparently unscripted speech that set the stage for Hatch’s victory is probably the most truly dramatic moment in the entire history of the form.

Face-off between Clay Aikens and Ruben Studdard (May 20, 2003)

The competition between these two capped the second season of American Idol.

Other suggestions?

Yesterday I finished the last workout in my fourth run through the EA Sports Active 2 Nine Week Program. Nine weeks, four workouts per week, roughly an hour per workout including warm up and cool down. I’ve only missed a half dozen workouts over the entire 36 weeks due to scheduling conflicts. One thing I noticed this time through the program was that I was able to modulate myself better. At no time was I as completely worn out as I have been on previous go-rounds and I was able to increase my pace beyond what they were calling for.

The workouts are pretty grueling; at the end of a workout I’m literally wringing wet.

I haven’t lost any weight. I may be a bit slimmer, trading some fat for muscle. My strength and endurance are better.

On Monday I begin my fifth nine week program. I feel like I should be doing more. I’m not sure what.