"The field of ethics went into crisis just as economics turned to mathematics,"

Gavin Kennedy responds..

From where do they get these muddled ideas? Economics as a subject did not exist in the 18th century, certainly not as Adam Smith wrote about what was called ‘police’ (ensuring subsistence for a society).

Political economy was a title coming into vogue when Smith wrote Wealth Of Nations, which lasted a century until the 1870s when mathematical analysis began to appear. That title too declined in the 20th century.

Smith wrote about ‘commercial society’ and market, but did not mention The Metaphor of an ‘invisible hand’ in his analysis of how markets functioned (Books I and II of Wealth Of Nations). He certainly never said ‘the advent of market economics as being guided by "an invisible hand" ’.

It is, however, true that The Metaphor is ‘often misconstrued as the early progenitor of the Milton Friedman-spawned, market-knows-all Chicago School’.

Indeed, the modern myth of The Metaphor was virtually invented by ‘Chicago’ in the environs of 59th street (see Oscar Lange, 1946 and Paul Samuelson, 1948) and has become universally misconstrued as ‘markets always produce socially beneficial outcomes’, despite the presence of monopolistic practices, protectionist policies, tariffs and non-tariff barriers, pollution, and other negative externalities.

Economics didn’t turn ‘to mathematics’; scholars calling themselves economists ‘turned to mathematics’. Economics did not become ‘a hard science’; its proponents confused ‘hard science’ with economic models that were bereft of the presence of human beings.

And ‘ethics’ did not become ‘a confusion’ – the basic ideas of ethics (partly summarized by Adam Smith in his Moral Sentiments) remain valid.

Posted via web from jimnichols's posterous

Right wing entertainment...

Conservatism as Entertainment

You hear a lot these days that Republicans are “in disarray.” But they’re not, really. It’s just that the way our political institutions work, a congressional minority party doesn’t generate a high-profile leader. Now you combine this leadership vacuum with the fact that the right has developed a very robust ideological media apparatus on talk radio and on Fox News and you have a problem. In effect, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are more prominent public figures than are John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, to say nothing of legislators who might actually be appealing figure. And since only a tiny minority of Republican members of congress are willing to suffer the dread “RINO” tag, the vast majority of elected officials seem to feel the need to kowtow to the whims of conservative movement media leaders.

The problem is that the incentives facing a media figure are very different from the incentives facing a politician.

A politician needs, basically, a majority. And the decisive votes are bound to come from people who don’t like politics much or really care about it. For a media figure, however, a much smaller audience than “half the people” would still constitute enormous success. But you need to appeal, intensely, to the small minority of people who care enough about politics to bother watching, reading, or listening to political commentary.

One problem is that tv formating leads to sound byte politics.  Actually the internet leads to blog byte politics--where you send off links that nobody reads and get responses with links that you don't read...

When I debate online I make an effort to dig into the oppositions arguments and I know of a few others who do as well.  And yes, we all slip up and/or are on the fly.  But the entertainment factor in the conservative movement is just as true within "liberals" out in the world as well. 

Posted via web from jimnichols's posterous

Reviving the Dream - Bob Herbert

A co-worker and I were talking about how angry people are. Angry and reactionary was I think the term he used. The "Sarah Palin types" he said. I pondered why this is most of the day. This Herbert column hit on an important point. The decline in working American's income.

Op-Ed Columnist - Reviving the Dream - NYTimes.com:

"America used to be better than this.

The seeds of today’s disaster were sown some 30 years ago. Looking at income patterns during that period, my former colleague at The Times, David Cay Johnston, noted that from 1980 (the year Ronald Reagan was elected) to 2005, the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.)

But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during those years. The standard of living for the average family improved not because incomes grew but because women entered the workplace in droves.

As hard as it may be to believe, the peak income year for the bottom 90 percent of Americans was way back in 1973, when the average income per taxpayer, adjusted for inflation, was $33,000. That was nearly $4,000 higher, Mr. Johnston pointed out, than in 2005.

Men have done particularly poorly. Men who are now in their 30s — the prime age for raising families — earn less money than members of their fathers’ generation did at the same age."

One impact of lower taxes, and cuts to government programs, that come from the conservative revolution is that people feel squeezed. And when you feel threatened you react... and not always in the most productive ways.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich on Obamanomics

Marketplace: Introducing the era of Obamanomics

Robert Reich:

After more than a quarter century, the era of Reaganomics is over, replaced by Obamanomics.

The first principle of Reaganomics was that lower taxes on the wealthy made them work harder and invest more, and the benefits trickle down to everyone else. Rarely in economic history has a theory been more tested in the real world and proven so wrong. Nothing trickled down. After the Reagan tax cuts, the median wage slowed, adjusted for inflation. After George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, the median wage actually dropped.

Meanwhile, most of the income went to the top. In 1980, just before the Reagan revolution, the richest 1 percent took home 9 percent of total national income. But by 2007, the richest 1 percent was taking home 22 percent. Obamanomics, by contrast, will increase taxes on the top, and it will use these proceeds to raise the living standards of average Americans by giving them lower taxes, better schools, and more affordable health insurance.

Reaganomics' second principle was that deregulated markets function better. Well, energy markets were deregulated and we wound up with Enron. Carbon emissions weren't controlled, and now we face global warming. Financial markets were deregulated and we have a global meltdown. Obamanomics, by contrast, accepts important roles for government: Creating incentives for non-fossil based energy, setting an overall cap on carbon emissions, and ensuring the solvency and security of financial companies.

The third and least well-known principle of Reaganomics is that government can keep the economy moving full tilt by spending like crazy and not worrying too much about budget deficits. Reagan's big spending was on national defense. Some of us called it "military Keynesianism." Problem was, it didn't stop when the economy got to capacity, thereby threatening inflation. Obama's stimulus intends to avoid this by reducing deficits as the nation moves back toward full capacity.

Under Reaganomics, government is the problem. It can still be a problem. But Obanaomics at least recognizes there are even bigger problems out there that can't be solved without government.

8 years of bad policy...

Where Did All the Republicans Go?

Yesterday Gallup released a report on its survey of political party affiliation by voters at the state level. The results, depicted in the map above, show that only five states have a statistically significant majority of voters who identify themselves as Republicans. The data come from interviews last year with “more than 350,000 U.S. adults as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking.”

new movie... on torture

the Bush years...

Farewell to All That: An Oral History of the Bush White House

Bush years...

Economy Made Few Gains in Bush Years
Eight-Year Period Is Weakest in Decades

"It's sad to say, but we really went nowhere for almost ten years, after you extract the boost provided by the housing and mortgage boom," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, and an informal adviser to McCain's campaign. "It's almost a lost economic decade."

US social safety net in trouble...

A safety net in need of repair

Unemployment insurance is one of the economy’s most important automatic stabilisers, helping to maintain household purchasing power when the economy weakens. But that role is impaired by the short duration of benefits and their skimpy level. At just under $300, the average weekly benefit is less than half the average private-sector wage. Mississippi’s maximum benefit of $230 is not much more than the federal poverty threshold of $200 for an individual. Benefits are low, in part, because they are financed by payroll taxes that states levy on their employers. States don’t like to raise such taxes, even when times are good. But that means they lack the funds to pay benefits when times are bad, forcing them to raise other taxes or borrow from the federal government, as some 30 states are now considering.

One of the best features of America’s system is “experience rating”: employers that frequently lay workers off must pay higher payroll taxes, thereby discouraging such lay-offs. But according to Alan Krueger of Princeton, many states have neutered that feature by charging most employers the lowest tax rate.

Stiglitiz on the crisis

Capitalist Fools

Behind the debate over remaking U.S. financial policy will be a debate over who’s to blame. It’s crucial to get the history right, writes a Nobel-laureate economist, identifying five key mistakes—under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II—and one national delusion.

right wing(nuts)

CONSERVATIVES' CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORIES....

sorry try again...

Calculated Risk responds to White House nonsense

The most significant causes of the credit crisis were innovation in mortgage securitization coupled with almost no regulatory oversight (because of ideologues who opposed oversight and regulation). This led to lax lending standards (liar loans, DAPs, widespread use of Option ARMs as affordability products, etc.) and excessive speculation.

Oh well ... I agree the White House missed the story, but the idea that "no one saw" the problem coming is nonsense.

Vietnam in reverse?

Trying to Redefine Role of U.S. Military in Iraq

Even though the agreement with the Iraqi government calls for all American combat troops to be out of the cities by the end of June, military planners are now quietly acknowledging that many will stay behind as renamed “trainers” and “advisers” in what are effectively combat roles. In other words, they will still be engaged in combat, just called something else.

“Trainers sometimes do get shot at, and they do sometimes have to shoot back,” said John A. Nagl, a retired lieutenant colonel who is one of the authors of the Army’s new counterinsurgency field manual.

Nice chess move...

who didn't see that one coming?

WWII and the Great Depression

I recently posted on a Reason segment where they use a strawman argument against new New Deal supporters.

Strangely enough, Jason Pye responded by stating that it was World War II that ended the Great Depression.

I wonder if it was the price controls? Or the wage controls? Or the rationing?

As Political Theorist,Sheldon Wolin, noted in his book Democracy inc.

"the economy was controlled by government "planning" directed toward prescribed production goals, prohibited from producing most consumer goods, and subjected to central allocation of vital materials. The labor force, for all practical purposes, was conscripted: its mobility was restricted, wages and prices were fixed, while collective bargaining was put on hold. Food and fuel were rationed... (p. 106)"

I'm not sure how this fits in with any "free market" positions that are out there. But if anyone knows feel free to shoot it my way.

To top it off he states:

Why else would anyone say that we need another New Deal if they recognize that it was a failure?

Umm can anyone say Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush... we've had years of economic decline--coming from tax cuts, deregulation, and lax regulation...

Why else do I talk to people who say--what happened to the economy that I grew up with.

To say I don't follow either the logic or the history lesson would be an understatement.

Though I do enjoy the fact the he agree's with Paul Krugman about World War II ending the depression.

energy vs. long term sustainability

How the West’s Energy Boom Could Threaten Drinking Water for 1 in 12 Americans

The Colorado River, the life vein of the Southwestern United States, is in trouble.

The river's water is hoarded the moment it trickles out of the mountains of Wyoming and Colorado and begins its 1,450-mile journey to Mexico's border. It runs south through seven states and the Grand Canyon, delivering water to Phoenix, Los Angeles and San Diego. Along the way, it powers homes for 3 million people, nourishes 15 percent of the nation's crops and provides drinking water to one in 12 Americans.

The river is already so beleaguered by drought and climate change that one environmental study called it the nation's "most endangered" waterway. Researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography warn the river's reservoirs could dry up in 13 years.

The industrial push has already begun.

In the eight years George W. Bush has been in office, the Colorado River watershed has seen more oil and gas drilling than at any time in the past 25 years. Uranium claims have reached a 10-year high. Last week the departing administration auctioned off an additional 359,000 acres of federal land for gas drilling projects outside Moab, Utah.

As still more land is leased for drilling and a last-minute change in federal rules has paved the way for water-intensive oil shale mining, politicians and water managers are now being forced to ask which is more valuable: energy or water.

"The decisions we are making today will be dictating how we will be living the rest of our lives," said Jim Pokrandt, a spokesman with the Colorado River Conservation District, a state-run policy agency. "We may have reached mutually exclusive demands on our water supply."

Some experts and officials say the economic and ecological importance of the Colorado is just as vital to American security as the natural resources that can be extracted from around it.

"Without (the Colorado), there is no Western United States," said Jim Baca, who directed the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, in the Clinton administration and says the agency's current policy is narrow-sighted. "If it becomes unusable, you move the entire Western United States out of any sort of economic position for growth."

Do we need a middle class?

After 30 years of the conservative revolution it is dwindling ya know!

Krugman says no...

There’s no obvious reason why consumer demand can’t be sustained by the spending of the upper class — $200 dinners and luxury hotels create jobs, the same way that fast food dinners and Motel 6s do. In fact, the prosperity of New York City in the last decade — largely supported off of super-salaried Wall Street types — is a demonstration that you can have an economy sustained by the big spending of the few rather than the modest spending of large numbers of people.

But it is a more politically palatable of an argument ey boyo?

quote of the day... and the Bush Legacy....

From Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly:

No, there was no Lewinsky during Bush's presidency. But my standard for "honor and dignity" has always been a little higher than that.

this at the end of his post on the Bush Legacy Project currently going on to rewrite history on failures such as Iraq

the auto industry crisis...

Automaker bankruptcies would cost up to 3.3 million U.S. jobs

A shutdown would eliminate up to 3.3 million U.S. jobs within the next year in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The loss of total state employment would be anywhere from 4.0% to 8.9% in Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, and Ohio (see Map). Traditional auto manufacturing states would certainly be hard hit, but Southern states—including the Carolinas, Mississippi, and Oklahoma—would be, too.

What if we had just increased our mileage standards a long time ago? Might that have made our cars more appealing? Or what if we fixed the health care crisis--which is pulling not just the auto industry down (here too!), but other corporations, and our long term budget outlook itself.

But unions get the hit. Nice to have a fall guy.

the jihadists at home...

Muslim’s scarf leads to arrest at courthouse

A Douglasville woman was jailed Tuesday after a judge found her in contempt of court for refusing to remove her hijab, the head covering worn by Muslim women.

Lisa Valentine, also known by her Islamic name, Miedah, 40, was arrested at the Douglasville Municipal Court for violating a court policy of no headgear, said Chris Womack, deputy chief of operations for the Douglasville Police Department.

Why the shoe?

Could it be...

One shoe the living?
4 million Iraqis displaced since war began: Oxfam

The report by Oxfam and NCCI, a network of aid organizations working in Iraq, also highlighted other dire statistics:

Four million Iraqis regularly cannot buy enough food.
70 per cent are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50 per cent in 2003.
28 per cent of children are malnourished, compared to 19 per cent before the 2003 invasion.
92 per cent of Iraqi children suffer learning problems, mostly due to the climate of fear.

One shoe for the 151,000 dead?

The authors of the WHO/Iraqi study, published last night in the New England Journal of Medicine, say that the new number, which could be anywhere between 104,000 and 223,000 allowing for misreporting, "points to a massive death toll in the wake of the 2003 invasion and represents only one of the many health and human consequences of an ongoing humanitarian crisis".

I dunno...

but some folks are baffled...

Juan Williams: we destroyed your country, how dare you disrespect our leader!

Because Bush has been such a defender of the views of governments who were being responsive to public opinion

sigh....