Ah, we get to the heart of the leftist conundrum; you hate conservative Christians more than Islamic fundamentalists.

The sad thing is, you actually believe this crap. (See what I did with the call back there?)

I detest all religious nutters, Snapper. I actively oppose those who would *take their religious zealotry and replace my own nation's secular pluralism with it* quite vocally. Because they want to *replace my own nation's secular pluralism with their religious zealotry.*

That doesn't mean I am caught in some "leftist conundrum" where I "hate conservative Christians more than Islamic fundamentalists." That's just you jacking your own dick in public again, for fear of having to debate with something other than your preferred, hand drawn cartoons.

I'm done here.

No, you're not. You're not done until Rickey runs. And right now, Rickey's teasing you. He's dancing around the bag, making you think maybe this is the time you'll get him.

But that's not how the game works.

the Arab world is incompatible with democracy.

I hear those people also don't like shitty American metal*

*Several songs on the list not shitty, nor American.

But hey, cherry pick a few bits and pieces that you think are bad and ignore the fact that Turkey, and Arab/Muslim nation, is peaceful and as democratic as Mississippi or Virginia ever managed to get.

Turks are not an Arabic people.

Ah, we get to the heart of the leftist conundrum; you hate conservative Christians more than Islamic fundamentalists.

Equally! We hate them Equally! However, it's easier, cheaper, and more productive to fight fanaticism right here in the States rather than fight it abroad by bombing the crap out of it. Although the latter keeps more people employed.

You hate conservatives and Christians so much, you turn a blind-eye to the real bad guys in the world.

According to Catholic doctrine, aren't we all "bad guys" until we confess?

Do you really think Greece or Spain can spend their way out of their debt problems?

Since when does Spain have a "debt problem"? Spain's debt as a percent of GDP is less than that of those austere and responsible Germans, IIRC.

I don't claim to be an expert in international finance, but my understanding is that Spain's debt problems are less a matter of "too much debt" and more a matter of a larger than anywhere else housing bubble (financed by German banks) that went kablooie with extra-special aplomb -- unemployment skyrocketed and remains much higher than even in the US, resulting in significant contraction in GDP. Add to that Spain's severe trade imbalance and you have a recipe for disaster.

Spain isn't a cautionary tale about social services, public employees, and government spending outpacing growth -- it's a cautionary tale about speculators run wild.

Snapper's response to the Great Recession is to deflate the currency (retrench). I think the exact opposite would be better. They will both probably dampen credit in the long term, but at least hyperinflation will get rid if the debt (everyone) has.

Frankly, I don't think that Obama has done a bad job with the economy - I don't think he's done a good one either. I think QE1/2 probably arrested further recession, but at a long term cost of increased debt.


Probably the only way out of it, world wide, is a technological breakthrough that lowers energy costs 25%. (i.e., rainbow farting unicorns)

Probably the only way out of it, world wide, is a technological breakthrough that lowers energy costs 25%. (i.e., rainbow farting unicorns)

Only if the magic market fairy says it's okay. No way should we ever invest government funds in future-facing tech. That would be terrible.

I think QE1/2 probably arrested further recession, but at a long term cost of increased debt.

I have no idea how this could possibly work. Do you mean increased basis points, and therefore increased interest costs when the Fed unloads the Treasurys?

QE has almost certainly reduced the amount of debt. If the economy fell further into recession, revenues would have fallen further. See DeLong/Summers on revenue neutral stimulus.

You think leaving businesses unsure about what their healthcare costs, taxes, or regulatory environment is (except to know it's going to be worse) doesn't deter investment in the US?

Ezra Klein covered this in WaPo pretty well (by way of a paper by Larry Mishel).

Job growth has undoubtedly been weaker than we would like, but not as compared with the previous two recoveries. As Mishel writes, “there is certainly nothing special about job growth in the current recovery that stands out from the 1991 and 2001 recoveries to indicate a special regulatory-caused job problem.” The 1980 recovery featured substantially faster job growth, but that recession was the product of the Fed raising interest rates to break inflation, and so the Fed had the power to drive the recovery by lowering interest rates again.
Two other ways to make the same point: If fear of regulations was exerting some unusual influence on hiring decisions, you would expect to see a gap opening between GDP growth and job creation. But as a recent analysis by Goldman Sachs concluded, “the link between the growth rate of real GDP and the change in the unemployment rate, known as Okun’s law, continues to be very tight.” Similarly, if employers saw opportunities in the economy but didn’t want to hire more workers, they might be increasing the hours of the workers they have on hand. But there’s no evidence of that, either. Employees are working fewer hours, on average, than they were before the recession.

Finally, given the multinational nature of so many large companies, why don't they choose to spend large cash reserves in less regulated climates if increased fear of regulation is what is preventing them from hiring?

Why is Turkish "democracy" imposing headscarves

It's not. I have no idea what your source of "information" on this subject is. But then you've never shown much interest beyond your little echo chamber.

and purging the courts and schools of anyone with any secular bent?

They're not.

They're not.

Well, it depends on who in Turkey you ask.

Even among those who take a more pessimistic view, however, good ol' fashioned authoritarianism (Putinism?) right now tends to be a greater concern than Islamic extremism.

Afghanistan is a country so divided that even dictators have a lot of trouble ruling half the country.

I think that's an understatement. I think it's closer to a collection of tribes that happen to be inside some lines on a map. There's a fascinating article in the Economist on Pashtunwali

Worth the read just to get a sense on how difficult it would be to pull it into any kind of a nation under the best of circumstances (and of course they don't have anything close to this)

From the article (written in 2006) "If history is any guide, many Pushtuns in northern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan will continue their drift to Islamist militancy until they are defeated, which looks impossible, or the Pakistani and Western forces are withdrawn. They are then likely to return to their simmeringly murderous tribal ways."

#610 Actually the controversy is about permitting headscarves, not imposing them. Not that I'd expect Snapper's "sources" to catch this distinction.

Prior to 2007 they were absolutely banned (Ataturk didn't approve of them) in any public sector jobs, in hospitals and at universities (students had been kicked out of university for wearing them. One even went to jail). Private employers could permit them but could not require them.

In the 2007 election part of what Erdogan campaigned on was the lifting of the ban. Note: He was very clear that there would be no requirement to wear one (prudent -- a money back guarantee that the army would intervene). He won. Parliament passed an amendment to the constitution permitting (not requiring) the headscarf at universities. 79% in favor. Struck down by the Constitutional Court.

What's happened since 2010 is that many universities are refusing to enforce the ban, and the Education minister has said that instructors are not allowed to take action themselves.

And to be clear, my sympathy is entirely with Erdogan et al. They've played the democratic game right up to following the amendment process. The courts (under pressure from the Army) changed the rules.

In Turkey the (mildly) Islamists have been the supporters of the democratic process.

In Turkey the (mildly) Islamists have been the supporters of the democratic process.

Again, Ron, it depends on who in Turkey you ask.

And even many supporters of the AKP find this trend most worrisome.

Two other ways to make the same point: If fear of regulations was exerting some unusual influence on hiring decisions, you would expect to see a gap opening between GDP growth and job creation. But as a recent analysis by Goldman Sachs concluded, “the link between the growth rate of real GDP and the change in the unemployment rate, known as Okun’s law, continues to be very tight.” Similarly, if employers saw opportunities in the economy but didn’t want to hire more workers, they might be increasing the hours of the workers they have on hand. But there’s no evidence of that, either. Employees are working fewer hours, on average, than they were before the recession.

Why would one expect regulations to affect hiring independent of GDP growth? Why wouldn't one expect them to affect both hiring and GDP growth proportionately?

I've spent my whole career working in heavily regulated industries, and I've seen it take anywhere from 6-12 months and cost millions in legal and other fees to get through the licensing/regulatory approval process in order to start a new company. I'm not criticizing that process, but it seems obvious that regulations can have an impact on capital formation, growth and hiring.

#613 I'll stipulate that their record on freedom of the press is far from perfect. But the trend is going the right way best I can tell. How many critics of the government went to prison under the army?

And I'm genuinely uninterested in vague things like "depends on who you ask". What specifically can you cite as undemocratic actions of the AKP?

And it's surely worth noting that in the article you go contains the following:

Turkey has become a far more liberal country in recent years, and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is praised by many for not letting his own deep religious beliefs erode the country’s secular traditions.

How many critics of the government went to prison under the army?

Civilians have been in charge since the November 1983 parliamentary elections, Ron. The AKP has been in power since winning the vote in November 2002.

This article is worth reading, particularly because the author historically has been just as critical of extremism among the secular nationalists.

By the way, I am not reflexively anti-AKP. I have rolled my eyes over the years at the principal opposition party, the CHP, that often played the role of the Washington Generals to Erdogan's Harlem Globetrotters.

the Arab world is incompatible with democracy.

snapper's defense of this ridiculous claim shows the incoherence of his thinking.

He uses Turkey - not an Arab state - as evidence of this incompatibility, even though Turkey has decades of reasonably democratic governance. He doesn't cite the democratic states in Bangladesh and Indonesia, for instance, even though Bangladesh and Indonesia are home to about 20% of the world's Muslim population.

Snapper doesn't want to make the pure racial argument about "Arabs" but he knows he can't make the claim about "Muslims", so you get the incoherency.

Don't forget about Muslim-majority Malaysia, MCoA.

snapper's defense of this ridiculous claim shows the incoherence of his thinking.

He uses Turkey - not an Arab state - as evidence of this incompatibility, even though Turkey has decades of reasonably democratic governance. He doesn't cite the democratic states in Bangladesh and Indonesia, for instance, even though Bangladesh and Indonesia are home to about 20% of the world's Muslim population.

Snapper doesn't want to make the pure racial argument about "Arabs" but he knows he can't make the claim about "Muslims", so you get the incoherency.

Obviously there is huge overlap between Arab influence, and Arab "blood", since Islam has been dominated by Arab culture, and language, from the start. Even in "Arab" countries like Syria, the percentage of people of actual Arab descent is likely tiny.

As Turkey shows, democracy w/o liberty is meanignless. There was more liberty under the generals, or their puppets than under the AKP.

Southeast Asian Muslims seems to have a culture much more adaptable to modernity and democracy than more Arab influenced countries.

Obviously there is huge overlap between Arab influence, and Arab "blood", since Islam has been dominated by Arab culture, and language, from the start. Even in "Arab" countries like Syria, the percentage of people of actual Arab descent is likely tiny.

So lots of Arab influence in a non-Arab land = Democracy that does a lot to suppress Islamic influences on said Democracy?

#613 I'll stipulate that their record on freedom of the press is far from perfect. But the trend is going the right way best I can tell. How many critics of the government went to prison under the army?

And I'm genuinely uninterested in vague things like "depends on who you ask". What specifically can you cite as undemocratic actions of the AKP?

Amen.

There was an excellent article in the New Yorker last month on Erdogan and the "deep state" -- it's entirely fair, I think, both in questioning some of the charges brought against long-time Turkish power brokers, but also pointing out that the Turkish concept of the "deep state" isn't exactly an X-Files-esque fantasy.

FWIW, this is the latest from Jenkins of SAIS.

Most international attention has focused on the more than 100 journalists who are now in jail in Turkey as a result of what they have written or said. But more pernicious – and ultimately much more corrosive to freedom of expression – is the widespread self-censorship and the climate of fear, which extends well beyond the media into Turkish society at large. Yet it would be a mistake to hold the government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan solely to blame. The underlying problem goes much deeper and is considerably older than the AKP government. Indeed, it could be argued that the main responsibility for the deteriorating state of freedom of expression in the country lies with the Turkish media itself.

Some have argued that the government's response to the recent Fidan controversy is a threat to democracy.

See these more dispassionate summaries as well:

http://www.economist.com/node/21548261
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=39045&cHash=47a8942f21333670cd6f3645a4c0d716

Ah BBTF, my go-to place when I want a collection of government workers, academics, and failed academics ('sup Sam) to explain to me exactly how big corporations feel about regulatory uncertainty.

Ah, we get to the heart of the leftist conundrum; you hate conservative Christians more than Islamic fundamentalists.

It's because you Christians have created the wrong incentives. If you talk enough smack about Islam, there's a small chance that a fanatic believer will show up at your door and kill you in the face. Conversely, you can #### on Christians all day long and the most they'll do is whine and complain. The lefty religion haters are fundamentally pussies, "courageously" trangressing the boundaries when it comes to Christians, but terrified into silence when it comes to Muslims.

When and if Christian zealots start collecting scalps, you'll get some respect.

Ah BBTF, my go-to place when I want a collection of government workers, academics, and failed academics ('sup Sam) to explain to me exactly how big corporations feel about regulatory uncertainty.

So why haven't the huge cash reserves been spent in countries without an environment of regulatory uncertainty?

Why is there no sign of regulatory uncertainty in the data?

So why haven't the huge cash reserves been spent in countries without an environment of regulatory uncertainty?
Why is there no sign of regulatory uncertainty in the data?

Forget it, he's rolling.

So why haven't the huge cash reserves been spent in countries without an environment of regulatory uncertainty?

Short answer, you don't understand how capex works. Even assuming companies are not spending overseas (many are), there are many reasons why regulatory uncertainty here could curtail such spending. If I want to build a refinery in Wyoming to process shale oil, it doesn't do me any damn good to relocate it to Bangladesh. If I'm concerned that my compliance costs are going to increase significantly in the near future, I'm going to be less likely to splash out cash reserves on new ventures.

Why is there no sign of regulatory uncertainty in the data?

This question makes no sense.

When and if Christian zealots start collecting scalps, you'll get some respect.

like in Republika Srpska,

I suspect that most western leftists appear to hate conservative Christians more than they do Muslim fundies is because for the most part here (the US) the conservative Christians are a significant socio-political force/threat whereas the Muslim fundies are not- there is essentially zero chance that what Muslim fundies want insofar as society is organized being imposed here - whereas the Christian right has actual cultural/political power here.

In Europe some leftists do in fact hate conservative Christians more than they do Muslim fundies... partly because they believe that western culture is bad and has oppressed everyone else- therefore everyone else is "noble" or some nonsense like that- but this is causing no small amount of cognitive dissonance among Euro-lefties, many -most famously Hitchens and Pim Fortuyn) who had come to notice that the Muslim fundies perhaps more perfectly embody the things they hate about Christian conservatives than the Christian conservatives themselves do.

As Turkey shows, democracy w/o liberty is meanignless. There was more liberty under the generals, or their puppets than under the AKP.

say the apologist for Franco

you, in your own funny way, are a very scary man.

This question makes no sense.

The Captain is awesome super clutch because he has quiet eyes.

While I doubt I agree with Good Face on almost anything (e.g. religious violence by Christians clearly does occur, including in the US, although it's certainly not as widespread as the threat of violence connected to other religions), I do happen to work in a large corporation concerned with regulatory uncertainty.

And:

a) Regulatory uncertainty (obviously) exists everywhere; only the most dictatorial of regimes can be truly laissez-faire when it comes to regulation, and those tend to implode violently - in every sense of the word. The backlash when one of those regimes topples can be catastrophic for a corporation and tars the brand globally. So it's more of a risk/reward curve than a max/min value, which is why I doubt there are any clear patterns to be divined when looking at regulatory relationship to investment. The data's just too muddy.

b) Corporations, as a very general rule, prefer to withhold capex investment as a bargaining tool with their host governments, rather than scurry here and there chasing the best marginal return. At least, this is true in my industry (energy) where ROI is measured in decades, and regulatory 'certainty' never lasts more than 5-10, even in the best cases.

At least from what I've seen, withholding investment adds little short-term risk to a publically-traded stock, because the result is often a boost in cash held (or a reduction in debt held), while any negative long-term impact from lack of investment is very difficult to assess. The opposite is true of investing in a location with reduced regulation; committing that money immediately makes some shareholders jumpy unless it's a real slam-dunk compared to investing in your core markets.

Just my experience, of course, as one of those liberal corporate whores.

This question makes no sense.

Why, when you compare this recession to the 1991 and 2001 recessions in terms of growth in equipment and software investment, is this recession the highest?

Why, when you compare this recession to the 2001 and 1991 recessions in terms of private sector job growth, is this recovery so similar to those two?

Why, if regulatory uncertainty is causing the slowness to hire new employees, did employers drop hours worked per week to such an extent?



This whole obsession with regulatory uncertainty is bizarre. Let's elevate regulatory uncertainty to a huge degree, and say that it constitutes one of two possible reasons why output is low, with a huge demand gap being the other. When you look at the evidence, none of it fits the idea that businesses are bound by regulatory uncertainty. Instead, all the actions in the economy are consistent with a massive demand gap that has been slowly filled in.

In an alternate reality, where job growth was much more sluggish than GDP indicated, where investment was very slow and where hours worked were very high, then a regulatory uncertainty argument would make much more sense. As is, it's completely incoherent.

In Europe some leftists do in fact hate conservative Christians more than they do Muslim fundies

I'm pretty sick of both, but while I firmly believe that the latter pose almost infinitely more a threat to my life and limb than the former, Christian conservatives occupy a uniquely privileged position in my society (via the UK constitution - although much of it is honorary, it is still a uniquely privileged position), and therefore deserve opprobrium for the way in which that position is often used to present falsehoods about non-Christian non-conservatives. Including when they misrepresent the extent of the threat from Muslim fundamentalists.

Dear diary: Today I got to use the word 'opprobrium' in a sentence.

Also, #creepingsharia is hilarious.

At least from what I've seen, withholding investment adds little short-term risk to a publically-traded stock, because the result is often a boost in cash held (or a reduction in debt held), while any negative long-term impact from lack of investment is very difficult to assess. The opposite is true of investing in a location with reduced regulation; committing that money immediately makes some shareholders jumpy unless it's a real slam-dunk compared to investing in your core markets.

There is also a lingering distrust of having too little cash on hand from the liquidity crisis. For a long time, companies had utilized very short term loans and such to enable them to keep very low cash reserves. A lot of companies saw the potential to suffer a a very large blow because they didn't have a lot of cash on hand and others weren't able to make good on their obligations. Cash being held is higher than in previous years in part because no one wants to watch their company risk going because they weren't protected from such an incident.

And in 10 years cash reserves will return to the relative levels of 2007 with the exception of a large number of banks.

So wait, is it Muslim fundies bombing abortion clinics, or Christian ones? So hard to keep track.

This whole obsession with regulatory uncertainty is bizarre.

I first heard it the week after Obama was elected and before he took office, it was a pre-planned rightwing talking point... just keep bringing it up, and to give it a veneer of reality find some small businessman to quote saying something like, "I'd like to expand and hire more workers, but I really can't right now because i just no longer know what those gubmint regulators are gonna do next..."

You can also do push polling, mention regulatory uncertainty in a few questions - if nothing else it gets people thinking that something is there.

The "regulatory uncertainty" "crisis" is a wholly bogus one manufactured by propagandists.

(via the UK constitution - although much of it is honorary, it is still a uniquely privileged position)

Are you guys ever going to get an actual WRITTEN constitution?


Plus what would happen if the Queen went mad and exercised her prerogative to, umm, fire Cameron, I mean sure she'd have cause Id' suppose, but wouldn't that cause the mother of all constitutional crises?

Why, when you compare this recession to the 1991 and 2001 recessions in terms of growth in equipment and software investment, is this recession the highest?

Dead link.

Why, when you compare this recession to the 2001 and 1991 recessions in terms of private sector job growth, is this recovery so similar to those two?

Ok, first you wanted to talk about capex investments and now you're switching gears to employment? If I didn't know better, I'd say you don't understand this issue and are just throwing talking point links at the wall. Anyway, that chart shows the rate in 1991 was ~50% higher, the rate in 2001 was ~150% lower, and the rate in 1983 was ~900% higher than 2009. Not sure what you expect that chart proves.

Why, if regulatory uncertainty is causing the slowness to hire new employees, did employers drop hours worked per week to such an extent?

Because overtime is expensive and companies would rather reduce hours than cut heads if they can? Seriously, not sure how this has anything to do with what we're talking about.

The "regulatory uncertainty" "crisis" is a wholly bogus one manufactured by propagandists.

Clearly all part of a vast right wing conspiracy. Good thing you're on the job chief!

Dead link.

Sorry, here's the chart I was trying for.

Ok, first you wanted to talk about capex investments and now you're switching gears to employment? If I didn't know better, I'd say you don't understand this issue and are just throwing talking point links at the wall. Anyway, that chart shows the rate in 1991 was ~50% higher, the rate in 2001 was ~150% lower, and the rate in 1983 was ~900% higher than 2009. Not sure what you expect that chart proves.

The chart shows that the recovery has followed Okun's law, namely that the growth rate of GDP and the change in the unemployment rate has been tightly linked. If businesses were holding off on hiring due to regulatory uncertainty as the primary factor, then you would expect that to be de-linked. It's not. The recovery has been extremely normal in how unemployment has tracked GDP.

Because overtime is expensive and companies would rather reduce hours than cut heads if they can? Seriously, not sure how this has anything to do with what we're talking about.

You're really not grasping things. In the regulatory uncertainty argument, the reason why companies aren't hiring has nothing to do with a demand gap. The demand gap doesn't exist, remember? If that were the case, then we'd expect to see a huge rise in average hours worked, since companies have to get the work done, but are reluctant to hire. That isn't the case. What we're seeing is a shortage of profitable tasks for companies to do. That isn't consistent with a regulatory uncertainty argument.

Also, why is it that Nieporent (and to a lesser extent DiPerna) are the only posters who are capable of discussing politics from the right politely?



What evidence supports your claim that regulatory uncertainty explains the unemployment rate and recovery?

Are you guys ever going to get an actual WRITTEN constitution?

We've got one; it's just not codified. Sorry, my A-Level Politics nerd coming out again.

No, probably not. It's faintly silly, but we're quite proud of our 'unwritten rules' method of governing, even when it all falls apart. Hey, remember when Individual Ministerial Responsibility was a thing?

Plus what would happen if the Queen went mad and exercised her prerogative to, umm, fire Cameron, I mean sure she'd have cause Id' suppose, but wouldn't that cause the mother of all constitutional crises?

Well, yeah, though I think some of those prerogatives were actually rescinded, quietly, in the 90s. Ready to be corrected if that's not the case.

It's a weird thing; the UK feels like it has very loosely defined rules that, in general, are seldom challenged; the US feels like it has very deeply detailed rules that are regularly flaunted - at least, based on what I read of how executive power is being wielded. Still, that's a rough feel; I've kept my distance from the actual levers of government power after my college years. The nearer I got, the uglier politics looked.

I suspect that most western leftists appear to hate conservative Christians more than they do Muslim fundies is because for the most part here (the US) the conservative Christians are a significant socio-political force/threat whereas the Muslim fundies are not

But the Muslims wanted to build a Ground Zero Victory Mosque!

Also, why is it that Nieporent (and to a lesser extent DiPerna) are the only posters who are capable of discussing politics from the right politely?

Because you don't actually understand your own arguments. You're just a bot throwing links from lefty websites at the screen without any comprehension of what you're doing. You assume arguments I haven't made and ignore arguments I have. Really, I've been far kinder to you than you deserve since you're basically a spammer.

What we're seeing is a shortage of profitable tasks for companies to do. That isn't consistent with a regulatory uncertainty argument.

I must admit, I'm scratching my head to try to grasp how this works, not having a background in economics. Wouldn't a hiatus on new investment due to regulatory uncertainty, in theory, be very clearly shown in a reluctance to hire? If you're not investing in new stores/widget makers/whatever, and instead building a cash stockpile, then I would expect companies to go into 'keep the lights on mode', paying to maintain and operate the core business, but not to launch new projects, locations, and products.

My own feeling is that regulatory uncertainty exists, but within fairly narrow bounds. Companies might have a flex of 1-2 years in which to place their investment choices, but seldom as many as 5, before the market will turn on them. No company's going to sit out investment during an entire election cycle (for example) as soon as it's clear it's going to run the full <n> years. Displacement of investment probably also happens, but again, within relatively narrow parameters.

Really, I've been far kinder to you than you deserve

New handle suggestion!

You assume arguments I haven't made and ignore arguments I have.

It's sort of tough for me to respond to your arguments because you haven't made any. All you do is insult people and make claims not backed by evidence.

Here's the one quasi-argument you made:

Short answer, you don't understand how capex works. Even assuming companies are not spending overseas (many are), there are many reasons why regulatory uncertainty here could curtail such spending. If I want to build a refinery in Wyoming to process shale oil, it doesn't do me any damn good to relocate it to Bangladesh. If I'm concerned that my compliance costs are going to increase significantly in the near future, I'm going to be less likely to splash out cash reserves on new ventures.

Your argument:
a. doesn't match empirical facts (in that capital investment has been bog standard for a recovery)
b. doesn't provide any evidence for your claims (what regulations are preventing investment?)
c. includes an ad hominem

Which part of that would you like me to respond to?

Wouldn't a hiatus on new investment due to regulatory uncertainty, in theory, be very clearly shown in a reluctance to hire? If you're not investing in new stores/widget makers/whatever, and instead building a cash stockpile, then I would expect companies to go into 'keep the lights on mode', paying to maintain and operate the core business, but not to launch new projects, locations, and products.

The environment proposed by Republicans is that there is no problem with demand--i.e. the demand is there. Corporate profits are at record highs, so there's no problem with profitability. In the hypothetical situation where there is normal demand and high profitability, but you don't want to hire NEW employees, why would you cut the hours of your existing employees? If you don't accept that there is a demand gap (and there is obviously no profitability gap), why are your workers working fewer hours?

IOW, yes, it's theoretically possible that regulatory uncertainty could drive high unemployment, but not simultaneously high unemployment and low weekly hours worked. That doesn't make any sense without either low profitability or low demand.




Btw: thank you for being polite.

What we're seeing is a shortage of profitable tasks for companies to do. That isn't consistent with a regulatory uncertainty argument.

Of course it is, and business is about projecting the future anyway. Regulatory uncertainty dampens the willingness to expand and take risks (*), which may or may not include hiring.

In fairness, there is also uncertainty about whether the slowdown is structural or cyclical.

(*) The late Bush and all the Obama administration have been one big exercise in making it up on the fly, from letting Lehman go bankrupt to making up a "bankruptcy code" and bailing out the auto companies, to the Fed doubling the size of its balance sheet in a couple months. Policymaking has been almost entirely haphazard and arbitrary. What were the "rules" governing Lehman and the auto companies and forcing banks to take money from the government, and how did they resemble "certainty" in the slightest? That period introduced a "banana republic" risk factor into economic decision-making that can't possibly be expected to go away in a year or two. And it hasn't.

The environment proposed by Republicans is that there is no problem with demand--i.e. the demand is there. Corporate profits are at record highs, so there's no problem with profitability. In the hypothetical situation where there is normal demand and high profitability, but you don't want to hire NEW employees, why would you cut the hours of your existing employees? If you don't accept that there is a demand gap (and there is obviously no profitability gap), why are your workers working fewer hours?

I can't speak for Republicans or conservatives, but if they believe that there's (EDIT - not) a problem with demand, then I'd say they're probably wrong. It seems very likely that there is a problem with demand, given high unemployment and the concentration of new wealth generated with the rich, who are the least likely to spend it on local services. However, it may not be the only problem preventing investment.

But I still don't understand your last point. If low weekly hours are being worked, in some industries, that might not correlate with low demand, it might correlate with lack of appetite to pursue new business. Let's say you run a development house (admittedly, the kind of space I'm most familiar with). Your willingness to chase new clients at the cost of paying overtime hours may be reduced if you think that - even if the ROI would most likely be in your favor - you will, in the interim between the investment and the return, need that cash on hand to satisfy an upcoming regulatory requirement.

In other words, you might well sacrifice a 10% return via new business in favor of a 2% return on farming existing business if the period between now and realizing the 10% poses an existential threat. Which, in the case of a lot of big financial services companies, it might.

Now, that's not to say that's what's happening right now, but that line of logic, in itself, is leverage for the private sector to use over the public sector. "Give us guarantees that our landscape is fixed for the time being, or else our balance sheet is a more risk-averse place for our cash than looking for new business." Does that make sense?

Btw: thank you for being polite.

Likewise.

I have no idea how this could possibly work. Do you mean increased basis points, and therefore increased interest costs when the Fed unloads the Treasurys?

QE has almost certainly reduced the amount of debt. If the economy fell further into recession, revenues would have fallen further. See DeLong/Summers on revenue neutral stimulus.

Apparently the only way I can get a discussion on this is to make an off-the-cuff comment that is "wrong" so good.
I don't really get economics... Clearly there is some counter argument to QE that I don't understand. I suppose it's mostly that "It didn't actually work" (and I have read the white paper that claims it certainly did by comparing actual to modeled results... which is ... something)

As a follow-up to my point, I own a (very!) little stock in Marks and Spencer in the UK, who released a quarterly report yesterday. In that report, they noted that sales in some categories fell due to a lack of stock, as opposed to a lack of demand. If we saw similar trends emerging over a number of markets - i.e. companies being short on inventory - then I'd feel like that would be a classic sign of reluctance to invest in the face of relatively healthy demand.

I don't think that's the overall trend, though; I can only think of one other industry where that's been happening recently, and that's handheld consumer electronics (and even that's generally the Apple products; competitors have been flooding the channel, if anything). So such a trend of demand but little appetite, if it existed in any real strength, should self-correct in most markets.

The problem here is that market signals in my industry, energy, are s l o w. Already, the UK's very short on forecast future generation capacity due to reluctance to invest from companies like the one I'm working for now. That's partly a performance issue, partly a balance sheet issue, and yes, partly a regulatory certainty issue. And companies can use that last one as a stick to hit the government with until they get the subsidies they want, regardless of whether it's 5% or 95% of the problem.

As a follow-up to my point, I own a (very!) little stock in Marks and Spencer in the UK, who released a quarterly report yesterday. In that report, they noted that sales in some categories fell due to a lack of stock, as opposed to a lack of demand.

Doesn't M&S specialize in fresh, farm-to-market consumables? My experience with M&S are perishables, which lends a different tenor to "lack of stock" than say, lack of stock for BMW or something.

Doesn't M&S specialize in fresh, farm-to-market consumables? My experience with M&S are perishables, which lends a different tenor to "lack of stock" than say, lack of stock for BMW or something.

They've got a sizeable mid-market food business, but their main product is clothing.

Regulations -- and uncertainties -- are not distributed evenly, correct?

So if Regulatory Uncertainty was a real factor in lack of growth, then grown in particular sectors should should be correlated with their relative amount of RU.

But there has to be some sort of demand gap, regardless, no?

Your argument:
a. doesn't match empirical facts (in that capital investment has been bog standard for a recovery)
b. doesn't provide any evidence for your claims (what regulations are preventing investment?)
c. includes an ad hominem

Which part of that would you like me to respond to?

You asked a question out of either a) ignorance or b) stupidity. I charitably chose to ascribe it to ignorance, although upon further reflection I see I was probably mistaken. Also, I generously answered "your" question, although I think we both know it wasn't yours at all. I made no further claims other than to point out how regulatory uncertainty was not inconsistent with corporations refraining from spending money overseas in differing regulatory environments.

But there has to be some sort of demand gap, regardless, no?

No. There simply needs to be greater inability to project future demand and other economic variables. Regulatory uncertainty makes predicting the future tougher.

So if Regulatory Uncertainty was a real factor in lack of growth, then grown in particular sectors should should be correlated with their relative amount of RU.

It's a difficult one to unpick. Growth in spending on telecoms and consumer electronics, for example, has been explosive the last 5 years due (at least in part) to innovative new products. Simultaneously, the regulatory environment - such as it is - for telecoms and wireless communication has been fairly settled; the 3G licensing spree in the early 2000s is over, and 4G licensing has been relatively straightforward, with a few exceptions.

On the other hand, 'Net Neutrality' and controls on copyright/IP via SOPA and ACTA, and their national counterparts, have been very much in the public eye recently, which should have a negative impact on investment in e-commerce and online digital stores. But they haven't particularly, as far as I can tell. So I think the story can be spun in any direction you like, with a lack of any real quantitative measure to point at the problem.

However, it [demand] may not be the only problem preventing investment.

No, and that's not what I'm intending to claim (simplifying for the sake of argument can be counterproductive sometimes). A demand gap, however, covers something like 50-75% of the environment. The rest is a combo of low consumer confidence, low availability of credit, and general fear of the market, and yes, probably some regulatory uncertainty. I have no problem with someone claiming that regulatory uncertainty is a factor at the extreme margins, but the diagnosis of the economy by the right in the US is that companies are reluctant to hire people because they're worried about the possibility of increased regulations phasing in 4 years from now. That is a ridiculous claim.

If low weekly hours are being worked, in some industries, that might not correlate with low demand, it might correlate with lack of appetite to pursue new business. Let's say you run a development house (admittedly, the kind of space I'm most familiar with). Your willingness to chase new clients at the cost of paying overtime hours may be reduced if you think that - even if the ROI would most likely be in your favor - you will, in the interim between the investment and the return, need that cash on hand to satisfy an upcoming regulatory requirement.

Yes, but the trend is in *all* industries--IOW, even ones like service and manufacturing. If you manufacture widgets, and there's a desire for 4000 widgets, and you can produce that much with the workers you have [edit: at a standard 40 hour work week], uncertainty about regulations that may or may not happen down the road won't prevent you from doing so. That, combined with the investment consistent with prior recessions and the standard coupling of unemployment with GDP growth points to regulatory uncertainty being a very minor factor. There's no persuasive evidence for regulatory uncertainty being the most dominant factor in a slow recovery, which is the claim.

I don't really get economics... Clearly there is some counter argument to QE that I don't understand. I suppose it's mostly that "It didn't actually work" (and I have read the white paper that claims it certainly did by comparing actual to modeled results... which is ... something)

Okay. In a recession, monetary theory posits that a lower interest rate incentivizes private spending. Since you get less interest, IOW, and there's still inflation, so it doesn't make sense to save money (in the population as aggregate) if the interest rate is low enough. Since there is a zero bound on interest (can't get lower than 0% due to cash), once you get close to the zero bound, you have to do other things to lower the "real" interest rate.

After 2008, banks held a lot of debt that scared them, and they valued it at less than face value. The Fed bought a ton of MBS (in QE1-2) at above market rates. So instead of banks holding capital they valued at 300 billion, they held capital that they valued at 700 billion, for example. This improved willingness of banks to lend capital (since they felt like they had more). QE3 was very different and involved changing certain kinds of treasurys for other kinds of treasurys.

It's another way to increase the money supply. The only way for the situation to actively hurt the economy is if it drastically increases inflation (due to too much money being available), or if the MBS as a group lose tremendous amounts of value (hasn't happened yet). In theory, the cost to the taxpayer is zero. The Fed balance sheet has no relation to the US national debt (except at the margins in terms of potentially affecting basis points due to investor confidence). But since yields on treasurys are at 30 year lows or something stupid like that, that isn't a risk.

You asked a question out of either a) ignorance or b) stupidity. I charitably chose to ascribe it to ignorance, although upon further reflection I see I was probably mistaken. Also, I generously answered "your" question, although I think we both know it wasn't yours at all. I made no further claims other than to point out how regulatory uncertainty was not inconsistent with corporations refraining from spending money overseas in differing regulatory environments.

No, I'd genuinely like to know on what basis you believe that regulatory uncertainty has negatively affected the recovery, to the extent that it matters more than the demand gap.

Regulatory uncertainty makes predicting the future tougher.

In what way is it "tougher" to "predict the future" today than it was in say, 2005?

The rest is a combo of low consumer confidence, low availability of credit, and general fear of the market, and yes, probably some regulatory uncertainty.

In what way is today's regulatory environment more "uncertain" than that of say, 2005?

In what way is today's regulatory environment more "uncertain" than that of say, 2005?

The best example of regulatory uncertainty is probably the boom in coal plant production that occurred in early 2009. There was massive speculation that any carbon tax or ban would involve grandfathering in existing plants. Therefore, a #### ton of new coal plants were introduced to beat potential legislation.

Another potential example is in the healthcare sector, where organizations are looking at switching to the ACO model, but are uncertain on implementation until relatively recently.

These, of course, don't demonstrate reg uncertainty harming the economy, since both those industries are doing well. At the margins, you could say that financial institutions are reluctant to lend due to reg. uncertainty, but this is probably not true.

So, coal plants were being built *because of* or "regulatory uncertainty."

But healthcare providers aren't...um...providing healthcare or whatever, because of "regulatory uncertainty."

And maybe, but probably not, financial institutions are possibly but unlikely doing something differently?

I don't see much of a point or trend here, aside from the obvious talking point the rightwingers have decided to trot out. "Regulatory uncertainty" is an utterly empty bromide, devoid of meaning or sense. It's just something to say in place of "I don't like Obama and think everything he is for is bad."

If coal plants were being built in order to be grandfathered in to some pre-carbon tax plan, that's not regulatory uncertainly. It's dirty energy making a bet on future state - i.e. "predicting the future" - and actually investing now (which would actually drive the economy to recovery, as a sort of back door stimulus, actually.)

If the healthcare sector is failing to create jobs because of "uncertainty" over the ACA, well, there's an easy way to fix that. Stop trying to undermine and destroy the ACA. Problem solved.

Again, this all seems made up to me. No one actually means anything when they say "regulatory uncertainty." Businesses know what regulations they have to follow today. They know that if another admin is elected some new set of process might come down the pipe. That is true today, and it was true in 1984, and 1996, and 2004.

All you do is insult people and make claims not backed by evidence.

But, that's what most of us do here....

Your argument:
a. doesn't match empirical facts (in that capital investment has been bog standard for a recovery)
b. doesn't provide any evidence for your claims (what regulations are preventing investment?)
c. includes an ad hominem

Which part of that would you like me to respond to?

You asked a question out of either a) ignorance or b) stupidity

No, he used "a, b, c"
in response you should switch to numbers or use i, ii, iii....

No, I'd genuinely like to know on what basis you believe that regulatory uncertainty has negatively affected the recovery, to the extent that it matters more than the demand gap.

He's stalling as he doesn't actually have an answer available and he needs time to research and/or think one up.

No, I'd genuinely like to know on what basis you believe that regulatory uncertainty has negatively affected the recovery, to the extent that it matters more than the demand gap.

I don't *know* that it has affected the economy more than the demand gap, and I've never made any such claim here. It is *a* factor since I've witnessed it firsthand and know plenty of other people who have as well, but such a thing couldn't be quantified accurately across all American businesses, and to imagine otherwise is the pretense of knowledge.

He's stalling as he doesn't actually have an answer available and he needs time to research and/or think one up.

No, just had some things to do. When you don't make #### up, there's no need to stall. You should try it sometime.

While we're on the topic, what's the economic model for simultaneously increasing economic demand while deleveraging at the consumer/household level?

It seems like the two major problems right now are (1) debt and (2) housing (too much inventory and too many people underwater). I understand the Keynes model of massive government spending during a downturn, but how much (and where) would the gov't have to spend before it trickled down and started to solve the housing problem and spurred increased consumer demand in other sectors?

In the past, housing pulled the U.S. out of major economic downturns, which doesn't seem possible this time. Likewise, wars and military buildups drove some of the U.S.'s best economic periods, but even the biggest spenders seem to want military spending cut rather than increased.

If doing something is an imperative, what is it that should be done? All people seem to be talking about is the Buffett Rule, the proceeds of which would cover exactly one day's worth of federal spending. If that's the best they can do in D.C. in an election year, it seems our leaders are out of ideas.

When you don't make #### up, there's no need to stall. You should try it sometime.

??? No, when you make #### up you don't need to stall.

1: Make #### up, no stalling required
2: Ding research- well maybe some stalling is required in the meantime

Of course the problem with making #### up is eventually to maintain internal logical consistency you really have to stop at some point and think things through- especially when logical inconsistencies get pointed out- Snapper forgot that earlier in this thread and simply kept digging...

If that's the best they can do in D.C. in an election year, it seems our leaders are out of ideas.

seems? seems? when is the last time an honest to goodness NEW idea has been floated by someone/anyone, left or right in DC???

If doing something is an imperative, what is it that should be done?

Purchase the underwater loans. Refi them at current market rates. Recoup half of the bad debt against lenders who made the loans. Eat the rest as "bailout" for homeowners rather than lenders.

Stabalize the housing market and get people out from underwater and demand for pretty much everything else bounces back nigh unto overnight.

If that's the best they can do in D.C. in an election year, it seems our leaders are out of ideas.

Of course they're out of ideas. The fundamental problem with demand and the economy is the stagnation of middle-class incomes. Since the heyday of one income being able to buy a good house and finance a decent family life for a married couple and at least two children, the following things have been tried in an effort to paper over the eradication of that life and kick the tire down the road:

1. 1960s-70s: Importing a whole bunch of women workers to the workplace (a social and cultural huge net positive, but we're talking economics).
2. 1980s: Using the nation's power and institutional control to manipulate the currency, for the purpose and effect of enabling consumers to buy more from abroad than they could afford (thus the onset of massive trade deficits).
3. 1990s: Stoking a tech stock bubble and mainstreaming stock investing (e-trade, "You too can be a day trader," "The Ownership Society," "Dow 36,000," and all the rest), making people feel "wealthier," so they'd ignore their income stagnation and keep spending.
4. 2000s: Stoking a housing bubble, making people feel "wealthier," so they'd ignore their income stagnation and keep spending.

All the costs of those policies have now come due, and there's really nothing left to try other than bleat about the "fairness" of the relative tax burden. The economy is broken.

EDIT: And of course:

5. Providing a credit card to anyone with a pulse, making them feel "wealthier," so they'd ignore their income stagnation and keep spending.

Recoup half of the bad debt against lenders who made the loans.

And there's your snag. When do you ever see the ventriloquist's dummy beat up the ventriloquist?

And there's your snag. When do you ever see the ventriloquist's dummy beat up the ventriloquist?

Admittedly, my program would require a Congress that is not bought and sold by monied interests and an administration that is actually slightly liberal with their economic agenda, as opposed to the Wall Street Finger Puppets currently in Congress and the current, rigidly DNC-right economic policy mavens of the current admin.

Sam is a communist! He admitted it!

It seems like the two major problems right now are (1) debt and (2) housing (too much inventory and too many people underwater). I understand the Keynes model of massive government spending during a downturn, but how much (and where) would the gov't have to spend before it trickled down and started to solve the housing problem and spurred increased consumer demand in other sectors?

In the past, housing pulled the U.S. out of major economic downturns, which doesn't seem possible this time. Likewise, wars and military buildups drove some of the U.S.'s best economic periods, but even the biggest spenders seem to want military spending cut rather than increased.

If doing something is an imperative, what is it that should be done? All people seem to be talking about is the Buffett Rule, the proceeds of which would cover exactly one day's worth of federal spending. If that's the best they can do in D.C. in an election year, it seems our leaders are out of ideas.

The two major problems could be described as debt(a long term problem - i.e. we aren't expected to have trouble borrowing until we hit about twice our current debt) and employment(a short term problem that can become a long term problem).

So why can't we solve the debt problem? Let's posit a few things first:

1)The Politicians most likely to be elected are those for whom election or re-election are very strong incentives. Thus we have a system in which basically the only ones left in national politics are those for whom winning an election is a very large priority.
2)In 2010, 61.37% of spending came from non-discretionary spending, and there isn't much of that which would be popular to cut
3)In 2010, our governmental revenue didn't even cover non-discretionary spending(it was $8 billion or so short)
4)People hate having their taxes raised.
5)48% of our discretionary spending was on defense, which is also not popular to cut.

So basically we find that every major measure we have to make is blocked because politicians hate to lose elections, and most of these are really easy to run against. The type of reform needed to actually pull this off (and the only strategy that I've seen that would do much is Bowles-Simpson, which was DOA) needs to be approved by both parties. But neither party is willing to do it because they're both interested in short term politics rather than the long term politics that it would require.

But I can't really blame politicians for that because they are doing what successful politicians do. The blame lies squarely on the voters, who simultaneously lack the knowledge to know what it takes and lack the willingness to sacrifice to do it.

How would I approach it? Part tax increases, part entitlement reform, part spending cuts(I realize that this is exceptionally vague, but I'd need to search for costs of specific measures and go through it and I lack the time). Any measure that does not contain all 3 is not serious to my mind.

Seventy or eighty years ago plenty of people could have claimed that Christianity was incompatible with democracy. Things change.

This paper suggests (much more persuasively than snapper's theory) that it's oil that's the problem. (PDF, but well worth reading.)

Does Oil Hinder Democracy?

Joe, only thing I can think of is to literally revalue the $ by a factor of 2 (or whatever), and double everyone's salary and prices.
Now everyone's debt/mortgage is halved. Of course *someone* has to pay and in this case it's the banks/debt holders. So that probably causes a credit crunch or something. Futhermore, I am not sure of any legal mechanisms to double everyone's paycheck... other than the Invisible hand (if the Government and most of the huge businesses do it, then pretty much everyone has to).

Other than that you have to somehow increase production efficiency - i.e., by technology leverage or something outside of external control. ("It just happens").

EDIT: I suppose my version isn't much different from Sam's in who pays. Commie fist-bump!

Joe, only thing I can think of is to literally revalue the $ by a factor of 2 (or whatever), and double everyone's salary and prices.
Now everyone's debt/mortgage is halved. Of course *someone* has to pay and in this case it's the banks/debt holders. So that probably causes a credit crunch or something. Futhermore, I am not sure of any legal mechanisms to double everyone's paycheck... other than the Invisible hand (if the Government and most of the huge businesses do it, then pretty much everyone has to).

Other than that you have to somehow increase production efficiency - i.e., by technology leverage or something outside of external control. ("It just happens").

EDIT: I suppose my version isn't much different from Sam's in who pays. Commie fist-bump!

This would essentially kill the credit market and cripple the economy. Not really what we'd want to do if we want to save ourselves financially.

Well, that's obviously what the BANKS want you to think. And it would be somewhat ... ironic? unsane? ... to pull this after TARP. But I bet there's an (autocratic) work around.

In the health care sector, where there is huge regulatory uncertainty because of PPACA, hiring and employment has continued without a hitch.

The debt is just such an absurd political issue. This is twice in the last 20 years that Republicans have spent like crazy and then nailed the Democrat who inherits it all to a cross. The difference was that Clinton at least could ride out a good economy to surpluses.

I have no idea what Obama is supposed to do in this situation. Cut the #### out of discretionary spending, and accept the massive increase in unemployment that comes along with it? How do you deal with people who think the debt is this huge, existential threat, but aren't willing to raise one cent of revenue or cut one cent of defense?

I have no idea what Obama is supposed to do in this situation. Cut the #### out of discretionary spending, and accept the massive increase in unemployment that comes along with it? How do you deal with people who think the debt is this huge, existential threat, but aren't willing to raise one cent of revenue or cut one cent of defense?

Make long term adjustments to entitlement programs that don't cut spending today, but restore long run fiscal sanity.

e.g. raise retirement age for SS to 70, index future SS benefits to inflation -1% instead of wage growth, cap total Medicare and Medicaid spending growth, either through a block grant, or other approach.

In exchange for that, the Republicans would agree to revenue increases and defense cuts.

In exchange for that, the Republicans would agree to revenue increases and defense cuts.

You think so, huh?

In exchange for that, the Republicans would agree to revenue increases and defense cuts.

The Republicans already refused to do so.

The Republicans already refused to do so.

The problem is neither side trusts the other, and the GOP, in particular, has learned a lot of lessons the hard way. The Dems have won a lot more spending increases than the GOP has won spending cuts. The GOP is never going to go along with a plan that calls for higher taxes today and spending cuts at some point in the future. They've done several of those deals, and the cuts never seem to happen.

Ted Nugent stood by his controversial comments about President Barack Obama and Democrats made over the weekend, telling conservative radio host Dana Loesch on Tuesday that he had been unfairly targeted for saying he would "either be dead or in jail" by next year if Obama is reelected.

Can someone who is older than me explain to me what band Ted Nugent played in decades ago when he was revelant to anything? The only time I ever hear his name is when he gets press for criticizing Obama.

EDIT: I see, from wiki, something called The Amboy Dukes, and then a solo career. I guess that's why we need to hear about his political views.

If wiki is to be believed, he appears to be quite a guy:

He has had two wives and has eight children, including three out of wedlock in two liaisons almost 30 years apart.

...In the late 1960s, prior to his first marriage, Nugent fathered a boy, Ted (Mann) and a girl, whom he gave up for adoption in infancy. This did not become public knowledge until 2010.

...In 1978, Nugent began a relationship with seventeen-year-old Hawaii native Pele Massa. Due to the age difference they could not marry so Nugent joined Massa's parents in signing documents to make himself her legal guardian, an arrangement that Spin magazine ranked in October 2000 as #63 on their list of the "100 Sleaziest Moments in Rock".

The problem is neither side trusts the other, and the GOP, in particular, has learned a lot of lessons the hard way. The Dems have won a lot more spending increases than the GOP has won spending cuts. The GOP is never going to go along with a plan that calls for higher taxes today and spending cuts at some point in the future. They've done several of those deals, and the cuts never seem to happen.

Yes. You'd have to figure out some way to tie the taxes to the cuts, i.e. tax increases don't start now either.

Yes.

No. The problem is not the poor, poor Republicans who just want to do what's best, but are afraid the mean old Demoncrats are going to hoodwink them (again!) The problem is that the GOP has taken a time and context specific policy solution - Reagan era tax cuts - and elevated them to a position of divine writ, which may never be questioned or ignored. The problem is that the GOP is beholden to Grover Norquist and his insane clown posse of true believers.

No. The problem is not the poor, poor Republicans who just want to do what's best, but are afraid the mean old Demoncrats are going to hoodwink them (again!) The problem is that the GOP has taken a time and context specific policy solution - Reagan era tax cuts - and elevated them to a position of divine writ, which may never be questioned or ignored. The problem is that the GOP is beholden to Grover Norquist and his insane clown posse of true believers.

No. The problem is a government that is unable to restrain its spending by the design of the electoral process.

We can not have entitlement spending continuously growing faster than GDP.

We can not have entitlement spending continuously growing faster than GDP.

Agreed. This is why the ACA was so necessary.

Circling around to somewhere close to a topic of previous conversation:

Anders Behring Breivik wants either the death penalty or acquittal for his twin terror attacks that killed 77 in Norway last year.

The Associated Press reports that during day three of his trial Wednesday, Breivik called the maximum 21-year sentence he faces for terror and murder charges "pathetic," and said that the logical sentence for his crimes would be the death penalty.

As CNN explains, the maximum sentence for Breivik's charges is indeed 21 years, but the judge could sentence Breivik under a "preventive detention" provision, which would keep him detained as long as he's considered a threat to the public. Norway does not sentence people to death in peacetime.

Prosecutors argue that Breivik is insane, a verdict that would commit him to psychiatric care indefinitely, but Breivik is insisting otherwise. On Wednesday, the court examined Breivik's claims about the Knights Templar, a militant anti-Muslim group that Breivik says he represents. Investigators have found little evidence that such a group actually exists. The AP reports that Breivik insists the group does exist, but investigators haven't looked hard enough.

Prosecutors argue that Breivik is insane, a verdict that would commit him to psychiatric care indefinitely, but Breivik is insisting otherwise. On Wednesday, the court examined Breivik's claims about the Knights Templar, a militant anti-Muslim group that Breivik says he represents. Investigators have found little evidence that such a group actually exists. The AP reports that Breivik insists the group does exist, but investigators haven't looked hard enough.

I was assuming the idea of insanity was cooked up, until this. Dude may be nutballs.

Agreed. This is why the ACA was so necessary.

Yes, a new entitlement will fix the problem.

Are you that naive Sam, or does your preference for socialized medicine (by hook or by crook) overwhelm you desire to see the truth?

Every gov't entitlement (especially Medicare and Medicaid) has wildly exceeded its initial budget estimates, by orders of magnitude.

It's either naive beyond belief, or disingenous politicking to hold that this entitlement is going to insure tens of millions of extra people, and not explode health spending.

e.g. raise retirement age for SS to 70, index future SS benefits to inflation -1% instead of wage growth, cap total Medicare and Medicaid spending growth, either through a block grant, or other approach.

Enough of this thoughtless crap... I know everyone posting here is a keyboard jockey -- I am too -- but my grandfather was a farmer, my dad was a pipefitter, my uncle is a firefighter, another uncle is a mason, and yet another uncle is a lumberjack.

All of those jobs except maybe the last aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and NONE of those jobs can be performed, much less performed safely, at age 70... Hell -- they get damn hard in your 50s.

The cavalier way so many white collar folks view blue collar types, as expressed by the braindead "why, just raise the retirement age!" cliche, as expendable pieces of meat to be worked until they die at their posts is insulting.

Those folks deserve a retirement, too -- and the simple fact is that if you don't allow for them to take it in their late 50s/early 60s, they're simply not going to get one.

Yes, a new entitlement will fix the problem.

How is ACA a new "entitlement" program?

I think you're confusing the health reform bill that progressives dearly wanted with what the ACA actually is.

There is nothing forcing one to actually keep on working until age 70 but one shouldn't be able to get full benefits until much later than they actually do now. SS should be a supplement to your retirement fund not your only source of income in your retirement age. The federal government didn't set the retirement age at 65 way back when because they wanted everyone to enjoy their golden age unencumbered of work but because most people didn't live that long. It was a safety net for those few that did and a way to help keep them from being a drag on their family's funds.

Enough of this thoughtless crap... I know everyone posting here is a keyboard jockey -- I am too -- but my grandfather was a farmer, my dad was a pipefitter, my uncle is a firefighter, another uncle is a mason, and yet another uncle is a lumberjack.

All of those jobs except maybe the last aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and NONE of those jobs can be performed, much less performed safely, at age 70... Hell -- they get damn hard in your 50s.

The cavalier way so many white collar folks view blue collar types, as expressed by the braindead "why, just raise the retirement age!" cliche, as expendable pieces of meat to be worked until they die at their posts is insulting.

Those folks deserve a retirement, too -- and the simple fact is that if you don't allow for them to take it in their late 50s/early 60s, they're simply not going to get one.

My father-in-law is a stone mason, and worked full time until 67. My grandfather was a builder, and was doing roofing at 80.

Your average 65 y.o. blue collar worker is going to be in better shape than a 55 y.o. in 1950. Healthcare has advanced that much. If a person is disabled, they should get disability before retirement age. If they are healthy, they should work longer, because they're living a lot longer, and are healthier.

Retirement is a silly concept anyway. You should be as productive as you can, based on you physical and mental abilities, until you die. We should all work, in some capacity, until we die. We should think about phased reduction in work as we age, rather than a hard stop retirement.

The idea of working 60 hours a week for 40 years, and then sitting around the house (or golf course) for 30 while you wait to die is stupidity.

How is ACA a new "entitlement" program?

I think you're confusing the health reform bill that progressives dearly wanted with what the ACA actually is.

Well, first of all you've got Medicaid expansion - pure entitlement

Then you create the issue of how are you going to provide health insurance for all these new people when, even if the mandate was constitutional, the penalty is far too low to fund the benefits? You "mandate" coverage, but since the penalty is so low, and people can join at any time, no one is going to buy until they're sick. So, either the gov't subsidizes the crap out of the pools, or they fail completely.

Not to mention the incentives to employers to drop coverage altogether since they can say "use the gov't pools", and pay the much cheaper fines.

The whole structure is a disaster that either 1) collapses and achieves nothing, or 2) requires massive gov't subsidies.

My father-in-law is a stone mason, and worked full time until 67. My grandfather was a builder, and was doing roofing at 80.

Your average 65 y.o. blue collar worker is going to be in better shape than a 55 y.o. in 1950. Healthcare has advanced that much. If a person is disabled, they should get disability before retirement age. If they are healthy, they should work longer, because they're living a lot longer, and are healthier.

Retirement is a silly concept anyway. You should be as productive as you can, based on you physical and mental abilities, until you die. We should all work, in some capacity, until we die. We should think about phased reduction in work as we age, rather than a hard stop retirement.

The idea of working 60 hours a week for 40 years, and then sitting around the house (or golf course) for 30 while you wait to die is stupidity.

If retirees suddenly rejoined the workforce, unemployment would skyrocket. Part of what we're paying for is to remove them from the workforce.

I should also note that while lifespan is has increased quite a bit in the last 50 years, the age where you are physically able has not gone up at nearly the same rate. Most of what we've done is figure out how to add years at the end of a life. It's difficult to raise the retirement age very much simply because a lot of people would then have to be added to disability, resulting in a cost shift from Social Security to Disability.

his insane clown posse

ICP has nothing to do with this, kindly leave them out of the conversation. Word is, they quit music after getting an NSF grant, results to be published in a forthcoming issue of Nature under the title "F*cking Magnets: How They Work!".

If retirees suddenly rejoined the workforce, unemployment would skyrocket. Part of what we're paying for is to remove them from the workforce.

That's a dated paleo-Keynesian notion. Did women joining the workforce cause unemployment to skyrocket?

No, because working people consume a lot more than non-working people. If all those 62-70 y.o.'s worked, they spend more, and would create employment that way.

Are you that naive Sam, or does your preference for socialized medicine (by hook or by crook) overwhelm you desire to see the truth?

It's funny when you use the word "truth" in place of "my personal, ideologically blindered view of the world." It's so...cute!

The primary function of the ACA is to bend the cost curve of Medicare*. Early returns suggests that it is designed well enough to do that, if not perfectly.

*This is why the GOP and Palinistas spent pretty much all of 2009-10 screaming about "death panels" in the run-up to the 2010 midterms.

That's a dated paleo-Keynesian notion. Did women joining the workforce cause unemployment to skyrocket?

I realize I don't know that much about the women's movement, but I didn't realize several million joined the workforce in a single month.

No, because working people consume a lot more than non-working people. If all those 62-70 y.o.'s worked, they spend more, and would create employment that way.

They consume a little more, but not a lot more. Certainly not enough to create that many new jobs.