When Republicans Become Keynsians

To grow this economy we need to cut spending. The deficit is an enormous burden on job creation, as are taxes. So, say the Republicans, let's cut taxes. And cut spending even more. On education, health services, research, welfare, etc.

What about defense? Can't do that!! That would cost us jobs. Krugman has a good article on the recent flip flop from Republicans here. It's the weaponized Keynzians. Stimulus to create stuff we blow up? Good. Stimulus to help average Americans? Bad. Yglesias likewise comments.

And I agree with Yglesias. For once the Republicans are right. Cutting defense spending would be a real blow to the economy. It's probably true that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have prevented our economic situation from being even worse. That's an absurdity, but it's a consequence of our consumption based economy.

Notice the pattern though of the right wing apologist. When it comes to government spending that helps the average guy they talk about waste, misallocation of resources, Milton Friedman is awesome, etc. When it comes to spending on war? A lot of chirping crickets. Austerity is for poor people. For the rich? Socialism.

Interview Regarding OWS

Charlie Rose interviews Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges. Watch here.

Income Mobility

Chad says here here that only 18% of the people among the bottom 20% of income earners are still there 10 years later. I asked for a source and haven't gotten it yet. It could be true. Thomas Sowell says here that most in the bottom in 1975 had at some point also been in the top by 1991. Mark Perry claims that after 6 years only 56% of the people in the bottom 20% remained there.

But these are short term trends. What would be more interesting to me is how fathers and sons compare. If you are born in a poor family, what is the likelihood that you will be poor as an adult? If you are born to a rich family, then it's not a big deal being poor. Maybe you're poor while you're going to medical school or law school. Then your income takes off. The poor would have a harder time going to law school.

Brookings has the generational comparison here and they do it across various countries. Comparing how fathers compare to sons the US is among the worst. You are more likely to be poor if your father is poor in America than in most other countries surveyed. What's interesting about this is that the perceptions of Americans are precisely the opposite. They think that America is the best place to be if you'd want to pull yourself up from poverty and become rich. Yet fewer in America are actually able to do that as compared to the more socialist European countries, with the exception of England.

Why do Americans have this erroneous perception? Mark Perry is relying on studies from James Pethokoukis from the American Enterprise Institute. Paul Krugman is familiar with it. He calls the work "flat out lies". That's an unusually harsh statement from Krugman. But we are inundated with lies from the AEI. It's their job to convince us that we have it best. That serves the interest of their corporate and wealthy backers. They do it even when the arguments contradict each other. Global warming isn't happening. Or yes it is happening and nobody denies it, but humans aren't the cause. Or wait, yes it is happening and humans are the cause, but that doesn't mean we should do anything about it. Here's how Krugman put it.

You might ask, how is it possible to take such mutually contradictory positions? And the answer is, it’s very easy if confusing the debate is your job.

Mann's Hockey Stick Verified by Climate Skeptics

Apparently Robert Mueller, a quasi-critic of the climate science community, attempted to independently confirm average global temperature history. He did so with the backing of well known climate science deniers. His results were published recently and to the chagrin of the denialists his findings confirmed what the non-conspiracy theorists have long known. A rapid increase in global temperature since 1950. A video overview below.



So the focus of science denial really needs to move at this point. There's now really no denying that the change is occurring and it is relatively rapid. I suppose they'll need to emphasize other claims. Either it's not man made or it's just not a big deal.

Occupy Wall St with Bob Dutko

It's been a while since I bugged Dutko, so I gave him a call Friday. I listen to him a bit and it's the same nonsense you hear all the time regarding OWS. These people are just jealous of the success of others. Why don't they protest Hollywood celebrities? Why don't they get mad at Obama? Here's the downloadable link or listen below.



It was a fun call. It was kind of spur of the moment once again, so I didn't prepare a lot. I was hoping I wouldn't be the first caller so I could think about what I wanted to say during commercial, but I was the first, so I just had to go. So there's a bit of hesitation from me at some points. But it went well anyway.

Here's an annoying part. Bob says "Why don't they protest in Washington? That's the real problem." I said that they are in Washington. He says "But not at the White House." I say who cares. They are there. That's the point. So he chuckles like that's absurd. Turns out, there at McPherson Square and Liberty Plaza, which is just about as close to the White House as you can get with a crowd like that situated permanently. What the heck does he want? I really think he just makes it up as he goes along and really has no idea what the facts are. And since I didn't happen to know where they were located while I was on the phone nobody is the wiser.

Fortunately we at least have the internet where a record of the lies can be stored. It's not much, but better than nothing.

Why They Protest

You have to wonder sometimes of these right wingers actually believe what they say or if in fact they are cynics telling what they know to be lies in service to power and privilege. For Mark Perry by OWS logic protestors should object because the average Texas Ranger salary is a mere $3 million and should be more. They should be mad at Michael Moore because he's rich. They should protest in Washington DC because it has the highest per capita income.

I think the real objections should be obvious, but if you don't think so read Taibbi and/or Greenwald for a description. The problem is not that some are rich. It's that some get rich by cheating and breaking the law and yet the law doesn't apply to them because they buy influence in Washington. What lawbreaking? Read this article from Taibbi.

Ted Talk on the Effects of Inequality

Milton Friedman believed that his form of economic freedom would lead to greater prosperity, and if it lead to greater inequality he would regard that as acceptable. Watch this fascinating Ted talk on the effects of inequality. Not only is it bad for the poor in the unequal societies. Even the rich within those unequal societies suffer. Rich in unequal societies suffer more as measured by these social indicators than less rich people in more equal societies.