Mark Perry is a visiting scholar at the right wing American Enterprise Institute. He's Professor of Economics at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan, but presently on sabbatical. He's generally optimistic about the present state of the US economy. Here are some of his thoughts on the state of the economy just prior to the stock market crash in 2008.
July 02,2008. Don't compare us to the Depression. Things are looking great.
July 03, 2008. Cheer up. Look how great household wealth looks. It's a story you don't hear from our "disaster sells" media.
July 06, 2008. Things are looking great. It takes less work to buy food. People are working less. (I'm not sure where he gets this stuff. It's true that people spend less on food, but not on other fixed expenses. Family working hours are up a shocking 700 hours for the median two parent family since 1975).
July 09, 2008. People are way too pessimistic.
July 11, 2008. Subprime losses aren't that high.
July 25, 2008. Global warming? Irrational hysteria.
July 26,2008. Look at this incredible home ownership rate rebound.
July 27,2008. Like Ben Stein says, overall this economy is not bad.
July 31, 2008. We're not in a recession.
Aug 05, 2008. Disposable income looking good.
Aug 7, 2008. Home sales data looking good.
Aug 7, 2008. Jobless claims are looking good.
Aug 10, 2008. Amount of sub prime mortgages is too small to matter.
Aug 12, 2008. Real estate boom continues for US farms.
Aug 12, 2008. Why are liberals like Paul Krugman pessimistic about the economy while conservatives are optimistic?
Aug 12, 2008. Look at the amazing growth in US exports? Expect US GDP to be revised upwards.
What he says is not always untrue. He often plots data and just comments on it. But the tone was similar then to what it is now. Things are just great. But they weren't back then. We need to look at track records more, including those of the left. We need to ask ourselves who it is that learns from their mistakes and who it is that never admits to any all while recommending the same failed policies of the past.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Iranian Hostages and the US Media
An important element of this hostage story that isn't mentioned in mainstream media sources (via Greenwald). How did the Iranian guards justify their harsh treatment of the US hostages? Joshua Fattal explains in his interview with Democracy Now.
Is this narrative even remotely being mentioned in mainstream sources. Unsurprisingly not. Glenn Greenwald's commentary is excellent as usual.
In prison, every time we complained about our conditions, the guards would remind us of comparable conditions at Guantanamo Bay; they'd remind us of CIA prisons in other parts of the world; and conditions that Iranians and others experience in prisons in the U.S.
We do not believe that such human rights violation on the part of our government justify what has been done to us: not for a moment. However, we do believe that these actions on the part of the U.S. provide an excuse for other governments - including the government of Iran - to act in kind.
Is this narrative even remotely being mentioned in mainstream sources. Unsurprisingly not. Glenn Greenwald's commentary is excellent as usual.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Give Michael Moore Credit
You might think that when you are hanging out with Hollywood types you're hanging out with liberals. Check out Michael Moore's acceptance speech at the Oscars in 2003. He denounces Bush and the war. Look at the Hollywood celebrities in the crowd. Do they praise him? They are uncomfortable and unwilling to be supportive. In fact Moore is getting booed extensively. He denounces a President that is "sending us to war for fictitious reasons." Rather prescient. To prevent him from saying more they queue the band and cut him off. These are your supposed liberals. Goes to show how much courage it took to make a statement like this in this patriotic atmosphere. But he was right.
Michael Moore - oscar speech by Pzychofreak
After making the movie Sicko he was invited on to Wolf Blitzer. Wolf had prepared a hit piece created by Dr. Sanjay Gupta which he played by way of introduction. Then Wolf turned to Moore to get his reaction. A total ambush. Moore handled himself spectacularly even though it was very difficult to respond to the various fabrications so rapidly. Totally slamming Wolf and CNN for their nonsense.
And if my memory is correct in every actual point of dispute between Moore and Gupta Moore was right and Gupta was wrong. Gupta said Moore was wrong to say we spend $7K per year on health care per person and in fact it was closer to $6K. The reality was by the time they did this interview it was even higher than $7K. Gupta said Moore claimed in Cuba they spend $25/person. In fact Moore had correctly stated they spend $250 per person. Gupta points out that Cuba ranks below the US in the WHO rankings but Moore had never denied that.
And I've talked before about how in 1999 Moore was doing what he could to alleviate the sanctions regime in Iraq and the consequent starvation. Watch here. At a time when nobody was talking about it. He was right then, right about the facts in Sicko, and right about our more recent invasion of Iraq, which he courageously denounced. Pretty impressive.
Michael Moore - oscar speech by Pzychofreak
After making the movie Sicko he was invited on to Wolf Blitzer. Wolf had prepared a hit piece created by Dr. Sanjay Gupta which he played by way of introduction. Then Wolf turned to Moore to get his reaction. A total ambush. Moore handled himself spectacularly even though it was very difficult to respond to the various fabrications so rapidly. Totally slamming Wolf and CNN for their nonsense.
And if my memory is correct in every actual point of dispute between Moore and Gupta Moore was right and Gupta was wrong. Gupta said Moore was wrong to say we spend $7K per year on health care per person and in fact it was closer to $6K. The reality was by the time they did this interview it was even higher than $7K. Gupta said Moore claimed in Cuba they spend $25/person. In fact Moore had correctly stated they spend $250 per person. Gupta points out that Cuba ranks below the US in the WHO rankings but Moore had never denied that.
And I've talked before about how in 1999 Moore was doing what he could to alleviate the sanctions regime in Iraq and the consequent starvation. Watch here. At a time when nobody was talking about it. He was right then, right about the facts in Sicko, and right about our more recent invasion of Iraq, which he courageously denounced. Pretty impressive.
Tony Bennett - They flew the planes but we caused it
"because we were bombing them and they told us to stop."
Seems so simple.
Seems so simple.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Setting Records in Output and Severe Poverty
Do you know that in America we are producing more than we ever have? GDP is higher than it has ever been. Production has recovered from the 2008 downturn. Manufacturing companies are enjoying record profits. US exports are at an all time high. We have record corporate profits.
The same is true of consumption. More things are being consumed than ever. Isn't that wonderful?
But there are more records being set. Severe poverty, defined as half the official poverty line, which amounts to $100/week is higher than it has been since data began being recorded (1975). The % in poverty, which is $200/week, is as high as it has been since 1993. Median income is down to 1996 levels. Income gains are ocurring. But only for the highest income earners.
Real GDP/capita is about twice what it was in 1975. How is it possible that we can as a country make twice as much and yet push even more people into severe poverty?
The problem is the way we allocate the goods we produce. We allocate largely by employment and naturally we think employment is desirable. But is it really?
Let me propose a hypothetical scenario. Let's just suppose that as a society we decided that we would discontinue growth in output. We would just say that the present GDP would be a maximum. Suppose we were concerned about depleting natural resources and we thought this would help. What would happen?
What would happen is employment would drop. Why? Because technological advancements are always permitting us to do more with less. Fewer people are required to produce the same output this year as compared to last year because we always get better at what we do. That ought to be a good thing. We should be happy to have more free time. But in our system this is not good. Why? Because we allocate based on employment. And we don't ask everyone to equally share the reduction in required work. What we do is we lay people off. So while some continue to work as before others have nothing. Those that continue to work get a larger allocation of the goods produced. Those that are laid off get nothing. Does this make sense?
What it really means is that in our society we absolutely must continuously increase our consumption. People that are laid off must find new areas to work in and provide an ever increasing amount of goods consumed. That's not always easy. You need consumption increases. Even though present consumption may be at record levels, the increase we've seen recently may not be enough to offset the gains in productivity we've enjoyed. So it may not be enough to employ more people.
Imagine a system that is so efficient, with robotics, solar power, and computer programming, that on average only 1 hour/week of work is required per person to sustain the system. That produces enough that it's possible for every American to enjoy a lifestyle typical of an upper middle class member of society. Sounds pretty good, right? In fact it's a nightmare. We'd have 95% unemployment. So these so called parasites that happen to not have jobs do nothing and are thus not entitled to any of the output according to some liberterian minded thinkers. Is that acceptable? A system that permits most to not even work, some work a tiny amount, is one that would probably lead to revolution. Rather than being a system that is enjoyed it is a system that would inevitably be destroyed. That's irrational.
Free market capitalism leads to production for exchange, not production for need. This leads to a society that could never be satisfied with what it has. And if increased production meant increasing consumption of our limited natural resources, those resources would be depleted, with catastrophic results. Increased leisure time is possible if production for need is considered. In that scenario productivity gains are embraced by all sectors of society. Today they are embraced by owners and those unlikely to lose jobs. It seems possible to do better than this. We are treating the earth like an infinite resource when it is not. We are leaving many people with next to nothing. We are in fact working more and more. It has to change. It is really not sustainable.
The same is true of consumption. More things are being consumed than ever. Isn't that wonderful?
But there are more records being set. Severe poverty, defined as half the official poverty line, which amounts to $100/week is higher than it has been since data began being recorded (1975). The % in poverty, which is $200/week, is as high as it has been since 1993. Median income is down to 1996 levels. Income gains are ocurring. But only for the highest income earners.
Real GDP/capita is about twice what it was in 1975. How is it possible that we can as a country make twice as much and yet push even more people into severe poverty?
The problem is the way we allocate the goods we produce. We allocate largely by employment and naturally we think employment is desirable. But is it really?
Let me propose a hypothetical scenario. Let's just suppose that as a society we decided that we would discontinue growth in output. We would just say that the present GDP would be a maximum. Suppose we were concerned about depleting natural resources and we thought this would help. What would happen?
What would happen is employment would drop. Why? Because technological advancements are always permitting us to do more with less. Fewer people are required to produce the same output this year as compared to last year because we always get better at what we do. That ought to be a good thing. We should be happy to have more free time. But in our system this is not good. Why? Because we allocate based on employment. And we don't ask everyone to equally share the reduction in required work. What we do is we lay people off. So while some continue to work as before others have nothing. Those that continue to work get a larger allocation of the goods produced. Those that are laid off get nothing. Does this make sense?
What it really means is that in our society we absolutely must continuously increase our consumption. People that are laid off must find new areas to work in and provide an ever increasing amount of goods consumed. That's not always easy. You need consumption increases. Even though present consumption may be at record levels, the increase we've seen recently may not be enough to offset the gains in productivity we've enjoyed. So it may not be enough to employ more people.
Imagine a system that is so efficient, with robotics, solar power, and computer programming, that on average only 1 hour/week of work is required per person to sustain the system. That produces enough that it's possible for every American to enjoy a lifestyle typical of an upper middle class member of society. Sounds pretty good, right? In fact it's a nightmare. We'd have 95% unemployment. So these so called parasites that happen to not have jobs do nothing and are thus not entitled to any of the output according to some liberterian minded thinkers. Is that acceptable? A system that permits most to not even work, some work a tiny amount, is one that would probably lead to revolution. Rather than being a system that is enjoyed it is a system that would inevitably be destroyed. That's irrational.
Free market capitalism leads to production for exchange, not production for need. This leads to a society that could never be satisfied with what it has. And if increased production meant increasing consumption of our limited natural resources, those resources would be depleted, with catastrophic results. Increased leisure time is possible if production for need is considered. In that scenario productivity gains are embraced by all sectors of society. Today they are embraced by owners and those unlikely to lose jobs. It seems possible to do better than this. We are treating the earth like an infinite resource when it is not. We are leaving many people with next to nothing. We are in fact working more and more. It has to change. It is really not sustainable.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Ron Paul Flummoxed on Health Care Question
A good question from Wolf Blitzer to Ron Paul that you can see at YouTube here. Suppose a healthy 30 year old guy takes a risk and says he's going to go without health insurance. The worst is realized and he's in a coma. Should the government pay or should we let him die?
Paul struggles here. The ideologues in the audience (notice at about the 50 second mark) say sure, let him die. It's easy to talk that way when you are anonymous. That's the kind of thing someone might say in a blog comment stream. But say that on the record in front of millions of people. It's pretty grotesque. Paul knows that so he doesn't say it. He stammers for a bit, then finally comes up with the "charities" solution. Let private charities resolve it. He's never seen anyone that needed care turned away.
But they are already turned away and that's with some government support. With no government support even more will be turned away. Paul does not have a solution here other than the ideological one. Let him die. But I think that violates basic moral sensibilities for too many people, so it's kind of untenable.
Paul struggles here. The ideologues in the audience (notice at about the 50 second mark) say sure, let him die. It's easy to talk that way when you are anonymous. That's the kind of thing someone might say in a blog comment stream. But say that on the record in front of millions of people. It's pretty grotesque. Paul knows that so he doesn't say it. He stammers for a bit, then finally comes up with the "charities" solution. Let private charities resolve it. He's never seen anyone that needed care turned away.
But they are already turned away and that's with some government support. With no government support even more will be turned away. Paul does not have a solution here other than the ideological one. Let him die. But I think that violates basic moral sensibilities for too many people, so it's kind of untenable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)