David Obey Won’t Seek Reelection
From the Politico. WOW.
In a major blow to Democrats, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey has told close associates that he will not seek re-election and an announcement of his plans is expected as early as Wednesday.
The Wisconsin Democrat faces tough poll numbers at home but until Tuesday night his staff had insisted he was running aggressively and had hired campaign staff. But a person close to him confirmed the decision to POLITICO Wednesday and said Obey was preparing to make a statement.
Tea Party FTW!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1100 hrs
Color me stunned!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1210 hrs
Color me happy!
Good riddance to bad ‘appropriators.’
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1224 hrs
I am surprised, but everyone with 20 or more years in Congress really has to ask himself if he hasn’t been there too long. For the Democrats, it’s unfortunate that Obey didn’t retire in 2006 or 08.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1243 hrs
Now comes the REAL hope and change!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1249 hrs
I would not count on an easy victory for Sean Duffy as many popular state officials live in the 7th district. This may actually be what will defeat Duffy. Obey has been there a long time and is still very popular. The political climate has changed and people do want a fresh face, now that Obey is retiring the Democratic Party will most certainly field a fresh face with better name recognition than Sean Duffy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1250 hrs
I don’t expect Sean Duffy to have an easy victory, but voters (party doesn’t seem to matter) seem to be quite willing to vote for “as seen on TV” candidates.
It would be interesting to find out why Obey waited so long to decide not to run.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1257 hrs
I listened to his press conference over lunch. There is something almost surrealistic to listening to the current House Approproriations Chairman and key architecht of the Stimulus bill and current federal budget rail on the irresponsible Reagan budget deficits, while lamenting that last year’s stimulus wasn’t big enough.
Posted by TD on May 05, 2010 at 1312 hrs
It would be interesting to find out why Obey waited so long to decide not to run.
Obviously there’s the personal side - with his age and seeing some friends pass away, but in terms of the timing…On the radio said the closest anyone has ever come to him is 7 points - in 21 election! Seems pretty obvious that he didn’t want to lose or to actually face a tough opponent.
Obviously in some ways, bad for Wisconsin. The state loses a little clout and certainly the guy brought home the bacon ($77 million this year). The good news is, for those who hate pork, for taxpayers and people concerned with fiscal matters, with not burying our children & grandchildren under a mountain of debt, an incredibly difficult got just a little bit easier.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1330 hrs
Seeeeeeee yee of little faith…
Here’s some of that Hope and Change we have been waiting for.
Now who will the Dems set up to fail…Um I mean to run….Hmmmm….Please let it be Decker.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1357 hrs
RATS…....................SINKING SHIP.
No surprise!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1429 hrs
Not so sure, Move Forward ... from his statement:
http://www.wqow.com/Global/story.asp?S=12430869
I’m ready to turn the page, and I think, frankly, that my district is ready for someone new to make a fresh start. Not someone who poses as a fresh face, but would in reality take us back to the “good old days” of Bush tax cuts for the rich and a misguided Iraq war. Not someone whose idea of a fresh idea is to say: “Let the market do it,” which translated means: “Let the corporate elites, big banks, and Wall Street big shots and insurance company CEO’s do anything they want with no regulation to protect investors and consumers.” There is nothing fresh about that. No, what the 7th district deserves and what the country deserves is for someone to step up who can be counted on to put working people first, someone who will bring fresh eyes and fresh energy to the battle, someone who won’t use slick words and an actor’s ability to hide the fact that he is willing to gut and privatize Social Security and Medicare and abandon working people to the arbitrary power of America’s corporate and economic elite.
Posted by hsgbdmama on May 05, 2010 at 1449 hrs
The problem for Sean, and the GOP in general in this regard, is now we no longer have Dave Obey to kick around (h/t President Nixon).
We can’t hang ObamaCare, federal stimulus spending, pork spending, tax increases, and a whole host of other crap onto whoever the Dems choose as their guy, or gal.
Certainly, having a (D) after their name is something of an albatross hanging around their neck, but unfortunately, a new face on the Dem side is probably welcome news for them, all things considered.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1452 hrs
@ TD: Don’t believe the Keynesians. It’s just a poor excuse for more big gov’t during a recession. These people never call for pulling $1T out of a booming economy as their Socialist theory calls for….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1458 hrs
“I’m ready to turn the page” = “I have no desire to be part of the November bloodbath.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1547 hrs
better name recognition than Sean Duffy
.
Are you KIDDING?
Decker or Lassa have BETTER name-recognition?
And while nothing is a given, Duffy can hang Doyle all over Lassa, and the Wisconsin budget mess all over both Decker AND Lassa.
Posted by dad29 on May 05, 2010 at 1547 hrs
Don’t believe the Keynesians. It’s just a poor excuse for more big gov’t during a recession.
Please tell me more about your understanding of this Keynes fellow Smeety?
These people never call for pulling $1T out of a booming economy as their Socialist theory calls for….
I know its hard for you to be coherent, but could you explain what that is supposed to mean?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1605 hrs
These people never call for pulling $1T out of a booming economy as their Socialist theory calls for….
Smeety, quit making the rest of us conservatives look stupid by talking teabag.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1636 hrs
There are a couple of people deeply saddened that there likely will be a vigorously-contested Democratic primary in the 7th:
- Tom Barrett
- Dick Leinenkugel
- Mark Neumann
- Dan MielkeI would’ve added Russ Feingold, but I see the NRSC not lifting a finger against Feingold once again in 2010, especially if it is a “breakpoint” seat (i.e. the difference between 49 and 50, 50 and 51, or 40 and 41).
Posted by steveegg on May 05, 2010 at 1639 hrs
Keynes is the guy who correctly noted “In the long run, we are all dead”. Beyond that, he was pretty much wrong.
Influenced by heavily by the great depression and the strong socialist movements of the early 1900s rather than sound judgment, Keynes advocated government collectivism in the wrong headed belief that government would be able to spend money in such a way as to mitigate the natural fluctuations of a free market. While he held some sway at the time, his ideas were generally dis-proven by Milton Friedman in the late 40’s. His Utopian ideas fall short because, in every case where they have been tried, they result in centralized governmental control leading to the abuse and mis-use of power, a natural result of placing too much control into the hands of a few.
That’s Keynes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1643 hrs
Duffy can hang Doyle all over Lassa, and the Wisconsin budget mess all over both Decker AND Lassa.
Who in turn can hang it all over Tommy and McCAllum.
Doyle has just continued the profligate spending and poor fiscal planning of those 2 clowns.
Tommy’s endorsement of Walker sure makes him look like a questionable choice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1646 hrs
Beyond that, he was pretty much wrong.
Who did you borrow that from Beck, O’Reilly or Limbaugh?
I hope you are better at fighting fires than macroeconomic analysis.
his ideas were generally dis-proven by Milton Friedman in the late 40’s.
Which ideas were those? No need to be brief.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1655 hrs
Keynes was not a socialist and his big influence is World War 1 and the destruction it wrought on the British class system. Politically, Keynes advocated a sort of monetary feudalism that substituted people like him for the traditional lords. He opposed any system that allowed what he considered his inferiors to achieve an equal or higher socio-economic status than him. Hence his dislike of socialism, communism and capitalism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1655 hrs
Who in turn can hang it all over Tommy and McCAllum.
Good lord ...that was 8 to 10 years ago now. It’s bad enough to listen to people still trying to blame George Bush for everything ... now we have people in this state going all the way back to Tommy and McCallum to absolve liberals records??
Posted by TD on May 05, 2010 at 1700 hrs
Who did you borrow that from Beck, O’Reilly or Limbaugh?
I understand that liberals say things like this because free thinking is not their strong suit and most of their ideas come from talking points. Obviously, it is difficult for them to understand that other people use the facts to make their own opinions.
I hope you are better at fighting fires than macroeconomic analysis.
More personal derision from my angry, disgruntled stalker. I guess I’ve hit the big time. Again, as usual, I will assume the use of Alinsky tactics is a sign of a winning argument.
Which ideas were those? No need to be brief.
Feel free to read up on this matter BEFORE you discuss it. I can’t look up all your facts for you…. besides, facts never influence liberal opinion anyway.
Good lord ...that was 8 to 10 years ago now
I still hear liberals blaming Reagan for things. Apparently, no matter how long a liberal is in office, they will never be able to correct any of the problems they feel were left by the previous lot. That alone makes me wonder why anyone would vote for a group that openly admits they are unable to accomplish anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1713 hrs
Sean Duffy is not that well known here in the northwoods. He also is not the most conservative in his own primary. Hanging your hat on Sean Duffy is not a given. Dan Mielke is running against Duffy in the Republican primary and is by far the more conservative. He will put up a fight until the end even if the party and Palin/Limbaugh crowd want to endorse Duffy. It actually is going to be an interesting election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1724 hrs
I still hear liberals blaming Reagan for things. Apparently, no matter how long a liberal is in office, they will never be able to correct any of the problems they feel were left by the previous lot.
Hypocrisy in action right there.
Conservatives were blaming Obama for everything before he even took office.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1726 hrs
I understand that liberals say things like this because free thinking is not their strong suit and most of their ideas come from talking points.
As I recall it was you that offered that they should be required listening for everyone. At least we know what you are watching on those televisions at the station house.
Obviously, it is difficult for them to understand that other people use the facts to make their own opinions.
Yet all you offer is nothing but your own sound bite opinion.
More personal derision from my angry, disgruntled stalker. I guess I’ve hit the big time. Again, as usual, I will assume the use of Alinsky tactics is a sign of a winning argument.
So there is no misunderstanding, it’s not stalking, it’s not a tatic, it is just simple contempt. Got it?
I can’t look up all your facts for you…. besides, facts never influence liberal opinion anyway.
You don’t have to look anything up for me it is sitting right here on my bookshelf.
So what facts about Keynes do you have other than the small piece of his work that addressed govt intervention in a downturn? You did say that he was pretty much wrong. Take your time, I’ll be patient.
That alone makes me wonder why anyone would vote for a group that openly admits they are unable to accomplish anything.
Walker is still blaming Ament for not getting the county’s house in order, any comment on that?
I believe you are a Walker supporter, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1746 hrs
By the way Bro, thanks for interjecting a little reality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1801 hrs
Hmmm…. Looks like that stimulus did a great job for it’s writer…. What was that about Keynes? or his economic theory, anyway?
BTW, Fact or Opinion… Did Milwaukee county have a balanced budget this year? No, it didn’t did it. It had a surplus…. When was the last time that happened?
I am a Walker supporter, and I will demand that he cut the state budget to the bone. I want to see thousands of state workers laid off, or fired outright. I want to see massive cuts to social services, or any kind of services, and I want the state of Wisconsin to repay its billions in debt.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1808 hrs
BTW, Fact or Opinion… Did Milwaukee county have a balanced budget this year? No, it didn’t did it. It had a surplus…. When was the last time that happened?
No unfunded pension obligations? And I believe other than “throw the bums out” that was Scotty’s battle cry in his first election.
No deferred maintenance to take care of?
I will demand that he cut the state budget to the bone.
He is already in the pocket of the road builders and lord knows who else now that Tommy has taken him under his wing.
I want to see thousands of state workers laid off, or fired outright.
Well that should really improve the employment rate and stimulate the economy in the state.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 1816 hrs
Believing in Government is like believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. I know 3 of them are complete shams and I’m having my doubts about the Tooth Fairy.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on May 05, 2010 at 2015 hrs
It’s funny how so many people these days try to name drop Saul Alinsky like it makes them sound intelligent.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 05, 2010 at 2058 hrs
first line in Wiki…
John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes, CB (pronounced /?ke?nz/; 5 June 1883 – 21 April 1946) was a British economist whose ideas have profoundly affected modern macroeconomics and social liberalism, both in theory and practice.
@ Pat: fucking idiot.
Economic interventionism is an action taken by a government in a market economy or market-oriented mixed economy, beyond the basic regulation of fraud and enforcement of contracts, in an effort to affect its own economy.[citation needed] Economic intervention can be aimed at a variety of political or economic objectives, such as promoting economic growth, increasing employment, raising wages, raising or reducing prices, promoting equality, managing the money supply and interest rates, increasing profits, or addressing market failures. The term economic intervention assumes the state and economy are inherently separate from each other, and therefore applies to capitalist market or mixed economies where government action would constitute an “intervention” (although this does not apply to state-owned enterprises that operate in the market).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 2146 hrs
first line in Wiki…
Your kidding right? Your purportedly knowledgeable(I’m trying to be nice) assessment of Keynes is based on a Wiki entry?
Are you and SOL related?
I can’t express my reaction more succinctly than this,
: fucking idiot
And then this,
Economic interventionism is an action taken by a government in a market economy or market-oriented mixed economy, beyond the basic regulation of fraud and enforcement of contracts, in an effort to affect its own economy…..The term economic intervention assumes the state and economy are inherently separate from each other, and therefore applies to capitalist market or mixed economies where government action would constitute an “intervention”
Is this another Wiki entry?
As long as a govt uses a fiat currency, the supply of which they control, the part that I italicized is probably unlikely if not impossible.
And you claim to be in grad school?
Thank you for validating my initial reaction,
: fucking idiot
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 2227 hrs
With some exceptions, the district is fairly conservative. The unions in the paper industry have lost a lot of members and it is more of a toursit and retirement area. Obey had a good chance of losing because of the loss of union support. He had some college campuses and the Indian Reservation in
Shawno, but that’s about it. Now, it is probably a 75% chance that Duffy will win.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 05, 2010 at 2247 hrs
While he held some sway at the time, his ideas were generally dis-proven by Milton Friedman in the late 40’s. His Utopian ideas fall short because, in every case where they have been tried, they result in centralized governmental control leading to the abuse and mis-use of power, a natural result of placing too much control into the hands of a few.
Posted by aonojung on May 06, 2010 at 0427 hrs
@MoveOnBackward:
Conservatives were blaming Obama for everything before he even took office.
And we’ll blame him after he leaves office too. He’s there now, and he’s as close to a political terrorist as I’ve seen in my lifetime.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 06, 2010 at 0739 hrs
As I recall it was you that offered that they should be required listening for everyone.
They? Did you mean ““Beck, O’Reilly or Limbaugh”“? If you want to quote me on something. then feel free to provide an actual quote… and please try to find one in context… honesty from a liberal sympathizer would be refreshing. I’ve never watched Glen Beck, but I do occasionally like O’Reilley. He often debates some very liberal folks… it’s nice to see someone offering multiple points of view… you should try it yourself, opinion, a few days away from Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and Keith might make you less of a curmudgeonly old retired crank.
I would actually advocate that people watch a bit of each side though… that’s the best way to convert un-entrenched liberals. They see what the left says… and then they begin to wonder about all of the inconsistencies when they ingest more honest and balanced coverage. It’s healthier that way.
So there is no misunderstanding, it’s not stalking, it’s not a tatic, it is just simple contempt. Got it?
Often, when confronted with difficult facts or consistent opinions based on deeply held beliefs, liberals respond with anger… or sometimes cursing.
This comes from the fact that most liberal opinions stem from an emotional response to what they see. Since they did not reason themselves into the opinion, they can’t respond reasonably… they are forced to fall back on the emotion that got them to where they are. Cursing and personal attacks against a conservative(even stalking) are just a sign that your argument is sound.
Walker is still blaming Ament for not getting the county’s house in order, any comment on that?
Ament is still to blame for the pension scandal. That bill won’t be paid off for decades. I’d say, beyond that, Walker has pretty much cleaned house where he could. let’s hope cleaning up after a liberal Democrat rat in Milwaukee gave him some good ideas for cleaning up after a liberal Democrat weasel in Madison.
Conservatives were blaming Obama for everything before he even took office.
Ridiculous. Obama hadn’t done a thing before he was elected President… well, he did vote present a lot… but that’s pretty much it. Don’t confuse criticism of his befuddled and dishonest preaching with blame. Now he gets blame for the mess he made…. all I could have blamed him for before was dishonesty and his votes on life saving measures for failed abortions…. and maybe that slimy illegal real estate deal he made with Tony Rezko.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 06, 2010 at 0830 hrs
And we’ll blame him after he leaves office too. He’s there now, and he’s as close to a political terrorist as I’ve seen in my lifetime.
We had a dog named Duke when I was a kid. All he did was fart and lick his balls. He was pretty cool otherwise.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 06, 2010 at 0930 hrs
Conservatives were blaming Obama for everything before he even took office.
Liberals are still blaming GWB for everything…..
Barack Obama was criticized harshly for his dirty deals in Chicago, his association with the vote fraud engineering association, ACORN, and for selecting tax cheats, and former lobbyists as cabinet members despite his promises to have the most ethical and transparent administration in American history. Now, he receives blame for fear mongering and demagoguing a stimulus into existence that did nothing he promised it would, for fear mongering and demagoguing his way into the first step toward a single payer system, which BTW will ban my health insurance in 3 years, and now I am blaming him for fear mongering and demagoguery with regards to financial reform…. Oh, and I blame him for the $5.00/gallon gas prices we are predicted to see this summer, because he was too slow to act on the spill, and because his first reaction was to put a stop to the offshore drilling which he advocated during his campaign…..
Who knows, though. Maybe Obama will be able to balance the budget and pay off the national debt without significantly raising taxes on the middle and upper class, all the while restoring civil liberties, securing the border, and reforming the tax code… It could happen, but I am not holding my breath.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 06, 2010 at 0946 hrs
I have arrived! What an honor to ‘troll the troll’ into taking a cheap shot. I have now reclaimed meaning in my life. Finally I can be “pretty cool.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 06, 2010 at 1006 hrs
Conservatives were blaming Obama for everything before he even took office.
So true, these guys are pathetic.
Posted by youtube on May 06, 2010 at 1117 hrs
I have arrived! What an honor to ‘troll the troll’ into taking a cheap shot. I have now reclaimed meaning in my life. Finally I can be “pretty cool.”
Blame Obama!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 06, 2010 at 1317 hrs
Sean Duffy is not that well known here in the northwoods.
We’re talking about the Sean Duffy who is getting national attention, including in the WSJ and the NY Times, right? Most of the posters here do not live in the north woods and we know who he is.
I’m amazed at this qualifier of “name recognition” being the main (if not only) qualification for holding elected office being promoted in the comments on this blog. Don’t we check for a candidate’s position on the issues anymore?
Good grief.
Posted by hsgbdmama on May 07, 2010 at 1211 hrs
Good grief.
They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our warsJackson Browne- 1986 “Lives in Balance”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 07, 2010 at 1232 hrs
The term economic intervention assumes the state and economy are inherently separate from each other,.....
As long as a govt uses a fiat currency, the supply of which they control, the part that I italicized is probably unlikely if not impossible.
Fantastically idiotic on a galactic level.
fucking idiot
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 07, 2010 at 1302 hrs
hsgbdmama:
“I’m amazed at this qualifier of “name recognition” being the main (if not only) qualification for holding elected office being promoted in the comments on this blog. Don’t we check for a candidate’s position on the issues anymore”?
The ONLY thing that appears to matter any more is how much a candidate is willing to spend to buy the seat, all else is of “no” concern.
And these people wonder why they have such a screwed up Government? THAT in itself is telling.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 07, 2010 at 1455 hrs
Fantastically idiotic on a galactic level.
fucking idiot
LOL
Always happy to amuse someone from another planet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 07, 2010 at 2121 hrs
And if you don’t want to spring for an online subscription you can take a look at the print version when you set up your reading at the library.
It’s a relatively short piece you should be able to get through it in an afternoon. Just in case you can’t maybe you should pack a lunch.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 07, 2010 at 2133 hrs
A gigantic qualification I would apply to both the fiat currency and the gold standard currency, factoropinion, would be to clarify the difference between money and currency. A government can completely control a currency, it can influence but not completely control the money supply.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 08, 2010 at 0541 hrs
Admittedly sloppy, but that is after all the coin of this realm.
Perhaps I owe an apology to Messr. Smeety?
Perhaps not?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 08, 2010 at 0800 hrs
A government can completely control a currency, it can influence but not completely control the money supply.
Would either one satisfy the assumption of inherent separation in this context?
Hmmmm?
That is a sincere interrogatory?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 08, 2010 at 0830 hrs
That is precisely the reasoning Alan Greenspan invoked to defend the loose monetary policy he favored when it was suggested this policy had caused the asset inflation and the bubbles we have faced over last decade,factoropinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 08, 2010 at 1104 hrs
And from his testimony in 2008 he would seem, at least to me, seem to admit that it did not have the outcome he expected because of a lack of regulation?
Greenspan said he was ``partially’’ wrong in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn’t protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected.
In a more insular system his assumptions might have resulted in the outcomes he had anticipated.
Briefly, two things jump out at me as missing from consideration, or maybe being underestimated, that should have seemed obvious well before things began to unravel.
First is the global dynamic that has been popularly labeled Chimerica. I know it is more complicated than that but I am going to use that as a shorthand for a more global dynamic.
Second was the ability of the quants to basically build a bigger mousetrap to capture the resultant excesses of this Chimerica dynamic.
Gotta run, I hope we can flesh a bit more this out later?
And thank you for your response.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 08, 2010 at 1254 hrs
I don’t support Greenspan’s take on events, although he is partially correct in that he had little control over foreign investment. The idea that some sort of regulation would have helped at all assumes that the money had to go to a particular set of assets. It didn’t. It happened to go into housing and stocks and regulation would just have diverted it elsewhere. It had to go somewhere and would likely have created a bubble anywhere.
I think the problem that we have is that what we define as “the economy” is actually a set of commonly accepted statistical measurements. Those measurements only retain their full value when they are not being artificially manipulated for a particular outcome. We pretend that the statistics and reality are one in the same and that is not the case. I think what we will see over the next couple of decades is the use of, or at least the attempt to use, measurements over which policy makers have little control. The gold standard is just a reflection of that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 09, 2010 at 0736 hrs
I don’t support Greenspan’s take on events
Maybe it came from the 40% wrong? Or the 60% right? I am going to take him at his word that he believes his “take” on it is sincere and not politically motivated.
``We cannot expect perfection in any area where forecasting is required,’’ he said. ``We have to do our best but not expect infallibility or omniscience.’‘
Part of the problem was that the Fed’s ability to forecast the economy’s trajectory is an inexact science, he said.
``If we are right 60 percent of the time in forecasting, we are doing exceptionally well; that means we are wrong 40 percent of the time,’’ Greenspan said. ``Forecasting never gets to the point where it is 100 percent accurate.’‘
The idea that some sort of regulation would have helped at all assumes that the money had to go to a particular set of assets.
That is an interesting assertion. Please elaborate.
After seeing the recent testimony from the front men for various financial institutions, credit rating agencies and the like. Regulation of what they did and do would be one of the least radical cures I would apply as a fix for the situation that existed and, I believe, continues to exist.
It happened to go into housing and stocks and regulation would just have diverted it elsewhere. It had to go somewhere and would likely have created a bubble anywhere.
We will have to save that for another time.
I think the problem that we have is that what we define as “the economy” is actually a set of commonly accepted statistical measurements.
If they are “commonly accepted” and are the result of uniformly and consistently applied criteria do they not at least provide benchmarks of those measurements for comparative analysis? After all, a fiat currency has value only because of a set of commonly accepted base of assumptions?
Those measurements only retain their full value when they are not being artificially manipulated for a particular outcome.
It certainly appears like they were at the very least manipulated, if not made up out of thin air, to produce a particular outcome. What is the fix for that?
We pretend that the statistics and reality are one in the same and that is not the case.
Who is “We”?
I think what we will see over the next couple of decades is the use of, or at least the attempt to use, measurements over which policy makers have little control. The gold standard is just a reflection of that.
I would like to hear more about those measurements?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 09, 2010 at 2228 hrs
To assert that regulation would have helped our current state of affairs is to state our conditions were somehow unique or that one knows ahead of time where money should go. Neither of these is true. The money had to go somewhere. The particulars of how and why it went where it did don’t interest me much because with additional regulation it simply would have gone into something else and caused some other bubble. The problem was excessive money introduced to fuel an unrealistic growth rate of a statistical measurement, GDP.
I don’t think the measurements do provide an effective comparative basis anymore. The obvious problem now is debt, and the failure of those statistical measurements to account for the accumulation of debt as the means for increasing the growth rate of those same statistics.
Fiat currency is a note authorizing the collection of a debt and derives it’s value from people’s belief that the debt will be paid upon presentation of the note. Having left the gold standard, the value of our money depends on our ability to produce. Only though production can the debt those notes represent be paid. I would call into question the idea that our GDP is an effective measurement of our ability to produce.
We are all part of the machine that played along with the idea that debt didn’t matter and now we will all have to deal with the consequences.
I think what we will see is the use of statistical measurements that discount for debt and also for government monetary policy in an effort to come up with a more long term measurement of economic health. I think this will be in line with people’s desires over the next 30-40 years as people become less interested in the fast buck. This will cause no end of political trouble, though, as it essentially would be an admission of the limits of government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 09, 2010 at 2318 hrs
We are all part of the machine that played along with the idea that debt didn’t matter and now we will all have to deal with the consequences.
I could not agree more. Especially the we and all part. As I have written here before, if you want to blame somebody go look in the mirror.
I think what we will see is the use of statistical measurements
So it is not the use of statistics? Just the current data sets? Or is it how we aggregate them? I agree they do not lend themselves to an easy topical snapshot however all the data is there if you want really take a hard look and do a little aggregation on your own. It isn’t in the bite size pieces of headline numbers suitable for the evening news.
I think this will be in line with people’s desires over the next 30-40 years as people become less interested in the fast buck.
The quantitative stuff is relatively easy in the short to mid term out to about 10 years. long term I am going to refer back to Greenspan and what he has to say about forecasting and accuracy.
The qualitative bit is the really hard part given the pace of change and innovation for the last couple of decades. Have you ever taken a look at Contingent Valuation Methodology?
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr;=&id=1R75c1UxVE0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR15&dq=Contingent+Valuation+Methodology&ots=74Xn0eY64s&sig=e88imgI3xU2360sVOXqerdNFYes#v=onepage&q=Contingent Valuation Methodology&f=false
I think combined with the ability of inernet mediated surveys it has some real possibilities for measuring those “people’s desires” you mention.
Fiat currency is a note authorizing the collection of a debt and derives it’s value from people’s belief that the debt will be paid upon presentation of the note. Having left the gold standard, the value of our money depends on our ability to produce. Only though production can the debt those notes represent be paid.
Sounds Ricardian? I am not going to quibble what I think are semantic differences. What say you?
The problem was excessive money
Yep, that was a big one.
introduced to fuel an unrealistic growth rate of a statistical measurement, GDP.
Used as a means or an end?
A major diviergence for us lies in the relationship between markets and regulation.
Do you see a completely unregulated market as having been able to avoid our current predicament.
Domestically, do you see the Fed’s ability to set interest rates as a type of regulation.
Somewhat of a vacuum, but I think a good place to start?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 10, 2010 at 0251 hrs
The problem I see with economic regulation (including the federal reserve) is that it has utterly failed to do what it was created to do; tame the business cycle. In addition it has created an enormous ability for existing interests wielding political power to use those regulatory means to further a specific outcome. The whole point of economic freedom and our system of government is to NOT favor a specific outcome, but merely a means.
All markets produce booms and busts, relatively unregulated markets have the advantages of producing them relatively quickly before they get too big and also have the advantage of not privatizing the gains and socializing the losses, as we have done.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 10, 2010 at 0814 hrs
Good morning BBB,
The problem I see with economic regulation (including the federal reserve) is that it has utterly failed to do what it was created to do; tame the business cycle.
There are a lot of reasons for that not the least of which the apparent inability of the applied models to account for, adapt and measure an exponential velocity for a number of variables.
Propensities for consumption and debt would be two that jump out at me.
All markets produce booms and busts, relatively unregulated markets have the advantages of producing them relatively quickly before they get too big
Maybe, with bunches of qualifiers.
Another obvious issue, at least I think so, is that it would seem that the current scenario is a bit more than an anomaly in the business cycle. The Industrial Revolution and the post WW1/WW2? come to mind.
Your take?
and also have the advantage of not privatizing the gains and socializing the losses, as we have done.
Gains and losses is what markets make.If you are talking about Tarp and all the other bailout stuff(?), let’s hold off on that for a while. If you are referring to something else please expand on it?
And economic regulation is not the only branch of that family that I think is pertinent. What about regulation as a policing activity?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 11, 2010 at 1022 hrs
BBB, this is getting buried. Want to continue?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 11, 2010 at 1249 hrs
Privatizing the gains and socializing the losses is what most economic regulation eventually becomes. TARP, etc. are part of that but it goes beyond that.
I would add that I think our current economic regulation has created incentives for lenders to manage risks as opposed to evaluating risks. This is a problem that will take years to correct assuming we begin to correct it.
We are indeed too buried. Another time and place.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 11, 2010 at 1413 hrs
Thanks for your time. Later.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 11, 2010 at 1520 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134032
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 06:24 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 06:26 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).