It could have been worse

Much, much worse.  Follow the link to the charts.  Without the stimulus things would have gotten even nastier, and the data justifies the notion that the stimulus should have been larger.

The electorate, of course, rewards actual conditions, not conditions relative to a hypothetical scenario in which ameliorative policies weren’t adopted. But it’s evidence that there’s no actionable coherence clause in American politics that critics of the stimulus can argue against the effort on the grounds that joblessness is too high. If you think joblessness is too high and something should be done to lower it, then you think we should have more stimulus, not less.

Yep.

Why the selectivity?

Nate Silver asks why we tolerate the inefficiency in health care that would be banished in any other industry.

We wouldn’t tolerate $7 trillion sort of inefficiency and loss if resulted from a tax increase or proposed business regulation. Wouldn’t Grover Norquist and his gang be screaming tirelessly, perhaps with cause? Yet as a nation we sit back passively and allow our capitalist economy to be hobbled by solvable problems with the most important infrastructural input of all: the labors of the American workforce. What’s amazing is that American workers today work longer hours and are more productive than earlier generations of workers–despite our health problems.

When the government does or doesn’t do something that is bad for American capitalism, relevant business interests step to the fore to correct the problem. “The business of America is business,” is the famous misquote from Ronald Reagan’s favorite president, Cal Coolidge. So why hasn’t corporate America stepped forward–long before Barack Obama even arrived on the national scene–to complain about the business inefficiencies of an unhealthy citizenry?

It does’t get more basic than this.

It.

Delusions of grandeur

by Sean, crossposted from Hiding in the Backwaters:

“You evil capitalist; making wealth for other people.”

I heard that sarcastic comment the other day walking down the halls of the building where I rent office space. It never ceases to amaze me how willingly delusional some people are.

First off, let’s establish that wealth is a relative term. Compared to most of the world’s population, I’m sure that I appear as stupidly wealthy as Bill Gates appears to me. When someone makes such a ludicrous statement, it makes me wonder what their definition of wealth is.

Can we agree that giving someone a job is not the same as creating wealth? I’ve heard the same fellow is planning on hiring three people to man phones and make cold calls to pitch whatever product he has to sell. Is he really thinking about creating wealth for his employees? Is going to split the profits equally four ways? I kinda doubt it. He undoubtedly plans to keep most of the profits and pay is employees a meager wage for growing his business.

I’ve always understood capitalism to be about one thing: making money for #1. If capitalism is about creating wealth for others, how do you explain that 80% of the wealth in the U.S. is held by 20% of the population? (sociology.ucsc.edu) Have you ever pondered the term “trickle down economics?” Why not “downpour economics?” Or even “stream down economics?” Because capitalism and trickle down economics work just like a dam on a river. Sure, some of the water continues to flow down stream, but most of it stays behind the dam.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not really opposed to capitalism. I don’t even disparage the ridiculously wealthy—at least not very often. I just think you should call it what it is. If you want to adhere to capitalistic principles and state that capitalism allows all people the same theoretical opportunity to amass wealth, fine. But don’t for a minute delude yourself into believing that makes you a philanthropist.

Calling in the truth

Great piece at Cadillac Tight reviewing the real GOP record on the economy.

If you want to look at the cold, hard record, the nation has done better economically under Democratic presidents than Republicans in recent years.

Them’s the facts.

More heartburn from ineffective governance and planning

MinnPost has the goods:

The Minnesota Department of Transportation’s recently released statewide transportation plan on policies and highway investments flags a startlingly large $50 billion gap between dollars available for roads and bridges and the $65 billion required to meet state needs in those areas over the next 20 years.

This deals with transportation infrastructure, but across the board – social services, education, environmental protection… Minnesota is falling apart.  The Republican administration has been hell bent on turning us into a northern Arkansas, and they’re well on track.

The cost is too high

The Reagan Recession, 2008 style

Interesting review of the natural consequences of policies attractive to Reagan Democrats.

The reality is that the Reagan Democrats revolted against the very system that had protected and fostered them, and in two directions. The metro map here shows one direction: the raw slagging of unemployment in the Upper Mid-West, Coastal areas, and the Atlantic Coast south is clear. The other direction is seen, ironically, in a long belt of low unemployment that runs along the Great Plains. How is low unemployment a problem? In itself, it is not. However, these are areas where it is virtually impossible to be unemployed; and so rather than stay and remain unemployed (there being no government programs to keep them there) young people pour out of these empty stretches, which include parts of the North-East such as rural Maine. This youth drain is a deep political and social issue in these areas.

California dreaming, of meltdown

So California voters aren’t interested in the state remaining solvent.

Curious.  John Cole observes:

You are a state DOMINATED by Democrats, yet plague us all with the craziest Republicans in the country in Congress, you are lagging behind Iowa in terms of civil rights, and you consistently refuse to outvote the smattering of fanatical anti-tax Republicans who show up to vote down any ballot initiative to balance your budget. Can anyone give me reasons I should feel sympathy?

He shouldn’t.

Megan McArdle notes:

There is a surprisingly sizeable blogger contingent arguing that we have to bail them out because however regrettable the events that lead here, we now have no choice. But actually, we do have a choice: we could let them go bankrupt. And we probably should.

When a state is hell bent on being ungovernable, maybe we should just all sit back and watch for a while?  Eventually things will get bad enough they write a new state Constitution and fix things.

Not adding up

A great review of the Honda Insight from the Times UK.

In a Prius the electric motor can, though almost never does, power the car on its own. In the Honda the electric motor is designed to “assist” the petrol engine, providing more get-up-and-go when the need arises. The net result is this: in a Prius the transformation from electricity to petrol is subtle. In the Honda there are all sorts of jerks and clunks.

And for what? For sure, you could get 60 or more mpg if you were careful. And that’s not bad for a spacious five-door hatchback. But for the same money

you could have a Golf diesel, which

will be even more economical. And hasn’t been built out of rice paper to keep costs down.

…

I cannot see how making a car with two motors costs the same in terms of resources as making a car with one.

The nickel for the battery has to come from somewhere. Canada, usually. It has to be shipped to Japan, not on a sailing boat, I presume. And then it must be converted, not in a tree house, into a battery, and then that battery must be transported, not on an ox cart, to the Insight production plant in Suzuka. And then the finished car has to be shipped, not by Thor Heyerdahl, to Britain, where it can be transported, not by wind, to the home of a man with a beard who thinks he’s doing the world a favour.

Why doesn’t he just buy a Range Rover, which is made from local components, just down the road? No, really — weird-beards buy locally produced meat and vegetables for eco-reasons. So why not apply the same logic to cars?

At this point you will probably dismiss what I’m saying as the rantings of a petrolhead, and think that I have my head in the sand.

That’s not true. While I have yet to be convinced that man’s 3% contribution to the planet’s greenhouse gases affects the climate, I do recognise that oil is a finite resource and that as it becomes more scarce, the political ramifications could well be dire. I therefore absolutely accept the urgent need for alternative fuels.

But let me be clear that hybrid cars are designed solely to milk the guilt genes of the smug and the foolish.

I’ve taken just a few bits from a significantly longer piece that you really owe it to yourself to read in full.

Hat tip to Timothy Sandefur

The cost of poverty

A good piece in WaPo explaining how those with less end up paying more.

The cost of budget cuts

An effective part two.

Debunking the “revolt”

A real tax issue

As early as Monday the US Congress may take up debate a new bill proposing standards and establishing a framework for internet sales to be taxed.

Read about it here.

And get your congressmen and senators on board in opposition to taxing internet sales.

If a little-known but influential alliance of state politicians, large retailers, and tax collectors have their way, the days of tax-free Internet shopping may be nearly over.

A bill expected to be introduced in the U.S. Congress as early as Monday would rewrite the ground rules for mail order and Internet sales by eliminating what its supporters view as a “loophole” that, in many cases, allows Americans to shop over the Internet without paying sales taxes.

Currently, Americans who shop over the Internet from out-of-state vendors aren’t always required to pay sales taxes at the time of purchase. Californians buying books from Amazon.com or cameras from Manhattan’s B&H Photo, for example, won’t pay sales taxes at checkout time that they would if shopping at a local mall.

“We will have the bill ready for introduction by next Monday,” said Neal Osten of the National Conference of State Legislatures. “We finalized the language and now we’re working out the remaining issues and adding some new provisions at the request of various stakeholders.”

Pelosi speaks truth