As if this would make a difference, especially since I'm from a state which already voted in the primaries. Fuck politics.
"Ms. Clinton,
I greatly admire what you've done for the democratic process by sticking to your guns throughout this nomination battle, but I humbly request that you cede the ticket to Obama. Now is the time for party unity; we MUST set our sights on McCain and the Republican party; we MUST win the White House in '08.
I began as a supporter of yours, but times have changed. I sincerely bought the argument that experience was paramount. Then, you started endorsing policies which shook my faith. The summer gas tax, for instance. And your comments which followed, regarding the uselessness of economists. You've taken a lot of media-related heat on that issue, but I'm here to tell you it was the straw which broke the camel's back for this 1 in 300 million.
I'm tired of arguments about "electability", too. Essentially, "electability" and "experience" are different names for the same concept: "safe bet". Well, the world isn't safe anymore. We need someone to break us out of the status quo, and that someone is the one for change. Barack Obama.
Thank you for listening."
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Letter I sent to all my congress-bots
"Mr. Olver (et al.),
In a May 7 2008 Wall Street Journal article I read that the Federal Reserve is going to go before Congress and ask if it could pay interest on the reserves banks are required to keep at the Fed. I am writing to express my complete disapproval of this request; I think it is a poor usage of tax dollars.
From the article, the argument by the Fed seems to be twofold. First, the Fed claims this measure will allow them to entice banks into holding more reserves for a rainy day. To this I say: the reserve requirement is set by the Government and as such, if the reserve needs to be higher, then just set it higher. Banks don't need to be reimbursed for this "lost" reserve money; the reserve requirement exists to protect banks from themselves (and protect America from banks) by preventing banks from lending more then they can handle. And banks will do this (ex: S&L crisis).
The Fed also claims this new measure will allow them to keep the market-set interest rate from falling well below the Fed-set interest rate when there is a lot of free cash in the market and lending is prevalent. This is an interesting argument considering the credit crisis might aptly be retitled the "cash-or-no-cash-we-aren't-going-to-lend crisis". The disjunction between liquidity and interest rates aside, I don't see when exactly market-set interest rates are going to fall below Fed-set interest rates - they haven't yet.
The bottom line again: I feel the Fed's idea is just a waste of money. Please don't support it.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Nathaniel Walton"
I might have just made up the part about market-set interest rates being higher than fed-set interest rates but I'm tired and I'm just trying to make a point, rather than discover the truth. Truth is for the well-rested.
cites:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121011673771072231.html
In a May 7 2008 Wall Street Journal article I read that the Federal Reserve is going to go before Congress and ask if it could pay interest on the reserves banks are required to keep at the Fed. I am writing to express my complete disapproval of this request; I think it is a poor usage of tax dollars.
From the article, the argument by the Fed seems to be twofold. First, the Fed claims this measure will allow them to entice banks into holding more reserves for a rainy day. To this I say: the reserve requirement is set by the Government and as such, if the reserve needs to be higher, then just set it higher. Banks don't need to be reimbursed for this "lost" reserve money; the reserve requirement exists to protect banks from themselves (and protect America from banks) by preventing banks from lending more then they can handle. And banks will do this (ex: S&L crisis).
The Fed also claims this new measure will allow them to keep the market-set interest rate from falling well below the Fed-set interest rate when there is a lot of free cash in the market and lending is prevalent. This is an interesting argument considering the credit crisis might aptly be retitled the "cash-or-no-cash-we-aren't-going-to-lend crisis". The disjunction between liquidity and interest rates aside, I don't see when exactly market-set interest rates are going to fall below Fed-set interest rates - they haven't yet.
The bottom line again: I feel the Fed's idea is just a waste of money. Please don't support it.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Nathaniel Walton"
I might have just made up the part about market-set interest rates being higher than fed-set interest rates but I'm tired and I'm just trying to make a point, rather than discover the truth. Truth is for the well-rested.
cites:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121011673771072231.html
There is a difference
Today on NPR I heard a woman, in the context of privatizing water rights, confuse the difference between the concept of and the existence of "economies of scale." People do analogs of this all the time; the difference between concept and existence is not "academic", or "theoretical", or whatever. It's completely practical.
Practically, it is as easy to win against the concept of "economics of scale" as it would be to eradicate the usage of a word from the english language ("politics", for example), to wipe a disease from the face of the planet, to halt an internet meme, or to uninvent the atomic bomb. Less rhetorically, YOU WILL FAIL.
Practically, it is significantly easier to demonstrate the existence of "economies of scale." Due to the vagaries of statistics, I would bet real money that it's even easier to actually do what this woman wants to do (though she never says it), which is: disprove the existence of "economics of scale" in the case of water. By the way, there are terms for the lack of "economies of scale", before anybody tells me the jargon of economics itself limits the discussion. They are: "diseconomies of scale" and "constant returns to scale".
So, when you confuse concept and existence, you get a mixed bag of arguments; depending on the composition of the bag your opponents may be required to defend their position by doing anything from
a) stand around watching you defeat yourself to
b) ignore you
The bottom line is the level of economic ignorance in this country is staggering. And it's not because people are disconnected from the economy. 95% of the population has a job, more than that use money day-to-day. The government subsists on money flows; companies are some of the most powerful institutions in the country. But, left and right we still have people making logically incoherent statements about this system they are irrevocably entwined with, all the while expressing an intense dislike for the people interested enough in the system to study it. And when I say study, I do not mean profit.
Because when we discuss the people who study and the people who profit, we are talking about two different sets, neither of which is fully a subset of the other. In economics there are many things to discuss which do not offer opportunities for profit (succeed in making the study of poverty as profitable as investment banking, and I guarantee the world you create will look NOTHING like the world of today). In profiting there are many ignored economic concepts which offer opportunities for loss (pollution is an "externality", or something which a free market does not price into the cost of manufacturing something; this failure to account properly is known as a "market failure").
And don't get me started on the people who think they can use non-economic rhetoric to effect markets. This includes: politians; moralists. But specifically, not McCain or Hillary - these two belong to a slighty different crowd who believe they can craft excellent economic policy on the basis of:
a) sheer willpower
b) blinding charisma
c) how it sounds
d) whether they thought of it
Practically, it is as easy to win against the concept of "economics of scale" as it would be to eradicate the usage of a word from the english language ("politics", for example), to wipe a disease from the face of the planet, to halt an internet meme, or to uninvent the atomic bomb. Less rhetorically, YOU WILL FAIL.
Practically, it is significantly easier to demonstrate the existence of "economies of scale." Due to the vagaries of statistics, I would bet real money that it's even easier to actually do what this woman wants to do (though she never says it), which is: disprove the existence of "economics of scale" in the case of water. By the way, there are terms for the lack of "economies of scale", before anybody tells me the jargon of economics itself limits the discussion. They are: "diseconomies of scale" and "constant returns to scale".
So, when you confuse concept and existence, you get a mixed bag of arguments; depending on the composition of the bag your opponents may be required to defend their position by doing anything from
a) stand around watching you defeat yourself to
b) ignore you
The bottom line is the level of economic ignorance in this country is staggering. And it's not because people are disconnected from the economy. 95% of the population has a job, more than that use money day-to-day. The government subsists on money flows; companies are some of the most powerful institutions in the country. But, left and right we still have people making logically incoherent statements about this system they are irrevocably entwined with, all the while expressing an intense dislike for the people interested enough in the system to study it. And when I say study, I do not mean profit.
Because when we discuss the people who study and the people who profit, we are talking about two different sets, neither of which is fully a subset of the other. In economics there are many things to discuss which do not offer opportunities for profit (succeed in making the study of poverty as profitable as investment banking, and I guarantee the world you create will look NOTHING like the world of today). In profiting there are many ignored economic concepts which offer opportunities for loss (pollution is an "externality", or something which a free market does not price into the cost of manufacturing something; this failure to account properly is known as a "market failure").
And don't get me started on the people who think they can use non-economic rhetoric to effect markets. This includes: politians; moralists. But specifically, not McCain or Hillary - these two belong to a slighty different crowd who believe they can craft excellent economic policy on the basis of:
a) sheer willpower
b) blinding charisma
c) how it sounds
d) whether they thought of it
Monday, May 5, 2008
I'm going to take credit for this because I can
Check out this recently made quiz:
http://www.bush-mccainchallenge.com/?id=12570-8588062-Zb9YFM
...and then check out my blog post on April 14 2008. The improbability that my words had an effect on someone at Moveon.org versus my egomania. Egomania wins.
http://www.bush-mccainchallenge.com/?id=12570-8588062-Zb9YFM
...and then check out my blog post on April 14 2008. The improbability that my words had an effect on someone at Moveon.org versus my egomania. Egomania wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)