Encounter with a Bernie Bro

On 3/19, I posted on FaceBook an excerpt from Adam Parkemenko's daily BIG STUFF.  This led to an encounter with a Bernie Bro.

Adam Parkhomenko --

Remember when House Republicans were the worst people in Washington? Well, they’re still pretty awful, the title for worst has been claimed by Mitch and his cronies. Where to begin. Let’s start with Sen. Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intel Committee and someone who was busted in a recording obtained by NPR telling rich donors how bad the coronavirus would get even as Trump was telling Americans it was no big deal and it would just go away. Then we have Sen. John Cornyn, who used a racist diatribe to explain why calling it the Chinese Virus isn’t racist. Sen. Ron Johnson, one of the biggest scumbags of the Biden stuff, told his local paper that you just gotta keep it in perspective that a few million Americans might die. And then there’s Rand Paul. And really, ‘nuff said. Under Mitch’s leadership, or lack thereof, the U.S. Senate dragged its feet for days on the action the House took and now Mitch wants to cut Pelosi out of the negotiations. And for reasons we will never understand, there are many Democrats who want to take politics out of this current environment. These people must be new here and have never met a Republican. Like David Axelrod complaining because Democrats are running ads against Trump’s response? Seriously, Axe? Some of those first term capitulations are suddenly making a lot more sense. Trump fucked this up, and he and his party are going to be responsible for the deaths of many Americans. We sure as shit should be talking about that.

The Bernie Bro --

Just more bipartisan fuckfoolery. I'm immured to it, now. What will fall will fall.

JzB --

Both sides are not the same.

BB

They're not?

Could'a fooled me...

JzB

Sure, you can always find an example to validate a point of view. It's cherry picking, and it's not valid. You have to look at patterns of behavior, not isolated incidents. You have to look at policies and their effects.

Seriously, there are differences in any economic or social metric you can think of between when Rs and Ds are in control. And with the Ds it's always better.

Always.

Yes it's true that both parties have too much corporate interest. But that does not mean that they are equal. Frex: BHO had the backing of Wall St in '08, but they largely abandoned him in'12, because they didn't like what he was doing.

BB

Sorry [JzB}...I no longer believe this. I see them as two rival gangs in a kind of "Three families" criminal setup. The third family is the nonpartisan/bipartisan Deep State, which is actually more powerful than either gang. It allies itself with whichever gang seems most likely to continue to succeed in doing its bidding.

We've recently had a little shakeup of that system, because Trump surprised all THREE gangs and essentially took over the Ratpublicans. He is a rogue gang leader, and so far the other two gangs (and whatever parts of his own gang secretly wish him gone as well) have not been very successful in unseating him.

They DO keep trying, though.

We'll see in November...if of course there even IS an election in November. But never fear...we'll someday see who wins and who loses.

But...nothing substantive will change.

It's just the way things work.

Been that way since history began...

BEFORE it began, I'm sure.

It just didn't get written down.

JzB 

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I've studied these things. Policies have consequences for people's lives, and R vs D policies are drastically different.

My dad told me something ca. 1962, and I never forgot it. Every once in a while, if a crumb falls off the plate, the Democrats might let you keep it. The Republicans won't even do that.

Also, ponder these things -- Would President Gore have ignored the screaming warnings from the intelligence communities like Shrub did - that allowed 9/11 to happen?

Would he have launched an illegal and pointless war against an uninvolved third-party country based on invalid, cooked intelligence?

Would he have cut taxes on the rich while launching this war - something no ruler in the history of the world has ever done?

Would President HRC have ignored the impending Covid-19 situation for months, while denying the reality of it to the American people in the hopes of personal gain?

Would she have signed into law yet another tax cut that benefited only the super rich and did squat for anyone else? And that, by the way, was completely unjustifiable on any economic terms and needlessly blew up the national debt?

Look at the history of criminal indictments in R vs D administration - dozens, maybe hundreds of Rs and a small hand full of Dems.

Look at the Rethug Senators who dumped millions in stocks just before the crash, while publicly saying Covid-19 was no big deal and we'd all be fine. The one from GA even made a huge investment in a tech company that might profit from people working from home. And her husband is Chairman of he New York Stock Exchange.

These are off the top of my head. Policies matter - to you and to me and to the rest of the world. 

Many of the things I listed were earth shaking.

Imagine how different it all would be without 9/11, ISIS, the disaster in Syria . . . Needless wars and ghastly foreign policy blunders have drained us of blood and treasure, and thoroughly destabilized an already fragile middle east.

And Trump and his cronies have gotten richer by many, many millions. To our detriment.

Ignoring these things for the sake of believing in a fictional both-sides-do-it duality might be satisfying in some way that I can't wrap my head around, but it is not an accurate depiction of the world we live in.

Think it over.

BB

You write: "Every once in a while, if a crumb falls off the plate, the Democrats might let you keep it. The Republicans won't even do that."

This in the biggest bakery of all time!!!

And you claim that they are "different?"

Not much more to say. I think that your father's statement pretty well sums up the difference between the two parties.

Minuscule.

Crumbs.

I could argue against every point that you make here.

You are as convinced as are the Trumpsters.

I will say this, though.

Don't worry. You have a lot of company.

JzB

It's pretty damned lame to dismissively hand wave away a long list of actual facts. In case you didn't notice, I put a lot of thought and careful planning into my response. Did you even read past the anecdote? I do commentary like this all the time, because I value the truth. You're welcome.

You could argue - but you don't. That says a lot, right there.

And, btw, comparing me to Trumpers is a blatant insult, because I actually fucking think things through; and I deeply resent it. You haven't done anything to earn the right to an attitude quite that superior.

If I'm convinced of something, it's because I've done the leg work to uncover actual facts and data. Years of technical training, along with my natural inclinations, lead me to make data-driven decisions. I have 463 posts on my blog with the tag "economics" and have actually put a bit of serious thought into some of them, with real graphs and detailed analysis.

What IS similar to Trumpers - and right wingers more generally - is a casual disregard for facts and data, with no attempt at rational discourse. I've experienced this hundreds of times. It's depressing as hell.

My posts are public on purpose. I welcome disagreement.

Note that it moves the discussion along in a more constructive way when the disagreement actually makes some sort of sense.

Prove to me that I'm wrong, and you will have done me a favor. The operative word here is PROVE.

But do it tomorrow. You've kept me up unit midnight, and I'm gong to bed

Think it over. Seriously.

BB

I am not going to even TRY to "prove" what I am saying to you.

The proof will be in the pudding.

We'll see what happens if Biden is elected with a majority in both houses. Or without.

Or if Trump remains.

Or...if some other outcome happens.

Gore?

HRC?

Bill Clinton?

Bush II?

Obama?

ALL willing supporters of the Permanent War state that has decimated this country on all levels and has simultaneously been the single most polluting environmental set of events of the last 30+ years. And all complicit in the selling of the country's industrial strength to the highest bidders, a sale that has totally wrecked the economies of the working class/middle class.

Biden?

Just another tool of the globalist corporate system for his entire career.

And yes, I did read your posts.

All of them.

I will read them no more.

Save your energy.

And at that point, he blocked me.  There was no attempt to engage any of my points, just spouting an extended sequence of naked assertions.

I'll concede that the Dems are far too close to big business and especially big finance.  And, to be sure, the history of humanity in a nutshell - always and everywhere - is the exploitation of the many by a small wealthy, privileged elite. But the mere fact that there are disturbing similarities between the two parties does not mean that there aren't also deeply significant differences. Our own history over that last hundred years, and especially the most recent decades, demonstrates that dramatically.

More Right Wingery

So a nice right wing lady had this to say about my characterization of the right-wing mind.

 Why not write a book? your "great" analysis is lost here. So what? "Reality" is in the eye of the beholder and your reality is different than mine. "Magical thinking" is saved for progressives that insist that Socialism will work, even as Venezuela starves it's people and hospitals have no drugs. there is no magical thinking within my reality....the fact you even write about it is crazy! Give me an example of Conservative magical thinking----😝

I am not making this up.  She really did say: "Reality" is in the eye of the beholder and your reality is different than mine. 

My response:

If my great analysis is lost on you, it's because you aren't willing to do the hard mental work of acquiring information, digesting it, and using rational thought processes to drive your conclusions.

We all have opinions. A rational, thoughtful person puts some effort into having those opinions correspond as closely as can be achieved with actual observable reality.

Magical thinking is the notion that thinking, believing, or hoping for something makes it true, irrespective of evidence.

Examples of conservative magical thinking:

The unregulated free market is the best market - there is "an invisible hand."
Tax cuts for the rich help the economy.
Tax cuts pay for themselves.
Every other aspect of supply-side trickle down economics.
Having a business man run government will give the best results - because he's NOT a politician.
A Border wall is a solution to immigration and/or smuggling issues.
Mexico will pay for the wall.
Man's action can't affect climate because God is in control.
More broadly, all climate change denialism.
God chose Bush and/or Trump to be president.
White race superiority.
Trade wars are good and easy to win.
Alliances are easy to form and maintain.
Tariffs imposed here are paid for by other countries.
Vaccines cause autism.

But you summed it up perfectly, yourself: "Reality is in the eye of the beholder and your reality is different than mine."

As if your subjective notions and opinions are just as good as my facts, data and empirical observations. That is magical thinking in a nutshell.

Thank you for proving my point.

.

Right Wingery

I've been engaging right wingers in various contexts for over a decade now. Here is my view of how their minds work - and it's stereotypical: you see the same things over and over and over.

The foundation for their belief system is fear and a deep negativity.

Their world view is based on -
- ignorance
- prejudice
- reality denial
- magical thinking

This is supported by cherry picking favorable bits of data and information, while ignoring the larger picture -- epistemic closure. The flip side is steadfastly holding on to ideas that are demonstrably not true - the entire genre of ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Their technique of argumentation is -
- deny
- delay
- distract
- deflect

Hence their tendencies toward what-about-ism, changing the subject and personal attacks.

They manifest all this with the trifecta of right wing behaviors -
- projection
- an often stunning lack of self awareness
- tone deafness to irony

Be on the look out for these things. It is how they always operate. Because when when facts, data and all the other aspects of reality are not on your side, what else are you going to do?

Life, the Universe, and Everything

I'll start off saying that I'm an agnostic with atheistic tendencies.  Only my general skepticism about everything keeps me from being a complete atheist.  I do believe that if we happen some day to discover that there is indeed such a thing as a God, She/He/It/They will have scant, if any, resemblance to what is portrayed in any of the religions popular among humans.  Given all of that, though, I can call myself a Christian, in complete sincerity, and with no sense of irony.  More on that later.

Way back in the shrouding mists of prehistory, early man started grappling with the important and ultimate fundamental questions of life, the universe and everything.  These are, in my estimation --

1) What in the hell is going on here?

2) What am I supposed to do about it?

Two approaches to grappling with these vexing conundrums are science and religion.  Some people don't like the idea that these two vastly different approaches spring from the same basic human quest for knowledge, and I've been ridiculed for proposing it. This is generally because someone has a personal bias toward one or the other.  But if you think in terms of the fundamental questions, it all makes sense.

Science seeks to understand the universe through rigorous systematic empirical observation, reason and logic.  It's pretty good at addressing the first question; but might not take us very far in addressing the second.  Of course, the scientific study of the results and effects of human actions can reveal some knowledge of what appropriate behaviors ought to be.  Natural phenomena like plate tectonics or global climate change, and policies like supply-side economics can be studied and understood.  Sadly, though, humans are only semi-rational beings, and the clear conclusions of scientific inquiry can become clouded by bias, epistemic closure, and contrary economic or political interest.

Religion on the other hand, seeks understanding through observation that is less systematic and more anecdotal, introspection and mysticism. It involves the assumed validity of prophecies, omens, and the interpretation of natural phenomena as signs from God.  As such, it has a lot in common with superstition - but that is not the field I intend to plow today.  Religion addresses the first question via creation myths - which in themselves can be quite creative, but not particularly useful in obtaining a greater understanding of the physical world - and observations which are far too often seen through the distorting lenses of religious bias, magical thinking and denialism. The second question leads to inquiries about human beings' relationship with and responsibilities toward God, God's relationship with and responsibilities toward human beings, and humans' relationships and responsibilities with each other.

Since the nature of God is unknowable, speculations about any relationship involving Her/Him/It/Them are ultimately totally subjective.  This is why there are so many radically different religions and God concepts around the world and throughout history.  In one aspect, though, almost all God concepts share a single, specific characteristic: the Deity is remarkably human-like.  God may be conceived of as all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful, but still shows disturbing signs of human frailties like anger, jealousy, tendencies toward wanton destruction, grudge-holding, and an intolerance toward contrary points of view.

So the logical person can justifiably look upon religion with some contempt.

But doing so, at least in the context of Christianity, is often based on reading the Bible literally, and assuming it is - or is professed to be - the inerrant inspired word of God.

I see lots of criticisms that implicitly rely on this kind of reasoning.  Here is an example that generated a long discussion on Face Book.

Source not known

I objected to this as being ahistorical and misleading.  Slavery existed among the Israelites, but it had little in common with the chattel slavery that is such a horrible blight on our own American history.  It was more similar to indentured servitude.  Other New Testament writings refer to what were likely other forms of slavery in the Roman world, giving behavioral advice to both slaves and masters.

But put yourself in the position of someone proselytizing in a world where slavery is a reality, and your ability to change it is exactly 0 to an infinite number of decimal places. What do you do then, as a practical matter if your goal is to bring the world more in line with the teachings of Jesus? [If you are unsure about what these are, the short answer is found here.]  You admonish the masters to treat their slaves humanely, and the slaves to not do things that will incite the master's wrath.  This is simple good sense, and it is the message you find in the Bible.

So this meme is fundamentally unfair on at least two levels, and - in my opinion - is dishonestly motivated.  First, it misrepresents the nature of slavery that the O.T referred to.  Next, it criticizes moral admonishments about attempting to improve current reality from a 2000+ year later perspective.

But it's actually worse than that.  There is an explicitly stated error of composition, assuming that even IF the Bible were morally deficient in its commentary on slavery, that the rest of it's collected writings - assembled by a wide variety of writers over many hundreds of years - would be invalidated.

And still even more worse - to get back to my original point - the meme only makes sense if the Bible is taken to be the literal word of God rather than the situational best efforts of imperfect human beings.  In this way, some critics make the identical error that the fundamentalists and evangelicals make.  As an aside, this argument was not well received on FB, but I'm sticking by my guns - both there and here.

So, what does all this have to do with my claim to be a Christian? First off, though I'm not a believer, I do take seriously that there is - along with a lot of dross - some real wisdom, some valid moral pronouncements, and reasonable advice for living an enlightened life in the Bible, and most particularly in the teachings and example of Jesus. [See the link above.]

I recognize that I am an imperfect human being, with my own sad litany of vices, personality defects, episodes of faulty reasoning and lapses in judgment.  But I look at the way Jesus admonishes us to live and take that advice seriously.  Of course, I sin and falter.  But I get up, dust off, and try to better tomorrow - which is really all anyone can do.

In conclusion, I'll point out that there is no historical proof that the person we call Jesus ever did tread the dusty roads of ancient Palestine with his band of merry men.  Further, the gospels were written no less than 3 decades later than the events they allegedly portray - and almost certainly not by actual eye witnesses.  So the whole Jesus myth might well be a complete fiction.

But - and I mean this with total sincerity - it doesn't matter.  The message, wherever it came from, and by whatever suspect and convoluted means it came to us, is a good one that provides valid guidance for leading a life that respects the lives of others and improves the quality of human life in general.

And that's what counts.

What Is Free Speech?

A Va. newspaper published a KKK recruitment flyer on their front page.

Rational people were not happy about it.  I got into a back-and-forth with a right winger on FB, who does not understand what "free speech" means.

Right Winger: One of the sharp ends of "freedom of speech." We may not like what it allows but we much like it because we too are allowed.

Me: But - free speech does not guarantee anyone a forum, an audience, nor print space in the paper.

Here, the audience was provided, free of cost, as if it were a news item - on the front page, no less. Their disclaimer does nothing to change that.

This is not a free speech issue. It's a what-in-the-hell-is-the-matter-with-you? issue.

RW: I will have to disagree with your assumption that it does not provide an audience. That is if "free speech" is truly a right.

If someone controls the content of your "speech" on social media, or controls the results of the search engine to eliminate finding articles that you see as objectionable, do you think that we are protecting our right to free speech?

We don't think about the fact that there are two sides to free speech. The first is the spoken part. The second is the hearing part. 

The history of the KKK tells us a lot about hate and control and fear and the political system. It is our "duty" to do our own research about what others say (or print,) and then make an informed decision. 

If "free speech" is shut down (in any manner,) we have less ability to make an informed decision. I may not like how it is done or what is said (or printed,) but we need to protect every manner of free speech (sadly - even that which we viscerally disagree with.)

I took this on, point by point

Thank you for confirming that you have no idea what free speech means. Seriously, you do not comprehend this issue.

"I will have to disagree with your assumption that it does not provide an audience." 

Not only is this wrong, it makes no sense. Don't you think you are free to walk away and not listen?

"If someone controls the content of your "speech" on social media, or controls the results of the search engine to eliminate finding articles that you see as objectionable, do you think that we are protecting our right to free speech?"

No. But the question is irrelevant. Every publication controls what their content is. Search engines are devised by private companies who have no obligation to provide free anything. You are conflating free speech with a right to know, which is not guaranteed anywhere.

"We don't think about the fact that there are two sides to free speech. The first is the spoken part. The second is the hearing part."

That's not how it works. I can stand on the street corner shouting, "[Fill in a name] is a goose and he wants to shit on your lawn." People have every right to walk away, shaking their heads.

"The history of the KKK tells us a lot about hate and control and fear and the political system. It is our "duty" to do our own research about what others say (or print,) and then make an informed decision."

OK. Fair enough. Unfortunately, though, this statement has absolutely nothing to do with the topic we are discussing.

"If "free speech" is shut down (in any manner,) we have less ability to make an informed decision." 

You have no facts to back up this assertion. in fact, it has been demonstrated that people who get all their information from Fox News actually know less than people who don't watch any news. You are ignoring propaganda, which results in people have less ability to make an informed decision. 

"I may not like how it is done or what is said (or printed,) but we need to protect every manner of free speech (sadly - even that which we viscerally disagree with.)"

Not so. Free speech is not an absolute. Many types of speech are in fact crimes - libel, sedition, etc. Here is a catalogue of illegal speech.

Usually, this is where these conversations end.  We'll see if there is a continuation.

[Days later]

Nope.  That was the end of it.

How Mythical is Reagan's Debt?

J. W. Mason makes the excellent - and largely unrecognized - point that the great majority of the federal debt increase during Reagan's term was due to high interest rates rather than a combination of reduced taxes and high spending.  Fair enough, but I think he takes this observation too far when he says:

 If something everyone thinks they know -- Reagan's budgets blew up the federal debt in the 1980s -- turns out not be true, it's worth pointing out. Especially if you thought you knew it too.

However, it's also worth pointing out that Reagan's budgets really did blow up the federal debt - high interest rates at the time just made this a whole lot worse.  J.W.M. is looking at surplus or deficit as a % of GDP.  Conclusions based on ratios always make me want to take a different look.   There may not be much distortion from a denominator effect in this specific case, but a close look at the primary budget [total budget less interest payments] results tells a rather different story.

Graph 1 [click to enlarge] illustrates the total budget Surplus or Deficit [red] along with the primary S or D [blue] for the years 1950 to 2000, in billions of dollars.

Graph 1 - Total and Primary Budget S or D, Billions

For the period in question, this does not look substantially different from JWM's graph, with data as percentage of GDP.

Graph 2 shows only the primary budget surplus or deficit for the same time period.

Graph 2 - Primary Budget S or D, Billions

The years 1981-88, Reagan's term, are highlighted in Red.  For no good reason, the Nixon-Ford and G. H. W. Bush terms are in yellow.  Reagan's primary budget deficit of $118 billion in 1983 was 2.5 times larger than the previous record of $47 billion of 1976.   For the next three years, the primary deficits were $74.3, 82.8 and 85.2 billion, respectively.

Cutting across this a different way, Graph 3 shows the accumulated S or D since 1950, in billions, with Reagan's term highlighted in red.  Reagan is responsible for 86.47% of total primary deficit accumulation from 1950 through the end of his term.

Graph 3 - Accumulated Surplus or Deficit, 1950 to 2000

In fairness, Reagan's last two years added very little to the accumulated deficit.  But there is no denying that his profligacy was dramatically different from that of any previous president.

Despite my perhaps niggling disagreement with JWM, his post is well worth reading, and I recommend it highly.  His point about interest rates is just as relevant to today's situation as it was to circumstances three decades past.  Here is his closing thought.

If high interest rates and disinflation drove the rise in the federal debt ratio in the 1980s, it could happen again. In the current debates about when the Fed will achieve liftoff, one of the arguments for higher rates is the danger that low rates lead to excessive debt growth. It's important to understand that, historically, the relationship is just the opposite. By increasing the debt service burden of existing debt (and perhaps also by decreasing nominal incomes), high interest rates have been among the main drivers of rising debt, both public and private. A concern about rising debt burdens is an argument for hiking later, not sooner. People like Dean Baker and Jamie Galbraith have pointed out -- correctly -- that projections of rising federal debt in the future hinge critically on projections of rising interest rates. But they haven't, as far as I know, said that it's not just hypothetical. There's a precedent.  

 _____________________________

Data Source Link

The Standard Deviation of NGDP Growth During the Great Inflation

This post is a side bar to the Remarkably Stable GDP Growth series.

Part 1
Part2
Part 3

Once again I have to thank Mark Sadowski for goading me into digging deeper, staring longer, and thinking harder about this topic than I otherwise would have.  In comments to Part 3,  Mark informs us that: 

In three year periods ending in 1954 to 1978, which overlaps with the Great Inflation, the 12 quarter standard deviations of the compounded annual rate of change in NGDP are significantly *negatively* correlated with the average rate of change in NGDP. In other words NGDP became *less volatile* as its average rate of change *increased*.

Let's have a look.  Graph 1 is a scattergram of 12 Qtr average NGDP growth from this FRED page, measured as Compounded Annual Rate of Change [CARC] vs Std Dev for the years 1954 through 1978.  A linear trend line is included.

 Graph 1 - 12 Q Avg CARC vs Std Dev

At first glance it appears that Mark is right.  But there is something strange about that data distribution.  Do you see it?

Let's look back to one of my earlier graphs showing the change in Std Dev over time for a moving 13 quarter kernel.  I see a broad sweep up in St Dev from the mid 60's to the early 80's.  Can a 12 Q kernel be very different?  No, it can't, as Graph 2 indicates.

Graph 2 - 12 Q Avg CARC and Std Dev

Twelve Qtr average CARC is in yellow, St Dev in blue.  The basic CARC data is in grey.  What we observe are 5 different realms, with Average CARC and Std Dev moving broadly together: a sharp up and down from '50 to the early 60's; up from '64 to '81; down '82 to 87; flatish '88 (or '90) to '08, and then the Great Recession.   How can we have Std Dev negatively correlated with average CARC when they exhibit similar movement?   That's at the gross level.  The small magnitude undulations, however, are in contrary motion.  This is easiest to see in the wiggles from 1954 to '60, and again in the great recession, but actually occurs throughout.  It happens mainly because recessions bring CARC values down while boosting the Std Dev.  But -- this is not the explanation.

To understand what's going on, consider the big drop in Std Dev from 6.51 in 1960 to 2.47 in  Q1 1964. Remember that 1964 date, it's important.  Now, let's have another look at the CARC data from 1954 to 1978, presented in Graph 3.

Graph 3 CARC and STD Dev, 1954 to 1982

The CARC data from FRED is in dark blue. It moves up over the period, but not in a regular manner.  There are two flatish periods from Q2 '61 to Q3 '70, and from Q2 '72 to Q1 ,78.  Averages for these periods are indicated with yellow horizontal lines.  The data packet spans for the two periods are outlined in red.  Std Dev is in bright blue.  I've included a trend channel in green, just because it amuses me.  Data for the two periods is summarized in the table below.



A higher CARC range leads to a slightly wider data packet, and hence a higher Std Dev.

The 60's were recession free, and in that decade we observe that after Std Dev hits bottom in 1964, it moves in near lock-step with average CARC for the rest of the decade [easiest to see in Graph 2.].  After the 1970 recession, CARC stepped up into a new range.  There was a recession in 1974, yet the data envelope only widened slightly. This is because inflation at the time kept NGDP values high, even in the trough, as this FRED graph illustrates. 

Now, lets have another look at the scattergram of average CARC vs Std Dev, this time with the data properly parsed around that significant 1964 date I mentioned earlier, shown in Graph 4.

Graph 4 - 12 Q Avg CARC vs Std Dev

The values from 1954 to Q4 '63 are in red, and from Q1 '64 on in yellow.  The original trend line is shown in blue, trend lines for the two sub sets are color coded with their respective data points.

The conclusion is that the apparent negative correlation between CARC and St Dev over the period of 1954 to 1978 is specious, and wholly due to the high recession-driven Std Dev values of the 50's.  The Std Dev drop of 1960 to '64 occurs when the last of these gyrating data points fall out of the moving 12 quarter kernel.

After that, Std Dev is positively correlated with CARC, as I claimed in the first place

There's a lot more to dig into here, and I'll do that in a follow-up post.

In Which I disagree with Clive Crook

In this Bloomberg column, Clive Crook criticizes Paul Krugman for 1) smugly being right all the time, and 2) showing insufficient respect for those who are wrong all the time.  Please read it and form your own opinion.

I suppose it's not particularly relevant that PK has been called an idiot, a moron, a communist, a lying political hack, a racist lying hack, and my hands-down favorite, a war monger.  So let's just move along.

To support his point, Crook cites this blog post by PK, and extracts from it this idea:

Krugman was responding to critics who accuse him of seeing everybody who disagrees with him as either a fool or a knave. He says that’s not right: Many of those who disagree with him are sociopaths. 

 “The point is not that I have an uncanny ability to be right; it’s that the other guys have an intense desire to be wrong,” he says. “And they’ve achieved their goal.”

Do you see the problem here?  Crook overstates his case rather dramatically.  PK hasn't called anyone a sociopath, so far as I know, and certainly not in this post.  [Though I have no doubt that a certain congressman, whom PK has criticized loudly and often, qualifies - in spades.]  What he is saying is that they have an agenda, and being wrong means exactly nothing to them, as long as their agenda is promoted.


Crook goes on to say this:

Krugman says his opponents are motivated by politics. “Am I (and others on my side of the issue) that much smarter than everyone else? No. The key to understanding this is that the anti-Keynesian position is, in essence, political. It’s driven by hostility to active government policy and, in many cases, hostility to any intellectual approach that might make room for government policy.” 

 Talk about lack of self-awareness. Does Krugman imagine that he isn’t motivated by politics? 

Crook actually has a point, but not the one he intends.  First off, PK has a valid theoretical and practical basis for his beliefs, while the other side really has been consistently wrong, intellectually nihilistic, and responds by doubling down with more wrong.  More importantly though, if PK had been less polite, and said "rabidly purblind partisan politics motivated by a starkly anti-democratic agenda" he would have been less polite, but far more accurate.  So Crook's quibble with the word "politics" is either a bit vacuuous or the resultant of trying to hard to find something to dispute - an all-too-common feature of PK's would-be critics.

If you've read Krugman's writings from the 90's you know that at that time he was a basically apolitical middle-of-the-road, actually rather conservative writer, making economics accessible to know-nothings like me.  He later became politicized by the persistently willful wrongitude of the Bush administration, which set the stage for the even more wrong and more extreme current Republican party. He doesn't criticize them because of his ideology, he criticizes them for theirs, which is consistently and demonstrably wrong.   And he does this while generally maintaining a high level of politeness.

So, yes, PK is motivated by politics, but it's a politics that strives to reach the truth and promote the common good, rather than some ideological predetermined end point that favors an already privileged overclass. 

Here is Crook's thesis:

Meanwhile, for the side that thinks it has the better arguments, naked contempt for dissenters is plain bad tactics. That isn’t how you change people’s minds.

But there's a problem here, too.  And it's one I understand, since the same criticism has been leveled at me.  There's a truth contained there, it's pure Dale Carnegie, and it would be spot on - if we were contending with rational well-intentioned people.  But there's a deeper truth that Crook reluctantly acknowledges in his final paragraph.

It’s true that the modern Republican Party includes a growing number of extremists who have no interest in the kind of discussion I’m recommending. In their case, attempts at outreach would be so much wasted breath.

That's the reality.  The suggestion that PK needs to get out more is fatuous in the extreme. When you are dealing with liars, the best and most appropriate response is to refute the lies and reveal these fools, knaves and sociopaths for what they are.

QoD from Ed at G&T

I mean, modern American politics is basically the Democrats mumbling something quasi-logical while the Republicans scream something that makes no sense whatsoever. What am I supposed to say, "OK class, today we're going to debate de-funding the National Science Foundation. This group will be the 'pro' side…." We'd get more accomplished if we played Candyland. Defending ridiculous viewpoints is going to teach them one of two things. They will learn to make nonsensical arguments unabashedly, or they will learn how to say a bunch of bullshit that sounds like a persuasive argument but isn't. The former is Sean Hannity, the latter, George Will.
                                                         ---- Ed

This is relevant because of a FB conversation I got into yesterday with a stranger commenting on a mutual friend's post. Her approach was to change the subject, move the goal posts, engage in hyperbole, present demonstrable nonsense as fact, and reject facts when presented. This is what you get into with regressives all the time. It's no accident that they don't know how to engage in rational discourse. Down that path lies truth, and truth does not comport with their pre-packaged view of the world.

It's so much more comfortable and convenient to wallow in ideologically approved talking points. It saves all that tedious mucking around with critical thinking, facts and logic.

Letter to the President of the University of Rhode island

President Dooley -

I am increasingly concerned with right wing influence in academia. You can see this perhaps most plainly in Koch-funded ventures, such as the Economics Dept of George Mason University. But it manifests itself in many other large and small ways. The current witch hunt involving professor Loomis is a signal event in this phenomenon.

For this reason, I was deeply disturbed and disappointed to see this response come out from URI over your name.

The University of Rhode Island does not condone acts or threats of violence. These remarks do not reflect the views of the institution and Erik Loomis does not speak on behalf of the University. The University is committed to fostering a safe, inclusive and equitable culture that aspires to promote positive change.

Sir, you should be ashamed of your cowardice.

Professor Loomis' rhetoric might have been ill-advised, but no reasonable person could ever construe his words to be a threat of violence.

Clearly, I consider those who have called for Professor Loomis' head to not be reasonable people.

On the other hand, I'm hopeful that you are one.

A good way to convince the world of your reasonability and integrity would be to retract your equally ill-advised statement; and even better, issue a new one promising Professor Loomis your clear and unconditional support.

Thank you for your consideration to this important matter.

{I signed my real name
Along with address
And Phone No.}

Here is the context.

And here is what prompted this letter

No Guns In MI Schools

In an uncharacteristic moment of sane concern for the actual well being of his constituents, Michigan's increasingly unpopular governor Rick Snyder vetoed the conceal-carry law that would have allowed guns into schools, day care centers, churches and stadiums, that was passed last Thursday in a marathon session of egregious over-reach by our lame duck Rethug controlled legislature.

Per the report in today's Freep, "Snyder acknowledged Tuesday that the Newtown killings factored into his decision."  Let me translate that for you. Following the "Right-to-Work" legislation passed that same day by these same lame scoundrels  no good, rotten, democracy hating sons-of-bitches, Snyder's popularity took a nose dive from 47 to 38%, with his disapproval rating now at 56%.  In the wake of Sandy Hook one can reasonably presume that signing this atrocity into law would have dropped his approval number into the low 20's.  Realistically, there is no way in hell he would have vetoed this if Sandy Hook had not happened in between.

This does not raise my opinion of this craven, crass elitist oligarch by the slightest increment.  This is merely an exercise in political opportunism by a rat whose ship is rapidly sinking.

Don't worry about his sorry ass, though.  When he gets bounced  in the next election, he'll have a cushy, high-paying job at some Koch-funded reich-wing think tank talking point generator.  The elites do have a way of taking care of their own.

In other news, The Wicked Witch Robert Bork is dead.  Boo-fricken-hoo.  In some tiny way, the world is now a slightly better, more humane and loving place.

In the Committee's report, Bork is portrayed as an opponent of civil rights legislation, a critic of decisions banning racially restrictive covenants and of bans on segregation, a critic of one person/one vote, a critic of decisions upholding bans on poll taxes and literacy tests, and as a judge who took a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause.

Conversation with a Conservative

A couple of weeks ago reader Cooljazz (no relation) left a long and detailed comment at the post where I asked Romney supporters to explain their preference.  I've hoisted his comment from the archive and will give it a detailed response.

Cooljazz said:

The Democratic Party has the perception of pandering to liberal social issues, i.e. immigration, woman's rights, same sex marriage, etc. I consider this to vote buying where democratic candidates gain support from special interests (groups organized on specific social issues) in exchange for promises to pursue those interests. In general I consider this to be a weakening of national moral fiber, which is a precursor to mob rule.

I am bothered by the ability of special interests groups, via undisciplined media, to distort political issues such that rational discussion cannot take place. The Susan Komen Foundation and Family Planning debate or UAW support of Matty Maroun's opposition to the International Trade Crossing are excellent examples of where special interests were able to distract and confuse the public. It is difficult for me to support the Democratic Party because I do cannot find common ground and even my willingness to compromise on issues is polarized by special interests groups. Essentially, by voting for the Democratic Party, I feel compelled to give up on my principals.

For instance, if I vote down proposals to change the Michigan constitution to add additional protections for unions then I must be a right-wing conservative pushing "right-to-work" legislation. This is not the case but I will be darned if I can have a rational conversation on this issue in my neighborhood Coney, which is mostly populated by retired UAW automotive employees. I am not necessarily against universal health care but I think it would have been more appropriate to identify means to bring down the cost of rising health care than to push legislation that might exacerbate the situation. I believe in the institution of marriage but might compromise on civil unions, depending on whether I perceived this to further weaken the family structure. In short, voting for the democratic party would push me further into hypocrisy than I can tolerate.

Alternatively, the Republican Party resonates better with my Christian views and beliefs. By virtue of having a position, conviction or religious perspective, I can then debate the merits of proposals that support or detract from this foundation. This foundation base is not something I find in the Democratic Party, other than a sense of fairness, which I believe is a primary objective of the Democratic Party. This platform is why I don't think that the Democratic Party will accomplish much in the next four years, which I may expand upon later assuming that this discussion is of any interest.

Before I even start, it should be plainly obvious that I am in near total disagreement with almost all of this.

I'll also reiterate that what I am looking for is a way to comprehend the conservative position.  I'm seriously astounded that intelligent, educated, thoughtful people of integrity - and I know Cooljazz to be just such a person - can support what the Republican party has degenerated into, and specifically an arrogant squirmy ethical chameleon like Willard Romney.  I will state my opposition to Cooljazz's arguments as forcefully as I am able, but I am not foolish enough to think I can change anybody's mind.

My response:

You first paragraph describes a perception of Democratic pandering. Let's first agree on what pandering is.   From Wikipedia we get this: "Pandering is the act of expressing one's views in accordance with the likes of a group to which one is attempting to appeal. The term is most notably associated with politics. In pandering, the views one is verbally expressing are merely for the purpose of drawing support up to and including votes and do not necessarily reflect one's personal values."

So I have to say you are badly mistaken in this accusation.  Do you really believe that Dems, in general, are less than serious about the issues you mentioned?  In fact, a fundamental difference between  progressives (not that all Dems are) and regressives (which, unfortunately all modern Rethugs seem to be) revolves around issues of human rights.  If you can see questions of immigration, women's rights and gay marriage being decided on the basis of granting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all, as opposed to repressing the rights of certain targeted groups, then we can come closer to an agreement.

Further, I can think of no greater panderer in recent history than Mitt Romney, who first, has never taken a principled position on any issue (this is also true of previous candidate John McCain), and second, in the debates reversed himself on almost every issue that was addressed, while espousing positions on several of them that were in direct opposition to his own platform, as presented on his web site.  If this is a weakening of national moral fiber, then the guilt clearly lies with Mitt Romney and his team.  You don't see this kind of shape-shifting from Dems.

If you are bothered by the influence of special interest groups, I recommend you look into and then do some serious thinking about the K-Street lobbying organizations and their vice-like grip on the Republican party.  The beginning of your second paragraph ought to be addressed to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and the vast right-wing media machine funded by the Koch brothers and their rich allies, and think tanks, and the regressive agenda put forth by the American Legislative Exchange Council.   To relate special interest influence and media over-reach to the Democrats or any pursuit of a progressive agenda is a serious misunderstanding of the bought-and-paid-for contemporary American political landscape.  I have to wonder where you get your information, and to what extent you are being misled by the kinds of grotesque reality distortion that is characteristic of right wing media.

I don't think your examples are particularly cogent.  Maroun's attempt to distort the state constitution went down in flames, so it's hard to see how the public was confused. And I think you have the Komen issue exactly backwards - it was anti-abortion crusaders who distorted and misinformed.  More broadly, misinformation and distortion are now characteristic of, and in fact [along with blatant voter suppression and gerrymandering] vital to the success of Republicans.  Look also at the bait and switch tactics of the governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Florida who campaigned as moderate and reasonable, but have implemented the extreme regressive ALEC agenda.  How is this not a violation of principles - both yours and theirs?

As it turns out, by not supporting the state constitutional amendment to protect unions you have enabled the "right to work" actions just rammed through the lame duck session here in MI - with no public debate or support.  Note that Snyder was never in favor of this - until he was.   Note also that "right to work" states always have lower salaries, poorer working conditions, worse safety records, and a lower standard of living. This action is very bad for Michigan.  In fact, the middle class life style you and your family have been able to enjoy, and the benefits, holidays and vacations we took for granted while we were working together came to us - even in our salaried positions - because of the bargaining power of unions.

Regarding health care, all credible studies indicate that the ACA will lower health care costs by a considerable margin, not exacerbate them as you have suggested.  In fact one great way to even more effectively lower health care costs would be to get the non-value-added for-profit insurance companies out of the loop.

On the gay marriage issue, I challenge you to demonstrate how gay marriage in any way threatens the institution of marriage or family structure.  I don't have stats at my finger tips, but I think the record shows that same-sex couples have success rates no worse than hetero couples, and actually have more stable family structure.

So where is the hypocrisy of voting Democratic?

On the religion issue, I have to wonder how a party so strongly influenced by a rich elite, that fosters blatant greed, places material things above people at every opportunity, not only sanctions but is enthusiastic about torture, and is willing to wage war - the greatest evil ever visited upon humankind - on flimsy or totally trumped-up pretenses can resonate with anyone's Christian values.  What I see in the message of Jesus is love, forgiveness, acceptance, generosity to the less fortunate, a strong disdain for wealth and materialism, and an admonition not to judge others.  Also, he healed the sick - for free, if I have this right.  These values are essentially 180 degrees away from the Republican platform and belief system.

I would like to see you consider these things when you debate the merits of proposals that support or detract from your religious foundation.

To your last point, if this administration doesn't accomplish much in the next four years, it will be directly and specifically due to the obstruction of the most recalcitrant and disloyal congress in the the post civil war history of our country.  Their stated goal since the 2008 election, under the direction of Rush Limbaugh, has - quite openly - been to make Obama fail.  Anything tragic that happens to the country, like derailing the economy, is mere collateral damage, and not worth thinking about. Plus, since it happens on Obama's watch, they'll be able to blame him. [I think enough people are starting to see through this that Obama was able to be re-elected.]  To my mind, this goes far beyond hypocrisy and partisanship and constitutes actual treason.  Note that nothing even remotely like this has ever been perpetrated by Democrats.  Or by Republicans either, prior to 1992.

My assessment is that starting with Gingrich's contract on America [though the roots of this really go back to Nixon and Atwater], the Republican party has set a course that has veered off the legitimate political map to a terra incognita of repression and intellectual nihilism that defies alignment with any valid political ideology, and has culminated in the willful ignorance and de facto insanity represented by the tea party.

I welcome your response.

I also invite any interested reader to participate.  But I warn you that any comment that displays the slightest disrespect to either of us will be deleted immediately and with extreme prejudice.

12/13 Update:  This week the Lame duck Rethug congress in Michigan, in addition to  the "right-to-work" legislation mentioned above also passed - without any public support or input - 1) an emergency manger law nearly identical to one tossed out by the voters in a referendum just last month, 2) some of the most draconian anti-abortion legislation in the country, and 3) laws allowing guns to be carried in schools, day-care centers, stadiums, and churches.  [Vetoed by Snyder] What could possibly go wrong?  After all, we aren't Connecticut.

None of this represents the will of the citizens of Michigan.  In fact, it is distinctly counter to it. What you see demonstrated here, even beyond craven partisanship, is the right wing contempt for democratic principles and disdain for governance that have characterized the Rethug party for the last two decades.

This is what you get when the Rethugs have power.  They don't govern; they rule.  They are the deciders, and democracy be damned.   This is just part of why I say that it is virtually impossible for a decent person to be cynical enough when thinking about the Rethugs.  You are just very reluctant to put your mind in a place where you can face their rampant evil.

I mentioned Rethug nihilism above.  Here it is described in lurid detail by a genuine conservative, and devout Christian who realizes how thoroughly loathsome the Rethugs have become.