NFL Republicanism

I've long felt that the NFL is the most Republican organization on the face of the earth.  It's an old rich white guy's play ground, and as close to medievalism as we have - until the next Republican Presidency.

The NFL lockout of the officials simply confirmed what we should already have known.  The owners don't give a hirsute rodent's hindquarters about player safety, the integrity of the game, or getting anything right.  They wanted to engage in union busting, simply because they can.

Or so they thought.  In my jaundiced opinion, the regular NFL refs are TEH SUXXOR.  But that doesn't mean things couldn't get a whole lot worse.  And they did when they brought in cast-offs from the lingerie league.

But there are limits -- if you're a big enough ass hole to go look for them.

My Lovely Wife pegged this on Monday night when the Packers got shafted by a cluster-phung of bad calls culminating in the now infamous toucherception.

Picture found on Facebook

This was beyond even what Wisconsin Rethugs like Scott Walker could stomach.

I find that irony to be quite tasty.

It all comes down to who's ox is being gored.  Everyone in WI (and even some in MI) loves them some Packers - even those inclined to break unions and roll us back to the dark ages.

That's what the LW figured out, right on the spot.

It was all over when Green Bay got the shaft.

You do NOT mess with the Packers!

The Effect of Capital Gains Tax on Investment - Appendix

In comments to my previous post, Robert requested the unsmoothed data from Graph 3.  Here it is.   GPDI is plotted against the Capital Gains Tax Rate.

Since the Capital Gains Tax Rate (X-axis) is quantized, the result is columns of data.  Compared to the smoothed version, there is little change in either the slope or intercept of the best fit straight line.  R^2 is, of course, much lower.

The Effect of Capital Gains Tax on Investment

Matt Yglesias, servitor to our corporate overlords, suggests that the reduced capital gains tax rate paid by rentiers like Willard Romney is really a very, very good thing.  To wit:

The main reason Romney's effective rate is so low is that the American tax code contains a lot of preferences for investment income over labor income.
. . .
But this is definitely an issue where the conservative position is in line with what most experts think is the right course, and Democrats are outside the mainstream.
.  .  .
That's the theory, at any rate. It's a pretty solid theory, it's in most of the textbooks I've seen, and it shapes public policy in basically every country I'm familiar with. Even researchers like Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez (see "A Theory of Optimal Capital Taxation") who dissent from the standard no taxation of investment income position think capital income should be taxed more lightly than labor income. Empirically, it's a bit difficult to verify that variations in capital gains tax rates and the like really are making a material difference to investment levels. But then again the data is noisy.

Scott Lemieux at LGM demurs.

Sure, if you 1)accept the premise that reducing or eliminating capital gains taxes will result in productive infrastructure investments rather than worthless accounting tricks, 2)ignore the economic benefits created by consumption, 3)assume that significant numbers of people will forgo money for doing nothing just because the profits will be taxed , and 4)ignore the fact that in most jurisdictions consumption is also “double taxed,” then reducing capital gains taxes looks good.   But since all of these assumptions are (to put it mildly) highly contestable, it’s just question-begging.

My response to Matt is that in my jaundiced opinion, you might as well consult The Necronomicon of Abdul Alhazred as an economics textbook for an issue like this; and that in a world that has on the one hand Krugman, Thoma and Delong, and on the other Fama, Cochran and Cowan, a consensus among experts is about as likely as lions lying down with lambs for some purpose other than a quick snack.

To Scott I say, why assume or ignore anything when that oh-so-noisy data is readily available?

Ye Olde Political Survey

Following Beale's lead I took the survey.

My prefered candidate, as it turns out, is Jill Stein of the Green Party.  Oh, well, I'm still going to vote for the foreign-born Commie Muslim Nazi Neegra.  He's not that far off.

Here is how I align with the various candidates.

Jill Stein, Green                 90%
B. Obama, Dem                 87%
Rocky Anderson, Justice     64%
Mitt Romney, Rethug           8%
Michigan Voters                63%
American Voters                64%

Like Beale, I have to  wonder how Romney's positions have been defined, since he is a schizophrenic chameleon drawn on an Etch-a-sketch by a three-year-old desperately in need of a nap.

If their assessment of American voters is anywhere near correct, then Romney can keep his position among the unemployed.

Party Affiliation
Democrat                           95%
Green                                92%
Libertarian                         18%
Repugnicant                        5%

I'm 18% Libertarian.  Actually, that seems about right.

What the Hell?!? Friday - Voter Fraud Edition

Sarah Silverman explaines it all.

Saraf F-ing Silverman - so do I need to explain it's NSFW and NSF if there are children, teabaggers, small animals or your ass-hole conservatard brother-in-law within earshot?



H/T to the L/W

My Angry Bear Posts in CY 2012

Here is a running list of my 2012 posts at Angry Bear, newest at the top.

 An Editorial on Robert Bork and his Legacy   12/26/2012

One Nation, Divisible     11/13/2012  

Fowl and Fishy Inflation     11/01/2012

GDP Growth Caused By Tax Cuts Has Never Happened     10/16/2012

Debt and Growth    10/11/2012

Strategic Lying as Political Art    10/09/12

The Effect of Capital Gains Tax on Investment      9/25/2012

What is the Economic Middle Class?   9/19/2012

Who are the 47%? Follow-up       9/18/2012

Public and Private Investment      9/13/2012

Yes, The Right Wing Lies When They Say Obama is a Profligate Spender   9/10/2012

Why Spending/GDP is a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Metric For Judging Obama's Performance                                     9/07/2012

A Quick Look at Federal Spending     9/06/2012

Debt, Recession, and That Ol' Devil Denominator    8/23/2012

Who Determines Short Term Interest Rates?   5/01/2012

A Different Look at GDP and Inflation           4/30/2012

Another Look at Wealth and Consumption - Pt 2  4/12/2012

The Brute Economics of Slavery   4/05/2012

Another Look at Wealth and Consumption - Pt 1   3/30/2012

World Trade    3/24/2012

Has America Lost It's Drive? - Pt. 4  3/07/2012

Insurance and Birth Control         3/04/2012

More on Michigan Voting   3/01/2012

Michigan Primary Results  2/29/2012

Is America Losing Its Drive? - Pt. 3 Vehicles per 1000 Persons      2/24/2012

Has America Lost It's Drive? - Pt.2      2/21/2012

Has America Lost It's Drive?    2/17/2012

More on Markets and Neoliberalism rom Crooked Timber   2/12/2012

Where Has All The Money Gone, Pt IV - Dividends    2/07/2012

Income and Consumption   2/03/2012

Where Has All The Money Gone, Pt III - Not to You and Me  1/31/2012

Wealth and Income Appendix  1/27/2012 

Wealth vs Income   1/27/2012

Where Has All The Money Gone, Pt II - Finance Sector  1/24/2012

Where Has All The Money Gone, Pt I - Corporate Profits 1/17/2012

GDP Revisions  1/16/2012

Ron Paul Challenges Liberals - Or Maybe Not   1/09/2012

A Deeper Dive Into Oil Pricing   1/05/2012

Speculation About Oil    1/04/12

'Jazzbumpa' To Write For Angry Bear   1/03/2012

Quote of the Day

Scott Lemieux at LGM.

As far as I can tell, there is in fact every reason to believe that the Romney who tells people that as son of a governor and car company president he succeeded entirely by the sweat of his own brow and anyone who didn’t is a hopeless parasite is, in fact, telling the truth.

Context:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

And more context.

Who are the 47%? Follow-up

Follow up to Afferent Input's post.

Ten states that are the highest in income tax non-payers are highlighted in (of all things) RED.

It just gets better and better

Via my former governor.

What is the Economic Middle Class?

My lovely wife shared this link with me on Facebook.  I got into a discussion in comments there with a right winger who suggested that $250,000 was a very reasonable estimate for median income in Boston.

As it turns out, median household income in Boston is $51,914, close to the national average, and way below the Mass. State average of $67,950.  But right wingers live in a data-free world, so this is no surprise.

Another contention in comments at that site is that the middle class is undefined and undefinable. Not so.  I define middle class household income as the middle quintile.  This range includes the median and a band around it wide enough to hold 20 percent of the population.  You might wish to concoct your own definition with a wider spread, but you'd better not be asymmetric around the median.  Feel free to use the middle three quintiles, if that is your preference.  But if your of concept of middle class gets very far beyond 50% of the population, you really ought to give more thought to what the word "middle" actually means.

Thinking about all this prompted a look at the various income quintiles.  The data, through 2009, is available at the Census Bureau web site, table 694.  This table provides historical data from 1967 through 2009 on the top income limit for the bottom 4 quintiles, and the bottom income limit for the top 5%, expressed in constant 2009 dollars.

Graph 1 presents this data.  The 3rd quintile - my definition of the middle class - is between the orange line and the yellow line.

In 1967, the threshold for the middle quintile was $32, 848.  By 2009, it had increased by 17% to $38,550.  This is a compounded annual growth rate of 0.38%

In 1967, the top limit for the middle (and threshold to the 4th) quintile was $46, 621.  By 2009, it had increased by 33% to $61,801. This is a compounded annual growth rate of 0.68%.

The threshold value for the fifth quintile increased from $66,481 in 1967 by 80% to exactly $100,000 in 2009.  This is a compounded annual growth rate of 0.98%.

To reach the top 5% required an income of 106,684 in 1967.  By 2009, this had increased by 69% to $180, 001.   This is a compounded annual growth rate of 1.25%.

So my comment sparring partner and the current presidential challenger he seems to support are a bit off base.  $250,000 in household income puts a family well above the 95th percentile.  In fact, that is just enough household income to crack the top 2%.

My ongoing hobby of debunking right wing nonsense aside, the point of this post is mainly to inform.
There are two main observations:
1) While the bottom two quintiles haven't changed much over the decades, entry to the third quintile has crept up a bit; and into higher categories it's moved up a lot.  We recognize this as stagnation in the bottom half and growing inequality in the top half, skewed powerfully to the top.
2) This data set stops in '09, so Obama is outside the discussion.  But we can see that all the way up to the 95th percentile, income growth was dead flat during the Bush administration.  No wonder the 95% percentile feels so poor.

But -- surely, some wealth was generated during those 8 years.  GDP growth was positive at least some of the time.  I wonder where it all went?

Bumper sticker of the Day

Seen in the Trader Joe's parking lot

The rich get richer.
The rest get less.
Vote Democratic


Fifty years ago (or near enough as no matter) my dad told me this:

Every once in a while, when a crumb falls off the plate, the Democrats will let you keep it.

The Republicans won't even do that.

In my callow ignorance, I had no idea what the hell he was talking about.  Seriously.  My own personal brand of selfishness was far too venial to help me get it.  I really had no idea about the all-too-common human capacity for avarice and cruelty.

As recently as 1990, I really still wasn't getting it.

Thank you Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Junior partner to your own presidency "W", John McCain, Paul Ryan and Willard Romney for bringing my late father's wisdom home to me in such graphic terms.

I really get it now.

Also, too - a H/T to my lovely wife who continuously teaches me the virtue of selflessness.

What the Hell?!? Friday - Romney is ODIOUS, LOATHSOME and DESPICABLE Edition

What Obama said:

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives. I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants. On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss. The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.

What Romney said (emphasis added):

I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

 What Jim Wright said:

Looking at this event in the cold light of a rainy Alaskan afternoon, this is what see I immediately:

Barack Obama condemned the attacks, he spoke against violence and expressed sadness for the dead and sympathy for their families and friends, he told us what he was doing to protect our people in similar situations around the globe, and he promised us justice.  About what you would expect from your President in such a situation.

Mitt Romney attacked his own government and his fellow Americans. 

The President was coldly angry, but determined in his public response to prevent further bloodshed, further violence. 

Mitt was outraged.

The President’s concern was for the dead, for their families, for people.

Romney’s concern was that somebody touched our stuff.

Obama responded like a president.

Romney acted like a businessman.

Do the math for yourself.

Wright riffs on this at considerable outraged length, and I encourage you to go read it all.

Two three points stick out for me, even beyond Mittens swallowing his foot before he had any clear idea of what the hell was going on:

1) At a moment when our PEOPLE were under attack and dying, Mittens chose to ATTACK our people.

2) I haven't said often enough what the loathsome Romneybot makes crystal clear: while real people have as their first concern PEOPLE, conservatives (and yes, I believe this about ALL conservatives, not simply the regressives into which the modern Repugnicant party has degenerated) have as their first concern THINGS.

3) The Rethugs have been saying stupid things to their stupid base for so long that it has become reflexive.  Any why not?  They've gotten away with it since at least the Nixon administration.  But the stupid has gotten proregressively stupider over time. Perhaps at last now, famous Republican Abe Lincoln will be right about not fooling all the people all the time.

And what was the Obama administration's pronouncement that Willard found to be so disgraceful?

This, issued by the Cairo embassy staff several hours BEFORE any of the attacks:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Obama's statement, quoted above, and this statement from the embassy are pretty much boiler plate in these kinds of circumstances.  It's very easy to imagine these banal documents written well in advance and stuck in a drawer, ready to receive fill-in-the-blank details at the necessary moment.

For Mitt to attack the president and the embassy staff over this incident is not merely odious, loathsome, and the very antithesis of patriotism, it is also stupid.

Time and time again Romney has revealed himself to be a fully inside-the-bubble ideologue and ignoramus.  And after issuing these remarks, the son-of-a-bitch left the podium smirking.

And yet, this is going to be a close election.

Oh my god, are we screwed!

____________________________________
Endnotes:
a) I lifted all the quotes from Wright's post, and I appreciate his legwork in rounding them up.
b) H/T to Tux.
c) For a whole lot more, see LGM here and here.
d) Plus this at AB.

Public and Private Investment

One not particularly cute graph; no analysis, explanation, nor editorializing.

GDPI is gross domestic private investment.

NDGIC96 is Real Federal Nondefense Gross Investment.

SLINVC96 is Real State & Local Government Gross Investment.

Source page at FRED.

Note that private investment runs at about 7 times the total of government investment at all levels.

Make of it what you will.

H/T to PK.

Cross posted at AB