The death of economic uncertainty

[oldfart]

I'm not referring to the uncertainty itself, which is demonstrably much higher now than in the recent past, but to the issue as a driving force in economic policy. The gnashing of teeth over economic uncertainty has disappeared as an argument from the Right just as it should have become more important.

So what does it mean that the Right is no longer agonizing over economic uncertainly and demanding action to return certainty to the economy? Do we not need more jobs? Is the recovery complete?

My answer is that this was never a serious argument from the beginning, just as fiscal responsibility has never been a serious argument from the Right in the last three decades. It's just a code for cutting anything that benefits the lowest 99.9% of the population and passing on the money to the wealthy and big corporations.

In France the Right is outraged that the budget is moving into balance. Why? Because the government did it by raising taxes, not cutting spending. So the deficit never was the issue, reducing benefits were. Surprise, surprise.

In America the deficit is also falling rapidly, due to a combination of real cuts to spending, a modest tax increase, and a faltering economic recovery. Not a sign of increased certainty anywhere. Why not just declare victory and move on to something other than manufactured debt crises? Because it's not about the debt to begin with.

I have always believed in politics as well as economics in the use of models. It doesn't matter if the model conforms to what the institution, individual or group says is their decision process, as long as it predicts their behavior consistently. And what consistently predicts behavior of the Right around the world time after time is raw short-term self-interest and class warfare. They favor anything that redistributes income upward. Period. That's it. Nothing else added to the regression increases the explanatory power of the model, one variable is all that is needed.

Note that I did not say that the groups involved on the Right did not believe what they say, many of them do. But they ACT like the only thing that matters is a monomaniacal dedication to dismantling the social safety net, exploiting labor worldwide, and with few constraints redistributing all income to themselves.

Oh, they generally don't like gays and abortion either, but they can put that aside if there is money to be made.

Peace all.

 

[jwoodie]

More appropriate for Politics forum.

 

[jasonnfree]

I'm not referring to the uncertainty itself, which is demonstrably much higher now than in the recent past, but to the issue as a driving force in economic policy. The gnashing of teeth over economic uncertainty has disappeared as an argument from the Right just as it should have become more important.

So what does it mean that the Right is no longer agonizing over economic uncertainly and demanding action to return certainty to the economy? Do we not need more jobs? Is the recovery complete?

My answer is that this was never a serious argument from the beginning, just as fiscal responsibility has never been a serious argument from the Right in the last three decades. It's just a code for cutting anything that benefits the lowest 99.9% of the population and passing on the money to the wealthy and big corporations.

In France the Right is outraged that the budget is moving into balance. Why? Because the government did it by raising taxes, not cutting spending. So the deficit never was the issue, reducing benefits were. Surprise, surprise.

In America the deficit is also falling rapidly, due to a combination of real cuts to spending, a modest tax increase, and a faltering economic recovery. Not a sign of increased certainty anywhere. Why not just declare victory and move on to something other than manufactured debt crises? Because it's not about the debt to begin with.

I have always believed in politics as well as economics in the use of models. It doesn't matter if the model conforms to what the institution, individual or group says is their decision process, as long as it predicts their behavior consistently. And what consistently predicts behavior of the Right around the world time after time is raw short-term self-interest and class warfare. They favor anything that redistributes income upward. Period. That's it. Nothing else added to the regression increases the explanatory power of the model, one variable is all that is needed.

Note that I did not say that the groups involved on the Right did not believe what they say, many of them do. But they ACT like the only thing that matters is a monomaniacal dedication to dismantling the social safety net, exploiting labor worldwide, and with few constraints redistributing all income to themselves.

Oh, they generally don't like gays and abortion either, but they can put that aside if there is money to be made.

Peace all.

This is like a return to slavery economics without having to take care of the slaves in their old age. Just keep hiring workers when the previous ones die, get old, or injure themselves. Or move to a lower wage nation if necessary. It also keeps wages low on the home front here in America just like it kept wages low before the civil war.

 

[Avorysuds]

This is a troll thread and should be moved.

There is mass uncertainty, hence even a squeak that the FED-r will stop stimulating at 87 billion a month (over a trillion a year) the markets drop like a rock. We have been downgraded and have not ha d a budget in 5 years thanks to Dems.

The attack on Reps for not liking gays or abortion unless there is money to be made makes this a rubber room thread imo.

All in all a stupid mindless partisan thread, trolling for replies but posted in the clean debate zone? lol, next the OP will tell us he's part of the educated people in America.

 

[oldfart]

This is a troll thread and should be moved.

There is mass uncertainty, hence even a squeak that the FED-r will stop stimulating at 87 billion a month (over a trillion a year) the markets drop like a rock. We have been downgraded and have not ha d a budget in 5 years thanks to Dems.

The attack on Reps for not liking gays or abortion unless there is money to be made makes this a rubber room thread imo.

All in all a stupid mindless partisan thread, trolling for replies but posted in the clean debate zone? lol, next the OP will tell us he's part of the educated people in America.

I agree. All threads should be required to begin with an inane copy-and-paste job from a batshit crazy right wing site. The world will surely implode if we let posts that start with an individual's thought rather than a partisan rehash. Points of view are OK if they are conservative here, off-topic if they are not. Those are your rules.

Seriously you are severely infected with right wing political correctness, tolerating every bit of right wing drivel in the CDZ while jumping on this. You should be ashamed of yourself.

If you call this trolling, you are severely lacking in cognitive function. But I will ask you nicely. Have you ever advanced the "confidence" argument in the past five years? What were your thoughts on the matter? Does it seem to you that the argument has disappeared from discourse on the economy? Why do you think that is so? Here is your opportunity to have an intelligent discussion. Go for it.

 

[oldfart]

But I will ask you nicely. Have you ever advanced the "confidence" argument in the past five years? What were your thoughts on the matter? Does it seem to you that the argument has disappeared from discourse on the economy? Why do you think that is so? Here is your opportunity to have an intelligent discussion. Go for it.

Well it's been a full day and neither jwoodie nor avorysuds seems to be interested in commenting on the topic. In my book, playing forum cop like this is the quintessential form of trolling. Don't allow a discussion, just try to kill it.

I should remind the two gentlemen who have both negged me in the recent past for the unforgivable sin of disagreeing with them that I have never negged anyone for anything on this board, and that negging in the CDZ is a board violation.

 

[jwoodie]

Economic uncertainty appears to be a pejorative term for the Republican House failing to accede to the budgetary demands of the Democratic Senate. The Constitution specifies that all spending bills originate in the House. The idea was that the Senate would then act as brake on unnecessary spending proposals. Only in an alternate universe is the House obligated to approve additional spending proposed in the Senate.

 

[asaratis]

I'm not referring to the uncertainty itself, which is demonstrably much higher now than in the recent past, but to the issue as a driving force in economic policy. The gnashing of teeth over economic uncertainty has disappeared as an argument from the Right just as it should have become more important.

So what does it mean that the Right is no longer agonizing over economic uncertainly and demanding action to return certainty to the economy? Do we not need more jobs? Is the recovery complete?

My answer is that this was never a serious argument from the beginning, just as fiscal responsibility has never been a serious argument from the Right in the last three decades. It's just a code for cutting anything that benefits the lowest 99.9% of the population and passing on the money to the wealthy and big corporations.

In France the Right is outraged that the budget is moving into balance. Why? Because the government did it by raising taxes, not cutting spending. So the deficit never was the issue, reducing benefits were. Surprise, surprise.

In America the deficit is also falling rapidly, due to a combination of real cuts to spending, a modest tax increase, and a faltering economic recovery. Not a sign of increased certainty anywhere. Why not just declare victory and move on to something other than manufactured debt crises? Because it's not about the debt to begin with.

I have always believed in politics as well as economics in the use of models. It doesn't matter if the model conforms to what the institution, individual or group says is their decision process, as long as it predicts their behavior consistently. And what consistently predicts behavior of the Right around the world time after time is raw short-term self-interest and class warfare. They favor anything that redistributes income upward. Period. That's it. Nothing else added to the regression increases the explanatory power of the model, one variable is all that is needed.

Note that I did not say that the groups involved on the Right did not believe what they say, many of them do. But they ACT like the only thing that matters is a monomaniacal dedication to dismantling the social safety net, exploiting labor worldwide, and with few constraints redistributing all income to themselves.

Oh, they generally don't like gays and abortion either, but they can put that aside if there is money to be made.

Peace all.

I operate my life without long term debt. I use three plastic cards to keep from issuing cash daily. One American Express, One Visa Credit and one Visa Debit. The Debit card takes money instantly from my bank account. The credit cards generate monthly balances which I pay in full upon receipt. I do not pay interest on an unpaid balance because there is none. I live within my means and do NOT run my charge accounts up to the "debt ceiling" that exists on each of them.

Why can't the government do the same?...because the government insists upon spending more than it takes in...and INCREASING the debt ceiling every time we hit the limit. This is blatantly STUPID ECONOMICS!

Our government has too many employees. Many of those employees are overpaid. Many of those employees receive too many free benefits. Many of those employees will receive ridiculously high pensions when they quit "working".

One of our biggest problems is that government employees set the wages and rules for other government employees...congressmen vote themselves raises and "free" benefits.

 

[oldfart]

Economic uncertainty appears to be a pejorative term for the Republican House failing to accede to the budgetary demands of the Democratic Senate. The Constitution specifies that all spending bills originate in the House. The idea was that the Senate would then act as brake on unnecessary spending proposals. Only in an alternate universe is the House obligated to approve additional spending proposed in the Senate.

First I appreciate that you are putting forth your substantive arguments. I'll try to extend the same consideration to you.

The "economic uncertainty" argument did not start as a pejorative term, but as an argument about economic policy starting in 2009. A number of business leaders and economists argued that a lack of certainty in economic policy, and specifically a lack of leadership on Obama's part, were the reason the economy was not recovering. A parallel argument was made in Europe to justify austerity, which gave rise to Krugman labeling this argument the "confidence fairy" argument. So the "uncertainty" argument is a real argument advanced by a broad swathe of pundits and it is they who originated the term. I think it only becomes a pejorative term because it is associated with failed policies.

The idea that spending bills must originate in the House seems to come from a blog by Sowell. It is clearly incorrect, both as the Article I statement and as to its meaning. Article I Section 8, clause 1 reads:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

So the text deals with revenue bills, not appropriations as Sowell claims. The second part of the clause confirms that the Senate may propose amendments to spending bills that originate in the House, so even if Section 8 clause 1 were about appropriations, I don't see where the idea that such measures are the exclusive prerogative of the House comes from. For 220+ years the Senate has added spending measures to appropriations bills and returned them to the House for the House either agree or for a conference committee to be appointed. Of course, any appropriations bill must pass both the House and Senate in identical language for it to be enrolled and sent to the president. I have no idea where the concept that the House was required to accept a Senate amendment came from; it is obviously incorrect. I regard it as a straw man created by Sowell or another blogger in a fit of hyperbole and passed on by other commentators who thought the claim was serious.

I must also thank you for proving the point of the original post. It seems that conservatives, including those who championed the uncertainty argument in the first place are no longer using it, which I find very peculiar. Martin Feldstein is still predicting hyperinflation right around the corner, despite not seeing it in the five years he has been playing Cassandra. The expansionary austerity argument likewise seems to now be mooted. Poor old Ken Rogoff, who used to be a respected economist, is apparently deciding which story he wants to stick to, claiming both that he never said what he said and that he was right when he didn't say it.

I would love to debate a conservative economic argument if I could find one. Having abandoned the failed ones, conservatives seem to have hunkered down in pure reaction mode to anything anyone else proposed. It's sad that a movement that could produce Buckley and Friedman has fallen so far.

 

[oldfart]

I operate my life without long term debt. I use three plastic cards to keep from issuing cash daily. One American Express, One Visa Credit and one Visa Debit. The Debit card takes money instantly from my bank account. The credit cards generate monthly balances which I pay in full upon receipt. I do not pay interest on an unpaid balance because there is none. I live within my means and do NOT run my charge accounts up to the "debt ceiling" that exists on each of them.

I congratulate you on your excellent money management. Personally, I don't have or use credit cards (I do use two debit cards, one business and one personal). My only debt exposure is through my business interests and consists of real estate mortgages.

Why can't the government do the same?...because the government insists upon spending more than it takes in...and INCREASING the debt ceiling every time we hit the limit. This is blatantly STUPID ECONOMICS!

Of course the government could choose to be debt free, as it was when Andy Jackson paid off the public debt. It doesn't because,

1. Economics is not a morality play.
2. We live in a representative democracy.
3. We consistently vote for leaders who choose to make the economy work.

Our government has too many employees. Many of those employees are overpaid. Many of those employees receive too many free benefits. Many of those employees will receive ridiculously high pensions when they quit "working".

I suppose you could be correct. What do you think would happen if we fired the surplus employees and cut pay and benefits for the rest?

One of our biggest problems is that government employees set the wages and rules for other government employees...congressmen vote themselves raises and "free" benefits.

I'm guessing here, but is your objection that Congress is paid and therefore are government employees? So we should simply not pay Congress?

 

[FA_Q2]

This is a troll thread and should be moved.

There is mass uncertainty, hence even a squeak that the FED-r will stop stimulating at 87 billion a month (over a trillion a year) the markets drop like a rock. We have been downgraded and have not ha d a budget in 5 years thanks to Dems.

The attack on Reps for not liking gays or abortion unless there is money to be made makes this a rubber room thread imo.

All in all a stupid mindless partisan thread, trolling for replies but posted in the clean debate zone? lol, next the OP will tell us he's part of the educated people in America.

I agree. All threads should be required to begin with an inane copy-and-paste job from a batshit crazy right wing site. The world will surely implode if we let posts that start with an individual's thought rather than a partisan rehash. Points of view are OK if they are conservative here, off-topic if they are not. Those are your rules.

Seriously you are severely infected with right wing political correctness, tolerating every bit of right wing drivel in the CDZ while jumping on this. You should be ashamed of yourself.

If you call this trolling, you are severely lacking in cognitive function. But I will ask you nicely. Have you ever advanced the "confidence" argument in the past five years? What were your thoughts on the matter? Does it seem to you that the argument has disappeared from discourse on the economy? Why do you think that is so? Here is your opportunity to have an intelligent discussion. Go for it.

Individual thought? What individual thought did you post in your OP? You want to know why Avory and Wood did not bother to give comments on your OP it is because it is nothing more than a hit and run piece. Essentially, you attacked the right without ever actual expounding on what you were attacking them for and then moved into a few cheap shots with money and gays.

You want to know why the right is not jumping all over the uncertainty issue? It is because thye are now creating uncertainty in the fight with the shutdown. Simple really. It is politics. Of course you knew that already but instead wanted to drive empty partisan attacks in the OP, hence the people that called it out for being moved.

So, let’s move on then, shall we. What is your actual point here? That you think the right only wants to cut from the lower 99%? Well that is outright false. Almost everyone here on the right regularly attacks the corporate interests comingling with government. The right continually attacks things like government giveaways – pet projects that those on the left here defend regularly. We are only on your third statement by the way and that is an actual lie.

The right is outraged at France? Really? I don’t think I have seen anyone outraged at all by France. If it works there, good for them. We are not France. Again, I think you are well aware of that fact so why are you even bringing it up? We are the most powerful economy on the entire planet. What makes you think that we should be trying to emulate the myriad of other economies that are not nearly so successful? What makes you think that Frances situation is similar enough to ours that what they have done might be comparable to what we need to do? For that matter, what makes you state that they have been so much more successful in recovery than we have?

Then:

In America the deficit is also falling rapidly, due to a combination of real cuts to spending, a modest tax increase, and a faltering economic recovery. Not a sign of increased certainty anywhere. Why not just declare victory and move on to something other than manufactured debt crises? Because it's not about the debt to begin with.

And we finally have something that we can somewhat agree on. While the statement ‘it’s not about the debt to begin with’ is actually false the general point is still true. It was certainly about the debt and deficit – Americans want that under control. The fact is that politics can NEVER declare mission accomplished though and, again, you know this. They are always going to move onto another target. That is a simple fact.

We are not at mission accomplished with the debt anyway. I await for the final numbers in our debt and deficit for the year before we can make any calls there but it seems like we might just be getting close to on track.


Your next statement is an outright political hack attack. You make the contention that it is all about money for the right. That is true for both political spectrums. There is no difference there on either side. Obamacare is actually an excellent example of that. When the majority of people were actually pushing for single payer, Obama and the democrats abandoned that as soon as they politically could. The discourse in that matter did not last longer than the election cycle. They like to blame that on the right but the real truth of the matter is that they did not want that solution either. The new version ties right into corporate cronyism quite well and they were more than happy to stick with that, there was more money in it.

 

[oldfart]

This is a troll thread and should be moved.

There is mass uncertainty, hence even a squeak that the FED-r will stop stimulating at 87 billion a month (over a trillion a year) the markets drop like a rock. We have been downgraded and have not ha d a budget in 5 years thanks to Dems.

The attack on Reps for not liking gays or abortion unless there is money to be made makes this a rubber room thread imo.

All in all a stupid mindless partisan thread, trolling for replies but posted in the clean debate zone? lol, next the OP will tell us he's part of the educated people in America.

I agree. All threads should be required to begin with an inane copy-and-paste job from a batshit crazy right wing site. The world will surely implode if we let posts that start with an individual's thought rather than a partisan rehash. Points of view are OK if they are conservative here, off-topic if they are not. Those are your rules.

Seriously you are severely infected with right wing political correctness, tolerating every bit of right wing drivel in the CDZ while jumping on this. You should be ashamed of yourself.

If you call this trolling, you are severely lacking in cognitive function. But I will ask you nicely. Have you ever advanced the "confidence" argument in the past five years? What were your thoughts on the matter? Does it seem to you that the argument has disappeared from discourse on the economy? Why do you think that is so? Here is your opportunity to have an intelligent discussion. Go for it.

Individual thought? What individual thought did you post in your OP?

I made an observation that the principal argument justifying conservative economic measures for four years has been the confidence argument, which has now inexplicably disappeared. I proposed a hypothesis for why this is so. I know of no similar observation on this board and only a scattering of references in broader media. This surpasses 99.9% of "individual thought" I have seen in OPs on this board, which if from conservatives are usually composed of a cut-and-paste from a right wing blog with no individual comment all all. Anyone reading a cross section of my posts would agree that most of my content is in my own words, including analysis, which is a rarety on USMB.

And where before on USMB or anywhere else have you seen a discussion of the proper use of models of a priori vs ex post psychology in accessing political behavior?

But whether it is original or not, what difference does it make? I find no posting of yours that can be in any way called original, yet I don't call for you to stop posting.

There is no ad hominem in the OP, so what gives with you people who in violation of the rules for the CDZ make everything personal and cope an attitude? I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but "Your next statement is an outright political hack attack." is a clear ad hominem and simple name-calling. Now I am not averse to a robust and trenchant exchange, but the the rules here discourage it. If you can't follow the rules when you accuse others of of violating them, you look silly.

You want to know why Avory and Wood did not bother to give comments on your OP it is because it is nothing more than a hit and run piece. Essentially, you attacked the right without ever actual expounding on what you were attacking them for and then moved into a few cheap shots with money and gays.

I suppose you leap to the defense of Avory and Wood because they are incapable of speaking for themselves? How thoughtful of you.

You want to know why the right is not jumping all over the uncertainty issue? It is because thye are now creating uncertainty in the fight with the shutdown. Simple really. It is politics. Of course you knew that already but instead wanted to drive empty partisan attacks in the OP, hence the people that called it out for being moved.

OK I get it. The Right complained about uncertainty when they thought it was a winning political issue. They don't want to talk about it now because they are the ones creating the uncertainty. Just like I stop complaining about loud parties when I decide to throw one; it's never a problem when I create the problem!

So, let’s move on then, shall we. What is your actual point here? That you think the right only wants to cut from the lower 99%? Well that is outright false. Almost everyone here on the right regularly attacks the corporate interests comingling with government. The right continually attacks things like government giveaways – pet projects that those on the left here defend regularly. We are only on your third statement by the way and that is an actual lie.

To assist your reading comprehension problem, my point was that the uncertainty argument was not a valid argument form the start for many of its proponents. As uncertainty increased, they abandoned the argument. It was a stalking horse for another purpose, the dismantling of programs for average citizens and the redistribution of income and wealth upward.

The right is outraged at France? Really? I don’t think I have seen anyone outraged at all by France. If it works there, good for them. We are not France. Again, I think you are well aware of that fact so why are you even bringing it up?

So you are ignorant of European economic events and politics. Fair enough. Please refrain from any international references or comparisons in the future until you cure your shocking lack of knowledge.

We are the most powerful economy on the entire planet. What makes you think that we should be trying to emulate the myriad of other economies that are not nearly so successful? What makes you think that Frances situation is similar enough to ours that what they have done might be comparable to what we need to do? For that matter, what makes you state that they have been so much more successful in recovery than we have?

Where have I suggested emulating anyone in this thread? The purpose of the French example was to note that the conservatives world wide use the confidence argument as stalking horse for redistribution.

Then:

In America the deficit is also falling rapidly, due to a combination of real cuts to spending, a modest tax increase, and a faltering economic recovery. Not a sign of increased certainty anywhere. Why not just declare victory and move on to something other than manufactured debt crises? Because it's not about the debt to begin with.

And we finally have something that we can somewhat agree on. While the statement ‘it’s not about the debt to begin with’ is actually false the general point is still true. It was certainly about the debt and deficit – Americans want that under control. The fact is that politics can NEVER declare mission accomplished though and, again, you know this. They are always going to move onto another target. That is a simple fact.

Glad you agree with me about the facts and economic analysis. I agree that most Americans would like to see the deficit and public debt reduced. The simple fact is that no one has ever accomplished that through spending cuts.

We are not at mission accomplished with the debt anyway. I await for the final numbers in our debt and deficit for the year before we can make any calls there but it seems like we might just be getting close to on track.

You do realize that the budget year ends on September 30? The last weekly budget report is essentially correct for all but the last week of the budget year. There is no uncertainty here.

Your next statement is an outright political hack attack. You make the contention that it is all about money for the right. That is true for both political spectrums. There is no difference there on either side. Obamacare is actually an excellent example of that. When the majority of people were actually pushing for single payer, Obama and the democrats abandoned that as soon as they politically could. The discourse in that matter did not last longer than the election cycle. They like to blame that on the right but the real truth of the matter is that they did not want that solution either. The new version ties right into corporate cronyism quite well and they were more than happy to stick with that, there was more money in it.

I won't deny that all parts of the political spectrum have an agenda about money. I don't see how that makes my characterization of the Right's objectives any less true. Somehow you have also decided I am an Obama defender; I am not. I am a member of the Left Opposition, and if the threat were not a unifying force for the left, I would have supported a left alternative to Obama in 2912.