U.S. Politics, 14

[Inigima]

Realistically, who would do that? You'd need a buyer and a seller both willing to conduct business like that, in the same currency. Also, wasn't it conservative fringe types who were freaking out about some nonexistent liberal plan to move away from the U.S. dollar? Something about the fake "Amero"? But now it's okay because conservatives are proposing it for realsies, huh?

[Commodore]

Realistically, who would do that? You'd need a buyer and a seller both willing to conduct business like that, in the same currency. Also, wasn't it conservative fringe types who were freaking out about some nonexistent liberal plan to move away from the U.S. dollar? Something about the fake "Amero"? But now it's okay because conservatives are proposing it for realsies, huh?

Well the idea would be competitive currencies, not monopolizing them.

[Altherion]

Well the idea would be competitive currencies, not monopolizing them.

How would you manage that? A currency is only useful if it is widely accepted. If you have competing currencies, trade becomes a pain in the neck simply because you have to agree what the current exchange rates are before you can even start. That's why the trend has been towards fewer currencies, not more.

Besides, I don't really see what you would gain from moving to other currencies: you'd then be at the mercy of the central bank that issued them instead of the Fed and said central bank acts much like the Fed, but for the sake of its own country (or countries, in the case of the euro) rather than the US. You could use commodities, but then your money is dependent on supply and demand independent of its purpose as currency.

[Shryke]

Shryke, I'll follow Krugman's lead on this one. He's laid out several models of job programs that the country direly needs right now.

Got a link somewhere?

I would really like to know what kind of programs you are refering to. Cause most of my familiarity with them is like the one you describe above. Ok, not with the insanely corrupt second part, but the first part where "retraining" isn't exactly super effective.

But anyway, I'm curious if there are models that don't seem so ... marginally effective.

[Shryke]

I searched his blog because I couldn't remember any specific post.

Herehe says that a WPA/CCC jobs program was relatively cheap for what we got out of it.

Now, he also said the other day that the QE was going to create jobs, which I think is a pretty big stretch.

Here's another one, a QA session

I think he's right, of course. There's no way we could get a WPA in this wonderfully modern age.

Agreed. You probably couldn't even get the Hoover Dam built today.

As a random aside, I found the first part of this episode of This American Life fascinating for this kind of thing: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/368/who-do-you-think-you-are

Listening to both the similarities and the differences in view between people during the Great Depression and now. Largely, it struck me that it's the view of the lower class that has changed.

If we want an effective training program, the first thing is to get people their GED. Definitely the most bang for your buck.

Seriously, this would, to me, be the absolute first thing you'd do with any of these programs.

[The Progressive]

Seriously, this would, to me, be the absolute first thing you'd do with any of these programs.

You would, if the primary demographic of your clientele are people without GED. In a world without the great recession, this would be the right approach to do and is usually the case. Unfortunately, the massive amount of laid off which lead to overwhelming strain on the services/resources/funding of these regional workforce development centers are from people who already possess GED, in many cases a BA or various technical certificates/licenses. People I know who works in these regional centers tell me that hard choice has to be made to expend more of their meager funds on retraining and placing mid-career people in their 40s and 50s than on people without GED given the thousands of applicants and extremely long waiting lists. Bear in mind that regional workforce development centers also operate in conjunction with local adult education centers and community colleges which are also facing funding cuts from the states.

It would be freaking awesome if the success of the WPA/CCC could be repeated again, but there's no chance of that given how crazy the teabaggers got trying to block the stimulus bill. Nonetheless, I fail to see how the collapse of GM/Chrysler and the subsequent loss of hundred of thousands of job in the auto industry would be a better scenario in Coco's world.

[The Progressive]

Coco,

I admit that I made such deduction from earlier posts between you and Shryke:

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39316448/ns/business-autos]According to Neil Barofsky[/url

So, let's not start celebrating quite yet.

Why not?

It's a complete mistake to look at this in terms of a simple, straightforward investment with a return.

You have to consider, as people were saying above, the jobs not lost because of the bailout and thus the not-shrinking of the economy and the not-loss in tax revenue and such.

If we get our investment back, I'd love to see numbers on whether creating a jobs program would be more cost effective than bailing out the auto industry.

They are the same thing.

The bailout, actually, would probably be far cheaper since the jobs are already there.

We don't know how much a jobs program would cost, because there isn't one.

Your argument through such posts seem to be that the success of the auto bailout isn't worth celebrating because the goverment won't get most of its investment back, and at this point you seem to infer that such money would have been better spent on "jobs program". Shryke then pointed out how narrow and bean-counting it is to think of it as straight up stock purchase without considering the economic impact of opportunity lost. I would argue that the cost of retraining and replacing an additional millions of former auto-and-related industries workers would have cost even more than what Obama paid for the auto bailout.

[The Progressive]

ETA: Apparently, the Labor Department also thinks they are ineffective. The reason being that these programs are topical, at best. It takes years to develop any skill, and these are simply not covering any skills in depth. It's all fluff, trust me.

Job training programs, according to the BLS, are useless.

You gotta be kidding us. I actually just finished reading that article you linked to, and that's not even close to what their conclusion are:

The results for all participants in the WIA Adult program

(regardless of services received) show that participating is associated with a several-hundreddollar

increase in quarterly earnings. The analysis of participants who receive only

Core/Intensive services suggests that their benefits may be as great as $100 or $200 per quarter

over the period of study, which is substantial compared to the small costs of those services. Adult

program participants who obtain Training services have lower initial earnings than those who

don’t receive Training services, but they catch up within 10 quarters, ultimately registering large

total gains per quarter. The marginal benefits of training may exceed $400 in earnings each

quarter.

Following entry into WIA, Dislocated Workers experience several quarters for which earnings are

depressed relative to comparison group workers with the same characteristics and work histories.

As a group, their earnings do ultimately overtake the comparison group, although the analyses

suggest that the benefits they obtain are smaller than those in the Adult program. The return they

experience from training also appears to be appreciably smaller than that obtained by Adult

program participants.

Women appear to obtain greater benefits for participation in both the Adult and Dislocated

Worker programs, with the quarterly earnings increment exceeding that of males. The value of

training appears to be greater for females as well, especially over the long run.

In conclusion, overall WIA program net impacts were estimated to be positive in almost all states,

although important variation across programs and specific services clearly exists.

Try actually reading the article you link to.

[Shryke]

Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, has dropped the hesitancy he had over 'DADT repeal' following his review of the Pentagon's study of the issue, and suggested he is now aboard legislative repeal of the measure.

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/11/navy-chief-breaks-with-mccain-praises-pentagon-dadt-report.html

Chances of DADT Repeal in the next few months: Improving every day

Chances of McCain changing his mind despite every arbitrary goal he's set having been met over and over again: 0

[alguien]

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/11/navy-chief-breaks-with-mccain-praises-pentagon-dadt-report.html

Chances of DADT Repeal in the next few months: Improving every day

Chances of McCain changing his mind despite every arbitrary goal he's set having been met over and over again: 0

The Daily Show's coverage of this is priceless.

[Frog Eater]

I can only assume that FOX news will revive the dead horse that is the Manhattan Mosque that's not a mosque, that is now going to be fund with tax payer dollars.

Muslim center applies for federal grant dollars

The headline is a bit incindiary. There are only $17 million available in grants and $175 million has been applied for. The Center will cost (around) $100 million, so there isnt nearly enough money here.... but I dont think that will stop the FOX newsies from being all over this (non) story. I fully expect Sarah Palin to pay a visit and demand "more responsible" use of taxpayer funds.

[ThinkerX]

Hmmm....

GM took what amounts to a massive government handout, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work or had their wages scaled dramatically back - and is still called a success story.

Sounds more like rewarding massive incompetence to me. Or corporate welfare.

Might be high time to take a serious look at these companies, especially in terms of the collateral damage caused by their 'success'.

[TrueMetis]

Hmmm....

GM took what amounts to a massive government handout, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work or had their wages scaled dramatically back - and is still called a success story.

Sounds more like rewarding massive incompetence to me. Or corporate welfare.

Might be high time to take a serious look at these companies, especially in terms of the collateral damage caused by their 'success'.

Well GM is profitable again and a lot less jobs were lost then what would have happened if it had went under. I'd call that a success.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Thor,

So, if the bottom fell out from GM tomorrow should it get another bailout? Two years from now? How many bailouts are enough?

[TrueMetis]

Thor,

So, if the bottom fell out from GM tomorrow should it get another bailout? Two years from now? How many bailouts are enough?

Why would the bottom fall out again? It profitable again GM hasn't been profitable in years, that's why it needed the bailout.

[Commodore]

[The Progressive]

Hmmm....

GM took what amounts to a massive government handout, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work or had their wages scaled dramatically back - and is still called a success story.

Sounds more like rewarding massive incompetence to me. Or corporate welfare.

Might be high time to take a serious look at these companies, especially in terms of the collateral damage caused by their 'success'.

Here's the thing thinkerx ....... would you rather have GM & Chrysler nationalized then?

By the way, I don't think you've thought much about the collateral damage caused by their collapse as well.

[Shryke]

With the new revamped Security Theatre going on at the TSA these days, this was pretty funny:

The comprehensive briefing of House staff, by a TSA deputy, covered everything – the threat from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, screening procedures, pat-downs (standard and enhanced) – “the whole works,” one House staffer who attended the briefing told POLITICO.

He said that several House staffers were uncomfortable and averted their eyes when the TSA demonstrated an enhanced pat-down in the room of 200 people.

“The dumbest part: they did two pat-down demonstrations – male on male, and female on female,” the House staffer said. And they used a young female TSA volunteer “and in front of a room of 200 people, they touched her breasts and her buttocks. People were averting their eyes. The TSA was trying to demonstrate ‘this is not so bad,’ but it made people so uncomfortable to watch, that people were averting their eyes.”

“They shot themselves in the foot,” the staffer continued.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45505.html

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I can only assume that FOX news will revive the dead horse that is the Manhattan Mosque that's not a mosque, that is now going to be fund with tax payer dollars.

Muslim center applies for federal grant dollars

The headline is a bit incindiary. There are only $17 million available in grants and $175 million has been applied for. The Center will cost (around) $100 million, so there isnt nearly enough money here.... but I dont think that will stop the FOX newsies from being all over this (non) story. I fully expect Sarah Palin to pay a visit and demand "more responsible" use of taxpayer funds.

...Says the guy whose link is to a CNN story.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

On a completely unrelated note, Al Gore has come out and admitted that the ethanol he previously pushed as a smart alternative fuel was a bad idea. Now that, in and of itself, isn't much. Anyone can be wrong. What is far more intriguing is his explanation for why he pushed it:

"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol," said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank.

"First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.

"It's hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going."

He explained his own support for the original programme on his presidential ambitions.

"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president."

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE6AL0YT20101122?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

So what are the odds his current environmental theology is influenced by the fact that he stands to make enormous personal profits through carbon taxes?