U.S. Politics-Hope Floats 2: We All Float Down Here

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

As I've said before my real specialty is being a goof, economics being something I study when I'm not being a goof.

As such, the best position for me in the empress' court would be that of the court jester, perhaps moonlighting as master of the treasury on the side.

As the court jester, I'd request a public debate, in court, over economic matters with Stephen Moore, demonstrating that even a fool knows more about economic matters than Stephen Moore.

And while we are the topic of Moore, I'll just note that a couple months back, Moore was gleefully explaining how the Republican corporate tax legislation went after Democrats and was designed to hurt them. 

And yet, conservatives are crying their little ol' eyes out about the lack of "civility".

Let the court record show that the fool has seemingly outmaneuvered Stephen Moore, but everyone knew that Stephen Moore was already a fucking toolbag idiot. Ergo, strike the Jesters' landed blow from the record.

[OldGimletEye]

On 6/28/2018 at 1:37 PM, Casablanca Birdie said:

In other news, the yield curve is slowly but steadily looking like it will invert, meaning short term rates being higher than long term rates. This has always been an indicator of a coming recession. 

Any comments from our knowledgeable financial people?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/yield-curve-inversion-1.4724637?cmp=FB_Post_News

 

Certainly, an inverted yield curve has historically been highly correlated with a looming recession. Now the path of longer term interest rates can be though of basically as expected short term interest rates plus a term premium. Of course this get into the reason why short term interest rates are expected to be lower.

One idea is that wicksellian natural rate of interest will be lower in the future, largely because of demographic changes in the future, and accordingly the inverted yield curve isn't a problem. Of course, the reason, one thinks the yield curve is inverted, bears a lot on how one thinks monetary policy ought to be conducted.

Of course, I am not really sold on this idea about a future lower nature rate, particularly given the FED has been too worried about "rampant inflation", likely being based by the concerns of bankers and finance people, and we have just finally and recently hit the 2.0% inflation target. Now I'm not arguing that we let inflation run rampant. But, our inflation target whatever we set it at, should be seen as a long term average and not an upper bound.

And of course the inverted yield curve could just likely as well to Trump's antics, which is probably the case.

For some further interesting commentary on this matter I'll just link this recent post by David Glasner. Now Glasner is a bit right of center, but he says really smart things and he is worth reading and doesn't pull the old mindless "both sides" sort of stuff that is too often found on the center right.

Anyway,

Quote

Last week the Fed again raised its benchmark Federal Funds rate target, now at 2%, up from the 0.25% rate that had been maintained steadily from late 2008 until late 2015, when the Fed, after a few false starts, finally worked up the courage — or caved to the pressure of the banks and the financial community — to start raising rates. The Fed also signaled its intention last week to continue raising rates – presumably at 0.25% increments – at least twice more this calendar year.

Some commentators have worried that rising short-term interest rates are outpacing increases at the longer end, so that the normally positively-sloped yield curve is flattening. They point out that historically flat or inverted yield curves have often presaged an economic downturn or recession within a year.

 

Quote

For purposes of this discussion, however, I will focus on just two factors that, in an ultra-simplified partial-equilibrium setting, seem most likely to cause a normally upward-sloping yield curve to become relatively flat or even inverted. These two factors affecting the slope of the yield curve are the demand for liquidity and the supply of liquidity.

An increase in the demand for liquidity manifests itself in reduced current spending to conserve liquidity and by an increase in the demands of the public on the banking system for credit. But even as reduced spending improves the liquidity position of those trying to conserve liquidity, it correspondingly worsens the liquidity position of those whose revenues are reduced, the reduced spending of some necessarily reducing the revenues of others. So, ultimately, an increase in the demand for liquidity can be met only by (a) the banking system, which is uniquely positioned to create liquidity by accepting the illiquid IOUs of the private sector in exchange for the highly liquid IOUs (cash or deposits) that the banking system can create, or (b) by the discretionary action of a monetary authority that can issue additional units of fiat currency.

Quote

Aside from sectoral problems affecting particular industries or groups of industries, the demand for liquidity might increase owing to a generalized increase in uncertainty that causes entrepreneurs to hold back from making investments (dampens animal spirits). This is often a response during and immediately following a recession, when the current state of economic activity and uncertainty about its future state discourages entrepreneurs from making investments whose profitability depends on the magnitude and scope of the future recovery. In that case, an increasing demand for liquidity causes firms to hoard their profits as cash rather than undertake new investments, because expected demand is not sufficient to justify commitments that would be remunerative only if future demand exceeds some threshold. Such a flattening of the yield curve can be mitigated if the monetary authority makes liquidity cheaply available by cutting short-term rates to very low levels or even to zero, as the Fed did when it adopted its quantitative easing policies after the 2008-09 downturn, thereby supporting a recovery, a modest one to be sure, but still a stronger recovery than occurred in Europe after the European Central Bank prematurely raised interest short-term rates.

 

Quote

But, at the end of the period, the Fed was unwilling to respond to increasing demands for liquidity and instead allowed a flat yield curve to remain in place even when the increasing demand for liquidity was causing a slowdown in aggregate spending growth. One possible reason for the asymmetric response of the Fed to increasing liquidity demands in 2002 and 2006 is that the Fed was sensitive to criticism that, by holding short-term rates too low for too long, it had promoted and prolonged the housing bubble. Even if the criticism contained some element of truth, the Fed’s refusal to respond to increasing demands for liquidity in 2006 was tragically misguided.

I say it once again. Using the short term rate as policy lever to prick asset bubbles is horrid policy and yes I do in fact believe that asset mispricing happens often and do not like conservatives believe in EMH when I'm criticizing Dodd-Frank, but then believe asset mispricing evidently occurs when I'm trying to blame poor minorities for causing financial crises or criticizing FED policy.

Quote

The current Fed’s tentative plan to keep increasing the Fed Funds target seems less unreflective as the nearly mindless schedule followed by the Fed from mid-2004 to mid-2006. However, the Fed is playing a weaker hand now than it did in 2004. Nominal GDP has been increasing at a very lackluster annual rate of about 4-4.5% for the past two years. Certainly, further increases in the Fed Funds target would not be warranted if the rate of growth in nominal GDP is any less than 4% or if the yield curve should flatten for some other reason like a decline in interest rates at the longer end of the yield curve. Caution, possible inversion ahead.

 

Also, I just throw in, at this juncture, his commentary over John Roberts moral cowardice and intellectual bad faith.

Quote

Noah Feldman brilliantly exposes the moral rot underlying the horrific Supreme Court decision handed down today approving the Muslim ban, truly, as Feldman describes it, a decision that will live in infamy in the company of Dred Scott and Korematsu. Here are the key passages from Feldman’s masterful unmasking of the faulty reasoning of the Roberts opinion

 

Quote

In almost every particular, Justice Black’s decision employed the exact same reasoning that the Chief Justice now employs to uphold the travel ban. Justice Black argued that the relocation could have been motivated by reasons of national security, just as Chief Justice now argues that the travel ban was motivated by reasons of national security. Justice Black argued that the military must be trusted to make decisions about which citizens might be disloyal and could pose a national security threat in time of war just as Chief Justice Roberts now argues that the President must be allowed to make national security decisions about who may enter the United States from abroad. Neither Justice Black nor Chief Justice Roberts is prepared to say that singling out a group based on race or religion is unjustified.

The only distinction between the cases is that Korematsu concerned the rights of American citizens not to be imprisoned without due process, and the travel ban primarily affects the rights of non-resident aliens. Clearly an important distinction, but the rights of American citizens and resident aliens are also implicated. Their rights to be free from religious discrimination are also at issue, and those rights may not be lightly disregarded.

Chief Justice Roberts concludes by attempting to distract attention from the glaring similarities between his own decision and Justice Black’s in Korematsu.

The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” (Jackson, J., dissenting).

But in doing so, Chief Justice Roberts only provides further evidence of his own consciousness of wrongdoing and his stunning display of bad faith.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Now conservative sorts of people:

Anti-Trumpism isn’t just a mindless reaction by the left, against Trump, as there are people who define themselves as being right of center, but have a real problem with Trump.

Now, I don’t agree with everything here, but it is refreshing to see some conservative sorts of people admitting that the conservatism had some real fuck ups, to put matters bluntly, if not very “civilly” and things are just not a matter of Trump betraying the “true conservatism”, but in fact the rise of Trump was related to the conservatism.

Worth a read.

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/49/whats-left-of-the-right/

Quote

The anti-Trump conservatives—as opposed to the anti-Trump Republicans, of which there are perhaps two—have made for a fascinating story in this era. We thought this was a good time to check in with a few of them and sound them out on Donald Trump, Trumpism, conservatism, and the Republican Party.
The four with whom we chose to converse all represent slightly different slots on the spectrum: David Frum is anti-Trump and was a critic of the GOP long before Trump came along but still calls himself a conservative. Peter Wehner, like Frum a Bush Administration veteran, is an evangelical Christian, also firmly anti-Trump and extremely critical of the Republican Party. Liz Mair, a political consultant, is anti-Trump but still a conservative-libertarian Republican. And Jennifer Rubin seems to have come closest to giving up on the whole enterprise. Democracy board member E.J. Dionne Jr. and editor Michael Tomasky sat down with the four of them in late April to ask about Trump, of course, but also about whether they’ve reconsidered their views on matters like preemptive war.

 

[Red Tiger]

Bill, you really let me down here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGcdPakoytg

[Centrist Simon Steele]

17 hours ago, كالدب said:

I'm not blaming them for her loss. I'm saying that they're assholes for their opinions. 

Susan Sarandon is an asshole for her opinion, and that she's protesting NOW after saying two years ago that nothing would be different makes my sense of deep unfairness trigger. 

This has very little to do with Clinton losing and more to do with Sarandon being an entitled asshat preaching bullshit before. 

She was an asshole for her opinion of not liking Clinton, then? I still don't understand why she's an asshole. She didn't like Clinton, didn't like Trump, voted elsewhere, and now she's protesting against Trump. Where's the asshole part of this? Unless you are saying she is responsible for Trump and that makes her an assholes, I don't follow. Did she really say that Clinton wasn't different Trump? Or did she mean Clinton would be more of the same establishment type political leader that we've had for decades? 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

17 hours ago, DMC said:

Can I just not like Susan Sarandon because I hate her personality?

I guess I'm not defending Sarandon so much as the idea of being hateful toward those who weren't supportive of Clinton. I may have misread the initial statement, but I felt like this was a situation where Dems said, "she's no Dem, she didn't vote for Hillary." I find this really problematic as we barrel toward more elections. But, like I said, I might have been wrong how I understood that. I don't know enough about Sarandon one way or another to defend her.

[Morpheus]

Sarandon said that she felt a Trump presidency would at least spur people to action and thus be better than a Clinton presidency, without ever considering that the impetus for that action would come at real cost for minorities, women, the poor,  LGBTQ+, the ill..... I think calling her an asshole is fair.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Morpheus said:

Sarandon said that she felt a Trump presidency would at least spur people to action and thus be better than a Clinton presidency, without ever considering that the impetus for that action would come at real cost for minorities, women, the poor,  LGBTQ+, the ill..... I think calling her an asshole is fair.

Sarandon's opinion that there was no difference between Clinton and Trump seems to have been the opinion of some left wing hipster types who think they are really sophisticated about their knowledge of politics and policy, but are really not.

It reminds me of why I don't usually pay much attention to the political opinions of celebrities whatever their political persuasion.

If she believed that the election of Trump would result in some kind of positive outcome, then she badly miscalculated and she isn't nearly astute as she thinks. An her attitude was extremely reckless to say the least.

[Bonnot OG]

Notice how Republicans aren't calling for Trump supporters to be civil when they are phoning in death threats to anyone critical of Trump and his staff?

Complicit.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Triskjavikson said:

One of Sarandon's main things was that Trump was actually preferable to Clinton in the middle-east war sense.  I thought that was crazy at the time and still mostly do in that I don't think Clinton was likely to, say, majorly escalate in Syria or invade Iran like some Republican hawks want to.  But at this moment in time...big breath...Trump hasn't either.  

I certainly do think that Hillary is a bit too interventionist, something that I have repeatedly criticized her for.

But, the problem with Sarandon's analysis is, in my opinion  1) It was extremely difficult to know where Trump stood on foreign policy, seeing how he was generally incoherent and not very knowledgeable on any policy matter. At least we know what Hillary was about, whereas there was big question mark with regard to Trump. And secondly, his comments about the Iran deal and Nato were very troubling.  And some of his early advisers certainly raised an eyebrow to say the least. And then there was his ignorance on trade policy. And then of course there was all the other baggage Trump brought to the table.

So I think Sarandon's analysis of these matters was badly flawed.

[Chaircat Meow]

10 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Now conservative sorts of people:

Anti-Trumpism isn’t just a mindless reaction by the left, against Trump, as there are people who define themselves as being right of center, but have a real problem with Trump.

Now, I don’t agree with everything here, but it is refreshing to see some conservative sorts of people admitting that the conservatism had some real fuck ups, to put matters bluntly, if not very “civilly” and things are just not a matter of Trump betraying the “true conservatism”, but in fact the rise of Trump was related to the conservatism.

Worth a read.

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/49/whats-left-of-the-right/

 

I like David Frum.

He argues that the Republican elites failed to adapt to the end of the Cold War and their ideas, unchanged since the 1980s, became ossified. They needed to have answers to the growing inequalities in wealth, the pitfalls of globalisation and mass immigration. Under Paul Ryan they offered a kind of uber-classical liberalism and lost their party to Donald Trump.

So, in essence, Frum thinks Trump was actually right to focus on aiding traditional industrial communities struggling to cope in the 21^st century economy and on restricting immigration. This was the direction he wanted the Republicans to move in: Trump delivered this. In this respect Frum was a trumpkin before Trump.

For Frum though, Trump’s lack of moral calibre makes him a threat to the preservation of the political culture that underpins democracy and the rule of law in the US. Trump is working to normalise incivility and corruption at all levels of the system, and the moral effects will be poisonous, degrading the character of the Americans and so ultimately undermining the nature of the Republic as an empire of laws not of men.

The other sticking point is foreign policy. Frum is a staunch Atlanticist; Trump may well think the EU is a rival to the US. Upholding America’s system of alliances, on which American power, and to a degree maybe even world peace depends, seems to Frum a fundamentally conservative thing to do.

To my knowledge though, Frum, although he now acknowledges the Iraq war was a mistake, has never addressed the argument coming from within the conservative tradition that sees the recent US interventions as part of a liberal-cosmopolitan moment, designed to bring about the end of history on liberal terms.

He was wrong about the weapons, he admits, but apparently not on the extremely unconservative and utopian project of nation building in Iraq. Frum needs to reconcile his recognition of the necessity of nations for democracy and the rule of law with his support for the ludicrous attempt to bring democracy to the Middle East, a project which was undertaken in service to the same utopian liberal ideology that says there should be no borders.

Anyway, I recommend reading Frum at the Atlantic, as I said he’s a good chap in my opinion.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

She was an asshole for her opinion of not liking Clinton, then? I still don't understand why she's an asshole.

Because she believed that it wouldn't be so bad if Trump won, or even worse, it'd help the eventual uprising or something like that.

Tell that to the 2000 kids detained.

 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Triskjavikson said:

We need a term for this concept:  when you vote, you're not just voting for a candidate.  so if Clinton didn't inspire you and you stayed home...you're also voting against the opposition.  Every moron Jill Stein voter helped Trump win.  There's the term negative partisanship, but that doesn't quite capture the concept.  Someone come up with something so that the left-leaning electorate absorbs this lesson.

It's called a wasted vote.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Triskjavikson said:

Need something more salient than that that captures the essence of how it's not just about whether the candidate on your side inspires you or not. 

"Vote for us, we're lame, but the other guys are nuts"

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, Triskjavikson said:

Better.  

I'm almost wondering if there's an inversion of the "vote" or "rock the vote" types of campaigns....something like "vote against hate" or "vote against inequality."  

I've heard it called negative voting. You could just call it a vote against, as well.

Hrm, I would call it defensive voting. I'll use it in a sentence. "I think comfortable, sheltered, not-really-threatened-by-Nazis liberals should have voted defensively for Clinton."

[Jace, Extat]

Enableist Voter

[The Mance]

7 minutes ago, Triskjavikson said:

The bottom line is that it needs to capture the fact that it's not just about your side; it's about stopping the other side.

It's too bad "cock blocking" is taken.  Maybe it could be repurposed?

[HoodedCrow]

Slowing the slimeball?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

It's called a wasted vote.

Maybe, but it doesn't make her responsible for Trump or his policies.

1 hour ago, Triskjavikson said:

Yeah, that's the thing.  Even if she stumbled upon to being right on the ME intervention front (we'll never know for sure) it was beyond stupid for every other reason.

We need a term for this concept:  when you vote, you're not just voting for a candidate.  so if Clinton didn't inspire you and you stayed home...you're also voting against the opposition.  Every moron Jill Stein voter helped Trump win.  There's the term negative partisanship, but that doesn't quite capture the concept.  Someone come up with something so that the left-leaning electorate absorbs this lesson.

We're back to blaming those who didn't like Clinton, and this is what I knew to be hiding under the surface of the argument. 2,000 children in cages is Trump's fault, his administration's fault, and all the people that voted for him and support him. You can't put it on anyone else. When you try, you push away those voters that you need to buy into your "concept."

[Bonnot OG]

3 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Maybe, but it doesn't make her responsible for Trump or his policies.

We're back to blaming those who didn't like Clinton, and this is what I knew to be hiding under the surface of the argument. 2,000 children in cages is Trump's fault, his administration's fault, and all the people that voted for him and support him. You can't put it on anyone else. When you try, you push away those voters that you need to buy into your "concept."

Actually you can put it on people that were delusional enough to think that Stein or Johnson  had a shot and laugh at their protest vote which just showed how privelleged they are.

They might as well have not even voted since their votes pretty much had the same impact and helped give us Trump.

They threw a tantrum or believed bullshit false equivlances while ignoring just how terrible of a person Trump truly is.