Deinonychus antirrhopus

Sorry for the Absence

The people who host this site decided to change their control panel around which required changes on my blog.

Naturally they didn't tell me any of this till I sent them an e-mail asking what the hell happened to my site?

Anyhow, problem solved. Regular blogging should resume tomorrow.

The sad thing is I lost my post on Senator Frist. Suffice it to say, I think he is an ass given his views on supporting a Constitutional Amendment against homosexual marriage and other views expressed this weekend.

Inequality and Economic Growth...Again

In the comments to this post Kevin made this comment:

5. I said "doesn't appear to be any correlation," you said "researchers are not sure of the relationship." As you know, it is correct to say that there doesn't appear to be a correlation (the null hypothesis) unless there's good evidence that there *is* a correlation. Both of the papers you cited are pretty clear that the evidence is ambiguous, which in turn means that there's no good evidence for a positive correlation.

The problem is Kevin's interpretation of the articles is wrong. The earliest work by such researchers as Alesina and Roderik that the first paper reviews indicates that there is a negative relationship between growth and income inequality. That is the higher inequality the lower the rate of growth. Then later work by the such Robert Barro found a positive relationship--i.e., higher inequality resulted in higer econocmic growth.

Now, one could say that this supports Kevin's claim. There is no correlation. There are two problems with this.

First is methodological. Just because nobody has found the connection between inequality and growth does not mean there isn't one. There might not be one, but the lack of evidence for an effect is not very good evidence that there is no effect.¹

The second comes from the second paper I have linked too. This paper extends some of the previous research by generalizing the utility function so that the previous research are no special cases. The result is that the link between inequality and growth is ambigiuous. Now Kevin can still say, "See, I'm still right." But that is only due to a superficial reading of the paper. Reading the entire paper one finds that yes the result is ambiguous, but that the authors identify when inequality and growth have a negative relationship and when there is a positive relationship.

Hence, if you know which case you are in, you will know whether or not inequality is good for growth, bad for growth or has no effect (i.e., there is literally no effect). The no effect case is actually a singlton and is highly unlikely.

This is the problem when amatuers start writing about economics. There is a tendency to focus on the univariate approach, inability to read and fully understand the literature, and superficial data analysis.²

Sadly lots of people read Kevin's site and they take his writings on these topics as being sound.
_____
¹This is why statisticians are so carefull when they do empirical research. They never say, "We accept the null hypothesis." Instead, the phrasing is, "We fail to reject the null hypothesis." It is giving implicit approval to the notion that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absences.
²In my opinion economics is in one regard harder than things like physics. Watching a commet or a planet through a telescope wont do much to change the behavior of the commet or planet. However, when you start watching people their behavior can and usually does change. Economists study people, and in studying them they could be inducing people to change their behavior. It makes for a much harder nut to crack in some regards.

Davis the Dimbulb

The efforts to recall Davis look like they have a good chance at succeeding (at least at getting a special election). Davis' response has been typical of the moron:

"It will move us backwards and cost the taxpayers $30 million," he recently told The Associated Press, referring to the projected cost of a special election. "It's just a bunch of affluent losers who are trying to spend money to throw this state into reverse."

Yes, all the people who have signed the petitions have been affluent. Characterizing that many people as losers is also rather childish for a governoer, IMO.

Davis is reaping the benefits of being a gutless swine on the budget and the energy crisis, and now is being a gutless swine about the recall.

Democrats who are increasingly worried about the recall said Issa's cash infusion looks like political opportunism by a man too inexperienced to be governor.

And what was Davis' funding of campaign ads against Richard Riordan? Surely not political opportunism. Also, if Davis and his waffling and inability to be decisive is what we get from somebody with experience, maybe we do need somebody with inexperience.

Farnkly, we'd probably be better off electing Mr. Ed.

Iraqi Resistance

The Washington Post points to the growing resistance in Iraq as justification for bringing the U.N.

Personally I think this is a horrible idea. The U.N. has shown to not only be ineffective at enforcing its own resolutions (1441), but also has been complicit in allowing Saddam to skim billions from its food-for-oil program to buy such things as arms.

Dean's Economic Proposal

After my post below that, in part, looks at what the Democrats offer as a solution to this sluggish recovery/recession I decided to check out Howard Dean.

Like Kerry and Gephardt, Dean doesn't have anything on his front page about the economy. But there was this article at the top of the site search. And typical of the Democrats, it doesn't have squat in it in terms of what they'd do to help revive the economy.

There is this puff-piece on how fighting Global Warming will be good for the U.S. economy. As with the other Democratic candidates there is very little in there on the details of how this is supposed to help the economy. One detail is this bit of baloney.

To encourage renewable energy, I support requiring that 15 percent of our nation’s electricity be generated from renewable resources by 2010 and 20 to 25 percent by 2020.

Here in California a significant percentage of the electricity is generated by renewable sources. According the CEC, the number is about 10.5%. The thing is this is expensive. So, Dean will make the economy stronger by making electricity more expensive!

In this article Dean states that the budgest must be balanced. So clearly he will not be solving the problem of a sluggish economy with some good old fashioned stimulus spending (i.e., deficit spending). Further, based on my reading of that article, it seems that if there is going to be a deficit (say due to a shortfall in revenue as a result of a recession) Dean would acutally raise taxes. So, you're out of job and now your taxes go up!

How is this for a Democratic campaign slogan:

Vote Democrat: They Don't Know What to Do!

Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanely and the Democrats

I found this via Brad DeLong and Lorenzo at Unimpressed. Here are some interesting parts of that article.

The macro framework to assess the outcome of this battle is relatively straight-forward. Since the equity bubble popped in early 2000, the US economy has been on an anemic 1.7% annualized growth path. That includes a mild recession in the first three quarters of 2001 and an unusually subpar recovery in the subsequent seven quarters.

Mr. Roach thinks the recession is basically over. However, the recover has been quite sluggish. On the second part it is hard to disagree with it. Unemployment has stopped increasing (for the most part), but it shows no signs of decreasing. Growth in GDP has been averaging less than 2.63% per quarter. Not exactly stunning growth.

The Fed has been unusually aggressive in attempting to achieve that objective. Thirteen easings over the past 30 months and 550 basis points later, however, the central bank has little to show for its noble efforts. It’s not the lags, in my view. By now, all conventional macro models would have expected the “policy multipliers” to have delivered -- not just on the basis of monetary stimulus but also in response to the Bush Administration’s first round of fiscal stimulus implemented in early 2001.

Basically this says, the standard models don't apply in the current situation. I've also never been a big fan of the multiplier theory anyways.

That’s not to say that the massive policy stimulus of the past two and a half years hasn’t worked at all. It may well have been decisive in containing the damage that may have otherwise been done during the recession of 2001.

Okay, lets stop and consider for a moment (I also suggest you read the entire article as well). Basically Stephen Roach is saying that we are in a post-bubble economy. Further, that the massive stimulus policies have done some good...just not enough good.

Now Democrats, like Kevin Drum, wants us to believe that electing one of their boyos will get the economy moving again. My question is what exactly will they do? Income tax cuts are out. Given that most Democrats are stark raving mad about deficits that is out too. The Fed has just about cut rates as low as they can. So what exactly do they propose? Cutting the Social Security tax? Gee, weren't these the guys who had the cartoon of Bush pushing the elderly over a cliff?

Gephardt doesn't appear to have jack on this. Nothing in that list on "The Economy", "Business", or even "Unemployment/Employment". He does have a "Labor" but it is so lame and empty it is pathetic.

He does have this though.

Guaranteed Health Insurance: The Right Way to Stimulate the Economy.

Ohhhh, yes. No wonder the economy is still in the tank. We haven't nationalized health care. Gee, even Stephen Roach and Brad DeLong were wrong on this. Somebody should tell them.

So basically its, vote for the Democrats because they don't have any ideas either.

Update I: Doesn't look like Kerry has much either. The top item from a search on the economy (using economy as a key word) turns up this puff-piece about what a great guy and career Kerry has/had.

Yep, vote for the Democrats, they are just as clueless too.

No...not really a good campaign slogan is it.

Update II: Oh no! Kerry does have a plan. Cutting the Social Security tax by giving each worker a one year Holiday that would give them $765 for that year. Hmmm...I wonder if $75 to $80 billion would do much to stimulate the economy. Personally I doubt it.

Still looking pathetic.

Personal Income: Up

The Bureau of Economic Analysis released its personal income data today, and personal income in current dollars is up 0.3% in May. Disposable personal income is also up, and consumption expenditures rose a meager 0.1%.

ECRI: Weekly Leading Index

ECRI's weekly leading index Is up again.

The Supreme Court and Sean Hannity

The other day I was driving to get lunch and as usual I tuned into Hannity on the radio. Now I enjoy listening to Sean, but there are many times I disagree with him. This time was no exception.

Sean was discussing the Supreme Courts striking down sodomy laws and queried his audience with this question (paraphrase based on memory):

Isn't this just another example, and my libertarian listeners can correct me here if they think I'm wrong, but isn't this case just another example of the government, in this case the Supreme Court, butting into our private lives?

As best as I can remember that was the gist of his question (my memory maybe off, but I don't have access to a transcript). My answer to this is an emphatic, "No!" It is just the opposite. This decision basically says, "Government, get the Hell out of the bedroom." Of course there are exceptions for such things as underage minors, coercion, and other such things. So basically it is saying, the government doesn't have a right to be worried who you are having sex with (for the most part).

How you can call this an additional intrusion is beyond me. Unfortunately I got back into the parking lot at work before I could here if anybody corrected him.

Holy Crap

I just stumbled across this post by Kevin Drum. The audacity of one claim in that post is just....just...staggering in its inaccuracy.

Given that the actual rates (i.e., flat vs. progrssive) don't have much impact on economic efficiency, the only real reason to choose one set of rates over another is based on what you think is fair and equitable. There's no such thing as a "neutral" system, either. You have to choose rates of some kind, and any set of rates you choose is a reflection not of economic arguments, but of philosophic ones.--empahsis added

Kevin has confused economic growth with economic efficiency. Economic efficiency is not the same thing as economic growth. All taxes impose an efficiency loss on society as I demonstrate in this post here.

This is old news to anybody who has suffered through a public finance course. Note this is based on a static model of supply and demand. Hence there can be no growth in this model. The only thing one can hope for is that whatever the taxes are used to pay for provides a benefit that outweighs this efficiency loss. Since we have no reason to believe that this is always the case, we cannot say that it does.

So...what is the big deal about this? This is. Lorenzo there has bought the argument put forward by Kevin hook, line and sinker. Lorenzo is now convinced that there is no connection between taxes and economic efficiency. Kevin has done Lorenzo a dis-service.

As for the connection between taxes and growth, Kevin's argument is facile and simplistic. Taxes are but one thing that can affect economic growth. There are such things as capital, interest rates, and technology that can impact growth. That growth did not accelerate when taxes came down does not necessarily mean that high taxes have no effect on growth.

This paper suggests Kevin is wrong. So does this paper although the impact is small. This paper also indicates that taxes could have an impact on growth.

Now in some of those papers the size of the impact depends on additional factors such as how are the inputs to human capital accumulation treated (i.e., are there tax deductions for these inputs?).

In short, for Kevin to make a proclomation that "taxes have no impact on growth" is simply stunning.

Also consider this, public finance economists consider three impacts of taxes: 1. efficiency, 2. equity, 3. simplicity. Now these guys are not stupid, quite far from it. Kevin's post implies that in a way they are stupid. They should only be concerned with equity, efficiency and simplicity just don't matter...so why are they studying it?

Lynne Kiesling on Natural Gas

Lynne sent me a note that this article was available. It is a very good article and a must read.

The typical reaction to price caps should be, "Bad." Now this doesn't mean that price caps are everywhere and anywhere bad. For example, they were good during the CA electricty crisis because removing the price caps resulted in price going to levels that are...well simply insane (Imagine getting a bill for your home electricity use that is around $250 for 500 kWh). Drastic measures were needed. Further the price caps were flexible in that they worked off of the least efficient producer necessary to clear the market. Still, price caps should always be viewed with skepticism and wariness.

Many analysts and energy industry experts have, correctly, pointed to supply restrictions as the prime cause of the rigidity of natural gas supply. In particular, they argue that limitations on drilling on federal lands, in consideration of the environmental amenities attached to those lands, have constricted potential exploration options. Such limitations do indeed make supply more inelastic.

Now I am not going to run off bashing the enviro's here. Lynne raises a very good point. There is a trade off here. Cheaper natural gas or less environmental impact. You cannot have something in this life for free. If you want to protect federal lands from natural gas exploration and exploitation then there will be costs associated with that. One cost seems to be higher natural gas prices.

Trying to fix this "problem" by imposing price caps will just move the costs someplace else. Now instead of being able to consume as much natural gas as you want (i.e., can afford), you'll have to go without or cut back.

Price caps only affect the accounting costs here. That is the costs of these policies is higher prices. Capping prices to keep the price from going up will simply move the costs from impacting your pocket book to what you can do. There is no way of getting around this.

Lynne also raises an excellent point here:

This focus on natural gas as the way to achieve air quality improvements without dramatically increasing power generation costs has had an unfortunate, and likely unforeseen and unintended, consequence of reducing the resiliency of natural gas markets. Regulatory mandates have constrained us away from being able to apply the lessons of portfolio diversification to our energy choices, and our inability to diversify our fuel input portfolios makes for markets that do not adapt to unanticipated and changing conditions. This is a very high price to attach to the environmental amenities of improved air quality, air quality that could conceivably have been achieved through other means had the regulations not so specifically stipulated natural gas as the fuel input.

Very well put. Think of it this way. Suppose you have a good, call it a widget. There are also gizmos, gadgets, and thingamajigs that act as subsitutes. Now suppose that the government decides the environmental impact of gadgets and thingamajigs is too great so they set up laws, rules and regulations basically prohibiting their sale. Now the only substitute left is gizmos. Now if there is a shock to either demand, supply or both, the price effect is probably going to be larger because people will have less ability to substitute away from widgets.

Basic economic theory. Nothing fancy, and very simple.

Anyhow read the whole thing, its worth it. Especially if you are into energy economics/issues.

Income Inequality and Mobility

Kevin Drum at CalPundit has another post on income inequality and income mobility. There are some problems with this post, IMO.

The first problem is with this statement:

The rich are getting richer, they are staying richer, and the poor are increasingly stuck being poor.

Kevin's own data shows that this is an exaggeration. Sure, for the most part people tend to stay in the income quintile. For the poorest quintile after 10 years about half of the people who started out there, stay there. But this also means that half of them move up (they are at the bottom, there is no place to go, but up). Similarly for the top quintile, but with mobility being downwards. So it isn't quite true that the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer stay poor."

Further, in looking at the graph that Kevin links to it isn't clear the the poor is getting poorer poor are staying poor. A more accurate statement is that they are getting "richer" at a slower rate than those in higher income quintiles.¹

Basically what we have is pure political propaganda hiding admist what is being put forward as some sort of analysis.²

Kevin also puts forward this remarkable claim:

Our tax policies are increasingly geared not to ameliorating this trend, but to making it worse. Tax rates on the rich are decreasing, while tax rates on the poor and middle class are increasing.

This is true to some extent if you look at all taxes--i.e., state, local, federal, Social Security, Medicare, and so forth. However, if you look just at federal you get a different picture. The taxes paid by those at the bottom are practically nil.

Now the above claim by Kevin isn't all that noxious, what is noxious is the fact that he wants to blame all of this on Republicans, conservatives, and that Bush is making worse. Finally, lets not forget that statel, and local taxes are not under the purview of the federal government, and it is also quite true that Republicans do control every state and local government.

What is wrong with this. Well his data doesn't support this claim:

This is fundamentally unhealthy in a democratic society. When the rich absorb more and more of the economic growth of the nation, and the poor begin to lose hope of economic advancement, you have a potentially toxic combination. George Bush and the policies of the Republican party are making this ever worse, and someday soon the poor and middle class are going to figure out what's going on. How about 2004?

Kevin's Data goes from 1967 to 2000. So lets dispense with the obvious error on Kevin's part. The data says nothing about Bush. It does not say if his policies have resulted in more or less income inequality. These policies might very well have increased inequality, but we have no data on which to base this claim (yet).

Another problem is that in looking at the chart it is obviuous to even a child that there is an upward trend to mean income for the top quintile. This trend is there for the entire series. Now, we know that there have been Democrats in the White House during this time period. Further, we know that Congress has been controlled by the Democrats as well. So laying the blame for all of this squarely on the Republicans is dishonesty from Kevin that I find unprecedented. It indicates ideological blinders of such magnitude we should strongly consider revoking Kevin's driver's liscense.

Further, if we look at the end of the data series for the top quintile you can see that the rate of increase in the mean income increased after the last recession. The President for those 8 years was Bill Clinton. How could this be the Republicans fault? Oh yeah, it must have been due to the Republicans winning both the Senate and Democrats. Never mind that Kevin gives the Democrats a free pass when incomes in the top quintile were increasing when they were in control. Oh, maybe Bush and the Republicans have a mind control device and Clinton was just their puppet.

Another problem (this post has so much wrong with it, it is staggering) is this comment:

There doesn't appear to be any correlation at all between high inequality, low tax rates, and economic growth.

What is wrong with it? Well, according to the research I have read³ researchers are not sure of the relationship between income inequality and economic growth. In looking at the references in Kevin's link they seem to have not bothered to read many of the people working in this area such as Robert Barro and Alberto Alesina.

So Kevin strikes out here, IMO as well. So lets recap.

• It is dishonest to blame only Republicans.
• It is not true that the "rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer staying poor".
• The rate of increase of the mean income for the top quintile increased under Clinton.
• The data don't support his claims against Bush.
• The claim that there is no relationship between growth, taxes, and income inequality is not clear at all; hence making a proclomation that there is no relationship is junk.

This post is riddled with errors and half-truths.

Update I: John Cole has a post on this as well.

Update II: I've changed some of the text to more accurately reflect Kevin's comments. However, this does bring up anothe point. Using relative poverty measures does tend ot hide the fact that even though the poor are getting richer, they can still appear poor. For example, suppose that each quintile recieved a $50,000 boost in inome. They'd still have the same distribution, just shifted upwards on the graph. Would you still consider those at the bottom poor? I don't. When the mean income is $60,000+ annually, you are not poor.
______
¹By richer here, I mean that the incomes in real terms are increasing.
²Now the actual analysis that Kevin links too does not use this type of language.
³Click here and here.

Speaking of Frank at Bloggram

Here is a howler.

So the Supreme Court has decided that the student makeup of the Nation's public universities do not need to reflect the general makeup of society.

Wow, this might be news if it was even remotely true. Too bad for Frank it isn't. The Supreme Court in its recent decisions has indicated quite clearly that diversity is indeed an important issue for universities and that they can and should pursue affirmative action prgrams. However, they also hold that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about this. For example, quotas are right out.

Also, this idea that university populations are going to reflect the same proportions as society in general is a stupid and idiotic idea. First there are universities such as Howard University of which the student body is almost entirely black. Hence it wont be possible to have equal proportions when some schools are very near to 100% black.

Further, there is the issue of valuing education. Must all sub-groups value education the same? The data says no. Jews tend to put a very high premium on education, so to Asians. So could other groups put a lower premium on education? If this is true should there be a draft to force people into college so that the proportions are equal? What happens if a student tries to deliberately flunk out? I know we'll give him A's. That'll teach 'em!

More Bigotry from the Left

I found this at Working for Change and this part of it caught my eye.

Since starting her tour in support of "Living History," the junior Senator from New York's approval rating has risen 15 points while her disapproval rating has budged not a smidgeon, remaining static at 38 percent. Barring her imminent rescue of a baby from a well using nothing but her teeth and a Malibu Barbie scrunchie, nobody expects it to shift drastically. Apparently 38 percent of America would rather stroll through a pen of starving wolverines wearing meat thongs than suffer through Hillary Clinton's re-ascendance. And I would wager that 37.5 percent of them are red- state males.

First, lets get the nitpick out of the way. Brain dead Will Durst probably mean 98.7% of these people who hate Hillary are males. After all, 37.5% of 38% is 14.25%. That is he really thinks that of the people who don't like Hillary most of them are women?

So now that we have shown that Will is a math-idiot, lets turn to the bigger issue, Will's obvious bigotry. I don't like Hillary, but I don't hate her. I don't think she should be President, but that has nothing to do with her being a woman (after all I like the idea of Condi Rice running and winning the Presidency).

So, Mr. Durst has this belief that white males hate Hillary because she is a woman. Based exactly on what? Here is something to consider. Husbands and wives often tend to have similar political views. So it seems quite possible that a sizeable chunk of that 38% might be women.

What an idiot.

Via Frank.

Education and Affirmative Action

Over at the Volokh Conspriacy Tyler Cowen wonders what education is for. Is it for signalling/certification or is it really about learning (or if both which one is dominant).

Prof. Cowen notes that if it is about education then Affirmative Action is more unjust, but also more efficient. However, what if it is more about signalling (hey I'm smart look at the Degree I got...)?

Well then Affirmative Action is less efficient because it might very well add more noise to the signal. For example, the Michigan policy gives points to students who are of a specific race, more points in fact than getting a perfect SAT. It seems fair to say that such students getting in because of these "racial points" are not as capable students.¹

The effect of this is that students of lower quality are no coming from the same insitution that otherwise had been turning out higher quality students. Hence, from the employer's standpoint the signal the degree (and classes) from that university is now less clear. You might lower your assessment of students from that school a bit.

Thus, such a policy is less efficient, and in the long run might actually end up hurting the very people the policy is trying to help.
_____
¹Please note this does not mean that every student of a given race is less qualified than students of another race. I am referring only to those students who admission depends on these points awarded for race (i.e., not every racial minority student will need those points to get in).

Jane Finch on Discrimination

Jane finds a Townhall.com article about how Congress doesn't have proportional representation. Amongst the minority staffers that is. Apparently this is enough for her, and a number of commenters to conlcude that Congress is simply a nest of racist, sexist snakes that should be excoriated.

I say, "Hold the phone!"

Simply noting a statistical result and then declaring a conclusions (especially with regards to something as noxious as this) is just wrong. Before running off and screaming people are bigots you'd better make double damn sure of your "analysis".

For one thing, what was the hiring pool like? Here is a personal anecdote. I used to work in a government research division (nothing exciting it was on price indexes). Anyhow, economics is still a white male dominated field (it is becoming less so). So the hiring pool is predominantly white and male. So the department was predominantly white and male. There were two women researchers and one researcher from India. Not a great track record.

Was the division run by racists who were turning away talented young women and people of color? Hardly. I happen to know that the head of the division was married to a black woman.

Now, it might be the case that many of the people applying for (senior) jobs with Congressional staffs are white males.

Failing to look into that and pronouncing racism/discrimination is the hallmark of junk statistics (i.e., its bullshit). One really should go that extra mile and check to see what the pool of propective hires is like.

Pejman on Gephardt

Pejman takes apart the idiot response from a spokes person for Gephardt addressing remarks made by the Congressman (you can see the remarks that are in question here and here). Overall I agree with Pejman's response, that Gephardt and his campaign are unclear about how the Constitution works and are now trying to weasel their way out.

However I do disagree with one part of Pejman's criticism.

In responding to this comment by the Gephardt spokesperson

"The fact that this question comes from libertarian law professors should speak for itself," spokesman Erik Smith wrote in an e-mail.

Pejman writes

How exactly does the question "speak for itself" merely as a result of the fact that it was raised by "libertarian law professors"? Is the Gephardt campaign claiming that statements from libertarian law professors should be discounted automatically? How about libertarians who are not law professors--should their criticisms also be discounted? And how about law professors who are not libertarians--is their say valid? The statement is positively incoherent.

No, it isn't incoherent it is bigotry. Bigotry is intolerance to another group, be that group a racial group, a religious group, a gender based group, or a political group.

Now this type of bigotry isn't quite as bad, IMO, as racial bigotry. After all I can always change my political alliances, but a person cannot change their race. Still it is bigotry and it should be decried as such.

Of course I don't expect the left to consider this bigotry, because then they'd be little better than the Racist Republicans.

Not only is it bigotry it is a sign of small mindedness. Just because a person is a libertarian (or a law professor or both) does not make their ideas or what they say automatically suspect.

Pejman is right in noting that it is a logical fallacy, but he misses the point that there are really two fallacies here (although Pejman does indicate the effect of the second fallacy). First there is the obvious one: ad hominem. There is also the fallacy of poisoning the well. This has the effect of making everything said by either a libertarian or a law professor or both irrelevant.

Instead of responding in a substantive the spokesperson weaselled and wormed to get around the idiotic statement by Gephardt.

Another thing this whole instance points to is the hubris that some Democrats have (yes, I am quite sure there are examples of Republican hubris, and it is just as bad). Gephardt is so sure of his position, so righteous in his beliefs that he feels the Constitution can be subverted. Either that or Gephardt is just a liar. That is he knew full well that a Presidential Excecutive Order would not work, but said it anyways to score good political points with the audience.

Either way, its pathetic.

FERC Bars Enron from Selling Electricity and Natural Gas

Enron just can't catch a break these days. With a corporate name that is synonymous with lying, cheating, stealing, and perfidy, now they can't even sell two of their products anymore. This is considered the "death penalty" for energy matters. The FERC wanted to send a signal that in th words of Commissioner Wood, "competitive markets must work in the interest of customers and the public interest."

Update: I Here is Chairman Wood's statement (pdf file). Basically it revokes Enron's market based rates.

FERC also is set to open hearings on the behavior of 60 companies related to the California crisis.

In Item E-3 we consider specific market practices that violated the Market Monitoring and Information Protocol provisions of the tariffs of the California Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange. Based on the Staff's, the ISO's and the 100 Days Evidence parties' information, we consider formally initiating enforcement proceedings for 60 companies regarding apparent violations of the California Independent System Operator and California Power Exchange tariff provisions prohibiting "gaming" and "anomalous market behavior". This evidence will be considered by a FERC judge in a formal hearing, with the base remedy being disgorgement of the unjust profits associated with any proven violations.

Fed Set to Cut Rates for the 13th Time

And the arsenal for the Fed to influence the economy is shrinking. With rates this low, there isn't much room left to lower interest rates. There are still some other unconventional means the Fed can use, but nobody is really sure how effective these are as they really haven't been used before.

Update I: The Fed cut rates another quarter point.

Cooking?

Jay posted his wife's tomato based pasta sauce which indeed does sound yummy and does look pretty quick and simple.

Here is one of my fast pasta sauces:

• 3-4 cans of baby clams
• Some extra virgin olive oil
• Crushed garlic (3-4 cloves at least)
• Some sweet basil, fresh is best, but if you can't find it the stuff in a jar will work in a pinch
• ...uhhhh that's it.

Told you it was simple. Now, put some olive oil in a pan so that there is a goodly amount (say a 1.5 cups or so). Put in the garlic and heat the oil till the garlic just starts to sizzle. Then after a few minutes (make sure the garlic doesn't get brown) add the claims (after draining the juice). Then the basil (to taste). Stir it periodically and boil your water for your pasta and maybe make some garlic bread.

No more than 30 minutes from start to finish (assuming you peel and smash the garlic vs. having some already mashed in the fridge).

Oh yeah, if your wife is pregnant and having a problem with low iron levels, this stuff is great so long as you use baby clams. Look on the can, they are loaded with iron!

Uh Oh...Looks Like Mullah Omar is Still Hanging Around

Like foot fungus infection.

Islamabad, June 24: The shadowy leader of Afghanistan's former Taliban regime, Mullah Omar, has named a 10-man leadership council to organise resistance against foreign troops in the country, a news report said on Tuesday.

Pakistani newspaper, The News, quoted a Taliban spokesman saying that Mullah Omar announced the formation of the body in an audio tape sent from his hiding place in Afghanistan.

Just great.

There are also still U.S. forces there conducting various missions against the remains of the Taliban.

Last Saturday, US forces launched an air assault in the southeast to prepare for a deployment of troops on the border with Pakistan to stop Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters crossing and carrying out attacks.

More here and here.

Here have some cheese...

...with that whine. Sheesh, I was hoping we'd finally gotten past all that self-confidence/self-esteem crap in schools. If the kid really new all the math and beyond, why is he failing the test? Perhaps because he is screwing around, or something?

This link will take you to a site that gives an idea of what is on the Oswego test. It isn't rocket science, its the basics.

If your child does not know this stuff, your child should not be going on to college. As a parent, it is your responsibility to make sure your child knows mathematics at least to this level.

So there I was...

...checking out the subjunctive and Mal-3 (the pen-name for the guy running the blog) has a link to AdBusters. He mentions how it is to him what DU is to me. So I figure...what the heck, lets check it out.

What a freaking riot!

What does anybody know about the sugar industry? The people who put the frosting on the frosted flakes keep a low profile and are happy when folks are too busy eating to ask a lot of questions. Now, though, a dust-up with the World Health Organization has flushed them into the limelight, where they're pitting profits against public health.

What a goldmine of nanny state idiocy Mal-3 has come across. It is just too good to be true. (Shame on you Mal-3 for not sharing earlier!)

I mean really, so what if some corporations like making sugary products. If that is what people want to shove in their face then so be it. It isn't hurting me if they want to eat Chocolate Covered Sugar Bombs.¹ So let 'em.

"It was particularly stupid for them to put in writing that they're going to try to get Congress to take away WHO's money," says Michael Jacobsen, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It gave consumers a chance to see the kind of bullying that is usually done behind closed doors."

No Mr. Jacobsen, you idiot, what you are seeing is two organizations trying get the government to try and decide what people should eat. The Sugar Assocation is no different than the WHO. They both want to influence what people eat, they both want to use political power to be allowed to achieve their goals.

Here is a wacky idea...why not let people decide for themselves what they want to eat. Maybe, just maybe they like eating sugar. Maybe they are willing to accept the extra weight/health problems for the enjoyment of eating sugary foods.

Did you whining cry babies stop to consider this possibility?

Update I: Mal-3 in comments points to this page at AdBusters as well. Its a hoot as well.

Q. Can you tell us your definition of traditional fascism? Yes: the convergence of military and economic power on behalf of an ultranationalist ideology that views its enemies - internally and externally - as evil and subject to extermination or extreme punishment.

You mean...we would have been wrong to view such enemies as Nazi Germany as evil? That the North Koreans are really just misunderstood, and that they really are nice guys (starving the population aside of course)? Oh. Okay then.

Q. What should we be looking for as an early warning of a slide toward fascism? A disillusionment with representative democracy as a path to change. For example, if the Democratic Party in the United States doesn't elect a candidate who will challenge these policies, I think it would lead an increasing number of people to become disenchanted with normal politics and be more inclined to feel that the only way change can come about is by more extreme political tactics, which in turn would lead the government to feel justified in expanding its powers of control over the citizenry.

Again, back to WWII. The Republicans weren't putting forward candidates to change any policies. Were they talking about pulling out of the war, surrendering? No. So was the U.S. fascist and was F.D.R. the U.S.'s version of Hitler? Give me a freaking break. I dislike many of F.D.R.'s policies during the depression, but a fascist is just rank bravo sierra.

These guys are definitely loons. Must be a wing on on the Democratic Underground Asylum.
______
¹Actually with today's extensive Nanny State it does impact me. Since we have the government giving so many handouts when some individual decides to pig out and balloon up on sugary foods, then it raises my taxes. Still, I don't see this as justification for curbing sugar intact, but for killing the Nanny State...with a stake, right through its black vile heart. (Then cut off its head and stuff its mouth with Oreo Cookies--gotta keep it from coming back).

Kerry the Gullible?

Christopher Hitchens sure makes a good case. As well as showing some of the vapidness of the anti-war folks as well.

The overwhelming consensus among inspectors and monitors, including Hans Blix's sidekick Mohammed ElBaradei, is now to the effect that Iran's mullahs have indeed been concealing an enriched-uranium program. For good measure, it is a sure thing that they are harboring al-Qaida activists on their territory. Will the "peace" camp ever admit that Bush was right about this? Or about the "evil" of North Korea: a demented starvation regime now threatening to export ready-to-use nuclear weapons (which Saddam Hussein, say, might have been interested in buying)? Don't make me laugh: The furthest the peaceniks will go is to say that Bush's rhetoric made these people turn nasty. I am not teasing here: The best of the anti-war polemicists is Jonathan Schell, who advanced this very claim in a debate with me earlier this month.

Via Henry Hanks.

Lady Sun: an Iranian Blogger

I found that will reading up on the current situation in Iran. One thing struck me while reading this post.

Bush attacked and occupied Iraq, but do you really think he is The Savior? Look what has happened to Iraqi people. Are they better off? Look at the injured and dead children; look at the picture of the little child killed yesterday by American troops; look at the national museum of Iraq; look at … Is that kind of freedom Bush wants to give my country?

Yes, its horrid to look at those picutres. Still, a fair response is:

• How many innocents has Saddam killed?
• How many children?
• How much has Saddam stolen from the Iraqi people?

Yes, innocents get killed in war, but will the killing continue? Not likely. Even now, the number of missiles that are fired in Iraq has dropped to what? Zero?

Are they better off? Only time will tell. Hopefully the answer will be yes.

Where was he and his fellow neo-conservative friends when the same Saddam Hussein (who is now the most despised figure in the world) was bombing Iran with chemical weapons? Where was this philanthropic president 'for all seasons' when Iranian girls have been raped and buried in mass graves by Iraqi soldiers? Who was caring about Iranians' freedom, democracy and solidarity when cities of Iran were hit by US made Iraqi missiles?

Back 20 some odd years ago or so Bush was probably living in Texas doing something or other. He wasn't even governor of Texas let alone President. Still, the U.S. did nothing while Saddam used chemical and biological weapons. Should the U.S. have done something? I don't know. The article is rather split in that it seems that having the U.S. interfere is a bad thing, but at the same times excoriates the U.S. for not interfering. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

People Support Military Action in Iran?!?!

That is what InstaPundit linked to today. I'm not sure I'm all that keen on it. Right now, Iran has some fairly decent problems of its own. Many Iranians are sick of the regime as it hasn't seem to have gotten them anywhere. Here is the poll Glenn is pointing too.

Given the internal problems of Iran, I'm more of the wait and see mindset. Of course, I admit I don't know how close Iran is to getting nuclear capability.

This article at DanielPipes.com is about a year old, but it paints a picture of an Iran that is having some serious problems. Here is a more recent article to suggest the problems in Iran have not abated. Students are actually warning the mullahs not to crack down on the student demonstrators.

The protests began in Tehran two weeks ago and spread to other cities in the most outspoken demonstrations since the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. Officials say 500 "hooligans" were arrested during recent protests in Tehran but only a handful of students were among them.

In fact, I suppose it is not impossible that a threat of attack from the U.S. might do damage to this growing movement to bring about change in Iran. An external threat might cause the students/demonstrators and the clerics in Iran to put aside their differences till later to face the new threat. Also, even just voicing support for the student movements might make life a little harder for them. After all, the clerics could then make the claim that the student movement is just a front for Western/Anti-Islamic forces.

WMDs and Hydrogen Generators

Looks like the U.S. has mobile hydrogen generators. The AN/TMQ-42 Hydrogen Generator to be precise. However, before everybody gets their panties in a wad over this an important point should be made. These vehicles have never been in combat. Further, they are not semi-trailers, but the whole system is skid mounted on the back of a humvee. It is not something anybody could possibly mistake at all for a mobile chemical/bio weapons lab.

Not exactly what you'd expect a mobile bioweapons lab to look like.

One problem with the mobile hydrogen facility is that these things are supposed to go where the self-propelled artillery goes. Tractor trailers are not ideal for off-roading.

Further, even though there are claims that Iraq doesn't have easy access to helium (the preferred gas) why not make the stuff at a fixed site and then put it in cannisters and mount them on the back of more suitable vehicles?

Acrocanthosaurus

This Allosaurid is believed to have had a sail much like Spinosaurus. However, except in this one superficial manner it is different than Spinosaurus.

Oh Darn...

Peter Werbe was fired from his radio show. Of course, this is the work of the BFEE.

Democratic Socialism with a Libertarian Punch?

What the....

Nope, that's what it says.

Wow, here is another one from SamizData. It points to this article about [the Left] rediscovering their libertarian roots.

The key elements of libertarian socialism - decentralisation, democracy, popular sovereignty and a refusal to accept that collectivism means subjugating individual liberty - have a strong pedigree, going back to the mid-seventeenth century, the English Civil War and the radical activists of that age: the Levellers, Agitators and Diggers.--emphasis added

What the.... The idea that you are not subjugating individual liberty with democracy highlights the complete ridiculousness of this. Democracy and most voting mechanisms are a means of making a collective choice. Further, save for the extreme case of unanimity a voting mechanism means that those who are the losers in any vote are going to have their liberty subjugated.¹

It is simply astonishing that people like this just cannot see this. It is like some sort of gigantic blind spot that if it were to actually affect their eyesight they'd never qualify for a drivers liscense.

Underlying libertarian socialism is a different and distinct notion of politics which rests on the belief that it is only through interaction with others in political activity and civic action that individuals will fully realise their humanity. Democracy should therefore extend not simply to government but throughout society: in industry, in the neighbourhood or in any arrangement by which people organise their lives.--emphasis added

In other words, you cannot do much of anything without checking in with everybody else. Sounds perfectly dreadful to me, and it means that your liberty is regulated by those around you.

It is simply astonishing the love affair the extreme Left has with voting and democracy. Sure, it is the government system I prefer, but I don't think I want to take to such an extreme that I need to take a household vote before I go to take a dump!

Thanks to SamizData and Catallarchy
_____
¹Or more cynically they do see the inherent contradiction here, but are trying to sugar coat their coercive, liberty squashing world view.

GDP

GDP has been increasing since the third quarter of 2001. One measure of if an economy is still in a recession is GDP decreases for two (or more) consecutive quarters. My this measure we are no longer in a recession.

However, that measure is not what most people rely on. Most look at different series of which GDP is only one. Another is unemployment. However, unemployment is a lagging indicator, i.e. does not reach its peak until after the recession has ended.

The National Bureau of Economic Research uses unemployment in dating the begining of recessions and expansions. The drawback is that NBER will always be "behind the curve" so to speak.

Another series that NBER uses is industrial production (IP) index, which is a leading indicator. One troubling thing here is that the IP index while initially increasing since December of 2001 has started declining again. Typically what happens is that a decline in the IP index heralds a decline in GDP. Despite the declines in the IP index there hasn't been a decline in GDP.

As with the last recovery, this one looks like it will be hard to call. Still, I think NBER will be dating this recession fairly soon.

More Bad News for Democrats

Looks like Ralph Nader is considering another run at the White House as a Green.

The man many Democrats blame for Al Gore's achingly narrow defeat by George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential vote, could be a candidate when the next election is held in 2004, he will be 70.

I wonder if he'll have a similar impact this time around.

(Via Henry Hanks.)

Why I Don't Think Big Government Works

This post by Arthur Silber points out how activist government gets abused. While in this case it is family members who are getting rich, it could just as well be friends.

Further, while this article looks at an example from the Republicans it goes on in both parties. It is an example of why the default role for the government in the economy should be nothing. Just stay out. Further, if the government is going to do something then keep it to a minimal level. For example, instead of cramming rules, regulations and codes down restaurants throats, why not post a grade on the door. Then customers know how clean the establishments kitchen/food preperation area is and can make their own decisions on where to eat.

The example above, provides an example of how the government can help reduce informational asymmetries. Instead of trying to come up with a massive set of rules, regulations, codes and whatnot it simply provides the customer with a simple way of evaluating the restaurant. In other words, it tries to solve the problem of asymmetrical information by providing the customer with information (I know it is shocking that there is such a simple solution, but what is even more shocking is that such a solution is rarely used).

Another problem with activist government is that corporations will try to use the political/regulatory sphere to gain either a competitive advantage over competitors, or even an outright transfer of money (a.k.a. corporate welfare). In economics its called rent seeking. The problem is that this kind of activity is often unproductive (i.e. it doesn't result in new commodities or services, but in simply reallocating who has how much of the pie).

So get government out, limit its role to providing information (at best) otherwise keep it out¹.
_____
¹Excepting such things as national defense, a court/legal system, and some other items spelled out in the Constitution.

Kooky Kucinich

Wants to dismantle NAFTA. Isn't that great? Free trade is bad. Cheap labor is a bad thing. (Will we see a Krugman column on this, probably not anything new. Fortunately, there is an old Krugman column that points out the horribleness of Kucinich's idea.)

There are two simple reasons why this is a bad idea.

1. It puts people in countries like Mexico out of work.
2. It raises prices.

Where is the Democratic party on this? Out to lunch if you ask me. Why isn't Kucinich asking these Mexicans if they want their jobs or not? Plus, the increase in prices will affect all people (both north and south of the border).

Now you don't have to have a PhD in economics to know what happens when prices rise. Welfare goes down. (By welfare I am not talking about transfer programs, but about the well being of people). Price increases result in people consuming less goods. This makes people worse off.

On top of this bad policy Kucinich wants to

He wants to slash defense spending, defying influential military contractors who extract billions from the nation's budget.

So just when we are in a war with world wide terrorist organizations he wants to cut spending.

At 56, the four-term congressman sees himself as a bold messenger who is willing to say what others in his party cannot.

Yeah, like he is a kook who believes that chemtrails really are a nefarious plot by the U.S. government against the people of the U.S. He is also worried about mind control devices mounted on orbital platforms.

Hey, maybe he just wants to cut funding for chemtrails and mind control devices (and the particle beams...can't have particle beams).

"This is about reclaiming the American dream," Kucinich said. "I'm going to be the only one in this campaign who takes this issue right to the people."

Yeah, on the Jeff Rense Program.

U.S. Heads for Recovery, Europse Gets Bogged Down

And another article on how the U.S. economy is heading for a recovery, this time from the Taipei Times. (The Bush Family Evil Empire must have a very long reach to be able to spin the Taiwanese media!)

E-mail from Henry Hanks

I often get several e-mails a day from Henry Hanks and I thought, "Hey, I should put them in a post!" So here is today's round up from Henry.

The Big ME

Scroll down to "Dear Jay" for a really sickening quote from Mr. Clinton.

Marshall v. Bevan

Josh Marshall thinks Tom Bevan didn't read his post...

McKinney Whitewash

Brian Carnell takes down a McKinney defender.

Thanks Henry.

Those of you who don't visit Henry's site, I recommend it. Henry works very hard getting lots of links to many news items and stories. He is a valuable source of information, IMO.

Gay Marriage in Canada

Its been in the news alot, and many conservatives have their panties in knots over it. My personal feeling is:

I don't care.

I really don't. You want to get married to somebody of the same sex? Fine, good luck. You want to marry somebody of the opposite sex? Fine, good luck.

Update I: Robert Prather suggests that the government get out of marriage entirely. Well to extent that it treats marriage like most other contracts. Or in Robert's words:

That actually makes perfect sense. A marriage is a contract, though of a different type, and the proper libertarian / conservative position on this would seem to be to get the government out of it altogether. The interested parties would negotiate an agreement -- probably one that is fairly standard and will withstand judicial scrutiny and ill-willed divorce lawyers -- and would be married at signing as far as the government is concerned. For those who place a very high religious value on marriage, they could have a ceremony, as usual, and sign the contract after the religious ceremony is complete. The terms of the contract would represent the sum-total of all the marriage represents legally.

Sounds good to me.

Naivete on the Israel/Palestinian Problem

Jane Finch has a post that suggests the PA, Israel, and the U.S. ignore Hamas and other terrorist groups and just forge ahead with the peace process.

Nevermind that there are strong connections between the PA and some terrorist groups such as the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Lets ignore that this group is connected to Yasser Arafat, a very signficant figure in the PA.

The group, which emerged shortly after the outbreak of the current Palestinian intifada, has carried out operations against Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank and Gaza, and suicide attacks on civilians inside Israel.

Lets also ignore that Hamas doesn't want just a Palestinian state, but the destruction of Israel. Now some might be confused by this part of the link

It also has a long-term aim of establishing an Islamic state on all of historic Palestine - most of which has been contained within Israel's borders since its creation in 1948.

All of historic Palestine would include all of what is now Israel. In other words, a Jewish state in anypart of what is now Israel is unaccetable to them. Did the terrorist Organizations want the destruction of England?

Also consider this in the profile linked above:

And Palestinians of most political persuasions have cheered each new suicide attack carried out by Hamas (and its fellow militants Islamic Jihad and the secular al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade).

Jane's view is incredibly naive and uniformed.

Whoa...The Daily Rant has Changed its Layout

And it looks great. Go on over and check it out. Oh, and give Jane some grief for being a leftie (but be polite!).

Condi Rice as Vice President in 04...

...and as a Candidate in 2008? Could be. If Hillary runs 2008 might just be a cat fight. The post that link takes you too makes a good case, IMO, for Condoleezza Rice as Bush's running mate in 2004. Robert also makes a good case for Rice to run in 2008. I'd be quite pleased to see that the first female, black President is a Republican. It sure would torque off those Democrats.

Think We'll See This on Tim Lambert's Site?

An article at Reason's blog points to some more inaccurate reporting by the NY Times.

The Amazing Mentalist: Bob Somerby

Bob Somerby demonstrates his amazing ability as a mind reader after watching the NewsHour.

LEHRER: Have you read it? You talk like you you’ve read it. BROOKS: I read parts. I stood in the bookstore for about an hour looking at it; I did not buy it.

LEHRER: You went into the bookstore and picked it up and, what, skimmed it?

BROOKS: Simon & Schuster is now canceling my book contract but I have to tell the truth.

“I have to tell the truth,” Brooks said, moments after delivering his phony review—a review which, like all pundit reviews, voiced the press corps’ Key Approved Scripts. Meanwhile, can we ask the obvious question? Does anyone believe, for even a minute, that David Brooks “stood in the bookstore for about an hour” thumbing through the new Clinton book? Let’s face it. When you bend the truth the way this gang does, pretty soon every word from your mouth is a slick confabulation. We sometimes wonder why a man like Lehrer lets these Jayson Blair types on his show.--Emphasis added.

Sure I could believe somebody who would expect to be questioned about the book standing in a bookstore thumbing through it. I don't ever plan on buyin Mrs. Clinton's book. I caught a portion of the Barbara Walters interview and during the questions about Monica Lewinsky I realized there were two possibilities here:

1. Hillary is liar
2. Hillary is a complete fool.

Either way, I wouldn't buy a book by such a person. Now, if I felt people were going to ask me lots of questions about the book I might go down to the local Barnes & Noble and stand around flipping through the book to get a good feel for the book. I can't imagine the book is all that deep or dense, so in an hour or so a person should be able to plough through a big chunk of its 576 pages. Enough to get a good impression on the book at least.

So is this plausible, sure, because I could see myself doing it.

On a seperate note:

BEGALA'S CADDIE: Our entire staff will appear on this afternoon's Crossfire. CNN, 4:30 Eastern.

Does this mean that Somerby is a sell-out?

The Social Security Scam

Ryan McMaken points out what I have been saying quite some time now. Social Security is a welfare program.

Sure it gets slutted up in terms like "retirment security", "a retirement program" and other such nonsense, but when you get right down to it, it is a welfare program.

What is a welfare program? It is (usually) a government program where one group's income is transferred to another group (usually with the government helping itself to a nice chunk of the money as well). This is precisely what Social Security does. It transfers the money from those who are currently working to those who are currently eligible (i.e., retired).

Right now the Social Security system is running a surplus, but if you think that that extra money is sitting around in an account with your name (or more accurately your Social Security Number) on it, you are mistaken. The money just sits there and is often loaned out to the government when there are deficits to help minimize the impact. Eventually that money though will all be gone as the number of baby boomers retire and start drawing Social Security checks.

Not only is a welfare program it is like a pyramid scheme, in that to stop the program you have to designate a generation as "losers". That is suppose a miracle happens and legislation is passed that ends Social Security. If you just stop the payments the current recipients get the shaft. If you end future recipients (i.e., all people beneath a certain age recieve no benefits), then those young people get the shaft, because they will have to keep paying in to pay for those already recieving benefits.

So, given that it is a welfare program where just about everybody will eventually be eligible, and the structure of the program, there is almost no way to get rid of it painlessly.

You can thank Franklin Delano Roosevelt for that one. He's the one who set this program up and he set it up precisely this way so that it would be near impossible to get rid of.

Some Good News on the Employment Front

Jobless claims fell by 13,000 last week.

Initial jobless claims fell by a larger-than-expected 13,000 to a five-week low of 421,000 in the week that ended June 14, the Labor Department said Thursday. The four-week average, which smoothes out weekly fluctuations, also declined -- by 3,000 to 432,000.

This is well over the 5,000 claims decline that Wall Street expected.

Also, the Fed is expected to cut the Federal Funds rate next Tuesday.

More Good News on the Economy

The Conference Board has released that Consumer Confidence is up 2.8%. However there is some bad news in there as well.

The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index, which increased sharply in April, posted a moderate increase in May. The Index now stands at 83.8 (1985=100), up from 81.0 in April. The Expectations Index rose to 94.4 from 84.8. The Present Situation Index, however, fell to 67.9 from 75.2.

Overall looks like several indexes are either change the direction of their trend (we'll have to wait and see if that change holds) or are continuing and upward trend.

Also from the Conference Board, their index of leading economic indicators is up 1%.

• The leading index increased sharply in May following a slight gain in April. This increase was largely due to stock prices, real money supply, and consumer expectations, but most other components also increased slightly. It is possible that these two consecutive increases reflect the beginning of an upward trend, thereby ending the flat trend that began in early 2002.
• The strength in the leading indicators has become more widespread as shown by a pick-up in the diffusion indexes, which measure the proportion of the components that are rising. The one- and six-month diffusion indexes are now at or above fifty percent, up from lower levels earlier in the year.
• The coincident index, a measure of current economic conditions, increased modestly in May after holding steady in the previous two months. The coincident index remained essentially flat in the second quarter, but is likely to increase in the second half of the year reflecting the recent gains in the leading index.

So more evidence that if the recession isn't over, it soon will be.

Recalling Davis

On the left side of the blogosphere there is some discussion of the recall effort for Davis (Gov. of CA). (Click here and here for two examples.)

There are two lines of argument put forward for not recalling Davis, and I personally find them lacking.

1. Democrats will just initiate their own recall effort if a Republican replaces Davis.
2. It wont help the situation with the budget.

My problem with the first one is, I doubt it. There have been, IIRC, 31 recall efforts in the state of CA, virtually every governor has faced one. One of the big things driving this is that Davis' approval ratings are in the tank...no they are beneath the tank.¹ After all the excitement of recalling Davis, I am not convinced that the Democrats are going to mount a successful or even serious drive at a recall of whomever lands in office.

As for the second one, do you always do this with incompetents and bunglers? Suppose you have an employee who messes up a serious account that costs you a major client. Will firing him help get the client back? No?!?!?! Well then why did you fire him? Oh, he was incompetent....

So, even though Davis is the employee of the people of CA, we shouldn't have the right to recall him, i.e., in effect fire him? Have I got this blinding hypocrisy down?

The isssue isn't so much that somebody else will do it better, but that you don't reward the shitheel who basically misled the public on the problem initially.

See here is my problem. The dotcom boom ended...and that meant all the tax revenue from that bubble was going to dry up. But, earlier Davis and his buddies (and yes Republicans too) just spent, spent, and spent. Instead of saying, "Hey, lets be careful, this boom might not last (gee like all booms?), so lets save some of it." No, Davis was there spending, spending, and spending. Now we don't even know what the frigging Hell he and his fellow politicians spent is on. Nobody can seem to find a program they want to cut.

So Davis screwed up. He should have been careful with the spending. He should have thought for just a few minutes at least, "This windfall might not last." But he didn't. He had/has no ability to look forward past his own nose. He has no concept of being somewhat risk averse (well except when it comes to his own political career). He is just plain and simply a bad governor. So people are not happy. For many he was deemed the lesser of two evils in the last election. Now people have a chance to get somebody else and they are going for it. Too bad for Davis, too bad for those whose careers are tied to his. Will the next guy solve this problem? I don't know. However, I think it is pretty much a fact that who ever it is, he can't be any worse than Gray Davis.²

Update I: An interesting article in the LA Times on how the Internet has come back to bite Davis in the butt. Quite ironic. (via InstaPundit)
_____
¹Also another big factor is that this recall drive is well funded.
²For the record, I don't care who replaces Davis, I just want his sorry ass out of Sacramento (preferably the state as well, but I don't think that can be arranged).

Metallica Rethinks File Sharing?

That is what it looks like in this article. Further, it looks like the original position by the band, as put forward by Lars Ulrich, was stupid.

In July of 2000, the band’s drummer, Danish-born Lars Ulrich, appeared before Congress to testify against the menace of unauthorized file sharing, saying, “It’s clear, then, that if music is free for downloading, the music industry is not viable; all the jobs … will be lost and the diverse voices of the artists will disappear.”

Only if the music industry is allowed to continue with its monopoly pricing. Would your typical person download music and burn it to a CD if CD's cost $5 instead of $15 on up? I doubt it. The store bought CD is going to be better quality both in terms of the CD (it'll last longer than the cheap bundle of CDs you buy at the local Best Buy), and you wont have to spend time making sure all the songs you download are complete and work (lets also skip over the fixed costs of having a CD burner and a computer in the first place, and lets also skip over the fact that you'll also likely need some sort of broad band connection).

A price of $5 certainly wouldn't allow the record industry to keep going like it has been (living basically off of economic profits due to its monopoly on various songs), but the idea that the music industry would disappear is ridiculous. After all classical music CDs sell for about that much.

Basically the Music industry is fighting for its monopoly profits. Now, this isn't a bad thing in that without some sort of compensation the artists wouldn't come up with music, books, etc. (or at least less of it). However, here is the thing: artists don't get the money, it goes to the recording companies.

Plus we have this interesting tid bit of news. Pearl Jam is dumping Epic Records and is going to release the new songs on the internet. Why not. They don't get much money from the sales of albums. They make their money off of touring. All they need is some entrepenuer to come along and say, "Hey, how about you let me make commercial CDs for you, we'll sell them for $4.95 and we can all make some money?" Metallica is big like Pearl Jam, they could go this route as well. I bet there wouldn't be any change at all in their concert attendance.

This is what scares the recording industry. Losing their monopoly profits.

Is Orin Hatch a Dim Bulb...

...or what? Destroying people's computers? What next, summary execution for speeding violations?

Well I guess we know who funds Orin Hatch.

Means Testing?

Jay has a post about Means Testing for Social Security. He points out the following:

What is it about means testing Social Security and Medicare that gives people the shakes? As Jane and Thomas Sowell (I'm still recovering from the shock on that one) agree, why should senior citizens be guaranteed free medication when many seniors can surely afford it?

A good question. Well, they shouldn't. However, means testing is not without its problems.

Basically means testing discourages savings. To some extent savings is nothing more than future consumption. That is, you put off consumption today for more consumption tomorrow. If you find out that a chunk of your savings is going to get gobbled up by paying for presecription drugs and that you could get the government to pay for your prescription drugs provided you didn't have such large savings....why not spend it now? You'll still have your prescription drugs when you need them, and you can take a Eurpean vacation right now (not when you are retired). Looks like a win/win situation to me.

Now, before people get confused things I am not saying:

1. I am not saying this will drive savings to zero, but that it might (will, IMO) reduce savings
2. Means testing might still be a good idea
3. I don't want to kill the elderly.

NBER on the Recession

This press release by NBER sounds very much like the press release in December 2002 which announced the end of the 1990/91 recession, with the major difference being, NBER is not announcing the end of the recession.

The bright spots are that real personal income has increased (not alot, but an increase none the less), GDP has increased and in December of 2001 had surpassed its previous hige in December of 2000.

Unemployment/employment is still a concern though as it has been steadily declining, and most macro economists think it will decline some more in the next few months.

In 2002 and early 2003, indicators measuring output and income generally have been rising, while employment was essentially constant through January 2003 and then declined sharply through April. The main reason for the more favorable performance of income and production relative to employment is the continuation of rapid productivity growth.

If the Democrats are hoping for a weak economy to be their ticket to the White House and possibly control of both chambers of Congress...they might want to find a new issue.

Truck and Barter on Herbert Spencer

A nice post on some of Herbert Spencer's views. (Since this is blogger, the permalink might not work so try this link and look for Herbert Spencer.)

One of the Spencer quotes is:

While in some respects we may envy posterity, we may in one respect pity them. This disappearance of remnants and traces of earlier forms of life, intrinsically picturesque as well as picturesque by association, will deprive them of much poetry which now relieves the prose of life. Everywhere it is the same. Egypt, made like Europe by railways, steamboats, and hotels scattered along the Nile, will soon cease to excite the feelings proper to its antiquity. Modernized Rome is losing all likeness to Rome as it was even fifty years ago. And here around us the romance of the past is being extinguished by the dull realities of the present. Of course we shall bequeath many remains of existing civilization; but it may well be doubted whether they will be as interesting as those which old times have bequeathed to us.

It is true, things change, but this is always true. Not much we can do about it. Also, just because one person sees a loss of something significant does not mean that others wont see the rise of something new and significant.

For example, the Chinatown in Los Angeles my wife, son and I visit is probably considerably different than Chinatown 50 years ago. Is this bad? I guess it depends on the individual. Now there are many Vietnamese shops and restaurants. Personally I see this as a good thing. I love Vietnamese food (I like Chinese food too, I just prefer Vietnamese). So for me I see these changes not as something horrible or to get maudlin about, but something good.

Bartcop's Lying Gif

Look at that one carefully. Where is the lie? Well it has Bill Clinton down as being President in 1992. Clearly not true. Now, is it anywonder some people think that Cliton put the economy back on track and lowered unemployment?

The real answer is the economy was already in an expansionary phase, and unemployment peaked under Bush 41 and declined. By the time Clinton got into office he only had to ensure the economy did not get off track.

Oh well, what else would you expect from Bartcop.com, the truth?

The Recession is Over?

Maybe. That is what this article is indicating.

STANFORD UNIVERSITY ECONOMIST Robert Hall, chairman of the National Bureau of Economic Research committee, declined to comment on the panel’s deliberations but suggested that a reporter “stay tuned” for a pending announcement on its Web site.

Jeffrey Frankel of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, another committee member, said there is a “pretty strong case” that the recession ended in late 2001 and that the economy is in “expansion mode.”

Doesn't look too good for the Democrats if they were hoping to beat on the economy to gain the White House and pick up some seats in the Senate and House.

Economists who study business cycles generally agree that the recession, which officially began in March 2001, ended late that year or early in 2002. After two quarters of shrinking economic output, the U.S. economy has been growing for seven straight quarters, assuming, as most forecasters do, that gross domestic product has continued to expand in the current period, which ends June 30.

This is true. If you go to the Bureau of Economic Analysis' website (link over there on the right) you'll see that this is true. Growth hasn't been great, but it has been positive.

Still, Bush isn't completely out of the woods. He needs to pump up the growth rate over 3% to get unemployment to come down. So far sustaining growth above 3% has been problematic to say the least.

Bush is basically looking at a recovery very similar to the one his father had in 1991/92. Fortunately for Bush it is earlier on in his Presidency so he is less likely to be vulnerable to attacks on a weak economy.

For those who think this is just political spin, sorry but

Frankel and the others on the panel are well aware that economic forecasters on Wall Street and in academia generally agree that the recession is long over, but the Business Cycle Dating Committee’s mandate is not to be fast, but definitive, he said.

Any Port in a Storm

Josh Marshall has decided that there is some credibility to the AMETS/fermentation/hydrogen filled weather balloon story. I guess when your world view is about to face a challenge instead of facing the challenge and seeing if your world view needs some modification....you go with a completely kooky explanation. Way to go Josh m'boy, keep sticking that head in the sand.

Update on Stateless Communism

A few days ago I did my usual, stroll through DU and post some stuff that is interestingly stupid at DU. One thread I noted was this one.

Now the thread starter, mind_cemetary, asks

Who the fuck is "Steve Verdon"?

I've never heard of nor spoke to him before. Why is some guy whom I've never met mentioning my name on a website that I've never even been to?

Well mind_cemetary, I am me. That settles your first question. As for why I selected that thread I thought it was an interesting example of shallow thinking about economic issues from those on the extreme left. How can I do this? You have posted your comments on a publicly visible discussion board. Why do I do this? Because it amuses me.

Now I'd post a response there, but I'd likely get banned right away and have my post deleted. That is S.O.P. for DU. The idea of debate with the other side is not what DU is about.

Court Rules 9/11 Detainees Names Can Be Withheld

I'm sure some will see this as the rise of the Fourth Reich.

Here is the courts reasoning (in short...and assuming the reporter is summarizing accurately):

The court affirmed that the information can properly be withheld from the public under an existing exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. That provision exempts information from disclosure if it is compiled for law enforcement purposes and if revealing it "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.

Now before people go all atwitter over this consider this portion of the article.

The appeals panel, however, went further in Tuesday's ruling, permitting the Bush administration to withhold from public disclosure of even the names of the foreigners and the names of their lawyers.

These individuals do seem to have lawyers, so it isn't like they have been thrown into a deep dark dank cell some place and forgotten about.

Ahhhh, I knew I could count on Democratic Underground. Some great stuff from the Lunatic Asylum (comments in italics are from the article).

Who's gonna obey the "law" as interpreted by witchfinder Ashcroft? American extreme RW Taliban in DoJ has plans for torture and truth serums in pursuing it's vision of "justice" in the Crusade. They {Straussians} will come for US if they aren't stopped now by US.

Kucinich 2004.
--bobthedrummer

He added: "A complete list of names informing terrorists of every suspect detained by the government at any point during the September 11 investigation would give terrorist organizations a composite picture of the government investigation, and since these organizations would generally know the activities and locations of its members on or about September 11, disclosure would inform terrorists of both the substantive and geographic focus of the investigation."

You know, even if some of people being detained are real, honest-to-goodness al Qaeda bad guys, I'll bet Osama has a pretty good idea where they are already.

Sentelle wrote that judges are "in an extremely poor position to second-guess the executive's judgment in this area of national security."

Oh really? That means that all the * admin has to do is label anything as a national security issue, and it's magically beyond our scrutiny. It's kind of like "controversy laundering".

Now that we've seen how utterly false were the admin's claims on WMD and the "imminent threat" of Saddam, I think we have PLENTY of reason to second-guess anything the * cabal says on national security.
--priller

Regarding the notion that all the Bush Administration has to do is label everything national security and get the courts to look the other way is of course, typical of the lunatic asylum mindset. What the Bush Administration would have to do is convince the courts that whatever issue is before the court is a national security issue, and then the court will likely defer to the Executive Branch as that is their area. Now, this is not carte blanch, but it does give the Executive some power in this area...which it probably should have.

Of course expecting rational discourse from people who stopped taking their lithium is expecting alot.

P.S. By the way Barney, did you get tomb stoned for posting my earlier post? The tend to do that there at DU.

Who Believes this Crud?

From the Observer

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist. --emphasis added

Yes, that is precisely what those trucks were for. For coming up with a fementation process for creating hydrogen.

Nevermind that it'd probably be far, far cheaper and efficient to just mount some cannisters of hydrogen on a truck.

So some questions (courtesy of DaveL at Debunkers):

1. What fermentation process produces hydrogen gas?
2. How much gas is produced (lb H2 / day / gallon of fermenting goo)?
3. How much nutrients are consumed (lb nutrient / lb H2 produced)
4. Is the product gas pure, or does it need to have contaminants removed?

Also, is there any military in the world that actually uses similar trucks for a similar purpose?

The revelation that the mobile labs were to produce hydrogen for artillery balloons will also cause discomfort for the British authorities because the Iraqi army's original system was sold to it by the British company, Marconi Command & Control.

Uhhh...okay. Then why not call up Marconi Command & Control and ask them if they have such trucks. Why not tell us what other countries use such trucks.

Is the Observer the UK's version of The Weekly World News?

Update I: SteveMG posts this link in the comments.

Prime Minister John Howard says an Australian intelligence organisation, the Office of National Assessments, has advised him that at least one mobile laboratory found in Iraq was used to produce biological weapons.

Must be an example of the conservative bias in the media.

Update II: This link form GlobalResearch.com indicates that these mobile...errr...units have fermenation tanks.

Other experts who have examined the evidence agree and have cast doubt over the Bush administration's assertions. They argue that the lack of any trace of pathogens found in the fermentation tanks, the use of canvas sides on vehicles where technicians would be working with dangerous germ cultures, and the lack of an autoclave for steam sterilization all provide credence to the Iraqi argument that the labs were merely used for artillery balloons.

Why would an AMETS system need a fermentation tank? To make booze? The idea of using fermentation to create hydrogen for weather balloons is just bravo sierra.

Here is the U.S. version. Its acronym is IMETS (Integrated Meteorological System). Nothing there about fermentation, guess us stupid Americans don't know what the latest technology is.

Here is the AFAMS (Field Artillery Meteorology System). Note this part:

By using Enhanced Tube Loading system easy unloading/loading facility for Helium tubes and Hydrogen Generator

Idiots, don't they know the cutting edge way to do this is to use fermentation?

Basically the presence of fermentation tanks makes this find extremely likely to have been part of bioweaposn unit of some sort. You just don't use fermentation to get hydrogen for use in weather balloons. It is that simple.

Here are what the U.S. IMETS trucks look like.

Here is the AFAMS:

Maybe if we could get a picture of what these AMETS systems look like. Are they semi-trailers? Going over rough terrain following self-propelled artillery (i.e. things with tracks that let them go just about anywhere)?

Atrios Needs to do Some Fact Checking

Atrios reports on a pipe bomb explosion here in S. CA. The person who had the pipe bomb was in the back of a strip mall. (News article)

Perhaps Atrios doesn't live in Southern California, but strip malls can be small little affairs with 4 or 5 shops or they can be big things with dozens of shops. Further, Sanchez' office is in the strip mall. It is not immediately clear from the article Atrios links too the size of the strip mall or exactly where the person was parked.

Now it is possible that this was directed at Sanchez, but the police are doing the right thing at the moment and not jumping to a conlusion...unlike Atrios.

Atrios' commenters are a real hoot too:

Yeah the money is on Dornan as the bomber. Th guy is a real nut case and religou fanatic to boot.

He can't get over the fact that O.C. residents got sick of his stupidity and voted him out.
--rodger

Imagine how much press this would get if the bomb blew up outside Arnold "The Next Governor of California" Schwarzenegger's office. But it's no news since it was just a small pipe bomb in front of some Democratic spic congresswoman. Nothing to see here . . .
--ajc

Look Out the Europeans are Getting Tough Now

The EU Ministers are hinting that Hamas might face sanctions if it doesn't reconsider a cease fire. Wow, I bet this has those Hamas guys just quacking in their boots.

EU sanctions would not only entail an assets-freeze and other measures to make life difficult for the organisation, but would also be political blow, limiting their ability to take a formal role in further negotiations.

Yes, I'm sure that a group that sees suicide bombing as part of its negotiating strategy would see this as a set back.

Update I: Gee, guess this didn't scare those Hamas guys. Maybe we should send some French to the Gaza Strip and West Bank to be snooty to the Palestinians. That'll really show them.

Junk Science?

Brockovich and Masry are filing a law suit alleging wrongful death against...well against lots of entities. Chevron-Texaco, Frontier Oil, Venoco Oil, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the city of Beverly Hills. Apparently the lawsuit is based on claims that an ail rig on the school's grounds is putting out unsafe levels of chemicals such as benzene.

I don't know how this works, but it would be nice if the courts worked as follows.

1. Showed that the levels of chemicals differs significantly from the local air quality
2. The number of cancer deaths is large in a statistical sense.

Failing to meet these two criteria means the lawsuit is dismissed.

The AQMD has been monitoring the levels of various pollutants in the area and indacte they are within the normal range.

Davis Recall

Looks like the effort to recall Gray Davis has a good chance of succeeding.

Perhaps if Davis wasn't such a weasel.

Bush Caused the Recession?

Well this graph of leading economic indicators says that isn't quite true.

(Click on the graph to s