American health-care act

[jkudler]

well, your best of 2009 list is disproportionally non-american (link)

Touché I guess. Though I'm not totally convinced it's that out of proportion. Fewer American releases on the list but wouldn't you observe there are also FAR fewer American releases in general in the relevant area of music? Lots of great players, lots of great concerts, not a lot of commercial documentation.

1 - joe is right that falling into this line of argument kinda misses the point (and in that respect, i sorta regret digging up your list)
2 - still, the above is kinda exactly to my point

[RFKorp]

well, your best of 2009 list is disproportionally non-american (link)

Touché I guess. Though I'm not totally convinced it's that out of proportion. Fewer American releases on the list but wouldn't you observe there are also FAR fewer American releases in general in the relevant area of music? Lots of great players, lots of great concerts, not a lot of commercial documentation.

1 - joe is right that falling into this line of argument kinda misses the point (and in that respect, i sorta regret digging up your list)
2 - still, the above is kinda exactly to my point

So we don't need to discuss it further. But I thought I preemptively made this clear in my responses to Joe before: releasing records has zilch to do with creating worthwhile music.

[jkudler]

yeah, i don't really care about records vs. live or whatever - my point was simply that living a life devoted to art is extraordinarily hard in this country, a fact that maybe would be more salient looking over concert listings or best of lists in this very forum.

[faster]

living a life devoted to art

Just for the record: this is not something I endorse.

[jkudler]

it's something i feel extraordinarily ambivalent about myself, and perhaps i am over-focusing on music/art because of the forum, but i think you also see my greater point.

[jon abbey]

i know you don't like krugman, jon (though of course i have no idea why), but a friend pointed out to me earlier his dismantling of this op-ed:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... nder-vile/

as far as i can see, his reasoning is pretty airtight.

maybe, but he only addresses two of the points, and not the main one, which is that we're somehow going to magically cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare and channel it elsewhere. good luck with that.

anyway, my point wasn't whether this will save money or it won't save money, my point is that no one, including the CBO, has any idea whether it will or won't. they can say they do, but they don't. I note you didn't address my other post about the wildly and hilariously inaccurate CBO forecasts from 2008.

(ps, he's sanguine on deficits too: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... rief-note/)

uh huh, revisit that one in a decade and see whether he's right or not. the only thing keeping us from iceland/greece status right now is our size, not our debt ratios. too big to fail, that's the new US motto.

[jon abbey]

and since you want to talk about the economy...

tax receipts could really shoot up suddenly with a recovery, for example.

hahahahaha. don't hold your breath waiting on this, my man. I don't know if you don't get or don't want to admit how deeply fucked our economy is, but tax receipts aren't "shooting up suddenly" anytime in the next decade, and I'd say two decades is a pretty safe bet too. almost 7 million jobs have been lost since Sept 08, those aren't coming back anytime soon, if ever. debt at every level just keeps going up, and the only thing keeping the whole house of cards together is the government taking on more and more and more debt and responsibilities as their tax base shrinks. states are fucked, cities are fucked, companies are fucked, many individuals are fucked. the stock market is again a bubble waiting to pop, with wiser individuals once again plundering all they can before it does. I'm just glad I don't have kids.

[jkudler]

maybe, but he only addresses two of the points, and not the main one, which is that we're somehow going to magically cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare and channel it elsewhere. good luck with that.

it's not "magic," it's via specific cuts to medicare payments (mostly medicare advantage), along with a bunch of programs meant to reduce waste and be more efficient. i will grant that these are more uncertain, but i don't see why that uncertainly only has to go in one direction.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... gislation/

anyway, my point wasn't whether this will save money or it won't save money, my point is that no one, including the CBO, has any idea whether it will or won't. they can say they do, but they don't. I note you didn't address my other post about the CBO forecasts from 2008.

yes i did.

while it's true that the CBO score has to be necessarily based on specific assumptions (rosy GDP estimates were because they can't, for reasons i hope should be obvious, predict 'black swan' type events like the collapse of lehman and subsequent implosion), and i'm sure there was some accounting trickery, but that can also work the other way, where there is unexpected savings or revenue. tax receipts could really shoot up suddenly with a recovery, for example.

my point is that the CBO got late 2008-09 so wrong because pretty much nobody was modeling based on an unprecedented, once-in-a-generation type of event. you can say they are idiots, but policy simply can't be made based on extreme possibilities.

-jesse

[jkudler]

and since you want to talk about the economy...

not really, and especially not with you.

tax receipts could really shoot up suddenly with a recovery, for example.

hahahahaha. don't hold your breath waiting on this, my man. I don't know if you don't get or don't want to admit how deeply fucked our economy is, but tax receipts aren't "shooting up suddenly" anytime in the next decade, and I'd say two decades is a pretty safe bet too. almost 7 million jobs have been lost since Sept 08, those aren't coming back anytime soon, if ever. debt at every level just keeps going up, and the only thing keeping the whole house of cards together is the government taking on more and more and more debt and responsibilities as their tax base shrinks. states are fucked, cities are fucked, companies are fucked, many individuals are fucked. the stock market is again a bubble waiting to pop, with wiser individuals once again plundering all they can before it does. I'm just glad I don't have kids.

i know you love this kinda talk, but the patronizing tone ("I don't know if you don't get or don't want to admit") is pretty hard to bear from someone who doesn't believe in economics, doesn't read the front section of the paper or pay attention to the new or politics, and was fretting pretty hard about the dow in fall of 2008 (it's since recovered quite a bit), and didn't think obama could win in october of 2008. your repeated point that "uncertainty exists" is fairly tedious and not helpful.

obviously, the economy is still in very bad shape, jobs are a MAJOR issue, we have political gridlock, and there is potential restructuring and realignment for many years to come. i don't think that necessarily negates or invalidates keynesianism, though ("the only thing keeping the whole house of cards together is the government taking on more and more and more debt and responsibilities as their tax base shrinks."). but my main point is, i think we can afford to do health care reform.

anyways, i'll stop posting on this thread. i was trying to answer stephen's initial question, and he seems long ago to have been chased away. . .

-jesse

[jon abbey]

my point is that the CBO got late 2008-09 so wrong because pretty much nobody was modeling based on an unprecedented, once-in-a-generation type of event. you can say they are idiots, but policy simply can't be made based on extreme possibilities.

there was no 'unprecedented, once-in-a-generation type of event', jesse. that's katrina, or a tsunami, or some other event that's impossible to foresee. what happened here was a collapse of a bubble, leading to more bubble collapses. roubini foresaw it, even your boy krugman has been out of the markets for the last decade. there's absolutely no reason to believe future CBO forecasts would be any more correct than those, shit always happens.

[jon abbey]

i know you love this kinda talk, but the patronizing tone ("I don't know if you don't get or don't want to admit") is pretty hard to bear from someone who doesn't believe in economics, doesn't read the front section of the paper or pay attention to the new or politics, and was fretting pretty hard about the dow in fall of 2008 (it's since recovered quite a bit), and didn't think obama could win in october of 2008. your repeated point that "uncertainty exists" is fairly tedious and not helpful.

I don't 'love it', it's just the way it is. you started the patronizing talk ("i can't say "the sun will rise tomorrow" "). yes, the dow hasn't collapsed but that's just the latest bubble, it's not real value. and what I said about obama was "I'll believe it when I see it". the american people were a bit smarter than I thought possible, although they've gone right back to stupidity ever since. as for not believing in economics, how many books have come out in the last couple of years written by economists ridiculing their own profession? I was early on that bandwagon.

and, yes, I've given up reading your beloved new york times even though I have three friends writing there, but somehow I still knew enough to question a CBO estimate and google the facts to confirm my doubts in a few minutes. maybe you need to read less and think more? (yeah, that's obnoxious, but you're the one trying to make it personal)

but my main point is, i think we can afford to do health care reform.

and I never argued this, just your rubber stamping of the CBO numbers.

[Vincent Kargatis]

i know you don't like krugman, jon (though of course i have no idea why), but a friend pointed out to me earlier his dismantling of this op-ed:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... nder-vile/

as far as i can see, his reasoning is pretty airtight.

Unsurprisingly, there are counter-arguments to that post of Krugman's.

[washline]

hahahahaha. don't hold your breath waiting on this, my man. I don't know if you don't get or don't want to admit how deeply fucked our economy is, but tax receipts aren't "shooting up suddenly" anytime in the next decade, and I'd say two decades is a pretty safe bet too. almost 7 million jobs have been lost since Sept 08, those aren't coming back anytime soon, if ever. debt at every level just keeps going up, and the only thing keeping the whole house of cards together is the government taking on more and more and more debt and responsibilities as their tax base shrinks. states are fucked, cities are fucked, companies are fucked, many individuals are fucked. the stock market is again a bubble waiting to pop, with wiser individuals once again plundering all they can before it does. I'm just glad I don't have kids.

Here. Here. I'm in total agreement on this. Well said, depressing though it is. I heard it was 11 million jobs. Either way. An enormous, probably insurmountable loss.

[jon abbey]

I heard it was 11 million jobs.

it certainly might be, the official unemployment numbers stop counting people who have given up. and that's of course not counting the innumerable ones who have settled for way shittier jobs than they should have just to have something/anything...

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

this brings to mind a favorite quote:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

-Anatole France

Likewise:

"...qu’entre le fort et le faible, entre le riche et le pauvre, entre le maître et le serviteur, c’est la liberté qui opprime, et la loi qui affranchit."

In English that would be something like "between the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, the master and the servant, it's liberty that oppresses and the law that liberates".


Sidenote. Apparently the quote goes on with "Le droit est l’épée des grands, le devoir est le bouclier des petits.", not sure what to think of that last part ("obligation is the shield of the small/poor/..."), depends on how one interprets "le devoir".

[jkudler]

i know you don't like krugman, jon (though of course i have no idea why), but a friend pointed out to me earlier his dismantling of this op-ed:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... nder-vile/

as far as i can see, his reasoning is pretty airtight.

Unsurprisingly, there are counter-arguments to that post of Krugman's.

i really do want to be done with this thread, though let me just add i am surprised how many people here seem to embrace conservative talking points and conservative (phd from chicago) economists. this whole thread has been pretty eye-opening.

-jesse

[washline]

i really do want to be done with this thread, though let me just add i am surprised how many people here seem to embrace conservative talking points and conservative (phd from chicago) economists. this whole thread has been pretty eye-opening.

That's because things don't always break down so nicely between liberal and conservative perspectives, that the ongoing fault line between democrats and republicans is more political theatre than substantive difference, and because some folks are noticing we are living in a moment of extraordinary crisis where not even Keynesian solutions will be sufficient to solve the problem, not while the Fed is massively loading the banks with trillions in liquidity, which they are using to buy government securities rather than lending. Being persuaded by an argument from a Chicago economist doesn't mean that one's endorsing Friedman's economics. Krugman believes that it's better to support a health insurance bill with some bad provisions in the present so that better solutions can be adopted later. We'll see if that kind of optimism holds up.

[Jesse]

Great post, Bill, the Middle Way!