Whirlwind
Well, between getting badly sick and ending up with pneumonia for the first time since I was a kid, and the maelstrom that is January I haven't posted for a while. Of course, the world continues on without me, even if I'm stuck in my house for a week staring at the mess I just coughed up which I can only assume is my lungs.
A couple things have come up recently that I think are worth note. First, the mad rush to put out an "economic stimulus" package. This sort of thing always drives me crazy. The last time the government tried this after 2001 I didn't make enough money to qualify for a rebate in the first round, and in the second round I got a check for $12. That's right, twelve dollars. It probably cost the government twice that to do the calculations, cut me the check, and mail it to me.
This time around I stand to get a bit more, my economic prospects having improved significantly since then. But is it any more of a good idea now than then? There's a fundamental problem with the entire concept. That is, the assumption that 1) people will spend that money, and 2) that spending that money will help stimulate the economy. On the first point, I imagine most people are like me and have a lot of debt that they'd like to pay down. So there goes number one: the money was already spent.
For number two, I commend to you Robert Reich's comments on the matter. Basically, it's silly to think that lowering the cost of investing will make people invest if there's no demand for what the companies you're investing in are producing. And right now, there is no demand because we're all up to our eyeballs in debt. This is exactly the problem with cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations. If the rich have more money they don't spend it because they already have everything they want. And if there's no demand for products they won't invest it either. We're throwing more money at people who don't need it, so they sit on it and watch it gain interest in securities and futures, none of which helps the economy right now.
The other thing on my mind right now is the Democratic primaries. First, I was extremely disappointed at the sniping between Obama and Clinton earlier this month. I was especially disappointed that it seemed to be the Clinton camp that originated the sniping. This just confirmed my worst fears that Clinton falls into the old-school camp of politics and mudslinging as usual. And as someone once said, the only thing that comes of mudslinging is that everyone gets covered in mud. To my mind this is another reason why we as Democrats shouldn't support Clinton for the presidency. It's not because she's not qualified, but it's because she will turn the presidential race into even more divisive politics as usual. Several people have said that the best hope the Republicans have is Clinton running for president. This worries me very much, and I think that the Democrats need to think about that very carefully.
But the other disappointment I have about the Democratic primaries is the tone things have taken now that Edwards is out of the race. Suddenly it seems that only women and blacks should be interested in the race at all. Even NPR, which I normally consider to be a voice of reason and moderation, said that it's now an open question where white men will vote now that Edwards is out.
First of all, this is just silly given the numbers that Edwards was putting up. If white men were voting for Edwards he would have put up better numbers, because there are still quite a few of us out there. But much more disturbing to me is the assumption that I'm voting based on the candidate's gender or color. I'm sure there are some out there who do, but I think the fact that Obama and Clinton are the front-runners is a very good indication that it no longer matters to us. Speaking as a white man who supported Obama from the beginning, race and gender have never been and never will be a factor in whom I vote for, unless it's voting against someone for whom it is a factor.
So what ties this all together? I guess it's that we all need to move beyond those ideas which have died the death they deserve. Supply-side economics was shown to not work back when Reagan led us into massive debt and the worst recession in recent memory. And race and gender have become increasingly unimportant to those of us who grew up in the post-civil rights era. All the hard work of the 60s and 70s paid off, and we're closer now to realizing Dr. King's dream than ever before.
A couple things have come up recently that I think are worth note. First, the mad rush to put out an "economic stimulus" package. This sort of thing always drives me crazy. The last time the government tried this after 2001 I didn't make enough money to qualify for a rebate in the first round, and in the second round I got a check for $12. That's right, twelve dollars. It probably cost the government twice that to do the calculations, cut me the check, and mail it to me.
This time around I stand to get a bit more, my economic prospects having improved significantly since then. But is it any more of a good idea now than then? There's a fundamental problem with the entire concept. That is, the assumption that 1) people will spend that money, and 2) that spending that money will help stimulate the economy. On the first point, I imagine most people are like me and have a lot of debt that they'd like to pay down. So there goes number one: the money was already spent.
For number two, I commend to you Robert Reich's comments on the matter. Basically, it's silly to think that lowering the cost of investing will make people invest if there's no demand for what the companies you're investing in are producing. And right now, there is no demand because we're all up to our eyeballs in debt. This is exactly the problem with cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations. If the rich have more money they don't spend it because they already have everything they want. And if there's no demand for products they won't invest it either. We're throwing more money at people who don't need it, so they sit on it and watch it gain interest in securities and futures, none of which helps the economy right now.
The other thing on my mind right now is the Democratic primaries. First, I was extremely disappointed at the sniping between Obama and Clinton earlier this month. I was especially disappointed that it seemed to be the Clinton camp that originated the sniping. This just confirmed my worst fears that Clinton falls into the old-school camp of politics and mudslinging as usual. And as someone once said, the only thing that comes of mudslinging is that everyone gets covered in mud. To my mind this is another reason why we as Democrats shouldn't support Clinton for the presidency. It's not because she's not qualified, but it's because she will turn the presidential race into even more divisive politics as usual. Several people have said that the best hope the Republicans have is Clinton running for president. This worries me very much, and I think that the Democrats need to think about that very carefully.
But the other disappointment I have about the Democratic primaries is the tone things have taken now that Edwards is out of the race. Suddenly it seems that only women and blacks should be interested in the race at all. Even NPR, which I normally consider to be a voice of reason and moderation, said that it's now an open question where white men will vote now that Edwards is out.
First of all, this is just silly given the numbers that Edwards was putting up. If white men were voting for Edwards he would have put up better numbers, because there are still quite a few of us out there. But much more disturbing to me is the assumption that I'm voting based on the candidate's gender or color. I'm sure there are some out there who do, but I think the fact that Obama and Clinton are the front-runners is a very good indication that it no longer matters to us. Speaking as a white man who supported Obama from the beginning, race and gender have never been and never will be a factor in whom I vote for, unless it's voting against someone for whom it is a factor.
So what ties this all together? I guess it's that we all need to move beyond those ideas which have died the death they deserve. Supply-side economics was shown to not work back when Reagan led us into massive debt and the worst recession in recent memory. And race and gender have become increasingly unimportant to those of us who grew up in the post-civil rights era. All the hard work of the 60s and 70s paid off, and we're closer now to realizing Dr. King's dream than ever before.
Comments
I mean I agree the sub-prime lenders who engaged in fraud should be prosecuted and their victims compensated, but otherwise I think homebuyers should pay for -- and learn from -- their mistakes.
The same might be said about Washington's current economic ministrations. The nation is now nursing a seriously skinned knee because of reckless housing and credit practices. But rather than force consumers, borrowers, and bankers to face the consequences of their own actions, Washington is functioning as a helicopter parent. Harvard economist Ricardo Hausmann, who characterized America as a "whiner of first resort," believes the rush to stimulus is being led more by a concern for Wall Street than a concern for Main Street. Rather than take their lumps after several years of exceptional returns, the banks are furiously lobbying for help. They're getting it.