Bush League
Did anyone notice that George W. Bush made his big pitch on
social security privatization on a
day that the Dow-Jones average plummeted 128 points? After a solid month or two
of similar plunges?
Little wonder Dubya put the emphasis of his prime time appearance on some mumbo-jumbo about tilting a reformed system toward low-income workers. Didn't seem like the best of moments to tell his audience how exciting it would be to have a portion of its retirement future tumble before its very eyes. ("Mildred, honey, I was planning to retire next month but now I should wait out the quarterly earning reports and hope the market will rebound — or not."). [Note from webmaster: Don't bother waiting. Retire now and put your nest egg on number 18 red. It's as good a bet as the Dow].
I'm not going to dignify the President's cheap populism with any serious commentary, simply because I don't take him or his proposal seriously. The Bush social security plan is but a rotting carcass and Thursday night's mediocre performance by the Prez did nothing to save it. Time to formally trash it.
Sorry to bring this up, but listening to Bush defend this plan, defend John Bolton, defend his conduct of the war in Iraq and defend himself — with his popularity now slumping at 45% or so — I couldn't help but wonder, as I often do, what it might be like if we lived in a country where there was a real opposition party. You know, one with clear, sharp new ideas and convincing, persuasive leaders.
If we had such a thing, political pipsqueaks like Dubya would be driven quickly from the scene. Hardly the case, is it?
An eerily similar situation here in California where the Governator — whose own popularity is falling faster than a speeding bullet -- now seems prone to making at least one big political mistake per news cycle. His latest screw-up came Thursday afternoon when he told one of the loonier L.A. radio talk shows that he supports the screwball Minuteman Project , which collapsed two weeks before its goal of blockading the border for a full month. Schwarzenegger has blown a once-in-a-century opportunity to reform the state's political system and has morphed, almost overnight, from super-hero to bumbling, rudderless, political novice.
Arnold's fall can be credited, in great measure, to his ill-fated tangling with what is in effect a small union. They happen to be nurses and nurses happen to be quite popular and Arnold boasting a few months ago that he kicked their butts has backfired into his own prolonged ass-whupping. Like Bush, Arnold would be dead meat if the Democrats only had a brain. Or in California's case, a credible candidate for next year. That, apparently, is too much to ask for.
April 28th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
“Schwarzenegger has blown a once-in-a-century opportunity to reform the state’s political system and has morphed, almost overnight, from super-hero to bumbling, rudderless, political novice.”
Who knew ?
Oh, yeah…most of us who recognized the recall election as a sham and Arnold as an empty, overblown fraud. I’m sitting here trying to figure out what the “once-in-a-century opportunity” was – other than for comedy writers.
April 28th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
This is entirely realpolitik green dem speaking, and not particularly what I’d like to see happen, but this is a real populist moment, and if Schwarzenegger were to combine a strong rhetorical stance against illegal immigration (which is sadly the real reason Californians remain so averse to tax increases) with a bold and wide reaching plan for universal health care, significant increases in education spending (both for k-12 and higher ed), and a big investment in public transit statewide he’d go down as a legendary figure in California political history. It look though like he has every intention of squandering this op, and demagoging illegals in the silly hope that it will score him more backing for a hard-right economic agenda that few in the state support.
April 28th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
So George says we’re gonna “take people who would harm us out of harms way”.
That’s…not what he meant, right? Right?
April 28th, 2005 at 10:35 pm
News flash! The Dem’s will never try to kick Arnies butt because they are in the same pockets of big corporations that he is in.
April 28th, 2005 at 11:45 pm
Reg.. Im not being nasty… but if u dont know by now Im hardly gonna convince u in a blog posting. When the recall took place the state was $40 billion in the red and the legitimacy of both the governor and the legislator had collapsed. It’s hardly a “sham” when a recall election elicits a record turnout of voters and sparks one of the best political debates in recent state history. Arnold’s oppty was to use his emormous personal popularity to do a Nixon-goes-to-China and reform the state’s political system, much as the legendary Hiram Johnson did earlier in our history. There was enormous bi-partisan support for him to do that, to clip the wings of special interests, and he has squandered that chance. I can think of almost no one around me who yearns for the good old days of pay-to-play Gray Davis. Arnold has also raised an obscene amount of money from special interests. That now puts him on a par with the rest of the political establishment. His failure is nothing to celebrate because it leaves us in the same money-rotten political sewer that his predescessors have immersed us in.
April 29th, 2005 at 12:18 am
“one of the best political debates in recent state history”
Yeah…”Smash the Car Tax!”…
That was a bracing debate.
April 29th, 2005 at 12:31 am
Whenever I feel the need to give somebody a dose of reality about the U.S. stock market, I give them this, a Yahoo Financed-derived tinyurl:
http://tinyurl.com/czrtq
While I’ve never collected and crunched the numbers, I suspect that if you adjust for inflation and divide market value by the number of Americans, in the resulting curve, early 2000 looks very much like early 1929.
In some ways, 9/11 was a godsend to Wall Street. Of course, the attack, the shutdown of the markets and the stomach-churning drop when they reopened were pretty dramatic, but aren’t we all encouraged that ‘normalcy’ has returned? We can complacently attribute that sharp dip to panic attacks. America — slightly bloodied, but economically unbowed. I still meet people who ask when the market is going to resume normal growth. “Normal”!?
Count me out. Look again that crazy run-up curve. Try extrapolating growth from 1990 to 1995 and you still fall well short of present day prices. This just doesn’t make any sense to me, and I’ve never read a convincing analysis as to why this should be so. P/E ratios are still very high, when the baby-boom retirement wave (now starting) should be pushing them down.
No, it’s no longer Irrational Exuberance. (See high-value real estate markets for that.) But it is Irrational Watertreading. “The stock market always grows in the long run,” we’re assured. Yeah, but in the real long run, we’re all dead.
“Personal accounts,” “private accounts”, “individual accounts” — whatever you want to call them, they are mainly about keeping those stock prices unnaturally high until inflation (slowly gathering) and the weakening of the dollar (accelerating) make prices look rational again. Would Wall Street mind if “add-ons” (or better yet, “carve-outs”) pushed stock prices even higher in the meantime? Oh, no, not in the least.
Read Bush Jr.’s lips. “Ownership society” doesn’t really include you, unless you’re in the upper 2% that owns the vast majority of stock in America. Maybe most Americans suspect that Dubya is speaking in code when he talks about the “ownership society.” But I think not too many of them fully realize to whom he is really speaking.
April 29th, 2005 at 1:48 am
Marc– Yeah! It was the nurses who put their collective foot up Arnie’s ass. They get most of the props. And if you noticed Dem. Don Perata just proposed to raise taxes for schools. Though the devil is the still unnamed details, various teacher unions have been on his case about the sad state of California schools. Marc this is the type of fight back we need from the grassroots, from labor not reliance on chickenshit democrats.
April 29th, 2005 at 3:16 am
Which is all just more evidence of how rare (and not popular) a truly honest and honorable politician is.
Sure, we can pick apart GWB and Arnold and my State’s guy Romney, but what is the alternative? These folks who currently support the filibuster of judges (for one example)?
“It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.” Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, May 14, 1997
“I find it simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, October 5, 1999
“Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, September 11, 1997
“I respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor. . . .It is not appropriate not to have hearings on them, not bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote.” Sen. Joe Biden, Congressional Record, March 19, 1997
“If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down.†Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, September 28, 1998
“I do not believe that I as a member of the minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop something because I think it is wrong, that that is rule by minority.†Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, January 5, 1995
“The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: ‘Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote … The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry, it should vote him up or vote him down.’ Which is exactly what I would like.†Sen. Pat Leahy, Congressional Record, March 7, 2000
“The U.S. Senate likes to call itself the world’s greatest deliberative body. The greatest obstructive body is more like it. In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him.” New York Times editorial, “Time to Retire the Filibuster,” January 1, 1995″
Liars? Charletons? Hypocrites? Given our experience that the honest and honorable are rare and without power, that most can’t be trusted to do what is right, that most are beholden to some special interest that is not me and you, then the best solution, IMHO, is to limit their power and influence as much as possible.
I am much more willing to trust you to do what is right for you, without harming me, than I am to trust them to do what is right; even by happenstance and coincidence.
April 29th, 2005 at 5:06 am
All true, Marc, but if you have God on your side like the Dubyites, you never back down and never admit you were wrong. You just bull forward until the train crashes into the side of a mountain. Not so nice for all of us riding in the back.
April 29th, 2005 at 7:21 am
You want a candidate? How about Phil Angelides? Yeah, you don’t know about him much because the MSM – particularly TV – has to cover MJ and Scotty but here is a guy with a very progressive platform, Oh, but then he’s a Democrat so he must be no good. No, we needed a recall, so informative, so vital and Arnold was such a breath of fresh air! Give me a break! Anyone who fell for his load of crap is getting what he deserves. Grey Davis was no walk in the park but he was loads better than the Austrian phony! And Marc the fact that he is sinking faster than Bush is because of Dems, or what do you think those unions – all Davis supporters – were doing. The public don’t know the Speaker of the Assembly but they know Nurses and Firefighters and Teachers.
April 29th, 2005 at 7:32 am
The reason Arnold identifies with the Minutemen is that they are a sham, stage-managed piece of hooey, just like he is.
As for the recall, it should have been clear at the time that, important as the debate was, Arnold was not participating in it. He didn’t show to most of the candidate forums, and ran an entirely content-free campaign predicated on, er, kicking butts.
April 29th, 2005 at 7:51 am
And, yet, there he is.
April 29th, 2005 at 8:22 am
The economy dies and revives all the time. The way I look at it, it’s no small miracle that we haven’t had a repeat of 1929. The govt can either let nature take its course–and accept the painful booms and busts of the past–or tinker, cross their fingers, and hope for the best. In another hundred years, we might have a failure proof model, but 75 years of relative affluence is an achievement. It probably won’t last, but it’s also not a capitalist running dog conspiracy.
What my folks taught me is still true: don’t put all your eggs in one basket and don’t trust the govt to take care of you.
April 29th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Oh, too many, pleeeeze don’t bring up the hypocrisy quotient so hypocritically…Bush has gotten nearly all of his goddam right-wing judges except for a handful of cranks…the scumbags you de facto defend rather notoriously kept far more of Clinton’s appointments from coming to a vote and are lying about never having filibustered judges. Don’t make me laugh…or retch. I’ll back anything or anybody who keeps a far-right crackpot like “moderate” Pete Wilson’s gift to California, Janice Rodgers Brown, off the Federal bench. The majority always inveighs against the use of Senate rules that give weight to the minority. So what? Suddenly those rules are wrong when the Dems are the minority. Give me a break. Get an argument that’s serious, not so transparent and ephemeral.
April 29th, 2005 at 8:53 am
reg, come in off the ledge; it’s cold and rainy outside and a long way down.
i am not (NOT) defending any of those folks, nor am i advocating that filibusters are or are not legitimate (in fact, i like the minority fighting against the tyranny of the majority thingy).
the point is there is no set of core principles, other than winning right now at any cost, that motivates them all. and that applies to your beloved dems and those hated repubs alike.
in the end i just wish most of them would go away and just leave me alone.
April 29th, 2005 at 8:53 am
“then the best solution, IMHO, is to limit their power and influence as much as possible.”
By inveighing against the Senate’s long-held traditions and rules that give the minority braking power under certain conditions, you’re arguing precisely against what you claim to believe in.
April 29th, 2005 at 8:55 am
the point is THEY don’t believe it – or at least they didn’t when they were in the leadership position.
April 29th, 2005 at 8:56 am
OT: Marc, what are you getting out of lending your credibility and professional journalism skills to the “news service” project being put together by right-wing frother Charles Johnson? Roger Simon lists the proposed editorial board: Glenn Reynolds, PowerLine, Lawrence Kudlow, Hugh Hewitt, Marc Cooper, Wretchard of the Belmont Club and Tim Blair.
I know you love to be contrarian, but in that setting you’re the token left-winger and the token credible journalist. A Colin Powell-like twofer.
[Marc's comments don't appear to allow links; interested readers can follow up by visiting TBogg or Simon's blog.]
April 29th, 2005 at 8:59 am
Arnold had no ideas then and it was obvious. Not to mention qualifications. This ss sham is completely bogus. Downshifting to lift the bottom out of poverty? Please. Who’s done that on Bush’s side of the fence in history?
April 29th, 2005 at 9:00 am
oh, and it would be nice if the modern filibuster actually involved the act of filibustering – as opposed to just threatening to filibuster.
April 29th, 2005 at 9:00 am
I mentioned that at Simon’s in between the ad hominems his regulars gave me.
April 29th, 2005 at 9:05 am
Passed you in mid-post.
Then I don’t understand your point. You seem to be the one out on a ledge…”just go away and leave me alone.”
Don’t jump…
Also I don’t “love” the Dems…I’ve spent my life holding them in contempt…but I’ve seen enough difference in values between them and the horror show known as the GOP to learn to live with the Dems, love a handful like Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold and Barney Frank, and recognize that most of the interest groups the Dems represent (badly) have more in common with me than the plutocrats and theocrats who are getting fellated by the cranks who control the Repubs. I’m a little guy but I’m not totally stupid. Folks like me have no one out there defending us but the better half of the Democratic Party. My thumbnail cartoon of American politics is that I see the Democrats as representing humanity’s ongoing struggle between it’s good and it’s evil. In the GOP I see no such struggle. Evil, greed and pettiness pretty much won out long ago. (Religious fundamentalism qualifies as an evil in my view…and that’s been long before 9/11. Pretty much dates back to the first time I ever saw Oral Roberts on TV.)
April 29th, 2005 at 9:11 am
No jumping here – just a little mischevious cheekiness. I take full responsibility when I’m misuderstood.
P.S. Barney Frank is one of my favorite Dems, Ted Kennedy is my least favorite and probably most responsible for me being a small “l” libertarian. Well, that and any number of personality defects that I won’t go into now….
April 29th, 2005 at 9:27 am
Say what you want, too many, but the Democrats while in the majority never came up with the heavy-handed nuclear option. Sure, the majority always wants an up or down vote. So what else is new? The difference is that this bunch wants to change the rules so that the minority can be emasculated just as it is in the House. This is new! And this is what I expect the Democrats to fight tooth and nail against, especially in the case of judicial appointments. Judges should represent the values of more than a very slim majority of the electorate.
April 29th, 2005 at 9:32 am
too many…my brother-in-law is a libertarian with roots as a Goldwater Republican. (Barry Goldwater is my favorite Republican, incidentally, not because I agreed with him on much in the way of policy but because he was an honest, authentic man. His alleged “social liberalism” was of a piece with his conservatism incidentally, not an anomaly as some would have it.) But back to my OT, I was talking to him yesterday about Bush’s Social Security plan, and although he would ultimately like to abolish the social security system, he saw right through this scheme and stated – to my amazement – that the best way to deal with the fiscal problems of social security as projected would be to raise the wage cap, as though it were obvious. He saw through Bush’s proposals as a scheme, thinks it’s doubletalk and believes firmly that changing benefits for different groups of people in mid-stream is wrong. Also admitted that the Cato types who cooked up privatization are really folks like him who don’t believe in the Social Security system for ideological reasons but simply won’t admit it for political reasons and have come up with these partial privatization schemes to get a foot in the door, even though they don’t make fiscal sense. I was totally taken aback. But then he also thought Bush was hyping and lying about WMDs in Iraq and that the GOP’s sold it’s soul to fundamentalist crazies. Never underestimate the common sense of an honest libertarian-conservative.
April 29th, 2005 at 9:39 am
Well Roger Simon banned me for asking about readership numbers in his call for blog advertising membership. Does that mean I’m not invited? If anyone wants to get swarmed by shills stop on over and comment against the group position on any issue. So predictable.
April 29th, 2005 at 9:43 am
I’ve obviously got better ways to waste my time than clicking onto Roger Simon. Sounds like he and Professor Reynolds are dong an “Arianna”…
That will give me one more thing I’ll have better ways of wasting my time than to click onto.
April 29th, 2005 at 9:44 am
“Say what you want, too many, but the Democrats while in the majority never came up with the heavy-handed nuclear option.”
Amen…Game, Set, Match!
April 29th, 2005 at 9:47 am
Well Reg to give you the flavor of the conversation this was a comment after the banning, which apparently came stealthfully in the night.
“I’ll be jacklighting a deer in memory of poor Marky48…”
Prior to that Godwin’s Law was invoked as I was portrayed as a advocate of “Hitler’s child.”
April 29th, 2005 at 9:49 am
“Ted Kennedy is my least favorite and probably most responsible for me being a small “l” libertarian.”
Not to browbeat you with a hailstorm of posts, but I can fairly say that Ted Kennedy is responsible for exactly nothing having to do with my political views and I like it that way.
April 29th, 2005 at 10:08 am
To the extent I agree with your brother-in-law I guess I could take that as a compliment!
I don’t know what their motivations are – bait and switch, as you allege, or something equally nefarious or malevolent. What I do know is I don’t really trust any of them and my distrust is directly proportional to the amount of power they own; either from accumulated years in politics or by nature of their office.
Do I believe that some are motivated by what they think is right and best? Sure. But because politics is often about compromise and frequently involves sacrificing something small today in return for something big tomorrow, I think many (most) lose track of what they really believe. Or maybe they just become cynical and jaded.
If I were one of them I would like to think I would stand up and say what I really believe about, say, Social Security.
That the system is okay today but won’t be in a near term tomorrow. That fixing it will be costly but will cost more later than now. That it is not a retirement system nor is it an investment vehicle or, even, a savings plan. It is a government wealth redistribution program that takes money from younger working folks and gives it to older retired folks. It should be available only to needy retired folks who cannot provide for themselves – regardless of the reason(s). Oh, and despite my libertarian leanings, is a worthy government program.
But, then, who will vote for that? The folks that elected Arnold and George? The people that vote for Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer. I don’t know, but I bet not enough.
So I’d modify my message to make it more “appealing”. I’d adjust some of the details so as to attract some “important” campaign donors. I’d be open-minded about the thoughts and ideas of the powerful and influential members of my party. And I would add other issues to my agenda which, on balance, just might be more important than Social Security.
Does that make them evil? Sorry, call me soft or whatever but I just can’t go there. But it does lead directly to my libertarian view that government, by its very nature, is corrupting and dysfunctional and should be limited in scope.
April 29th, 2005 at 10:08 am
I just peeked over at Simon’s and saw this brilliant idea:
“aggregating blogs to increase corporate advertising and creating our own professional news service.”
Wow…that’s just what we’re looking for as a respite from the “MSM”…I’m beginning to wonder if there’s anything under Roger’s hat…of course, how could a Hollywood guy NOT think this was the turn to take. When I start seeing major corporate advertising on blogs – as opposed to ads for tee-shirts, desperate pols, partisan magazines, a few books and bizarre kitsch – I’ll know to stop reading them. To quote David Mamet’s worst line ever from The Untouchables: “I have become what I have foresworn.” To quote David Mamet’s most trustworthy line: “Fuck you.”
April 29th, 2005 at 10:16 am
too many…I’m not an expert on economics, but I think that Krugman’s recent columns on the bigger fiscal picture as being more significant than SS per se, and the big, big problems of health care that make single payer systems look excellent by comparison are some of the most serious discussion of the scale and scope of issues the government faces and needs to address that I’ve come across. (I’m a pragmatist, not a believer in ideology…although I do have some core values I won’t compromise having to do with “the least among you” Sermon on the Mount stuff.) So far, Krugman’s stuff has seemed the most empirically, pragmatically respectable analysis to date.
April 29th, 2005 at 10:18 am
Last one, I think…
Well changing the rules, i.e.; The Nukular Option, is allowed by the rules, right?
Do you guys honestly, really now, see nothing inconsistent when you compare the quotes I posted versus the current Democratic action on judges? They were against filibustering judges when they were in the majority and are for it now that they are in the minority. Or am I missing an important angle on this?
April 29th, 2005 at 11:04 am
The Dems were against it (although a bunch of those quotes aren’t actually against the filibuster, but actions of the Judiciary Committee – not that it matters in principle)…but, in fact, they didn’t change the rules to disallow it. The GOP has been for the filibuster when they were in the minority…but now they don’t just inveigh against it rhetorically but want an unprecedented rules change. Isn’t that different ? Doesn’t that up the ante considerably ?
April 29th, 2005 at 11:13 am
Jeeezus…I just looked at my Chron (crappy paper…and not just because they insist on printing Victor Davis Hansen columns) and Arnold’s endorsement of the alleged “success” of the Border Minutemen got bigger fonts than Bush’s press conference. And frankly, I think they made a smart marketing decision because at least Arnie’s not as boring and predictable.
Q for Calif Trad GOPers – How does it feel to have a guy representing you whose ego is bigger than the Party and whose bad judgment is equal to yours, but different, making him currently as much of a multiplier of your political problems as he originally seemed like a potential mitigator ?
April 29th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Too many:
The Democrats were in the minority in the nineties, too. Those remarks refer to the fact that Repubicans bottled up Clinton’s nominations in committee. If Clinton’s nominees were wacko-lefty, the GOP should have easily been able to vote them down in a floor vote, since they held a majority in that house + a lot of conservative Democrats still inhabited the Senate at that time.
The Republicans blocked votes on these judges not because they were too extreme liberal, but because they were holding out for a Republican president, keeping the slots open for that eventuality.
By contrast, the Democrats can’t bottle up Bush’s nominations in committee. Their only option to stop a nomination from going through is to a) convince enough Republicans to oppose it or b) Fillibuster. Fillibuster really can only be used in extreme cases, otherwise the Democrats would look too obstructionist.
April 29th, 2005 at 11:24 am
One last thought concerning my read of Roger Simon’s scheme…if given a choice between reading a blogglomerate that’s dedicated to “increasing corporate advertising” or corralling bloggers into a “professional news service” and reading the ruminations of Warren Beatty over at Arianna’s place, liberal narcissism would actually seem like the less toxic, more credible alternative. Frankly, I think that given his track record and relative seriousness, Josh Marshall’s new enterprise – TPM Cafe – looks like it might actually have some possibilities of providing a useful public service. Think I’ll send him a small cash donation.
(Also, I haven’t gotten a copyright on “blogglomerate” yet, so feel free…)
April 29th, 2005 at 11:56 am
Beware any politician who is only in it for the popularity!!!
Maybe Bush and Ahnold don’t care about their poll numbers, and care about implimenting what their principles tell them is best for the country, or California.
I’d be interested to know if Marc has a 401K, IRA, or other stock invested retirement device. I do, and you know what I see when I see prices going down, AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY.
Now, if investing in the stock market for your retirement is so bad, why is the government allowing this through Thrift Savings Program. tp://www.tsp.gov/
If doing this is so bad for the common man, then we must push to halt this practice on the federal level.
April 29th, 2005 at 11:56 am
I think I like “bloglomerate” better…less unwieldy.
April 29th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Marc, thumbs up for your future contributions to this. We may not agree on everything, but I like your style and fairness.
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/04/an_open_letter.php
April 29th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
“The Dems were against it (although a bunch of those quotes aren’t actually against the filibuster, but actions of the Judiciary Committee – not that it matters in principle)…but, in fact, they didn’t change the rules to disallow it.”
Actually they did try to outlaw the use of the filibuster…
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rushton200504211218.asp
That proposal would amend Senate rules to end all filibusters, not just those against judicial nominees. The proposal’s sponsor said that “the filibuster rules are unconstitutional†and was quoted as saying “the filibuster is nothing short of legislative piracy.†He announced his intent to end all filibusters with an unambiguous statement: “We cannot allow the filibuster to bring Congress to a grinding halt. So today I start a drive to do away with a dinosaur — the filibuster rule.â€
Despite its support by several senior senators, you haven’t heard about this proposal in the MoveOn.org ads blasting Senate Republicans. And you probably haven’t heard about it from Senate Democrats who now give their full-throated support to filibusters against President Bush’s nominees. Why? Because the proposal wasn’t offered by Republicans; it was introduced in 1995 by senior Democrats, including Sens. Lieberman and Tom Harkin (D., Iowa). When it came to a vote, 19 Democrats, including leading blue-state senators such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, supported the measure.
Rules guaranteeing up-or-down majority votes and abolishing the filibuster in various contexts are commonplace in modern Congresses as well. In fact, there are at least 26 laws on the books today abrogating the filibuster. For example:
You cannot filibuster a federal budget resolution (Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974).
You cannot filibuster a resolution authorizing the use of force (War Powers Resolution).
You cannot filibuster international trade agreements (Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002).
And as the minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), well knows, you cannot filibuster legislation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
****
Not so sacrosanct now is it…
April 29th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Then get an IRA, there isn’t the money in SS to cover it. It’s a pay as you go plan. Subtracting doesn’t add anything to the fund. Raise the cap, means test the rich out of the program.
April 29th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
Sure there’s money to cover it, all Congress needs to do is NOT put the surplus SS money into a fake trust fund (which has no assests) and start putting it into private accounts. Not sure how much that would be off-hand, but it would be a start.
Then they’ld have to face the music of what they’ve been doing with the money they’ve been borrowing from themselves (which is a future tax liability for you and me) for all these years, and raise taxes/lower spending/borrow more to cover it.
As it stands in 15 years (more or less) the government will have to raise more money to cover Social Security payments.
How do the Democrats plan on doing that? Or is it to soon to talk about that problem?
April 29th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Another point, under the current system, adding more to the Social Security surplus doesn’t really add anything right now either.
Any surplus will just get spent and another IOU written for future generations.
How about we change that rule FIRST!!!
April 29th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
I don’t think there is anything particularly sacrosanct about the filibuster. What is sacrosanct, to me anyway, is the concept of balance of power.
In our one-party-rule Washington of 2005, checks on entrenched power are few and far between. They include the judiciary, where even Republican appointees are less ideological than Congress or the White House, arcane Senate rules that give power to the opposition and public opinion.
I think this debate about filibuster has attracted the attention of the general populace because the public perceives it as yet one more power-grab by the already powerful.
April 29th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
I prefer bloglomerate too – the second ‘L’ adds a fun little twist for your tongue (say it out loud).
If I use the word do I have put one of those little “r” or “t” thingys next to it? Oh, and which one?
April 29th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
“a fake trust fund (which has no assests)”
That one gets the Spurious Bullshit Prize among your comments today…and it wasn’t an easy pick.
April 29th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
as to the general point, sivert said it…
April 29th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Oh…and the really funny thing about the “fake trust fund” canard is that apparently Bush said that folks could put their private account money into Treasury Bills if they wanted a risk-free investment.
April 29th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
So what assets do the Social Security trust fund hold?
April 29th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
And if they’re such a terrific investment vehicle, why aren’t they offered to the public?
April 29th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Oh, and Kieth, please tell me how a government plan that induces many multi-billions of dollars into stocks (or indexed stock funds) doesn’t necessitate stock inflation in a market that most analysts who aren’t industry hacks, media flacks or ideologues posing as economists have recognized as being somewhat-to-wildly inflated based on historical PEs and most other indicators of rational valuation. Nobody talks about this (of course it was the popularity of 401ks that began boosting the market artificially starting in the 80s. Personally, I don’t think the market has made much sense as anything other than an insiders game or a casino bet since then. Small investors are the fodder for the big profits – and are mostly dependent on either luck/timing. The entire structure looks increasingly to need a ponzified growth in the number of newbies to keep in balance – thus the private accounts scheme.)
April 29th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
They reported the Simon proposal on CNN today. I asked the readership question to Tim Oren but it seems he’s trying to get investors. All I got was another tongue lashing for asking. I’ve got all the information about that crowd I need.
April 29th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Keith – The SS Trust Fund is special-issue Treasury Bonds. They are guaranteed by exactly the same asset/credit base as all Treasury instruments – which ultimately is no more or less than the long-term income of the federal government. If bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury are worthless paper, please don’t tell the Chinese. And if you want to default on Grandma but not the Red/Yellow Peril, I’d like that to be a plank in the GOP platform in 2008.
Quite frankly, you guys are so full of your own bullshit on this one, even your spin needs spin.
April 29th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
How does borrowing 3 trillion help the fund? More growth voodoo?
April 29th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Also Keith, the one pop pundit I’ve been reading who’s brought the larger fiscal issues – which are real and serious regarding general Fed debt and skyrocketing medical costs – is the dreaded Paul Krugman. Your guys are too busy defending Bush’s silly little tree to even begin to honestly debate what’s happening to the forest.
His conclusions aside, Krugman has been the epitome of a responsible, comprehensive analyst of these issues in the face of the silly “private accounts” scheme…I’ve yet to find one such among your bevy of National Review/Weekly Standard hacks.
April 29th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
Oh…and the reason for the dishonesty among GOPer hacks…
Sacrosanct tax cuts, whether or not they make any fiscal sense.
April 29th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Marc — While Bush is wildly unpopular domestically, I suspect (and several leading Democrats as much as admitted) that most Americans agree with his foreign policy goals, and distrust of the UN over the US and US Sovereignty. This is why Bolton (twice already confirmed) is being talked about as “too mean” and stuff exaggerated (one analyst he “berated” supposedly sent a cover letter stating that State had “disproved” his views on Castro which was false and the superior apologized for). Dodd doesn’t like him because Dodd is pro-Castro and Bolton is anti-Castro, a position probably popular for most Americans outside Berkeley and Ann Arbor.
However, you’ve misread what’s going on with Arnold. I personally don’t like Arnold’s policies, his rolling over for his Pete Wilson corporate backers, his gutting of various Consumer Protection agencies and paroling violent criminals (unlike Gray Davis) and I voted to retain Gray Davis (I’m sure that shocks many here).
However, his statements on controlling the border, and the cost/impact of illegal immigration is VERY popular with most Californians. Arnold up against “little guys” like ordinary teachers, nurses, cops, and firefighters taking away their pensions is viewed as a bully. Arnold up against Nativo Lopez, Fabian Nunez, Don Perata, and Dianne Feinstein, is viewed as the middle class populist moderate against the Latino-lobby pandering liberals who don’t stand for this country. The TV station that put up the billboard, “Los Angeles Mexico” ticked off a lot of folks, and the bottom line is that for the vast majority of Californians the border is not “an illusion” but something that should be respected, with limited, lawful immigration. Arnold’s statements that the border CAN be controlled if the Feds wanted to makes sense to a lot of people, me included (and I don’t like him much otherwise).
Democrats have whole-heartedly pandered to various Latino lobbying groups, with drivers licences for illegal aliens, in-state tuition for California public colleges and universities, and that’s something that rankles most Californians as patently unfair. Their cousins or whatever can’t go to public higher education here at in-state rates, but someone who came to the country illegally can. Democrats lose when they push unfair measures for one particular ethnic group or lobby. They also have folks who will be a disaster on TV, looking like wheeler-dealers such as Brown, Perata (scandal ridden), Angelides (pandering), or ethnic spoils (Nunez). In a general election (still a long way to go) Arnold will probably crush them (sigh) like pathetic girly men.
Marc-Reg — weirdly I sort of agree with both of you. I think reg was right that the “smash the car tax” rhetoric from Arnold was simplistic and phony (though I do think the car tax was a political disaster). I think Marc you are right the legitimacy of Davis and the Legislature with a one-party Government had collapsed and people were yearning for fundamental reform on how the state government finances operations which currently is a huge mess. I think you are right Arnold HAD the opportunity to enact fundamental reform, but I think reg was right in pegging Arnold as someone who wasn’t interested in that.
April 29th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Last add on Arnold –
The Republican Party and Democratic Party are not well served by the current gerrymandered safe districts. Democrats elect a lot of extremely leftist folks who pander to the wealthy elite and various urban poor ethnic groups, leaving the vast middle of the state out of the loop. Republicans elect a lot of red-meat social conservatives who worry about social issues rather than the economic concerns of most Californians, in a weird mirror image of the Democrats. Arnold knows that he’s disliked if not hated by the GOP activists and key stakeholders, legislators, and the same goes for the Democrats. He has proposed ONE far reaching attempt to de-gerrymander the Legislature and it has gotten nowhere.
Looking at an electoral map; the large urban areas of the Bay Area and LA County are blue, almost everything else is red. This is bad since slowly, demographics (IMHO) will shift to red areas like the Inland Empire, Sierra Foothills, etc. as people are just priced out of core urban areas like LA and SF. The GOP is slightly more home ownership friendly so over time they will gain a slight margin. I know that the Dems are banking on the Latino vote, but I think people will vote their housing interests more than anything else.
At any rate, the Republican Party in California is NOT like Arnold, they are a lot more red-meat. Just like the Dems in California are not moderate either, more white-tofu. You won’t see a guy like Pat Brown in California Democratic politics in our lifetimes. Instead you’ll get Perata or Jerry Brown. Arnold hits the socially moderate sweet spot; against Illegal Immigration, for stem cell research, abortion rights, civil unions at least for gays. This position is largely untapped because of safe districts with no serious challenges, and hence gives Arnold real strength that his potential Democratic opponents don’t have.
April 29th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
Michael Turner’s post (way up there above) gave a chart of DJIA returns from 1920 forward that shows a precipitous rise since about 1985-1990. He gives it as evidence that we’re in for a shocking correction, but actually it’s just plotted the wrong way.
A person should not use linear plots for investments that compound multiplicatively (like interest does — first year is times 1.04, second is times 1.04*1.04, etc.). You have to plot them on a log scale (aka ratio scale). Especially if it’s over a long time, because the compounding really kicks in over the decades.
The log scale completely changes the look of the plot. There’s a little log/linear clicker in the URL Turner gives, or see
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
The log plot more or less goes up linearly (in the big picture) — as if you had invested the money in T-bills and just kept rolling it over. Furthermore, activity at this scale corresponds to known history — the big, obvious swoon in the thirties, the flat spot during the inflation of the 1970s, the oil shock in 1973, etc. — and at the appropriate relative scale.
You can take out the linear trend and look at the “effective interest rate” which is pretty much what the following plot does:
http://www.smallinvestors.com/SP500/DJIAcharts.htm
(scroll down to “10 year average DJIA rates of returns” plot.) The dark blue line hovering around 1.06 is the rate of return averaged over the past 10 years. The times on the lower axis are given in YYYYMMDD format, starting in 1912. (Many of the other plots on that page cover less time.)
April 29th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
I’m not pimping for the stock market above of course – just trying to explain an otherwise puzzling graph.
April 29th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
It’s kind of cute watching Keith regurgitate the right wing spin on SS. The majority of the American public has picked up on the fact that Bush’s love for private accounts has nothing to do with saving Social Security. Keith, however, wants so badly to believe Novak, team NRO, and Bush that he’ll ignore even the most obvious fallacies. The idea that the trust fund has been robbed (probably by those spendy Democrats) and won’t be paid back is ridiculous. I invite Bush to try it. You won’t see another Republican in office for the next 20 years. And yes, people like to invest in the stock market and have Social Security. Just because people like to invest doesn’t mean they want SS taken away from them. Silly.
As for the filibuster, nobody comes out clean on this one. The best solution I can think of is to vote on whether to eliminate the filibuster with the rules officially changing in 2015. That way we are deciding rule changes on principle not immediate political advantage.
Now about Arnold. I really think you’ve overstated his politician potential, Marc. Sure, he was popular and Gray was just awful, but Arnold’s campaign was just empty rhetoric – the car tax, eliminating waste, stopping special interests (meaning unions and others who wouldn’t give him money). He’s done more fundraising than Gray, been only marginally better on crime and punishment, and worse on worker’s issues. He had a real mandate to deal with the budget by a combination of tax increases and budget cuts. That’s what Californians wanted. He didn’t do it and so the rest of his agenda will go die. Those frothy articles praising his acumen and get-things-done savvy seemed like hype to me.
So that’s my rant for the day. later.
April 29th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Rockford…since I usually shoot flames in your direction, I’ll say today that although I think your still overstating some things and are wrong about a few others, there’s a lot of truth in these observations of yours on Calif politics.
I won’t do an excruciatingly detailed Michael Turner on you…but a couple of things.
Although I’m pretty much of a hawk on illegal immigration – certainly for a left-liberal – I don’t agree with the drivers license ban unless there’s some other concerted effort to stem illegal employment. For purely practical reasons of insurance and driver safety, I’d rather have drivers licenses issued to whoever’s here and driving. If somebody’s here illegally and delivering pizza or whatever, they’ll drive without a license. At least this is some measure of bringing them within insurance requirements. But, while I don’t agree with keeping children of illegals out of elementary and secondary schools precisely because they are children and shouldn’t be singled out to suffer, I agree that state colleges shouldn’t admit people who aren’t legal residents as though they were citizens of California. At that point we’re dealing with institutions that charge tuition to other non-legal residents and the students in question are, essentially, adults seeking higher education and need to begin to take responsibility for their situation.
As for Don Perata, he’s a total scumbag and as someone who’s lived within his petty machine for years, my feeling is the sooner he goes down the better. Awful man…completely corrupt…it would be a real gift for East Bay Democrats if events forced us to rid ourselves of the creep. He survives soley through political inertia, which I hate to say – despite all of the Bay Area’s alleged contentiousness and reputation for “activism” is as rampant around here as anywhere else. I will now put in a good word for Gavin Newsom, who’s the best mayor in America. The guy’s got heart, smarts and – despite the misstep on timing his coming out for gay marriage – political saavy. He’s pro-business but not a panderer, he really cares about the folks at the margins and in neglected neighborhoods, he’s pragmatic, and he’s actually started to deal effectively with homelessness. It’s more than a little incredible that after two terms of Willie Brown, SFers elect a white boy who’s a restaurant entrepeneur – close friends with one of the richest families in America – and the last bastion of the black community finds itself with the best friend they’ve ever had in the mayor’s office on tough issues like crime, clean neighborhoods and schools.
And homeless folk who want a way out of their despair are beginning to be tracked into housing and services – sometimes with a direct helping hand from Gavin who regularly goes out on the streets with his volunteer homeless task force to play Good Samaritan. (Newsom is one reason I’m not embarrassed to be a Democrat. I’m not sure he is on track to run for Governor, but he’s my best hope over the long term – certainly a refreshing politician, honest, passionate and on the right track.)
April 29th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
oh crap…and on a long one…sorry…
April 29th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
One other thing that needs to be said about Arnold…anyone who proudly promotes the Humvee as a personal vehicle to be driven on public roads is, prima facie, a totally irresponsible, moronic piece of steroid-poisoned shit – and with no taste, to boot.
April 29th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
I hate jumping in here late with no time to read and digest the comments. Admitting that I have not read them, let me just say, “reg, you’re wrong.” (It’s uncanny that I’m such a psychic.)
One comment about politicians in the granola state…. These days, the people of California elect idiots from all parties. They get politicians who don’t solve problems, waste money, and generally make a mess of the state. Then, when it comes to national politics, they want the rest of us to go for the candidates that California supports. If you want someone to follow you on a national level, it helps to be successful on a state level.
I’m thinking about supporting secession–California should leave the union and let Massachusetts follow.
Okay, it’s the ninth inning and the Braves need a run, so I have to go.
April 29th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
Woody, your counter-arguments are just as cogent when you admit you haven’t a clue what you’re discussing as when you’ve read the posts you’re responding to. I guess being nearly always wrong isn’t a total disadvantage when you need to save yourself some time.
April 29th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
What the fuck is this all about, Marc?
WTF? You’re in league with Charles Johnson for fucksake?
How’s it feel being the token leftie?
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Â
Let’s start up a news service! We can use the barn and Hugh Hewitt can make the costumes..!
No. This isn’t a joke:
Charles Johnson, Marc Danziger and I have been sneaking around over the last few months, trying to turn blogs into a business. We have enlisted some others with names familiar to you with the intention of working in two areas – aggregating blogs to increase corporate advertising and creating our own professional news service.
With respect to advertising, we do not wish to go into competition with Henry Copeland’s BlogAds, which we fully support. (Some of us even have them!) We are working on another model that will sell ads en masse, not blog-by-blog. We expect this model to go live within a few weeks.
As for the Blog News Service, a lot of work needs to be done and a lot of questions answered. An editorial board consisting of Glenn Reynolds, PowerLine, Lawrence Kudlow, Hugh Hewitt, Marc Cooper, Wretchard of the Belmont Club and Tim Blair, as well as the founders, is already in place with other bloggers in many countries having signed on as contributors.
This is no way meant to be exclusive. We invite you all to join us. On the advertising end, any blogger — whether political or not — is welcome. We would be delighted to place ads on your blog and pay you for them. You may find out more and, we hope, join by simply emailing us at join@pajamasmedia.com.
If you are an advertiser, you may contact us at advertisers@pajamasmedia.com.
Yes. This would be a “news service” if by “news service” you mean a loosely confederated group of individuals who don’t necessarily go out and cover events so much as read the traditional news sources about them and then they…retype it. God knows you can’t find that on the internets. Of course, check out that editorial board and the advertisers are sure to come a’running.
“…Glenn Reynolds, PowerLine, Lawrence Kudlow, Hugh Hewitt, Marc Cooper, Wretchard of the Belmont Club and Tim Blair, as well as the founders
Levitra, Cialis, Rogaine, Opus Dei, Vigorelle, and some of your finer Japanese Schoolgirl porn sites come to mind.
Personally I’m hoping that they select Hindrocket as their ombudsman just to read his reponses:
Dear Pajama Newsservice Ombudsman-
I was surprised and perplexed to see Charles Johnson actually defend the President over holding hands with that Arab guy. Doesn’t he know that Islamofascism can be spread by casual contact? I hope you’l have a word with him.
- A Loyal reader.
Dear Loyal Reader-
Who the fuck do you think you are writing to me, you mewling half-witted dumbass? I could be watching the Miss Butternut Squash beauty competition right now rather than reading over your pathetic undercooked opinions, if you could call them that. Fucking retard! I have half a mind to track you down and beat you senseless with my Time Blogger award, but you your brain is so fucking atrophied it would be a week before you’d realized you’d had a total Power Line beatdown. Godammit I wish we both lived in Florida so I could shoot you right between the eyes for aggravating the piss out of me. Don’t ever write me again, fuckbait, or I’ll get a restraining order so fast it will make your puny mortal head spin so hard you’ll be shooting that congealed mass of cow shit that you call your brain out of your ears. Fucking asswipe.
-Regards, John.
via TBogg
http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2005/04/lets-start-up-news-service-we-can-use.html
April 29th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
“This is bad since slowly, demographics (IMHO) will shift to red areas like the Inland Empire, Sierra Foothills, etc. as people are just priced out of core urban areas.”
That may or may not be true. One of my relatives lives in the Sierra Foothills and it has been trending blue because so many bay area people (read: liberals) are moving there looking for cheaper housing. Also, look at the young generation. 30 and under voters went overwhelmingly for Kerry, and that trend seems likely to continue.
April 29th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
Michael Turmon writes: “A person should not use linear plots for investments that compound multiplicatively (like interest does — first year is times 1.04, second is times 1.04*1.04, etc.).”
Understood. Now, Mr. Turmon, would you please tell us why the value of the stock market *should* increase multiplicatively — especially from a bubble high?
“… a precipitous rise since about 1985-1990″
No, Turmon, I was pointing out something any idiot could see: a precipitous rise starting around the same year that Alan Greenspan asserted (quite unequivocally, for him) that we were seeing “irrational exuberance”, followed by yet more craziness.
What Michael Turmon is essentially telling you here (when you strip out self-assured math-babble) is that there was never a bubble — that it was all just natural price growth (which has since been mysteriously interrupted). How many of you out there believe that? I need to know — I’ve inherited a box of remaindered copies of Dow 36,000, and I’d like to unload them.
April 29th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
The primary problem with the California Democratic Party — and perhaps the Democratic Party in general — can be traced directly to its political leadership. Other than Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, it has too few warriors, and far too many courtiers, in positions of genuine authority and effectiveness.
CDP Chairman Art Torres may well be a very thoughtful and intelligent person, but in the mindless competition of dueling media soundbites he all too often comes across as our party’s version of Bill O’Reilly — a superficial, self-absorbed blowhard all too ready to dismiss thoughtful debate as a sign of weakness, and quick to pander to the lowest common denominator.
Now, that may not be a fair assessment of Mr. torres’ political talents or abilities. But as a public face of the party, first impressions are everything.
Now that Howard Dean is nat’l chair, perhaps he can clean house and breathe new life into a party desperately in need of just that.
April 30th, 2005 at 8:49 am
“I’ve inherited a box of remaindered copies of Dow 36,000, and I’d like to unload them.”
Don’t unload them now with the price down…in fact, this dip in their value is the time to buy more copies if you can find a batch on eBay.
April 30th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Marc: [Schwarzenegger's] failure is nothing to celebrate because it leaves us in the same money-rotten political sewer that his predescessors have immersed us in.
Nothing to celebrate, perhaps, except the vindication of clear-eyed common sense. A lot of people saw in advance that Schwarzenegger would be no different than Grey Davis in this respect. You among others appear to have thought there was some chance S. would be different. He’s not, and maybe his current failures is opening some more eyes to the more fundamental problems of California and national politics.
April 30th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Here’s a slam by a poster at Roger’s that encompases both Mark and Marc in one fell swoop.
“I had to check Marc Cooper’s site and found him to be that rare individual: an intelligent lefty. However, for an intelligent lefty he’s annoyingly common; he lets his dogma rather than his intellect do the writing too often.
And thanks for tossing Marky, who is a parody of himself.”
I picked up some criticism at my site too. I erased the illiterate one.
April 30th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
The Kerry/Villaraigosa rally was good.
April 30th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
Marc: [Schwarzenegger's] failure is nothing to celebrate because it leaves us in the same money-rotten political sewer that his predescessors have immersed us in.
I just saw “Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room” and got the whole disgusting “energy crisis” fraud thrown in my face again. Of course, Schwarznegger was the biggest beneficiary of that criminal episode. Another reason to hate the GOP/Wall St. elite, who were dug deep into that mire. (Although there were Dem pols who also bought into the hype, tellingly most of the tough questions on the investigating committee were coming from Barbara Boxer and Byron Dorgon.) Disgusting. Also, listening to Gray Davis being interviewed in the movie brought back the undeniable truth that, as much of a political mediocrity and greased pol as he was, he wasn’t nearly as rudderless, moronic and opportunistic as this steroid-poisoned clown currently reigning in Sacto. His failure may be nothing to celebrate, but – like the WMD crowd – I’ll be damned if I’ll let anybody who bought into Arnold and/or the recall lecture me about how their false hopes were more noble than my justifiable cynicism. Sort of like the Weekly Standard crowd claiming all of the wrong stuff they believed about the justifications for the war in Iraq made more sense than what war critics were saying.
April 30th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
By the way…”Smartest Guys” is as entertaining as it is infuriating. The whole thing was such a huge scam operating at such a high level with so many major institutional players on board for the ride that it’s hard to believe that it won’t happen again.
May 1st, 2005 at 1:00 am
Michael Turner – I was just trying to explain why there’s only one feature (AKA: dot-bomb) visible on your linear plot.
As a matter of fact, because of the way compounding (exponential growth, if you prefer) works, the most recent feature will always dominate the linear plot. It is largest in absolute terms — but I think that my grandma was more pissed when gas went from 25 cents to 30 cents per gallon than I was when it went from $2.50 to $2.55.
Anyway, the log plot reveals many interesting features that are masked by the scale issues in the linear plot you showed. For instance, that flat spot in the 1970s, clearly visible in the log plot, explains a lot of the “malaise” of that decade…it represents a huge chunk of growth that was just lost. These features are just as important as the dot-com blowout.
Seeing the plot on the log scale helps to put the dot-com bubble in perspective. As another example – in percentage terms, using the DJIA index, the dot-com bubble would seem (so far) to be not so bad as the Great Depression. The linear plot totally obscures this.
I never made the claim that there was no dot-com bubble. I work in the computer biz and I know a few folks who were hurt pretty bad … and several who made out well … one of the first dozen amazon.com employees used to be in my book club. (She can afford her own now
May 1st, 2005 at 7:46 am
Michael Turmon, trying to explain why I don’t get it, writes:
“Anyway, the log plot reveals many interesting features that are masked by the scale issues in the linear plot you showed.”
For the record: I mainly look at log plots, because that’s the default at Yahoo Finance. The fact is, however, log plots obscure bubble activity, because they represent obscenely rapid price growth as a seemingly slight rise in growth rate.
“For instance, that flat spot in the 1970s, clearly visible in the log plot, explains a lot of the “malaise” of that decade…”
No, it doesn’t. It *illustrates* that malaise, but doesn’t get to the root causes of it: the oil shocks, the hangover from Vietnam War overspending, and the arguably bubblish late 60s stock markets.
“It represents a huge chunk of growth that was just lost.”
No, all it represents is non-growth. You can’t talk about “lost growth” unless you can prove that the growth was really supposed to happen.
“These features are just as important as the dot-com blowout.”
If I was going to talk about the dot.com bubble, I would have referred you to the NASDAQ chart, not the DJIA chart. The dot.com bubble was one-tenth the size of the telecom bubble, which itself was, at its peak, a fraction of the continuing bubble value of the current market.
I’m not talking about Netscape; I’m not even talking about WorldCom and Enron. I’m talking about blue chip stocks that Warren Buffett now admits he should never have bought.
Turmon, talk all you want about what different curves represent, but somewhere in there, please include in your discussion what really matters for *this* discussion: some fundamental reason why stock prices are still as high as they are. As I repeated from the Netscape IPO all the way through our erstwhile New Economy, right up to the crash of Enron: “Sorry, I Just Don’t Get It.” And I still don’t, about this market. There’s been more than enough time for someone to explain it to me, and nobody has. I don’t need another lecture about why log plots are better.
Either I’m stupid, or “personal accounts” is really all about sticking a prop under the rot. And I don’t think I’m stupid.
May 1st, 2005 at 8:16 am
Personal accounts are a red herring. The fact is they detract from the problem of solvency. That’s the blind leading the crippled over the cliff. You know the players.
May 4th, 2005 at 8:41 am
Private accounts are the ONLY SUSTAINABLE SS solution. Every other alternative involves other folk paying for you, and you paying for other folk.
2many “in the end i just wish most of them would go away and just leave me alone.” The retired folk, who WANT YOUR MONEY, will not leave you or any worker alone.
The corruption of democracy is an attempt to use single issue majorities to gain unearned benefits, by gov’t force.
The anti-Reps here have a strong argument that Bush is weak — but as Marc noted above, the Dems are terrible. Even worse, in almost every area. (Krugman??? what a joke he has become; Luskin demonstrates his silliness.)
Watch Europe and in the next few years the gov’t disasters of promising too much.
Yeah, raise taxes and cut benefits — “fixes” any problem. I prefer forced savings, of your money, into your account, to take care of yourself.
And an honest “tax the rich for the poor” to help the poor live a decent, lower class (trailer not house? TV but no vacation in Hawaii?) life. Taxing the super rich to help the rich may be politically popular, but is in no way of a superior morality.
(I’ve been missing lately — trying to get ready to join Roger Simon’s new blog business!)
May 4th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
“Did anyone notice that George W. Bush made his big pitch on social security privatization on a day that the Dow-Jones average plummeted 128 points? After a solid month or two of similar plunges?
”
Yes, labor cartoonist Konopacki did:
http://makethemaccountable.com/images/050503/BushJumpsOnSinkingShip.gif
May 7th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
Private accounts are a welfare system as offered. I live in a trailer Grey, does this make me a leftist elitist?
July 10th, 2006 at 12:16 am
xanax | [URL=http://basto.coz.in/]xanax[/URL]
July 26th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
LcMzO2B5TTC tj0qDhQKghC QWB7okDq0hT
July 28th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
buy steroid buy steroid
July 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pm
laphxwtc whgzkmir slau kqfebnahv thxgdy nxhvqafg xkrigu
July 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pm
ikblwvxqt feyl etbzcjau sejorl uvtxigdo ecjbms rkqpa http://www.zmktcaj.hzxpvt.com
August 7th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
xghvujdqz xyvjgd kmotuivdw xazk krfty lpget uzivw
August 7th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
yofuw dxct uzni dpbm notacz dnekyi rgbexja http://www.fjyb.usckxypmb.com
August 8th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
http://blogs.grab.com/calorad/ Calorad Weight loss
http://www.espacioblog.com/calorad/ Calorad 2000
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
http://l01.t35.com/belly-effects-relacore-side.html belly effects relacore side
September 12th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Very many thanks for a good work. Nice and useful. Like it!
September 18th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Congratulations on a great web site. I am a new computer user and finding you was like coming home. Continued success.
September 26th, 2006 at 1:44 am
Let it be, let it be… What a strange place here.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Hello, wonderful site.
http://my.opera.com/fiores/blog/show.dml/463504
October 21st, 2006 at 12:02 am
Wow, design is much better from my last visit ,my respect!
http://living-room-sectional-sofa.puize.org
December 8th, 2006 at 1:42 am
Cool site. Thanks.
http://xoomer.alice.it/alisa14/index.html ah lesbian video
December 8th, 2006 at 2:02 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
http://xoomer.alice.it/alisa14/big-tit-hound.html big tit hound
December 8th, 2006 at 3:45 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
http://xoomer.alice.it/alisa14/adventurous-couple-guide-sex-toy.html adventurous couple guide sex toy
December 8th, 2006 at 3:54 am
Good site. Thanks:-)
http://xoomer.alice.it/alisa14/toy-r-us-baby-registry.html toy r us baby registry
December 8th, 2006 at 3:55 am
Cool site. Thank you!
http://xoomer.alice.it/alisa14/inflatable-pool-toy.html inflatable pool toy
January 24th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
ejmriu
May 24th, 2007 at 9:39 am
xhjgmmnx
February 14th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Happy Valentine’s Day!
March 10th, 2010 at 6:08 am
Interesting