Open thread June 11, 2010 Dan Crawford | June 11, 2010 7:51 pm Comments (6) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
OF COURSE THIS IS REALLY ABOUT AMERICA’S TOO OBVIOUSLY BROKEN LABOR MARKET — LIKE ALMOST EVERYTHING WRONG IN THIS COUNTRY — EMAILED TO NYC COUNCIL:
Replace derelict Yankee Stadium with rebuilt track and field. I grew up in sight of the old Yankee Stadium (I snuck — or rather dashed — into the second-half of the early ’60s Giant-Packer NFL championship). The new stadium was build over a track and football field that was utilized by 39 Bronx schools (don’t worry; not rehashing).
The previous stadium is still there which reminds me of my brother’s and my 1960s East Village slum lord not removing the old fridge when he put in a new one to raise the rent.
It just occurred to my “big brain” that if the old Yankee Stadium block was big enough to contain a football field plus 50,000 spectators there must be enough room on that same block for a track and football field and a bleachers for a few hundred people like the old field had — with room even to replace softball and baseball fields that were all on the old block (I played softball there in the New York Post paperboy league).
Have half a mind to go back to the Bronx and start a stink to do it (what else to do at age 66? :-]).
The scene is what happens when middle class outrage disappears along with the middle class and their majority votes — the fault solely and wholly if you ask me of a CRAZILY distorted American labor market (federal minimum wage now 75 cents below 1956 — 250% average income increase later).
Over the hill (other side of Grand Concourse) NY’s mayor replaced the brand new criminal court house (at least new when I was going there weekly with kids in the late ’70s) and the court you used to see in the background of the old stadium’s outfield — probably the most beautiful building in the Bronx (don’t laugh) — with a new 400 million dollar Taj Mahal courthouse (after crime dropped more than half). More of the same; let the middle class disappear and any kind of purposelessness goes unchecked.
Our mayor’s legacy in the Bronx seems to be leaving behind three more derelict structures right in its civic and geographic center of gravity — nice!
Do we over emphasize savings?
This question came to me while reading a discussion in the comment section over at Billy Blog about interest rates. One side kept emphasizing that a policy to keep the interest rate at zero always (which has been suggested by Mosler and Mitchell) would punish savers. A good discussion ensued which pretty much convinced me that that would not be the case although peoples portfoilios would change, with govt bonds disappearing.
One commenter had the following to say;
“I have a problem with people getting something for nothing. Savers get their income from productive capital. The return they get should be a very small slice of the pie, since they take absolutely no risk whatsoever”
It got me to thinking that he may be right. We should not necessarily reward saving “money”. If someone wishes to forgo consumption today fine, but the system should not be designed so that the money they could have spent today will buy the same stuff or more in 10-20 years. Or any time period really. No guarantees baby. If you want it get it now, it may not be here tomorrow.
The Anonymous Liberal does a good job of refuting the Liberals don’t know economics meme, per the Zogby survey and resulting WSJ editorial.
SteveAR in comments is especially enightening. Or endarkening, depending on you POV.
JzB, when an article like the WSJ/Zogby poll comes out it’s like turning the lights on in a roach infested room. Zoom, bang, crunch as they all run to get our of the light.
Remember a few years bck when a similar article was printed showing which view was the mosre compassionate as measured by their charity?
It’s funny actually. Watching the OMG that can’t be reaction is so illuminating.
BTW, AnonLib did not actually do well against AR. Pull back the covers on what Anon/Lib said, and it was unsubstantiated. Link the Obama policy to the results, and all you get is a GDP increase due to the short term tax cuts, and public jobs saved.
OK, we have a deficit approaching 1/3 of every Fed dollar spent. That deficit far exceeds the portion of the budget that represents discretionary spending. A large portion of that non-discretionary budget is interest on …. wait for it…. the existing Fed debt built by deficit spending. The largest portion of the non-discretionary budget is entitlements.
We’ve had several articles recently that have talked about the attack on entitlements, especially SS. As I see it, something will need to be done, and very soon to reduce deficit spending. If you do not agree with this statement please explain why.
So, assuming we need to eventually slow spending, where would you cut and how deeply? Where and how would you add revenue, and how much? If you add revenue by stimulating the economy, how would you do that and how much?
If you have alternative options please define them.
I’ll just sit on the sidelines and await the liberal economic minds here on AB.
I have obviously been trying to start a discusssion over how to balance the budget without devastating the economy. My proposla is to cut disretionary spending. Implement Obama’s’ tax increaases and freezing entitlement spending at 2010 levels.
Calculations of impact for my proposal. 2010 Deficit is:————————————————-~$1.53T
1/3 cut in discretionary spending—————-$463B
Stimulating the economy to gain 2% annual
growth for one year adds revenue of ———–~$36B
Annual avg of Obama’s tax increase————~$89B
Deficit at end of first end of year—————~$942B
This is a very aggressive plan, getting us to a balanced budget in ~ 3Yrs. the place to play with the numbers is in tax increases and spending cuts.
By reducing discretionary spending by just 20% and leaving everything else we could get to a balanced budget in ~3.6 Yrs. Couold we freeze entitlements for this period?
So what happens if we just freeze discretionary spending leaving everything else proposed intact? In that scenario we could get to a balanced budget within ~12.25 Yrs. That obviously is too long to wait. In that period we would probably have 2 recessions and no one thinks we could freeze entitlement spending for that length.
So, those are my simplistic proposals. What’s yours?