Open thread August 25, 2011 Dan Crawford | August 25, 2011 7:52 am Tags: open thread Comments (45) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
As one of the great naive ones here[?], I just have to ask, is anyone willing to go out on a limb and say when the pitchforks, tar & feathers, even the . . . . . . . . . . . . . starts, along with what may or may not be left after the smoke clears?
sadly, we will take the pitchforks to each other. and out of the smoke will emerge a new boss.
just like the old boss.
AGW dead, dead, and nearly gone. From here: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262 we see this:
NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
“August 23, 2011
An Update from NASA’s Sea Level Sentinels:
Like mercury in a thermometer, ocean waters expand as they warm. This, along with melting glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, drives sea levels higher over the long term. For the past 18 years, the U.S./French Jason-1, Jason-2 and Topex/Poseidon spacecraft have been monitoring the gradual rise of the world’s ocean in response to global warming….”
refer to the 1st chart below.
We also have seen that the Ocean Heat Content (OHC) has been diminishing. yes, there is a relationship.
We also have this:
Global Coal Consumption Jumps Almost 50% – Yet Global Temps Drop!
from here: http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/25/coal-consumption-jumps-almost-50-yet-global-temps-drop/
Refer to the 2nd chart below.
Here is what every one will be mad at.
Why is the question.
Maybe it’s just Obama keeping his Inauguration promises.
Or maybe, the AGW theory is just bogus.
“CERN’s 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised. “
“This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes……. it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.”
Well, the 2012 election shuold be a brawl.
Do any of the bright economists at Angry Bear want to provide educated professional guesses on what would happen, economically, over the coming several years if we returned to Clinton-era income tax rates (on each type of income); or to mid-80s Reagan rates; or to mid-60s LBJ rates? I grasp what Kimel says about the historical record, and I understand the politics of course, but how about looking forward as economists? (Just to remind folks of ancient history, Reagan’s 1986 top 50 percent bracket began about 10 percent below where today’s top 35 percent bracket begins, after adjusting for inflation; LBJ’s 1966 50 percent bracket started about 20 percent lower than today’s top bracket’s starting point, and he had additional brackets topping-out at 70 percent for incomes above about $1.4M married filing jointly, again inflation-adjusted.)
President Obama can kiss the AFL-CIO goodbye. It’s leadership has had enough. That’s a huge political hit.
The AFL-CIO is setting up a super labor PAC and heading out in their own direction. They will no longer suck up to the Democratic Party like loyal little soldiers. That game appears to be over. Good call.
It’s about time that elements of labor stepped up and said they have had enough. U.S. trade policy may end on the table during this election cycle after all.
Let’s see where this goes.
President Obama has to wake up and stop the political bleeding. Not that it will easy to do.
I agree with President Obama on his medium-term and long-term deficit reduction plan, but he needed more action from the Congressional Democrats on the jobs front as far back as last fall. If Obama doesn’t produce a detailed economic recovery plan with solid meat in it this September, he’s toast with labor. An outline of such a plan as I have heard about in the last few days won’t cut it. The puppy approach is DOA.
We may see clashes between the AFL-CIO super labor PAC and Tea Party elements across the nation. I would bet on the AFL-CIO.
Well, it just gets better…
First African Union donor conference appears to be a failure.
Only four of 54 member nations attend the African Union donors conference in Ethiopia, aimed at raising money to ease the crisis in the Horn of Africa.
Of the African Union’s 54 member nations, only the heads of Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea and Djibouti participated in the conference in Addis Ababa, along with the head of the transitional government in Somalia, the country hit hardest by the famine.
With 12 million people in crisis, and famine declared in many parts of southern Somalia, the United Nations has appealed for $2.4 billion. Despite pledges of more than $500 million from the United States, $228 million from the European Union and $630 million from individual European countries, the target has not been met.
It is reportedly the region’s worst drought in more than 50 years. Tens of thousands of people have died and 1.5 million have left their homes in Somalia in search of food.
So much for leadership in Africa…
I am predicting a slow death for the Euro. It’s probably just a matter of time until it breaks up at this rate. I don’t see any way around it.
The party is over in Germany.
Households already were reluctant to spend despite a robust recovery that prompted talk of a German economic revival. With conditions now becoming dimmer for Europe’s biggest economy, consumers may hunker down more, an added burden for a euro bloc struggling to contain a debt crisis.
Since the recovery began two years ago, German consumption has risen on average just 0.8% annualized, a fraction of the economy’s 3% plus pace.
Household spending is crimped by high energy prices, which also lead to unease over inflation. Memories also linger of years of depressed wages that resulted from the country’s painful cost cutting the last decade.
Germany ponied up a big share of loans to bail out Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Now, each week brings ideas for longer-term fixes such as euro bonds or a supersized bailout fund, implying a bigger commitment from Germany. “The discussions about all these possible instruments are creating a lot of uncertainty,” said Rolf Bürkl of consulting firm GfK Group, which compiles Germany’s consumer-sentiment report.
If this causes German consumers to retreat while exports are softening, a slowdown may intensify. That would make it even harder for Europe to grow out of its debt problems. Unless Germans start feeling more chipper, the euro zone may be the one that really suffers.
China’s five biggest banks posted first-half profits that surpassed the total of their 14 largest U.S. and European rivals, highlighting the Asian nation’s financial power as other economies falter.
That’s a big deal.
Combined first-half earnings at the 15 largest U.S. banks by assets dropped 17 percent from a year earlier, led by a decline at four of the six biggest.
In Europe, lenders led by London-based HSBC Holdings Plc have announced plans in the past month to cut more than 40,000 jobs as the region’s worsening sovereign debt crisis crimps trading revenue. The financial firms are also trimming expenses as regulators force banks to hold more and better quality capital to withstand future shocks.
Lean Six Sigma and the U.S. Government
Retired Texas business consultant Mike George, who claims to be the creator of Lean Six Sigma, is attempting to get all the presidential candidates (including President Barack Obama) to pledge to eliminate the U.S. budget deficit by 2017 using Lean Six Sigma practices.
Guess who has signed up?
Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum.
Rick Perry is supporting a bill in the Texas Legislature that would implement Lean Six Sigma in the Texas Workforce Commission, so he is expected to sign up.
Where is Barack Obama? Where is Mitt Romney?
Implementing Lean Six Sigma throughout the federal government could cut program costs as much as 25 percent a year, its devotees claim, ending the threat of Social Security benefit cuts.
Where are the related discussions on the economics blogs? Or did I miss them?
Remember all those U.S. DOT and State promo efforts for toll roads?
Here’s the new reality in ILLINOIS.
Tollway Board approves steep 87 percent toll increase
“The Illinois Tollway board on Thursday approved a steep 87 percent toll increase to pay for a massive $12 billion plan to rebuild, widen, expand and overhaul much of the system’s 286 miles of highways.
“The plan means tolls for I-PASS users will nearly double for most passenger cars, increasing to a range of 30 cents to $1.90 — up from the current 15 cents to $1 most drivers now pay.”
Hey MIT made all kinds of theses papers from grad students on Lean Aircraft Initiative.
Check the F-35 for how it is working.
The “cash” short falls over the CBO time periods for social safety nets are nothing.
The cash shortfall for the pentagon in that period is $7800B. Other discretionary cash shortfalls are running near $6000B.
A Lockheed Ft Worth spokesman stated the F-35 is now (24 Aug) cleared to fly, and to ferry off the “sold” airplanes from Ft Worth.
Sen Cornyn plans to interrogate the Dep Sec Def nominee for trying to make Lockheed deliver an airplane that works, he has been a bit interested in getting some quality (Lean Six Sigma is nothing like what Lockheed delivers.
Maybe the nominee can tell Cornyn the Lockheed F-22 has been grounded whole fleet since 3 May.
Were I in front of Sen Cornyn, I would muse how one could sign to pay for an airplane which has not performed the contracted specificed profiles. But that is from a guy who has had to keep some of the trashed machines flying.
If we discussed Mexico we would learn that a Piper, a Pinto and a twenty two pistol is all we need to defeat the Mexican Army. The Mexican army sucks. They have never won a war. They will never be able to split the atom and we do not need a well equipt standing army to defend against the Mexican army.
According to Mike’s model, GDP growth should increas if we up the top brackets toward the 55-60% range. Say back to the Reagan level’s. I would guess into the 2.0-2.5% per year if Mike is correct that the only thing pushing GDP growth is tax rates.
But that makes the assumption Mike is correct. You would have lots of people who would disagree. The issue , IMHO, is that Mike is trying to compare LBJs vs Reagan vs today is comparing apples to volcanoes to space shuttles with 1 metric.
Taxes should be raised to pay for the government we want – not some arbitrary number. Currently the fight is about the size and scope of the government. The left want it to be bigger and more intrusive into the citizens life, the right wants it smaller and less intrusive.
Islam will change
Thanks for posting the corrections. Maybe we can get back on line in the future.
I still think you should be a main poster….
Islam will change
I’m going to disagree. The AFL-CIO may be rumbling about the lack of action by Obama on some of his campaign promises, but the realistically they have no where to go. The Reps arn’t going to back the bill to eliminate elections in Labor organizations nor help them roll-back some of the state business friendly initiatives. Heck Obama’s NLRB has been carrying labor’s water these days.
Like the progressive left, they have no where to go and Obama can count on them to not only vote but work (and donate $$) to his re-election. What else would they do?
I would also bet on AFL-CIO – they are used to bringing thugs to meetings and using violence to get their way.
Islam will change
Plus Holder, DOJ, is arming the drug gangs with US weapons. So we are part of the problem and making it worse.
That’s Obam’s hope and change for you…
Islam will change
The genuises at the ATF responsible for allowing guns to flow into Mexico got promoted.
Eric Holder must have lied to congress when he claimed to have no prior knowlege of the operation.
Ashcroft would have been pilloried from the left where as honky hating Holder gets a free pass.
The fact that GDP growth was heading back to 3 percent within 12 months does not change the incontrovertible truth that Volker was able to fix the economy, but it does provide an interesting example of identifying cherry-picked data. Even so, I have seen worse.
Astronomers discover planet made of diamond.
I am not kidding.
TransCanada Pipeline Extension Is A Go
The U.S. Department of State has released the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Pipeline Project. Read it here:
Map of the additional portions of the Keystone pipeline:
Here it is:
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke Speech
At the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Symposium, Jackson Hole, Wyoming
August 26, 2011
I will reserve my opinions until the speech is covered in a main post. Or not.
GOP Challenges White House on Planned Spike in Costly New Job-Crushing
Posted by Katie Boyd on August 26, 2011
Today, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) sent a letter to the White House calling on President Obama to disclose all planned regulatory actions by the Administration that would have an economic impact of $1 billion or more. As “economic growth slows to [a] crawl” and the “job market still looks weak,” it is clear that the economy cannot withstand the barrage of major new federal regulations planned by the Administration. Here are a few key points from Speaker Boehner’s letter:
Number of Regulations With Major Economic Impact “Has Spiked Since Last Year.” “What it boils down to is this: The White House is on a tear to remove old, unnecessary regulations from the books, while Republicans in Congress and the business community are much more concerned about new and proposed rules with higher price tags. In his letter, Boehner says the number of planned regulations with a cost of $100 million or more has spiked since last year, from 191 to 219.” (USA Today, 8/26/11)
White House Has Increased Proposed Number of Major Regulations by 15 Percent. “[H]ouse Speaker John A. Boehner fired off a letter blasting President Obama for a 15 percent increase in the number of new rules and demanding cost estimates for some of them by the time Congress returns from break.” (The Washington Times, 8/26/11)
Planned Regulations “Are Overly Aggressive” and “Will Hinder the Economy.” “House Republicans and some Democrats allege that a suite of planned administration rules are overly aggressive and will hinder the economy, especially a number of planned Environmental Protection Agency regulations.” (The Hill, 8/26/11)
Business Community Fears “New Regulations Would Hurt An Already Weak Economy.” […]
Straight up Yeoman’s Work! Thank You for the clarity. Thank You for doing battle against the [edited]
On a roll today! Information overload…but I like it…Thanks!
That’s going to drive the Peak Oil/AGW/environmental community bonkers. They’ve been fighting it tooth and nail.
Darren, yeah MG’s been a busy boy.
CBO’s latest outlook:
This CBO report may never make the main page at AB, but it is certainly worth the read. If only it had included an updated alternate budget scenario.
Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update
Charts from CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update
Supplemental data on mandatory spending
MG never presents original analysis. just interminable links and accusations that AB main posters are not addressing arguments that he rarely gets around to specifying.
MovieGuy has had an open invitation to be a main page Guest poster for years now. He never comes through.
And if he claims his actual analytical posts have been blocked by Dan or anyone he is a bare-faced liar. I have full posting rights here and have repeatedly extended offers to MG to post whatever he wants as a guest poster and if he wishes links back to blogs under his control to show I wasn’t censoring him.
Years of cricket sounds. If he wants to put up he could. He never does.
Jesus Christ CoRev has had more front page presence than MG over the years, at least he has the balls to put his views straight up, and not just on global warming.
MG the offer stands. Write it and I will post it.
Arne, cherry picked in what way? Example and reference would be helpful, please.
Yes, they are already complaining about the State Department EIS decision.
Did you miss the report where Ford and Toyota are pooling R&D to come up with ways to meet gas mileage standards?
And how many posts are necessary to prove Boehner is carrying the water for anti new deal financial regulation and killing the EPA? That been around since 1935, and had a good run since Nixon?
Finally, while Perry puts lean sux sigma into Texas Frank Carlucci tried it (TQM) when he was Sec Def, short lived and it was a fumbel fest, when it threatened the war profiteers.
I tried to be part of both TQM and “lean”, more of the same false prophets.
Been skimming this AM already have a large limb down.
typo on six sigma was fraudian……………………………
the rest of the story . . .
Are you willfully ignoring the root causes of the rise in medicare, medicaid, and commercial insurance or are you lacking the knowledge beyond that of the pundits. I never discussed the budget and I did point out what was the causing insurance in general to increase. Slashing Government Programs will not alleviate the pressure on them from increased costs from Pharma, the medical industry, and a services for fees cost model.”
As far as the Tax Breaks and who they have the most impact upon. Taking from Joint Tax Committe, CBO, and The Tax Policy Center. http://www.cbpp.org/files/2-4-08tax.pdf “The Skewed Benefits of THe Tax Cuts . . . “
“The highest income 1 percent of households thus would receive nearly one third of the tax cuts’ total value.”
Run thanks much for the reply. So if we were to tax at Reagan’s mid-80s rates starting next year, the only macroeconomic guess that we have is economic growth at 2 to 2.5 percent for the next several years, and only if Kimel’s estimates (for the past) are accurate? That’s the extent of informed opinion that economists can offer about this “what if” question? When Perry and Schumer face-off in debate next year (for a moment just imagine Obama has quit ala LBJ or Nixon) and Schumer proposes going back to Reagan ’86 or LBJ ’66 income tax rates immediately, I guess macroeconomists won’t have much to say even on AB and we’d be fairly reliant upon politician’s lies about growth, jobs, inflation, . . . .
Run, this is how Wiki describes the CBPP: “Donors…
According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is funded by the Democracy Alliance. According to Bai’s account, representatives of CBPP attended a May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance to “talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future.”
 Criticisms and Response
Two politically conservative groups that oppose the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’s policy positions accuse the group of producing misleading studies. These critics focus on what they consider to be fallacious assumptions and inaccurate projections made by the group’s analysts. Defenders of the group note that the Center’s analyses are based on the work of independent, nonpartisan authorities such as the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Government Accountability Office.”
So we have the CBPP masquerading as an bipartisan/independent group, but which is actually supporting Democratic policies.
Moreover, we already have current annual cost estimates for extending the Bush tax cuts:
“Following is a breakdown on some of the key measures and their costs, based on revenue estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation, unless otherwise noted.
Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.
The bulk of that cost — $463 billion — is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.”
From here: http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm
Which leaves the question: If the current extension of the Bush tax cuts gives 85% of the savings to those making less than $250K, how can the CBPP claim that “The highest income 1 percent of households thus would receive nearly one third of the tax cuts’ total value.”?
/sarc/ on It must clearly be Bush’s fault, as the CBPP report was written in his last year as Prez, and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates for the extension was done under Obama leadership./sarc off/
I meant Buff. Sorry!
MG how many of those proposed regs does Boehmer oppose? Specifically which ones? Easy to say you’re against regs generally. Should we not try to enforce that law from Congress against importing infectious diseases, because enforcement of that law from Congress would impose costs on importers? What other proposals on Reginfo.gov should cause me to shudder?
CoRev you asked a reasonable question and the answer, I believe, is found in the detailed annexes of the CBPP report (Run provided the link). It appears that CBPP assumed the AMT patch, whether or not the Bush tax cuts are extended. The CNN report that you referenced assumed the AMT patch with Bush tax cuts, no AMT patch without the Bush tax cuts. The CBPP calculations therefore would show more purely the impact of the Bush changes to tax brackets rates only. That’s quite reasonable.
Remember that those earning less than $69,000 (married filing jointly) receive from the Bush cuts to tax bracket rates only a 5 percent tax reduction on their first $17,000, or $850 max. Halve that for single filers. The detailed CBPP tables show how much is received by people with much higher incomes–it’s a lot. CBPP’s claim that 31 percent of the money received from these cuts goes to the top 1 percent is supported. Now, if you play with the AMT patching assumptions, you can get different results because that patch has a large impact.
Perhaps Brookings, Urnban Institute, and The Tax Policy Center then since Wiki appears to be your authorty?
“Several other commonly used measures of the distributional effects also suggest that the benefits of making the tax cuts permanent would be tilted toward high-income households in general and toward households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution in particular. The average ef-fective tax rate would fall more for the top 1 percent than for any other group. Their share of the tax cut (73.1 percent) would exceed their share of tax burdens in the absence of the tax cut (71.7 percent); as a result, their share of total federal taxes paid would decline. And the tax cut in ab-solute dollars is clearly far larger for high-income than for low-income groups.http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/upload/Background/I-11thru1-14TheBushTaxCuts.final.pdf Citizens’ Guide for the 2008 Election and Beyond BUSH TAX CUTS”