• About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives
Angry Bear
Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
« Back

Open thread March 4, 2013

Dan Crawford | March 4, 2013 6:55 pm

Tags: open thread Comments (9) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
9 Comments
  • Joel says:
    March 4, 2013 at 9:27 pm

    Can anyone here share their thoughts on Bill Gross and the “credit supernova?” He seems to have a poor history of prediction. Any reason to pay attention to him now?

  • Jack says:
    March 5, 2013 at 1:45 am

    Joe Scarborough is a lousy economist, but an excellent obfuscator. That was evident during the Charlie Rose show this past evening during the discussions between Scarborough and Paul Krugman. Rose did little to address the issue of Joe’s lack of credibility on the economic front and was mildly antagonistic as Krugman tried heroically to address Scarborough’s misapplication of facts. Fortunately there is a succinct article on the Politico site which was written by Alan Blinder and addresses the same issue in relationship to Scarborough’s interview with Krugman weeks ago on his Morning Joe program. Read Blinder on Joe’s misinterpretation of Blinder. I like his title, “Morning Joe’s accuracy
    deficit.” \http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/morning-joes-accuracy-deficit-88376.html

    Of course the entire episode underscores the woefully pathetic level of reportage from the media, especially from people like Charlie Rose who seems to be respected as an impartial arbiter of ideological differences. Not so based on last evening’s performance.

  • rjs says:
    March 5, 2013 at 8:58 am

    a video: Grillo: our money is a joke

    we need him over here…

  • PJR says:
    March 5, 2013 at 9:36 am

    Talk of the minimum wage, and news of a Swiss effort to address excesses at the other end of the spectrum, raises a question for me. Other than political reasons, why should multimillion dollar compensation packages for executive employees pass the “reasonableness” test for IRS business tax deductions? (Congress, of course, could set a limit on what’s deductible regardless of other, generous IRS test criteria.)

  • Denis Drew says:
    March 5, 2013 at 10:47 am

    Maybe a “reasonable” way of addressing overpay of CEOs — and ballplayers an TV anchors — would be a (not too) temporary 92% marginal tax rate like we had up until the 1960s — lasting long enough for my obsession, legally mandated sector-wide labor contracts to at alst level the playing field in the lop sided American labor market.

    92% was justified back then by the need to win the big war — and did not need to go on forever (but did not seem to do any harm either). 92% can be justified today to squeeze down the labor price demands of the extreme top while we are resetting labor’s price below. Just getting the minimum, median and higher wages back up to normal may not automatically extract the ballooning (dirigibling!) pay from the top back to everyone else — though it seems to work pretty automatically in reverse, in the wrong direction.

  • ilsm says:
    March 5, 2013 at 11:00 am

    About Scarborough Twain had a line:

    “The thug is aware that loudness convinces sixty persons where reasoning convinces but one.”

    The Fox News/Goebbels paradigm for “air and balanced”.

  • PJR says:
    March 5, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    ddrew I agree a high top tax bracket would discourage extremely high salaries, but my conservative buddies would call it a “confiscatory rate” no matter what. On the other hand, removing the tax deduction (above some level) on total compensation seems like a better way, at least to me on the surface. The total marginal tax on excessive pay would not be obvious but, in fact, would equal the sum of two lower rates: the top individual income tax bracket rate paid by the employee, plus the corporate rate paid by the business. That said, there’s got to be downside, somewhere, because I haven’t seen talk of this notion.

  • coberly says:
    March 5, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    PJR

    “That said, there’s got to be downside, somewhere, because I haven’t seen talk of this notion.”

    on the contrary. the fact that it’s a sensible idea is why you haven’t seen anyone talk about it.

  • Denis Drew says:
    March 5, 2013 at 10:07 pm

    PJR,
    You must remember that in my imaginary world unions rule with equal financing to ownership’s and almost all the votes — under legally mandated, sector-wide labor agreements, of course — no need to seem too accommodating. 🙂

    Come to think of it — with a serious need not to muscle business out of business — unions can do that too.

Featured Stories

Macron Bypasses Parliament With ‘Nuclear Option’ on Retirement Age Hike

Angry Bear

All Electric comes to Heavy Equipment

Daniel Becker

Medicare Plan Commissions May Steer Beneficiaries to Wrong Coverage

run75441

Thoughts on Silicon Valley Bank: Why the FDIC plan isn’t (but also is) a Bailout

NewDealdemocrat

Contributors

Dan Crawford
Robert Waldmann
Barkley Rosser
Eric Kramer
ProGrowth Liberal
Daniel Becker
Ken Houghton
Linda Beale
Mike Kimel
Steve Roth
Michael Smith
Bill Haskell
NewDealdemocrat
Ken Melvin
Sandwichman
Peter Dorman
Kenneth Thomas
Bruce Webb
Rebecca Wilder
Spencer England
Beverly Mann
Joel Eissenberg

Subscribe

Blogs of note

    • Naked Capitalism
    • Atrios (Eschaton)
    • Crooks and Liars
    • Wash. Monthly
    • CEPR
    • Econospeak
    • EPI
    • Hullabaloo
    • Talking Points
    • Calculated Risk
    • Infidel753
    • ACA Signups
    • The one-handed economist
Angry Bear
Copyright © 2023 Angry Bear Blog

Topics

  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics

Pages

  • About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives