• 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 Oct. 3, 2014

Dan Crawford | October 3, 2014 9:22 am

Tags: open thread Comments (41) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
41 Comments
  • Sandi says:
    October 3, 2014 at 10:11 am

    North Carolina, like many ALEC afflicted states, has seen new laws allowing ‘tuition vouchers’ that would give a limited (so far) number of families $4200 toward tuition to private/religious schools. (The law is currently in the courts).
    Justice Scalia assures us the Constitution only gives us freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/antonin-scalia-religion-government_n_5922944.html?ir=Politics
    Recently, as I drove past a particular church/school complex just outside Greensboro, NC, it hit me viscerally. This complex takes up the equivalent of an entire city block – ginormous church, ditto fellowship hall, etc., on one side of the street,while across the street is the school.
    All of it tax exempt.
    I’m not Constitutional scholar, but can someone here wiser than I give me any reason why church schools that are tax exempt can then claim even MORE tax dollar benefits from the rest of us?
    I sent a letter to the editor the News & Record today. I’m sure I’ll get plenty of blow-back from the community, however, it sure looks to me like the Libertarian desire for limited government has met the Religious Right’s desire to teach Creationism with support from my tax dollars.

    Sandi

  • coberly says:
    October 3, 2014 at 10:18 am

    Sandi

    just random noise on my part: i think the “religious” schools have more to do with segregation than teaching creationism.

    the rationale for giving the subsidy is that it relieves the state from paying that much to the public schools to educate that one kid. i am not at all sure this is actually the case… except to the extent the public schools can be run on the cheap because only poor kids go to them.

    now, if i were the public schools… and free of political interference (i realize this is not the case)… i would show that a good education can be had without spending a whole lot of money that middle class schools think is essential, and if i were a taxpayer i’d object to giving money to rich people to send their kids to private schools of any denomination.

    on the other hand, having seen public schools, i’d probably send my kids to a private school if i could afford it.

  • EMichael says:
    October 3, 2014 at 11:34 am

    ” i would show that a good education can be had without spending a whole lot of money that middle class schools think is essential ”

    And how would you do that?

    I love this idea people have that there is a disconnect between spending and achievement. While money certainly does not guarantee a great school, there is a definite correlation between spending and the quality of the school.

    Better teachers, better environment, better opportunities do not come cheap.

  • amateur socialist says:
    October 3, 2014 at 3:06 pm

    He got the most important part right at the beginning. “just random noise” Voila.

  • amateur socialist says:
    October 3, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    Good piece on bloomberg today re the “Secret of Uber’s Success” http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-02/a-secret-of-uber-s-success-struggling-workers

    Captures very well what has bothered me about this “disruption” and to an increasing extent people I meet here in Austin who use/like it. Extracting rents from helping people exploit each other’s desperation isn’t “disruptive”. It’s disgusting.

    Did these people never read Dickens? Or Shakespeare? Or Steinbeck? Did they understand it or just memorized the quiz multiple choice answers? Honestly.

  • Nancy Ortiz says:
    October 3, 2014 at 7:27 pm

    Another aspect of the low rate of labor participation now is that the number of public employees is decreasing. And, for many conservative pols, this is a feature, not a bug, of budget cutting in every state and even in the federal sector. So, worried that your child won’t get a good education in your local public school? You’ll undoubtedly take comfort in the fact that the number of teachers (those horrible government bureaucrats you’ve come to despise) in your school system goes down every year. While, the number of kids keeps going up. Well, cheer up! The Teachers’ unions are losing membership by leaps and bounds! Wow! Now you can put your kid in private school and all will be well!

    SSA’s staffing is down 10K since 2008. Even the Secret Service is down 300 to 550 employees since the beginning of the current administration. Depending on your politics, this situation is either good or bad. And, of course, in the South where I live (right across from an elementary school) almost all the students are African American. Down the road a few miles there is a private school in which all the students are white. There is also a private school exclusively for African American children. Not a bug. It’s a feature, y’all. Separate is equal, especially if you can get a voucher to help pay for it.
    NancyO

  • CoRev says:
    October 3, 2014 at 8:19 pm

    On Oct 1 the pause/hiatus in Global Surface Average Temperatures (GSAT) has gone on for 18 years and 1 month. GSAT was the metric chosen by climatologist as the best indicator for Global Warming. We now have ~53 scientific papers or articles trying to explain the cause(s) for the pause/hiatus. Nearly all admit the pause is due to NATURAL variation (another term for nature), not anthropogenic.

  • EMichael says:
    October 4, 2014 at 9:53 am

    On October 3rd CoRev showed he does not understand what “Global” means.

  • EMichael says:
    October 4, 2014 at 10:57 am

    More Joni Ernst.

    “TPM’s Daniel Strauss provides us with the latest intel on tea party darling Joni Ernst, currently favored to win a Senate seat in Iowa. Here are her answers to a survey from the Campaign for Liberty in 2012, when she was running for the state legislature:”

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/10/yet-more-crackpotism-tea-party-darling-iowa

    BTW,

    Campaign For Liberty?

    How scary is that?

  • CoRev says:
    October 4, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    EM, I know you think you are making a point, but do you understand what the “G” in GSAT means? Perhaps you have another “Global” metric.

  • coberly says:
    October 4, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    Amateur Humorist

    don’t know why you chose to be snotty, but try using your brain for something before blowing it out your nose.

    EMIchael

    I got a pretty damn good education in the days when we read books that didn’t thave three colors of ink and lots of pictures. Nor did we have state of the art biological laboratories… and I can’t say the chemistry laboratories were anywhere near as useful as the textbook. Though when i got to college with what they called qualitative semi micro analysis i learned that my lab technique was better than those who went to more expensive schools.

    you can do a hell of a lot with a reasonably decent room and a good teacher and probably a lot fewer administrators.

    as for the special needs… well, i don’t know that that is properly a “cost” of public education. but i do know some people who have done wonders with profoundly handicapped children in an ordinary school setting and costs of about half of public schools.

    So, like Amateur, don’t be too sure that you know everything.

  • amateur socialist says:
    October 4, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    I actually tried reading what you wrote. Several times. If you had a point in there I’m sure you managed to contradict yourself on it.

    The most helpful part of your comment was the first sentence. Voila.

  • amateur socialist says:
    October 4, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    And Dale I hasten to point out you’re the one who referred to your meandering nothing burger as just random noise. I concur.

  • EMichael says:
    October 4, 2014 at 3:53 pm

    Cob,

    Of course a good education can happen without spending a lot of money. It is just that the odds are against it.

    I can take you to City Line Avenue in Phila. Look east and the schools spend less than $8000 a student. Look west and the schools spend more than $20,000 a student.

    Where would you send your kids?

  • EMichael says:
    October 4, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    CoRev,

    “How deep is the ocean? How high is the sky?”

  • CoRev says:
    October 4, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    As I thought, clueless. Talk to the climatologists, they selected the metric, until it didn’t fit the story line.

  • Bruce Webb says:
    October 4, 2014 at 10:09 pm

    ah CoRev!!

    You manage to put both the ‘C’ and the ‘R’ in ‘Crank’.

    At this point your ratings on Climate Chamge Denial are almost amusing in a “Grandpa Simpson shaking his Cane at the Clouds” kind of way.

    But given that no one has given your views on this issue the slightest amount of credit since you abandoned your “Miracle in Anbar!!!” obsesssion of 2007 with your “Hockey Stick!!!” one about five years ago I have to ask why you even bother.

    Because obviously all main page posters and regular commenters at AB are brain dead and/or in denial of your cleverly mounted counter arguments.. So why not write us off as a dead loss? I mean we are NOT going to get it and from what I see neither are any of the foolish sheep that actually click through.

    Why is AB important to you? Because while your unwavering defense of the Bush Administration dieting it’s time and your equal opposition to everything about the Obama Administration during ITS time is within its own (Overton) window understandable and indeed all too common I just have to wonder why you are impelled to express it here. Did you draw the short straw in the Libtard Trolling Sweepstakes or something? Because at some level the abuse you take here has to suck.

    Surely the pay can’t be THAT good. Or if so let me just say that While I Am Not Cheap, I Can Be Bought. And surely I could do more convincing Koch Sucking than you.

  • Lyle says:
    October 4, 2014 at 11:24 pm

    Actually if you look at you will find that Catholic Schools spend less than Public schools per student, although they don’t have the special education burden. Partly this is because they pay teachers less. However they do have more strict behavior rules that they can enforce.
    It would be interesting to see a breakdown of what the spending per pupil was taking the special ed students out of the mix.

  • Joel says:
    October 5, 2014 at 8:00 am

    “Nearly all admit the pause is due to NATURAL variation (another term for nature), not anthropogenic.”

    Right. The pause is not anthopogenic. Humans did not cause the pause.

    Global surface average temperature does not capture all of the energy on the planet. Recent research has pointed to the oceans as a major sink for global energy, and ocean circulation patterns as a probably cause for the hiatus.

    Ultimately, the rate at which the oceans can absorb surface energy will slow and surface temperatures will resume their rise.

    These properties are intrinsic (natural) and not anthropogenic. What is anthropogenic is the continued massive discharge of greenhouse gases that are driving the increased planetary warming, of which surface temperature is only a part.

  • Joel says:
    October 5, 2014 at 8:03 am

    Here’s a link:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897

  • EMichael says:
    October 5, 2014 at 9:08 am

    “they selected the metric, until it didn’t fit the story line. ”

    Yeah, had nothing to do with the ability to gather data from the oceans.

    Kochsucker, indeed.

  • EMichael says:
    October 5, 2014 at 9:31 am

    Joel,

    Strangely enough the “pause” of the last decade and a half was preceded by a decade and a half of faster temp increases than predicted. And even more strange, climate scientists attributed that to natural variation.

    ” Just a few years ago, when Rahmstorf et al. (2007) compared climate observations to computer model projections, they noticed the faster-than-expected warming leading up to 2006. It was faster than expected and faster than projected by those dreaded “computer models” used by the IPCC. According to the data, global average surface temperature was on a “mad dash” to extreme heat.

    How did these evil denizens of global warming react? Did they use that result to push world government based on socialism, so that they could destroy our economy by taxing the super-rich out of some of their hardly-earned riches? Did they run screaming through the streets yelling about how we’re all going to suffer spontaneous combustion by the year 2100?

    No. Instead, they attempted to understand the result.

    And what explanation, some bunnies may wonder, crossed their minds first? What was their first instinct regarding how this mad dash of global warming might have come about? This:

    The first candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the climate system.”

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/double-standard/

  • Joel says:
    October 5, 2014 at 9:45 am

    EM,

    Nice post. We agree.

  • CoRev says:
    October 6, 2014 at 7:53 am

    Its easy to see when a debate is over when all the responses are ad homs, analogies, or as in Joel’s case a selection of one science paper from dozens actually supporting the NATURAL explanation.

    What the pause tells us is that natural factors can overwhelm anthropogenic to cool and to augment them to warm. Simple logic and not blind belief.

    Does AGW exist? Of course it does. Is it the climate driver? Probably not. That’s all it shows, those who make more of it are deluded by their blind beliefs.

  • EMichael says:
    October 6, 2014 at 9:37 am

    Simple logic is the first law of thermodynamics.

    Stupidity is to think that a specific part of the globe at a specific time can show anything to anyone other than a ideological kochsucker.

  • Joel says:
    October 6, 2014 at 11:33 am

    Another paper confirming that ocean warming explains the “hiatus”:

    “Comparisons of direct measurements with satellite data and climate models suggest that the oceans of the southern hemisphere have been sucking up more than twice as much of the heat trapped by our excess greenhouse gases than previously calculated. This means we may have underestimated the extent to which our world has been warming.”

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26317-the-world-is-warming-faster-than-we-thought.html#.VDK3zudsvPR

  • Joel says:
    October 6, 2014 at 11:37 am

    “What the pause tells us is that natural factors can overwhelm anthropogenic to cool . . . ”

    Evidently, you don’t know what the word “pause” means. The planet hasn’t been cooling for the past 10 year. The “pause” or “hiatus” refers to the current apparent pause in the increase of average surface temperature, not cooling. And that “pause” is now explained by new research showing that surface energy (“warming”) is being absorbed by the oceans. When the “pause” ends, nobody believes it will be followed by cooling.

  • CoRev says:
    October 6, 2014 at 9:24 pm

    Joel makes this claim: “The planet hasn’t been cooling for the past 10 year.” But the data shows us: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend
    I stopped looking after finding 3 of three major datasets proving Joel wrong again.

    Joel also seems to think climate scientists are awed with the find: “new research showing that surface energy (“warming”) is being absorbed by the oceans.” New research??? (“warming”) is being absorbed by the oceans.”? Do you really think that the Global CIRCULATION Models do not attempt to model the ocean circulations and their warming? Do you actually believe that the climatologists ignore 70% of the planet’s surface in their considerations? Now, I am awed.

    BTW Joel, most studies showing increased heat in the oceans are not talking about the surface average temperature. Unless the surface of the oceans goes to the 2000M level. We are now up to~60 science studies and/or article trying to explain the CAUSE of the PAUSE. If you don’t know the cause you do not know the science. That’s one of the main messages of the pause.

  • EMichael says:
    October 6, 2014 at 10:16 pm

    CoRev,

    Pure and utter bs.

    I don’t know what is sadder. That you know it or don’t know it.

    The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming.

    NOAA posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat stored in the bulk of the oceans. For the upper 2000 m (deeper than that not much happens) it looks like this:

    http://www.realclimate.org/images//heat_content2000m.png

    – See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#sthash.qyhtrBwI.dpuf

  • CoRev says:
    October 7, 2014 at 5:26 am

    E#M., heat content is not GSAT. GSAT was the preferred metric by which Global Warming was measured until it became inconveniently stalled. The science is so settled that the PAUSE can not be explained, and those emotionally invested in the prior metric and science are left scrambling.

  • Joel says:
    October 7, 2014 at 6:58 am

    “BTW Joel, most studies showing increased heat in the oceans are not talking about the surface average temperature. Unless the surface of the oceans goes to the 2000M level. We are now up to~60 science studies and/or article trying to explain the CAUSE of the PAUSE. If you don’t know the cause you do not know the science. That’s one of the main messages of the pause. ”

    LOL! If you’d bothered to read the links I posted, you’d know that this is precisely their point. Average surface temperatures are a misleading indication of how much global warming is taking place. The globe, and its ability to store heat, consists of more than the earth’s surface. Because water is more fluid than rock, the oceans can and do move energy from the surface. But that energy isn’t destroyed, and the depths of the ocean are thus warming. The “pause” is an illusion, created by the incorrect assumption that surface warming is a complete metric for global warming. In reality, there’s been no “pause” in global warming. Science is not scrambling, but you are.

  • Joel says:
    October 7, 2014 at 7:00 am

    “proving Joel wrong again.”

    Which of those lines are measurements of deep ocean temperatures, CoRev?

    Heh.

  • EMichael says:
    October 7, 2014 at 9:20 am

    Once again CoRev, pure BS.

    Scientists used GSAT because that is what was most available to them. Surely you do not think more accurate measurements are a bad thing? Wait, that’s wrong. You do think they are a bad thing. That’s why your constant bs about “changing the metric.”

    It is called science. And more data is good fro scientists, bad for ah kochsuckers like you.

    “The RV Kaharoa motored out of Wellington, New Zealand on Saturday, loaded with more than 100 scientific instruments, each eventually destined for a watery grave. Crewmembers will spend the next two months dropping the 50-pound devices, called Argo floats, into the seas between New Zealand and Mauritius, off the coast of Madagascar. There, the instruments will sink and drift, then measure temperature, salinity and pressure as they resurface to beam the data to a satellite. The battery-powered floats will repeat that process every 10 days — until they conk out, after four years or more, and become ocean junk.

    Under an international program begun in 2000, and that started producing useful global data in 2005, the world’s warming and acidifying seas have been invisibly filled with thousands of these bobbing instruments. They are gathering and transmitting data that’s providing scientists with the clearest-ever pictures of the hitherto-unfathomed extent of ocean warming. About 90 percent of global warming is ending up not on land, but in the oceans.

    Research published Sunday concluded that the upper 2,300 feet of the Southern Hemisphere’s oceans may have warmed twice as quickly after 1970 than had previously been thought. Gathering reliable ocean data in the Southern Hemisphere has historically been a challenge, given its remoteness and its relative paucity of commercial shipping, which helps gather ocean data. Argo floats and satellites are now helping to plug Austral ocean data gaps, and improving the accuracy of Northern Hemisphere measurements and estimates.

    “The Argo data is really critical,” said Paul Durack, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researcher who led the new study, which was published in Climate Nature Change. “The estimates that we had up until now have been pretty systematically underestimating the likely changes.”

    Durack and Lawrence Livermore colleagues worked with a Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist to compare ocean observations with ocean models. They concluded that the upper levels of the planet’s oceans — those of the northern and southern hemispheres combined — had been warming during several decades prior to 2005 at rates that were 24 to 58 percent faster than had previously been realized.”

    http://www.climatecentral.org/oceans

  • CoRev says:
    October 7, 2014 at 7:41 pm

    EM, Climate Central is not a science journal, and is not written by scientists. This the author of your article:” John Upton studied science and business in Australia, worked as a journalist in California, enjoyed an 18-month environmental reporting odyssey in India, then joined Climate Central’s editorial team in New York. Upton has written for the New York Times, Slate, Nautilus, VICE, Grist, Pacific Standard, Modern Farmer, 7×7 San Francisco and Audubon magazine.” But you believe his every word as scientific gospel.

    At least you have learned about the newest ocean data collection efforts.

    Joel, no matter how many time you shout it comparing GSAT to OHC is an apples to cumquats comparison. This what an Ozzie science writer has said about that latest OHC in the upper 700M if the S Hem.
    “Two papers on ocean heat released together today. The first says the missing heat is not in the deep ocean abyss below 2000m. The second finds the missing heat in missing data in the Southern Hemisphere instead. Toss out one excuse, move to another.

    The first paper by Llovel and Willis et al, looked at the total sea-level rise as measured by adjusted satellites*, then removed the part of that rise due to expanding warming oceans above 2,000 m and the part due to ice melting off glaciers and ice-sheets.** The upshot is that the bottom half of the ocean is apparently not warming — there was nothing much left for the deep oceans to do. This result comes from Argo buoy data which went into full operation in 2005. (Before Argo the uncertainties in ocean temperature measurements massively outweigh the expected temperature changes, so the “data” is pretty useless.)”
    This is the level of science you believe uncritically.

    There’s much more here: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/10/missing-heat-not-in-deep-oceans-but-found-in-missing-data-in-upper-ocean/

  • Joel says:
    October 7, 2014 at 9:41 pm

    “EM, Climate Central is not a science journal, and is not written by scientists. ”

    But Science is a science journal, written by scientists and published by the AAAS.

    Let me know when you have a scientific rebuttal to the Science article I posted. Tell us where that article got it wrong, CoRev.
    Take all the time you need.

    ” This what an Ozzie science writer has said . . .”

    LOL! “Ozzie science writer?” Who cares?

  • CoRev says:
    October 8, 2014 at 5:33 am

    Joel, right or wrong, the Science article is just another of the growing list of “CAUSES” for the pause. It is written to explain the MISSING heat not being shown in the GSAT. So emotionally and economically invested in the AGW theory, you and many scientists continue to search for that missing heat. All the while forgetting that most of the causes are NATURAL. Negating the A in AGW.

    This is what I first said: “On Oct 1 the pause/hiatus in Global Surface Average Temperatures (GSAT) has gone on for 18 years and 1 month. GSAT was the metric chosen by climatologist as the best indicator for Global Warming. We now have ~53 scientific papers or articles trying to explain the cause(s) for the pause/hiatus. Nearly all admit the pause is due to NATURAL variation (another term for nature), not anthropogenic.” None have yet to refute the statement, but many comments have confirmed it.

    GSAT is not OHC. The oceans have always been the mitigating/causative factor in global warming. Read the science.

  • EMichael says:
    October 8, 2014 at 9:43 am

    geez

    Once again, “How deep is the ocean?”

    You make it sound like scientists are making up new theories to explain why GSAT is below predictions.

    That is bs.

    What scientists are doing is acquiring new data to improve their understanding.

    Incredibly, you are accusing the world’s scientists of doing what you do with every single word you utter.

    Kochsucker.

  • EMichael says:
    October 8, 2014 at 10:22 am

    One more thing.

    The efforts by scientists to increase their ability to measure ocean temperatures began in the 90s and really started to gather data in the middle of the 00’s.

    So basically your thought that scientists are now “altering their metric” to explain the GSAT means that when GSAT was rising faster than anyone expected, these evil scientists were preparing to cover up any slower GSATs in the future by acquiring data on the oceans.

    In other words, sheer insanity.

  • EMichael says:
    October 8, 2014 at 11:15 am

    “EM, Climate Central is not a science journal, and is not written by scientists. This the author of your article:” John Upton ”

    Geez.

    Yeah, Upton’s thoughts are the basis of the article. Couldn’t possibly be the 5 or 6 papers referenced in his article by real scientists.

    Kochsucker.

  • EMichael says:
    October 8, 2014 at 11:18 am

    ““Two papers on ocean heat released together today. The first says the missing heat is not in the deep ocean abyss below 2000m. The second finds the missing heat in missing data in the Southern Hemisphere instead. Toss out one excuse, move to another.”

    Ever own a pool?

    Ever bother to read others links?

    “NOAA posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat stored in the bulk of the oceans. For the upper 2000 m (deeper than that not much happens) it looks like this:

    http://www.realclimate.org/images//heat_content2000m.png

    Kochsuker

  • CoRev says:
    October 8, 2014 at 3:17 pm

    EM, what is your point? I made a statement, and nearly everything you and Joel have provided support that point. My statement: “On Oct 1 the pause/hiatus in Global Surface Average Temperatures (GSAT) has gone on for 18 years and 1 month. GSAT was the metric chosen by climatologist as the best indicator for Global Warming. We now have ~53 scientific papers or articles trying to explain the cause(s) for the pause/hiatus. Nearly all admit the pause is due to NATURAL variation (another term for nature), not anthropogenic.”

    If you read some of the papers, you would find actual references to the pause, and provision of their paper to explain where the missing heat may be.

    What you guys miss is that once the heat is sequestered in the oceans, it stays there for years, centuries, and even millenia. If it is sequestered below the thermocline. The only means of that deep water to release its ?heat? (its temp is ~-2 – 4C) is for it to rise to the surface. The only way heat can be released is if that surface is at a temperature lower than its own, ~-2 – 4C. Otherwise it will COOL the surrounding waters and then the surface and atmosphere above.

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