Asymmetrical Information

This will probably serve as the much looked-for distraction from the SwiftVets ad - although almost anything would have done, I'm sure.

I think the employer's survey is just about worthless. It doesn't measure job creation at the startup and self-employment level. We need to rely on the Household survey as the economy migrates from lumbering dotard companies to new initiatives and the rise of free agents.

Who are you, and what have you done with Jane?

"This new soft patch isn't anyone's fault."

Is that what it means to be a conservative, to take such a Daoist attitude towards things? No president has any effect on the economy, ever? I beg to differ.

Let's just take one factor affecting the economy in a big way right now: oil at $45/barrel. The current administration has shown very little interest in promoting conservation, mass transit, or alternative energy sources. Regardless of whether Kerry or Gore would do differently, a policy that led to our dependence on foreign oil being less than it is now is conceivable, and would have led to a lower price, and almost certainly a better performing economy. (Don't start talking about Bush and ANWR, BTW, the difference that would make is tiny compared to reasonable efforts at conservation.)

In addition, I realize that you will argue that the Iraq move will help on this front in the long run, but that remains to be seen, and it has definitely hurt in the short run.

This is just one example of why the economy would be better off today under other than Bush's policies.

In addition, there is the fact that democratic administrations in general have proven over time better for the economy (http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm), (as well as less contributing to expansion of federal government) to be explained. I doubt this can be explained just on the basis of natural "cycles". The fact is, different policies have different effects, and we should all be hoping that we'll have a different one from now come January 2005.

I've just run the numbers -- this marks the second month in a row that inventory growth (all industry) has exceeded employment growth. The same thing happened in november and december 1999, and inventory growth then exceeded employment growth through the entire "recession" (i.e., until April 2001).
This coupled with just the generally low numbers of employment growth and the recent acceleration in inventory growth, to me, spells TROUBLE AHEAD.

Sorry -- should have said through the "slowdown" -- not the "entire 'recession'." In April 2001, employment growth was down, but inventories were falling even faster.

ABR,

As I recall Bush's speeches, he does endorse conservation. But he also realistically knows that conservation can't solve the problem by itself. And we are already conserving a lot; the problem is that as our economy grows, our demand for energy grows with it.

The only forseeable solution is to build lots and lots of nuclear power plants. No other technology offers the same benefits for the relatively low risks.

I think inflexible labor markets are the prime reason job growth is lagging. Biggest culprit is immigration policies. If we open up immigration then that will cause wages to drop but so would product and service costs. The net effect would be beneficial and it will serve to keep capital in US and prevent outsourcing. This will create jobs.
See my blog for detailed take (http://ashish.hanwadikar.name/)

Conservation may be wonderful, but it is not durable. It makes us feel warm and fuzzy for a while, but then we revert to form. How many of us are still wearing our Jimmy Carter cardigans at home and at work during the winter, because we have set our thermostats down to conserve energy?

The installation of more efficient equipment can produce durable energy consumption reductions, assuming that user habits do not change. (I bought a more efficient furnace, therefore I can set the thermostat higher.)

Today, there are no viable alternative fuels to replace gasoline and diesel fuel for cars, trucks, trains. Electric vehicles have very limited range, which becomes even more limited a few months after they are placed into service. (Heating electric vehicles in winter is also problematic.) Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are not "ready for prime time", nor is the fuel supply and delivery system to support them.

The Bush administration has increased funding for vehicular fuel cell RDD&D, but mass production is probably a decade in the future. Forcing new technology into the marketplace before it is ready is a recipe for failure.

ABR, even if George Bush had made it priority one to increase CAFE standards, research funding for renewables, and so forth, that would have absolutely no impact on the current price of oil. Any changes to CAFE would just have gone into law, wouldn't be slated to be implemented by automakers for at least another 3-5 years (because their design cycle is lengthy)--and it takes about 10 years from effective date before more than 50% of the cars on the road are operating under the new standards. Renewables/alternative research has an even longer time horizon than CAFE standards. Moreover, it's not American demand, but Chinese demand, that's driving high oil prices, meaning that any meaningful demand reduction here would mostly be offset by increased Chinese consumption, not lower prices. Furthermore, if either CAFE or renewables were cost/benefit positive, economically, private enterprise would already be doing it; CAFE loses about 30% of its reduction to a "rebound effect" (people drive more because it's suddenly cheaper on a per-mile basis), and it raises the price of a car quite significantly; alternatives are nowhere near cost competitive with current energy sources without government subsidies, and have other problems (availability, scalability) that make them not some slam dunk solution that the Bush administration could produce any time it wants if it weren't so meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnn. Now, perhaps the non-cash external environmental costs make renewables or CAFE a good idea, but in terms of the economic production we currently measure, they're both a loss, not a gain, and any economist you ask will tell you the same thing.

I work for a newswire and I can tell you that when the data hit the tape, there were great cheers from the usual types saying stuff like this "is great news for Kerry" etc. In other words, the Dems are counting on bad job data. Bear in mind though that the household survey data tells a different story. And also do not forget that the European Union govts would kill for U.S. job data.

"Conservation may be wonderful, but it is not durable. It makes us feel warm and fuzzy for a while, but then we revert to form. How many of us are still wearing our Jimmy Carter cardigans at home and at work during the winter, because we have set our thermostats down to conserve energy?"

I'll say. Just this weekend, we're having a party to rip the insulation out of our home, and installing some vintage 1968 washers and driers. Who says you can't go home again?

Oh, it's legitimate to say that you didn't like the structure of his stimulus package...."

Does this go along with all the rest of the dismissals? You know:

"Oh, you might argue that there wasn't any reason to attack Iraq, as it wasn't a threat…."
"Oh, maybe it's legitimate to wonder about the veracity of an Administration that threatened to fire an actuary for providing cost information to Congress…."
"Oh, it's reasonable to wonder if 'disappearing' prisoners is really in the long-term interests of the US…."
"Oh, the Administration's constant drumbeat of 'Fear, fear, terror, fear,' might have had something to do with whack-jobs like Anne Jacobsen writing about 'Terror in the Skies'…."
"Oh, some might say that weak arguments in favor of narrowly defining the definition of 'torture' should give people pause…."
"Oh, some might reasonably feel that there's something unseemly about responding to criticism by questioning someone's love of country…."
"Oh, doing war on the cheap might not be either smart or cheap…."

All of which seem to be subsumed under the rubric of, "Oh, it's reasonable to argue that Dems have been correct right down the line on all of the major issues…." Unfortunately, the final clause seems to be "…but being right all the time doesn't mean they'll be right tomorrow." Maybe it's the sudden demand for rigorous proof of model that is the last refuge of the scoundrel, not patriotism.

More seriously, Jane, I hope you're right and that Kerry wins. I don't particularly like Kerry as a politician - I don't know many Dems that do. Part of me hopes that Pubs keep at least one of the houses of Congress (if we would still be able to undo the worst of Bush). What I really want, though, is that (in the event of a Kerry win) you and Mindles and the like-minded get together and take your party back from the know-nothing whack-jobs that run it now. I'm a lot more comfortable with Bill Weld, Arnold, Pataki, etc., than with Frist, Lott, DeLay, etc.

Tim, I think it's fine, if you believe in stimulus policies, to argue that there is some hypothetically better stimulus policy you would like. I do not think it is legitimate to argue, as some Dems have, that this negates the stimulative value of Bush's tax cuts (if, as I said before, you believe in stimulus policies). I think it is double-plus-unlegitimate to argue, as some Dems have, that Bush should have a) done more to stimulate the economy and b) run a budget surplus, as these things are not compatible goals; running a budget surplus would have required, not merely not cutting taxes, but increasing them, which is highly unstimulative. I think fairly evaluating the differences between Bush tax cut stimulus and Democrat-preffered tax cut stimulus requires admitting that the differences would be fairly trivial in terms of economic output, particularly if you are one of the many Democrats arguing for "temporary" tax cuts, which seem to be much less stimulative than permanent cuts, even those aimed at the rich. So while I have a very low opinion of the Bush administration's extravagent claims for its tax cuts, I have an equally low--and in some cases much lower--opinion of critics making extravagent claims of the Bush administration's economic perfidy. I think any honest analyst looking at the economy will admit that any problems it currently has are not the fault of the Bush administration, and that anything John Kerry promises to do to fix it will have little-to-no effect, just as will anything George Bush claims to have done or be planning to do. I do not expect to see many honest analysts wandering around the scene this election.

Happy?

Ed Reid writes,

"Conservation may be wonderful, but it is not durable."

Actually this is true more of temporary supply-increase solutions like drilling in the ANWR. On the other hand, if you buy a higher gas mileage car, you don't have to make any effort to conserve relative to someone with a lower mileage car. Likewise as someone pointed out with washing machines.

"I bought a more efficient furnace, therefore I can set the thermostat higher."

Or you might drive more in your higher-mileage car. True to an extent, but there are limits. Your comfort levels and free time to drive are the same. You're not going to put your thermostat at 100 just because your electric bill wouldn't be any higher than last year. These type of "increased usage soaks up any savings" arguments only work in an abstract academic setting, not in the real world where other constraints exist.

Finally, the fuel cell R&D you mention is of limited value since the hydrogren still needs to be produced somehow (by electricity). I'm not an expert in this area, but I'm not sure if this is the best investment among all alternatives for reducing oil dependence.

Jane writes,

" Any changes to CAFE would just have gone into law, wouldn't be slated to be implemented by automakers for at least another 3-5 years"

If Bush had made it a priority I'm sure that _something_ could have been done in 4 years. There are a lot more ways to lower oil consumption then by putting newly-designed cars on the road. In fact, the basic structure of much fuel economy legislation revolves around quotas for weighted average fuel economy of total vehicles sold, not top-end fuel economy of the best models. Adjustments in these quotas can and are implemented on shorter timescales.

"Moreover, it's not American demand, but Chinese demand, that's driving high oil prices, meaning that any meaningful demand reduction here would mostly be offset by increased Chinese consumption, not lower prices."

This is not economics as I know it. Reduced demand means reduced demand, and that lowers prices.

"Furthermore, if either CAFE or renewables were cost/benefit positive, economically, private enterprise would already be doing it"

In the short-term, perhaps yes, but the problem with optimizing for the short term is things come back to bite you in the long term. If you consider all of the costs of storing / guarding / transporting nuclear waste for example, maybe we would have been better off buying those solar cells. Part of the purpose of government, federal executive branch or otherwise, is to implement some long-term optimizations, which a purely market-driven system will not.

All of this points to the unbelievably huge opportunity the Democrats have missed this election.

They've made the whole election about foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the president's qualifications to be commander in chief. I didn't see a single speech at the DNC that focused on job loss, economic policy, or taxes (other than the sparsely populated, non-sanctioned Bush bashing comments).

Bush is clearly strong on terrorism & national defense and clearly weak on jobs & the economy. Democrats are so filled with blind rage that they hear "Bush is strong on..." and say, "Impossible! He can't be strong on anything! We need to campaign against it so the American people believe he's strong on nothing!" In the process, they relinquish the opportunity to attack his weak points.

My prediction: the jobs data will not affect Bush's numbers as much as everyone thinks, and the media pundits will publicly wonder why, until the next "news" comes around...

if either CAFE or renewables were cost/benefit positive, economically, private enterprise would already be doing it

No. Not if some of the benefit comes from significant positive externalities.

Hmm, I just recently started a 3-month position with possibility of extension, but as an independent contractor. The wage is reasonably good but I doubt I was counted on any employer survey...

This is not economics as I know it. Reduced demand means reduced demand, and that lowers prices.

You may know economics, but apparently you don't understand relative scaling. If the argument is that Chinese demand is driving oil prices, then you have to show that the US could engage in conservation as a rate high enough to offset. Otherwise, the price of oil stays high.

Fueling Prices? (ABC News, 28 May)

In the short-term, perhaps yes, but the problem with optimizing for the short term is things come back to bite you in the long term.

A sentiment both noble and politically unattrative...

The May and June numbers were also revised downward. June went from 112,000 new jobs to 78,000 I think the figure was.

I truly believe that the job situation will remain stagnant for reasons not connected to CAFE or "the price of tea in China". Quite simply...American workers are being replaced by the processes of modernization and globalization. (Why would anyone catering to the whims of the investment classes choose to pay a premium for domestic labour when that same low/semi/highly skilled labour can be purchased for pennies on the dollar in the international marketplace?)
Even so, I maintain that good employment is always available to those that have reasonable intelligence, perseverence, adaptability, and the wherewithal to get out of bed in the morning.

anony-mouse writes,

"If the argument is that Chinese demand is driving oil prices, then you have to show that the US could engage in conservation as a rate high enough to offset. Otherwise, the price of oil stays high."

Despite all the paranoid talk China is at 5.5M barrels per day (your reference), while the U.S. is at 20M (ref). When I think of conservation, I think of on the order of 5-10% decrease in consumption. (You can argue about this.) That would be 25-50% of the entire Chinese usage.

So much for blaming the current state on the Chinese. What about the future?

China is projected to be to add 440K per day next year, while the U.S has been adding 300K per day each year lately. The big gorilla driving prices is not now or going to be China, it's us. In any case the real message is that supply is stretched pretty thin, suggesting the oil economy's heyday may be coming to an end, although the current price probably is a spike (see article).

Of course! Because all elections, particularly those in wartime, are decided on the July payroll report. Jane, prognosticator you are not.

THE LABOR DEPT USED BOGUS NUMBERS.

That's right. The numbers are bogus. Read John Crudele (as linked by Mickey Kaus) before the number even came out. Every July, the Labor Dept cuts a huge chunk out of the jobs number on the theory that lots of small business go bust in July. So even a positive jobs number is strong. The household number tells us that the Labor Dept assumption was false this July.

So the real facts -- the drop is solely a function of a Labor Dept assumption which is totally unsupported by the realities of this economy.

Reality -- 135 million working Americans when Bush took office. Now there are 139 million.

For more, see Bill Hobbs's blog.

Brian Greenberg writes: "They've made the whole election about foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the president's qualifications to be commander in chief. I didn't see a single speech at the DNC that focused on job loss, economic policy, or taxes (other than the sparsely populated, non-sanctioned Bush bashing comments)."

Of course they didn't play up the economy. They didn't know what data would be coming up a week later. If they spent the convention talking about the horrible economy, and then a week later it turned out that July had been a 300,000 job month, they'd look terrible and lose a lot of credibility, and the GOP and the media would hammer the DNC with it until November.

Now, the DNC knows that June wasn't a blip, so they're more likely to play up the jobs again. Having two months' worth of bad (and worsening) job data in hand, they can hammer on Bush with a good deal of confidence.

Even if job creation improves in the next two months, Bush is certainly going to have presided over a net loss of jobs during his 4 years. Bush's best year isn't as good as Clinton's worst year.

Another reason why they spent the convention on foreign policy and military issues is that polls have been giving Kerry the edge on the economy for months. It wasn't their weak point. Their weak point was the public's perception of Democratic positions on foreign policy and national security, so the convention was dedicated to turning that around, and it succeeded.

Stan,

A problem with the household survey is that it counts you as employed if you've only set up a 50 cent lemonade stand in the front yard.

Or if you're the world's worst real estate agent and you haven't sold a house in six months, and thus have earned no money.

ABR -- Do you have any idea HOW oil is consumed in the US? Even if everybody in the US cut their driving by 50%, that still would amount to a TINY fraction of oil consumption. The amount of conservation that would have to done in order to reasonably offset the PPB of oil would CRIPPLE the economy! Think of large scale power generation, plastic production, chemical production, airline usage, mass transit usage, think nylon, lycra, spandex and every other polyester derivative...and many other things I'm too tired to think if right now...

Furthermore, it's not merely how much China uses compared to the US, it's how much China has INCREASED its usage over a short period of time.

China ranks 3rd in the world in TOTAL consumption, but only 50th in the world in PER CAPITA consumption! Just think what's going to happen as the latter number starts (ed.: continues!) to rise!!! Stats from here.

The largest increase in oil consumption is from non-OECD countries, including China and India, which account for 38 per cent of global oil consumption compared with 27 per cent in the early 1970s. The sharp increase in Chinese oil demand, with import growth up about 40 per cent so far this year, has been the main reason why the IEA has raised its demand forecasts during the past year. Link here.

On conservation as a tool for reducing our dependence on middle eastern oil (not gonna happen!), read Steven Den Beste's comments here.

Cheers,

Eric

OOPS! That was SUPPOSED to read: "Even if everybody in the US cut their driving by 5%", NOT "50%".

I suppose 50% would make a somewhat more significant dent, but only a fool would think that was even remotely feasable....

EGC writes: " The amount of conservation that would have to done in order to reasonably offset the PPB of oil would CRIPPLE the economy! Think of large scale power generation, plastic production, chemical production, airline usage, mass transit usage, think nylon, lycra, spandex and every other polyester derivative...and many other things I'm too tired to think if right now..."

The economy would only be crippled if the conservation was done by curtailing those things, rather than by making those processes more efficient, or by finding alternatives, or by finding ways to efficiently recycle finished products into usable raw material.

Do you think we're too stupid to do that?

"I suppose 50% would make a somewhat more significant dent, but only a fool would think that was even remotely feasable...."

What if everyone cut their *fuel usage* by 50%?

They might drive more if they get better mileage, but there's only so many hours in the day. As mileage improves, a point will be reached at which driving more would be impossible, after which, improved mileage won't result in increased driving.

Bush is finished. His only hope is if his buddies in Pakistan finally catch Bin Laden, something we should have done in 2001 if Bush sent enough troops in. But he's a pansy who didn't want to go after our real enemies. Instead we are bogged down in Iraq fighting for --- what? Democracy for Iraqis? I thought right wingers were against nation building, especially when our national security was not at stake. But wait, our national security is at stake now that Iraq is turning into terrorist hotspot #1. Thanks, W.

And don't try to bring up the household survey. It showed major job losses in Feb. and March, yet you conveniently accepted the much more sunny payroll survey at the time. Cherry-picking surveys from month to month is not a smart way to conduct economic policy.

I think it is time to say that Republicans are horrible at running an economy. Bush in particular. Trillions in tax cuts, huge budget deficits, and what does he have to show for it? A net loss of 1.5 million jobs over four years. Go ahead and blame it on Clinton, blame it on the recession, blame it on 9/11, blame it on Bush's wars or the corporate scandals. We all know there is only one party to blame. It's the Republican regime we have in power. I ask all of you to vote Democrat this November. Our economy will thank you.

"Bush is finished"
"He's a pansy"
"Right Wingers"
"Thanks, W."
"Republican regime"

etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Sage -

There are intelligent, insightful posters on this board who don't like Bush or his policies. Take a minute to read through some of their posts.

Now, don't you feel just a little embarrassed? Notice a difference in tone between them and, say, the posters on Democratic Underground? Why don't you take a clue from them, and try acting a little smarter, a little more sophisticated, a little more balanced? Grow up, in other words.

Sheesh.

- Alaska Jack

The assumption behind your post is that the domestic economy will be the deciding factor in the election (as it has historically been,) but in this election it will be a dim topic of little importance to most of the electorate.

This election has already been set as one about who will best defend our country. Bush has played it this way all along, and Kerry opted for the same theme with his nomination acceptance speech.

John Kerry apparently believes that the election outcome will be determined based on defending the country against terrorism, based on his speech at the DNC. He must be expecting that the average person will not know what he has done since he left Viet Nam, and will only listen to what he had to say at the convention.

Still, I have anecdotal evidence that we are in a bigger hole right now, than we have been. In 2001, 2002, and 2003, I had been unemployed between IT consulting jobs for no more than 9 weeks. Right now, I have reached 10 weeks. The slowdown in the job numbers is reflected pretty accurately in the IT consulting job market. I don't have insight to other areas. Prior to June, one friend who had been unemployed for 1-1/2 years had gotten a job. In early July, another friend who had been unemployed for not quite 1-1/2 years also got a job. That lead me to believe that the job market was finally picking improving. Since mid-June, things have gotten tight.

I had a prospective job offer in hand, when a hiring freeze hit. It hasn't unfroze, yet.

Will the employment picture be the decisive factor in the election? By historical precedent, where we are is too positive to be an issue. The perception is that it is very bad, and the false perception could well be a the deciding factor.

I've been working as a contractor for most of this year - I haven't been counted to my knowledge in any numbers household or otherwise. Hence, I'm unemployed.

In my view, most employers are keeping their powder dry as they have been for the last couple of years. Too much uncertainty regarding terrorism, and too much regarding Kerry. Most businesses will not welcome a Kerry presidency (even if the CEO may vote for the guy) and the collective effect is that corporate America remains slow off the dime. If Bush were clearly ahead in the polls, this might change, but as it is, businesses may be backing into a self-fulfilling fear.

OK, so it's curtains for Bush. Any Austrians here who would like to talk about the liquidation cycle? I'll entertain talk about what happens when we've delayed the liquidation cycle for half a decade and then we came from a large bubble.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics informational release with all the numbers and links to methodology can be found at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

It's interesting in that while it shows only 32,000 non-farm jobs created in July, the total number of "discouraged" workers remained constant--dispite the reports that suggest that unemployment went down because workers were leaving the work force. The household employment survey shows some 629,000 total jobs were added in July.

What this suggests is that the job situation is not as bleak as the press is making it out to be, though it does suggest problems when you have such a large gap between total jobs and payroll jobs. If the problems are with the survey (which suggests a +/- 350,000 error) or with problems with smaller businesses actually placing people on their payroll due to rising unemployment insurance and regulatory burdens is unclear.

In an earlier comment Jane Galt said:

I think any honest analyst looking at the economy will admit that any problems it currently has are not the fault of the Bush administration, and that anything John Kerry promises to do to fix it will have little-to-no effect, just as will anything George Bush claims to have done or be planning to do. I do not expect to see many honest analysts wandering around the scene this election.

On a related note, uncertainty has a negative effect on hiring. This uncertianty can be uncertainty in the business climate, which explains why new hiring occurs late in economic recoveries, or uncertainy in the political climate, for example upcoming elections, or uncertainty caused by any number of other factors, such as terrorism. The reason for this effect is related to the difficulty of reversing hiring and firing decisions. Much of the modern theory of making irreversible (or difficult to reverse) business decisions uses the idea of real options. A clearly written book on this subject is Investment Under Uncertainty, by Avinash K. Dixit and Robert S. Pindyck (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1994) I suspect that most readers of Asymmetrical Information who have the pre-requisite mathematics background (elementary differential equations) would enjoy this book.

I have long wished I had some of the more thoughtful Democratic commenters on my blog that Jane has here on hers. Instead I've been beset for over a year with nothing but mindless "Bush Lied!" and "Repubicans suck at everything!" drones. Every piece of bad news = Bush's fault. Every piece of good information = Lucky or irrelevant. I call it Bush Derangement Syndrome.

I'm more sanguine about Bush's re-election chances than Jane simply because I believe the increases in self-employment are significant, and because I think the war matters more to people.

Then again, the media persistently paints the most negative possible picture of events in Iraq, even though by historical standards things are going quite well there.

Ah well. We'll see what we see.

"I'm more sanguine about Bush's re-election chances than Jane simply because I believe the increases in self-employment are significant, and because I think the war matters more to people."

Nope, President Bush is in deep trouble. Too many Americans have been seduced by the liberal media in believing that Iraq is a big mess. The job figures are very bad news. This country is in deep trouble. John Kerry will only embolden the terrorists. May God help us. The terrorists may soon have something to celebrate.

ABR:

Investments in higher efficiency products and processes result in reductions in the investors' energy consumption and demand which are as durable as the investments. I agree that offsetting these reductions through increased usage is limited, though it is real. However, these efficiency investments are not permanent. Many of those who drove Pintos in the 70s are now driving SUVs or minivans.

Personal decisions to conserve by reducing thermostat settings in the heating season, increasing thermostat settings in the cooling season, using thermostat night setback, only doing full loads of laundry and full loads of dishes, turning off lights and other appliances when not needed, driving less, using public transportation, mowing the lawn with a manual reel lawn mower, etc. are far less durable and cannot be counted on long term.

The changes which would be required in US society to effect major reductions in energy usage are very unlikely to occur in the absence of a comprehensive and clearly communicated national energy strategy, which we currently do not have and appear incapable of developing.

The difficulty of the issue is compounded by our ~1.3% per year population growth rate, which would cause our population to double by 2050. Currently, energy consumption is growing at ~1.5% per year, which would result in a doubling by 2035. When we have dealt with the energy issues resulting from this projected population growth, we can begin dealing with the potable water issues which will also result.

One irony here is that Bush's cynical exploitation of terror, and the massive terrorist recruitment campaign in Iraq, have raised fears so much that oil prices are skyrocketing, damaging economic growth, and businesses uncertain and reluctant to hire. Bush resembles the man on a tree limb sawing the wrong side.

Jon,

The problem with your analysis of the household survey is that you fail to consider the fact that the same factors were part of the survey in 2000. There has been a net gain of 4 million people working under the survey.

If you want to argue that every single one of those 4 million additional working people is really unemployed and running a lemonade stand, go ahead. Now try to explain why 4 million people would rather run lemonade stands instead of collecting unemployment benefits.

While a belief in the stupidity of the average American is a requirement to being a Democrat these days, even this is too much to swallow.

From Greg Weldon's Money Monitor, looking deeper into the numbers:

"Persons Who Want a Job, Have Looked for a Job, But are Discouraged ... 504,000 in June, up +5.4% during the month.

"Multiple Job Holders ... 7.521 million, up +2.2% for the month, for a rise of 160,000 in July.

"Those with Full-Time Primary Job, and Part-Time Secondary Job ... 3.829 million, up +5.4% from June.

"Those with Both Primary and Secondary Jobs, Part-Time ... 1.711 million, up a HUGE +6.0% from June.

Jane:

“Happy?”

Not terribly.

Let's separate some of my complaints and yours. My prime complaint is that there seems to be nothing that will convince you of the general imcompetence of this Administration. Yes, you can argue that things would have been as bad (for the economy, in Iraq, for our general diplomatic standing, etc.) under a Democratic president. Hell, you can argue that it would have been significantly worse. But your general argument to this effect seems to be simply stating it. What's the point of discussion if any argument immediately resolves to “Well, it would have been worse otherwise?”

Your complaints seem to survey the swath of potential Democratic complaints about Bush's economic policy and respond to only a few. To wit:

1."I do not think it is legitimate to argue, as some Dems have, that this negates the stimulative value of Bush's tax cuts...."

I'm not sure what this means. It seems entirely reasonable to argue that, if you're going to provide stimulus through tax cuts, you ought to do it as efficiently as possible. The prime Dem complaint was that Bush's tax cuts were inefficient ways of getting the stimulus he claimed he wanted. Furthermore, targeting the tax-cuts to the rich did little to help people at the other end of the income scale. These people are the probable victims of what I understand you to be calling a natural phase of the business cycle that no one (including the less fortunate) could have helped. So his policy was silly and cruel.

2."I think it is double-plus-unlegitimate to argue, as some Dems have, that Bush should have a) done more to stimulate the economy and b) run a budget surplus, as these things are not compatible goals...."

Snarkily, I'd say that if you can believe that cutting taxes constantly leads to increasing tax revenues constantly, then you can believe the above. More honestly, I think that you are conflating two Dem claims. It's an either or situation – either do significantly more to stimulate the economy, or run a budget surplus (or at least move in both directions at once by more efficiently stimulating the economy, and thus lowering the size of the deficit). I'd think “bang for your buck” would be a Republican's favorite slogan.

3."...particularly if you are one of the many Democrats arguing for 'temporary' tax cuts, which seem to be much less stimulative than permanent cuts, even those aimed at the rich."

As I understand it, the claim that permanent tax cuts are more stimulative is derived from the belief that the opportunity to make more money down the line will encourage more investment at this point. I'd answer thrice. First, I saw a claim by (an oddly deferential) Krugman in the transcript of his discussion with some conservative economist that there is a fairly wide amount of variation in cutting marginal tax rates that doesn't seem to effect total output, which would seem to undercut your claim. Second, I don't think we were looking to make investment cheaper (through higher returns b/c of less taxing) – there was capital out there to be invested. Third, the temporary stimulus would act as a goose to get us through the tough times more easily, at which point things would return to normal. This strikes me as similar to Friedman's permanent income claim.

4."I have an equally low--and in some cases much lower--opinion of critics making extravagent claims of the Bush administration's economic perfidy."

What, exactly, are the extravagant claims? Most people don't seem bothered by perfidy as much as by stupidity (as exemplified in Iraq, etc., as well). I, for one, don't really care why a politician does X or Y, except as (a) it makes some kind of sense, and (b) it gives me further information for predicting future actions. Bush's policies (a) don't seem well-founded, and (b) make it seem likely that his future policies won't be either.

5."I think any honest analyst looking at the economy will admit that any problems it currently has are not the fault of the Bush administration."

I admit, this one always confuses me. It seems to be of the species “The President has no effect on the economy.” Well, then, just let us have our way – nothing any Dem will do will have any effect, and we'll give you something new to dedicate to Reagan. The perfect deal – both parties walk away happily believing that the other guy got snookered.

At a minimum, it doesn't seem too crazy to say that someone who makes a ton of small mistakes and doesn't realize it is more likely to have bad outcomes than someone else. I don't know that there is strong evidence on this, but it's how we determine reputation and credibility all the time.

Finally, I'd ask a question I ask reasonable Republicans all the time – what, short of nuclear war, would it take for you to admit that Bush is doing a horrible job, and Kerry (or ABB) would be better? This is the one that really has me stumped.

Jeebus. Sorry about the length. We're not all as pithy as you.

Dean Esmay writes: " I believe the increases in self-employment are significant,"

According to Brad DeLong, self-employment only accounts for 10% of the difference between the two surveys.

I think we in the media should start practicing saying "President Kerry".

Start practicing? Perhaps you stayed in King Arthur's court too long. The media has been chanting that mantra daily for months to little avail, since Kerry's already lost. He's yesterday's polling project. Now we're just working on Bush's second term agenda and how to help insure corporate America has a merry Christmas.

But don't tell anyone. It sells newspapers, increase Nielsens and generates posts if one pretends there is a real match-up.

SDAI-Tech1

Great site! Keep it running!

オンラインカジノ

"When it comes to electing a president, results matter" George W. Bush, August 5, 2004.

'NUFF SAID!

"Moreover, it's not American demand, but Chinese demand, that's driving high oil prices, meaning that any meaningful demand reduction here would mostly be offset by increased Chinese consumption, not lower prices." Actually I've heard that somewhere between $5 and $8 of the current price per barrel is a psychological response to a combination of militants attempting to de-stabilize Saudi Arabia, the Russian government playing games with Yukos and other fears of what might happen in the Middle East. That means that at $44 a barrel you're talking about between 11 and 18 percent being due to political factors. One of those factors Bush has absolutely no control over. The other ones he does have an effect on. Heading an administration that gives the most influence to the least competent (but most conservative ideologically) when it comes to Middle East policy and how to run the war in Iraq has not helped. And when I say run the war I mean the entire thing, from start to finish. The finish hasn't come until there is a new stable Iraqi regime capable of providing security to the Iraqi people and that seems to be something that will take a while yet if it is achieved at all.

Someone asked why a person would declare themselves to be self-employed when they're not making a sufficient income from it rather than collect unemployment. I had to look again because of my disbelief that he had to ask. In case you hadn't noticed, unemployment runs out. Large numbers of people have been unemployed long enough for that to happen to them. Then they decide to try something that in their opinion makes them self-employed. So there's your household survey response but they're just not making enough money to spend enough on anything but the basics to help keep the economy stimulated.

Presidents have a great deal to do with the economy in many ways. Government policy that they control, how they influence international relations that can affect trade and the psychological attitudes of everyone who has anything to do with the economy which far too many economists and business analysts underestimate. When someone sees a bad piece of economic news and Bush just acts like it didn't happen instead of addressing it in some way, any way then doubts are prompted about his competency in any but the pure ideological Republicans who won't admit that he can make any mistakes.

Tim's "competent" Kerry administration would have featured Joe (can we say LIAR?) Wilson as some sort of high-up at State and Sandy Burglar as SecDef. "Competent" Kerry was rated as "unfit" for CiC by 100% of his chain of command in Vietnam. He was a do-nothing in the Senate for 20 years.

Brian Greenberg wrote on August 6, 2004 04:46 PM:

I didn't see a single speech at the DNC that focused on job loss, economic policy, or taxes (other than the sparsely populated, non-sanctioned Bush bashing comments).

He also referred his audience to his website (johnkerry.com) for more details on "our plans for the economy, for education, for health care, for energy independence".   Click the link.

Matthew Cromer wrote at August 8, 2004 02:51 AM:

"Competent" Kerry was rated as "unfit" for CiC by 100% of his chain of command in Vietnam.

His "chain of command in Vietnam" put him in for the Bronze and Silver Stars, and praised him highly in their reviews.

Now, thirty years later, no longer "his chain of command" and no longer "in Vietnam", they are critiquing him — not as "his chain of command", but as members of the opposing political party, and as supporters of the opposing candidate.

If Kerry only had a camera phone (little joke about the Super8 films he supposedly took) we wouldn't be having these Swift boat arguments now would we.

a·nach·ro·nism
PRONUNCIATION: -nkr-nzm
NOUN: 1. The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order. 2. One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a person or practice that belongs to an earlier time: “A new age had plainly dawned, an age that made the institution of a segregated picnic seem an anachronism” (Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Colored People: A Memoir April 1995).

For some reason, I always think of anachronism as it relates to technology (usually weapons technology). The included definition does not specifically cite the case of newer technology going back in time. The "what if Napolean had had an A-Bomb" example comes to mind.

Jim English
Chicago

As per the Stephanopolos show this weekend, if you cannot even get the endorsement of the general who commanded the two wars which have been the centerpiece of your claim to warrant re-election (and a man who grew up in your own Texas hometown, no less), aren't you basically fucked?

I always find it interesting how two groups can interpret a single fact (or a group of facts) differently.

I bag to differ with you Jane, I think that the President does have something to do with the economy. I do, however, agree that there is very little a president can do about economic cycles.

Jane knows that I think most detailed economic analysis goes a bit over my head. That being said I never thought that the tax cuts for the upper-middle class and wealthy citizens were going to do much of anything. Looks like I was right. Bush had no ability to control the basic economic cycle. We were on a downturn. Even before the 2000 election most people I knew thought it was pretty inevitable. It was the way the cycle was going. 9/11 helped to spur the cycle down. Not Bush's fault either.

It's what Bush did when he decided how to handle the economic downturn that I question. Would Gore have done a better job? Who knows. But I certainly don't think the job this President did, was good at all. I don't think his various solutions worked. These numbers are evidence of that in my estimation. Bush claimed his stimulus package would create (I believe) 300,000 new jobs a month. It hasn't. He was incorrect. People make mistakes. Even the brightest ones. But most of the items I was reading (yeah yeah yeah, liberal press, yada yada yada) were saying the logic was faulty. Looks like it was. That's where Bush went wrong in my estimation.

As for the astronomic price of oil, I find most of the arguments against renewable or stronger incentives to improve fuel efficiency a little specious. It takes too long to implement a protocol? C'mon, at least if we did something about it the administration could say we've started. It won't effect us that much? That's nonsensical too. It may not effect that price of oil dramatically, but if we are able to get consumer use down by 50% (a fantasy number I'm pulling from my a$$) then the fact that oil prices are higher won't matter to the average American so much. If it used to cost me $200 per month to drive my car, and now, because the oil prices have risen, but my consumption has precipitously dropped, I am now spending $140, that's $60 I have to pay for movie tickets or shoes or any other good that will otherwise spur the economy.

The democratic convention was based on defense because it was the one place that Bush is really strong (although I have no idea why. Seems to me he's done a fairly lousy job there too, but that's an argument for a different post). The polling numbers already indicate that people think that Kerry is stronger on economics, he doesn't have to convince anyone that he'll handle things better. The majority of us (even those in the swing states) already feel that he will.

While these numbers are certainly good for Kerry (and bad for American, and don't think for one minute that doesn't bother me), I disagree that they're going to significantly change Kerry's numbers in any swing state. In addition, I think you're calling the election too soon. We still have the Republican Convention and the debates to go through and as far as I can tell from the polling numbers it's still too close to call.

Finally, I'd ask a question I ask reasonable Republicans all the time – what, short of nuclear war, would it take for you to admit that Bush is doing a horrible job, and Kerry (or ABB) would be better? This is the one that really has me stumped.

Sheesh, where to begin? Ok, here’s a few (in no particular order):

Bush doing a horrible job:
1. US casualties greater than 200,000 in Iraq alone.
2. Gives foreign countries and/or institutions veto power over unilateral US action against other countries.
3. Demonizes the privatization of Social Security even more than Kerry.
4. Advocates a universal healthcare program larger than the typical Democrat desires.
5. Bans personal ownership of firearms to a greater degree the typical Democrat desires.
6. Appoints federal judges who are even more left-wing than Kerry would.
7. Closes the door to all immigration permanently.
8. Comes out in favor if gay marriage.

Kerry doing better:
1. Admits his advocacy of the Communist cause and abandonment of our allies during the Vietnam war resulted in the death of several million allies of the US, the forced exodus of millions more, was one of the most dishonorable and morally repugnant actions ever taken by our country, apologizes profusely, and commits to never abandoning an American ally again.
2. Announces intent to invade / take-out North Korea, Iran, and Syria unless those countries immediately abandon their nuclear / WMD pursuits and convert to a democratic form of government.
3. Redirects all current farm subsidies to the space program (not necessarily NASA).
4. Repeals all federal income tax laws relating to corporate income and applies corporate tax rates to income according to GAAP instead.
5. Reduces copyright terms to a time period similar to patent terms.
6. Passes laws making it 1) illegal for pharmaceutical companies to charge more in America than the lowest price they charge anywhere else in the world, and 2) ending all trade with any nation which does not respect our intellectual property rights.

BTW, I campaigned for McCain and voted for Gore in 2000, so I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether I’m one of the "reasonable" Republicans or not.

Oh James! Can I play! I know the Answer to your last question. Are you a "reasonable" republican because you believe the following:

"Bush doing a horrible job:
8. Comes out in favor if gay marriage."

Right, because two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should not be allowed to have all the rights and privileges granted to them by a civil marriage because my religious concept of marriage disagrees with them doing it. Screw the constitution. Who you sleep with depends on what rights you get. 'Cause I think who you sleep with is icky.

"Kerry doing better:
1. Admits his advocacy of the Communist cause and abandonment of our allies during the Vietnam war resulted in the death of several million allies of the US, the forced exodus of millions more, was one of the most dishonorable and morally repugnant actions ever taken by our country, apologizes profusely, and commits to never abandoning an American ally again."

Not my impression of what he did, but the way you phase that alone is a ridiculous characterization. I mean I can play that game too. I'll admit Bush is doing a fantastic job if he will just come out and admit he is just a puppet for Big Oil, Dick Cheney and his Halliburton buddies, that he wants to remove every civil right I have, says he's real sorry and promises that from now on he's going to vote pro-choice, get the patriot act repealed and distribute his collected wealth to welfare mothers. Boy, that was fun.

"2. Announces intent to invade / take-out North Korea, Iran, and Syria unless those countries immediately abandon their nuclear / WMD pursuits and convert to a democratic form of government."

Right, and then we're going to draft EVERYONE and force people to work in factories for little or no money to pay for the industrial war machinery we're going to need...that is if their not actually at war with everyone, all over the world. Because we're America and we're strong and we can kick all y'all's a$$es. Thank goodness deficits don't matter.

"5. Reduces copyright terms to a time period similar to patent terms."

So that we can break every international copyright treaty we've ever signed, effectively reducing our international copyright protection to not-worth-the-paper-it's printed on status. Why you, a) care and b) think this is a good idea is truly beyond me. I can't think of a single reason you would want to do this.

"6. Passes laws making it 1) illegal for pharmaceutical companies to charge more in America than the lowest price they charge anywhere else in the world, and 2) ending all trade with any nation which does not respect our intellectual property rights."

I appreciate the first one, although it shows a complete lack of how the phram industry works and would effectively stop all drug r&d by US Companies (they would take their business somewhere else, like India). The Second is a lovely idea, except if we have just broken our copyright treaties with 100 nations around the world, why should they respect our IP rights. By doing this "Kerry" would effectively be advocating a protectionist policy where we are the only country that we will deal with. No more cheep goods from China...or Canada...or England...or anywhere.

"BTW, I campaigned for McCain and voted for Gore in 2000, so I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether I’m one of the "reasonable" Republicans or not."

You obviously were a reasonable republican then and sometime since then you must have been hit in the head with a tire-iron. You are absolutely not a "reasonable" republican. Most of the Republican’s I know would be scared to talk to you. You are a wacko. Congrats! I'm sure your family is very proud.

Ok, Kate…

Right, because two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship…

Are not the purpose of marriage, which makes the rest of your argument rather specious.

Not my impression of what he did but the way you phase that alone is a ridiculous characterization. I mean I can play that game too. I'll admit Bush is doing a fantastic job if he will just come out and admit he is just a puppet for Big Oil, Dick Cheney and his Halliburton buddies, that he wants to remove every civil right I have…

Kerry advocated our abandonment of Vietnam. Almost immediately after we did this, the Khmer Rouge (aka Communists) took over Cambodia and slaughtered a third of the country's population, while millions of freedom loving South Vietnamese took to the seas (many/most of which perished in the process) in an effort to escape the Communist take-over of their country. This could not be considered an unexpected outcome given the tens of millions of Soviet and Chinese citizens who had previously been slaughtered by their own communist governments.

How you equate that to Bush being a puppet of Big Oil and wanting to remove every civil right you have is completely beyond me, and reminds me why I don't bother talking to Democrats about politics very much anymore.

Right, and then we're going to draft EVERYONE and force people to work in factories for little or no money to pay for the industrial war machinery we're going to need...that is if their not actually at war with everyone, all over the world. Because we're America and we're strong and we can kick all y'all's a$$es. Thank goodness deficits don't matter.

Obviously you have very little understanding of our military capabilities or those of our enemies'.

So that we can break every international copyright treaty we've ever signed, effectively reducing our international copyright protection to not-worth-the-paper-it's printed on status. Why you, a) care and b) think this is a good idea is truly beyond me. I can't think of a single reason you would want to do this.

Here's a quick summary of my views on copyright law (I'm not the author). You can look up Lawrence Lessig's research on the subject if you want something more scholarly (longer).

I appreciate the first one, although it shows a complete lack of how the phram industry works and would effectively stop all drug r&d by US Companies (they would take their business somewhere else, like India).

The place where I work spends about three-quarters of a billion dollars on pharmaceutical drugs each year, with a decade+ annual trend rate of ~15%. I'm well aware of how the pharm. industry works (probably much more than you), and requiring drug companies to charge Americans the same rate they charge everyone else would not cause them to flee the country, though to the extent it slowed down their pace of "innovation" (LOL), I think that's mostly a good thing.

By doing this "Kerry" would effectively be advocating a protectionist policy where we are the only country that we will deal with. No more cheep goods from China...or Canada...or England...or anywhere.

To the extent that China considered movie piracy more important than selling us electronics gadgets, India considered Rx piracy more important than US outsourcing contracts, etc., then good riddance! At least then I wouldn't have to put up with all the whining from leftists about trade deficits, Asian funding of our bond market, unemployed steel & auto workers, etc.

You are absolutely not a "reasonable" republican. Most of the Republican’s I know would be scared to talk to you. You are a wacko. Congrats!

LOL! You must not know any real Republicans. I'd suggest leaving your bubble sometime and finding out what real diversity looks like. It sounds like Canada may be more to your liking than the US however.

I'm reconciled to the fact that Kerry will probably win the election, but I have little hope that he will be an improvement on Bush. Both seem pretty ineffective.

Whoever wins, the likely result will be gridlock. It takes a 60 seat majority in the Senate these days even to appoint judges, so don't expect much action from government over the next four years.

James,

Read the article. It says everything I've read before in a completely one-sided way. I don't deny that at a superficial level the issues with IP law that you've expressed are reasonable, but you're not looking at the big-picture. You're not seeing all sides of the argument (an argument it would be inappropriate for me to go into here, 'cause no one else really cares, but trust me, this is an area I have a great deal of expertise in). I do find it interesting that at the bottom of the article was the following message from the editors:

"Being a proud lackey of The System, MacEdition’s publication rights policy does not quite conform to the wildly anarchistic and civilization-threatening views expressed in this article – an article to which, nevertheless, MacEdition now has perpetual (albeit non-exclusive) publication rights. Go figure."

Even the site that PUBLISHES the article isn't taking it all that seriously, which they categorize as "wildly anarchistic" views. Now I believe they are being a little sarcastic, but there is a nugget of truth in the sarcasm.

Bush is in alot of trouble. At this point undecided voters normally vote for the challenger at 3 to 1, last month undecided broke 4 to 1 for Kerry.

Bush has nothing he can really point to as a policy success. The drug plan for seniors likely hurt him alot more with fiscal conservitives than it will help him with AARP. Everything Bush talks about comes with an excuse. The economy? Bush inherited a recession and 911 was very damaging. Even if its true, its an excuse. 911? Bush says intelligence failure, but more and more people view 911 as a Bush failure. War in Iraq? No wmd, no parades, and what started as no nation building will cost the American taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars. Space program? The space shuttle blew up, and the Mars manned mission was laughed at. Technology? The blocking of Embryonic stem cell research has us falling behind in one of the most promising fields in medicine in the past decade. I have no idea what the reps will focus on at their convention as a Bush accomplishment. The Patriot act? Gay marriage? Probably the tax cuts, but I cant see Bush promising another tax cut. I also think Bush will claim credit for no acts of terrorism on US soil since 911, but it took Al Qaeda 9 years between WTC events. The rep convention is going to be a negative. Santorum is a boring speaker, Ahrnolds a joke, and Rudy G hasnt held office in a long time. I heard they might have Hyde speak, and hes about the only guy I havehigh expectations for.

consumer confidence has weakened?

AP/IPSOS has it going up to 104

Begbee:

Where oh where to begin

Take a run over to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and find out the truth about job creation

Might as well make my prediction now:

Kerry, after his party's convention and several months of bad news for Bush (unrelentingly fanned by a compliant media) is still no better than even with GWB. Why can't he close the deal?

Because, in the end, people will just not elect this guy President, certainly not in the middle of a war. They (still!) don't know him too well, and what they do know they don't like very much. Unless Iraq and/or the economy take a disastrous turn, Kerry has nowhere to go but down.

So, some or all of these things probably happen:

Iraq improves;

The economy gets better (can't get much worse);

Bush gets a larger-than-expected bump from his convention (or at least larger than Kerry's bump, which was, um, zero);

Teresa takes some reporter's head off;

Kerry gets desperate and says/does something stupid at the debates;

Something else that causes a million or so potential Kerry voters to slap their foreheads and say, "Good God! What the hell was I thinking...?!"

Bush wins with 53% and 36 states.

Its July, its summer, typically, this results in a slow down in recruiting.

Interestingly enough some reports indicate that there is no slowdown in summer recruiting for management positions :

http://www.consultant-news.com/Article_Display.asp?ID=1664

EGC writes,

"ABR -- Do you have any idea HOW oil is consumed in the US? Even if everybody in the US cut their driving by 5% [correction made], that still would amount to a TINY fraction of oil consumption. The amount of conservation that would have to done in order to reasonably offset the PPB of oil would CRIPPLE the economy! Think of large scale power generation..."

I'm not sure where the focus on personal auto and truck usage of oil came from, but not me. I believe Jane brought it up in one of her responses. Anyhow, I would say that 5-10% transport usage consumption would be realistic. Everything from higher mileage vehicles to increased emphasis on public transport in key areas (not in places where it won't work well) would work together. I also suggested 5-10% conservation for all areas of usage was realistic, and given that other developed countries manage on far less per capita than what this would result in, the naysayers to conservation have at least somewhat of a burden of proof upon them.

"China ranks 3rd in the world in TOTAL consumption, but only 50th in the world in PER CAPITA consumption! Just think what's going to happen as the latter number starts (ed.: continues!) to rise!!!"

Again, this type of academic thought experiment ignores real-world constraints. There are many reasons why China's per-capita usage will never approach that of the U.S.. China's land area is about the same as the U.S., and they will never use as much on transportation per capita. They get much more of their power from hydroelectric than we do. Their economy will be faced by tighter supply constraints than the U.S.'s was at a comparable stage in its development. Many more reasons. Go over there and take a look at how things are for yourself.

Ed Reid writes,

"Investments in higher efficiency products and processes result in reductions in the investors' energy consumption and demand which are as durable as the investments. I agree that offsetting these reductions through increased usage is limited, though it is real. However, these efficiency investments are not permanent. Many of those who drove Pintos in the 70s are now driving SUVs or minivans."

Actually, even the SUVs get better mileage than the giant 2-door Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles of the early 1970s. Efficiency improves permanently if either the constraints that caused it stay (e.g. higher gas prices) or if stable cultural change comes about (improved fuel efficiency technology, public transport networks, more widespread habits of using them, greater proportions of electricity from renewable sources, etc.).

"The changes which would be required in US society to effect major reductions in energy usage are very unlikely to occur in the absence of a comprehensive and clearly communicated national energy strategy, which we currently do not have and appear incapable of developing."

We certainly won't be capable if our leaders just roll over and play dead in this fatalistic manner, and we citizens don't blow a trumpet in their ears to get them up and working again. This fatalism is aptly reflected in the blog EGC cites as supposedly proving futility of conservation. The only sure conclusion is that if we don't try for fear of failure, we definitely won't succeed. We have at most 30 years before oil production peaks, probably less (see article I cited above). We can either get cracking a bit more sharply than pure economics favors right now, or suffer a hard transition later in our own lifetimes. Your choice?

The majority of the US now sees Iraq as a mistake. The top has blown off in Najef this past week, and it appears Sistani has turned over control of the Shiaa to Sadr by seeking 'medical treatment' in Europe. The only hope I see for Bush in Iraq is a succesful siege on Falojah and/or the capture or killing of Zaharwei.

Bush is going to be spanked in the debates. As a sitting President the public is going to need to see more from Bush than stringing together a couple coherant sentences.

Bushs best hope to be reupped is the capture or killing of Bin Laden.

As for the astronomic price of oil, I find most of the arguments against renewable or stronger incentives to improve fuel efficiency a little specious. It takes too long to implement a protocol? C'mon, at least if we did something about it the administration could say we've started. It won't effect us that much? That's nonsensical too....[snip]....precipitously dropped, I am now spending $140, that's $60 I have to pay for movie tickets or shoes or any other good that will otherwise spur the economy.

And what, do you propose, do we "do" about it? Is this another one of those command-economy things? The market will react to a sustained high price in the obvious manner: people unwilling to pay the high price will switch to more efficient mode of transportation if they can, driving demand for manufacturers to provide fuel-efficient vehicles. Witness the runaway popularity of the current-generation Toyota Prius.

I personally think something like Europe's engine-displacement tax might be useful; IIRC a friend once told me that it would cost something like US$30k/year to own a Dodge Viper in Switzerland even before you drove it, yet unlike a gas tax, that wouldn't penalize the U.S. low-income sector so much, since most circa-1970s cars have finally rusted or irreparably failed from circulation. (But even that could run afoul of the Law of Unintended Consequences -- stifling e.g. technologies on larger engines that disable some cylinders during low-demand conditions, permitting a car to have somewhat improved fuel efficiency with extra power available on demand. Yes, this happens in practice; headlight technologies using multiple mini-halogens or white-LEDs for better light distribution are statutorally banned in many states by outdated legal language intended to discourage the use of multiple full-power headlamps).

The only meaningful steps I can see a president taking to promote energy improvements is to make a full-steam-ahead forray into nuclear power generation. But at what personal political cost, for collective gains that wouldn't be realized for 10-15 years out? Not many career politicians -- particularly ones with a chance at re-election to their current and/or better positions -- have that kind of civic-minded virtue on tap.

The majority of the US now sees Iraq as a mistake.

The majority of Begbees do, anyway, but so far they constitute a majority of one. I don't doubt other people share your view, considering (among numerous other evidences) that some of them post here. But do you have any data showing that the majority of the US shares this view in so many words?

If so, I would be genuinely interested in seeing it. If otherwise, put away the rhetorical rapier before you stap yourself with it.

Anony -

This might be what you're looking for (I didn't read the post you were responding to). http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm. Also, it's only the first result of a google search, so there might be better stuff out there.

It looks like there is at least reasonable evidence to suggest that a minority think Iraq was not a mistake.

They're only opinion polls, though, and YMMV.

Waitaminute.

The unemployment rate is at the averages of the previous three decades, after absorbing a huge number of immigrants into the economy. The unemployment rate is 0.5%-1.0% higher than what economists have long assumed to be 'full employment. Where is the crisis?

What to do about oil?
I search in vain looking for someone to point out the obvious....drill a little in Alaska.
Think if we show the desire to help ourselves in the oil SUPPLY department our current suppliers (who are totally dependent on oil income for their economies) might think twice into driving prices ever higher?
If your client shows no willingness to seek other suppliers what are you going to do? Cut the price of your product? Right.
Add in a commitment to clean, safe, nuke power and you might see oil producers moderate their behavior even more very quickly.
Then again, the price of oil was about $15 ten years ago....anybody remember why? Like I said, oil producers all need the revenue...desperately and that part of the equation (to pump till it hurts) isn't going to change for quite sometime.
The price will fall back to $25/barrel over the next few years.

The reason the household survey is pure bunk is because a good number of these alleged business start ups don't even exist or if they do, aren't jobs in the sense that they are not generating revenue for the purported job holder. Most small businesses are miserable failure which crash and burn within a year. Also, many people simply claim to be self employed after they get fired, even though they don't really have a job. Thus a lawyer cut loose from a big firm will call himself a solo pracitcioner even though he has no current cases or clients and a computer programmer who got fired from IBM will call himself a consultant, even though no one consults with him. Face it, Bush's job record is pathetic and won't help him come November.

Tim:

Very nice, thanks. The "mistake" question does support Begbee's assertion, although just barely. I also find it interesting that the historical opinions of those surveyed correspond roughly to the amount of media harping on the issue in the same time frame...and equally interesting is that the "Bush misled" camp does not yet have a majority.

I have some fresh input to this story. The dam has burst, in that I have so far received something like six contacts about IT consulting jobs, this afternoon.

The latest was not one I would pursue, as it is "out of town" (New Jersey), but when I received it, I knew that "something is happening". One contact was a phone call. The rest were email inquiries, based on my Monster posting. The phone call was from a recruiter who I have been networking with. We had a near miss with one job, but got caught by a departmental hiring freeze.

Regards,

Jim Bender

http://anglo-dutch-wars.blogspot.com/

http://17th-centurynavwargaming.blogspot.com/

http://kentishknock.com/

http://anglodutchwarsblog.com/

http://dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/

Wow. I just received a seventh contact this afternoon about an IT job from my Monster posting. The "toast" assessment might be premature.

Regards,

Jim Bender

http://anglo-dutch-wars.blogspot.com/

http://17th-centurynavwargaming.blogspot.com/

http://kentishknock.com/

http://anglodutchwarsblog.com/

http://dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/

Jim, better email your good news to Karl Rove ASAP. I am sure your almost getting a job will allay all the Bush team's concern about job loses.

I may be way out of my league here, but wasn't one of the selling points of the tax cuts Bush proposed was the specific number of jobs he claimed the cuts would create? I'm not saying he was right or wrong to do tax cuts, but by linking tax cuts to job growth he set himself up to live or die by the results. I've heard time and again that the President cannot do much in terms of the economy, and I do believe that, but by promising a huge number for job creation to sell it, didn't he fall right into the trap he set himself?

Bush is going to be spanked in the debates.

That's what we all thought would happen four years ago, too, until Gore painted his skin orange and starting shaking his head and sighing every few seconds. Bush's successes have a lot to do with his opponents "misunderestimating" him.

Look, Kerry can win this thing, but he's gonna have to get off the Vietnam thing and stop listening to the Michael Moore wing of the party. He's going to have to convince people he'd be a good president and will pursue the war; simply being The Guy Who's Not Bush won't do it. Plus he's going to have to stop acting like that. (You know, like Ben Stein in the movie "Ferris Bueller", minus the personality.)

And he's going to need some luck. A lot of it, really.

If I may quote Ms. McArdle's bete noire Paul Krugman (assuming he still IS her bete noire) in tonight's NY Times:

"Finally, many apologists have returned to that old standby: the claim that presidents don't control the economy. But that's not what the administration said when selling its tax policies. Last year's tax cut was officially named the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - and administration economists provided a glowing projection of the job growth that would follow the bill's passage. That projection has, needless to say, proved to be wildly overoptimistic.

"What we've just seen is as clear a test of trickledown economics as we're ever likely to get. Twice, in 2001 and in 2003, the administration insisted that a tax cut heavily tilted toward the affluent was just what the economy needed. Officials brushed aside pleas to give relief instead to lower- and middle-income families, who would be more likely to spend the money, and to cash-strapped state and local governments.... the actual results - huge deficits, but minimal job growth..."

Of course, supply-siders also ridiculously misjudged the effect of Clinton's 1995 tax hike on the wealthy -- virtually to a man, they predicted catastrophe. Paul Craig Roberts' cover story for National Review was "How to Grow the Deficit". Forbes magazine predicted a major recession and urged investors to move their money out of the US and into the safe harbor of -- you guessed it -- Japan.

Well, as Krugman said earlier in his book "The Accidental Theorist": when an economic theory scores as consistently dismally in its predictions as Reaganite supply-sidism has, it's time to begin seriously considering the possibility that it might be, er, wrong.

By "pursuing the war", I hope RMc means "pursuing the worldwide war against megaterrorism" -- not "pursuing the war in Iraq", which at this point has turned out to be just one battle in that war and a disastrously badly chosen one. Thanks to the fact that msot of our military has been tied down in a country which -- it was clear before we went in -- had very little or no nuclear program, Iran's mullahs are apparently free to romp on their own merry way toward the Bomb. And preventing nuclear proliferation among dictatorships -- given its horrendous likely consequences -- is, by an enormous margin, the most important step in the anti-terrorism world war, as it was before 9-11. Even though just about everyone thought Saddam DID have some biological weapons when we invaded, even given the wonders of genetic engineering it will be at least 15-20 years before BWs can come anywhere near the marvelous deadliness of nuclear ones. (Chemical weapons aren't even within three orders of magnitude.) Nor have we been devoting remotely as much effort as we should to nuclear weapons in North Korea, Pakistan, and the poorly-guarded gigantic Russian arsenal. (In fact -- as was noted by a number of observers at the time -- after the White House discovered in Oct. 2002 that North Korea had restarted its own Bomb factory, they concealed the news from Congress for two weeks until the war resolution had been voted -- and then revealed it to them within a few hours.)

And the draining-off of our resources toward the red herring of Iraq (along with Bush's harebrained tax-cut obsession) also means that we aren't spending nearly as much on domestic security as we should -- which means (as Aviation Week has been indignantly pointing out for years) that we are still absolutely wide-open to an attack involving big and possibly fertilizer bomb-stuffed cargo planes, which can be very easily hijacked, stolen, or simply bought.

The question is whether Kerry will do any better. His continuing bizarre shilly-shallying on both what he would have done at the start of the Iraq war and what he'll do about it now is extremely disturbing, and he's as silent as Bush on what he'd do about the Iranian Bomb if diplomacy doesn't work (which it won't). I say that it's obvious we have to pull our troops out of part -- and maybe all -- of Iraq immediately to deal with all those other higher-priority threats. I also think we'd better face up to the fact that there is no conceivable way Iraq can be both unified and democratic; if we want to have any chance of preserving democracy in any part of it (including the Kurdish section), we had better face the fact that the country is a totally artificial Frankenstein's monster sewed together by the Sykes-Picot Agreement 85 years ago and should be partitioned into three separate pieces (each of which would have a far better chance of remaining peaceful and developing democracy than the whole chaotic unified lump).

James debenedetti: "'Two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship' are not the purpose of marriage, which makes the rest of your argument [in favor of gay marriage] rather specious."

Ok, James, what IS the purpose of marriage? Am I going to have to sic Andrew Sullivan on you? If you say that the purpose of marriage is to produce children, then are you saying that heterosexual couples who are too old or otherwise unable to produce kids shouldn't be allowed to get married?

Of course, we all know what the real game is. Bush is trying to appeal to the large bloc of fundamentalist Christians who think that homosexuality is flat-out evil in any form simply because the Old Testament and St. Paul say so -- but at the same time he's trying to avoid saying that flat-out, in order to keep from looking to non-fundamentalists like a religious bigot. Thus all his uneasy drivel about how allowing gays even secular civil unions would somehow "endanger the institution of marriage". ("Gee, Marilyn, it's not that I don't love you deeply and everything, but I just can't bring myself to marry you because they're letting those awful gays get married too." Puh-leese.)

Ohhhh. I got an job offer, sort of. Stop the presses, the recession is over!!!!!

Bruce, the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for the propagation and rearing of children. While it's tragic that some people are physically incapable of having children, we still want them to marry because it's part of the socialization process that encourages young people to pursue a monogamous heterosexual lifestyle (the goal of which is a stable environment for the propagation and rearing of children; not personal happiness, fulfillment, and social acceptance of one's sexual activities).

And since you have trouble understanding why the extension of marriage to include homosexuals endangers the institution itself, let me propose an analogy:

Why shouldn't war protesters who refuse to fight for their country be given veteran status by the government?

After all, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who have been labeled veterans without ever being shot at or in put in harm's way on the front lines. Why discriminate against war protesters just because of their political views (which are protected by the 1st Amendment, by the way).

How could giving veteran status to people who refused to fight for their country cause any harm to those who already are veterans? How could it possibly harm the institution of military service? After all, you're not "taking" anything away from people who become veterans in the traditional manner.

On second thought, let's try something different: instead of giving the protesters "veteran" status, we'll have the government call them "protesters" instead, and entitle them to all the same rights and institutional privileges that veterans are eligible for. That should be a reasonable compromise for everyone who isn't a military nutcase or bigoted hater of war protesters, right?

RMc writes, "Look, Kerry can win this thing, but he's gonna have to get off the Vietnam thing and stop listening to the Michael Moore wing of the party. He's going to have to convince people he'd be a good president and will pursue the war; simply being The Guy Who's Not Bush won't do it."
-------------

Do you think this is the way to go, stop listening to the Moore wing and (presumably) appeal to the center? That's what Gore tried. How many undecided and would-be Republican voters did he attract by that, and was it worth the others that he alienated and either voted for Nader or did not vote at all? I'm not disagreeing with you, but Bush has have a lot of success from energizing the slightly-to-the-right part of his base...

As far as debates, I'd put Kerry as the underdog there. Despite not appearing to grasp most issues in a conceptual (as opposed to surface-y, buzzwords-and-slogans) way, Bush is cunning and has a style that appeals to the average not-too-intellectual American. Kerry is good at justifying his positions when put on the spot, but between his votes on the Iraq war and complex, nuanced plans for the economy and health care I predict Bush will wipe the floor with Kerry painting him as a vague waffler. Bush could also do well by not getting Kerry's goat and just letting him drone on until his listeners fall asleep.. ;-)

James: "Bruce, the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for the propagation and rearing of children. While it's tragic that some people are physically incapable of having children, we still want them to marry because it's part of the socialization process that encourages young people to pursue a monogamous heterosexual lifestyle (the goal of which is a stable environment for the propagation and rearing of children; not personal happiness, fulfillment, and social acceptance of one's sexual activities)."

So how, pray tell, does allowing homosexuals to marry (or at least to establish civil unions)discourage heterosexuals from doing so, any more than allowing elderly heterosexuals to marry does so? ("Gee, Marilyn, it's not that I don't deeply love you, but I just can't bring myself to marry you because they allow those horrible sterile old farts to get married too.")

Obviously all you've succeeded in establishing is that we want to encourage MONOGAMY and discourage unmarried parenthood -- and, as Sullivan keeps pointing out, allowing gays to marry (or establish civil unions with comparable economic benefits to childless heterosexual married couples) would encourage monogamy among gays as well.

Or, perhaps (in accord with your veteran analogy)that we should provide more economic benefits to married PARENTS than to unmarried ones. (But even there, is a marriage of two hostile people chained together only by economic benefits any more likely to encourage its children to regard marriage as desirable?)

For the record: I'm perfectly happy to compromise on simply allowing gays to form civil unions with the same benefits provided to childless heterosexual married (or civilly united) couples. That, however, is precisely what the Constitutional amendment favored by Bush would also forbid any state from doing. And the real reason he's backing it is, as I said, excruciatingly obvious.

In this thread, ABR made the comment that, "These type of 'increased usage soaks up any savings' arguments work in abstract academic settings, not in the real world, where other constraints exist."

However, on an earlier thread, when discussing Ralph Nader and the lack of higher fatalities caused by the repeal of the (stupid) nationwide 65 mph speed limit, ABR made this comment on February 25: "However, do you really want to argue that an increase in the speed limit did NOT contribute to more driving?"

So, let's see - according to ABR, making it cheaper to drive by increasing the efficiency of vehicles will NOT cause an increase in driving, while repealing ridiculously low speed limits will. Okay...

Apparently, those "other constaints" go away when talking about speed limits and their effects on driving. Or do they only vanish - and then suddenly reappear - when they boost the argument being made?

Bruce, you give the appearance of not comprehending my previous post, but I'm of the opinion you're simply misrepresenting it in order to regurgitate Sullivan's quixotic arguments, so I don't plan on continuing this discussion with you.

What aspects of it don't I understand, James? You said that it's important not to give homosexual couples the same rights as childless heterosexual couples simply in order to discourage unmarried parenthood -- period. I pointed out three reasons why I think your reasoning is obviously flawed. If I've overlooked something, explain it to us. If you're simply going to not answer because I'm Picking On You, then you've answered my questions anyway, in my favor.

(Incidentally, you also ridiculously screwed up your veteran analogy -- the correct analogy would be to say that people who CAN'T fight for their country should be given the same rights as veterans, not "people who could fight for their country but choose not to". Which, once again, is a good reason why -- by your own standards -- heterosexual couples who either can't have or choose not to have kids should not receive any legal or economic benefits that gay couples can't receive. If you want to economically discourage unmarried parenthood, the thing to economically discourage is UNMARRIED PARENTHOOD -- not childless marriages.)

Not sure why I'm bothering to reply to this, but Geeber, in this thread I implied that the existence of time as a constraint will limit any increase of driving amount/distance (not eliminate it, as you falsely paraphrase) in response to improved fuel economy; my earlier comment in the Nader thread suggested that an increased speed limit would increase driving distance, because more could be covered in the same amount of time. You're taking my quotes out of context, but I was actually focusing on the importance of the same constraint in both cases -- time. If you want to argue that my point in either case was wrong, go ahead -- e.g., you might not think the relative magnitudes of the effects are in the relationships I suggest -- but I was not contradicting myself.

When I was in college (during the Carter administration), 6% unemployment was considered full employment. The rate now is 5.6%. Very low unemployment. I believe it is lower now than when Bush took office. Given the upheaval of 911 and a recession - Not Bad

ABR, you responded to my post because it raised a valid point.

Increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles, while gas prices remain the same (or drop over time, when measured against the rate of inflation), makes it more economical to drive greater distances. Several economists have noted this effect, as Jane has said. (This is part of the reason why we are seeing more development farther out from urban centers.) Maybe time would restrain this trend if people already spent most of their day driving, but they don't.

Higher speed limits do not have the effect of making people drive more. At the most, drivers get to their destination faster (not to mention more safely, as has been shown repeatedly since speed limits were raised) and spend more time there.

Maxboxer, your belief that unemployment is lower now than when Bush took office is incorrect. It was 4.1% in January 2001.

Comments are Closed.