Dad; Biker; Fixed Income Investor; gadfly. NOTICE: by viewing these posts you agree to unilaterally void all indemnifications or waivers from me..
1619 stories
·
6 followers

TRUMP TO PELOSI: Sorry, your private-jet junket to Europe and parts east is a casualty of the shutd…

2 Comments

TRUMP TO PELOSI: Sorry, your private-jet junket to Europe and parts east is a casualty of the shutdown. Clever how he mentions “flying commercial” just to make clear that she wasn’t planning to.

Read the whole story
ahofer
16 hours ago
reply
Commercial flights to Iraq being widely available and all.
Princeton, NJ or NYC
pwyll1969
16 hours ago
https://www.google.com/flights?hl=en#flt=SFO.BGW.2019-02-03*BGW.SFO.2019-02-07;c:USD;e:1;sd:1;t:f
ahofer
16 hours ago
I stand corrected!
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
pwyll1969
15 hours ago
reply
:D

BLUE STATE BLUES: Families Fleeing New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut, New York, Study Finds….

1 Comment

BLUE STATE BLUES: Families Fleeing New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut, New York, Study Finds.

Read the whole story
ahofer
16 hours ago
reply
The underlying link ()https://www.unitedvanlines.com/contact-united/news/movers-study-2018) is interesting. SOme of this is demographic retirement. For instance, zoom in on #1 NJ and you'll see 38% of moves were retirement. (Ours was not).
Princeton, NJ or NYC
Share this story
Delete

How about using half the Bezos fortune to stop US child poverty for one year?

1 Comment
There is a serious fairness issue here, but it doesn't have to do with whether MacKenzie ends up with $1 billion or $68 billion. Continue reading



Read the whole story
ahofer
1 day ago
reply
because it would require liquidating Amazon?
Princeton, NJ or NYC
Share this story
Delete

The Economics of Soaking the Rich

1 Comment

The Economics of Soaking the Rich

Paul Krugman: The Economics of Soaking the Rich: "Diminishing marginal utility is the common-sense notion that an extra dollar is worth a lot less in satisfaction to people with very high incomes than to those with low incomes. Give a family with an annual income of $20,000 an extra $1,000 and it will make a big difference to their lives. Give a guy who makes $1 million an extra thousand and he’ll barely notice it. What this implies for economic policy is that we shouldn’t care what a policy does to the incomes of the very rich. A policy that makes the rich a bit poorer will affect only a handful of people, and will barely affect their life satisfaction, since they will still be able to buy whatever they want...

...So why not tax them at 100 percent? The answer is that this would eliminate any incentive to do whatever it is they do to earn that much money, which would hurt the economy. In other words, tax policy toward the rich should have nothing to do with the interests of the rich, per se, but should only be concerned with how incentive effects change the behavior of the rich, and how this affects the rest of the population.... In a perfectly competitive economy, with no monopoly power or other distortions—which is the kind of economy conservatives want us to believe we have—everyone gets paid his or her marginal product.... If a rich man works an extra hour, adding $1000 to the economy, but gets paid $1000 for his efforts, the combined income of everyone else doesn’t change, does it? Ah, but it does—because he pays taxes on that extra $1000. So the social benefit from getting high-income individuals to work a bit harder is the tax revenue generated by that extra effort—and conversely the cost of their working less is the reduction in the taxes they pay.... When taxing the rich, all we should care about is how much revenue we raise. The optimal tax rate on people with very high incomes is the rate that raises the maximum possible revenue.... Diamond and Saez put the optimal rate at 73 percent, Romer at over 80 percent—which is consistent with what AOC said...


#noted
Read the whole story
ahofer
2 days ago
reply
Naturally, he neglects to mention a) the competing literature (see Cochrane for a summary) and the fact that the 70% is a TOTAL marginal tax (including state, local & RE, consumption, etc.), one that many wealthy people would pierce with even a 50% federal bracket.
Princeton, NJ or NYC
Share this story
Delete

The very sharp Jeet Heer traces David Brooks's intgellecutal panic back to the J...

1 Comment

The very sharp Jeet Heer traces David Brooks's intgellecutal panic back to the John Birch Society; Jeet Heer: A Few Thoughts on "Cultural Marxism," Marcuse, John Wayne, the John Birch Society, and Anti-Semitism: "Goobers in the Trump administration are worried about 'Cultural Marxism' in the 'Deep State' opposing Trump.... 'Cultural Marxism' is a big boogeyman on the alt-right: it's the people who are supposedly responsible for creating PC, feminism, etc. The actual historical 'cultural Marxists' (or 'Western Marxists') were the Frankfurt School: Adorno, Benjamin, Marcuse etc... sought to supplant and update Marx's economic system with recognition of cultural forces...

...Frankfurt School marginalized for decades (at odds with both Stalinism of East & capitalism of West) but enjoyed 1960s resurgence. For a variety of reasons Marcuse was most popular Frankfurt School figure in New Left (live in CA, Angela Davis student, wrote about sex). By coincidence Marcuse was in France in 1968 and incorrectly portrayed by press as major instigator. The conspiracy-minded John Birch Society picked up on idea of Marcuse as evil masterminded & made it part of their lore. John Wayne was a Bircher and in Playboy interview of May 1971 repeats idea of Marcuse as root of all New Left evil. Lore about Marcuse became a kind of common sense on the right, partly because it fit existing anti-Semitic tropes.... Jewish masterminds stir up the nonwhites against white culture: far right plugged Marcuse & Angela Davis into mythos

Should be said this whole view of "cultural Marxism" as root of feminism, anti-racism, PC etc is radically at odds with history. Feminism, anti-racism etc had roots very different than Frankfurt School. Marcuse's ties to New Left more personal than ideological. The Frankfurt School guys were pretty stuffy European elitists. Adorno hated Jazz & radical students and was super Eurocentric.

The alt-right view of "cultural Marxism" is just an updating of this old Birch Society myth. As with all conspiracy theories, "cultural Marxism" creates convenient foe: foreign Jewish intellectuals are problem. Women & POC dupes. What's interesting is that Trumpists are now connecting "cultural marxism" with "deep state." This is return to Bircher roots. 1950s/1960s Birchers thought USA gov't infiltrated by communists. Eisenhower was a commie!... Trumpist replicating this idea.... Anyways, as a rule, there's little novelty in Trumpism. It all has roots in history of USA far right...


#noted #orangehairedbaboons #moralphilosophy #publicsphere
Read the whole story
ahofer
2 days ago
reply
ugh DeLong AND Heer on intgellecutal (sic) panic. What fresh hell is this?
Princeton, NJ or NYC
Share this story
Delete

More on the Government Shutdown and Keeping Parks Open

1 Comment

I discussed the shutdown and its effects on the parks my company operates here (spoiler:  all are still open).  Shawn Regan of PERC has a good article in the National Review on the same subject:

....under new shutdown guidelines established by the Trump administration, our parks have been rightfully spared from serving as pawns in Washington’s partisan budget battles as they did in the past.

Under a contingency plan created by the administration, park officials are allowed to keep sites accessible to visitors during the shutdown with skeletal staffs, rather than being forced to close them as was the case during the 2013 government shutdown presided over by President Obama. That means many important visitor activities and park operations — from snow-coach rides in Yellowstone run by private concessionaires to guided battlefield tours of Gettysburg — can continue yielding economic benefits for the surrounding communities. This week, the National Park Service also announced it will begin tapping unspent visitor-fee revenues to bolster operations at some parks.

These new plans are attracting criticism in the familiar anything-Trump-does-must-be-bad vein. Theresa Pierno of the National Parks Conservation Association slammed the administration’s decision to keep parks open, calling it “unrealistic and dangerous,” even though the NPCA repeatedly called for parks to be reopened during the 2013 shutdown. Representative Raúl Grijalva, the new Democratic chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, pledged to hold hearingson the administration’s decision to support park operations with fee revenues....

The Trump administration’s approach is sensible. Why unnecessarily ruin visitors’ plans or jeopardize the millions of dollars in revenue that local communities receive from park visitation? If visitation begins to pose significant health or safety concerns, the contingency plan gives park superintendents the option to close areas or shut down parks entirely, as some parks have already done.

He goes on to make the very logical point that the vast majority of BLM lands and US Forest Service lands -- whose acreage dwarfs that under management by the National Park Service -- mostly all remain open in every shutdown.  The large amounts of government staffing on NPS lands are needed to handle large visitor concentrations in small areas, something that really is not an issue in most parks in January.

Folks who have been hunting for pictures of overflowing trash cans to paint the current opening of parks as a bad idea could find just as many in the summertime on government lands when the government is not shut down.  Remember, for all the love folks want to throw at the National Park Service at these times, it is an agency that has allowed many of its parks to fall apart, with perhaps $20 billion in deferred maintenance and very little new investment in the modern infrastructure visitors are demanding.  And it has a labor model that is well suited to counting wolves but poorly suited to efficiently cleaning bathrooms and emptying trash cans even when the government is open.  This shutdown is the least of the problems faced by public recreation lands.

I think people get confused about the purpose of the government shutdown.  It is not a punishment, or a timeout, meted out by the law when Congress can't agree on a budget.  It is a mechanical (and logical) requirement that spending on certain activities stop when that spending is no longer legally authorized.  The media acts like it is supposed to be painful, and that Trump is somehow breaking the rules by making it less so.  I often criticize this President, but this is one area Trump should be applauded.  I think the wall funding issue is a dumb reason to go into budget gridlock, particularly when he had 2 years of Republican Congresses to get this done, but given the fact of the shutdown he should be applauded for attempting to reduce its impact on ordinary Americans.  President Obama, for all his reputation of caring and hope, was to my mind overly callous in explicitly trying to make the shutdown more painful for average people.

Read the whole story
ahofer
2 days ago
reply
"Theresa Pierno of the National Parks Conservation Association slammed the administration’s decision to keep parks open, calling it “unrealistic and dangerous,” even though the NPCA repeatedly called for parks to be reopened during the 2013 shutdown. "
Princeton, NJ or NYC
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories