Developing a Social Welfare Curve

The focus in the first few classes this semester had a theme of efficiency vs. equality. We discussed how it is simply impossible to compile the collective feelings of an entire populous. I would argue however, that such a thing may be possible in the future through computer analysis like that described in this article. When social networks become popular throughout all generations could supercomputers be able to take the temperature of the entire U.S? What would this mean for the way we look at the economy?

Germany shows how to integrate renewable energy

How does an industrialized nation get over 25% of its energy from renewable sources? Germany shows us how, in this article. They used a decentralization process, moving away from four large energy producers to a current count of over 800 producers, in conjunction with a user funded bonus (instead of subsides) to help bring about this change in less than 15 years. Could this kind of changed be realized within the U.S?

Nate Silver and His Magic Numbers

 As we are all well aware, Nate Silver of the NYT blog FiveThirtyEight, made history by successfully predicting the fate of each of the 50 states during the presidential election, correct in many cases down to the margin of victory. The question this article asks is what kind of things will change in coming years as a result. Mainly what will become of the political punditry from both sides of the aisle with the development of hyper accurate political predictions? This article argues that in the US, and in the UK where this is also prevalent, the provision of an example of strong and accurate predictions will help to stem the tide of media outlets using sub-par or biased support for their "I-have-my-own-reality" claims. Do you believe this shift will actually occur in the U.S? Personally I don't see the cash-cow that is political punditry going away anytime soon, either way though, I will be returning to FiveThirtyEight four years from now for my political projections.

Jon Stewart

Not sure if anyone else watched this last night, but Jon addresses the issue of companies complaining about having to provide health insurance to their employees under Obamacare. The first 8 minutes or so are the relevant parts, and he is very funny as always...(link)

High Cost of Education

I ran across this interesting video by Bloomberg on why the cost of education is so high.  Even though it is not my week to post, I thought I should share anyway.  The video explains that the structure of higher eduction is the main source why education is so expensive.  Since a college does not act exactly like a highly functioning competitive business, it is difficult to think purely in terms of efficiency. Since we are nearing the end of our college careers, this is a great video to reflect on.  Was the investment worth it?

Inefficiency also exists in market activity

Think about the soft drink industry for example.  (see link here)

Meeting or Demanding?

President Obama will be meeting with 12 CEOs according to this article. The CEOs represent different sectors of business but the meeting is supposed to raise support for reducing the deficit. The plan is to cut government spending and raise taxes so he is talking about the tax raise with the attendees. Personally, I feel that a meeting implies sharing ideas about this but I think he is more telling them about the changes coming to more or less prepare them. Sure, they are asking for a couple things in exchange but this must have been expected if you are going to meet with them in person, that just opens the door for talks like that. Do you think a meeting was actually necessary or could Obama just have increased the taxes and expect the companies to follow the new rates? What do you think he is trying to achieve with this meeting?

Democrats Like a Romney Idea on Income Tax

This link describes the feelings of some democrats on Capital Hill who approve of a piece of Romney's income tax plan: capping deductions.  By capping the amount of deductions at somewhere around 35k, excluding charitable givings, the government could increase its revenue even more than just through higher rates for earners over 250k.  Good idea? Does this seem like it will cause much of an uproar?

"But with the presidential campaign over, it is taking on new salience. The Democratic centrist group Third Way has made it the centerpiece of a package of tax changes that it says could raise nearly $1.3 trillion over 10 years without raising rates."

"The Third Way proposal would limit tax deductions to $35,000 but would exclude charitable giving. Universities, foundations and other philanthropies have been the biggest impediment to passing Mr. Obama’s more modest 28 percent limit, which did not exclude the charitable tax deduction."

ABC re-examines Mitt Romney's loss...

Check out this video about Mitt Romney's loss in the election, there is also an interesting article underneath. Romney claims, "We still believe there are better days ahead."

Energy Independence

Here are estimates about the future on oil/energy production. It is estimated that by 2020, the U.S. will be the largest oil producer and can become almost energy independent by 2030. The raising prices of oil and new technology is allowing the U.S. to take this road. What are your thoughts on the potentially happening? There are many positives to this, but are there any major negatives that we should consider before making this possible reality?

What Mattered in the Election

This article on fox news talks about the seven things that mattered in the election, and the author states that as Americans, it's our job to "get to work". What do you guys think? Keep in my this article is very opinionated.

Detroit showing up

This was an interesting article about Detroit voting this year and how so many people showed up to vote this year. Why was there such a good turnout this year? Can Detroit do anything to get an even better turnout in years to come?

Economic values and the new social contract

David Brooks, a columnist at the NYTimes, believes that both parties operate on outdated social contracts.  But the Republican one is the more outdated.  He counsels

If I were given a few minutes with the Republican billionaires, I’d say: spend less money on marketing and more on product development. Spend less on “super PACs” and more on research. Find people who can shift the debate away from the abstract frameworks — like Big Government vs. Small Government. Find people who can go out with notebooks and study specific, grounded everyday problems: what exactly does it take these days to rise? What exactly happens to the ambitious kid in Akron at each stage of life in this new economy? What are the best ways to rouse ambition and open fields of opportunity?Don’t get hung up on whether the federal government is 20 percent or 22 percent of G.D.P. Let Democrats be the party of security, defending the 20th-century welfare state. Be the party that celebrates work and inflames enterprise. Use any tool, public or private, to help people transform their lives.

See the rest of the op-ed here.

What do you think?

Immigration Reform

This article states that Obama said in the coming weeks and months he is going to work on immigration reform. He appealed to and got the support of almost 3/4 of the Latino vote that helped propel him to another victory. Is this something that needs to be addressed so soon with other problems at hand?

Extensions on Health Care for States

This article talks about Obama extending the deadline on the health plan for some states to December 14 and in some cases February 15. Most people were waiting for his reelection, and/or the outcome of the Supreme Court case challenging the health care law.

“Consumers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia will have access to insurance through these new marketplaces on Jan. 1, 2014, as scheduled, with no delays,” Ms. Sebelius told governors. “This administration is committed to providing significant flexibility for building a marketplace that best meets your state’s needs.”

but Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, "said the change in the deadline was 'no surprise' because the White House had not given states enough information or guidance to make decisions...the fact that the exchanges are such a mess is pretty emblematic of how flawed the president’s health law is — with states having to bear the brunt.”

What do you think? Who do you agree with?

Obama, Boehner Open to Budget Bargain

This link details the first of many important discussions on the looming fiscal cliff.  Obama and Republican House Speaker John Boehner have recently given their stances on the issue, but this will be the first post-election meeting regarding the "fiscal cliff." Personally, I see Obama in the driver's seat on this one.  Though the House remained Republical controlled, I see Obama using his power play and pushing through termination of Bush tax cuts on incomes over $250k.  Thoughts?

Here are some tasteful bits:

Mr. Obama, in his first statement on the fiscal cliff since winning re-election Tuesday, said any deal must include tax increases on "the wealthy."

It's clear that there are a lot of special- interest loopholes in the tax code, both corporate and personal. It's also clear that there are all kinds of deductions, some of which make sense; others don't."

Each year, Americans claim more than $1 trillion in tax deductions and bipartisan panels have called for curbs on these breaks

And he wants to impose a special minimum tax on the very high-income—those making more than $1 million a year. The White House also has focused on curbing other tax exemptions, such as those on interest from bonds issued by state and local governments and contributions to retirement plans. The White House has estimated the total package would raise about $584 billion over 10 years.

Gun Sales Up?

This is an interesting article relating an increase of gun sales to the election of Obama. I didn't think there would be a connection but this explains a little bit of why sales did increase. Are these smart investments by the people purchasing the guns?

Soooo... what happens to Romney?

This article talks about the options that Romney has after his loss in the presidential election. What do you think his next move should be? What would you do in his situation... Some say he'll write a book, others say he is pretty screwed without an organization to run. But Romney states, "I will not fall off the map." Any reactions to this article?

Getting back to work

Obama is already getting to work and meeting with leaders to talk about the fiscal cliff that is fast approaching and also starting to talk about our deficit and how to start recovering from that. With the Bush-era tax cuts ending soon and government spending being cut, they are predicting $800 billion if no opposing actions are taken. That is thought to push us back into a recession though. Here is an article that talks about both topics and the plan plan to bring us out of the deficit we currently have. Is there more that needs to be done than simply higher taxes and cutting spending? There are many ideas that should come to mind that based on discussions we have had in class throughout the quarter. What can reasonably be added to list that could help us tackle this crisis and not end up in riots and other outbreaks?

Election Implications for Major Industries

"After President Obama’s re-election, fears are growing that more of the same gridlock in Washington over fiscal policy will slow the economy to a stall in the next few quarters, perhaps even tipping it into recession." NY Times article states, saying these fears sent stocks much lower yesterday, roughly 2%.  In the article, as like a previous blog I posted, “We still have a divided government, and they haven’t been able to agree on what to do.” (Dean Maki)

“The U.S. isn’t being pressured by markets to do a deal,” he said. “That gives Washington the incentive to push it off.” (Dean Maki)

This article talks about the European Unions slow recovery in 2013, but unemployment will still remain high, and GDP will shrink.

What do you think about this article in discussing the future of Obama's presidency and what will happen with major industries in American for the next year? 

Maybe too big to fail is downsizing

Fresh reports today that the ranks of Goldman Sach’s “partners” slimmed down by 31 people over the last nine months are yet another sign that the world of American finance is ever-so-slowly returning to its boring roots. Goldman had 483 partners at the end of 2011. That number is down to 407 in its latest filing, a decline of 16%....  The decline in partnerships underscores how Goldman and other investment banks have been shrinking worldwide as a result of tougher market conditions and regulations. UBS just unveiled plans to axe roughly one-sixth of its workforce and essentially wind down its bond-trading operation. In London’s financial center—the City—employment is expected to drop 100,000 from its peak of 354,000 back in 2007, by the end of this year. On Wall Street, official estimates suggest New York lost roughly 20,000 securities industries jobs since 2007.  Now, it’s important to highlight the fact that there are differences between different kinds of bankers. Wall Street investment bankers buy and sell companies, help corporations raise money by selling bonds and act as a sales force of sorts for financial institutions that want to flog more complex products such as “derivatives.” On “main street,” bankers are people who take money from depositors and then lend it out to—hopefully credit-worthy—consumers and companies.  (see link here)

Note how market conditions coupled with regulation are credited with the changes.  I'd call that capitalism at work.

Everything You Need to Know About the Fiscal Cliff

 This link to the video pretty much spells out the fiscal cliff in a pretty easy to follow format.  With the election over, and the House of Reps retaining Republican control, the looming fiscal cliff becomes the next issue.  And after watching John Boehner speak about his position, higher revenues through tax reform and not from taxing higher income, it seems like a resolution may not be in sight.   Thoughts?

Obama Wins a Clear Victory

But balance of power is still unchanged in Washington.  Not only did democrats continue the presidency, "they held off a concerted drive to take over the Senate and instead added slightly to their majority." This article posted in NY Times discusses how Obama only won 50% of the popular vote, still showing how divided the country is towards his leadership. The bigger issue, as the author describes, is the divide of Washington over the size and role of government, "the balance between stimulus spending and proper level of taxation has not been settled." The only issue resolved by the election was the health care plan, which Republicans now do not have the ability to overturn it.

Obama told supporters in Chicago:
“You elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours. And in the coming weeks and months, I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together: reducing our deficit, reforming our tax code, fixing our immigration system, freeing ourselves from foreign oil.”



Where do you think our government will go in the next few months with such a divide?

President Obama’s Success - NYTimes.com

A well-reasoned editorial......I am not worried by this day after election.  Optimism and common sense.

President Obama’s Success - NYTimes.com

Forward?

Here is a link that compares some of Romney's plans to Obama's. In case you weren't paying attention, Obama was re-elected and will lead us for another 4 years. We have already seen him in action for 4 years and saw how he he has started t bring back the economy. Do you think that his overall plan is better than Romney's? What changes should be make to his current actions to continue to bring back our economy? Are there things missing from this list (off his official website) that should be a major concern for Americans? I think there are other things that should be listed on this list, even if it is not a huge advantage for Obama, as it could be a huge concern in the near future for Americans.

The view from Europe: Capitalsm is killing America

We see economic chaos when we look at the Eurozone.  This German opinion piece eloquently describes the disaster looming in America's unequal society: 

Romney, the exceedingly wealthy business man, and Obama, the cultivated civil rights lawyer, are two faces of a political system that no longer has much to do with democracy as we understand it. Democracy is about choice, but Americans don't really have much of a choice. Obama proved this. Nearly four years ago, it seemed like a new beginning for America when he took office. But this was a misunderstanding. Obama didn't close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, nor did he lift immunity for alleged war criminals from the Bush-era, or regulate the financial markets, and climate change was hardly discussed during the current election campaign. The military, the banks, industry -- the people are helpless in the face of their power, as is the president. Not even credit default swaps, the kind of investment that brought down Lehman Brothers and took Western economies to the brink, has been banned or even better regulated. It is likely the case that Obama wanted to do more, but couldn't. But what role does that play in the bigger picture? We want to believe that Obama failed because of the conservatives inside his own country. Indeed, the fanatics that Mitt Romney depends on have jettisoned everything that distinguishes the West: science and logic, reason and moderation, even simple decency. They hate homosexuals, the weak and the state. They oppress women and persecute immigrants. Their moralizing about abortion doesn't even spare the victims of rape. They are the Taliban of the West........The truth is that we simply no longer understand America. Looking at the country from Germany and Europe, we see a foreign culture. The political system is in the hands of big business and its lobbyists. The checks and balances have failed. And a perverse mix of irresponsibility, greed and religious zealotry dominate public opinion.

(see here for complete editorial)

Who Would the World Elect?

Check out this link showing who the rest of the world favors in the U.S. presidential election.  This poll done by BBC news shows that 21 countries would prefer Barack Obama.  The only country that would choose Mitt Romney is Pakistan.  What do you guys think about the graphs?

Results ranked by support for Obama: 

Results ranked by support for Romney: 

Voting day, November 6, 2012 Presidential Elections. Did you vote?

This presidential election was the first I was able to vote in and I, as I assume many of you voted also, went to Douglas Community Center today to fill out my voters ballot. I was wondering what all of you thought of voting today. Was it an easy choice? What about the other sections on the ballot, the proposals, voting for Congress, etc.? What were your reactions to your first experience voting?

The View From Nairobi

Here is an interesting article about the image of Obama in Kenya over the four year period.

A Tie for Obama and Romney in Nation's First Results

Dixville Notch, New Hampshire with a voter turn out rating of 100% for the past 50+ years, has released its results, the first from the 2012 election.  The result? A tie, the first ever recorded.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/06/a-tie-for-obama-and-romney-in-nations-first-voting/

Yes or no, the votes will reflect recent polls and this will be the closest race ever?

The broken social contract

 I don't know you.  I don't live near you.  I don't trust you.  I don't like you.  Leave me alone.  And so goes.  See the piece linked here.   We will have a new social contract--good or bad.

Leadership can matter--good or bad

 We see the impact of leadership on the economy in China.  (see here) 

China's predicament feels like it ought to be a chapter in our book, doesn't it?

What We Already Know

The election campaign has come to an end and its time for people to vote. This article draws conclusions from the two major presidential campaign by dividing it into four broad categories: demographic trends, health care, the truth and ideological conflicts. What is your final view on both political campaigns?

Why Socialist Europe Is Better for Families than America

In this article, child care is used to justify why socialist Europe is better for families. The cost of raising a child in America is much higher than raising a child in country like France. Is it better — easier, more affordable, fewer “opportunity costs” — to have young children in France or Europe generally than in the United States? Are there drawbacks to the European support of families? Do other qualities of American society make up for the financial burden on families?

If you have a choice to live in America or European countries like Sweden, which country would you prefer?  

France Moving to Socialism

With the U.S. elections only 3 days away, much of our conversation has been focused on the campaigns.  I though it might be interesting to shift our attention to political elections going on abroad, especially with our reading this week being so internationally focused.  France is also getting ready to hold elections.  Many people say that if candidate Francois Hollande wins, it will move France to being socialist and cause tension in Europe between France and Germany.  This short article by Euronews sheds light on the issue.  If any of you studied abroad in Germany or France, it may be useful to comment on the relationship between the two countries, the political issues you notices, and what type of government you believe works in either country.

Agriculture in America

For those of you who commented on the “The farm bill died from lack of consensus building hard work” post, check out this article  by Forbes.  It explains how big of business farming really is.  The article continues to explain the battle between large-scale scientific farms and small organic farms we see in small town or urban gardens.  The article tends to favor large-scale farms by arguing they are more efficient and needed to sustain a growing population.  Please comment on why you agree or disagree with this notion as well as what you think the government's role in agriculture should be.  

First Video in the Series: Jobs

So, its not my week but I had to share; if anyone remembers the video from Econ4, the one declaring that we needed to have a new discussion in America about our ineffectual government and policies, they have now released the first video in the series. The video tackles the issue of job creation head on and with a lot of solid, economically supported ideas. This is well worth a watch

Jobs Are Growing, Not Stagnating

This article has stated that jobs are growing under Obama's leadership. The unemployment rate dropped by three-tenths of a percentage point to dip below 8 percent for the first time in 43 months. Although the current trend is promising, it is still not going to solve the unemployment problem. Romney has promised to create 12 million jobs. Would you prefer slow recovery under Obama plan or try something new with Romney's plan?

The farm bill died from lack of consensus building hard work

We have had farm bills in place since the depression era.  But the latest version did not make it through Congress.  So who cares?  And who should care?  (see here for story)

Would privitization help? I doubt it

Natural disaster is just that.  People's lives are turned inside out.  Look at the impact of Sandy on Staten Island, one part of the area that Sandy has devastated.  (see the short news segment here)

I am again reminded of Travis' game. 

I don't like your research results so let's burn your report

Typically, empirical academic research proceeds like a conversation.  Someone finds a result.  Someone else questions the methodology, data, or theory and then redoes the analysis taking into account the issues that he or she raised.  Then someone else does it again.  Eventually you have a body of work that can be examined on a "meta" level and some conclusion can be drawn. 

The Congressional Research Service does private research for people in Congress.  According to the NYT, "The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording."  (see link here)

Republicans did not say whether they had asked the research service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, to take the report out of circulation, but they were clear that they protested its tone and findings.Don Stewart, a spokesman for the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Mr. McConnell and other senators “raised concerns about the methodology and other flaws.” Mr. Stewart added that people outside of Congress had also criticized the study and that officials at the research service “decided, on their own, to pull the study pending further review.”

You can look the report by clicking the link.  It is not partisan and is very data driven.  The Times article ends with a weird paragraph about the author of the report.  Here it is:


Mr. Hungerford, a specialist in public finance who earned his economics doctorate from the University of Michigan, has contributed at least $5,000 this election cycle to a combination of Mr. Obama’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

This paragraph seems to imply (at least to me) that an empirical researcher can be overly biased by his or her political leanings and that somehow giving to political campaigns is a subversive activity.  Again, normal research methodology would be for this work to be countered by other work.  The work would not be removed from circulation. 

Romney on FEMA, Then and Now

Romney had a different opinion on FEMA few months ago. Now he is changing his words. Clearly he could not stand up for his own words. So, is he trust worthy enough to be elected as a president?(link)

Sandy Socialists

Republican governors order hurricane evacuations so we won’t have to bail you out. Then why do they defend your right to skip health insurance?

"What’s odd about Christie and other Republican governors is that they recognize this principle only when a hurricane hits. When it comes to injury or disease, which we know will strike everyone on this planet, the Republican governors defend your right to ride it out. They oppose any requirement to buy health insurance. If you get sick, the rest of us will shell out to rescue you." (link)

Thoughts?

The Women's Vote

In this video,female voters in the swing state of New Hampshire discuss what issues are foremost in their minds in the closing days of the presidential campaign. It was really interesting for me, as a non-voter, to listen to what were their reasons for voting a candidate. In the video, insurance and 9/11 were some of the issues which influence the voters. My question is, what issues will you have in mind, when you are going to vote for a candidate in the upcoming election.
 

‘11 Excellent Reasons Not to Vote?’ - NYTimes.com

Check out this little video:

‘11 Excellent Reasons Not to Vote?’ - NYTimes.com  (link here)

Are you voting?  Is it important to vote?

Spreading the risk and the costs

 An editorial in the NYTimes talks about the need for federal disaster relief.  

Over the last two years, Congressional Republicans have forced a 43 percent reduction in the primary FEMA grants that pay for disaster preparedness. Representatives Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and other House Republicans have repeatedly tried to refuse FEMA’s budget requests when disasters are more expensive than predicted, or have demanded that other valuable programs be cut to pay for them. The Ryan budget, which Mr. Romney praised as “an excellent piece of work,” would result in severe cutbacks to the agency, as would the Republican-instigated sequester, which would cut disaster relief by 8.2 percent on top of earlier reductions.Does Mr. Romney really believe that financially strapped states would do a better job than a properly functioning federal agency? Who would make decisions about where to send federal aid? Or perhaps there would be no federal aid, and every state would bear the burden of billions of dollars in damages. After Mr. Romney’s 2011 remarks recirculated on Monday, his nervous campaign announced that he does not want to abolish FEMA, though he still believes states should be in charge of emergency management. Those in Hurricane Sandy’s path are fortunate that, for now, that ideology has not replaced sound policy. (see here for link)

The issue reminds me of the Moss book on risk and Travis's game on natural disasters.  It also relates to the cost of Obamacare.  States don't have the budgetary power to provide equal insurance or action.  Efficiency is not a concept that has meaning here. 

Fiscal Cliff

This article answers some basic questions about fiscal cliff. We are approaching the end of 2012 and the starting of fiscal cliff. Both Democrats and Republicans say it could be damaging to the unsteady recovery. Economist say if nothing is done, then cuts would send us back into the recession.

What are your views on fiscal cliff?

ESPN politics

Found this gem inside an article on ESPN, though it was interesting and relevant to our class

There Is No Medicare Trust Fund! As election season reaches its peak, so does nonsense on both sides. Mitt Romney says he wants to lower tax rates while eliminating deductions, which is the same as saying "I will cut your taxes and raise your taxes." Barack Obama says he wants to control federal spending while vowing the January 2013 spending cuts "will not happen," which is the same as saying, "I will reduce spending and increase spending." Romney's "plan" to "create 12 million jobs" contains zero specifics, just assumes that the president can say, "I direct the nation to create 12 million jobs." Obama's "plan" to contain federal spending is light on specifics, too.

What's really driving your columnist crazy about this election is the rhetoric on Medicare. Romney and sidekick Paul Ryan say they want to cut federal spending but also want to increase Medicare spending by the strangely precise $716 billion. The ObamaCare legislation assumes a future $716 billion reduction in the rate of Medicare increases -- not an outright cut, just a slower rate of increase -- but contains no specifics on how the savings will be realized. ObamaCare has virtues, yet is all but certain to cause federal health care subsidies to rise -- see this analysis and see Table 2 of this Congressional Budget Office paper, which projects that the first decade of ObamaCare will add $1.2 trillion to the national debt. And Romney wants to add $716 billion more. But he also wants to cut spending!

Supposedly part of the $716 billion savings will be realized from lower Medicare physician fees. Late in the Clinton administration, Congress enacted a rule that mandated mildly lower Medicare physician fees. Every year since, Congress has voted out a "temporary" waiver of the rule. The last waiver was signed in February, adding $18 billion to federal health care costs.

Obama's projected $716 billion in future Medicare savings are supposed to stem from unspecified development of unspecified new programs to reduce hospital and doctor expenses. This CBO study shows there were 34 federal initiatives in the past two decades to cut hospital Medicare costs, and none did so; most resulted in higher costs.

Passing a rule and then waiving application is classic politics, allowing members of Congress to come down firmly on both sides. When speaking to young audiences, members can say, "I voted to reduce Medicare spending." When speaking to older audiences, members can say, "I voted to block that awful Medicare fee cut." If for 12 straight years, Washington has refused to enforce an $18 billion Medicare cut, how can anyone believe a far larger reduction will be enforced?

The icing on the cake is that both parties talk about a "Medicare trust fund" as if Medicare taxes were being invested, the way commercial insurance premiums are. A Romney campaign ad targeted to senior citizens declared that ObamaCare is raiding "the money you paid for your guaranteed health care." But Medicare is not guaranteed -- the Supreme Court has said Congress can change the program at any time -- while seniors never prepaid their Medicare. Current workers fund current retirees.

That's not what senior citizens want to believe, so both parties pander to the illusion that Medicare is a right and that taxes go into an investment fund that belongs to senior citizens. Romney's ad pandered to that belief, and here is liberal Democrat Chris Van Hollen pandering to it. Medicare solvency projections are based not on money in a bank account but on forecasts of how long Medicare tax revenues will exceed care outlays. There is no trust fund!

Its a JEEP thing

I don't know about you, but I love election season. It really reminds me of a quote from the Mark Wahlberg movie "shooter". In it, a corrupt US senator from Montana says something to the effect of "The truth? You want the truth? The truth is what I say it is." In This article I find those words to be more true than anyone else's in real life. Jeep says Romney is lying and Romney says Jeep is moving jobs to China. Both are right. It blows my mind, but both have an argument using the same facts.

Jeep: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China,”  “It is inaccurate to suggest anything different. 

Romney: suggests Jeep, a recipient of federal bailout money, will soon outsource American jobs to China 

Fact: Chrysler, Jeep’s parent company, does not in fact have plans to cut its American work force but is considering opening a facility in China where it would produce Jeeps for sale locally. 

So no current jobs are being shipped to China. Point Jeep. However, rather than upping US production and exporting vehicles to China, Jeep will simply open a factory there. So potential jobs are in fact leaving US soil. In effect, point Romney campaign.

My Questions to you are these: Given the importance Ohio (and Michigan to some extent) have to the outcome of this election, Will the ability to spin facts regarding the auto industry be the deciding factor? Is there another issue you think will decide these swing states? Who is right in the situation above?

The cult of disruption

Hey....this is scary and cool.  (see link)

The original Silicon Valley meaning of a disruptive company was one that used its small size to shake up a bigger industry or bloated competitor. Increasingly, though, the conference stage was filled with brash, Millennial entrepreneurs vowing to “Disrupt” real-world laws and regulations in the same way that me stealing your dog is Disrupting the idea of pet ownership. On more than one occasion a judge would ask an entrepreneur “Is this legal?” to which the reply would inevitably come: “Not yet.” The audience would laugh and applaud. What chutzpah! So Disruptive!
The truth is, what Silicon Valley still calls “Disruption” has evolved into something very sinister indeed. Or perhaps “evolved” is the wrong word: The underlying ideology — that all government intervention is bad, that the free market is the only protection the public needs, and that if weaker people get trampled underfoot in the process then, well, fuck ‘em — increasingly recalls one that has been around for decades. Almost seven decades in fact, since Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead” first put her on the radar of every spoiled trust fund brat looking for an excuse to embrace his or her inner asshole. (For a delightful essay on that subject, I recommend Jason Heller’s “I Was A Teenage Randroid.”)

From Ayn Rand...

Consider the following quote…

The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.

Or this one…

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

The only thing that matters is profit within a market framework.

READ 'um and weep

In an age of technology, I would like to draw our attention back to the written word. Recently Random House and Penguin are going to join together to become the biggest thing in publishing. Using my vast knowledge of the publishing word, the first thought in my head when I saw the article was "monopoly anyone?" It seems now that there is a "Big 6" left in the publishing world and they are feeling the heat from this RH-P deal to make consolidation moves of their own.

My question to you is this; At what point, assuming more mergers between the remaining firms, would the government be needed to step in and file anti-trust against the industry? Is there a line in the sand, or would it depend on how effective their lobbyists are in Washington?

Perfect example of the interplay of new technology, monopoly power, and regulatory change

 See this fascinating piece on a case in front of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments today in a case called Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, and their final decision could help shape the future of "first sale," a legal doctrine that underpins the right to sell, lend, or give away the things you buy, even if those things contain copyrighted elements.
First sale provides the legal framework for marketplaces like used bookstores, flea markets, garage sales, and eBay. It’s crucial to making sure U.S. copyright holders can’t dictate, for decades, what you do with the books, CDs, DVDs, games, etc., that you buy. But book publisher Wiley says it doesn’t apply if the copyright holder is clever enough to ensure the product in question is manufactured outside of the United States.

(the complete story is here)
 
 The industry is trying to protect copyright.  But the consumer question is whether you own or license the things you buy.  If you own them, you can sell them.  If you license them, you cannot.

The private market and voting.....

So many stories of employers pressuring their workers to vote for Romney have come out that you might think workplace intimidation was invented just for this election.
Romney certainly hasn't done much to dispel this perception. In a conference call to the National Federation of Independent Business, the GOP candidate was recorded encouraging business owners to:

"[M]ake it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections."

 (see link here)

Free elections are only free when we take them seriously and vote.  From Wikipedia, we see turnout is low (even in 2008, it was less than 60%).  It is easier to capture a country's political system when so many people don't participate.  I wonder what turnout will be this year?

Going OUT and about

Is Out going to ultimately been the answer? Until reading this article I was only aware of Germany and France talking about the option of withdrawal from the EU. It now seems to me that there must be significant social movements in most of these countries for independence from the EU or to kick out the dysfunctional members.

My question is how much longer to you think this will last? Will we see a breakup of the Eurozone in one way or another in the next year?

I personal don't think so. Despite all the literature about the negative sentiments about how the union is going over there, I feel like if there was an easy out, and someone would have been better off, by now they would have pulled the trigger and left. I feel like those in power must obviously see that their destinies are all intertwined at this point and want to ride it out. Otherwise surely some politician somewhere would have made a move by now.  

Bipartisan Solution to the Deficit

This short article provided by the Brookings Institution goes hand in hand with the issues we have been discussing in class.  Remember when we had to decide budget cuts during our class exercise a few weeks ago?  It may be interesting to comment on how your cuts align with the plan created by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson.