To be one's self,
and unafraid whether right or wrong,
is more admirable than
the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity.
Irving Wallace
Hinting at Abuse of Power
I think as I mentioned earlier this weekend that Obama is hinting at the use of an illegal executive order:
"In the coming weeks, I’ll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents and educators, in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this, because what choice do we have? We can't accept events like this as routine." - Obama at Newtown, CNThis guy hires the most idiotic speechwriters of trite nonsense: "we can't accept events like this as routine"? Is this same guy who came up with "we can't afford to do nothing"? As someone who has been accused both in academia and the private sector of being long-winded, I have yet to see or hear an Obama speech which isn't poorly organized and replete with vacuous truisms, political spin and related filler material. The content is rather predictable and boring. He relates anecdotes of people he's never met, etc. I can't say I know how I would feel in the place pf survivors; however, I'm a private person and I don't think I would want a President's security team or the national media invading the wake or funeral of a loved one. I'm fairly certain I wouldn't want the death of a loved one to be used to score political points.
As to the speech quote itself: first, it is never a good idea to set unrealistic expectations. A President can use the bully pulpit or sign legislation But if he thinks he can jawbone the GOP House into compromising the Second Amendment, he's delusional. In fact, he didn't work in any discussion of "working with Congress". The NRA cites statistics showing only a small, all but statistically insignificant number pf gun murders associated with so-called assault weapons, that one is multiple times more likely to die from murder from other means, that there's a dubious connection between number of rounds and weapon casualties, that existing weapons were grandfathered under the old ban, and the overall murder rate has continued to decline, despite the ban expiration. (Note in the case of this tragedy, the assailant also brought 2 multiple-round pistols.) Moreover, it's unlikely any of the legislation proposed to date would have stopped this tragedy .
I think everything points to Obama trying to abuse his authority to issue executive orders to implement an assault weapon ban by fiat (he hinted some action he will take will agitate people), and I expect the NRA will immediately file suit in federal court.
Why oppose an essentially useless ban? I think that there's a moral hazard argument. a ban is a poor substitute for an effective safety policy. We know there was a(n armed?) security guard, and somehow the murderer forced his way into the school.
Leszek Balcerowicz: WSJ Interview: Thumbs UP!
The former Polish central bankers has some insights I find prescient:
- First, Bernanke-style policies "weaken incentives for politicians to pursue structural reforms, including fiscal reforms," he says
- Mr. Balcerowicz struggles to find the appropriate word for Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's latest invention: "Unprecedented," "a complete anathema," "more uncharted waters." He says such "unconventional" measures trap economies in an unvirtuous cycle. Bankers expect lower interest rates to spur growth. When that fails, as in Japan, they have no choice but to stick with easing. "While the benefits of non-conventional [monetary] policies are short lived, the costs grow with time," he says. "The longer you practice these sorts of policies, the more difficult it is to exit it. Japan is trapped."
- Another unappreciated consequence of easy money, according to Mr. Balcerowicz, is the easing of pressure on the private economy to resstructure
- He came to prominence in 1989 as the father of the "Balcerowicz Plan." Overnight, prices were freed, subsidies were slashed and the zloty currency was made convertible. It was harsh medicine, but the Polish economy recovered faster than more gradual reformers in the old Soviet bloc.
- Going back to the 19th century, industrializing economies recovered best after a crisis with no or limited intervention.
- He loves Madison's "angels" quote: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
Voodoo Statistics: Is War Good For the Economy
Is the Emperor Wearing Clothes?
If I told you that consumers endured rationing and bought war bonds instead of consumer goods and services. that two-fifths of our economy was dedicated to unsustainable wars of death and destruction, that what existed was not a free market in the Defense part of the economy but an intrinsically inefficient monopsony, that non-Defense businesses had to compete for resources against government, that many of our best, most experienced, most productive young workers were drafted (inefficient labor market: the government hires by force, not competing by, say, compensation) and were replaced by inexperienced or older and/or otherwise less productive workers, that in the years following the war we saw record growth despite a collapse in government spending and up to 16 million WWII veterans looking for work?
I believe I've quoted Robert Barro before in the run-up to the massive, ineffective 2009 stimulus:
Now we have the extreme demand-side view that the so-called "multiplier" effect of government spending on economic output is greater than one -- Team Obama is reportedly using a number around 1.5.If the multiplier is greater than 1.0, as is apparently assumed by Team Obama, the process is even more wonderful. In this case, real GDP rises by more than the increase in government purchases. I have estimated that World War II raised U.S. defense expenditures by $540 billion (1996 dollars) per year at the peak in 1943-44, amounting to 44% of real GDP. I also estimated that the war raised real GDP by $430 billion per year in 1943-44. Thus, the multiplier was 0.8 (430/540). The other way to put this is that the war lowered components of GDP aside from military purchases. There are reasons to believe that the war-based multiplier of 0.8 substantially overstates the multiplier that applies to peacetime government purchases. For one thing, people would expect the added wartime outlays to be partly temporary (so that consumer demand would not fall a lot). Second, the use of the military draft in wartime has a direct, coercive effect on total employment. Finally, the U.S. economy was already growing rapidly after 1933 (aside from the 1938 recession), and it is probably unfair to ascribe all of the rapid GDP growth from 1941 to 1945 to the added military outlays.(A lot of the stimulus was in the form of a temporary tax cut, which many taxpayers saved because it wasn't a sustainable increase in discretionary spending, and more went to inefficient local/state government labor markets.)
Why am I raising this issue now? The fear-mongering over sequester, particularly military. I have to shake my head in disgust. After running a campaign where Obama questionably took credit for withdrawing from Iraq on Bush's negotiated schedule, instead of drawing down via force reductions, Defense Secretary Panetta, in conjunction with the Spendthrift-in-Chief's July promise, has exempted military personnel and put the full brunt of cuts (10% vs 8%) on operations, maintenance, training and infrastructure. So much for "fair and balanced".
I have been clear that I think with a $16T deficit we cannot afford to sustain a role as the world's benevolent, underappreciated, unpaid for policeman. I think other nations need to vest in their own regional security, and we are engaging in moral hazard; I would like to see steps to streamlining our bases and alliances and cost-sharing, e.g., in guaranteeing shipping lanes and freedom of the seas. Of course, we need business re-engineering more risk-sharing by Big Defense and cost accounting reforms, less reliance on Big Iron and more diffuse, decentralized, failover, rapidly deployable soldiers and infrastructure.
Man-Machine Symbiosis: Isn't This AWESOME?
Granted, it's invasive (sensors inserted to the brain surface) and less impressive than curing paralysis, but imagine being able to drink from a cup for the first time in years on the basis of your thoughts guiding a robotic arm.
Musical Interlude: Christmas Retrospective
Perry Como, "There's No Place Like Home For The Holidays"
