Two days ago, Peter Diamond, a Nobel Laureate in economics, appointed by President Obama to a vacant seat on the Federal Reserve Board, withdrew his nomination. His statement explained why. In a nutshell, Republicans don't want someone on the FED who is expert in the economics of employment.
Why does the president want an expert in employment economics on the FED? Because one of the statutory responsibilities of the FED is to take measures promoting full employment. No economist is better qualified to figure out how best to do that than Peter Diamond.
Senator Shelby of Alabama has been Diamond's main obstacle. Senator Shelby is not unintelligent. He is, it seems, intelligent enough to know which side of his bread the butter is on and who is buttering it. And it isn't unemployed citizens of Alabama or anywhere else in America.
Time Magazine's Michael Grunwald has a pertinent observation here.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Goals of the Wealthy and Powerful
I've been trying to make rational sense of the adamant Republican opposition to any measures that might actually ameliorate the economic distress of ordinary people. I've been looking for an explanation other than their contempt for people who work for a living.
Even a political party whose central organizing principal seems to be the welfare of the top 1% of the economic strata might be expected to worry about the economy as a whole, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I have had a dark suspicion that it is all about partisan manipulation: wreck the economy and blame the democrats.
Maybe not.
Here is a much simpler explanation, and one with deep roots in history.
Check it out.
Even a political party whose central organizing principal seems to be the welfare of the top 1% of the economic strata might be expected to worry about the economy as a whole, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I have had a dark suspicion that it is all about partisan manipulation: wreck the economy and blame the democrats.
Maybe not.
Here is a much simpler explanation, and one with deep roots in history.
Check it out.
Interminable War
The war, it seems, went on forever.
It lasted half my lifetime. At least it had when it finally ended. In 1945.
When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, I was a little over four and a half years old. When the Japanese surrendered in Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945, I was eight years and five months old.
War movies had already been going on for nearly four years. And they are still going on.
I even occasionally come across a war movie I don't remember having seen before.
It's no wonder that younger generations can't place the war in any particular half century. It was ancient, wasn't it? Nineteenth century? Just after the Spanish American War? Or was it before?
It's also no wonder the younger generations find it unsurprising that a war in a foreign land could have been going on for a decade. It's like seeing WWII movies. Especially if you don't have a father or an older brother in the fight. Life goes on as usual.
That isn't the way it was in 1942. Or 1943 or 44 or 45. We were all in it together, even if all we did was deliver carefully smashed tin cans and bundles of paper and magazines to the scrap drive. Or sweetened our tea with saccharine instead of sugar and our mothers saved up ration cards for months to be able to bake a birthday cake.
Is this trip necessary? The patriotic posters asked in the train station.
Good question.
It lasted half my lifetime. At least it had when it finally ended. In 1945.
When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, I was a little over four and a half years old. When the Japanese surrendered in Tokyo Bay, September 2, 1945, I was eight years and five months old.
War movies had already been going on for nearly four years. And they are still going on.
I even occasionally come across a war movie I don't remember having seen before.
It's no wonder that younger generations can't place the war in any particular half century. It was ancient, wasn't it? Nineteenth century? Just after the Spanish American War? Or was it before?
It's also no wonder the younger generations find it unsurprising that a war in a foreign land could have been going on for a decade. It's like seeing WWII movies. Especially if you don't have a father or an older brother in the fight. Life goes on as usual.
That isn't the way it was in 1942. Or 1943 or 44 or 45. We were all in it together, even if all we did was deliver carefully smashed tin cans and bundles of paper and magazines to the scrap drive. Or sweetened our tea with saccharine instead of sugar and our mothers saved up ration cards for months to be able to bake a birthday cake.
Is this trip necessary? The patriotic posters asked in the train station.
Good question.
D-Day Conundrum
Sixty-seven years ago today, allied forces crossed the English Channel by air and sea, conducting the largest amphibious invasion in history.
The forces landed on the coast of Normandy, not far from Bayeux, from where the Norman forces under William the Conqueror had left in 1066 to defeat the forces of King Harold and conquer England.
By far the two best movies depicting the landings in Normandy are The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan. Neither movie, however, depicts the most significant technical innovations of Operation Overlord - the Conundrum, Pluto, Bambi, Dumbo and the Mulberries.
As early as 1941, British military and naval planners recognized that the harbors in the pas de Calais would be heavily defended and that amphibious assault would probably not succeed. The solution: artificial harbors constructed using enormous concrete caissons towed across the channel and sunk to form artificial breakwaters. Inside the breakwaters, cargo was to be offloaded onto floating piers.
The greatest challenge, though, was how to provide enough fuel to the forces once they landed. The answer was to invent, manufacture and test an underwater pipeline system, known as PLUTO (Pipe Line Under The Ocean). The pipeline was to be laid by using enormous spools of line (called Conundrum). Once in place, the pipeline would be serviced by camouflaged pumping stations built in great secrecy under the code names Bambi and Dumbo.
Here is a good summary of PLUTO.
The forces landed on the coast of Normandy, not far from Bayeux, from where the Norman forces under William the Conqueror had left in 1066 to defeat the forces of King Harold and conquer England.
By far the two best movies depicting the landings in Normandy are The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan. Neither movie, however, depicts the most significant technical innovations of Operation Overlord - the Conundrum, Pluto, Bambi, Dumbo and the Mulberries.
As early as 1941, British military and naval planners recognized that the harbors in the pas de Calais would be heavily defended and that amphibious assault would probably not succeed. The solution: artificial harbors constructed using enormous concrete caissons towed across the channel and sunk to form artificial breakwaters. Inside the breakwaters, cargo was to be offloaded onto floating piers.
The greatest challenge, though, was how to provide enough fuel to the forces once they landed. The answer was to invent, manufacture and test an underwater pipeline system, known as PLUTO (Pipe Line Under The Ocean). The pipeline was to be laid by using enormous spools of line (called Conundrum). Once in place, the pipeline would be serviced by camouflaged pumping stations built in great secrecy under the code names Bambi and Dumbo.
Here is a good summary of PLUTO.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Let's Make Voting Harder
Good article in today's New York Times explains what's really going on with voting law in North Carolina and in other states.
I had an earlier post on the issue of one-stop (early voting) in North Carolina.
I had an earlier post on the issue of one-stop (early voting) in North Carolina.
Make White Water!
When a US Navy destroyer goes from one place to another at high speed, it stirs the water up and leaves a big rooster tail and wake.
One day in 1964, I was at the conn of USS Higbee (DD-806) when the commodore decided to exercise the destroyer squadron at tactical maneuvers. At one point, we were in a circular formation centered on the flagship, when he ordered us to rotate the formation axis. I checked the maneuvering board solution and realized we could simply alter course a bit, slow to about ten knots, and slide into the new station. Smooth.
Commodore Healy had different ideas. He called us on the radio. "Higbee," he said, "this is ComDesRon Three. Make White Water!"
In other words, he wanted us to speed up, turn in a tight circle, stirring up the water, and hurry into the new station. I ordered left full rudder, all ahead full, and did as he wished.
I learned from that experience that sometimes visible action is more important than subtlety.
As I look at the state of the economy and assess the recent jobs information, I see that we aren't creating jobs fast enough to keep pace with our growing population. We need to kick up a rooster tail and make white water!
Is anyone in Washington listening?
One day in 1964, I was at the conn of USS Higbee (DD-806) when the commodore decided to exercise the destroyer squadron at tactical maneuvers. At one point, we were in a circular formation centered on the flagship, when he ordered us to rotate the formation axis. I checked the maneuvering board solution and realized we could simply alter course a bit, slow to about ten knots, and slide into the new station. Smooth.
Commodore Healy had different ideas. He called us on the radio. "Higbee," he said, "this is ComDesRon Three. Make White Water!"
In other words, he wanted us to speed up, turn in a tight circle, stirring up the water, and hurry into the new station. I ordered left full rudder, all ahead full, and did as he wished.
I learned from that experience that sometimes visible action is more important than subtlety.
As I look at the state of the economy and assess the recent jobs information, I see that we aren't creating jobs fast enough to keep pace with our growing population. We need to kick up a rooster tail and make white water!
Is anyone in Washington listening?
Debt Problem?
Suppose you could borrow money for ten years at a real interest rate of less than one percent? Even better, suppose you could borrow money for five years at an interest rate of less than zero? In other words, someone will pay you for you to borrow their money?
You'd probably think about borrowing that money and investing it in measures to improve your future wealth.
Strange as it seems, the US Treasury's real interest rate paid on inflation-protected securities is less than one percent for ten years and less than zero percent for five years. So why not borrow more at those rates and use the funds to stimulate jobs and reinvigorate the economy?
Ask the Republicans.
Is this what they mean by running the government like a business?
You'd probably think about borrowing that money and investing it in measures to improve your future wealth.
Strange as it seems, the US Treasury's real interest rate paid on inflation-protected securities is less than one percent for ten years and less than zero percent for five years. So why not borrow more at those rates and use the funds to stimulate jobs and reinvigorate the economy?
Ask the Republicans.
Is this what they mean by running the government like a business?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
