Forecasting in economics has never been easy, but now it seems the signals are increasingly hazy. Either that, or it's time to admit they are clear, and the picture is not pleasant.
Growth in America faded in the fourth quarter, according to the latest GDP statistics from the government, to an annual rate of 2.4 percent, down from an earlier estimate of 3.2 percent. In the third quarter, growth was 4.1 percent.
There are the numbers: 4.1 percent, 3.2 percent, 2.4 percent. A clear slowdown.
Earlier, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the U.S. labor market has recovered slowly and only partially since the end of the Great Recession, which ran from December 2007 to June 2009.
"More than four and a half years after the end of the recession, employment has risen sluggishly -- much more slowly that it grew, on average, during the four previous recoveries that lasted more than one year," the CBO said.
And at the same time, the CBO noted, the unemployment rate has fallen "only partway back to its precession level." Part of that improvement, moreover, is because "an unusually large number of people have stopped looking for work," the CBO added, and the rate of long-term unemployment -- the percentage of the work force out of a job for more than six months -- "remains extraordinarily high."
The nation is about 6 million jobs short of where it would be if the unemployment rate had returned to its pre-recession level, the CBO said.
Mark Twain once pointed that "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." Perhaps the defenders of austerity and the embattled 1 percent can figure out that their war of opposition is a losing battle.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Subjunctivitis
An it be so, it were a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
-- Shakespeare
Subjunctivitis: An unexplained grammatical phenomenon in which educators claim the subjunctive mood is no longer in use.
For years, students were told that speakers and writers of the English language had stopped using the subjunctive, or conditional mood. Reality: It never went away, and is still regularly used even by those who are unaware they are doing so. How can this be? Because the study of grammar gives you names for things you already know.
Some of the most effective use of the subjunctive -- when something is "sub-joined" to something else as a condition of its relevance -- is found in the works of William Shakespeare. But if truth be told (a subjunctive phrase), such usage is not a relic of Shakespearean or Victorian era writing, because it remains in use today.
There are only three moods in English language writing -- the Indicative: "It is," a description; the Imperative, "Do it!" a command; and the Subjunctive, "If it be ..." a concept with conditions attached.
Educators were prone to claim that the Indicative was used instead of the Subjunctive. That is, people would say, "If that was true ... " But for many users, when they hear that construction, it jars a bit. They feel it's somehow wrong, and they don't know why. However, on a subconscious level, they know because they have internalized the grammatical rules of their native language by the age of six. Later, when they go to school, teachers try to give them names for the grammatical functions. However, they often fail because students find the presentation boring.
The point is, you don't have to know the technical and grammatical terms for the phrasings you perpetrate, but good writers know the rules and follow them. Except when they need a special effect.
But you have to know the rules before you can successfully achieve the dialectal effect you want. And if you have any doubts, look it up in your style manual. You know, the one you had to buy for your Freshman Comp class in college but never read?
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
-- Shakespeare
Subjunctivitis: An unexplained grammatical phenomenon in which educators claim the subjunctive mood is no longer in use.
For years, students were told that speakers and writers of the English language had stopped using the subjunctive, or conditional mood. Reality: It never went away, and is still regularly used even by those who are unaware they are doing so. How can this be? Because the study of grammar gives you names for things you already know.
Some of the most effective use of the subjunctive -- when something is "sub-joined" to something else as a condition of its relevance -- is found in the works of William Shakespeare. But if truth be told (a subjunctive phrase), such usage is not a relic of Shakespearean or Victorian era writing, because it remains in use today.
There are only three moods in English language writing -- the Indicative: "It is," a description; the Imperative, "Do it!" a command; and the Subjunctive, "If it be ..." a concept with conditions attached.
Educators were prone to claim that the Indicative was used instead of the Subjunctive. That is, people would say, "If that was true ... " But for many users, when they hear that construction, it jars a bit. They feel it's somehow wrong, and they don't know why. However, on a subconscious level, they know because they have internalized the grammatical rules of their native language by the age of six. Later, when they go to school, teachers try to give them names for the grammatical functions. However, they often fail because students find the presentation boring.
The point is, you don't have to know the technical and grammatical terms for the phrasings you perpetrate, but good writers know the rules and follow them. Except when they need a special effect.
But you have to know the rules before you can successfully achieve the dialectal effect you want. And if you have any doubts, look it up in your style manual. You know, the one you had to buy for your Freshman Comp class in college but never read?
Jingo Lingo
An American sports website apparently got wound up over what it perceived as "jingoistic" coverage of the Olympic Games, and counted the number of times the words America or USA were said by NBC commentators. The conclusion was that the network was guilty of jingoism.
Consider: All news is local, and media -- both print and broadcast -- cater to (if not pander to) the interests of their readers and viewers. Baseball play-by-play announcers are often employees of the teams they comment on, rather than
employees of the TV or radio station. In any case, there is sometimes little difference between bias, slant, discrimination or jingoism. This aspect of journalism is true not only for sports, but for politics and government and other information as well. For example, Philadelphia newspapers and TV stations pay little notice to robberies, fires, shootings, etc. in Chicago, New York, Washington or any other major city, and vice versa.
To a large extent, news media do not mold public opinion so much as they reflect it.
But would it be rational to expect NBC to give extensive coverage to the performance of all the other teams competing in the Olympic Games? Mexico, for example, or Argentina, or Brazil, or bobsled teams from France or Germany, or skaters from Australia or Italy, or many of the other athletes from any of the many other countries represented at the games.
And as for American "bias" toward focusing on American athletes, other news coverage is little better. Our correspondent reports that Canadian commentators were ecstatic and danced around the TV studio when the Canadian hockey team won an early game. And BBC commentators cheered when an Austrian skier fell, thus ensuring a bronze medal for an English competitor.
Our Dublin correspondent noted, "I know that it's not always easy to show restraint during these events, and I do not expect balanced commentary from something like professional wrestling. However, I would hope for better standards for such major events as the Olympics. After all, if the commentators can show self control for the World Series or the Superbowl it should be possible at other events."
Possible, maybe. Likely, no. Sports reporters emphasize the activities of the home team, just as political reporters focus on the doings of local, regional and national government officials. Whether American TV networks and major newspapers should give more coverage to events in Canada and Mexico, or Ireland or Lithuania or Malaysia is an interesting question. As a practical matter, there is neither time nor space to devote detailed reporting on all aspects of every country. Moreover, the target audience wants to know how the home team is doing.
Is it jingoism? No, because the term is usually applied to unreasoning emphasis on one group to the extent that it is destructive to others. Rather, it is national pride and journalistic preference. All news is local.
Choosing which factor to emphasize in covering any story is standard journalistic practice, which textbooks call a slant. The word "bias" has negative connotations implying prejudice and bigotry, but every garment maker knows that when you cut or stitch fabric on the bias, it is slanted.
And "jingoism" has very strong negative connotations, suggesting political and ethnic bigotry. When NBC, the only American network broadcasting the competition, focuses on American athletes, they are serving the public interest, since that's what the American public wants.
Similarly, Canadian broadcasters will stress Canadian victors, the BBC will emphasize British athletes, and broadcasters from other countries will focus on the activities of their home team competitors.
That's not jingoism. Perhaps the website editors should check their definitions.
Consider: All news is local, and media -- both print and broadcast -- cater to (if not pander to) the interests of their readers and viewers. Baseball play-by-play announcers are often employees of the teams they comment on, rather than
employees of the TV or radio station. In any case, there is sometimes little difference between bias, slant, discrimination or jingoism. This aspect of journalism is true not only for sports, but for politics and government and other information as well. For example, Philadelphia newspapers and TV stations pay little notice to robberies, fires, shootings, etc. in Chicago, New York, Washington or any other major city, and vice versa.
To a large extent, news media do not mold public opinion so much as they reflect it.
But would it be rational to expect NBC to give extensive coverage to the performance of all the other teams competing in the Olympic Games? Mexico, for example, or Argentina, or Brazil, or bobsled teams from France or Germany, or skaters from Australia or Italy, or many of the other athletes from any of the many other countries represented at the games.
And as for American "bias" toward focusing on American athletes, other news coverage is little better. Our correspondent reports that Canadian commentators were ecstatic and danced around the TV studio when the Canadian hockey team won an early game. And BBC commentators cheered when an Austrian skier fell, thus ensuring a bronze medal for an English competitor.
Our Dublin correspondent noted, "I know that it's not always easy to show restraint during these events, and I do not expect balanced commentary from something like professional wrestling. However, I would hope for better standards for such major events as the Olympics. After all, if the commentators can show self control for the World Series or the Superbowl it should be possible at other events."
Possible, maybe. Likely, no. Sports reporters emphasize the activities of the home team, just as political reporters focus on the doings of local, regional and national government officials. Whether American TV networks and major newspapers should give more coverage to events in Canada and Mexico, or Ireland or Lithuania or Malaysia is an interesting question. As a practical matter, there is neither time nor space to devote detailed reporting on all aspects of every country. Moreover, the target audience wants to know how the home team is doing.
Is it jingoism? No, because the term is usually applied to unreasoning emphasis on one group to the extent that it is destructive to others. Rather, it is national pride and journalistic preference. All news is local.
Choosing which factor to emphasize in covering any story is standard journalistic practice, which textbooks call a slant. The word "bias" has negative connotations implying prejudice and bigotry, but every garment maker knows that when you cut or stitch fabric on the bias, it is slanted.
And "jingoism" has very strong negative connotations, suggesting political and ethnic bigotry. When NBC, the only American network broadcasting the competition, focuses on American athletes, they are serving the public interest, since that's what the American public wants.
Similarly, Canadian broadcasters will stress Canadian victors, the BBC will emphasize British athletes, and broadcasters from other countries will focus on the activities of their home team competitors.
That's not jingoism. Perhaps the website editors should check their definitions.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Number Perspective
NBC News made much of the report that the U.S. would reduce its military to the lowest level since before World War II.
Sounds scary, but some context is needed, which the network did not provide. Specifically, what was the force level in 1940 compared to the current level?
To report that the Department of Defense would cut the military by some 450,000 troops is one bit of information, but it does not give before and after numbers. Nor does it say that even after the reduction there would still be at least twice as many military personnel on active duty as there were in 1940.
The numbers are not hard to find. An ordinary desk reference such as the World Almanac and Book of Facts (my edition is three years old) yields the fact that in 1940, there were 267,767 active duty personnel with the U.S. Army, and that total grew to more than 8 million in 1945. In the year 2010, there were 566,065 Army personnel, out of some 1.4 million personnel on active duty in the U.S. military worldwide.
Granted, one could do a Google search to find these numbers, but that would involve going to the PC, turning it on, waiting for it to boot itself up, signing on, accessing the Internet, typing in a search term, hoping it's the right term and it yields the desired information. Then the searcher must choose from the many possible sources provided, and browse through a given source to locate the data wanted. All this while assuming you haven't forgotten by this time just what it was you were looking for. Also hoping that the chosen source is reliable.
Moreover, all this assumes you have a computer. Many folks don't, and in any case the search would distract a TV watcher from the news program, which should have provided the contextual information in the first place.
All this is not to admit being a technological troglodyte, but to urge news professionals to do a better job of putting new information into a larger context.
The bottom line is this: Even after reducing the military to "the lowest level since before World War II," American military strength would still be twice what it was in 1940.
And here's an irony for you: The same GOP conservatives who rant so much about the need to reduce government spending have been virulent in their protests and objections to the proposed reductions -- and consequent cost savings -- in a more streamlined military.
Sen. Marco Rubio, for example, has been especially vociferous in his objections, warning that the U.S. would be unable to uphold (Read: impose or enforce) its version of democracy throughout the world.
As if it should, even as there are plenty of issues about democracy and human rights to be settled at home.
Military contractors, of course, might lose some business if the Defense Department trims its spending, and that may be the real reason behind the protests and objections, in addition to the knee-jerk opposition to anything the present Administration proposes.
Meanwhile, remember what President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- the former five-star general who supervised the invasion of Normandy -- warned about the "military-industrial complex."
And lest we forget, the U.S. military wasn't the only force going ashore on D-Day.
Sounds scary, but some context is needed, which the network did not provide. Specifically, what was the force level in 1940 compared to the current level?
To report that the Department of Defense would cut the military by some 450,000 troops is one bit of information, but it does not give before and after numbers. Nor does it say that even after the reduction there would still be at least twice as many military personnel on active duty as there were in 1940.
The numbers are not hard to find. An ordinary desk reference such as the World Almanac and Book of Facts (my edition is three years old) yields the fact that in 1940, there were 267,767 active duty personnel with the U.S. Army, and that total grew to more than 8 million in 1945. In the year 2010, there were 566,065 Army personnel, out of some 1.4 million personnel on active duty in the U.S. military worldwide.
Granted, one could do a Google search to find these numbers, but that would involve going to the PC, turning it on, waiting for it to boot itself up, signing on, accessing the Internet, typing in a search term, hoping it's the right term and it yields the desired information. Then the searcher must choose from the many possible sources provided, and browse through a given source to locate the data wanted. All this while assuming you haven't forgotten by this time just what it was you were looking for. Also hoping that the chosen source is reliable.
Moreover, all this assumes you have a computer. Many folks don't, and in any case the search would distract a TV watcher from the news program, which should have provided the contextual information in the first place.
All this is not to admit being a technological troglodyte, but to urge news professionals to do a better job of putting new information into a larger context.
The bottom line is this: Even after reducing the military to "the lowest level since before World War II," American military strength would still be twice what it was in 1940.
And here's an irony for you: The same GOP conservatives who rant so much about the need to reduce government spending have been virulent in their protests and objections to the proposed reductions -- and consequent cost savings -- in a more streamlined military.
Sen. Marco Rubio, for example, has been especially vociferous in his objections, warning that the U.S. would be unable to uphold (Read: impose or enforce) its version of democracy throughout the world.
As if it should, even as there are plenty of issues about democracy and human rights to be settled at home.
Military contractors, of course, might lose some business if the Defense Department trims its spending, and that may be the real reason behind the protests and objections, in addition to the knee-jerk opposition to anything the present Administration proposes.
Meanwhile, remember what President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- the former five-star general who supervised the invasion of Normandy -- warned about the "military-industrial complex."
And lest we forget, the U.S. military wasn't the only force going ashore on D-Day.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Semantically Challenged
There was a problem with the car breaking system.
That appeared in a book published by the Oxford University Press titled "Information, A Very Short Introduction." It's a fine series of publications, coordinated by some of the best writers and editors in the world. However, it's an example of semantically challenged computers and editors relying too much on spell-check programs.
Machines can be and are taught to catch mis-spelled words, but semantics and context are beyond their ken. Proofreading and editing still require the knowledge, skill and expertise of people, who can view a word in relation to others in a sentence.
Clearly, the word wanted in the example above would refer to a car's "braking system." Both words are spelled correctly, but in relation to the rest of the sentence the example makes no sense, unless one is using a vehicle to destroy something.
In addition, transposed letters can change the meaning of a word and destroy the sense of the phrase. And speech-to-type systems are not much better, since many words are pronounced the same but have entirely different meanings. Examples include do, due, dew; write, wright, right, rite; to, two, too; rain, rein, reign; and this editor's favorite example of a quadruple play, carrot, carat, karat, caret.
And transposed letters can yield martial instead of marital, although with some couples there is little practical difference.
So by all means continue to use a spell-check program, but consider it a tool, not a preventive cure-all. It will only flag words it does not recognize, even if that word is correctly spelled. It may be an obscure word, or just one that programmers have not yet fed into the system. There are, after all, some half a million words in the English language, with more being invented or borrowed every day.
And while we're preachifying (there's a word that spell-check will probably flag), disable the auto-correct function in your word processing system. At best, it can be a distraction and at worst it will be wrong, especially if you're writing a piece about mis-spelled words. If the machine automatically corrects all the mis-spellings, your piece makes no sense.
By the way, the spell-check program on the computer used to write this piece flagged "wright" and "mis-spelled" as well as "preachifying."
That appeared in a book published by the Oxford University Press titled "Information, A Very Short Introduction." It's a fine series of publications, coordinated by some of the best writers and editors in the world. However, it's an example of semantically challenged computers and editors relying too much on spell-check programs.
Machines can be and are taught to catch mis-spelled words, but semantics and context are beyond their ken. Proofreading and editing still require the knowledge, skill and expertise of people, who can view a word in relation to others in a sentence.
Clearly, the word wanted in the example above would refer to a car's "braking system." Both words are spelled correctly, but in relation to the rest of the sentence the example makes no sense, unless one is using a vehicle to destroy something.
In addition, transposed letters can change the meaning of a word and destroy the sense of the phrase. And speech-to-type systems are not much better, since many words are pronounced the same but have entirely different meanings. Examples include do, due, dew; write, wright, right, rite; to, two, too; rain, rein, reign; and this editor's favorite example of a quadruple play, carrot, carat, karat, caret.
And transposed letters can yield martial instead of marital, although with some couples there is little practical difference.
So by all means continue to use a spell-check program, but consider it a tool, not a preventive cure-all. It will only flag words it does not recognize, even if that word is correctly spelled. It may be an obscure word, or just one that programmers have not yet fed into the system. There are, after all, some half a million words in the English language, with more being invented or borrowed every day.
And while we're preachifying (there's a word that spell-check will probably flag), disable the auto-correct function in your word processing system. At best, it can be a distraction and at worst it will be wrong, especially if you're writing a piece about mis-spelled words. If the machine automatically corrects all the mis-spellings, your piece makes no sense.
By the way, the spell-check program on the computer used to write this piece flagged "wright" and "mis-spelled" as well as "preachifying."
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Style Mechanics
Editing style, unlike writing style, is little more than consistency of usage. For example, when dealing with numbers and percentages, it makes no difference whether you use percent, per cent, pct or %. The meaning is still the same. And whether the associated numbers are spelled out, usually one through ten, or symbols, such as 12 or 23, makes a difference only in readability. For example, 144 percent is easier to read than one-hundred-forty-four percent.
To establish consistency of usage, the editor in chief decides, arbitrarily perhaps, which form to use, and copy editors ensure that all references use the same form. It also behooves contributing writers to follow the same guidelines, thus helping make the copy editor's job easier.
Why should a writer bother? Isn't it the copy editor's job to clean up the copy? Yes, it is, but sloppy copy is a sign of sloppy writing, and detracts from a writer's credibility. However, too many reporters and writers feel they are above such mundane concerns, since after all, they are "the important ones," whose names accompany the story.
Such an attitude of self-importance can be destructive, however. If reporters insist that their golden prose not be tampered with, they should keep in mind that their names are indeed attached to the story, and that good copy editors save writers from appearing foolish every day.
Copy editors maintain the standards of good writing -- consistency, reliability, readability, accuracy and grammatical smoothness. The one who appears foolish, whose reputation as a reliable, competent communicator is tarnished, and the one who gets blamed for factual errors, is the one whose byline is above the story, not the unknown and unsung editors.
So let's start a trend, and observe Be Kind to Copy Editors Week, even as they appear cranky and crotchety towards writers who do not observe the standards of good writing.
Meanwhile, consider the possibility that if you really annoy a copy editor, that editor may take a little revenge by letting your rambling, deranged prose go to print just as you perpetrated it. It's not likely, but there are ways ...
A misplaced comma or a dropped letter can easily change the meaning and intent of a phrase. The copy editor's defense? That's the way Superstar Reporter wanted it. Result: The managing editor dumps on Superstar.
Perry White, Lou Grant and Walter Burns may be fictional characters, but they are accurate depictions of many real-life managing editors.
(Note: Perry White was the managing editor of The Daily Planet in the Superman series. Lou Grant was the managing editor in the TV series of the same name. Walter Burns was the managing editor in the movie, "The Front Page.")
To establish consistency of usage, the editor in chief decides, arbitrarily perhaps, which form to use, and copy editors ensure that all references use the same form. It also behooves contributing writers to follow the same guidelines, thus helping make the copy editor's job easier.
Why should a writer bother? Isn't it the copy editor's job to clean up the copy? Yes, it is, but sloppy copy is a sign of sloppy writing, and detracts from a writer's credibility. However, too many reporters and writers feel they are above such mundane concerns, since after all, they are "the important ones," whose names accompany the story.
Such an attitude of self-importance can be destructive, however. If reporters insist that their golden prose not be tampered with, they should keep in mind that their names are indeed attached to the story, and that good copy editors save writers from appearing foolish every day.
Copy editors maintain the standards of good writing -- consistency, reliability, readability, accuracy and grammatical smoothness. The one who appears foolish, whose reputation as a reliable, competent communicator is tarnished, and the one who gets blamed for factual errors, is the one whose byline is above the story, not the unknown and unsung editors.
So let's start a trend, and observe Be Kind to Copy Editors Week, even as they appear cranky and crotchety towards writers who do not observe the standards of good writing.
Meanwhile, consider the possibility that if you really annoy a copy editor, that editor may take a little revenge by letting your rambling, deranged prose go to print just as you perpetrated it. It's not likely, but there are ways ...
A misplaced comma or a dropped letter can easily change the meaning and intent of a phrase. The copy editor's defense? That's the way Superstar Reporter wanted it. Result: The managing editor dumps on Superstar.
Perry White, Lou Grant and Walter Burns may be fictional characters, but they are accurate depictions of many real-life managing editors.
(Note: Perry White was the managing editor of The Daily Planet in the Superman series. Lou Grant was the managing editor in the TV series of the same name. Walter Burns was the managing editor in the movie, "The Front Page.")
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Style Signals
There are many styles of writing, ranging from formal and stiff, academic and arch, to arrogant to informal and clumsy. And as with speech patterns, some are more acceptable to listeners and to readers than others.
But to condemn a style, pattern or dialect is to dismiss it as useless. The reality, however, is that every style, pattern or dialect has a use, and is recognized and valued by those who use it. Unless, of course, it is incomprehensible, but even here it serves a purpose -- to keep the communication privy only to members of a certain group. Academics particularly fit this mold.
Meanwhile, those who do not recognize the use of a speech or writing style or cannot understand it when others use it is like hearing or attempting to read another language. To dismiss as valueless a dialect or style which you do not understand is a form of provincialism, and borders on arrogance.
Even so, there is value in adhering to a standard in speech or writing. For one thing, it facilitates communication, and every writer's goal is to communicate. When readers do not understand what you write, the failure is not theirs, it is yours.
But to condemn a style, pattern or dialect is to dismiss it as useless. The reality, however, is that every style, pattern or dialect has a use, and is recognized and valued by those who use it. Unless, of course, it is incomprehensible, but even here it serves a purpose -- to keep the communication privy only to members of a certain group. Academics particularly fit this mold.
Meanwhile, those who do not recognize the use of a speech or writing style or cannot understand it when others use it is like hearing or attempting to read another language. To dismiss as valueless a dialect or style which you do not understand is a form of provincialism, and borders on arrogance.
Even so, there is value in adhering to a standard in speech or writing. For one thing, it facilitates communication, and every writer's goal is to communicate. When readers do not understand what you write, the failure is not theirs, it is yours.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Labor Market and Consumer Demand
"Slow growth in the labor market largely reflects slow growth in the demand for goods and services." -- Congressional Budget Office.
When workers have more money, they buy more stuff.
Henry Ford knew that when he paid factory workers more than the going rate. That way, the workers could buy the very cars they were manufacturing. In short, the auto pioneer was building his own market.
Clearly, wages and consumer demand are interrelated, and while there may be a lag in trends, when pay levels go up, so does consumer demand for stuff. And when folks lose their jobs, they cut back on purchases.
That insight shows up in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), noting that "considerable slack remains in the labor market," and that "the economy is about 6 million jobs short of where it would be" if the jobless rate were back to its prerecession level.
Nonetheless, the U.S. economy is ticking up slowly, but still-weak prosperity among workers is holding back overall demand. Meanwhile, boosting the minimum wage would increase income for lower-level workers, enabling them to buy more stuff and thus contribute to economic growth.
Obviously, workers who are already making more than the minimum wage would likely wind up paying higher prices, but if their employers are able to sell more stuff, everybody benefits.
Meanwhile, signs of economic recovery are beginning to sprout, like early spring crocuses. "Global activity has picked up, largely on account of advanced economies,"
according to the International Monetary Fund. However, "the recovery is still weak and significant downside risks remain," the IMF added.
Even so, the Federal Reserve in Washington is continuing to pull back its support of recovery, anticipating that the U.S. economy will soon be strong enough to stand and grow on its own.
Not all major central banks are as optimistic, however, and some in Europe and Asia are still priming the economic pump by adding to the money supply.
"As yet the recovery is neither balanced nor sustainable," Bank of England governor Mark Carney old a news conference last week. The New York Times reported him as saying that higher interest rates are not in the near future and that any hike will be gradual.
In Japan, the economy grew by only 1 percent in the fourth quarter, despite expectations of a faster pace. In Europe, the pace of economic improvement is not much better, according to official reports.
So things seem to be about to get better worldwide, but it's not yet time to plan a party.
When workers have more money, they buy more stuff.
Henry Ford knew that when he paid factory workers more than the going rate. That way, the workers could buy the very cars they were manufacturing. In short, the auto pioneer was building his own market.
Clearly, wages and consumer demand are interrelated, and while there may be a lag in trends, when pay levels go up, so does consumer demand for stuff. And when folks lose their jobs, they cut back on purchases.
That insight shows up in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), noting that "considerable slack remains in the labor market," and that "the economy is about 6 million jobs short of where it would be" if the jobless rate were back to its prerecession level.
Nonetheless, the U.S. economy is ticking up slowly, but still-weak prosperity among workers is holding back overall demand. Meanwhile, boosting the minimum wage would increase income for lower-level workers, enabling them to buy more stuff and thus contribute to economic growth.
Obviously, workers who are already making more than the minimum wage would likely wind up paying higher prices, but if their employers are able to sell more stuff, everybody benefits.
Meanwhile, signs of economic recovery are beginning to sprout, like early spring crocuses. "Global activity has picked up, largely on account of advanced economies,"
according to the International Monetary Fund. However, "the recovery is still weak and significant downside risks remain," the IMF added.
Even so, the Federal Reserve in Washington is continuing to pull back its support of recovery, anticipating that the U.S. economy will soon be strong enough to stand and grow on its own.
Not all major central banks are as optimistic, however, and some in Europe and Asia are still priming the economic pump by adding to the money supply.
"As yet the recovery is neither balanced nor sustainable," Bank of England governor Mark Carney old a news conference last week. The New York Times reported him as saying that higher interest rates are not in the near future and that any hike will be gradual.
In Japan, the economy grew by only 1 percent in the fourth quarter, despite expectations of a faster pace. In Europe, the pace of economic improvement is not much better, according to official reports.
So things seem to be about to get better worldwide, but it's not yet time to plan a party.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Minimum Wage Repercussions
Watch for conservatives to kick up a fuss over a boost in the minimum wage as they cite a new study warning of a reduction in jobs.
President Obama has said that by executive order, he would put in place a rise in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. A study by the Congressional Budget Office notes that because of this hike, "some jobs for low wage workers would probably be eliminated." Not only that, the CBO said, but "the income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially."
Hmmm. Lose your job and your income drops. Brilliant.
Cue the shrieks of "Danger, danger, warning!" as the Republican Righteous Robots take up the talking points.
However, they would be ignoring several key points in the CBO study, released today. The increase from the current $7.25 hourly wage to $10.10 would be in three yearly steps, so the new level would not be fully effective until 2016. Second, the President's plan would apply initially only to companies signing government contracts. More important, the boost would increase family income, such that the family would rise above the federal poverty level.
Even so, boosting the minimum pay to the entire nation would not be the disaster some predict.
As for reducing total employment, that would take three years and the reduction would be about 300,000 workers, or 0.3 percent. Moreover, while it could be more, it could just as likely be less.
Moreover, higher-wage workers would also benefit from increased job security as the new minimum wage boosts demand for goods and services. In addition, many workers who would benefit from the pay hike are not members of low-income families.
Realistically, it must be admitted that the mandate for higher pay would cause higher prices as firms pass on the cost to consumers. But those at the minimum pay level would also be more able to purchase necessities.
Another option being considered would increase the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour in two steps, next year and the year after. And while the first, $10.10 plan, would subsequently see annual adjustments to account for inflation, the $9 option would not see inflation boosts. And this option would reduce employment by about 100,000 workers, or less than 0.1 percent, the CBO said.
On net, the nonpartisan agency noted, most families would see an increase in income. As for families that would see a drop in income because of the new minimum, that would affect only families with income six times the federal poverty level, and would lower the average family income by about 0.1 percent.
Current government guidelines put the poverty line for a family of four at $23,850. Do the math: Six times that yields yearly income of $133,100. So because of the minimum wage hike, the family as a whole would suffer an income loss of $1,331.
Another tragedy.
As for the effect on the federal budget as government workers get pay hikes or as others lose their jobs and government revenue goes down, the CBO said it was "unclear whether effect for the coming decade as a whole would be a small increase or a small decrease in budget deficits."
President Obama has said that by executive order, he would put in place a rise in the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. A study by the Congressional Budget Office notes that because of this hike, "some jobs for low wage workers would probably be eliminated." Not only that, the CBO said, but "the income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially."
Hmmm. Lose your job and your income drops. Brilliant.
Cue the shrieks of "Danger, danger, warning!" as the Republican Righteous Robots take up the talking points.
However, they would be ignoring several key points in the CBO study, released today. The increase from the current $7.25 hourly wage to $10.10 would be in three yearly steps, so the new level would not be fully effective until 2016. Second, the President's plan would apply initially only to companies signing government contracts. More important, the boost would increase family income, such that the family would rise above the federal poverty level.
Even so, boosting the minimum pay to the entire nation would not be the disaster some predict.
As for reducing total employment, that would take three years and the reduction would be about 300,000 workers, or 0.3 percent. Moreover, while it could be more, it could just as likely be less.
Moreover, higher-wage workers would also benefit from increased job security as the new minimum wage boosts demand for goods and services. In addition, many workers who would benefit from the pay hike are not members of low-income families.
Realistically, it must be admitted that the mandate for higher pay would cause higher prices as firms pass on the cost to consumers. But those at the minimum pay level would also be more able to purchase necessities.
Another option being considered would increase the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour in two steps, next year and the year after. And while the first, $10.10 plan, would subsequently see annual adjustments to account for inflation, the $9 option would not see inflation boosts. And this option would reduce employment by about 100,000 workers, or less than 0.1 percent, the CBO said.
On net, the nonpartisan agency noted, most families would see an increase in income. As for families that would see a drop in income because of the new minimum, that would affect only families with income six times the federal poverty level, and would lower the average family income by about 0.1 percent.
Current government guidelines put the poverty line for a family of four at $23,850. Do the math: Six times that yields yearly income of $133,100. So because of the minimum wage hike, the family as a whole would suffer an income loss of $1,331.
Another tragedy.
As for the effect on the federal budget as government workers get pay hikes or as others lose their jobs and government revenue goes down, the CBO said it was "unclear whether effect for the coming decade as a whole would be a small increase or a small decrease in budget deficits."
Monday, February 17, 2014
Movable Feats
No nation is an economic island, entire of itself. Like it or not, we live in a worldwide economy, with every nation linked and dependent on others for each of the three major inputs to any economy: Land, Labor and Capital, as well as the entrepreneurial and management skills needed to gather and coordinate the main three.
Economists speak of land not just in terms of acreage for farming, but this also includes natural resources such as lumber, coal, oil and ore for metals.
It takes labor to gather and harvest these resources and form them into usable items, using equipment acquired through capital investment. In this sense, capital is not just money, but the equipment purchased with money.
Clearly, some regions have more of a certain resource than others, whether that resource be natural resources found on the land, or human resources found in labor. The first oil wells in America, for example, were drilled in Pennsylvania. Later, larger and more easily obtained oil deposits were found in Oklahoma and Texas, then in Venezuela and in the Middle East.
As the nation grew, the Great Plains region was better able to satisfy the increasing demand for food than smaller farming regions in the East, and railroads were able to transport the food to faraway markets.
Manufacturing in America surged first in the Northeast, with its many rivers and streams to power the wheels of mills. Later, coal-fired steam engines enabled the textile mills to move from New England to the South in search of cheaper labor and closer access to coal mines and cotton farms.
These are early examples in just one country of firms and workers relocating for lower operating costs as well as job opportunities and wages.
Now expand that concept internationally, and you quickly see the pattern of migration of people seeking work where there was none at home, and of firms seeking to lower their operating costs by relocating or importing what they need.
Today, we see the pattern on a global level. Managers take their firms to where they can get the least expensive combination of resources -- raw materials, workers able to assemble the resources and ingredients, using appropriate equipment when feasible -- Land, Labor and Capital.
And as managers relocate their operations if they must, workers relocate themselves if they must. As machines are introduced for faster, more efficient production, workers improve their skills to operate the machines and thus obtain higher wages.
When wages reach a certain point, however, managers may decide to relocate the factory to a low-wage, low-skill region if the differential is enough to offset the cost of machines and transportation.
Thus, textile mills left New England for the Carolinas and eventually to Asia. Likewise, garment manufacturers left New York's Manhattan Garment District to set up operations in Asia, where wages were low enough to offset the cost of transportation.
One downside, of course, is that working conditions for garment workers in Bangladesh can be as bad or worse than conditions in New York City's Garment District years ago.
Enter labor unions to organize workers and demand fair pay and improved working conditions. Result: Higher wages paid to workers, but this cost is passed on to consumers as higher prices.
In the long run, however, all parties are better off. Carry the concept forward, and you find myriad modern examples of firms and people relocating in search of the best combination of jobs and market opportunities.
And for many, find a job at home is a better choice than emigrating to a strange land.
Economists speak of land not just in terms of acreage for farming, but this also includes natural resources such as lumber, coal, oil and ore for metals.
It takes labor to gather and harvest these resources and form them into usable items, using equipment acquired through capital investment. In this sense, capital is not just money, but the equipment purchased with money.
Clearly, some regions have more of a certain resource than others, whether that resource be natural resources found on the land, or human resources found in labor. The first oil wells in America, for example, were drilled in Pennsylvania. Later, larger and more easily obtained oil deposits were found in Oklahoma and Texas, then in Venezuela and in the Middle East.
As the nation grew, the Great Plains region was better able to satisfy the increasing demand for food than smaller farming regions in the East, and railroads were able to transport the food to faraway markets.
Manufacturing in America surged first in the Northeast, with its many rivers and streams to power the wheels of mills. Later, coal-fired steam engines enabled the textile mills to move from New England to the South in search of cheaper labor and closer access to coal mines and cotton farms.
These are early examples in just one country of firms and workers relocating for lower operating costs as well as job opportunities and wages.
Now expand that concept internationally, and you quickly see the pattern of migration of people seeking work where there was none at home, and of firms seeking to lower their operating costs by relocating or importing what they need.
Today, we see the pattern on a global level. Managers take their firms to where they can get the least expensive combination of resources -- raw materials, workers able to assemble the resources and ingredients, using appropriate equipment when feasible -- Land, Labor and Capital.
And as managers relocate their operations if they must, workers relocate themselves if they must. As machines are introduced for faster, more efficient production, workers improve their skills to operate the machines and thus obtain higher wages.
When wages reach a certain point, however, managers may decide to relocate the factory to a low-wage, low-skill region if the differential is enough to offset the cost of machines and transportation.
Thus, textile mills left New England for the Carolinas and eventually to Asia. Likewise, garment manufacturers left New York's Manhattan Garment District to set up operations in Asia, where wages were low enough to offset the cost of transportation.
One downside, of course, is that working conditions for garment workers in Bangladesh can be as bad or worse than conditions in New York City's Garment District years ago.
Enter labor unions to organize workers and demand fair pay and improved working conditions. Result: Higher wages paid to workers, but this cost is passed on to consumers as higher prices.
In the long run, however, all parties are better off. Carry the concept forward, and you find myriad modern examples of firms and people relocating in search of the best combination of jobs and market opportunities.
And for many, find a job at home is a better choice than emigrating to a strange land.
Comcasting a Wide Net
Comcast claims its plan to purchase Time Warner Cable is not anti-competitive because the two cable TV and Internet service providers operate in different markets. Nice try, guys. But in each market each company is either the dominant or the sole provider, so each firm is effectively a monopoly in each market. Linking all the markets under one corporate banner equals one large monopoly for each firm. And merging the two firms means an even larger monopoly.
But wait, you say. What of Verizon and other telecom offspring born of the breakup of AT&T some 30 years ago? Aren't they competitors with Comcast or Time Warner? And don't forget the satellite providers. Don't they also compete for subscribers in each market?
Yes and no. Comcast provides not only cable TV and Internet service, but also telephone service. And it owns NBC Universal, which provides the programming content that's carried over the cable network. Time Warner also provide content.
The old-line telephone companies, such as Verizon, are only carriers and do not produce content. The cable-based firms control the transmission lines as well as much of the content. They control not only how we watch TV but also what we watch.
It's one thing to have a monopoly owning and operating the transmission lines, but quite another when that same firm gets to decide what goes on the network.
But wait, you say. What of Verizon and other telecom offspring born of the breakup of AT&T some 30 years ago? Aren't they competitors with Comcast or Time Warner? And don't forget the satellite providers. Don't they also compete for subscribers in each market?
Yes and no. Comcast provides not only cable TV and Internet service, but also telephone service. And it owns NBC Universal, which provides the programming content that's carried over the cable network. Time Warner also provide content.
The old-line telephone companies, such as Verizon, are only carriers and do not produce content. The cable-based firms control the transmission lines as well as much of the content. They control not only how we watch TV but also what we watch.
It's one thing to have a monopoly owning and operating the transmission lines, but quite another when that same firm gets to decide what goes on the network.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Competition vs Monopoly
Business leaders often praise the virtues of "free competition" in the marketplace, touting what they claim will bring lower prices and wider variety. The reality is that they don't really want competition at all. A totally free market enables them not only to dominate but to monopolize a market.
Economists believe in the virtues of competition and its value. Business leaders only say they do. But really, they want a monopoly ... for themselves.
What seems to work best is a combination of several economic systems: Monopolistic competition based on capitalism with social welfare practices.
Economists believe in the virtues of competition and its value. Business leaders only say they do. But really, they want a monopoly ... for themselves.
What seems to work best is a combination of several economic systems: Monopolistic competition based on capitalism with social welfare practices.
Pay to Vote Part 2
Add these groups to the list of those without income who therefor would not be eligible to vote:
* Full-time students of voting age
* The unemployed
* College graduates seeking their first job
Consider also:
* Residents who pay taxes but are not citizens.
* Citizens who are non-resident and do not pay federal taxes, or pay at a lower level.
If payment of taxes is the criterion, will that override a citizenship requirement? Example: Justin Bieber, a Canadian now living and working in the U.S. and making millions doing so.
And what of citizens who are not resident in the U.S., but prefer living in a country with lower tax rates? As citizens, they are still eligible to vote in federal elections, but they are non-residents and pay no U.S. taxes.
Is a puzzlement. Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
* Full-time students of voting age
* The unemployed
* College graduates seeking their first job
Consider also:
* Residents who pay taxes but are not citizens.
* Citizens who are non-resident and do not pay federal taxes, or pay at a lower level.
If payment of taxes is the criterion, will that override a citizenship requirement? Example: Justin Bieber, a Canadian now living and working in the U.S. and making millions doing so.
And what of citizens who are not resident in the U.S., but prefer living in a country with lower tax rates? As citizens, they are still eligible to vote in federal elections, but they are non-residents and pay no U.S. taxes.
Is a puzzlement. Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Pay to Vote
You're joking, right?
The rich should get more votes because they pay more taxes, according to venture capitalist billionaire Tom Perkins.
Corollary to that is that if you pay no taxes, you don't get to vote. Carry it forward, and you get to deal with many of the very rich who pay no taxes, using loopholes in the code to avoid payments. Further, many pensioners don't have incomes high enough on which taxes may be due. And many low-income workers also don't meet an income threshold that would call for taxes. Therefore, all of these lose their right to vote.
Whatever happened to one person, one vote?
It's also true that many senior executives, such as Warren Buffet, pay at a lower rate than their secretaries. Does that mean the lower-paid secretary gets more votes than the boss?
Poll taxes, as a means to prevent poor people from voting, were declared illegal a long time ago.
So either Mr. Perkins was joking, or he's a complete ...
The rich should get more votes because they pay more taxes, according to venture capitalist billionaire Tom Perkins.
Corollary to that is that if you pay no taxes, you don't get to vote. Carry it forward, and you get to deal with many of the very rich who pay no taxes, using loopholes in the code to avoid payments. Further, many pensioners don't have incomes high enough on which taxes may be due. And many low-income workers also don't meet an income threshold that would call for taxes. Therefore, all of these lose their right to vote.
Whatever happened to one person, one vote?
It's also true that many senior executives, such as Warren Buffet, pay at a lower rate than their secretaries. Does that mean the lower-paid secretary gets more votes than the boss?
Poll taxes, as a means to prevent poor people from voting, were declared illegal a long time ago.
So either Mr. Perkins was joking, or he's a complete ...
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Power Outrage
When will they learn? Power outages affect people, certainly, but the utilities can only count the number of customers -- that is, homes, businesses and government facilities -- that lose power, not the number of people. To conflate the number of customers with the number of people is misleading.
Consider: One household is one customer, but there are typically several people in each household. Similarly, one retail store equals one customer, but there could well be several hundred employees and customers affected.
So the number of customers losing power this week because of the winter storm is nearly one million, but the total number of people affected would be millions more.
Consider: One household is one customer, but there are typically several people in each household. Similarly, one retail store equals one customer, but there could well be several hundred employees and customers affected.
So the number of customers losing power this week because of the winter storm is nearly one million, but the total number of people affected would be millions more.
Overblown
TV news reports made much of critics' complaints about a White House claim that 3.3 million people have signed up for health care insurance under federal law, including 1 million newbies in January.
"Not true!" they charge. Many have not yet paid for their coverage, so they're not really signed up yet, foes protest.
Reality check: Of those 3.3 million, only about 10 percent have not yet paid. Not a bad number, especially when you consider that of that 10 percent, some may not yet have received a bill. Among others, the check is in the mail. And, yes, a few may default.
Bottom line: More than 90 percent of that 3.3 million have not only signed up, but they have paid the premium and are covered.
So why the fuss? It's just something to complain about, some pebble to grasp in their continuing efforts to throw stones.
Meanwhile, what alternatives have the opponents offered? So far, the Party of No has not some up with a health care plan for everyone. Unless, of course, their plan is not to have universal health care coverage. And that's peculiar, considering that the Democratic-sponsored Affordable Health Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is patterned on a Republican plan set up successfully in Massachusetts by then-Governor and recent presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
As for the big coverage in news media: Pumping up a story to excite viewers and readers may be good marketing, but it's not responsible journalism.
"Not true!" they charge. Many have not yet paid for their coverage, so they're not really signed up yet, foes protest.
Reality check: Of those 3.3 million, only about 10 percent have not yet paid. Not a bad number, especially when you consider that of that 10 percent, some may not yet have received a bill. Among others, the check is in the mail. And, yes, a few may default.
Bottom line: More than 90 percent of that 3.3 million have not only signed up, but they have paid the premium and are covered.
So why the fuss? It's just something to complain about, some pebble to grasp in their continuing efforts to throw stones.
Meanwhile, what alternatives have the opponents offered? So far, the Party of No has not some up with a health care plan for everyone. Unless, of course, their plan is not to have universal health care coverage. And that's peculiar, considering that the Democratic-sponsored Affordable Health Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is patterned on a Republican plan set up successfully in Massachusetts by then-Governor and recent presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
As for the big coverage in news media: Pumping up a story to excite viewers and readers may be good marketing, but it's not responsible journalism.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Whorfian Weather
A CNN weather reporter referred to a coming winter storm and its "liquid water." Supposedly, he did so to differentiate that from "frozen water," which would be snow, sleet, hail or ice. Water, by definition, is liquid.
The language has several terms for various forms of precipitation other than rain, including snow, sleet, or hail, all of which are specific types of "frozen water." The words are available. Don't insult the intelligence of the audience by inventing terms needlessly.
The English language has, of course, terms for intermediate forms of precipitation, such as freezing rain -- precipitation that falls as water and quickly turns to ice. Use them as appropriate. If not appropriate, don't.
Depending on the needs of a culture, its language may have only one or it may have many terms for some thing and its variations. Eskimos, for example, have many different words for various types of snow, whereas English has only one. It's not that English speakers can't refer to various types of snow -- ask any skier. But various qualifiers are used to do so. Examples include granular snow, powder snow, wet snow, and others.
Arabic has many words for different types of camel, but no single word for camels in general. English, on the other hand, has only one.
Horse fanciers, on the other hand, not only have a single word in English for horse in general, but also other words for a specific type of horse, even within a given breed. These terms include stallion, mare, colt, filly, yearling, and gelding.
The point is not that members of a language-culture group cannot conceive of differences and concepts within a given field, but that it's not important or useful to them in their culture.
Benjamin Lee Whorf, an American linguist, ran afoul of that when he found that certain tribes in the American Southwest had no terms for slicing up time. He concluded that they therefore had no concept of time. Yet when these same people switched to English, they can and did use such terms as minute, hour and day. for example.
Even so, they were not locked in to the movements of a clock, much as English speakers are. Hence, they were referred to as "operating on Indian time."
The language has several terms for various forms of precipitation other than rain, including snow, sleet, or hail, all of which are specific types of "frozen water." The words are available. Don't insult the intelligence of the audience by inventing terms needlessly.
The English language has, of course, terms for intermediate forms of precipitation, such as freezing rain -- precipitation that falls as water and quickly turns to ice. Use them as appropriate. If not appropriate, don't.
Depending on the needs of a culture, its language may have only one or it may have many terms for some thing and its variations. Eskimos, for example, have many different words for various types of snow, whereas English has only one. It's not that English speakers can't refer to various types of snow -- ask any skier. But various qualifiers are used to do so. Examples include granular snow, powder snow, wet snow, and others.
Arabic has many words for different types of camel, but no single word for camels in general. English, on the other hand, has only one.
Horse fanciers, on the other hand, not only have a single word in English for horse in general, but also other words for a specific type of horse, even within a given breed. These terms include stallion, mare, colt, filly, yearling, and gelding.
The point is not that members of a language-culture group cannot conceive of differences and concepts within a given field, but that it's not important or useful to them in their culture.
Benjamin Lee Whorf, an American linguist, ran afoul of that when he found that certain tribes in the American Southwest had no terms for slicing up time. He concluded that they therefore had no concept of time. Yet when these same people switched to English, they can and did use such terms as minute, hour and day. for example.
Even so, they were not locked in to the movements of a clock, much as English speakers are. Hence, they were referred to as "operating on Indian time."
Monday, February 10, 2014
The Incredible Shrinking Budget Deficit
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Politics is not about getting anything done. It's about defeating the other guy.
Revenue is up and spending is down, leading to a $107 billion drop in the federal deficit, says the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
But will that stop the right-wing ranters from warning that America is collapsing? Doubtful. Despite all data signals, the only thing collapsing is the GOP complaint of misgovernment by a Democratic administration.
The CBO reported that "the federal government ran a budget deficit of $184 billion for the first four months of fiscal year 2014 -- $107 less than the shortfall recorded in the same span last year." From October through January, the CBO said, "Revenues are higher and outlays are lower," and at this pace, the federal government will end fiscal 2014 with a deficit of $514 billion, or 3.0 percent of gross domestic product, down from $680 billion, or 4.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 2013.
Total receipts were up by 8 percent for the first four months of fiscal 2014 (October-January) and total outlays were down by 6 percent.
Meanwhile, the economy grew by 3.2 percent in the fourth quarter, according to a first estimated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A second, more complete analysis, is due Feb. 28, the BEA noted.
So the economy is continuing to recover, but this is no time to keep crying wolf and warning of disaster. The real danger is in a self-fulfilling prophecy, sent out for purely political reasons.
Politics is not about getting anything done. It's about defeating the other guy.
Revenue is up and spending is down, leading to a $107 billion drop in the federal deficit, says the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
But will that stop the right-wing ranters from warning that America is collapsing? Doubtful. Despite all data signals, the only thing collapsing is the GOP complaint of misgovernment by a Democratic administration.
The CBO reported that "the federal government ran a budget deficit of $184 billion for the first four months of fiscal year 2014 -- $107 less than the shortfall recorded in the same span last year." From October through January, the CBO said, "Revenues are higher and outlays are lower," and at this pace, the federal government will end fiscal 2014 with a deficit of $514 billion, or 3.0 percent of gross domestic product, down from $680 billion, or 4.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 2013.
Total receipts were up by 8 percent for the first four months of fiscal 2014 (October-January) and total outlays were down by 6 percent.
Meanwhile, the economy grew by 3.2 percent in the fourth quarter, according to a first estimated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A second, more complete analysis, is due Feb. 28, the BEA noted.
So the economy is continuing to recover, but this is no time to keep crying wolf and warning of disaster. The real danger is in a self-fulfilling prophecy, sent out for purely political reasons.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Rantings
House Speaker John Boehner complains that Congress won't pass any laws because his conservative colleagues can't trust President Barack Obama to enforce the legislation "as it is written."
Wasn't it Republican President Ronald Reagan, hero of the arch-conservatives, who issued "signing statements" as he approved legislation, specifying which sections of the law he would not bother to enforce?
The latest rant from the Party of No is that Obama has become "lawless" because he has bypassed Congress through "executive orders" more often than any other President.
Take a count: As of January 20, Obama has issued 168 executive orders. Reagan, in his two terms, not only openly ignored sections of legislation, but also issued 381 executive orders, more than twice as many as Obama. And Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, scored 291 executive orders, bypassing Congress. Richard M. Nixon racked up 346 executive orders. Dwight D. Eisenhower, 484. Herbert Hoover, 522. And Calvin Coolidge, 1,203. These numbers were compiled by the American Presidency Project.
So what's this "more than anyone else" nonsense? Obama, a Democrat, has actually issued fewer executive orders than any president -- Republican or Democrat --since William McKinley. Exception: George H.W. Bush, but he served only one term, in which he issued 166 executive orders. And Gerald Ford, another one-term Republican, signed 169 executive orders.
Granted, the all-time leader in racking up executive orders was Franklin D. Roosevelt, during the Great Depression and World War II years. FDR, a Democrat, signed 3,522 executive orders, earning him the accusation that he was trying to set up an "imperial presidency." Since then, however, the number of presidential executive orders has steadily declined.
As to the need for executive orders, Obama said in his State of the Union message that if Congress won't act, he will. As for this Congress, heavily influenced by the Radical Righteous Tea Party crew, it has passed remarkably little legislation of any kind, reminiscent of Harry Truman's rant about a "do nothing" Congress.
By comparison, that session -- in 1947-48 -- was a dynamo, passing 1,729 bills. The current Congress, in its first year, has passed just 58, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. At this rate, it will be the least productive Congress since then.
Yet Boehner defends the lack of congressional activity and points the blame to Obama. In effect, the GOP leader is saying there's no point in passing laws because conservatives don't trust the President, a Democrat, to enforce them
That didn't seem to bother Republicans when Reagan openly specified which parts of which laws he was going to ignore.
Wasn't it Republican President Ronald Reagan, hero of the arch-conservatives, who issued "signing statements" as he approved legislation, specifying which sections of the law he would not bother to enforce?
The latest rant from the Party of No is that Obama has become "lawless" because he has bypassed Congress through "executive orders" more often than any other President.
Take a count: As of January 20, Obama has issued 168 executive orders. Reagan, in his two terms, not only openly ignored sections of legislation, but also issued 381 executive orders, more than twice as many as Obama. And Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, scored 291 executive orders, bypassing Congress. Richard M. Nixon racked up 346 executive orders. Dwight D. Eisenhower, 484. Herbert Hoover, 522. And Calvin Coolidge, 1,203. These numbers were compiled by the American Presidency Project.
So what's this "more than anyone else" nonsense? Obama, a Democrat, has actually issued fewer executive orders than any president -- Republican or Democrat --since William McKinley. Exception: George H.W. Bush, but he served only one term, in which he issued 166 executive orders. And Gerald Ford, another one-term Republican, signed 169 executive orders.
Granted, the all-time leader in racking up executive orders was Franklin D. Roosevelt, during the Great Depression and World War II years. FDR, a Democrat, signed 3,522 executive orders, earning him the accusation that he was trying to set up an "imperial presidency." Since then, however, the number of presidential executive orders has steadily declined.
As to the need for executive orders, Obama said in his State of the Union message that if Congress won't act, he will. As for this Congress, heavily influenced by the Radical Righteous Tea Party crew, it has passed remarkably little legislation of any kind, reminiscent of Harry Truman's rant about a "do nothing" Congress.
By comparison, that session -- in 1947-48 -- was a dynamo, passing 1,729 bills. The current Congress, in its first year, has passed just 58, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. At this rate, it will be the least productive Congress since then.
Yet Boehner defends the lack of congressional activity and points the blame to Obama. In effect, the GOP leader is saying there's no point in passing laws because conservatives don't trust the President, a Democrat, to enforce them
That didn't seem to bother Republicans when Reagan openly specified which parts of which laws he was going to ignore.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
News vs Gossip
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Journalism tells you what you need to know, not just what you want to know. The first is news; the second is gossip.
"Mark Zuckerburg dreams of a day when Facebook's computers would know you and your habits so well that it would deliver exactly the information you want to see -- what he calls 'the best personalized newspaper in the world.'" -- New York Times 4 Feb. 2014.
The techies seem to think that's a great idea, and that Facebook is well on its way to realizing that dream, when computers "know you and your habits so well."
But wait, there's more.
That dream, of corporate and/or government computers knowing you and your habits so well, could quickly become a nightmare -- a Big Brother run amok.
It is not a good thing that computers know individuals so thoroughly that they deliver only the information that person wants to see, hear or read. Nor is it a good thing that computers deliver only the information that government or corporations want people in general to see, hear or read. That's not rational information flow; that's propaganda and market manipulation.
The mission of journalists is to tell the people what they need to know, not just what they want to know. Nor should journalists be willing or even unwitting accomplices in government or corporate attempts to manipulate the information flow to their advantage. This is not to say that government and corporations don't try to manipulate the news media. They do, and far too often succeed.
Increasingly, there are reports of hackers and government "security" agencies (read: spies) hacking into computers with their super dooper scooper snoopers and snatching up all sorts of communications in their paranoid search for possible clues that may lead to potential suspects who might be planning a conspiracy to do harm to someone, sometime, somewhere, somehow.
Note all the qualifiers. The so-called security agencies really don't have a clue. Yet they feed on their own paranoid fear that somewhere, someone, somehow may possibly be doing something.
Journalism tells you what you need to know, not just what you want to know. The first is news; the second is gossip.
"Mark Zuckerburg dreams of a day when Facebook's computers would know you and your habits so well that it would deliver exactly the information you want to see -- what he calls 'the best personalized newspaper in the world.'" -- New York Times 4 Feb. 2014.
The techies seem to think that's a great idea, and that Facebook is well on its way to realizing that dream, when computers "know you and your habits so well."
But wait, there's more.
That dream, of corporate and/or government computers knowing you and your habits so well, could quickly become a nightmare -- a Big Brother run amok.
It is not a good thing that computers know individuals so thoroughly that they deliver only the information that person wants to see, hear or read. Nor is it a good thing that computers deliver only the information that government or corporations want people in general to see, hear or read. That's not rational information flow; that's propaganda and market manipulation.
The mission of journalists is to tell the people what they need to know, not just what they want to know. Nor should journalists be willing or even unwitting accomplices in government or corporate attempts to manipulate the information flow to their advantage. This is not to say that government and corporations don't try to manipulate the news media. They do, and far too often succeed.
Increasingly, there are reports of hackers and government "security" agencies (read: spies) hacking into computers with their super dooper scooper snoopers and snatching up all sorts of communications in their paranoid search for possible clues that may lead to potential suspects who might be planning a conspiracy to do harm to someone, sometime, somewhere, somehow.
Note all the qualifiers. The so-called security agencies really don't have a clue. Yet they feed on their own paranoid fear that somewhere, someone, somehow may possibly be doing something.
Noted in Passing
Donald Trump reportedly wants to be governor of New York. Or rather, say he's willing to be anointed. He's willing to be a candidate, but only if he doesn't have to compete in a primary election or attend a convention.
Can you say arrogant? I knew you could.
Speaking of which, take Justin Bieber -- please, as Henny Youngman would say. The Bieb is an out-of-control teenager (there's another kind?) who just happens to be worth $130 million and doesn't seem to understand why he can't do whatever he wants, whenever and however he wants, simply because he's rich.
Then there are the Christie Critters of New Jersey. Frank Hague, of Jersey City machine politics fame, would be proud. As would the mayors of Atlantic City and Newark.
So? It's New Jersey. You got a problem with that?
Can you say arrogant? I knew you could.
Speaking of which, take Justin Bieber -- please, as Henny Youngman would say. The Bieb is an out-of-control teenager (there's another kind?) who just happens to be worth $130 million and doesn't seem to understand why he can't do whatever he wants, whenever and however he wants, simply because he's rich.
Then there are the Christie Critters of New Jersey. Frank Hague, of Jersey City machine politics fame, would be proud. As would the mayors of Atlantic City and Newark.
So? It's New Jersey. You got a problem with that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)