In 1900 over 90% of Americans were involved in producing food. Now that figure is less than 5%. And yet, unemployment is a lot lower than 85%.
I can see two ways this can go, in practice we ill get some of both of these:
1) As people get richer they demand new things (what things? If I knew that I'd be off patenting it), and this creates new industries for people to work in. Supply creates demand creates supply.
2) As people get richer they substitute income for leisure. This result sin shorter working weeks, and more rich people not going to work in any serious way.
We've been doing both of these in part since the Industrial Revolution, and I expect both trends to continue.
Not only would you need a constitutional amendment, you would need a Supreme Court that would enforce it. Remember that 100% of Supreme Court justices are appointed by politician.
I am a strict Occamian, I believe it is epistemologically wrong to believe something exists without sufficient evidence. I'm also a Bayesian so "sufficient evidence" depends on the prior probability of the hypothesis being true (as Carl Sagan put it: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). Any kind of god (let alone the specific God of Christianity) is a very extraordinary claim - omnipotence requires rewriting every law of physics to include an "unless God says so" clause. And gods offer little in the way of explanation of the universe. If God created the universe, what created God? If God can exist without being created, why not the universe itself?
Since there is no reason to believe a god exists, that is a good reason not to.
I doubt most atheists put that much thought into it, but then neither do theists. Most people believe what they were brought up to believe.
The devil can quote Gygax for his purpose.
An evil soul producing nerdy witness
Is like the villain as a smiling geek
A dorky apple rotten at the heart:
O, what an awkward outside falsehood hath!
That's probably more to do with my nationality than anything else - in the Westminster system a government without budgetary control is a contradiction in terms.
But bear in mind that I don't think there is a political solution to this problem in the US, and I'm taking your dispersed political structure into account as part of that (though I think the voters are a bigger obstacle).
What you say is true Tom, structural deficits are the norm in the West. Still, that doesn't make it less of a problem.
And you'll note that I explicitly mentioned the Laffer Curve, it's one reason why I doubt you can get much money out of tax rises (and what you can get will most likely come from base broadening, rather than marginal tax increases).
Fiscal responsibility is deeply unfashionable the world over. We do pretty well in New Zealand (we expect to be back in black in a couple of years, according to Treasury's public forecasts), but that's because we've been burned once before.
Perpetuities are a reasonable option, but the interest rate on them will be significantly higher than for a regular bond (to make up for the fact you don't get principal back).
Still it's not a bad idea to have some long-run securities. The interest rate on bonds reflects (in part) default risk, but only over the period of the loan (a 6 month loan tells you nothing about default rick over more than 6 months), so long run bonds are a canary in the coal mine of fiscal stress.
I agree about health, that's a blog post I've yet to do, but plan to at some point. Otherwise the only cutting you can do is to arbitrarily cap spending per person, or declare some procedures uncovered. Neither is a good way to go about it.
I was under the impression that the "minor tweaks" to Social Security amounted to pretty large marginal tax increases for people on high incomes, which may not be a good idea. High income people are an especially volatile revenue source.
As for the political viability of any of this - I agree with you, I honestly don't see a way out for your country, given the politics. I can only hope I'm wrong.
I should point out I'm a colossal nerd (after all, that avatar of mine comes from a webcomic based on D&D jokes), which may cause you to revise your estimates as to my virginity ;)
I will say, as I’ve elaborated elsewhere, that one’s worldview—and atheists have worldviews just as Christians do—requires belief, too.
This is true, everything is uncertain to some degree so some belief is required to adopt any hypothesis as true. But not all hypotheses are equally likely, and thus believing in some things requires more belief than others. And if a god exists it does an excellent job of pretending that it doesn't. I suppose that's just another way of saying William of Occam is my co-pilot.
And to be fair, I don't so much believe that there are definitely no gods, so much as the probability that any gods exist are sufficiently low as to render the ideas as good as false. I only assign zero probability to propositions that are incoherent or internally inconsistent.
consider that the way you feel about Christianity, I feel about atheism. It simply does not present itself to me as a credible candidate as a personal belief system.
You're right about that, atheism isn't much of a belief system. Christianity (like every religion) has a set of epistemological, moral and social beliefs that make it a fleshed-out belief system. Atheism, by contrast contains only one proposition, and it's a negative one. Atheists need to look in other places to find a belief system.
Aside from Jaybird's point, recession to recover on their own eventually. The post-depression recovery was actually quite slow, relative to other recessions. Now that may just be due to its severity, but given it was especially fast, I don't think there needs to be a explanation for the recovery. Recoveries are a natural part of recessions.
Not all taxes are equal in this regard. Cutting income taxes or capital taxes would be unwise as most of the money would just be saved. But cutting payroll taxes is effectively a subsidy on employing people, which makes it a good idea in a recession. Cutting consumption taxes also works really well (you can't save the tax cut if the only way to get it is to spend), but since the federal government doesn't have consumption taxes, that's not an option.
I'm not an expert in this area, but I think there's a real distinction between old world countries and those that were founded as colonies. Countries like the US and New Zealand have been dealing with new immigrants since before they even existed. By contrast, my impression is that the cultures of old world countries are more homogeneous and less flexible.
Religion is probably a good example - in England the Church of England is an apparatus of the State (to the point where England is a de jure theocracy), and so when new immigrants enter the country they have a choice between abandoning their religion on pain of being mildly second-class citizens (call this the nativist viewpoint) or let the new immigrants build their own religion into the state as well (call this the multicultural viewpoint).
The problem with these choices is that the first promotes resentment and both promote separatism. And in the US or New Zealand neither choice would be necessary because our society doesn't work that way.
Sturgeon' Law. Most liberal political viewpoints are stupid because most political viewpoints are stupid. You can swap any ideology in and it works just as well.
The main reason Keynes and Hayek aren't exactly disagreeing is that the two economic theories are quite different in how they view recessions. Keyensian theory sees them as an inherent instability that government must correct, while Austrian theory sees them as largely government-created problems that you just have to ride out. Hayek keeps going general because for him good policy is good policy - boom or bust makes no difference.
A lot of the ideas you bring up may be good policy ideas, but they aren't really stimulus per se. Stimulus is generally though of as a one-off temporary boost to the economy. Patent and healthcare reform are too structural to be properly thought of as stimulus.
But you're right about the timing. I'll put together a full post on the US government's fiscal issues in the next day or so, so I can go into more detail.
I'm in a similar boat, James is my name, but good luck finding me by googling for "James K". Not that you'll find my by googling on my full name either.
I enjoyed Dance with Dragons more than you did, for one thing I enjoyed the Tyrion chapters - they were a first foray into linking the action in Westeros to Danaerys, which gave the impression of pushing the story toward resolution. Plus it gave me an opportunity to see Tyrion's resourcefulness at work in a way we haven't seen since Clash of Kings - with his title and money gone the only tool he has left is his wits.
I share your opinion of the Wall - it was good to see Jon get to work. As for the final chapter - I suspect its a fake-out, you're right that killing Snow would accomplish nothing and make a lot of the story utterly pointless. Snow's critical mistake of course was to send everyone he trusted away, leaving him surrounded by people who would stab him in the back under the right circumstances.
As for Mereen - I agree with that it seemed pointless. I don't know if you read Martin's "Not a Blog", but it would seem from his comments there that Mereen is the main reason this book took 5 years to write.
I think that Martin had to wait for a book to get her plot moving to ensure her return to Westeros happens at the right time. But I think A song of Ice and Fire is her story first and foremost (I believe she is Azor Ahai reborn, not Jon), and Martin didn't think he could just part the main character of his story for so long without giving her something to do. Either that, or Mereeen is supposed to teach her some kind of lesson. In any case I think we'll see her leaving Mereen for Asshai under the Shadow in the next book.
Still the whole Quentin subplot seemed fairly pointless. I can only assume it was originally meant to be important to the story, but Martin's redrafting of book 5 removed the need for Quentyn, so he had to get rid of him.
Overall I still like the book, despite the East. But I got the impression we might see some movement in the East next book, so I think thins should get better from here on out.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Jobs and Other Wastes of Worldly Effort”
In 1900 over 90% of Americans were involved in producing food. Now that figure is less than 5%. And yet, unemployment is a lot lower than 85%.
I can see two ways this can go, in practice we ill get some of both of these:
1) As people get richer they demand new things (what things? If I knew that I'd be off patenting it), and this creates new industries for people to work in. Supply creates demand creates supply.
2) As people get richer they substitute income for leisure. This result sin shorter working weeks, and more rich people not going to work in any serious way.
We've been doing both of these in part since the Industrial Revolution, and I expect both trends to continue.
"
I'm still laughing as I type this.
"
Preach it brother!
On “Hayekian Stimulus”
Not only would you need a constitutional amendment, you would need a Supreme Court that would enforce it. Remember that 100% of Supreme Court justices are appointed by politician.
On “A Little Atheism for Y’all”
OK, well here's my position:
I am a strict Occamian, I believe it is epistemologically wrong to believe something exists without sufficient evidence. I'm also a Bayesian so "sufficient evidence" depends on the prior probability of the hypothesis being true (as Carl Sagan put it: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). Any kind of god (let alone the specific God of Christianity) is a very extraordinary claim - omnipotence requires rewriting every law of physics to include an "unless God says so" clause. And gods offer little in the way of explanation of the universe. If God created the universe, what created God? If God can exist without being created, why not the universe itself?
Since there is no reason to believe a god exists, that is a good reason not to.
I doubt most atheists put that much thought into it, but then neither do theists. Most people believe what they were brought up to believe.
"
The devil can quote Gygax for his purpose.
An evil soul producing nerdy witness
Is like the villain as a smiling geek
A dorky apple rotten at the heart:
O, what an awkward outside falsehood hath!
On “Austerity and Stimulus”
That's probably more to do with my nationality than anything else - in the Westminster system a government without budgetary control is a contradiction in terms.
But bear in mind that I don't think there is a political solution to this problem in the US, and I'm taking your dispersed political structure into account as part of that (though I think the voters are a bigger obstacle).
"
What you say is true Tom, structural deficits are the norm in the West. Still, that doesn't make it less of a problem.
And you'll note that I explicitly mentioned the Laffer Curve, it's one reason why I doubt you can get much money out of tax rises (and what you can get will most likely come from base broadening, rather than marginal tax increases).
"
Fiscal responsibility is deeply unfashionable the world over. We do pretty well in New Zealand (we expect to be back in black in a couple of years, according to Treasury's public forecasts), but that's because we've been burned once before.
"
Perpetuities are a reasonable option, but the interest rate on them will be significantly higher than for a regular bond (to make up for the fact you don't get principal back).
Still it's not a bad idea to have some long-run securities. The interest rate on bonds reflects (in part) default risk, but only over the period of the loan (a 6 month loan tells you nothing about default rick over more than 6 months), so long run bonds are a canary in the coal mine of fiscal stress.
"
I agree about health, that's a blog post I've yet to do, but plan to at some point. Otherwise the only cutting you can do is to arbitrarily cap spending per person, or declare some procedures uncovered. Neither is a good way to go about it.
I was under the impression that the "minor tweaks" to Social Security amounted to pretty large marginal tax increases for people on high incomes, which may not be a good idea. High income people are an especially volatile revenue source.
As for the political viability of any of this - I agree with you, I honestly don't see a way out for your country, given the politics. I can only hope I'm wrong.
On “A Little Atheism for Y’all”
I should point out I'm a colossal nerd (after all, that avatar of mine comes from a webcomic based on D&D jokes), which may cause you to revise your estimates as to my virginity ;)
"
I can't help but feel it's like shoeing a unicorn.
"
This is true, everything is uncertain to some degree so some belief is required to adopt any hypothesis as true. But not all hypotheses are equally likely, and thus believing in some things requires more belief than others. And if a god exists it does an excellent job of pretending that it doesn't. I suppose that's just another way of saying William of Occam is my co-pilot.
And to be fair, I don't so much believe that there are definitely no gods, so much as the probability that any gods exist are sufficiently low as to render the ideas as good as false. I only assign zero probability to propositions that are incoherent or internally inconsistent.
You're right about that, atheism isn't much of a belief system. Christianity (like every religion) has a set of epistemological, moral and social beliefs that make it a fleshed-out belief system. Atheism, by contrast contains only one proposition, and it's a negative one. Atheists need to look in other places to find a belief system.
On “Hayekian Stimulus”
Aside from Jaybird's point, recession to recover on their own eventually. The post-depression recovery was actually quite slow, relative to other recessions. Now that may just be due to its severity, but given it was especially fast, I don't think there needs to be a explanation for the recovery. Recoveries are a natural part of recessions.
"
Not all taxes are equal in this regard. Cutting income taxes or capital taxes would be unwise as most of the money would just be saved. But cutting payroll taxes is effectively a subsidy on employing people, which makes it a good idea in a recession. Cutting consumption taxes also works really well (you can't save the tax cut if the only way to get it is to spend), but since the federal government doesn't have consumption taxes, that's not an option.
On “Meanwhile at Forbes…”
I'm not an expert in this area, but I think there's a real distinction between old world countries and those that were founded as colonies. Countries like the US and New Zealand have been dealing with new immigrants since before they even existed. By contrast, my impression is that the cultures of old world countries are more homogeneous and less flexible.
Religion is probably a good example - in England the Church of England is an apparatus of the State (to the point where England is a de jure theocracy), and so when new immigrants enter the country they have a choice between abandoning their religion on pain of being mildly second-class citizens (call this the nativist viewpoint) or let the new immigrants build their own religion into the state as well (call this the multicultural viewpoint).
The problem with these choices is that the first promotes resentment and both promote separatism. And in the US or New Zealand neither choice would be necessary because our society doesn't work that way.
On “Class Warfare in London”
Sturgeon' Law. Most liberal political viewpoints are stupid because most political viewpoints are stupid. You can swap any ideology in and it works just as well.
On “Review: A Dance with Dragons by George R. R. Martin”
I agree, while I respect Tolkien for being instrumental in founding the genre, I really don't like reading him.
On “Hayekian Stimulus”
OK, that's a nuance I wasn't aware of, Austrian theory doesn't get a lot of play at university these days (not at mien anyway).
I think I got the prescriptive part right though - Austrian theory advocates riding out the bust, not taking stimulative action.
"
Yes, that stuff would be stimulus.
"
The main reason Keynes and Hayek aren't exactly disagreeing is that the two economic theories are quite different in how they view recessions. Keyensian theory sees them as an inherent instability that government must correct, while Austrian theory sees them as largely government-created problems that you just have to ride out. Hayek keeps going general because for him good policy is good policy - boom or bust makes no difference.
A lot of the ideas you bring up may be good policy ideas, but they aren't really stimulus per se. Stimulus is generally though of as a one-off temporary boost to the economy. Patent and healthcare reform are too structural to be properly thought of as stimulus.
But you're right about the timing. I'll put together a full post on the US government's fiscal issues in the next day or so, so I can go into more detail.
On “Introduction/Overture/Prologue”
Welcome to the blog.
"
I'm in a similar boat, James is my name, but good luck finding me by googling for "James K". Not that you'll find my by googling on my full name either.
On “Review: A Dance with Dragons by George R. R. Martin”
I enjoyed Dance with Dragons more than you did, for one thing I enjoyed the Tyrion chapters - they were a first foray into linking the action in Westeros to Danaerys, which gave the impression of pushing the story toward resolution. Plus it gave me an opportunity to see Tyrion's resourcefulness at work in a way we haven't seen since Clash of Kings - with his title and money gone the only tool he has left is his wits.
I share your opinion of the Wall - it was good to see Jon get to work. As for the final chapter - I suspect its a fake-out, you're right that killing Snow would accomplish nothing and make a lot of the story utterly pointless. Snow's critical mistake of course was to send everyone he trusted away, leaving him surrounded by people who would stab him in the back under the right circumstances.
As for Mereen - I agree with that it seemed pointless. I don't know if you read Martin's "Not a Blog", but it would seem from his comments there that Mereen is the main reason this book took 5 years to write.
I think that Martin had to wait for a book to get her plot moving to ensure her return to Westeros happens at the right time. But I think A song of Ice and Fire is her story first and foremost (I believe she is Azor Ahai reborn, not Jon), and Martin didn't think he could just part the main character of his story for so long without giving her something to do. Either that, or Mereeen is supposed to teach her some kind of lesson. In any case I think we'll see her leaving Mereen for Asshai under the Shadow in the next book.
Still the whole Quentin subplot seemed fairly pointless. I can only assume it was originally meant to be important to the story, but Martin's redrafting of book 5 removed the need for Quentyn, so he had to get rid of him.
Overall I still like the book, despite the East. But I got the impression we might see some movement in the East next book, so I think thins should get better from here on out.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.