Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Captain
Yes, that would be intentional and not just the normal snake oil. But I'm not sure I understand the basis for the claim -- are there other economists who can ferret out how they're dummying up numbers?

Yes, and I have posted links.

Some conservatives would just credit the White House for its remarkable political acumen and excellent spinning technique. Not sure why Spanky is fighting this one tooth and nail.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Isn't consumer confidence the most important thing for a healthy economy? So since most people believe it, isn't it true?

You conservatives with your moral relativism.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I've been around here for a pretty long time, and I still don't buy this philosophy. I'm sorry you feel that way, because it clearly cuts down on the number of quality posts you provide (admitedly using a different standard here than you use).

Oh, I agree that the directly partisan political GOP-DEM knife-fights never seem to convince anyone. However, there is a lot more to this board (especially during a non-election season).

Every so often I learn something new, and there are many issues discussed here that I don't think much about in my everyday life (e.g. almost anything Burger posts on), so the discussions here do sometimes help shape my views.

The Captain hasn't been around long enough to see the range of your ouevre, Hank -- or to understand that every so often you will unexpectedly send out a thoughtful substantive post which cuts through the cloud of B.S. Most of your posts, though, are efforts at being simultaneously cryptic and funny -- which is tough to do and inevitably results in uneven quality.

Please don't try to discourage the Captain from posting on 18th and 19th century legal theory, or constitutional history, or from asking reasonable questions -- that is good shit. Its part of what distinguishes this Board from the standard AOL/Yahoo chat board and makes it worth spending time here.

S_A_M

P.S. I must have been away when Penske was one of the most substantive posters on the Boards (or it must have been a _long_ time ago). I am pleased that he's moved in that direction and cut down on the lunatic sockery in the past few months. Again, who knew he could have an interesting perspective? All praise to the babyjesuschrist superstar!

If one goes back to Infirm, and I think you were there, the Politics board was much more news topic driven then this place has become. It was also a ton more fun. Maybe the fun was driven by BT, and riffing off him.

What I recall was about once every three months Burger and Taxwonk would get into these long tax debates. Other than that no outside reading was required to keep up or contribute (to the extent most of us "contribute"). I could scroll through the tax debates (no offense to B or T, I just don't remember enough to kid myself I'd understand).

Here the fun is almost all gone. Perhaps that was shifter turning more serious.

And now instead of the threads every three months that need to be scrolled through, it is almost all of it. And I think that leads to the bases for arguments being "here's some blog" or "everyone but Ty understands this." No one has read the shit required to post intellignetly on these topics- in a sense Penske and I are the more serious posters for not trying to post seriously on topics where we know we haven't read what's required.

And posters here can pick how they want the board to be, I don't give a shit- Captain can go on on at length and all I would do is scroll. But when someone attacks me, then I go back. That is what I like best.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Captain
Yes, that would be intentional and not just the normal snake oil. But I'm not sure I understand the basis for the claim -- are there other economists who can ferret out how they're dummying up numbers?

1) Does this approach, if true, have the intended effect? People hear the first prediction--
massive deficits, adn that has a cost. Does the "new" number really outweigh the old? People are pretty bored of this, and touting a "less massive" deficit doesn't exactly win points.

2) Every admin. has always used Rosy Scenario as the leading lady in its projections. How is this different from anything anyone has done in the last 40 years.

3) CBO is just as political, if not more so, than OMB. While averging the two figures has some value, CBO is generally even less useful.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

What I recall was about once every three months Burger and Taxwonk would get into these long tax debates.

I don't think I ever posted on Politics on infirm. I concede debates with wonk over tax here, but the length reflected their value, both intellectual and political.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think I ever posted on Politics on infirm. I concede debates with wonk over tax here, but the length reflected their value, both intellectual and political.

somebody did, and it was someone from DC, but maybe it was someone who didn't make the jump. And remember i was not criticizing.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, I asked for more of the speech from which Penske -- or whomever he got it from -- found the single sentence that he quoted. I wondered what the context was, and suspected -- correctly, it would seem -- that you and Penske are trafficking in someone else's arguments about FDR. I don't know much about the 1940 campaign myself.

I am perfectly willing to believe that FDR misled people, just as I am willing to believe that New Orleans officials connived with the North Koreans to deploy school buses as submarines.

The fact that FDR lied about his intentions about the war was something you did not want to accept because it delegitimizes Bush's supposed lies that led us into the gulf war. Although you agreed that Bush probably did not lie you did think his using faulty evidence makes him culpable. Obviously FDR directly lying makes Bush's alleged activities seem less heinous.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There is some irony in having to point this out within a day of your refusing to accept that the White House is inflating budgetary projections for political purposes.

Thick with irony. We know FDR lied about his intentions prior to WWII. He said he would do everything to keep us out of the war and in fact did not. We can compare what he said with what he did. i.e. repeated assertions that there would be no war in an FDR administration - while doing lend lease, military escorts, sharing intelligence, lend lease, the Atlantic Charter etc.

Bush inflating budgetary projections for political purposes is just supposition. There is no conclusive proof that he did. It is possible. But again projections on future deficits and surpluses are never accurate. Until there is some direct evidence and not supposition no conclusions can be drawn.

So it is absurd to ask me to admit that Bush intentionally did it when you have no direct evidence. Is there some direct evidence I am unaware of? It is possible, but who knows.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain


This is the same place I come out on the FDR lied front. He has been fully vindicated.

I agree with you here. FDR did the right thing. The jury is still out on Bush.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Isn't consumer confidence the most important thing for a healthy economy?

Uh-oh.

I'm certainly no economist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I expect this to rebound next month, as everyone realizes that we won't be paying for $5 gas after Katrina/Rita. But I wonder if it says something about the volatility of consumer confidence, and perhaps that everyone is nervously keeping an eye on the prices displayed at the local Union76. What will happen once the fall/winter home heating bills start coming in?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
One of the drawbacks of having the Presidency and Congress controlled by the same party is that we no longer longer get to see duelling ridiculous budget claims on a regular basis. It used to be easy to just add them together and divide by two.

But isn't this the product of policy wonks who believe in their own snake-oil? When an economist of a given persuassion scores revenue based on policy changes, they are always convinced that their policy changes will achieve all they are intended to without any unintended consequences.

In other words, of course they are inflated, but don't they inevitably end up inflated without anyone needing to do it intentionally?

Normally the administration always predicts that the deficits won't be as bad as they are. For obvious reasons. The Reagan and Bush administration constantly underpredicted the deficits. In the Clinton administration they constantly underpredicted the reduction in the deficit and the surplus because the multiplier effect of the growing economy caught everyone off guard. I don't Clinton was intentionally underpredicting the good neaw. Tys assertion is that Bush is using reverse psychology. He intentionally overestimated the budget deficit (even though it gave fuel to his opponents when he came out with huge numbers) in the end it helped him because when the actual numbers came in they were below people's expectations so it deflated the shock. There is some circumstantial evidence that this happened. However, nothing conclusive. But in any event, Ty thinks the current evidence (which is really just supposition) is strong enough so I should accept that it really happened.

[Replaced_Texan]

I didn't actually get on any of the highways, thanks to some preplanning a few months ago, but it was really, really bad getting out of Houston on Wednesday night/Thursday morning.

But apparently better than most places:

WASHINGTON - Even factoring in the spectacular traffic jams, Houston was better prepared to respond to a major disaster than most major U.S. cities, experts said Monday.

"Houston has a better plan than many major cities I have looked at," said Paul Light, an expert on emergency response with New York University.

"Chicago doesn't have a plan that I know of. Los Angeles can't figure out how to evacuate, and New York just has too many choke points to get people out," Light said. "Conventional wisdom is that if Washington was forced to evacuate quickly, it would be a mess."

Light said Houston's plan worked about as well as could be expected, despite the glitches that developed. "Some things are going to occur under the 'stuff happens' heading, like failing to have tanker trucks stationed in the right place or reversing traffic flow," he said. "All you can do is learn from it."

James Carafano, a homeland security expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation, shared Light's assessment. "Right now, a lot of cities just improvise these things," he said.

The Homeland Security Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have begun an effort to learn the lessons of Rita and Katrina, officials said Monday.

I heard on the radio on Monday morning that Bush was suggesting that the Pentagon take over these sorts of things. The thought horrifies me. It seems that the Administration either wants total military control or none at all on the Federal level and working with local government and businesses isn't as much of an option.

ETA: I kinda agree with this guy:

Light was skeptical that the military would be more likely than city officials to handle contingencies.

"In Iraqi Freedom, their logistics plan was very good, their plan of attack was good, but they ran out of tank treads," Light said. "Some of these contingencies can't be foreseen. But with the military, they have a supply system that would have required somebody to order the stuff three years ago."

Cities need more flexibility during disasters than federal control would allow, Light argued.

The best model for cities to emulate, he said, is the Rolling Stones' traveling tour.

"They move two 747s and five truckloads of gear every day with the flexibility to change venues and add concerts," Light said. "That is what is needed, the ability to hit the ground running and react to events."

Seems that Wal-Mart's plan worked beautifully during Katrina, when it wasn't interfered with by FEMA. There are a lot of experts on logistics out there that don't specialize in warfare. It seems to me that we should look to them first and let the Pentagon worry about defending the country from enemies.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Seems that Wal-Mart's plan worked beautifully during Katrina, when it wasn't interfered with by FEMA. There are a lot of experts on logistics out there that don't specialize in warfare. It seems to me that we should look to them first and let the Pentagon worry about defending the country from enemies.

What was Wal-Mart's plan?

ETA http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05255/570139.stm actually more informative vis-a-vis the planning part of it than the WaPo/Houston Chron article.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What was Wal-Mart's plan?

To Kick Ass and Take Names.

You want 8 billion bottles of water and 2 billion Slim Jims into an area in 24 hours, you don't call FEMA. You call Home Depot and Walmart.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Seems that Wal-Mart's plan worked beautifully during Katrina, when it wasn't interfered with by FEMA. There are a lot of experts on logistics out there that don't specialize in warfare. It seems to me that we should look to them first and let the Pentagon worry about defending the country from enemies.

I've been wondering about this. I could imagine you could contract to a consulting firm for an evacuation plan, and I even imagine it happens, but when the shit hits the fan, in the specific case of running an evacuation, how is business going to outperform the government? Are you going to pay more attention to a WalMart greeter waving a flashlight than a state trooper?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What was Wal-Mart's plan?

Wal-Mart, at the beginning of hurricane season, started stockpiling water all over the Gulf Coast in containers at their distribution centers. All they needed was the truck to back up to the containers and they were ready to deliver water to hurricane affected areas. Their communications system never went down, so they could figure out where water was needed most, and they could direct the trucks to the right places. They were on the road by the Thursday after Katrina, and the only problems that they had were when FEMA wouldn't let them through at some points. Additionally, their distribution network is sophisticated enough that they were able to get several thousand cots from Canada in a matter of days.