Krugman and Mankiw on the renewed relevance of Keynesean economics

Greg Mankiw: What Would Keynes Have Done
Paul Krugman: The Keynesian Moment

the life: Iran: A Nation of Bloggers

the life: Iran: A Nation of Bloggers

This is a cool short film about the modernist new generation in Iran. Gives great hope for the new generation that will be springing as the old fanatical fuddy-duddies start to lose their grip on things.


Iran: A nation of bloggers from Mr.Aaron on Vimeo.

Awesome YouTube channel about everything . . .

So I'm home for the holiday weekend and I've been watching Khan Academy, a YouTube channel with good, accessible information about a large variety of topics. I've been watching the series on the credit crisis and the bailout. I highly recommend it.

This is outrageous . . .

The Economist: Troubled Securities in Asia

Pension savings in developing countries destroyed and wasted by American mortgage salesmen (yes, I hate salesmen . . .), speculators, and consumers who are defaulting on their debt. USA! USA! USA!

Governor Huntsman's a good guy . . .

Politico: Utah Governor Critical of GOP

The Wrong Side of History

This article pretty much sums up the gay marriage issue as it now stands. I don't think I entirely agree with the author's conclusions (though I'm prone to) he analyzes the issue much more deeply than most. Bolding and comments in [ ] are mine.

Rod Dreher: Why Prop 8 victory was Pyrrhic for conservatives

Despite their unexpected victory in California's Prop 8 battle, conservatives have all but lost the war to stop gay marriage. Yes, every time voters have been consulted about same-sex marriage, they've chosen to stick with tradition. But defenders of traditional marriage are not likely to prevail. Consider: • Prop 8 won because of a huge pro-Obama turnout among blacks and Latinos, who are conservative on gay marriage. But the issue doesn't matter enough to them to vote Republican in general elections. Democratic elites back gay marriage, and are likely to appoint judges who do too.

•Opposition to gay marriage was strong in 2004, but it has dramatically receded since then, polls show. This year, nonpartisan Pew Center found that a slight majority (52 percent) of voters oppose gay marriage, but the steady trend lines do not favor the antis.

•Young adults are far less opposed to gay marriage than older Americans. As the physicist Max Planck once said, "An idea does not take hold because people see the light. It wins because everyone opposed to it eventually dies."

These young people might change their minds as they age. But don't count on it. They have been raised in a culture that has in the past half-century thoroughly deconstructed the traditional meaning of marriage.

The concept of marriage has largely been severed from established norms in the popular understanding and is now seen as a contract formalizing the love a couple (for now) has for each other. Today, marriage has no intrinsic meaning that people are meant to serve; rather, it can be shaped to support people's desires.

This is the logical next phase in the development of modernity, whose 500-year project has been the gradual emancipation of the individual will. [This is what people mean when they lament the current trends of "rights without responsibility"] When gay marriage proponents argue that conservatives are on the wrong side of history, they're right.

Moreover, the prejudice – both in the bad, bigoted sense, and the good, Burkean sense – that protected traditional marriage is evaporating. Conservatives will lose this war because they have lost the young. And they have lost the young because they have lost the culture.

They are going to lose more than that when and if gay marriage becomes constitutionalized. They are going to lose some of their religious liberty.

No, pastors won't be jailed for anti-gay sermons. Nor are clergy likely to be forced to marry same-sex couples. But because marriage carries with it a vast array of legal rights and obligations, a live-and-let-live settlement is hard to imagine.

If courts place homosexuality on par with race in civil rights jurisprudence, a host of penalties against traditionalist religious organizations – including the loss of tax-exempt status – will kick in. Georgetown's Chai Feldblum, a gay rights activist and legal scholar, points to irreconcilable differences between gay rights and religious freedom.

Though Prof. Feldblum believes justice is on the gay rights side, at least she admits how high the stakes are for the faithful. Most gay marriage proponents deny or elide this, and the media aren't especially interested in examining the competing rights claims of religious believers.

What's more, as gay marriage backer and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has observed, one goal of the gay rights movement is "delegitimizing and legally punishing private behavior that discriminates against or condemns homosexuals." Though anti-Prop 8 campaigners said that no one would ever try to yank a church's tax exemption, days after losing the vote, gay protesters at a Mormon temple demanded exactly that. And a beloved Mormon theatrical director was forced out of his Sacramento job because he gave money to the Prop 8 campaign.

It won't stop there.

Should conservatives surrender? No, but it's important to deal with the world as it is. Marc D. Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, warns of a substantial impact on traditionalist churches, synagogues and mosques if gay marriage is constitutionalized under current conditions.

"If there is to be space for opponents of same-sex marriage, it will have to be created at the same time as same-sex marriage is recognized, and, probably, as part of a legislative package," he counsels.

Well, California gays had marriage in all but name, but still successfully petitioned the state Supreme Court over the word "marriage." Still, if religious liberty can be protected while statutorily granting same-sex marriage, that's a deal prudent conservatives and fair-minded gay activists should take.

Otherwise, get ready for a culture-war cataclysm.

Another good post by the same author here

Ok . . . maybe don't let GM die

This article in the New Republic look at least initially to be convincing (it has managed to quiet MY "burn baby burn" tendencies at least). Of course, I don't really know much of anything about the subject, like what exactly is being proposed to do to help which companies, how much it would cost if just one of them failed, how they could significantly downsize, what it would cost to cover unemployed workers, etc. Basically, there's no reason anyone should take my opinion seriously. Anyway, here's the link.

Hat Tip: Paul Krugman

Mark Thoma: Help GM die peacefully

Economist's View: "The Case for Forward-Looking Protectionism"

Brooks: Let GM die

NY Times: Bailout to Nowhere

McArdle: Let GM die

Megan McArdle: Keep Bailing

What should not be done to "help" the economic situation

Economist's View: Fed Watch: Misguided Policies
Portfolio.com: Reasons to Bail Out GM

My summary/oversimplification (ie still read the articles):
Don't artificially support the housing market, consumer credit; build infrastructure. Bail out GM only if its current management is removed (preferable violently . . . jk), and its stockholders/bondholders don't make anything off the deal.

Almost unbelievable

no comment

No green New Deal

The Economist: Green, Easy, and Wrong

Good article that says that the market, encouraged by constructive tax policy, is best able to solve the climate change problem. I agree. The fastest way that new, green technologies can be developed is to make the old, dirty technology more immediately costly on its users.

When are we going to use this in our jobs?

The Onion: Majority of Americans Never Use Physical Education After High School

Krugman on the economic crisis

What will happen to fake news when the Bush administration leaves?

Interesting links thereabout:

The Daily Dish: The Daily Show, Post-Bush

The Onion: Economists Warn Anti-Bush Merchandise Market Close to Collapse

Al Gore on a sensible energy/environmental policy

Very sensible and realistic suggestions on a national energy policy. Al Gore is a lot smarter than I have given him credit for I think (even though I thought An Inconvenient Truth was a bit over the edge . . . but then what do I know).

NY Times: The Climate for Change

Low Oil Prices = Bad for oil independence

Are alternative fuels reliving the 1980s?

America's great . . . except for the South

Amazing (and telling) graphics from the New York Times (Hat Tip: Paul Krugman)

And

Update: Snarky comment from Matt Yglesias:

You can see why John McCain’s principled stand against higher taxes on the wealthy would have a special resonance in this region. Liberals who thought race had something to do with those appeals should be ashamed of themselves.

Did Obama indirectly secure a victory for Proposition 8

According to exit polls, African Americans in California voted 70% in favor of Proposition 8.

More on this and related Prop 8 issues:
Megan McArdle: The people have spoken
Andrew Sullivan: Oh, No, You Don't
Obsidian Wings: Prop 8 and the Black Vote
Coates: Work to do
LA Times: Gay-rights advocates to challenge Proposition 8 in court

This is very significant

FT.com: Democrats defeat "southern strategy"

Taken from the comments because it was too long . . .

See the comments of the previous post to understand the context here.

First, the church did not "force or coerce a mass majority to be constricted to our moral standards." It did not force anyone to do anything. We worked 100% within the democratic system. It did nothing illegal. Prop 8 passed by a majority vote, the same kind of majority that chose Barack Obama in California (whose election McCain supporters are still required by law to accept).

If the church can take a stance on what alcohol laws should be put in place, tax policy affecting the church, pornographic store zoning, whether the John Birch Society is crazy, and whether Yucca Mountain should be used for nuclear waste storage (which it has and does), then it can take a stance that they should support Proposition 8. Again, there is no coup, no force going on. It's majority rule.

Yes, the ideal is to teach correct principles, then let people govern themselves. But in the real world, principles must be taught and applied in specific, simple, and practical ways for organizational purposes (to get anything done) and to get the marginal people in line.

Freedom of conscience is not infringed upon. If someone didn't want to vote for prop 8, no one forced them to. If someone doesn't believe in the Democratic platform, they don't have to. If someone doesn't agree with the ban on same sex marriage, they are perfectly free to work to change the law (which they do).

If someone disagrees with a war and is drafted, he can work to change the policy and allow conscientious objectors, or he can work to convince Congress to end funding for the war. But until he can accomplish this, he must obey the law, or face the consequences.

If someone thinks his taxes are unfairly high, he can work to get them lowered, but he must pay them until he can manage that or go to prison.

If someone thinks he should be able to own an automatic weapon, he can give money to the NRA, but again he must obey the law as it stands or go to jail.

This is the way liberal democracy works. A certain degree of individualism must be stifled (eventually by violence) or we would have chaos. Freedom of speech, press, suffrage, assembly, religion, conscience and others help ensure that basic individualism, especially as far as beliefs go, is preserved. But what official policy is and what actions and relationships are recognized as legitimate by the government is a different matter that can and is set by the majority.

Finally, that ad was bull**** (I never say that). From lds.org: " As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility. "The LDS church, again, did not force anyone to do anything. And all existing "marriages" are unaffected.

The church supported a very honest, even blunt, PR campaign, and when the information of both sides became well known (the GLBT movement certainly wasn't quiet this whole time!) the voters chose to support Prop 8. It was honest, clearly communicated information that passed Prop 8, not a religious coup. The church just happened to assist in the dissemination of that information.

Encouraging people to give money to a cause is not a crime. And the church's jurisdiction over the counsel it gives to its members (of their own free will and choice) is certainly not limited. The GLBT campaign lost because it failed to convince the public of the justice of its cause, not because sinister missionaries broke into gay people's houses and took their rights.

the life: Hmmm...disturbing.

the life: Hmmm...disturbing.

Interesting post here from Soelberg. Even though I get cited here (copyright 2008), I find a couple things to disagree with (disclosure: I didn't watch the video due to BYU blocking YouTube. Also I'm very tired right now. Basically, I refuse to take long-term responsiblity for what I'm going to say, especially the details).

Marriage is not only a semantic thing, and I certainly don't agree that semantics are not important, as is implied. Semantic shifts change attitudes. A large part of the anti gay marriage movement is a fight for the hearts and minds of the future.

If the government says a same sex marriage is a marriage, people will eventually accept that. Though my perception of marriage will not change, other peoples' perceptions will change and in a country where the majority more or less makes the rules this will unavoidably affect me. I will be regarded as a bigot and a religious fanatic for not accepting the official definition. My children (should such unfortunate beings ever come to be) will be taught in school that homosexual activity is acceptable, and an option if they're interested.

Also, as far as adoption goes, there is a problem. Right now, as I understand it, an unmarried woman (lesbian or not) can adopt, but single men cannot. In those states where gay marriage has been legalized, religious organizations who coordinate adoptions have been forced to either allow SS married couples to adopt or not offer adoption services.

I disagree with what Brad (from the comments) says about the government enforcing morality. We are mostly ruled by the majority, so that the majority can enforce with organized violence that kind of society that it believes is right, proper, and moral (within the constraints of the Constitution and Bill of Rights).

Most convincing arguments for welfare policy, universal health care, endangered species protection, free public education, etc. have a very significant moral and even religious aspect. It's morality that tells me that someone who can't afford health care should be able to get life-saving treatment (within the realm of the possible of course). There is no automatic force that makes it so that healthy people have to pay to treat sick people. It is a moral call: a sacrifice of efficiency (taxes have dead weight losses and regulations unavoidably affect output) for a greater moral good.

Most importantly is that these policies are binding, and are enforced ultimately by violence –– if you decide to not comply with the pertaining taxes or regulations you go to jail. All laws limit in a small but real way individual freedom to choose in order to serve a perceived larger good. There is a balancing act involved here, of course, but this is nothing new, and it is nothing that can disappear as long as we have governments that can force people to do things (ie all real government by definition).

The comparison with baptism is not valid. Baptism is not just a physical act; it's a religious covenant. The physical act without conviction is not a good thing and not recognized by anyone who matters (ie God). It's a lie. No law can justly force people to think one way or another, but laws can justly regulate behavior.

Now, the way to regulate homosexual behavior is debatable. I would be tempted to push more for constitutional amendments (nationally and locally) that say that same sex marriage is not a guaranteed right to prevent a few judges from forcing it on everyone, but it would still leave states or the country free to do what they believe is right. But an amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, though an extreme measure not really taken seriously until recently, does send a much stronger signal, would be more permanent, and is completely legitimate in our civil democracy if done legally.

As such, the church's involvement (done completely within the democratic framework) in this moral issue is perfectly legitimate (and if you think the church is the kingdom of God, it has authority to take a stance on whatever it wants, even though it does not now typically do so for practical and PR reasons that we can discuss later). And given the present threat, such intervention is most likely necessary.

Anyway, I'd be interested in input on this.

Finally!

Pat Bagley

McCain on SNL

McCain's a pretty funny guy.

The Economist on the Obamacon shift

The Economist: The Rise of the Obamacons

The Economist endorses Obama

Not that British people can vote, but it still means something. Here's an excerpt (chosen with considerable bias, of course):

The Economist: Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.