In the NY Times today, there is a sad story about an author that has passed away days before his book - his magnum opus they say - is to be published. It is sad because it is supposed to be the new definitive book on Malcom X and the author won't be able to see how it is received. He also was looking forward to promoting and defending his work.
If there is any consolation, it is that the book is finished and the world will be able to read it and learn from it - as I intend to do. The book is supposed to be thorough (using new sources including documents from the FBI), and more objective and accurate than Alex Haley's Autobiography of Malcom X. It is better for the world that Manning Marable completed his work, as it is expected to help the world to better understand a very controversial figure. I'll definitely be adding the book to my to-read list.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Economy: Question for Business
Paul Krugman believes (and I am convinced) that the reason we are still in a recession is because of depressed demand. Consumers have stopped borrowing and slowed spending and so there is excess supply of consumer goods and excess business capacity. He therefore believes that we need expansionary policy. Monetary policy won't work because we are up against the zero bound on interest rates. So we need fiscal stimulus - which is hopeless since Democrats aren't even making that pitch.
As we see the from recent job numbers, small gains get a positive reaction. It frustrates me that we could do so much better if there was some urgency. Instead, getting below 8 percent unemployment by 2013 seems acceptable. Way too often government and the public accept suffering of segments of our society - more often less visible segments.
But my real question is this: if the problem facing businesses really is excess supply and unused capacity, why are businesses okay with Republican calls for austerity and budget cuts? Krugman believes that we need government to expand to make up for the cuts in consumer spending and to help consumers spend. Republicans are saying the real problem is taxes - or at least tax uncertainty.
On its face, the Republican point seems absurd. There is almost no talk of tax increases, so that can't be the reason businesses are not hiring.
But if Republicans are wrong and Krugman is right, why aren't businesses calling for fiscal expansion? Reports from the Chamber of Commerce say the biggest problem is excess supply. Are the businesses acting against their interest in support of ideology? Or is Krugman (and me) wrong? Or are businesses content with the meager growth if it means smaller government?
As we see the from recent job numbers, small gains get a positive reaction. It frustrates me that we could do so much better if there was some urgency. Instead, getting below 8 percent unemployment by 2013 seems acceptable. Way too often government and the public accept suffering of segments of our society - more often less visible segments.
But my real question is this: if the problem facing businesses really is excess supply and unused capacity, why are businesses okay with Republican calls for austerity and budget cuts? Krugman believes that we need government to expand to make up for the cuts in consumer spending and to help consumers spend. Republicans are saying the real problem is taxes - or at least tax uncertainty.
On its face, the Republican point seems absurd. There is almost no talk of tax increases, so that can't be the reason businesses are not hiring.
But if Republicans are wrong and Krugman is right, why aren't businesses calling for fiscal expansion? Reports from the Chamber of Commerce say the biggest problem is excess supply. Are the businesses acting against their interest in support of ideology? Or is Krugman (and me) wrong? Or are businesses content with the meager growth if it means smaller government?
Trump and Palin
I for one completely agree with Steve Kornacki at Salon: Donald Trump is not really running for president. It is all a publicity stunt - just as it has been in the past.
But I have to hand it to him, no one is better at manipulating the media for free publicity. Consider this, the man is only the 420 richest person in the world, and only number 27 in New York. Yet he is more well known than most people ahead of him. He is like the Anna Kournikova of rich people; he is more popular than he should be given his position in his industry. Although where Kournikova did it through her looks, Trump does it through media manipulation.
He fully embodies the maxim that there is no such thing as bad press, and it works for him. Developers pay him to put his name on their buildings; he didn't actually build many of the Trump buildings you see. He is shameless, but that is what keeps him in the spotlight. He is paid for his brand because of his ability to stay in the news - for things like supporting the birthers and being on bad reality shows - not in spite of it.
His strategy makes me feel dirty. But it is brilliant. If we had a media that covered the middle of the debate instead of the extremes, Trump would probably have to work a little harder for his publicity.
Another potential but unlikely Republican presidential candidate that gets out-sized media coverage is Sarah Palin. Sometimes I wonder why she gets so much coverage; the media seems to hand on her every word. Then I realize it's because the public eats up all the stories - myself included.
When I asked myself why I read all the stories, I realized it's because I keep thinking that this story, this comment, will finally be the one that shows the world that she is a complete moron. Saying she has a superficial understanding of the major issues is generous. And she has not demonstrated an interest in really understanding them.
While I keep thinking it will be one comment that will finally convince everyone, it seems instead that people are slowly getting it, even Republicans. She is good at avoiding major gaffes, but the sum of her statements is turning people off. They are seeing that she is self-involved and superficial.
At first, when she attacked the press, it came off like she was attacking a liberal media bias. But now it is clear to most people that she is attacking their coverage of her. And when she weighed in on the Gifford's shooting, she didn't defend conservatives or conservative issues, she defended herself. Her self-involvement and victimization are turning off her own base. If it takes constant media coverage to make that point, then so be it.
But I have to hand it to him, no one is better at manipulating the media for free publicity. Consider this, the man is only the 420 richest person in the world, and only number 27 in New York. Yet he is more well known than most people ahead of him. He is like the Anna Kournikova of rich people; he is more popular than he should be given his position in his industry. Although where Kournikova did it through her looks, Trump does it through media manipulation.
He fully embodies the maxim that there is no such thing as bad press, and it works for him. Developers pay him to put his name on their buildings; he didn't actually build many of the Trump buildings you see. He is shameless, but that is what keeps him in the spotlight. He is paid for his brand because of his ability to stay in the news - for things like supporting the birthers and being on bad reality shows - not in spite of it.
His strategy makes me feel dirty. But it is brilliant. If we had a media that covered the middle of the debate instead of the extremes, Trump would probably have to work a little harder for his publicity.
Another potential but unlikely Republican presidential candidate that gets out-sized media coverage is Sarah Palin. Sometimes I wonder why she gets so much coverage; the media seems to hand on her every word. Then I realize it's because the public eats up all the stories - myself included.
When I asked myself why I read all the stories, I realized it's because I keep thinking that this story, this comment, will finally be the one that shows the world that she is a complete moron. Saying she has a superficial understanding of the major issues is generous. And she has not demonstrated an interest in really understanding them.
While I keep thinking it will be one comment that will finally convince everyone, it seems instead that people are slowly getting it, even Republicans. She is good at avoiding major gaffes, but the sum of her statements is turning people off. They are seeing that she is self-involved and superficial.
At first, when she attacked the press, it came off like she was attacking a liberal media bias. But now it is clear to most people that she is attacking their coverage of her. And when she weighed in on the Gifford's shooting, she didn't defend conservatives or conservative issues, she defended herself. Her self-involvement and victimization are turning off her own base. If it takes constant media coverage to make that point, then so be it.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Economy: Invisible Unemployed
Right now the unemployed are just a number - not a vocal group of affected people. In effect, it is the worst of both worlds. Conditions are bad and will hurt Obama in 2012, but not bad enough to cause urgency of action and therefore give him room to do what really needs to be done (fiscal stimulus since monetary policy has been ineffective).
The best we can hope for is that the lack of urgency means Obama won’t be punished that much. But it means our economy doesn't improve. The picture seems bleak to say the least.
The best we can hope for is that the lack of urgency means Obama won’t be punished that much. But it means our economy doesn't improve. The picture seems bleak to say the least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)