The results of a poll of 7,500 subscribes to an online journal - each of whom was allowed 3 votes!?! Ho boy. Ain't seen its like since The Literary Digest trumpeted Alf Landon's impending trouncing of FDR in the 1936 presidential election - he'd get 57% of the vote, so ran the prediction. (Landon garnered 36.5% of the popular vote and carried two states, neither of them his native Kansas, for a whopping 8 electoral votes to FDR's 60.8% of the tally and 523 electoral votes. Oops.)

Nice try Oracle of Obfuscation Your link is just as inconsequential to the article as you are to your students.

And far more consequential than this "poll" your ignorance has allowed - hell, compelled - you to latch onto.

#2 | Posted by paneocon

Nice job refuting the fact that the poll reflects the opinions of subscribers to an online journal - each of whom was allowed 3 votes.

Oh, no, wait a sec: you couldn't refute that, could you?

Too baaaaaaaad.

In past years when Doc Starveus, congress, and presidents placed the crown of adoration on Greenspan's brow, the student, Matsop was warning that the emperor had no clothes and that he was setting up this nation for hell to pay later. If we put "practical" men with "common sense" in these positions, this nation would be better off. But instead we put academicians with cobwebs in their cerebrums in these positions and then they actually begin to believe the pablum they put out. They believe that they are wiser then generations of examples of bad economic behavior and don't believe that history will repeat itself since they're "smarter" then everyone else.

Don't you have a New Years' resolution to only post when you're sober?

Oh, Doc, I just noticed you're out there. Good morning.

#5 | Posted by matsop at 2012-02-06 09:45 AM

Yes, but how does this poll affect the price of gold?

Economics Contributed to the Financial Crisis
Posted by paneocon

That some kind of revelation for you?

Here is some interesting information regarding economics.

Remember that payroll tax cut that is saving you a little bit of money?

Here is how it is was paid for:

"Anderson will save a couple hundred dollars from having her payroll tax cut extended but her mortgage broker told her the new fee would cost her almost $9,500."

Over the life of her 30 year loan. The author is using nominal dollars, not real, inflation-adjusted dollars.

And based on the numbers in the article, the house cost ~$350,000. Hardly your median price.

#10 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

The Government Giveth, The Government Taketh Away

And based on the numbers in the article, the house cost ~$350,000. Hardly your median price.

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-06 10:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

That depends on where you live now doesn't it?

Either way, we see here a slight of hand by the administration. Taking money away from Social Security, charging Americans in other capacities to get the money back from the payroll tax cut... and when they get that money back... not even putting it toward Social Security where it is being taken from.

I expect all the Democrats to be in an uproar about this...

What is also strange is that the payroll tax cut is being made because "people are hurting"... with a major reason for that hurt being the housing crisis. So at a time when many people are looking to refinance... the government is going to make some money of the very people they pretend that the payroll tax will help.

Hilarious...

"That depends on where you live now doesn't it? "

Sure, Mitt.

"Either way, we see here a slight of hand by the administration. Taking money away from Social Security, charging Americans in other capacities to get the money back from the payroll tax cut... and when they get that money back... not even putting it toward Social Security where it is being taken from."

And you're just waking up to this now? Politicians have been tossing SS into the general fund at least since Reagan. And "putting it into SS" means writing an IOU.

"What is also strange is that the payroll tax cut is being made because "people are hurting"... with a major reason for that hurt being the housing crisis. So at a time when many people are looking to refinance... the government is going to make some money of the very people they pretend that the payroll tax will help. "

Well, the Dems wanted to do the payroll tax cut, and the Rs said no, there had to be offsetting revenues.

Using your logic, it's the fault of the Rs.

Using your logic, it's the fault of the Rs.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-06 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Now sure how you come up with that.

I clearly remember the republicans trying to offset the cost with spending cuts. The democrat chose to hurt they very people they are trying to "help" and put a new fee on new and refinanced mortgages.

Hilarious... and then you talk about logic... even better.

So I take it you are pissed at Obama that this is taking place?

"Now sure how you come up with that. "

You want to blame the folks who put the mortgage fee into law...but you blame the Dems.

Only government could take a dollar once known to be as good as gold and turn it into a worthless piece of paper. Future historians will know Greenspan, Bernanke, Summers, Friedman, Keynes and others of the same ilk as the shamans of our age.

"Over the life of her 30 year loan. The author is using nominal dollars, not real, inflation-adjusted dollars."

Yet you of course omit the fee is rolled into the loan amount and of course part of the monthly payment. Which I assume the financial planner to the stars would understand the interest paid on that extra fee. Right? Or should I chalk this up to your lack of mortgage knowledge like you don't know the difference between a 1st and 2nd TD?

You want to blame the folks who put the mortgage fee into law...but you blame the Dems.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-06 11:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Who has the power to veto the bill? Obama
Who put the stipulation for this fee to pay for the payroll tax cut? The Senate
Who controls the senate? Democrats.

I am blaming all that put the legislation into order, but blaming Democrats specifically since they are in power.

I forgot... everything negative that happened under Bush was his fault. Everything positive that happened was Clintons doing. Everything negative that happens under Obama is Bush's fault... everything positive it Obama's doing...

"Yet you of course omit the fee is rolled into the loan amount"

I said it was paid over the life of the loan. How is that omitting it?

"Which I assume the financial planner to the stars would understand the interest paid on that extra fee. Right?"

Yes, clearly. Didn't you?

"Or should I chalk this up to your lack of mortgage knowledge like you don't know the difference between a 1st and 2nd TD?"

I'm very aware of the difference between a 1st and a 2nd. Are you still trying to move those goalposts?

"I am blaming all that put the legislation into order, but blaming Democrats specifically since they are in power. "

So you're ignoring the Rs insistence any cuts be offset? And you completely skipped the R-controlled House???

wow, I'm reading this exchange between danforth and exp.

it's just another illustration of how you can't tell the difference between the 2 parties.

But it's really easy to see it when you watch 2 cheerleaders from opposite sides go at it.

"2 cheerleaders from opposite sides"

That's because you're a partisan. Start over, pretend you're neutral, and follow the logic: Dems wanted payroll tax cuts. They weren't going to offset them with anything. (I'm not endorsing the idea, but that's what it was.)

But the Rs wouldn't agree without offsets. Exp is upset about the offset, but can't seem to connect that to the Rs, in his world of cognitive dissonance.

danforth,

you can't stop the charade of your independence, can you?

You're not wrong about exp. I wasn't even aware this was even put into law, to be honest.

who authored this fee?

CBS News went to Capitol Hill ask what Congress was thinking when they passed the mortgage fee hike. Boehner pointed the finger at the Senate.

"As you're well aware, this bill came over from the Senate. I don't know how they justified it. We would rather have offset that two-month extension with reductions in spending," he said.

But the Senate blamed the House. And Democrats and Republicans blamed each other.

One congressman, Florida Republican Allen West, said he tried to blow the whistle on the whole thing before Christmas.

"I read the legislation and raised the flag. Unfortunately nobody paid attention to what I was saying at the time," he said, calling the fee a backdoor tax increase on the middle class.

yep, fingerpointing cheerleaders.

Can you imagine how many indirect taxes we pay in a year. Can you imagine if everyone had to write a check for all the taxes. The guy on welfare and food stamps would have to cough up a thousand bucks or more and the next thing they would be looking to join a tea party and march on Washington. Politicians in general and Democrats specifically do like their stealth taxes.

"you can't stop the charade of your independence, can you?"

Not independence. I'm a registered Independent. I've made no secret of the fact I'd be caucusing with the Dems. Nor have I hidden the reason: it's because the current Republican party has run away from me, far and fast.

That said, when a capable candidate comes along like Huntsman, I'm more than happy to support and endorse him. I still think he's the best choice for President, from both parties.

The Koch Bros have bought the Economics Department at George Mason University and Florida State. But the problem is more prevalent than just two schools. Its not enough to own the mass media, you must control academic discourse and politicans. Rethuglican liars control three legs of the stool. Its all bullshit and its bad for you.

There are many legitimate economists: Baker, Galbraithe, Hudson, Roberts, Stiglitz, Warren.... Roberts was kicked out of the Wall Street Journal for speaking out against the invasion of Iraq beforehand. He was dropped from syndication.

The main point here is unlike Conservative intellectuals like Willam Buckley, who welcomed open discourse, mass media information is tightly controlled in order to maximize profits for a few. There are only two issues in politics, money and morality. As fewer and fewer produce more and more through automation the question of how profits should be distributed, as profits, salaries and taxes is legitimate. But only the capitalists have a voice in the American political arena, until OWS came along.

#30 | Posted by nutcase

What flavor cool aide are you drinking? I suppose George Soros never funded anything having to do with universities. Of course you have no problem with Tides Foundation or Soros.

I can find no acknowledgement that Russell Roberts lost syndication with WSJ over any issue. He is a regular contributor there.

There are only two issues in politics, money and morality#30 | Posted by nutcase
The old Sex and money defense, haven't seen that one in a while

But only the capitalists have a voice in the American political arena, until OWS came along.#30 | Posted by nutcase

Your whole hope for the future is dependent on a bunch of confused, clueless losers who are prime examples of t'e failures of indulgent parents and a entitlement society? Man you're in big trouble.

Don't know, nor is it relevant. But Soros, a survivor of the Nazis, is a brilliant example of someone raising moral issues and putting his money where his mouth is.

Paul Craig Roberts, Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

Sex? OK one track mind. How society distributes money and why is a moral issue.

Until OWS came along, the terms 99% and 1% were not part of our vernacular. The impact of that alone is enormous.

Don't you worry your silly little mind over me, I'm doing fine.

The fucking losers in our society are the NEOCONS that think might makes right. They couldn't beat the Viet Cong, the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Taliban, all uneducated volunteers against the greatest collection of weapons of mass destruction the planet has ever seen. Our budget woes are a direct result of wasteful unnecessary warmongering whose real intent is always to capture foriegn resources and/or labor. Stop offshoring, subsidies of wealthy Corporations and warmongering and our budget woes are over.

#32 | Posted by nutcase

So you seem to be a fan of a economist that was a major contributor to trickledown economics but you are also a ardent supporter of OWS?

Paul Craig Roberts is my absolute favorite pundit. A Stanford educated pHD economist who remembers all the underlying assumptions in economic theory. Such as mutually beneficial free trade theory relies on two assumptions: capital is domestically captive and each country enjoys a comparative advantage. (cheap labor is an absolute advantage). His book "How the Economy was Lost" is a collection of short essays that is as easy to understand as it is brilliant. Roberts version of trickle down economics demonstrates it is a minor correction of Keynes General Theory which connects demand to tax policy. Before you lower or raise taxes you have to determine which side of the Laffer curve you are on. On the left side you lower taxes and increase demand, on the right side you increase taxes. He tracked that data monthly. That's why taxes were lowered and raised under Reagan, in response to measured events. Clinton's team also measured. Shrub didn't bother. The headline version of trickle down is bullshit.

OWS is a collection of smart unemployed college graduates and long term homeless. A real mixed bag. But they have pointed their fingers at a very real problem which our Government has refused to address.

PANEOCON and MATSOP:

...You understand that the article is ridiculing the pillars of the capitalist model...right? This is an ANTI-CAPITALIST article you are agreeing with... The article is picking on absolutely everything the Tea Party and the Republican Party is currently advocating and I mean EVERYTHING.

I mean the article points out specifically an article in the Post Keynesian journal.

So...guess you'll be voting for Obama and the Dems from now on?

"Only government could take a dollar once known to be as good as gold and turn it into a worthless piece of paper. Future historians will know Greenspan, Bernanke, Summers, Friedman, Keynes and others of the same ilk as the shamans of our age."

Friedman was a theorist who specialized in monetarism and the notion that the government had the right, or obligation, to manipulate the flow and value of money. Keynes is a misunderstood figure who probably had more impact on Reaganomics that Hayek or Friedman. Bernanke was a college professor who, as best as I can tell, only wrote textbooks. He wrote the Macro book I used for my MBA.

It's true that none were ever 100% right, but nor were they completely wrong, and many were contemporaries and even admirers of one another (Keynes for Hayek, for instance-and for his work, not because he wanted a date)

What economics can never truly capture is the economic effect of human relationships, because they are not constant. In the US, for instance, even a relatively left-wing liberal would be considered conservative leaning in Europe, and vice versa. Sarkozy is a prime example of that. So is Hillary Clinton. Part of the reason that socialism is so unlikely to work in the US (Socialist Party USA has approximately 1000 members) is that it would require the individual to trade their individuality for the promise of state protection. That's not a popular concept here, even on the left. Along the same lines, it is unlikely that Europe would abandon their heavily corporatist governments in favor of increased individual freedom.

...You understand that the article is ridiculing the pillars of the capitalist model...right? #36 | Posted by Sycophant

I didn't know that posting a article was a endorsement of that article, is this a new DR rule? I found the article interesting and since I'm not closed minded I posted it. I also don't think that a poll of current subscribers to a journal is a valid defining word on any economist's life's work. I suspect the main point for me is that economists are a bigger part of our day to day lives that one might think.

"Part of the reason that socialism is so unlikely to work in the US (Socialist Party USA has approximately 1000 members) is that it would require the individual to trade their individuality for the promise of state protection."

Social Security has been working just fine in the US for a very long time.

#34 | Posted by nutcase

You have a interesting point of view. I can't say at I agree with you but you do make you case well. Your point of OWS defining the 1% is valid but the dems were headed there from the time Pelosi grabbed the gavel from the adults in 2007. In the long run I think the OWS will do the Dems more damage than good, but I do acknowledge that the existence of the tea party has polled as doing damage to the Republicans. I think we call that America.

I have to admit I know very little of Paul Craig Roberts but I will add "How the Economy was Lost" to my growing reading list. My first impression from reading what is on the net is that he has gone around the bend in the past 20 years but he is certainly interesting.

"Politicians in general and Democrats specifically do like their stealth taxes."

Not nearly as much as the wealthy like supporting government through point of sale taxes and fees, don't tax their property or their income and they are fat and happy. Let the little guys pay the bills through many little fees. That is the true intent of today's right wing which has gotten themselves elected in many states and many states are going bankrupt because of it.

#37 | Posted by madbomber

This conservative and I lot of other conservatives would suggest that we are already socialists, It's just a question of how socialized we are. May would suggest that question would be that you can't be just a little bit pregnant and thus we are all socialists but I don't agree that that purity test.

A interesting point you make is the "animal spirits" aspect of economics. I have always felt that sociology is a significant contributor to economic theory. When government attempts to control social processes to arrive at what it feels is economic justice, the train is off the rails.

"The Koch Bros have bought the Economics Department at George Mason University and Florida State. But the problem is more prevalent than just two schools. Its not enough to own the mass media, you must control academic discourse and politicans. Rethuglican liars control three legs of the stool. Its all bullshit and its bad for you."

LMAO... In contrast Roosevelt University is offering a class on "Occupying" this year.

Chicago no less...

"The Koch Bros have bought the Economics Department at George Mason University"

Really?

Can you link for me, since you made the assertion?

Seems like a racist slur against Dr. Walter Williams to me.

Can you link for me, since you made the assertion?

That was from an exerpt nutty boy posted upthread. Although FWIW I did find this. lol

Koch and George Mason University

Funding and Connections

The point of the article is that rational discourse has been replaced by brilliant people being paid to justify the best interests of their paymasters. The Kochs have bought the right to veto every economics appointment.

Voices of reason that logically connect morality, theory and fact are still present, making accurate predictions yet marginalized by wealthy institutions (the 1%) that control the mass media. This is not an attack on Capitalism. It is an attack on the subversion of our Democracy. 1700 lobbyists during Reagan's, 80,000 today, buying and writing serf serving laws which are undermining our prosperity.

"Social Security has been working just fine in the US for a very long time."

That's not socialism. Corporatism, maybe, but even that's a stretch given that the amount put into SS determined the amount you get out. It's not even redistributive.

Socialism implies a society where the means of production are under the direct control of the workers. I suspect that even you realize how ridiculous that would be.

"This conservative and I lot of other conservatives would suggest that we are already socialists, It's just a question of how socialized we are. May would suggest that question would be that you can't be just a little bit pregnant and thus we are all socialists but I don't agree that that purity test."

Definitely not. Like I said, socialism, at least classical revolutionary socialism, implies that workers (and only workers) own the means of production. That's definitely not the case here in the US. We may be corporatist, or possibly (but unlikely) fascist, but not socialist.

madbum doesn't undertstand some of the nuances of the social security program. Wives that never worked can collect social security after their hasbands death. My ex gets some of my social security whether I like it or not. Sole surviving sons of dead soldiers and workers collect social security when they turn eighteen and go to college.

It is one aspect of socialism and run more efficiently and honestly than greedfucking private insurance programs. Social Security's only problem is dishonest politicians have repeatedly "borrowed" from the fund. To hide their crimes they want to slash benefits, for you, but not themselves.

Social Security's only problem is dishonest politicians have repeatedly "borrowed" from the fund. To hide their crimes they want to slash benefits, for you, but not themselves.

THIS.

A heapin', freakin' helping of THIS.

The upward flight of capital over the last thirty years has been ridiculous.

Stealing, essentially, from SS in order to fund that flight is an abomination.

At some point some day in the future a lot more people are gonna figure out they've been being robbed blind for years.

That will be an interesting day.

Be Well.

We may be corporatist, or possibly (but unlikely) fascist, but not socialist. -- #47 | Posted by madbomber

Interesting points. Good to think about fascism -- seems to me that the assault on civil rights under Bush and Obama is a move in that direction.