1. The claim that if Medicare starts limiting the procedures it will pay for, this would be an infringement of your freedom of choice: Paul Krugman: "Nobody is proposing that the government deny you the right to have whatever medical care you want at your own expense. We’re only talking about what medical care will be paid for by the government. And right-wingers, of all people, shouldn’t believe that everyone has the right to have whatever they want, at taxpayers’ expense.... What will it take to shoot this zombie in the head?..."
2. Peter Diamond unqualifed to be a Federal Reserve Governor: Peter Diamond: "Last October, I won the Nobel Prize in economics for my work on unemployment and the labor market. But I am unqualified to serve on the board of the Federal Reserve — at least according to the Republican senators who have blocked my nomination. How can this be? The easy answer is to point to shortcomings in our confirmation process and to partisan polarization in Washington. The more troubling answer, though... a failure to recognize that analysis of unemployment is crucial to conducting monetary policy.... The leading opponent to my appointment, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the committee, has questioned the relevance of my expertise. “Does Dr. Diamond have any experience in conducting monetary policy? No,” he said in March. “His academic work has been on pensions and labor market theory.” But understanding the labor market... is critical to devising an effective monetary policy..."
3. Haley Barbour's claim that Obama is raising gas prices on purpose: The United States government does not control world oil prices--indeed, right now there is no swing producer that controls world oil prices: it is global supply and demand that set gas prices.
4. Stephen L. Carter’s very bad Bloomberg column that demand is slack because of "uncertainty": Jim Henley: "We’ve worked for more than one business... we know the typical share-of-revenue that incremental labor expense takes across various business lines. and we have a lived understanding of all the uncertainties and risks attending pretty much any business. Comparing this last bundle of risks and uncertainties to the possible impact of regulatory change on additional incremental labor, we’re left with a set of reasonable possibilities.... 1) The guy is telling the truth, but his business is unusual.... 2) The guy is a blowhard whose business is doing worse than he says. 3) The guy is a moron or coward... leaving money on the table.... 4) The guy is a prophet who should liquidate his business immediately! Because any regulatory risk that applies to new workers he might hire that’s big enough to keep him from hiring more also applies to the workers he currently has on his payroll.... Any of these seems more plausible than Carter’s conclusion that this man’s story holds lessons for us all. It’s certainly suggestive that Carter describes his business as “low margin” but with demand picking up. If demand is picking up and he isn’t ramping production then either demand was really weak and is only getting back to normal, one or more of his competitors beat him to the punch on cranking up the volume, or nobody here knows how to play this game. The article reminds me of the criticism that intellectuals tend to lack real-world business experience.... Certainly Carter presents us with a piece of “pro-business” advocacy that suffers from apparent unfamiliarity with business..."
tnb
No comments:
Post a Comment