Showing posts with label robert burns rolls in his grave. Show all posts
Showing posts with label robert burns rolls in his grave. Show all posts

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Kasparov on Syria & Putin

People, I love Twitter. Feast your eyes:








Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Monday, October 24, 2011

KPC Dallas summit

Mungo and I converged on Dallas yesterday to take in game 4 of the WS. We warmed up by eating a pile of pupusas (the official food of KPC by the way) and then headed to the game early, to see STL take BP (which was pretty much the only time they hit the whole game). While the outcome was disappointing, the experience was tremendous.

The Rangers have a great ballpark, super fans and a fun team. Their only real drawback is GEORGE F. BUSH, who threw out the first pitch to a standing O!

Some foties:





Sunday, August 28, 2011

Tying one's self to the mast with silly string

Richard Thaler, in today's NY Times has words of wisdom on governments' pervasive inability to commit to painful future courses of action with balanced budget amendments or fiscal rules.

Sadly, he fails to stick the landing:

The bottom line is that in matters of governmental self-control there is no real substitute for willpower. If we want to balance the budget over time we are going to have to elect adults to Congress who are prepared to invest now in our country’s future and then, when the economy picks up, take the necessary steps to get spending in line with revenue. The question is whether politicians who act like adults can win elections.

Yes, that is surely the solution to the inability to bind future politicians and the serious problem that optimal policies are often time inconsistent: just find the right people!

Could we not at least try to think of institutional changes that might help the situation instead of calling for politicians from another planet to come and save us?

How about longer terms of office but no re-election? say 6 years in the House, 8 years for President, 10 years for Senate?

Other ideas?



Monday, August 09, 2010

ah would some power the gifter give us...

Great headline in Sunday's NY Times: "A Gift the Wealthy Don’t Need"

and people, you just know the "gift" in question is a chunk of their own money.

Then today PK takes up the same cudgel: "But isn’t keeping taxes for the affluent low also a form of stimulus? Not so you’d notice. When we save a schoolteacher’s job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there’s a good chance that most of that money will just sit idle."

Let's break this BS down piece by piece, ok?

"When we save a schoolteacher's job that unambiguously aids employment".

It may well aid employment, but it's hard to be certain without knowing what the alternative use of the money might have been. It's also not the case that "we saved a job" means the policy was a correct policy. "At what cost" still remains relevant.

"when we give millionaires more money instead".

This is the real stunner. First, families earning $250,000 or more is not exactly the same thing as "millionaires".

Second, we "give" them?

Really?

I am pretty sure it's their money to begin with and "we" are talking about how much to take. There's no gift giving involved.

Here's another PK gem:

"In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation’s foundations to crumble — literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education — they’re choosing the latter."

People, the "gift to millionaires" we are debating is just not that much money compared to the kind of budget hole we face. PK elsewhere says the lost revenue would be "$700 billion over a decade", i.e. $70 billion a year.

That's not going to re pave America folks. It's kind of small potatoes (is that right or did I just go all Dan Quayle on the English language). We are going to need a lot more than that from the millionaires to achieve PK's vision.

Finally, I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that the problem with our educational system is too little money is being spent!

Yikes!