Assorted links

Comments

I liked this comment from 'rob' on Scott Sumner's review:

"I couldn’t help but think, however, that Tyler’s use of the terms neurodiversity and autistic spectrum are just new words for old concepts. Im still comfortable with the word geek."

But they never tell you how they taste, especially the rare ones.

What I find baffling about the "lost decade" is that it represents the culmination of creating the conditions for fantastic economic growth which will lift all boats, raising the poor out of poverty as the rich get richer:
- the lowest taxes since the 1930s
- the least regulation of business since the 1930s
- the weakest unions, since the 1930s
- the lowest interest rates since the 1930s
- the lowest inflation since the 1930s

Is it possible that the economic dogma is wrong?

After all, during the 1980s, the economy didn't really start growing until taxes were hiked. The 90s were led off by both Bush and Clinton hiking taxes. The growth in the 30s started after Hoover hiked taxes in late 1932, followed by tax hike after tax hike signed by FDR. The tax cut of Truman was followed by tax hikes to pay for Korea, with a recession in between. Not to mention the bracket creep tax hikes from inflation from 1940 through 1985 when the tax code was finally indexed.

The past decade seems to be like the roaring 20s where some got very wealthy and flaunted it, while most people scraped by. The most notable aspect of FDRs administration that the several that followed was the emphasis on getting jobs to the people so that they created the wealth, rather than the idea that if the Roaring 20s are restored, all the rich will life the poor and middle class up by magic without anyone having to actually work to create wealth.

@mulp,

"if the Roaring 20s are restored, all the rich will life the poor and middle class up by magic without anyone having to actually work to create wealth."

What's the point of posting a strawman argument on a blog comment board? What is your motivation for posting something like that? You have expressed a narrative here that could serve you if you posted it somewhere where a Greek chorus could give you kudos, but I don't see how anybody here could even begin to respond to it.

I'm trying to think of anybody I will interact with today - laborers at the quick lube shop, the clerk at Officemax, the people upgrading & maintaining the internet infrastructure I'm using right now - and for the life of me I can't figure out how your narrative has anything to do with any of it.

2006 seems to have been a bumper crop for bizarre lobsters.

The lack of distinction between interesting lobster species and unique individual lobsters bothers me, especially since the author doesn't seem to recognize the difference. "This lobster was so rare that they’ve had to create a new species family and genus for it. The white lobster or albino lobster’s ratio is 1 in 100 million lobsters." is wrong on so many levels.

Wow, we had runaway mass immigration, rampant outsourcing, "free trade" organized by Asian and non-Asian mercantilists, gigantic (largest in history) current account deficits, lopsided tax cuts, and of course, financial deregulation.

In other words, we had the Cowen/Tabarrok economic plan in spades.

Didn't work out very well.

Surprise, surprise. An economic policy based on outsourcing every American job and replacing every American with a foreigner (legal or illegal) doesn't produce positive results. Who knew?

That having been said, mid-1999 was near a peak. Mid-2009 is near a nadir. Using the last 10 years amounts to cherry picking the data. A better comparison would be peak to peak or trough to trough. Still won't look great of course.

Comments for this post are closed