Showing posts with label Paul Krugman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Krugman. Show all posts

Monday, October 28, 2013

Outsource Schneider



By Jeff Simpson



The all time paid political hack, and sometimes "writer" at Jsonline, Christian Schneider is at it again.   The author of the Kyle Wood Fiasco(of which he was nominated for the rotten tomato in writing awards) is more of a paid advertiser for all things republican, than a serious writer. 

When the republicans get in trouble with some particularly bad piece of PR(which is regularly), say a prominent figure choked a woman, then Schneider comes to the rescue with a piece of fiction for everyone on the right to quote.

It is so nice for Journal Communications to give him this forum.  

This time his masters sent him out to defend.......Mary Burke!  Mary Burke has been taking some major hots for the fact that her company, Trek Bicycles, has outsourced 99.5% of their manufacturing.    This has cost Wisconsinites, JOBS.

Why do they need Schnieder?  That's simple.  If the evils of outsourcing, and how it has helped drive our economy into the ground, ever becomes a real issue in an election, the republicans would take an unprecedented beating.   They long touted the wonders of outsourcing(cheap labor, no rules, no unions), and have done their best to legislate that outsourcing becomes practically mandatory. 

Here is Schneider drivel:

"Offshoring," on the other hand, means moving jobs overseas, where products can be produced cheaper due to lower labor costs. For the workers whose jobs are moved to India, China or Mexico, offshoring — to use a technical economic term — "sucks."

But as is the case with almost everything in politics, outsourcing and offshoring pit concentrated vs. diffuse benefits. While moving jobs overseas costs identifiable jobs in the short term, it allows companies to make products cheaper, helping them grow and create more jobs right back here in the United States.
 And I thought Paul Ryan was ignorant on economics!   

First off, the wonders of outsourcing has brought us to a $38.6 BILLION trade DEFICIT.  To help Schneider out, let's spell it out:
We have brought in $38,600,000,000 worth of goods than we ship out. 

That is $38,600,000,000 more worth of goods that foreign workers made that we have bought, compared to what foreign countries have bought from American workers.  

What does that mean to you?  Record job losses

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/manufacturing.jpg


What does that mean to Schneider's bosses?   Pretty much all of the income growth and record profits!

The Polaroid is starting to come into focus.   Let's shake it a little bit more:

Remember this from Schneider:

While moving jobs overseas costs identifiable jobs in the short term, it allows companies to make products cheaper
in 2009 as a result of outsourcing, the Janesville, WI GM plant closed. 

In 2009, the average price of a car was $27,958.
In 2013, the average price of a car was $31, 258(record high).
(Ps: Chris - $31,258 is higher than $27,958)

2300 people unemployed in Janesville.   2300 people whose families had worked at GM for generations, all unemployed.   Now they only have to pay an extra $4000 for car if they want to buy!

These 2300 people who no longer will be building our cars, have spouses, children, bill,s pay taxes for the local school districts, shop at the malls, eat at local restaurants, AND worked hard and built a high quality, affordable product....well at least they used to.

I have no doubt that Schneider can find some CATO based "economist", when they are not busy sticking up for Paul Ryan's austerity budget, about the wonders of outsourcing.  Unfortunately for the rest of us, the real world disagrees. 


I probably expected too much out of someone who gets their business acumen from a reality TV show, but the facts on the ground(as they always do with Chris's column) differ greatly:

 But economists are unanimous that trade, including outsourcing, is hugely beneficial to economic growth at home and abroad."

This is highly misleading for two reasons. First, economists are unanimous in agreeing that trade could have major distributional consequences. And some prominent economists, such as Paul Krugman, have argued that the recent pattern of trade for the United States has had negative distributional consequences for large segment of the U.S. workforce.

The second reason that it is misleading is that economists are unanimous in believing that in the context of below full employment economy, like the one we have seen the last five years, a larger trade deficit implies lower growth and fewer jobs. In this context outsourcing hurts the economy.
Let's hope that Schneider does not get his parenting skills from Keeping up with the Kardashians.

As economist Dean Baker points out, that this is a  bipartisan problem(hence the defending of Mary Burke), not only does outsourcing not work, we have other problems:



At the same time, his trade policy has done little or nothing to expose highly educated professionals like doctors and lawyers to the same competition. This policy has the predicted and actual effect of depressing the wages of less educated workers relative to the most highly paid workers. This policy is exacerbated by maintaining an over-valued dollar, which further depresses the wages of those workers exposed to international competition to the benefit of those who are largely protected.
President Obama has also done nothing to combat the corruption in the corporate governance structure whereby corporate board members are paid hundreds of thousands of thousands a dollars a year to look the other way as top management pillages the company. A policy that subjects less educated workers to the most vigorous possible competition, while maintaining protection for those at the top will redistribute income upward, as we have seen over the last three decades. Both candidates seem to largely support such policies.
 The reality of the situation is, until we start manufacturing in America again we will never have a full recovery, nor will we be the Superpower we once were. 

Americans, not employed by the Bradley Foundation, are starting to get this and its scares the hell out of Chris's bosses!

PS: I do have to give Chris his due though.  He did hit the nail on the head with this line:

(Next up: What "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" teaches us about the Laffer Curve.)

Since the Laffer Curve might be one of the few things (besides Congress) that has less credibility left than Honey Boo Boo




 

Now we know why Scott Walker placed this billboard in the shuttered GM plant grounds.  He felt that he was creating jobs by laying off 2300 fellow Wisconsinites. 









Monday, July 1, 2013

The War On The Unemployed

From Paul Krugman, who discussed the nationwide phenomenon of the War on the Unemployed and demonstrates just how malevolent and stupid Fitzwalkerstan's Teapublicans really are:
In general, modern conservatives believe that our national character is being sapped by social programs that, in the memorable words of Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, “turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency.” More specifically, they believe that unemployment insurance encourages jobless workers to stay unemployed, rather than taking available jobs.

Is there anything to this belief? The average unemployment benefit in North Carolina is $299 a week, pretax; some hammock. So anyone who imagines that unemployed workers are deliberately choosing to live a life of leisure has no idea what the experience of unemployment, and especially long-term unemployment, is really like. Still, there is some evidence that unemployment benefits make workers a bit more choosy in their job search. When the economy is booming, this extra choosiness may raise the “non-accelerating-inflation” unemployment rate — the unemployment rate at which inflation starts to rise, inducing the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates and choke off economic expansion.

All of this is, however, irrelevant to our current situation, in which inflation is not a concern and the Fed’s problem is that it can’t get interest rates low enough. While cutting unemployment benefits will make the unemployed even more desperate, it will do nothing to create more jobs — which means that even if some of those currently unemployed do manage to find work, they will do so only by taking jobs away from those currently employed.

But wait — what about supply and demand? Won’t making the unemployed desperate put downward pressure on wages? And won’t lower labor costs encourage job growth? No — that’s a fallacy of composition. Cutting one worker’s wage may help save his or her job by making that worker cheaper than competing workers; but cutting everyone’s wages just reduces everyone’s income — and it worsens the burden of debt, which is one of the main forces holding the economy back.

Oh, and let’s not forget that cutting benefits to the unemployed, many of whom are living hand-to-mouth, will lead to lower overall spending — again, worsening the economic situation, and destroying more jobs.

The move to slash unemployment benefits, then, is counterproductive as well as cruel; it will swell the ranks of the unemployed even as it makes their lives ever more miserable.
In other words, because of the Teapublicans in our state ramming through their two-pronged assault on the unemployed, not only will Scott Walker's agenda continue to not work, it will become even more dysfunctional. Unemployment will continue to rise, more families will come into suffering, more homes will be lost.

But on the bright side, Walker got his sound bite for his presidential campaign.

Sunday, March 10, 2013

"Your Facts Are False"

By Jeff Simpson


We know that Senator Ron Johnson has one of the highest turn overs in his staff in all of Washington DC.   Unfortunately for Ron Johnson(and the people of WI), the one person he has not purged is the person that keeps booking him to speak to a national audience.

Speaking of "not ready for primetime", Ron Johnson embodies that.   He recently embarrassed himself trying to speak to the public education system, and now he joined Ph'd in economics Paul Krugman and tried to explain the Social Security sytem to him. 

Epic Fail. 




KRUGMAN: You said ‘let’s start with the facts,’ but we’ve just run aground right there.
JOHNSON: Exactly my point, we have got to agree on the facts and figures.
KRUGMAN: But your facts are false…Social Security has a dedicated revenue base, it has a trust fund based on that dedicated revenue base. You can’t change the rules mid stream and say ‘oh, suddenly the trust fund doesn’t count.’ [...] It’s important to realize that the facts that are being brought out here are in fact non-facts.




Ron Johnson is VERY lucky that his customers at Pacur were family, can you imagine this guy trying to sell his services to a normal person who did not have to buy from him?   

His term can not end soon enough!  





Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Paul Ryan Has No Spine for A Debate

JSONLINE recently retained the services of some local bloggers on "both sides" and dubbed it the purple project.  It has really turned into a pretty red project with just more opportunity to push the WPRI agenda for free.

I have a hard time taking any project seriously that includes Christian Schneider.  Schneider does not take himself seriously so why should anyone else?  This however is about the one righty blogger of this group that I actually like and how ridiculously bad his most recent post is!

In his post, Rodriguez tries to give Paul Ryan (R-Wall St.) cover for ducking debates with his challenger Rob Zerban!  Aaron also fails miserably, let's take a look.

  Described by many pundits as the top intellectual mind of the Republican Party, Ryan excels in economic and fiscal policies. He’s a policy wonk for sure, but also possesses the finesse to communicate his ideas in a relatable format. 

Granted, thebar is not very high, however, outside of schneider(who once compared Paul Ryan to Batman, no kidding), and Rodriguez you would be hard find to find "many" more people to describe Paul that way, especially since his convention speech.   You will however find "many" who would call Paul ryan a fraud(27,900,000 google matches to be exact).  From Chuck Schumer, to Paul Krugman to Bill Maher and many others. 



But Ryan’s ideas and voting record are now the subject to national scrutiny by journalists, bloggers, economists, think tank analysts, and partisan advocacy organizations. What can a debate with an untested county supervisor add to the national discussion?

Umm Aaron, Paul ryan is also running to be congressman from the 1st Congressional District of Wisconsin.   Ryan understands that his prospects of becoming VP are not looking good, so he hedged his bets and bought $2,000,000 worth of ad buys.   So he must feel the need to get his "message" out to the voters of the First Congressional District.   WHat is $2 MILLION dollar ad buy going to ad to the "national debate"?

Ryan has not been timid about his views on pretty much anything from entitlement spending to tax reform. For years, Ryan has sounded the fiscal alarm, introducing multiple budgetary plans that sought to reform third rail issues like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Yes Ryan loves to talk about his "views" on almost anything, as long as he can control the debate and the questions.  If he does at least he understands his weakness and refuses to ever answer a question from someone who he does not know!

We have seen Paul in action over and over have complete disdain for his constituents who want to ask him a question.    When is the last time you saw paul on anything that was less than extremely friendly to him?   I have been trying for over a year to get an interview with him.  

If Ryan refuses a debate Rob Zerban, it’s not because he’s ducking a challenge by a formidable opponent. It’s because the debate is unnecessary. Debates tend to prove two things: who has the better ideas and who is better at communicating them. Fortunately for Ryan, he has skills in both areas.
The problem here is, that Aaron just does not live reality.   Here is a quick exchange betweenRyan and some reporters that you have seen over and over and over again:


Ryan declined to address Obama's charge that he was among House Republicans "standing in the way" of legislation designed to help the drought-stricken heartland. He said only that he would get into "those policy things later."
"Right now I just want to enjoy the fair," he said.
 Mr. Transparency and exchange of ideas!

 Even if Zerban were a quick study and proficient at communicating, the debate would likely be a wash. If he’s not particularly adroit, he’ll last about as long with Ryan as a balloon in a room full of kittens.
Yes it is very hard to debate this logic:


Critics of Mitt Romney's tax reform plan say his proposal leaves out too many details, but Paul Ryan, the Republican presidential nominee's running mate, says keeping the proposal vague gives it the best chance for passage through Congress.

During an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody, Ryan said Romney is following Ronald Reagan's playbook by not divulging the details about what specific tax loopholes he would close and the rates that would be set under his administration. Ryan said the reason is "because we want to get it done."

It does take a lot of balls to tell people we will not tell you what your plan is as a politician UNTIL your elected.  The "just trust me" approach, has a hard time working with someone who is a well known liar!

So to wrap up, let's be perfectly clear.  Paul Ryan (R-Ayn Rand), is ducking a debate with Rob Zerban because he is scared of losing his Congressional seat.  Paul Ryan enjoys the wonders of a government paycheck every week.  

Please sign the petition telling Paul Ryan to debate Rob Zerban!!

Help Rob Zerban retire Paul Ryan







Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Lyin' Ryan

Paul Ryan (R-Wall St.)  has been subject to the national spotlight and it is not going well for him!

Last week Ryan gave his VP Acceptance speech and he was immediately awarded , the "most dishonest convention speech ever".   It was so dishonest that even Fox news had to choice to but to call it out as pure BS!   Ryan filled his speech so full of BULLSH*T because he was betting on his true believers and the ignorance of the American people.  

Then we learned that Paul Ryan would lie about such things as his marathon time so there are no limits to what he will embellish. 


This lie left Ryan open to comparisons between himself and Rosie Ruiz, and Paul Krugman took full advantage!

 So what is this election about? To be sure, it’s about different visions of society — about Medicare versus Vouchercare, about preserving the safety net versus destroying it. But it’s also a test of how far politicians can bend the truth. This is surely the first time one of our major parties has run a campaign so completely fraudulent, making claims so at odds with the reality of its policy proposals. But if the Romney/Ryan ticket wins, it won’t be the last.

 You can leave your favorite Paul Ryan accomplishment here!

Now we know why Paul Rayn (R- Ayn Rand), was NOT the first choice of the people on the Romney campaign who want to win.   It seems that his reputation of lying has preceded him, amongst those in the know in DC. 

Campaign insiders say Romney was so determined to capture support of the tea party that reveres Ryan that he was “more than willing” to overlook the Congressman’s casual relationship with the truth.

“Paul Ryan is a loose cannon.  He’s Mitt Romney’s Sarah Palin and his involvement with the campaign will sink the Republican Party in this election,” said another GOP pro, who also asked to remain anonymous.

“When I heard Ryan was on the short list, my first reaction was ‘oh, Christ, here we go again,’ ” the longtime GOP operative said Sunday.  ”The man tells so many whoppers so often that I’m not sure he even knows when he’s lying.”
 Its gotten so bad that he can not even walk back lies without lying, and while walking them back he is compounding them


Hey though, have you heard Paul rAYN has a black ex-girlfriend(of course she supports President Obama)? It turns out the republican party is the big tent party. 






What an embarrassment to our state the republicans have become!









Sunday, June 24, 2012

Three Economists!

1. Paul Krugman was on the Colbert Report recently explaining that if you want to see Romney Economics in action - check out Ireland
2. Dean Baker wrote a column recently stating that he does not understand why the liberals keep stating that all republicans want is to leave the market's alone, when in reality what the right wants is very big government(tilted in their favor).
Pick an issue, any issue, and you will almost invariably find the right actively pushing for a big role for government. However, for conservatives the goal is not ensuring a decent standard of living for the bulk of the population. Rather the goal is ensuring that money is redistributed upward. And, of course, the conservatives are smart enough not to own up to their use of the government.

Just to take a few easy ones, why would any market-oriented opponent of big government support the existence of too-big-to-fail banks (TBTF)? These TBTF banks operate with an implicit subsidy from the government. Lenders expect the government to step in to back up these banks debt if they fail, as happened on a massive basis in 2008. As a result, TBTF banks can borrow money at lower interest rates than would be possible in a free market. The amount of money at stake is substantial, possibly more than $60 billion a year. This is more money than is at issue with the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy. This $60 billion is money that is redistributed from the rest of us to the biggest banks in the country, their top executives and their shareholders, all courtesy of big government.

To take another easy example, drug patents raise the price of prescription drugs by close to $270 billion a year above their free market price. This is roughly five Bush tax cuts to the wealthy. Patents are government-granted monopolies. Since prescription drugs often are necessary for a person's health or even life, people will pay almost anything for a drug if they can afford it or can get their insurance to pick up the tab. Patents imply very big government since the government will imprison anyone who produces a drug without the patent holder's consent.

In recent years the big government has been actively working to extend Pfizer and Merck's patent monopolies to the rest of the world through NAFTA, CAFTA and other recent trade deals. Patents are currently used as a mechanism to finance prescription drug research. But there are other more efficient mechanisms, such as the prize system suggested by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz. Alternatively, we could simply increase and redirect the $30 billion in public money that goes to support biomedical research each year through the National Institutes of Health.
3. Jared Bernstein asks "What part of Austerity doesn't work do you not understand"?
First, some facts. By austerity I mean attacking recession by cutting spending and raising taxes – the opposite of Keynesianism, which dictates that if the private sector isn't spending enough money to get the economy moving, the government needs to temporarily step in and supply the juice (aka "stimulus").
Europe and the UK are committed to austerity, and – But that doesn’t explain the U.S., the U.K., and most others who continue to blithely go down this bumpy road. For that, I think we need to reflect on what the great economist Joe Stiglitz refers to in his new book on inequality (I recently interviewed Joe for these pages – should be up soon) as deficit fetishism, the prime symptom of which is the inability to distinguish between good and bad deficit spending
• For Republicans, deficit reduction is a cudgel to bash government. They are ideologically opposed to social insurance, stimulus, infrastructure investment, and everything else, but they gussy this up as an economic argument about markets and debt burdens on future generations. Worse, for them it’s mostly rhetoric. Since Reagan, it’s the Republicans who’ve run structural deficits (Obama’s deficits are largely cyclical—very much a function of the recession).


• Drawing the wrong lessons from the Clinton surpluses: The last time the federal budget was in surplus was at the end of the Clinton years. Economic growth was strong, unemployment very low (below 4% for a few months in 2000!), and financial markets were booming (due, in no small part, to the dot.com bubble, but that’s a different story). These were the years of the alleged bond vigilantes, bond traders who would punish governments by dumping their bonds if they thought their fiscal policy was irresponsible. I’m not sure there ever was such a menace—what led to the late 90s surpluses were a reasonable set of tax rates and strong (albeit bubbly) growth. But whatever…the main point is that fiscal policy during the Clinton years made sense: deficits fell as the recovery gained strength. By no measure does that imply that austerity makes sense in recession.