60 Minutes: Day of Reckoning Arrives; Chris Christie "It's Not an Income Problem, It's a Benefits Problem"; Six Common Sense Solutions Posted: 19 Dec 2010 10:55 PM PST Please watch this 60 minute interview on the crisis that states face. I have been talking about this for several years while most bloggers and nearly all of mainstream media have ignored the story. It is no longer possible to ignore the story. Unlike the fluff interview with Ben Bernanke, Dan Kroft at 60 Minutes conducts a very hard hitting interview with Meredith Whitney, Illinois state Comptroller Dan Hynes, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Of the governors, Christie Christie stands alone in facing the problem. |
Asininity from Paul Krugman Regarding Money Supply and Ron Paul Posted: 19 Dec 2010 04:08 PM PST In an absurd series of posts, Paul Krugman struggles to define money, then criticizes Ron Paul based on a myriad of incorrect assumptions "guessing" what Paul thinks, using as proof a Fan Site, not anything that Ron Paul said. Let's start from the beginning. Please consider Paul Krugman's post What Is Money?What is money, anyway? It's not a new question, but I think it has become even more pressing in recent years.
The truth is that these days — with credit cards, electronic money, repo, and more all serving the purpose of medium of exchange — it's not clear that any single number deserves to be called "the" money supply.
But if you're determined to view economic affairs through a sort of paleo-monetarist lens, focused on the evils of "printing money", you're going to have a hard time in the modern world, where the definition of money is increasingly vague. I purposely picked out sentences from Krugman's article that reasonable people might agree with. Given that Austrian economists and Austrian-minded people cannot agree on how to measure money, it's hard to quibble too loudly with the above. Those interested in a philosophical debate might be interested in reading This post is not about the debate as to what money is. This post is about Paul Krugman's attempt to "guess" at what Paul thinks money is, then attack that strawman. PaleomonetarismKrugman dives into fantasyland with his followup post PaleomonetarismI used that term — it's probably not original, but who knows? — in a recent post about the increasingly obscure meaning of the money supply. The best example would surely be Ron Paul, who's now going to have oversight over the Fed. If you read his stuff, it's very clear: money is a well-defined quantity that the Fed controls, and inflation comes from — indeed is defined as — increases in that quantity. What he means, I guess, is monetary base. Here's the actual relationship between monetary base and inflation: It's also worth nothing that in normal times (not now), monetary base consists overwhelmingly of currency (bank reserves are normally very small), and the majority of US currency isn't even being held in the United States. It's kind of terrifying, in a way, to realize that the politically dominant faction in America right now has a view of money, what it is, and how it works that hasn't been true since the early 19th century, if it ever was. The first thing of note is Krugman's line "If you read his stuff" Follow that link and it takes you to a Ron Paul Fan site, not anything written by Ron Paul himself. It is NOT "his stuff" as Krugman states. Krugman goes on to say (emphasis mine) "What he means, I guess, is monetary base. Here's the actual relationship between monetary base and inflation" Excuse me but if you are going to attack someone, should you be guessing about what they mean? Krugman then follows up with a strawman attack based on a guess, based on a something Paul did not even say. Believe it or not, it gets worse. The article Krugman pointed to did not use the term "monetary base". In fact, the article did not even use the word "base". Is Krugman drunk? Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List  
|
New Jersey Outsources Turnpike Toll Collection; Reflections on Privatization Efforts and Public Unions in General Posted: 19 Dec 2010 03:15 PM PST Public unions add no benefits to taxpayers ever, only expenses. It is best not to deal with public unions, bargain with public unions, or do anything with public unions but get rid of them where they exist. In what I expect to be a growing trend going forward, the NJ Turnpike Authority Privatizes Toll Collection. More than 200 union members and leaders packed the New Jersey Turnpike Authority's meeting Wednesday to oppose a plan to outsource toll collectors' jobs on the Garden State Parkway and Turnpike to private contractors next spring.
"Over the years, the union has worked together to help the Turnpike solve its problems," said Franceline Ehret, president of Local 194 of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents 1,200 authority employees. "We urge you to hold off putting out the request for proposal and allow us to work it out."
Ehret and other speakers said outsourcing will take what are now middle-class jobs and reduce them to minimum-wage jobs, which would negatively affect the state and local tax bases and the economy.
Authority officials said the union will have a chance to submit a proposal as a private contractor.
"The RFP (request for proposal) will go out after the new year, and we will work with the incumbent unions," said James Simpson, the state transportation commissioner and authority board chairman. "The goal is to strike a balance and get agreements that are in line with the fiscal realities."
"If privatization occurs, there will be more savings," he said. "That goes back to the taxpayers in another way, even if we're talking about cross-subsidizations. The state is in dire straights, and one of the few assets of the state is the Turnpike and Parkway." Flawed Union ResponseThe statements by James Simpson, the state transportation commissioner, were short, easy to understand, easy to justify, and precise. In contrast, the logic of Franceline Ehret was fatally flawed. The idea that outsourcing would "would negatively affect the state and local tax bases and the economy" is preposterous. Outsourcing will put money in the hands of taxpayers where it belongs, instead of the hands of union workers with excessively high wage-benefit packages for doing nothing more than sitting in a toll both. Thousands of people would line up for those jobs even at minimum wage. If the union wants those jobs it can bid for them. The goal of public officials should be to provide the most amount of services for the least cost. Unions typically offer the least services for the most cost. The unions will argue with that statement but it is very easy to prove. Put all contracts out to bid, then accept the best offer from the most qualified bidder. The same applies to garbage collection, bus drivers, all public transportation, even police and fire contracts. There is nothing to negotiate here. Negotiation with unions is a complete waste of time and taxpayer money. The only reasonable place for negotiation is AFTER contracts are put out for bid, and always with the goal of providing the most amount of services for the least cost. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List  
|