Obama's Senior Moment

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Vaniver » Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:56 pm UTC

Source.
George Will wrote:Three years before Rep. Wilbur Mills, the Arkansas Democrat who then chaired the Ways and Means Committee, had his fling with a stripper named Fanne Foxe, a.k.a. "The Argentine Firecracker" (Mills joined her on stage at Boston's exquisitely named Pilgrim Theater, which specialized in what Time magazine primly called "ecdysiast exhibitions"; this was after he had a fracas with Ms. Foxe that provoked her to jump into Washington's Tidal Basin across from the memorial to Thomas Jefferson, who really believed that democracies could behave rationally), he decided to seek the Democrats' 1972 presidential nomination. So in an almost admirably straightforward attempt to buy the votes of the elderly, he successfully championed an automatic COLA -- cost-of-living adjustment -- for Social Security.

His campaign fizzled but his achievement endures, and his place in liberalism's pantheon is secure. His COLA, which began in 1975, is the entitlement that proves that the entitlement system, like the universe, will expand until, perhaps like the universe, it collapses in on itself.

Barack Obama has now established Mills's Social Security COLA as the capstone to the architecture of the entitlement culture that is modern liberalism's crowning achievement: It is an entitlement to which you are entitled even when you are not entitled to it. Obama says that 57 million Americans -- every Social Security beneficiary and some other recipients of federal entitlements -- are entitled to $250 apiece to assuage the disappointment of having not been injured by inflation. Because the cost of living declined 4 percent last year, the 57 million are not entitled to the actual COLA, but they evidently are going to be declared entitled to monetary consolation for the misfortune of not experiencing misfortune.

This is the second continent-wide shower of $250 checks. The first came from the $787 billion stimulus package enacted in February. There will not be another such shower, until the next one.

In January, retirees received a 5.8 percent COLA, the largest since 1982, primarily because of a surge in energy prices, which have since declined. Furthermore, after lifetimes of accumulation, Americans over 60 have the highest net worth of any age cohort. So why the special solicitude for them during an economic downturn that has afflicted almost everyone?

Obama says "we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession." But are they the hardest hit? How does he know? By what measure? Is it possible that, say, the millions who have lost jobs have been hit harder than retirees?

Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute notes that a "lost" COLA can mean a significant increase in the value of retirees' entitlements. Because falling prices increase the purchasing power of stable benefits and because many Medicare premium increases are limited in years in which no COLA is paid, the typical retiree's purchasing power will be almost $725 higher next year.

More than 40 percent of the voters in 2008 were at least 50 years old. Perhaps Obama can do better than Mills did at purchasing the affections of the elderly. He needs to because they are especially unenthralled about his plans for their health care.

But about one thing, they should relax. A president who cannot resist dispensing a semi-COLA after the cost of living declines will not really fund a substantial portion of the new health-care entitlement by cutting more than $400 billion from Medicare. And speaking of the unbelievable:

Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe is being beatified as the incarnation of bipartisanship because, of the 217 Republican senators and members of Congress, only she cast a vote for a Democratic health-care addition to the nation's Ponzi entitlement structure. Yet in 2005, she opposed a Republican plan for shaving just $10 billion from government health-care entitlements over 10 years. If, as seems probable, she would have opposed the health-care bill she just voted for if Republicans had proposed it, does that devalue her version of bipartisanship?

Perhaps the 57 million $250 handouts should be seen as a down payment on a stealthy Stimulus III, which Democrats do not have the audacity to advocate candidly. In any case, Obama, whose inaugural address was a summons to "responsibility," does not even feign an intention to pay for them with offsetting economies. The money will be borrowed, much of it from abroad, much of that portion from China. Fortunately, foreigners have unlimited appetites for lending to America. Don't they?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby EMTP » Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:46 pm UTC

Direct infusions of cash to people who will spend it has been shown to be the most effective form of short-term economic stimulus. The mistake of worrying about the deficit and reining in spending prematurely is a big part of what made the Great Depression "Great."

The Bush years were a colossally expensive failure, and the results include a recession which in turn requires a lot of deficit spending on top of two expensive wars of choice and trillion-dollar tax giveaways to the rich. This is old news.

Means-testing SSI is an excellent idea; many seniors are poor, but many are well-off, too. The argument that has been made against that (besides the political backlash) is that means-tested entitlements suffer rapidly eroding support once they are classified as serving the interests of people in need. It's Medicaid vs Medicare, public schools vs. public housing. I'd like to target subsidies more narrowly, but I worry about eroding public support for them.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:59 pm UTC

George Will wrote:Perhaps Obama can do better than Mills did at purchasing the affections of the elderly.
Hit the nail on the head with this one. This is the demographic Obama struggled with most in the primary and the general election. Sure, they don't "need" the money, but he's sending it to them anyway, along with a kind note.
EMTP wrote:The mistake of worrying about the deficit and reining in spending prematurely is a big part of what made the Great Depression "Great."
Wrong on history, here. Not only did Hoover spend more on public works programs than all previous presidents combined, but what made the Depression "Great" was a president who spent 10 years pushing a shitty economic policy.

But really, the stimulating effect of this money is something you just made up. Obama is pushing this because it's what seniors "deserve." Democrats have been avoiding discussion of a second stimulus because that would lead to conversations about why the first one failed to meet expectations.

Edit: To clarify, Hoover's massive government expenditures are a fact. The suggestion that FDR's policy was a failure is only my opinion, although I find it hard to classify a decade with absolutely no results as "success."

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby aleflamedyud » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:11 pm UTC

George Will here is being an absolute jackass. He's arguing that people don't need support during a time of record unemployment and economic deflation because the deflation is lowering our cost of living. Does he have any idea what it means to live as an ordinary person during a deflationary spiral? Can't he ask his parents or something?
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:50 pm UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:He's arguing that people don't need support during a time of record unemployment and economic deflation because the deflation is lowering our cost of living.

No, that's not what he said at all. What he said was that people who lost their jobs are hurting more than people on fixed incomes whose cost of living has dropped. So if Obama really wanted to help "those hardest hit by this recession" he'd be helping working class families, instead of buying the votes of old people.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby aleflamedyud » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:27 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
aleflamedyud wrote:He's arguing that people don't need support during a time of record unemployment and economic deflation because the deflation is lowering our cost of living.

No, that's not what he said at all. What he said was that people who lost their jobs are hurting more than people on fixed incomes whose cost of living has dropped. So if Obama really wanted to help "those hardest hit by this recession" he'd be helping working class families, instead of buying the votes of old people.

Yeah, old people don't need help. Their savings haven't been hit at all by the recession, and they can just keep working at their jobs.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Crius
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Crius » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:23 pm UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:Yeah, old people don't need help. Their savings haven't been hit at all by the recession, and they can just keep working at their jobs.


The people hurt the worst by the stock market crash aren't usually the most economically vulnerable.

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby JBJ » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:01 pm UTC

The COLA for Social Security is based on the CPI-W (Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers) based on the change from the previous year. The CPI-W ranks the relative importance of these categories :
Food 16.9%, Housing 41.3%, Clothing 3.9%, Transportation 17%, Medical care 5.3%, Entertainment 5.4%, Education/Communication 6.2%, and Other 3.6%.
Other includes categories such as personal care.
(I know, that only totals 99.6%, I just took the .1 and didn't round. Here's the source on pp 26 and 27 of this pdf)

Now, let us see which categories actually increased from the previous year.
Medical went up 3.6%. Hospitals and related services up 6.8%. How about that. What else do you think seniors spend a lot of money on? Things like personal care? Hmmm, personal care products and services were both up 1.6% from the previous year.

Let's see what actually went down. Oooh, Transportation. That went down 11%. That TOTALLY affects people on social security. You know, because they have to drive to work everyday. Personal computers and related hardware went down over 14%, now grandma can afford that new Alienware gaming rig!

Food and Housing, probably the other big items, well they only went down as a whole .2% and .3% respectively. Wait a minute, looking at the details, rent and mortgage went up over 1% each.

So as a whole, yes the CPI went down. Looking at the actual categories that are, I don't know... IMPORTANT to what seniors are spending their money on, CPI actually went up. You know, I bet the administration had some of its people look into this issue in a similar manner.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

Marquee Moon
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:13 am UTC

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Marquee Moon » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:58 pm UTC

JBJ wrote:The COLA for Social Security is based on the CPI-W (Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers) based on the change from the previous year. The CPI-W ranks the relative importance of these categories :
Food 16.9%, Housing 41.3%, Clothing 3.9%, Transportation 17%, Medical care 5.3%, Entertainment 5.4%, Education/Communication 6.2%, and Other 3.6%.
Other includes categories such as personal care.
(I know, that only totals 99.6%, I just took the .1 and didn't round. Here's the source on pp 26 and 27 of this pdf)

Now, let us see which categories actually increased from the previous year.
Medical went up 3.6%. Hospitals and related services up 6.8%. How about that. What else do you think seniors spend a lot of money on? Things like personal care? Hmmm, personal care products and services were both up 1.6% from the previous year.

Let's see what actually went down. Oooh, Transportation. That went down 11%. That TOTALLY affects people on social security. You know, because they have to drive to work everyday. Personal computers and related hardware went down over 14%, now grandma can afford that new Alienware gaming rig!

Food and Housing, probably the other big items, well they only went down as a whole .2% and .3% respectively. Wait a minute, looking at the details, rent and mortgage went up over 1% each.

So as a whole, yes the CPI went down. Looking at the actual categories that are, I don't know... IMPORTANT to what seniors are spending their money on, CPI actually went up. You know, I bet the administration had some of its people look into this issue in a similar manner.


The flip side of that is last year, when energy prices were skyrocketing, social security payments went up by 5.8% even though actual old people costs didn't go up by that much. CPI inflation may not be a perfect proxy for the costs of living of elderly people, and it would be a good idea to instead use CPI-Elderly, but the worst option of all is letting politicians decide who deserves a top up and who doesn't. In the end that just devolves into vote buying.

Edit: And according to this fancy looking pdf, there would be no COLA increase this year under CPI-Elderly anyway (it shows a cost decrease as well).

aleflamedyud wrote:George Will here is being an absolute jackass. He's arguing that people don't need support during a time of record unemployment and economic deflation because the deflation is lowering our cost of living. Does he have any idea what it means to live as an ordinary person during a deflationary spiral? Can't he ask his parents or something?


A time of record unemployment is bad for those who are unemployed, not those on a guaranteed fixed income.

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby JBJ » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:17 pm UTC

Marquee Moon wrote:The flip side of that is last year, when energy prices were skyrocketing, social security payments went up by 5.8% even though actual old people costs didn't go up by that much.

O RLY? (CPI for 2008, page 27)
Food: +6.1%
Housing: +3.8% (Rent 3.6%, Mort 2.4%)
Clothing: +1.7%
Transportation: +11.1%
Medical: +3.3% (Hospital +7.2%)
Education/Communication: +3.2%
Other/Personal Care: +3.2%

Non-old people costs stricken out. I'd agree, 5.8% might have been a little high. Refactoring to a typical senior lifestyle, I'd ballpark that it should have been around 3-4%. $250 works out to about a 1-2% increase on a typical SS income. Considering they were about to get nothing, and still seeing increases of about the same amount in the same categories of Personal Care and Medical. Getting 2-3% ahead last year plus the 1-2% this year puts them about even. +/- a percent or so.

Edit: Didn't see your new link until after I posted.
That fancy looking PDF wrote:The CPI-E has tended to grow slightly faster than the CPI-W. From December 1999 through September 2009, the CPI-E rose an average of 2.7 percent annually, while the CPI-W climbed an average of 2.5 percent per year
So, what you're saying by referencing that PDF is that we've been shorting our seniors 0.2% a year for 10 years? So if we do rely on the experimental CPI-E, then they should have gotten a 2% increase this year to catch them up for the decade we shorted them. See, it still works out in the end.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:46 pm UTC

If you believe the COLA has underlying problems, fix the underlying problems.

DO NOT: Suggest that there might be a problem, refuse to fix it, and spend more time and money writing a separate check. There are serious problems with this approach.

User avatar
Woxor
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:28 pm UTC

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Woxor » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:41 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Wrong on history, here. Not only did Hoover spend more on public works programs than all previous presidents combined, but what made the Depression "Great" was a president who spent 10 years pushing a shitty economic policy.

You can easily argue that the New Deal didn't end the Depression, but it didn't exacerbate it. The problems that led to the Great Depression were (to oversimplify, I'm sure) expensive money and an inability of the urban middle class to consume. Pumping them up with money is exactly what was necessary to fix the economy, and it's exactly what did fix the economy. It's just that the government spending came from a war instead of the New Deal programs that tried with debatable success to do the same thing.

The whole notion that FDR was a fiscal super-villain is a Republican narrative that only seems to work because Reagan solved some of the problems caused by FDR. That doesn't mean FDR = Bad and Reagan = Good, that means that economic paradigms can shift over fifty years of technological progress, demographic change, and other unpredictable things. If Super Reagan had been elected president in 1932, he wouldn't have done the same things he did in the eighties, because he wouldn't have faced the same problems. No matter what he did, he probably wouldn't have foreseen the baby boom, the suburbanization of America, etc., and any of his successful economic solutions would have become problems for the next few generations to solve.

... which brings me to my main point in this thread, which is that to some extent we are facing new problems that arose unexpectedly from past policies, good or bad. I'm not really talking about Bush, I'm talking about the last few generations of economic philosophy. It's politically expedient to construct a narrative that paints your own policy as the common-sense one that would always work if it weren't for those damn [opposition party] idiots. Usually, though, the economy is so complicated that most of the biggest trends arise unexpectedly, if you make your predictions using only on what has worked before, in different situations.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Vaniver » Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:14 am UTC

EMTP wrote:Direct infusions of cash to people who will spend it has been shown to be the most effective form of short-term economic stimulus. The mistake of worrying about the deficit and reining in spending prematurely is a big part of what made the Great Depression "Great."
But, the last direct infusion of cash to people who will spend it most didn't increase consumer spending significantly- most people saved it or used it to pay down debt. There's no reason to imagine this time will be different.

Woxor wrote:You can easily argue that the New Deal didn't end the Depression, but it didn't exacerbate it. The problems that led to the Great Depression were (to oversimplify, I'm sure) expensive money and an inability of the urban middle class to consume. Pumping them up with money is exactly what was necessary to fix the economy, and it's exactly what did fix the economy. It's just that the government spending came from a war instead of the New Deal programs that tried with debatable success to do the same thing.
Alternative hypothesis: The Great Depression resulted from an inability of prices to shift downward. Keynes thinks that prices are sticky- but FDR nailed them in place. Quite literally- the government set minimum prices for things and prosecuted those that tried to sell things more cheaply. Enacting minimum wage laws and expanding the power of unions kept labor prices fixed (and the contraction thus occurred in labor quantity). There's the famous example of oranges burned to keep orange prices high- while people were starving.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Lumpy » Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:21 am UTC

I don't know, I still like this detailed explanation citing a lot more factors that seems more accepted by historians, especially considering farm prices had already skydived into the ground because of international competition long before 1933, and if that crisis was one of the causes of the banking crisis, as well as the Dust Bowl, it made sense to relieve stress on the banking industry while relieving stress on prairie soil at the same time. Paying farmers not to farm their land wasn't enough to jump start their solution, so they had to restrict the supply.

i
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby i » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:32 am UTC

EMTP wrote:Direct infusions of cash to people who will spend it has been shown to be the most effective form of short-term economic stimulus. The mistake of worrying about the deficit and reining in spending prematurely is a big part of what made the Great Depression "Great."


The elderly won't spend it--not on the products which will improve the economy. As a recession-fighting act, it is more worthless than a tax refund, which itself was a waste of money.

Woxor wrote:You can easily argue that the New Deal didn't end the Depression, but it didn't exacerbate it. The problems that led to the Great Depression were (to oversimplify, I'm sure) expensive money and an inability of the urban middle class to consume. Pumping them up with money is exactly what was necessary to fix the economy, and it's exactly what did fix the economy. It's just that the government spending came from a war instead of the New Deal programs that tried with debatable success to do the same thing.


Among the acts of the New Deal was the NRA, which created industry cartels and monopolies, and the Wagner Act that expanded the power of Unions. They created barriers which prevented workers and businesses from participating in the economy. If you believe that the inability for the middle class to consume were leading problems of the depression, then fixing prices artificially high (which the NRA did) would not improve the situation.

In fact, you might say it exacerbated the situation.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:39 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:Direct infusions of cash to people who will spend it has been shown to be the most effective form of short-term economic stimulus. The mistake of worrying about the deficit and reining in spending prematurely is a big part of what made the Great Depression "Great."


Hmmmm.

The last time I checked up on the Bush $600 tax rebate program the data was inconclusive and it was believed at the time it was ineffective. Of course many of the recipients did not qualify as "people who will spend it" and that was, when I last checked, the biggest problem.


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Crius
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:27 pm UTC

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Crius » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:30 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:Hmmmm.

The last time I checked up on the Bush $600 tax rebate program the data was inconclusive and it was believed at the time it was ineffective. Of course many of the recipients did not qualify as "people who will spend it" and that was, when I last checked, the biggest problem.


I remember at the time there was a significant jump in consumer spending the month the checks went out, but spending dropped back to the usual levels the next month.

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Lumpy » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:54 pm UTC

Direct infusions of cash to people who will spend it has been shown to be the most effective form of short-term economic stimulus.


Yes, but some demographics like the poor provide more economic stimulus per dollar than others. If you've already cut taxes as low as they can go at the height of a boom during a boom-bust cycle, though, you've got one less tool at your disposal when the bust happens. Raising taxes too much then is like telling someone that has had a heart attack to run a marathon to get better, which also applies to the Federal Reserve restricting the money supply and allowing it to decline 27%. The Federal Reserves under Bush and Obama has decided that deflation has made it safe to do the opposite of what it did during the Great Depression and print its own money to fund stabilization endeavors.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby EMTP » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:56 pm UTC

i wrote:The elderly won't spend it--not on the products which will improve the economy. As a recession-fighting act, it is more worthless than a tax refund, which itself was a waste of money.


And you say this based on what, exactly? And which products "improve the economy," bearing in mind capital spending projects often take years to get off the ground?

Heisenberg:


Wrong on history, here.


Nope, I'm right, you're wrong. Consult any standard economics textbook on the Great Depression. Roosevelt reigned in spending and attacked the budget deficit prematurely, deepening the depression.

But really, the stimulating effect of this money is something you just made up.


Nope, wrong again: completely standard economic theory. Also being presented by the White House with reference to the current recession and the hardship it has caused. It both supports people hurt by the recession and helps to shorten it. Kinda like the Bush tax giveaways to the rich both made the wealthy wealthier and contributed to our long-term fiscal insolvency. Policies can do more than one thing.

aleflamedyud wrote:George Will here is being an absolute jackass. He's arguing that people don't need support during a time of record unemployment and economic deflation because the deflation is lowering our cost of living. Does he have any idea what it means to live as an ordinary person during a deflationary spiral? Can't he ask his parents or something?


I'm in complete agreement with aleflamedyud. Note time and date for posterity.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Vaniver » Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:42 pm UTC

Lumpy wrote:I don't know, I still like this detailed explanation citing a lot more factors that seems more accepted by historians, especially considering farm prices had already skydived into the ground because of international competition long before 1933, and if that crisis was one of the causes of the banking crisis, as well as the Dust Bowl, it made sense to relieve stress on the banking industry while relieving stress on prairie soil at the same time. Paying farmers not to farm their land wasn't enough to jump start their solution, so they had to restrict the supply.
There are a number of questionable things about that analysis, though (really, any analysis that's short enough to read and discuss in a forum format is going to have problems, but it's worth pointing out holes anyway). Most notable is their mention of income inequality; because the rich spend and invest their money, there wasn't enough demand or funds available for lending. Er, wait a minute...

If you interpret rising debt in the 1920s as people using their future as collateral to buy more than they can currently afford, and then note that this has to end sometime, you can see why there was necessarily a decline from the production and consumption of the 20s. The reason why Keynes suggests increased government spending is because it maintains the status quo- people can continue to produce and consume at boom levels because the government has stepped in to prop things up. But producing and consuming at boom levels is unsustainable- that's why it's a boom! The 'status quo' can't be "what things were last year," it needs to be "what's sensible now," which means the status quo needs to fluctuate. While that's a problem with the Keynesian approach, it's even more apparent when you look at FDR's approach, which was to prop up the previous price level by more than just additional spending. People who were unemployed were barred from working if they asked for too little money, which is a horrible way to fight unemployment!

It's not clear what the best way to respond to a dying industry is- and so I don't think the politicians of the 20s and 30s can be entirely faulted for how they handled the agricultural problems (though the Fed certainly deserves a large amount of blame for botching its first crisis by doing the exact wrong thing).

EMTP wrote:I'm in complete agreement with aleflamedyud. Note time and date for posterity.
But, as already pointed out, aleflamedyud misunderstood Will's point. If people are hit hard by the recession, perhaps we should target them, not seniors?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Lumpy » Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:32 pm UTC

Most notable is their mention of income inequality; because the rich spend and invest their money, there wasn't enough demand or funds available for lending.


I think this still works if the money being invested is mostly going toward stable investments, or non-business investments such as precious metals, while the market was increasing in the percentage that would be considered riskier investments. In such a scenario, the money may be better for the economy spent than saved, so the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates. I'm basing that on my interpretation of how they use "save" versus "invest," which looks vague.

I agree with your other points, though. I keep seeing people that think the economy hasn't recovered until the DOW goes back to where it was before it took that plunge.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Vaniver » Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:35 pm UTC

Lumpy wrote:I think this still works if the money being invested is mostly going toward stable investments, or non-business investments such as precious metals, while the market was increasing in the percentage that would be considered riskier investments. In such a scenario, the money may be better for the economy spent than saved, so the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates. I'm basing that on my interpretation of how they use "save" versus "invest," which looks vague.
True- when capital flees for precious metals, then you do have investment problems. I don't think that's a function of income inequality, though (though it very well could be, if higher income individuals are far more likely to have access to precious metals than lower income individuals. In the 1920s and 1930s, though, that seems moderately unlikely).
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Marquee Moon
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:13 am UTC

Re: Obama's Senior Moment

Postby Marquee Moon » Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:30 am UTC

Crius wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:Hmmmm.

The last time I checked up on the Bush $600 tax rebate program the data was inconclusive and it was believed at the time it was ineffective. Of course many of the recipients did not qualify as "people who will spend it" and that was, when I last checked, the biggest problem.


I remember at the time there was a significant jump in consumer spending the month the checks went out, but spending dropped back to the usual levels the next month.


Here'ssome survey data about Bush's tax rebates. Only 30% of people who got rebates used it primarily on consumption, 18% saved it, and 49% used it to pay off debt (which, I think, is effectively the same as saving, ie. no stimulus). I'm no economist, but 30% seems like crappy stimulus to me.

What's also interesting is that the proportions saved and spent were about the same for all income brackets.(there's a table at the bottom) The highest spending bracket was $10-20k with 32.1%, and lowest was $50-70k with 28.5%. From this survey data at least, it looks like it's quite hard to target spenders with rebates.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests