There was some question of whether the New York Times would endorse a GOP primary candidate this year-in 2008 they had endorsed McCain. This year they haven't endorsed anyone. Wonder why that is with so many qualified candidates to choose from!
For my part I've made my choice! I endorse Newt. Why? Because he's not electable. The Republican primary suffers from this paradox: Republicans don't like Mitt Romney and don't think he's a real conservative but he's the only one with a shot in the general election.
Actually things are not looking too good in the general election right now as a new Marist poll shows Obama with a lead over both Newt and Romney-a bigger lead over Newt. If Obama can win Florida the elections already over.
That video that just came out of Romney calling himself a progressive is helpful too. If you're a Democrat and you want to play rough you would send out that video to likely Republican voters to remind them of why they don't think he's a real conservative.
In fact that's exactly why he could even have a chance in the general election-that video is exhibit A. Romney is a conservative Republican but his experience is winning elections as a conservative Republican in a liberal state. If he got the people of Massachusetts to elect him Governor why can't he get the nation's independents to give him a shot? I'm not saying he would beat Obama-I think Obama will be elected one way or the other; if he is leading even in South Carolina the GOP is in worst shape than it is realized-but at least Romney is not wholly implausible.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-headed-landslide-094500953.html;_ylt=AvjUoCMJ2WGNr79qpSt8pa.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNsMWNhdGo5BG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBGUARwa2cDMWMyZTE2YmYtMzA0YS0zMjNhLWFmMGUtZWZjYjZmNTViZDNiBHBvcwM4BHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyA2IwMTI3NGYwLTI1NzAtMTFlMS1iZGZmLWE2ZmVhOWViNWNlMg--;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3
His comparable moderateness is like Monk says a blessing and a curse. Trouble is he has to win the Republican Primary first. The truth is Romney even is comparably more liberal. While much has been made of his $10,000 bet and other gaffes what suggest he is out of touch his tax proposal is not as regressive as Newt's. He would give middle class Americans a capital gains tax cut.
Certainly this is a pretty feeble way to help the middle class-far better is to cut the payroll tax as the GOP is refusing to do right now. Warren Mosler calls for a full holiday-cutting it entirely. For Mosler of course there is no question of "how to pay for it" as he as the MMT school does, believes that the Treasury can always just print money to pay for Social Security. An interesting conception for sure.
For my part this is a good idea, the best tax cut would be that combined with a major cut in consumption taxes. I suggested that the state of New York-for example-could eliminate the sales tax, maybe leaving it in place for certain luxury goods, while looking to have a moratorium on parking and traffic tickets at the state, city, and local level. Such a policy would have to be pushed by the state's governor, however, to eliminate the payroll and state consumption taxes would put a great deal of money back in people's pocket.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2011/12/lets-talk-more-about-taxes.html
From your post. Stiglitz: Stiglitz;s narrative is not so much that the gizmo making industry will see its income from producing these gizmos fall relative to the non-gizmos it will buy. It is this: the increase in agricultural productivity was due to better capital equipment. The equipment enables the gizmo companies to create many more gizmos with far fewer workers. The former gizmo workers are unemployed. In the case of agriculture in 1930, this represented many millions of workers, so demand contracted greatly. This may be true. But, this seems to be looking at the issue in isolation. And, the question, with regard to needing less labor, raises the "lump of labor fallacy." IIRC, Sandwichman alluded to this in his comments at Nick's post. The monetary/fiscal debate, (which one has more impact on demand side constraints), is interesting. Monetarists seem to argue that there can be no positive effects on growth from fiscal stimulus. Or, maybe that's an oversimplification. Keynesian's argue that fiscal stimulus is more effective when the economy is in a depression and severely demand side constrained. We are seeing this argument play out under current conditions. It will be interesting to see the effects of major fiscal side "belt tightening", vs. monetary "stimulus." All the recent attempts by the Fed to stimulate via monetary measures, seem to have had very limited positive outcomes.Some have argued that the policy has created an "excess demand" for money. That is to say, more people are interested in holding on to cash as opposed to spending it. Without increased velocity, I don't think you can move the economy forward in a dramatic shift.
ReplyDeleteAs they say, expectations matter. And business entities know all too well, that national, state and local governments are hell bent on reducing deficits, which under current conditions, may in the end, actually end up causing more contraction and further debt in the long run. Cutting spending, reducing the government workforce, and reducing outlays for social programs will have major negative consequences for the demand side of the economy going forward.
Ok, Nanute. You are saying that Stiglitz commits the "lump of labor fallacy?" Stiglitz is looking at it in isolation from what?
ReplyDeleteWhat you say about belt tightening I agree with of course. As the chance of fiscal stimulus right now seems unlikely-we'll see if we can even get the payroll tax extension-this why many-myself included-have gravitated more to monetary policy. While I don't agree with Sumner that it's the only game in town, it's the only one right now due to dysfunctional politics.
By the way Nanute, good comment but I'm going to tranfer them to the piece about Stiglitz and Rowe.
ReplyDelete