Thomas Piketty and His Critics

     In my last post I refereed to Chris Giles' attack on Piketty as largely nitpicking and quibbling. I also quoted Krugman who said that even if he had found genuine errors in Piketty's work he proves too much. 

     "Sorry but in reading Giles this is the first thought that comes to mind. What first jumps out at you is the triviality of his concerns, not to say quibbles. It's not clear that even if Piketty has failed to dot an i or cross a t why this matters so much materially for his work. Of course, you know what the conservative man in the street, a la Scott Sumner answer will be for this: well R-R's Excel error was at least as trivial if not more."

      "In saying this, though Sumner and friends give away the game-they're drawing equivalences with R-R because in their mind this is payback for what was done to R-R. Another bad sign is that Giles immediately goes from pointing out various 'errors' real or imagined and then makes the categorical declaration that inequality has not increased since 1980 and so the problem is greatly overstated by the Piketys of the world. As Krugman notes, in saying this, Giles says too much. Of course Sumner's favorite debunking of inequality in America and Europe is to talk about inequality in the world and suggest declare the answer is more free trade and low corporate taxes-and more fiscal austerity. "

      http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/05/chris-giles-attack-on-piketty-as.html

      Now Krugman:

      "It’s just not plausible that this increase in the concentration of income from capital doesn’t reflect a more or less comparable increase in the concentration of capital itself.

     "The point is that Giles is proving too much; if his attempted reworking of Piketty leads to the conclusion that nothing has happened to wealth inequality, what that really shows is that he’s doing something wrong."

       However, some might read this and want to see some examples of what I mean by quibbling and why Giles is proving too much. 

        Well here is Giles allegedly skewering Piketty. 

       "There appear to be few problems with the choices made by Prof. Piketty for Sweden. These are mostly data omissions, transcription errors and odd choice of data to represent the years in the graph.

For 2010, I use the latest data from 2006, which shows a small decline. Prof. Piketty uses an average of 2005 and 2006, but does not explain why."

       "He also chose to use 2004 for 2000, when the data point for 2000 was available in the sources he cited. I prefer to stay with the 2000 data."

         The main problems relating to the French numbers used by Piketty seem to relate to the arbitrary tweaks he uses for 1910 which raises the wealth share at the top around the turn of the 20th century (see 1-b).

       "The other main difference is that I have taken data for the year in question rather than an average of the data for the rest of the decade. This makes the series more compatible with other countries."

      http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/

       Yes, that's what I call quibbles. It's different to see why using 2005 and 2006 rather than 2005 in the Sweden data should immediately prove that inequality has not been on the rise. This is what Krugman means by proving too much-even if this quibble is correct how it demolish the idea that inequality has risen since 1980? Giles is expecting too much from such small potatoes. Giles 1980 to 2010 numbers show that inequality has risen during this period whereas Giles' counter numbers which are supposed to be a corrective show it basically flat. In theory then even he admits that inequality stops falling in 1980 after having fallen for the previous 6 decades.  If he's right about using 2005 rather than 2005 and 2006 does this show that inequality has actually decreased? Hardly. 

       For this reason he seems to me to also be quibbling over France in 1910 to 1920 by claiming that Piketty somehow overstates its rise. Even Giles own FT chart shows that inequality peaked in France in 1920 then sunk for 6 decades so how can much be at stake here other than showing an alleged 'pattern' of Piketty somehow doing shoddy work. He also goes way too far in accusing Piketty of 'cherry picking data' based on what he's criticized him on. What actually happened is actually Giles mixing apples and oranges as Krugman noted in the above quote. 

       So sorry to disappoint the Sumners and Tyler Cowens of the world but this attempt to abort Piketty has proven itself abortive. No doubt there will be other tries-we'll see if/when Sumner tries to rescue Piketty. My guess is that if he does he'll use that usual gadget in his toolbox, the claim that liberals by worrying about inequality in America are actually ethnocentric monsters themselves for only caring about inequality within their own countries but not world inequality-which Sumner would tell you, may make the life of the average American or Briton worse but improves the lives of peasants in Asia or Latin America. 

        

Chris Giles' Attack on Piketty as Payback for Rogoff and Reinhart

     Sorry but in reading Giles this is the first thought that comes to mind. What first jumps out at you is the triviality of his concerns, not to say quibbles. It's not clear that even if Piketty has failed to dot an i or cross a t why this matters so much materially for his work. Of course, you know what the conservative man in the street, a la Scott Sumner answer will be for this: well R-R's Excel error was at least as trivial if not more.

    In saying this, though Sumner and friends give away the game-they're drawing equivalences with R-R because in their mind this is payback for what was done to R-R. Another bad sign is that Giles immediately goes from pointing out various 'errors' real or imagined and then makes the categorical declaration that inequality has not increased since 1980 and so the problem is greatly overstated by the Piketys of the world. As Krugman notes, in saying this, Giles says too much. Of course Sumner's favorite debunking of inequality in America and Europe is to talk about inequality in the world and suggest declare the answer is more free trade and low corporate taxes-and more fiscal austerity. 

     "Great buzz in the blogosphere over Chris Giles’s attack on Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century. Giles finds a few clear errors, although they don’t seem to matter much; more important, he questions some of the assumptions and imputations Piketty uses to deal with gaps in the data and the way he switches sources. Neil Irwin and Justin Wolfers have good discussions of the complaints; Piketty will have to answer these questions in detail, and we’ll see how well he does it."

     "It’s just not plausible that this increase in the concentration of income from capital doesn’t reflect a more or less comparable increase in the concentration of capital itself.

     "The point is that Giles is proving too much; if his attempted reworking of Piketty leads to the conclusion that nothing has happened to wealth inequality, what that really shows is that he’s doing something wrong."

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/is-piketty-all-wrong/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=0

    UPDATE: This quote by Krugman obviously precedes Piketty's subsequent answer to Giles which Krugman duly notes is very effectively. 

     "OK, Thomas Piketty has replied at length (pdf) to the attempted takedown of his work by Chris Giles, and done it very effectively. Essentially, Giles tried to compare apples and oranges, and the result was a lemon."

     "The central point here is one that’s familiar to anyone who works at length on inequality issues. We have two kinds of data on distribution of both income and wealth: surveys, in which people are asked what they make or own, and tax data. Survey data are better at describing lower-income families, who often aren’t covered by taxes; but they notoriously understate top incomes and wealth, roughly speaking because it’s hard to interview billionaires. Also, survey data start fairly recently — after World War II, and often much later than that."

    "So Piketty works mainly with tax data, although he also makes some use of survey data; when he combines them, he makes adjustments for the known downward bias of top wealth estimates from surveys. Giles, however, basically noted that some relatively recent survey estimates of large fortunes are smaller than some tax-based estimates for earlier periods, and used this to claim that there isn’t any clear trend toward wealth concentration. Bzzzt! Error!"

   "This should really settle the issue, but of course it won’t. Inequality deniers will pick up on the FT’s bad critique, and it will become part of what they “know” to be true."

     http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/thomas-doubting-refuted/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

     For now, Sumner himself has stayed out of this one though there's no doubt which side he's on and that he's just waiting until he can come up with the right sophistical angle to jump in. I will say this. as conservative apologetics go, his is usually among the best. Again, my guess is he'll say something along the lines I already suggested above-inequality matters but not in America and Europe-yes we American workers have being doing fine the last 30 years! Inequality in Asia, Africa, or Latin America ought to shame us discussing it here. 

     At least Morgan Warstler admits the truth-that with the Internet and data revolutions, the amount of high skilled labor-white collar jobs, is greatly reduced no matter what standard economics says about the market correcting for this seamlessly by creating new jobs somewhere else in the economy. Yes, but most of these new jobs don't pay enough for even a single person to survive on. 

Europeans Demand Google Give Them Their 'Right to be Forgotten'

     Hello to my Diary readers. I feel a little shamefaced to be honest with you like I've been neglecting you. I know most people would say that as I'm working a lot and other things it's understandable for production to go down but to be quite honest with you, I'm not most people and always notice when people like Krugman cut back because of 'the intrusions of real life.'

     However, it may be that with a smaller quantity you sometimes can give higher quality. During 2011-my lowest personal ebb, when I was unemployed the last 8 months of the year-I was sponging off the state with $144 a week in UI, no doubt that's why Sumner doesn't like me (LOL)-I was prolific as I was also in the cursed Summer of 2012-that year I got fired from that security job in May and then the guy who had fired me vindictively fought my even getting my pittance from UI-this time only $133. So that Summer I had no job and no money.

    Things started to improve all at once in September. I got the satisfaction of beating him in arbitration-so seeing his face as I beat him then I got that job at Slomin's-at the Job Fair at the Baldwin Library. It was fitting I got a job there as that's where I hung out every day. However, while I''m enjoying being gainfully employed-and having money-yeah, less from the job than my 'good fortune' I've mentioned in previous posts, that is I've come into money-I have not been writing as much lately. I'm not happy about that.

    Yet it's not just that I have less physical time than ever-on weekends I hang with a friend of mine from work-he was literally homeless when I met him-cause he has an actual car and we are starting a music group-it's also that when I do get in front of a computer I often feel less like writing than reading. While Sumner tries to insult me as being ignorant of economics, I agree that in general I'm ignorant-it's what Socrates admitted as well. The difference with him is he knew he was ignorant while others deluded themselves.

    I've been reading a lot of economics lately and in time no doubt this will pay off more than 'writing more about what I already know.' Speaking of which, I see that the Europeans have cornered Google and are making it respect their 'right to be forgotten.'

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101716872

   I guess that's the difference between us and Europe and why they remain the Old World. For me I'd rather demand my 'right to be remembered.' Being forgotten sucks and yes I speak from personal experience.

   Google for its part did a number on me when it banned my blog from adsense in 2013 suddenly with no explanation-from what I have heard and it isn't much, it may be that its been flagged as 'too political.' Do Republicans have clout even at Google, the alleged liberal bastion?

    I tell you I'd be willing to do almost anything to get back on adsense. Is there anyone out there reading this who knows anything about how you'd get back on? C'mon don't any of you work for Google or know someone who does?

    If you could only help me it'd be worth your while. I'm not even joking, I'd be willing to pay a decent cash award to anyone who could tell me how to get back on-mind you I'd have to try it first and see that it worked, which I'd know once I was reinstated at adsense.

    How much? Maybe as much as $5000. Oh well, I wonder if I've just broken a law somewhere.

     I never get tired of Family Guy's Stewie and Brian here, "Road to Rhode Island." Especially the part 'W're Rhode Island bound like two students who were rejected by Harvard and forced to go to Brown."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebBYiVQU4pM

    Have a Blessed Day.
    

Athreya, Mankiw and Sumner: What Standard Economics Says About the Savings Rate

     In my past confrontations with Sumner when I question something he's said he has said that I don't understand economics and that he doesn't have the time to explain very basic things that all real economists know as elementary fact.

    One subject he has done this on is the question of a consumption tax-he claims to be for a progressive consumption tax and when I questioned him on the desirability of this his answer has been in effect 'Well if you understood public finance you'd understand.'

    While in a way you could argue that this is just a condescending cop out on his part, I've decided to take seriously the request of mainstream econ that those who criticise it at least acquaint themselves with what it really says.

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/04/ive-listened-to-nick-rowe-but-what.html

    Although strangely, mainstream economists today evidently think it's an absurd waste of time to ask what Keynes actually said.

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/05/katrik-athreya-modern-macroeconomics.html

    So what does standard econ say about savings? I'm talking about its impact on the economy. The idea of a progressive consumption tax always strikes me as problematic on a few levels. At the most basic level of course I think its fair to at least question whether a consumption tax even can be progressive or if progressivity and a consumption tax aren't two mutually exclusive things. The reason for this is that the poor save a much larger percentage of their income than the rich. Even in the short time I've lately had a little more income I see this is clearly true. My absolute spending has gone up a lot since March but not my spending as a percentage of income.

    Now, whether or not it can be is a reasonable question and there is nothing that I have recently read about in standard econ-and I don't think you get more mainstream then what I'm currently reading: Gre' Mankiw's textbook and Athreya's Big Idea in Economics-that shows that this very question is somehow ignorant or shows a failure to grasp 'public finance'-when I've questioned Sumner here he's sniffed that it's too long since he took public finance for him to remember the exact arguments but that nevertheless PF shows that this is a silly question. He doesn't know why or can't explain why it's silly but he knows it is from some classes he took years ago but he can't recall what they said.

     I've read a little bit on this idea of a progressive consumption tax and remain pretty skeptical but it does seem that it's theoretically possible-if you have a big enough exemption-like making the first $30,000 exempt; I'd probably prefer to see it phased out at a higher level though this in itself is not so easy to do in reality;  then we have the question of how this tax can be levied. One way suggested is to send a voucher to low income folks at the start of the year-I'm guessing the tax year. In this way the price of consumption goods would be raised but they'd be compensated via the voucher.

     These questions I'm raising here are technical/logistical-can a CT really be progressive? and how is it to be levied? Yet my skepticism is also more fundamental and philosophical. Even assuming a PCT is possible why is it more desirable than a progressive income tax? Usually proponents talk about things like the PIT distorting economic activity and its 'dead-weight loss'-see I have been reading Mankiw! How else would I use a term like 'dead-weight loss?'

      Yet what they never mention is that a consumption tax also has a dead-weight loss. Even more fundamentally, they never spend enough time on the fact that a higher savings rate necessarily means a lower consumption rate. Sumner has a near religious belief in the virtues of a higher savings rate-he believes that a miser is somehow selfless while the spendthrift is selfish.

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/04/noah-smith-and-sumner-on-neo-fisherite.html?showComment=1399187698840#c272293933132006137

     Yet why should this be? His answer is that the savings will be used in later investing, necessarily. This is something, of course, that Keynesian econ denies. Often though standard econ-in this context I'm taking Athreya and Mankiw as standard and a Keynesian idea like the Paradox of Thrift as heterodox-has little time for Keynesian econ here. Yet what's interesting is that you don't even need the Paradox of Thrift, or a heated debate over Say's Law-does Supply really create its own demand? and what does saying so really mean?-to make this point.

    If you read Mankiw Principles of Economics pg.537 you  read that: "The growth that arises from capital accumulation is not a free lunch: It requires that society sacrifice consumption of goods and services in the present in order to enjoy higher consumption in the future.' So even within the context of a Republican economist like Mankiw it seems that one really should take this into consideration before calling for a higher savings rate-note that here we're presuming Neoclassical econ is right and that the Paradox of Thrift is all wet-ie, an increase in savings necessarily really does lead to higher capital accumulation.

    "If for example the savings rate in one country is 30%, while in another it is 40%, then a realistically parameterized Solow-Swan model predicts that in the long run, the higher-saving society will enjoy a constant 15% advantage in income levels, but will grow at exactly the rate as its more profligate cousin."

    https://read.amazon.com/

    Now here's the kicker:

    "But notice that, in so doing, it gives up 10 percentage points more in consumption during every period."

     The argument for higher savings is that lower consumption today means higher tomorrow. However, in this case of a permanent higher savings rate consumption is permanently lower. So even if you wanted a higher savings rate-which always bear in mind, necessarily means a lower consumption rate-the alleged benefit of preferring future over present consumption is out the window if this higher savings rate is permanent.

      So it's clear that Sumner's practice of arguing for a 'progressive consumption tax' simply by saying the words public finance won't get it done for him. There are some very good reasons to question the very concept of a PCT and if you don't like the Paradox of Thrift you can do so using the tools of Mankiw, Solow, and Athreya.

     Often, Krugman is accused of somehow being a dishonest economist who lets his political biases trump his good economic sense. Why is not a word said about Mankiw's support of Mitt Romney's tax schemes in his 2012 election-along with Glen Hubbard? He clearly knows better.
    

Kartik Athreya: Is all Modern Macroeconomics Keynesian Economics?

     I came across Athreya asking this question in his big book on modern Macro and was struck by it-as I wrote a previous post that makes is sound like he's quite anti-Keynesian or at least anti General Theory-I think the idea that the two are different things is basically an illusion anyway.  In my previous post on him I quoted him as saying that no advanced Macro curriculum have the GT as important. 

     "One obvious example of this type of useless discussion is the monumental effort assessing what Sir John Maynard Keynes may or may not have had in mind when he wrote his highly influential book The General Theory. This project took the attention of great minds like Sir John Hicks, and many others since then, who collectively tried to flesh out what was initially a series of relatively unclear conjectures. Economists should be somewhat concerned by the fact that this happened(though the power of Keynes' intellect made his conjectures arguably far more worthy of investigation than those of any other economist of that era."

      "Yet no 'core' graduate course in economics at any major university today spends any time on Keynes' General Theory. And it is not because macroeconomists view real-time outcomes as always incapable of improvement vial policy. or regard Kenyesian-style prescriptions as inherently wrong-headed; far from it. Chapter 5 will reveal that nearly all our models for macroeconomic data, outcomes arising form firms and households that are price taking and ignore all else will not be optimal at all, and Keynesian ideas rarely surface. The reason Keynes is absent in the training of new economists is that it is extremely difficult to extract precise formulations from his work, especially ones that are obviously amenable to any sort of qualification. Hence, Keynes efforts are simply not helpful for answering questions of 'how much' of any policy to engage in."

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/05/katrik-athreya-modern-macroeconomics.html 

    I don't get this scornful talk about 'what Keynes really meant' though I notice that this is what just about all establishment New Keynesians say-Krugman, Simon Wren-Lewis, I haven't seen him say it but probably Delong as well. Interestingly though, in another passage I just read, he seems to suggest that modern Macro may be Keynesian by definition-with regard to its focus on market failure in the labor market, investment and the means of payment. 

    https://read.amazon.com/?asin=B00HO102ZQ

    This is quite at variance with what Stephen Williamson-who is the one who recommended Athreya would agree with to say nothing of people like Sumner-Mark Sadowski always tries to argue that modern Macro isn't in the same with Keynesian Macro. I would go further than Athreya-I would say that Macro itself is Keynesian by definition. Prior to Keynes there was only microeconomics. 

    For SW's reccomendation see here:

    http://newmonetarism.blogspot.com/2014/01/big-ideas-in-macroeconomics.html

   I must admit to being unconvinced by Mark's attempts to argue that Macro predated Keynes. What he at best shows is that some of the things that Keynes focused on didn't originate with him-as if he ever argued  that. It makes you remember what Keynes anticipated the econ establishment would say about his book-first that it was wrong and second that it said nothing new. 
    

With Voter ID Laws, Ted Yoho Takes it to the Next Level

   The GOP is the party with its irony meter permanently turned off or it might find last night in Arkansas just a little bit ironic, when Asa Hutchinson in the primary election for Governor got his own vote in the election delayed because of the id law he himself has championed.

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/05/in-arkansas-asa-hutchison-victim-of.html

     Not to worry, though as the party has no sense of irony.

      "Olson said Hutchinson thought the incident was a "little bit of an inconvenience" but still believes the law is necessary."

     http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-candidate-thwarted-by-arkansas-voter-id-law-at-polls

     "Maybe if you're a well-heeled gubernatorial candidate with an army of staffers that can bail you out with one phone call its a mere inconvenience, what about a poor black person in a state like Arkansas? It may be more than just an inconvenience."

     The GOP was supposed to learn all these lesson-after 2012, but this apparently didn't happen as even in the one area of policy they were supposed to have seen they needed to change-rather than just the packaging which was their tendency to focus on with regard to everything else-ie, the American people support our policies like Medicare privatization and regressive taxation they just don't know it because our packaging isn't good enough. 

    The GOP is just determined that the answer can't be that it actually needs to change its position on any important issues, it's just packaging-and that too many black people, poor people, and other undesirable Democratic voters get to vote in these elections too-particularly, Latino people. 

   This is the genius behind voter id laws. If someone like Hutchinson has a problem they can get their staff to fix it and while inconvenient it's a small price to pay for preventing the wrong voters from voting at all. 

  They've had some setbacks with these laws, certainly in 2012 most of these laws didn't take effect in time. However, they've had some victories too, like the SJC striking down part of the Voting Rights Act. Now Yolo is proving yet again the maxim that 'you give them an inch, they take a mile.' Nowhere is this more true than with GOPers and reactionary state laws. Yolo wants to take us back to the days when only property owners can vote-this was all the rage in the early 1800s. 

  "Ted Yoho strikes again.Speaking at the Berean Baptist Church in Ocala, Fla., during his 2012 campaign, the first term Republican congressman appeared to speak fondly of limiting voting to property owners -- laws not seen since the days of the Founding Fathers."

   "I’ve had some radical ideas about voting and it’s probably not a good time to tell them, but you used to have to be a property owner to vote," Yoho said in unearthed footage uploaded on Tuesday by Right Wing Watch." 

  "The tea party congressman has made quite a name for himself in the last two years. He endorsed birtherism, said the nation's credit rating would actually be better if the United States defaulted on its debt, and called Obamacare racist toward white people.Yoho also opposed giving furloughed workers back pay during last fall's government shutdown, doubted the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and saidallowing in-state tuition for undocumented students would reward "bad behavior."

   "But Yoho's lament about voting isn't original. Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips said in 2010 that returning to 19th century voting laws "makes a lot of sense."

   "If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners," Phillips said.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/20/ted-yoho-voting_n_5360208.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

    With a law like Mitt Romney would have won so it must be a good idea. 

     

    

     

The Tom Corbett Watch: Yesterday Was a Good Day for the State of Pennsylvania

     First it's gay marriage ban was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. 

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/20/pennsylvania-gay-marriage_n_5358491.html

      Now, with the victory of 'self funded' Tom Wolf in the Democratic primary the state is that much closer to getting rid of Corbett-who's been at the helm with bad laws like the gay marriage ban and voter ids. 

       Sure, I know that Wolf's win can be seen as a double edged sword. Yes, it's great if he can beat Corbett but some may well feel that the better candidate-Allison Schwartz' didn't win because Wolf was able to blitz the entire states with ads paid for by his own cash. 

      "Gov. Tom Corbett (R) is considered one of the nation's most vulnerable governors in November, inviting Democrats to scramble for the nomination to unseat him. Businessman Tom Wolf appears to have separated from the rest of the field: Rep. Allyson Schwartz, state Treasurer Rob McCord and Katie McGinty, a former secretary of the state's Department of Environmental Protection, are trailing him by double digits in recent polls. A loss on Tuesday would represent a huge disappointment for Schwartz, who was the perceived front-runner until Wolf began pumping millions into his own campaign to preempt the other candidates on the air across the Keystone State. Wolf's momentum has derived from his positive, biographical ads discussing his leadership of his family business, the nation's largest supplier of kitchen cabinets. Schwartz's television ads have been more policy-oriented, as she has touted her contributions to the Affordable Care Act and Pennsylvania's Children's Health Insurance Program."

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/20/pennsylvania-primary-results_n_5358797.html

       Yes, you could argue that she should have won as she was the more issue oriented candidate-obviously the issue oriented candidate doesn't always win to say the least; however, some might argue that they should. Still, the other side of the coin is maybe because Wolf has the cash he's in a stronger position to knock out Corbett-he can't be outspent. 

      Anyway, my candidate is ABC-anyone but Corbett, and Wolf more than fits the bill here. 

In Arkansas, Asa Hutchison a Victim of 'Friendly Fire' Voter ID Laws

     Bringing new meaning to the phrase 'live by the sword, die by the sword' Hutchinson's vote in his own primary for Governor got delayed thanks to the same voter id laws he's lauded. 

     "A Republican candidate for Arkansas governor supports the new voter ID law, but he was left waiting after he forgot his identification."

     "Spokesman Christian Olson told The Associated Press that Asa Hutchinson forgot his ID when he attempted to vote at the polls in Bentonville on Monday. Olson says a staffer was able to retrieve the ID and bring it to Hutchinson so he could vote."

     "This election marks the first statewide test of the law requiring voters to show photo identification before casting a ballot. A state judge has ruled the measure unconstitutional, but suspended his ruling and said he won't prevent enforcement of the law during the primary."

     "Olson said Hutchinson thought the incident was a "little bit of an inconvenience" but still believes the law is necessary."

     http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-candidate-thwarted-by-arkansas-voter-id-law-at-polls

      Maybe if you're a well-heeled gubernatorial candidate with an army of staffers that can bail you out with one phone call its a mere inconvenience, what about a poor black person in a state like Arkansas? It may be more than just an inconvenience. 

     I had to laugh in watching the coverage yesterday on CNBC before yesterday's elections-'Super Tuesday.' Joe Kernan hosted the segment-he's just the biggest Republican hack on the station-though Maria Bartiromo was another one-now she's on Fox-and the analysis was that this year is going to be like a 'home game for Republicans and an away game for Democrats.' 

     Gee, I wonder which side they're rooting for? 

     Yesterday seemed to be a good day for non Tea Party GOPers. Mitch McConnell beat his TP challenger and celebrated by talking smack about his coming Democratic opponent, Allison Lundergan Grimes by attacking her as a toddler and attacking her father. What a class act he is-remember when he admitted that he didn't even care about the country in 2009, just in making Obama a 'One term President, a one term proposition?'

     http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mcconnell-wins-primary

     http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/grimes-democratic-nomination

     http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/kentucky-primary-results-2014-mitch-mcconnell-106919.html?hp=f2

      Overall, it was a good day for establishment GOPers in fending off the Tea Party. Still to keep the support of Tea Party groups they're going to spend a lot of time beating up on Obamacare and throwing red meat at the base. Another development last night was that 'self funders' did very well. 

    "Tuesday was a great night for incumbents, the GOP establishment and self-funders. It was a bad night to be a Clinton in-law."

    "Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell defeated his GOP challenger in Kentucky by 25 points, a high-profile but low-suspense race on a critical primary day when voters cast ballots in six states. In Georgia, a Senate Republican primary headed to a runoff with the two candidates favored by GOP establishment leaders. And in Oregon, pediatric neurosurgeon Monica Wehby fended off a more conservative challenger in her Republican primary."

     "Pennsylvania Democrats, meanwhile, picked businessman Tom Wolf, who poured $10 million of his own money into the race, as their nominee against Gov. Tom Corbett, one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the country. Also in the Keystone State, Chelsea Clinton’s mother-in-law, Marjorie Margolies, lost a bid to reclaim her old House seat, despite some assistance from Bill and Hillary Clinton."

    "After a year of threats from conservative outside groups, no GOP incumbents lost Tuesday. Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson beat back a tea partier supported by groups such as the Club for Growth, with help from the business lobby and Mitt Romney. National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden, targeted in Oregon by a national campaign called “Primary My Congressman,” received triple the support of his opponent, with more than half the votes in. And House Transportation Committee chairman Bill Shuster prevailed over his challenger in Pennsylvania by 18 points."

     Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/2014-primary-election-results-106908.html#ixzz32KuLAhG0

     Overall, then, it seems like yesterday the Tea Party primary bogeyman was shown to be dog that didn't bite. As for the 'self funded' phenomenon it's funny how much terminology can change the coloring of something. I mean another way of putting it is that 'well heeled' candidates did very well: after all, only rich folks can even afford to 'self fund.'

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of 'self funder' Wolf who's the guy we need to unseat Corbett-if it weren't for him the voter idea law couldn't have taken off ion Pennsylvania. 

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/pennsylvania-primary-results-2014-tom-wolf-106920.html?hp=f3

    Meanwhile. it's too bad about Chelsea's mother-in-law. I would have loved to see Ms. Margolies get back in-I really like her, she's a great character, I even got to talk to her once on a radio call in show in Massachusetts back when I was living there and because she's now in the Clinton family and I want as many Clintons to be elected as possible, everywhere, all the time. 

    I know Chelsea has at least considered running for high office here in NY-maybe the Senate. My hope is still Hillary in 2016 and maybe Chelsea in 2032? A life time of Clintons! Just to spite Rush Limbaugh nation. 

      

Katrik Athreya, Modern Macroeconomics and 'What Keynes Really Meant'

      As I have previously chronicled, I am reading Professor Athreya's "The Big Ideas in Macroeconomics: a NonTechnical View."

       http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/04/i-exchange-emails-with-katrik-athreya.html

       http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/05/poor-customer-service-makes-case-for.html#comment-form

       I must say that I'm very impressed overall with his work and that it bears worth reading as I've previously stated. His title certainly is truth in advertising too as it really is a nontechnical view that the interested layperson can follow. 

        It certainly is food for thought and I will again recommend it to anyone particularly someone who is critical of what Stephen Williamson testily defends 'modern Macro.'

        Athrerya admits Macro's flaws and its counter-intuitiveness and explains its big ideas in clear, accessible language-'Pareto optimization', 'Walrasian Equilibrium', 'Rational Expectations' etc. I find his explanations very interesting and illiminating. 

        In an email to me he had expressed gratitude at my clearly sincere interest in 'getting to the bottom of what we're up to.'

        "your reaction was gratifying to read. The reason is that I was hoping from the very beginning that more people like you, with an abiding interest in the subject, would want to know what ideas guide us--even if you decide in the end that you are unpersuaded. You hit it exactly right when you saw that the method is not, despite what some repeatedly say, any sort of bludgeon against government (or the poor, the unfortunate, and the otherwise disenfranchised for that matter). This, and its coherence,  are part of why it is not, as you say, "easily vanquished."

        ".Good luck in your evidently serious efforts to see what we are up to!"

      http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/04/i-exchange-emails-with-katrik-athreya.html

      I particularly appreciated that last sentence as Sumner has never recognized that like what I say or not that's all I've ever tried to do. However, as Dr. Artherya says, he isn't asking necessarily that you are fully persuaded just make an honest attempt to engage with the ideas and know a little bit about what you're warring against. 

       I have to say that I came across a few things today in his book that I'm not sure what to make of. First he had made the comment that the only way to show respect for people is to assume their rational agents. I'm not sure I agree. First of all, in the idiom of Macro I guess this is what is called a 'normative' rather than a 'positive' statement. It's clearly a moral argument. Can you really rest the belief in Rational Agents on this particular base? I mean he and other macroeconomists evidently consider this such a sacrosanct moral principle that it is basically an unquestionable unassailable assumption to the extent that you share his moral evaluation. 

      His other arguments for rational, optimizing agents, is in the more 'positive' vein-that no matter what the legitimate criticisms of it may be there is nothing better to replace it with. We get back to the idea that 'all models are false so what matters is if they prove themselves useful or not.'

      Yet, what I kept wondering was if it's true that we gain so much from the belief in RE and lose so much without it, how did we manage to muddle through in the years when the profession didn't believe in RE-back in the days of Adaptive Expectations?

      Then I came across this argument with the phrase in the title 'about what Keynes really meant.' It is in the section that Athreya argues for the use of mathematics in Macro and where those who denigrate its use in economics have it all wrong. He argues that it's use is the only thing to protect the layman from economists having free rein to impose anything they want on the public. He says that without mathematics we would all be the victim of fruitless discussions that can not be accounted for either way. 

     So according to him and most in the field, mathematics saves us from useless discussions. However, what got my notice is his example of such a fruitless discussion: wasting time on 'What Keynes really meant.' I have come to realize that this is within the Macro field a real zinger. Krugman has used it as has Simon Wren-Lewis. It's used as a way of simply waving away confederations about Keynes. I have to say I found this argument by Arethrya puzzling. Why should we discuss what Keynes 'really meant' anymore than we should discuss any other previous great thinkers within a field?

     I mean is it a waste of time to discuss what Darwin really meant or what Einstein really meant? Within Macro they care what Adam Smith meant, or Walras, or Kenneth Arrow so why not Keynes? It turns out that Keynes' General Theory is seen by this Macro establishment to be a really bad book-in Macro terms at least. So when Athreya says that we need math to protect us from the Svengali machinations of economists clearly Keynes is who he has in mind. 

     "One obvious example of this type of useless discussion is the monumental effort assessing what Sir John Maynard Keynes may or may not have had in mind when he wrote his highly influential book The General Theory. This project took the attention of great minds like Sir John Hicks, and many others since then, who collectively tried to flesh out what was initially a series of relatively unclear conjectures. Economists should be somewhat concerned by the fact that this happened(though the power of Keynes' intellect made his conjectures arguably far more worthy of investigation than those of any other economist of that era."

      "Yet no 'core' graduate course in economics at any major university today spends any time on Keynes' General Theory. And it is not because macroeconomists view real-time outcomes as always incapable of improvement vial policy. or regard Kenyesian-style prescriptions as inherently wrong-headed; far from it. Chapter 5 will reveal that nearly all our models for macroeconomic data, outcomes arising form firms and households that are price taking and ignore all else will not be optimal at all, and Keynesian ideas rarely surface. The reason Keynes is absent in the training of new economists is that it is extremely difficult to extract precise formulations from his work, especially ones that are obviously amenable to any sort of qualification. Hence, Keynes efforts are simply not helpful for answering questions of 'how much' of any policy to engage in."

       https://read.amazon.com/?asin=B00HO102ZQ pgs. 193, 194, the Kindle edition. 

       An aside: this quote is from my Kindle. I'm not sure if someone else reading this can actually get into this link or not-maybe they demand a password? Anyone who has tried and knows the answer let me know. 

       Here, I think we're onto something very consequential. What makes Keynes' GT just a bunch of useless conjectures that can provide us nothing? His claim that it can't be qualified means what? Does he feel that the character of GT is such that you have to either accept or reject it wholesale-and ergo, modern macroeconomists just reject it out of hand?

        I note that Sumner refers to Keynes' previous to GT book, his Treatise on Money was his best book. I wonder how Arethya can even say Keynes had such a powerful intellect if all he gave us are a 'series of unclear conjectures?'

         What made his GT just unclear conjectures but not the same thing for Adam Smith when he wrote or Ricardo? I would have found it helpful if he could have explained this a bit more. What makes something just a conjecture?

        He then goes on to contrast Keynes with someone who doesn't just conjecture-Lucas. He explains that even if you don't like what he had to say-I don't-his method is impeccable like in his 1985 book Models of Business Cycles. In this book. he says that Lucas gave us lots of mathematical equations which all together showed us that there is no way within the Representative Agent model to show that the business cycle is socially harmful. 

       Of course, this might make us question RA models yet again. I still can't say I see any improvement in policy since the dark ages before we used RE and Lucas. Athreya seems to look at the pre-Lucas postwar era of where economics let itself be co-opted around the cult of personality of one man-Maynard Keynes. Why then did we get such better policy back then-or at least better outcomes?

David Cameron is not the Worse Man to Lead Britain

     High praise right? It is from me as I don't like Cameron. However, I read something that makes me like him better. Noah Smith:

      "Has economics really become less about "free market priesthood"? Well, I think academic econ has. But as for pop econ, there still seems to be a lot of it around. For example, Steve Levitt, one of the most popular pop economists in the world, recently had this to say about health care:

In their latest book, Think Like a Freak, co-authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner tell a story about meeting David Cameron...They told him that the U.K.’s National Health Service -- free, unlimited, lifetime heath care -- was laudable but didn’t make practical sense.  

"We tried to make our point with a thought experiment," they write. "We suggested to Mr. Cameron that he consider a similar policy in a different arena. What if, for instance...everyone were allowed to go down to the car dealership whenever they wanted and pick out any new model, free of charge, and drive it home?" 

Rather than seeing the humor and realizing that health care is just like any other part of the economy, Cameron abruptly ended the meeting... 

So what do Dubner and Levitt make of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, which has been described as a radical rethinking of America's health care system?  

"I do not think it's a good approach at all," says Levitt, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago. "Fundamentally with health care, until people have to pay for what they're buying it's not going to work. Purchasing health care is almost exactly like purchasing any other good in the economy. If we're going to pretend there's a market for it, let's just make a real market for it."

     "This is exactly what I call "free market priesthood". Does Levitt have a model that shows that things like adverse selection, moral hazard, principal-agent problems, etc. are unimportant in health care? Does he have empirical evidence that people behave as rationally when their health and life are on the line as when buying a car? Does he even have evidence that the British health system, specifically, underperforms?"

     http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/market-priesthood.html

       Even Kenneth Arrow-the father of the idea-or proof of the idea, such as it is-that market prices are efficient didn't believe they work in healthcare. If Cameron really did reject this out of hand then so much the better for him. I like him considerably more than before I read this little blurb. Certain markets clearly are not Walraisan-one is healthcare-another is the money market.

      As we saw in a recent post, I'm actually a British Citizen-I was born there, though I'm an American citizen as well, Britian lets you have dual citizenship.

      http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/05/a-day-in-immigration-office-in-patchogue.html

       I'm relived to know that the Mother Country is not being run by a man who thinks that the answer to healthcare problems is to totally nationalize it. David Cameron, you may not be the best man for the job but you are not the worst either!

      

In Today's Music, Actual Men are Banned

     I know I shouldn't go here but this has occurred to me more than once. A recent conversation I had with a cabbie crystallized this for me in a new way. He wasn't such a pleasant guy really-very much a Negative Nellie really, never has a good thing to say about anything or anyone. However, he made a good point.

    I had mentioned to him my 'scoop' on Nick Minaj's family stiffing cab drivers here in Baldwin.

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/05/nicki-minajs-family-lives-right-here-in.html

     He of course hates her and thinks she's a no talent hack. I mentioned that some now say she's the best rapper there is. He scoffed that she's not a rapper of any type and the fact that she's called the best shows how far rap has fallen.

     He's probably too harsh on her-this is the guy's calling card, he's down on everything. I think she's pretty good-for what she is. I think though he's dead right though that what she is certainly isn't a rapper. She's kind of an amalgamation of things but not a straight rapper. Rap is basically over with. This is notable in itself.

    Let me make the controversial, certainly not politically correct point that today there are no men in music. Sure, there are many males in music but they don't sing like their males. Basically these two rule have wide application.

    A. Men in music today sound like women or at best hermaphrodites.

    B. White people sound like black people.

     We could also add that everyone wants to sound transgendered. I mean think about it. There is no masculine energy in music today. Who are the biggest male stars? Just hang out on Twitter or Instagram for about 5 minutes the answer is obvious as every teenage girl in America will tell you.

     A. Justin Bieber

     B. Harry Styles

     C. Justin Timberlake

      Music is becoming more and more feminine. The old masculine type has just about died out. Now understand that what I mean by masculine I mean someone like Mick Jagger, Jim Morrison, Axl Rose, Kurt Cobain. In my view masculine energy is always something a little off putting for polite society. It's polarizing-Howard Stern is masculine energy. What I might call feminine energy is non-polarizing-it doesn't like the idea of messing with people or being divisive.

    Look at our three stars I listed above and their all very acceptable to this feminine energy. They play well with others, don't rock the boat and even look like girls or transgenedereds themselves.

    Or take rap. I think that when you look back on the 80s you had a very much 'bifurcated' music scene. You had young white boys in their suburbs listening to heavy metal and you had young black kids in the inner cities listening to rap. Note that I mention gender on rock-my sense is that for the most part heavy metal appealed more to the boys generally speaking whereas rap appealed to both genders.

     What we've seen over the last 20 years though is that heavy metal to the extent that it exists today-and there is good stuff if you know where to look for it-is pretty much underground while rap has pretty much taken over society. However, notice that rap became 'hip hop' and much of hip hop slowly evolved into the very large and dominant R&B genre.

     This brings me back to the point about Nicki Minaj and the end of rap. Rap may have won vis a vis heavy metal but in victory rap itself has dissolved Rap is over now too. If you want to know what I have in mind by 'masuciline energy' or 'masculine presence' see this link below of Chuck D or Public Enemy at his peak in 'Rebel Without a Pause'.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erj9g4Or1rU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djuc0kg97yo

     Everything is about being combative with society and the listener. What I mean by 'feminine energy' is something like 'I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.'  Incidentally this is a pretty good song-I'm not saying it isn't just observing that it's the quintessential feminine song in that it seeks to 'bring people together' rather than fight them.

     Lets look at a few of Chick D's lyrics for example:

     "Smooth not what I am. Rough cause I'm a man. No matter what the name, your still the same, pieces in one big chess game."

      Name me one male start today who is in any sense "rough?"

      "Radio. Suckers never play me.'

      A very unfeminine thing to say-it's putting people down calling them 'suckers.' The feminine type says 'These aren't suckers. They're just people like you and me. They have children. Don't call them names.':

      UPDATE: The deeper point here which I forgot to mention is society. Women tend not to like criticism of society as such. It's ok to criticize  individuals to the extent they may deserve it but not whole groups of people. Like if you say society is cheating you by not playing your music they assume that society must have a good reason for this-if society doesn't then that would be a moment of major dissonance because they think of society in the social contract sense that 'we all have agreed on'-though in reality that's not how society originated.

      However, I say 'feminine type' as it's not just women who may have this sentiment. I think someone like Noah Smith seems to have this sensibility which is why perhaps he's never bee.n a Diary of a Republican Hater fan.

     Not to say I don't have lots of female readers. Judging by my analytics my biggest readers are college girls-if only I could meet one of them. LOL. Yet, it seems to me that they are less likely to leave comments. Like t seems I have lots of female readers but they never leave comments. My commentators or just about always male.

      I'm using the concept of feminine here in a specific way. As really the tendency against things that are anti-social. Like this is what 'anti-social' means. Chuck D:

      "You can't angle us-I know you're listening, I caught you pissing in your pants. You're scared of dissing us, the crowd is missing us, we're on a mission y'all.'

      Still in retrospect, I'd argue that rap was never-though some conservative activists didn't get this-as anti-social as heavy metal. Rap was always about a more uplifting message. It wasn't totally social nihilistic. Which is probably why I always preferred heavy metal. Though I really liked rap in the heyday of the 80s-the Fat Boys, Run DMC. LL Cool J, Public Enemy of course.

       I guess what it comes down to is that women dominate music-I mean in terms of what music becomes popular. Specifically when I say 'women' I mean 16 year old girls. These 16 year old girls usually don't like aggressive anti social angst.

      To an extent this has always been so-since the start of modern teenage dominated music-which goes back to Elvis, before that the adults dominated music, can I hear Laurence Welk? LOL.

      What's changed now is the music industry. Girls control the mainstream Top 20 charts as they always have. However, now there is much less scope to make it outside the mainstream and really get a following.

       Actually, to the extent that the conventional wisdom is correct and the American Idol phenomenon is a thing of the past, it bodes badly for would be music stars as at least shows like that really did get the people who got somewhere on these shows a chance to become stars. Without this it's even harder. The next phase some say is just posting stuff online.

      P.S. If you want real masculine energy, you got to check out stuff like Slayer or Annhilator. or Nine Inch Nails or the like which I neglected to mention.

 
      

A Day in the Immigration Office in Patchogue

     The title describes my day. I should preface this by explaining that this post is basically the sequel to this one.

     I have to admit, Morgan Warstler looks out for me http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/05/say-what-you-will-about-morgan-warstler.html

     The wrestling league-I might, possible, hypothetically-buy is out in the Patchogue area as is my good friend Kevin. Today I had to visit the office in Patchogue. Technically this is the one out in Holtsville but I had to take the train to Patchogue. In the post linked above I had said this:

    This is not the first time Morgan has looked out for me-in all seriousness, he was the one who let me know when my Twitter account got hacked and as I recall he told me what I had to do. I can't be sure, but it seems like maybe he likes me and has decided I'm not such a bad guy for a liberal-maybe because he sees I'm certainly no slacker. In reality I'm anything sooner than that. Even back in 2011 when I was unemployed for the last 8 months of the year I'd be writing like 5, 6, or 8 of these blog posts per day. In truth I'm hyper driven-I want nothing short of world domination. You think I'm kidding. It's all about baby steps: you have to walk before you run, and crawl before you can walk.  

      The fact that I was in the wilderness for so long-5 years in my parents' basement!-only makes me so much more hungry and dangerous than I would otherwise have been. Look out world! You're not going to keep me down no more! 

  http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/05/say-what-you-will-about-morgan-warstler.html

      However, now that he hears I'm a lawless immigrant he may not be so fond of me. Ok, I'm an immigrant or was anyway but it's  from England-I came over when I was 3 years old for God's Sake. The kind of immigrants conservatives don't like come from places down south, England is like one of the few places conservatives might approve of immigrants coming from as, to put it in Pat Buchanan's terms: they share our culture. Not only that, but I am actually a U.S. citizen and have been for 14 years. I grew up in this country but didn't get officially naturalized till 2000. 

    However, during Hurricane Sandy I evidently lost both my Naturalization certificate and my passport. For this reason I can't renew my license and get a car yet. Turns out the only way I can get it done is to get a receipt of my applying for a new certificate. I have to fill out a form and mail it-not so bad right? However, there were a couple of numbers on the form that I didn't have-after all, I lost the certificate. The only way I could do this, they told me was to go out to the office-effectively missing a day of work so they could give me a couple of serial numbers there. 

   However, during my long scenic journey I got some time to follow the market. I was able to get something for my $12.50 LOCK puts that expire tomorrow after that had looked hopeless. I didn't come out ahead but I got something  for it and it didn't look so good just yesterday. I really had messed up in not realizing that these puts expire this week. However, once I realized this, I jumped on some more puts that expire on June 21. Lock, of course, is sinking like a stone as the market is realizing that the company has basically been promising something it cant deliver: guaranteeing your private information will be safe. 

    http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/LOCK

     My BAC $14 puts that expire May 23-just happens to be my birthday-got some new life after that the picture on this postiion seemed pretty grim after BAC had it's dead cat bounce the last few days. It got under $14,50 today. If it can drop just another $.35 cents what seemed a worthless position could be worth over $2,000 grand. 

    However, the really good news was after the bell closed. JCP had better than expected earnings-admittedly their bar is low and the stock soared to as high as $10 after the bell-from under $8.40 at close. Hopefully I'll be able to get out of this position soon after the opening bell tomorrow-at my desk making telemarketing calls! 

    I should be able to see at least $3,000 if not $4,000 grand-it initially cost me about $1,500. It makes me laugh-I can do all these transactions with thousands of dollars in the balance and no one would have a clue what I was up to to look at me. 

     Anyway, I'll stop for now not because I'm done talking to you but because I'm at the library and it's closing soon.