Tag Archives: francisco

Southern White Women Are Apparently in Pretty Bad Shape These Days

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Since I happened to mention the famous Case/Deaton mortality study in the previous post, here’s the latest from Andrew Gelman. As you may recall, Case and Deaton concluded that mortality among middle-aged whites from suicide, alcohol, and drug poisoning had skyrocketed over the past two decades. This set pundits afire with theories about what was going on, but Gelman has done some age adjustment to the cohorts that Case and Deaton used, and then broken up the data by gender, and then by geographic area. Here’s what he gets:

After 2005, there’s no effect on middle-aged men at all. It’s all women. And if you break it down further, nearly the entire effect is concentrated among women in the South. But why? Gelman punts:

I don’t have any explanations for this. As I told a reporter the other day, I believe in the division of labor: I try to figure out what’s happening, and I’ll let other people explain why.

I think that’s wise. For one thing, if you slice the data in a different way, you might get a different result. What’s more, as I’ve mentioned several times, the increased mortality affects the young too, not just the middle aged. So if you spun some brilliant theories about why middle-aged whites are so damn depressed these days, you might want to rethink things. Your new theory needs to explain why the young and the middle-aged are dying in greater numbers, and you also need to explain why it’s affecting primarily women in the South. Good luck.

Visit site:  

Southern White Women Are Apparently in Pretty Bad Shape These Days

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Southern White Women Are Apparently in Pretty Bad Shape These Days

Bernie Sanders Releases Outline of Universal Health Care Plan—And It’s Pretty Good

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

With only moments to go before tonight’s Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders has finally dropped his universal health care plan. Exciting! I imagine that Team Clinton is poring over it pretty carefully right about now. Here’s what he says it does:

Bernie’s plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments….As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.

….Under this plan, a family of four earning $50,000 would pay just $466 per year to the single-payer program, amounting to a savings of over $5,800 for that family each year.

Well, that sure sounds good. And I’m all in favor of universal health care. But I’m also curious about how he’s going to provide comprehensive care like this with no payment by patients at all and at such a low cost. Here are his basic claims:

He will raise $630 billion by increasing the employer part of the payroll tax by 6.2 percent.
He will raise $220 billion via a 2.2 percent progressive income tax on everyone (he calls it a “premium”).
He will raise $548 billion in various taxes on the rich along with the end of current tax breaks that subsidize health care
That’s a total of $1.4 trillion
Current public spending on health care (mostly Medicare and Medicaid) runs around $1.2 trillion.
This means that Sanders is figuring that under his plan total national health care spending will be about $2.6 trillion.

This is considerably less than the $3 trillion we spend now, and Sanders also says that his plan will keep spending growth down. This accounts for his claim that his plan will reduce total national spending on health care by $6 trillion over ten years.

So is this credible? It’s close. His taxes will probably raise about what he says. I’m not sure that he can reduce spending as dramatically as he hopes, but he can probably reduce it some. In other words, his sums might not add up perfectly, but they’re pretty close.

If there’s anything to criticize, it’s his statement that the average family of four will pay only $466 per year. The problem here is that while his payroll tax might come from employers, it will end up being paid for by workers—just as existing employer health plans are ultimately paid for by workers. That would cost his family of four about $3,100, putting their total at around $3,600. And if you figure that Sanders is being optimistic about cost savings and will probably need to raise taxes more than he says, our family’s total bill probably clocks in at around $4,000.

That’s still not bad. An average family pays a whole lot more than that right now via employer health coverage and copays. There’s a wee bit of smoke and mirrors here—counting employer plans when he talks about savings but not counting employer taxes when he talks about costs—but that’s a small thing. Overall, his numbers are pretty honest.

As for the details of exactly how the plan would work, I don’t know. The document on Sanders’ website doesn’t say much about that. I assume there’s another document somewhere, or maybe more to come. Stay tuned.

Link: 

Bernie Sanders Releases Outline of Universal Health Care Plan—And It’s Pretty Good

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders Releases Outline of Universal Health Care Plan—And It’s Pretty Good

Can We Spare a Tear for Ted Cruz?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

For the past couple of decades conservatives have routinely railed against “coastal elites,” “left coast liberalism,” and “San Francisco values.” The latter is so popular that it has its own Wikipedia page and Bill O’Reilly insists on credit for inventing the term. And it’s not just San Francisco that’s the target of conservative scorn. It’s big cities in general, with Los Angeles, Boston, Washington DC, and New York leading the pack.

Of these, New York City is probably second only to San Francisco. It’s home to the soda nazis, the Upper West Side, rent control, the Village, abortion on demand, and, above all, the hated liberal media. Conservatives might live in New York, but they sure don’t like its values.

Nonetheless, a whole lot of them are apparently ready to crucify Ted Cruz over his quip about Donald Trump and New York values. They all knew what he meant. Hell, they all agree with him. But any port in a storm, I guess.

Life isn’t fair, and Cruz has his share of defenders. And I know it’s hard to work up any sympathy for the guy. Anything Cruz does to hasten his own doom is surely karmic justice. But of all the things to go down for, a routine crack about big city liberals surely tops the list for irony.

POSTSCRIPT: But speaking of New York values, has anyone bothered to put together a short montage of Donald Trump saying liberal things throughout the years? It wouldn’t be hard, and 60 seconds would be plenty. It seems like a no-brainer, but I don’t recall seeing anything like this. Have I just missed it?

Continue reading – 

Can We Spare a Tear for Ted Cruz?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Can We Spare a Tear for Ted Cruz?

Donald Trump is a Mediocre Businessman

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I know I’ve beaten this dead horse before, but I continue to be a little surprised that no one has seriously attacked Donald Trump on his business acumen. After all, it’s his big calling card: he knows how to negotiate great deals and he’s made a ton of money from them.

But this doesn’t seem to be true.1 In fact, he seems to be a pretty mediocre businessman. Today, for example, the New York Times tells the story of Trump’s 1988 purchase of the Plaza Hotel. As even Trump admits, he was so enamored of owning it that he overpaid significantly and managed it poorly, something which contributed to his eventual financial downfall:

Once he owned the hotel, Mr. Trump put his wife, Ivana, in charge of renovating it….By 1990, the Plaza needed an operating profit of $40 million a year to break even, according to financial records that Mr. Trump disclosed at the time. The hotel had fallen well short of that goal, and with renovating expenses, in one year it burned through $74 million more than it brought in.

But Mr. Trump didn’t spend a lot of time sweating over the Plaza’s finances. He was too busy with new challenges. A few months after the Plaza deal closed, he purchased the Eastern Air Shuttle for $365 million, and in 1990, he opened the Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, which cost $1 billion to build. Some of the loans he took out to pay for deals were personally guaranteed.

….Mr. Trump’s brief ownership of the Plaza…marked the beginning of his transition from an owner of major assets to a manager of major assets. An increasing share of his wealth would come in the future from licensing his name, not just to builders but sellers of suits, cologne, chandeliers, mattresses and more. In professional parlance, he went from “asset heavy” to “asset light.”

The Plaza was a huge money loser. The shuttle was a disaster. Trump never understood the casino business, and his Atlantic City properties started hemorrhaging cash almost as soon as they were completed. All of this pushed him to the edge of personal bankruptcy, which he avoided solely because his banks decided Trump’s holdings could be liquidated at a higher price if they allowed him to stay solvent. In the aftermath of this bloodbath, he raised money by taking the remains of his casino and resort properties public. And since this was a public company, we know exactly how well it did: it lost money every single year and went into bankruptcy proceedings in 2004 (and again in 2009 for good measure). Since then, he’s mostly bought and managed golf resorts, which has been a good but not great business for him.

Bottom line: When it comes to building and managing tangible assets, there’s really not much evidence that Trump has much talent. He inherited a huge amount of money and nearly lost it all during his first couple of decades in the development business. However, before the money ran out he was able to use it to create the “Trump show” (his words), and in the couple of decades since then his income has come not from building things, but primarily from licensing and entertainment.

Trump seems to have two genuine talents. The first is that he’s apparently a masterful reader of people. The second is that he’s a hypnotic blowhard, which accounts for his success at both branding and TV, as well as his success at scams like Trump University.

Needless to say, we’ve seen both of these talents at work on the campaign trail. The first allows him to zero in unerringly on his opponents’ most sensitive spots—weaknesses that others frequently don’t even see, let alone exploit. The second allows him to mesmerize the media and the public while pulling off the greatest scam of his life.

But as a businessman, he’s so-so. He lets his decisions be guided by his gut, and his gut isn’t really very good. That’s where Trump Plaza, Trump Air, Trump football, Trump City, the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Steaks, and Trump University come from. That’s not much of a recommendation for the presidency.

1Needless to say, he can prove his business mettle anytime he wants to. He just has to open up his books. Show us revenues and GAAP earnings over the past 20 years. Show us return on equity and return on assets. Break it all down by business line so we can see how much is from TV and branding vs. tangible projects. There’s nothing hard about it.

Link to original:  

Donald Trump is a Mediocre Businessman

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump is a Mediocre Businessman

An Update on the Yosemite Park Trademark Dispute

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I wrote a post yesterday about a New York company that claims it owns the trademark to various locations at Yosemite National Park. Based on the story I read, this seemed obviously outrageous, and that was the tone I took.

But that was probably wrong. I ended up looking into this issue a little more deeply, and it turns out that the whole thing goes back several years and is actually a fairly pedestrian contract dispute. Here’s a quick outline of what happened:

In 1993, the National Park Service put up the concessions at Yosemite for bid. The winner was Delaware North, which was required to buy the assets of the Curry Company as part of the deal. This included the Ahwahnee Hotel, Camp Curry, and several other pieces of property.
In July 2014 the concessions were once again put up for bid. The winning bidder would be required to pay Delaware North fair market value for the assets it owned, which included real property such as the Ahwahnee and Camp Curry, as well as “other property.”
The Park Service initially valued the “other property” at $22 million. In December 2014 it increased its valuation to $30 million, which included an estimate of $3.5 million for intangible property. Of this, $1.63 million covered trademarks and other intellectual property.
Delaware North disagreed with this assessment. It valued “other property” at about $100 million, which included an estimate of $51 million for intangible property. Of this, $44 million covered trademarks and other intellectual property.
Delaware North filed a protest with the GAO over the Park Service valuation, but in April 2015 the GAO dismissed the protest.
June 2015 Aramark won the Yosemite contract.
In September 2015 Delaware North took the case to court.

And that’s pretty much where we stand today. It turns out there’s nothing inherently outrageous about Delaware North owning some of these trademarks, as even the Park Service admits. “We have not denied the fact that they do own intellectual property,” said Scott Gediman, a spokesman for Yosemite National Park. “But with these trademarks, it’s kind of two issues: One, are these trademarks valid, and, two, what is the value of them?” So this is a pretty routine contract dispute. Which trademarks are legit and which aren’t? Did Delaware North acquire these trademarks “surreptitiously” or with the knowledge of the Park Service? And how much are they worth? Delaware North says they’re worth $44 million. The Park Service says they’re worth $1.63 million. The issue is now in court, and Delaware North says it has offered to allow Aramark free use of the trademarks until the dispute is settled. Yesterday, however, the Park Service announced that it would simply rename everything and make the case moot.

It’s quite possible that Delaware North’s valuation is absurdly high. That’s my guess, since the value of these trademarks is mostly due to being attached to Yosemite Park, not to anything special that Delaware North has done to create or exploit them. But I’m no lawyer and I don’t know. That’s for a court to decide.

Original link:

An Update on the Yosemite Park Trademark Dispute

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on An Update on the Yosemite Park Trademark Dispute

Finally, Police Misconduct Against an Unarmed Black Man Gets Bipartisan Attention

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

“I normally incline to give the police the benefit of the doubt,” says Ian Tuttle over at National Review. And that’s true. In fact, it’s fair to say that pretty much everyone at National Review supports the police under almost all circumstances. Nobody at NR ever manages to mount much concern over charges of racism—except to ridicule and disparage them as products of liberal victimology, of course—and they have especially little patience for charges of racism in police conduct.

And yet, Tuttle says the case of Cedrick Chatman “bears close scrutiny.” Why is that? What’s different about Chatman’s case? Just this:

Following the release of the Laquan McDonald video and the revelations that Rahm Emanuel & co. almost certainly worked to bury it until after his tough reelection contest, the newly released video of the shooting of Cedrick Chatman in 2013 raises serious questions….The video is not conclusive. But the optics are not reassuring….Policing, even the “routine” aspects of it, is dangerous work, especially on the South Side of Chicago. But this is a case that bears close scrutiny — and so does the relationship between the city’s elected officials and its law enforcement.

Whew. For a moment I thought that NR had gone soft. I figured I might wake up tomorrow and find them running sympathetic stories about #BlackLivesMatter and railing against institutional racism in American law enforcement.

But no. It’s just that this makes good ammunition against Rahm Emanuel. All is right with the world.

This article is from:

Finally, Police Misconduct Against an Unarmed Black Man Gets Bipartisan Attention

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Finally, Police Misconduct Against an Unarmed Black Man Gets Bipartisan Attention

Here’s How Uber Is Trying to Get Out of a Huge Lawsuit

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

For the past two years, car-hailing app Uber has tried several legal maneuvers to quash an ongoing class action lawsuit filed by a number of its drivers in California. They contend that they’ve been wrongly classified as contractors, instead of full employees, and that Uber has withheld some of their tips. On Friday, the $50 billion company deployed its latest tactic: An updated driver agreement began popping up on Uber apps nationwide that drivers were required to sign before being able to accept any new rides over the weekend, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. But many see this agreement as the company’s most recent attempt to knee-cap the class action lawsuit.

In 2014, Uber rewrote its driver agreements to include an arbitration clause that stripped drivers of their right to sue the company in regular court. On Wednesday, a federal judge in San Francisco threw out that agreement, making it possible for the ongoing class action to include all of the 160,000 drivers who have worked for Uber in California since 2009.

Two days later, Uber added language about arbitration to its driver agreements that could skirt that ruling, preventing new drivers from signing on to the class action lawsuit. Binding arbitration clauses require workers to resolve disputes in private, confidential sessions with paid arbitrators rather than in court. They also usually prohibit workers both from appealing the initial arbitration decision and, as is the case in Uber’s new driver agreement, participating in class actions.

“We believe this is an illegal attempt by Uber to usurp the court’s role now in overseeing the process of who is included in the class,” Shannon Liss-Riordan, the Boston-based attorney who is leading the lawsuit against Uber, told the San Francisco Chronicle. Liss-Riordan is filing an emergency motion that will be heard by Judge Chen on Thursday, asking the court to prevent Uber from enforcing this new agreement.

If drivers manage to get to the final paragraphs of the complex 21-page agreement, they’ll discover that they don’t have to sign off on the new arbitration clause at all. By emailing Uber directly with their decision to opt out of being forced to resolve their disputes with binding arbitration, they would be able to continue to drive. The new agreement also won’t affect those drivers who are already participating in the lawsuit.

The ongoing lawsuit challenges two aspects of how the $50 billion company treats workers: first, it claims that Uber has misclassified its workers as contractors, depriving them of crucial employee benefits such as vehicle maintenance expenses. It also alleges that the company has been manipulating ride prices by incorrectly assuring riders that a full tip is included in the fare when, in fact, Uber has kept a portion of those tips rather than remitting them fully to drivers. The suit asks Uber to reimburse drivers for lost tips and expenses, plus interest. If the group of plaintiffs grows by 160,000 drivers, the civil penalties requested in this suit could get very expensive for Uber.

Liss-Riordan explains that Uber is trying to thwart the class action because the alternative—lots of individual lawsuits—would be much simpler and cheaper for the company to handle. The time and money involved in hiring a lawyer would deter many drivers from ever pursuing an individual lawsuit. “And of course, Uber does not want to be sued 160,000 times,” Liss-Riordan told Mother Jones in October. “What it wants is for most of these drivers just to go away.”

Source article – 

Here’s How Uber Is Trying to Get Out of a Huge Lawsuit

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s How Uber Is Trying to Get Out of a Huge Lawsuit

Americans Seem to Have Given Up on Retirement Plans

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This chart gets filed under things that leave me scratching my head. It’s from a survey published in the latest EBRI newsletter, and it shows how much people value certain kinds of job benefits. Health coverage is #1, unsurprisingly. But the perceived importance of retirement benefits has plummeted over the past couple of decades. This applies to both traditional pensions and 401(k) plans. Retirement benefits are still considered “very important” or “extremely important” by three-quarters of those surveyed, but fewer than half rank retirement benefits as one of the two most important benefits. That compares to nearly 90 percent who did so in 1999.

I’m really not sure what to make of this. Is it because Americans have given up on retirement plans they think are too cheap to make much difference? Do lots of Americans not plan to retire, for either good or bad reasons? Do they think Social Security will be sufficient? None of these explanations makes much sense. But what does?

Continue reading: 

Americans Seem to Have Given Up on Retirement Plans

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Americans Seem to Have Given Up on Retirement Plans

9 Surprising Ways You Can Mitigate Climate Change

Though climate change is a global problem, many of the solutions to it are local and dependent on the actions all of us individually take to reduce the build-up of the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming.

You’ve probably heard that you should fly airplanes less or drive an electric car or install solar panels to help use less coal, oil and natural gas, because burning fossil fuels causes climate change. But buying a new car or putting solar on your roof may not be within reach.

Here are 9 actions that definitely should be within reach, and you can take them right now.

1) Eat more fruits and vegetables and less meat. It takes a lot of energy to produce meat. More than one-third of the fossil fuels produced in the U.S. are used to raise animals for food, says this Care2 analysis. That’s because of the large quantity of resources it takes to produce the grain and soybeans needed for animal feed. It’s also because it takes a lot of energy to slaughter the animals, truck them to processing plants, process them, then get them to the grocery store. Plus, the hundreds of millions of farm animals raised generate methane, which in itself is a potent global warming gas. Switching to a more vegetarian diet would reduce fossil fuels burned and methane gas emitted. Here’s how you can get started eating a more plant-based diet.

2) Swap and share more, and buy less that’s brand new. Producing anything new requires a new infusion of natural resources, other materials and of course energy to run the entire operation. But once those goods are produced, very little energy is consumedand few greenhouse gases emittedto extend their life through sharing, swapping, lending, borrowing or buying it gently used from a thrift store. Sure, you might like something new, but does it have to be brand new? The planet says “no.”

3) Choose ENERGY STAR appliances. The ENERGY STAR program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has inspired appliance manufacturers to produce highly efficient appliances to help consumers save energy. If you’re in the market for a new refrigerator, washer, dryer, air conditioner or electronics, be sure to purchase a model that sports the ENERGY STAR logo. You’ll save more energy and not even notice it. And remember, any time you save energy, you save money. One more thing: keep your refrigerator coils cleaned so this appliance, which runs pretty much all the time, will run as efficiently as possible.

4) Tighten up your house and program your home’s energy use. Some homes may waste as much as 20 or 30 percent of the energy they consume because their windows and doors leak and the attics and crawl spaces aren’t insulated. First steps: get a home energy audit to see how much energy you’re actually wasting, then take advantage of state and federal tax credits to pay for improvements. At the same time, install a programmable thermostat so you can automatically turn the heat down when you go to sleep or when no one is home and up when you’re active in the house.

5) Buy renewable energy from your local utility company. Many utility companies now offer their customers the option to purchase energy that’s generated by wind or solar. The utility will purchase power from a wind or solar supplier and pass that along to you. It will cost a few pennies more in most places, but it’s generally affordable. Contact your utility or go to the company’s website to explore the options available to you.

6) Support family planning and birth control. People need energy to live, and the more people there are, the more energy the world needs. Family planning gives women access to birth control so they can have as few or many children as they wish. The Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco reports that providing contraception and abortion services for 225 million under-served women worldwide would cut more carbon than even solar and wind. You can read their entire report here.

7) Replace these 5 lights. The U.S. government’s Energy.Gov website recommends replacing your home’s five most frequently used light fixtures or bulbs with ENERGY STAR models. You’ll save $75 a year on energy costs. The most frequently used light fixtures are usually the overhead light in thekitchen and bathroom, table lamps in the living room, and outdoor porch lights. Here’s a sample of the energy-saving bulbs you can choose from.

8) Wash clothes in cold water. The arrival of detergents formulated to work in cold water means you don’t have to heat water any more when you do your laundry. ENERGY STAR estimates that almost 90 percent of the energy consumed by a washing machine goes to heating water, so making the switch to cold water washing would use far less energy and save about 1,600 pounds of the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change.

9) Plant three trees. Planting the right tree in the right place will help you save energy at home by providing wind protection, shade and cool air. Plus, trees add beauty, privacy and wildlife habitat, says the Utah State University Extension Service. Deciduous treesthose that lose all their leaves each fallprovide summer shade, but then allow for direct solar gain into homes that have windows on the south facing side of their structure. Evergreens, on the other hand, save energy by slowing cold winds in the winter.

What other ways have you found to save energy at home and reduce your climate change impact? Please share.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Originally from:

9 Surprising Ways You Can Mitigate Climate Change

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, Thermos, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 9 Surprising Ways You Can Mitigate Climate Change

Ted Cruz Explains the Great Recession

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jim Pethokoukis draws my attention to Ted Cruz’s theory of why the Great Recession was so great. Here is Joseph Lawler describing Cruz’s questioning of Fed chairman Janet Yellen yesterday:

Cruz began a round of questioning by stating that, in the summer of 2008, “the Federal Reserve told markets that it was shifting to a tighter monetary policy. This, in turn, set off a scramble for cash, which caused the dollar to soar, asset prices to collapse and the consumer price index to fall below zero, which set the stage for the financial crisis.”

….Yellen, although used to obscure or hostile questions from members of Congress, seemed taken off-guard. “I think the Fed responded pretty promptly in easing monetary policy to the pressures that were emerging,” she responded, saying that she wouldn’t blame the financial crisis on the Fed failing to lower rates during the meeting. She also noted that the Fed had lowered its target rate to zero by December.

I think you can argue that the Fed should have responded sooner and more forcefully to the events of 2008, but the problem with Cruz’s theory is that it just doesn’t make sense. Take a look at the chart on the right, which shows the Fed Funds target rate during the period in question. In April 2008, the Fed lowered its target rate to 2 percent. Then it waited until October to lower it again.

So the idea here is that if the Fed had acted, say, three months earlier, that would have saved the world. This ascribes super powers to Fed open market policy that I don’t think even Scott Sumner would buy. Monetary policy should certainly have been looser in 2008, but holding US rates steady for a few months too long just isn’t enough to turn an ordinary recession into the biggest global financial meltdown in nearly a century.

Cruz would like to blame the Fed, but they bear only a modest responsibility. Better culprits include underregulation of shadow banking; a housing bubble fueled partly by fraud and partly by Wall Street irresponsibility; excess systemic leverage; and Republican unwillingness to fight the recession with fiscal policy. Unfortunately, none of those fit Cruz’s agenda. So the Fed it is.

Continue reading here – 

Ted Cruz Explains the Great Recession

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz Explains the Great Recession