I am here because its fun to venture outside of snowflake la la land and watch the circle jerks.Why are you here if you see this thread as a circle jerk? Is someone holding a gun to your head? Feel free to move along.
Or, better yet, make yourself useful and challenge the premise of this thread. I gave one example for economics; please provide counterexamples. Show us we're wrong. I love well-reasoned counterarguments from someone who's intelligent and informed.
I'll be the first to admit I have no solid data to prove this thread's premise. It does match years of observation, however. Indeed, Republicans even seem proud of it. How many times have we heard Republicans deride apologies as a sign of weakness? How many times have we seen right-wingers refuse to budge an inch even after presented with mountains of contradictory facts? As someone who values truth and accuracy, I'd really like to understand what's in their heads.
I think I pretty clearly left the door wide open. Respond to either, or something in between. Inflation dogma is a specific example of a broader trend I've observed. Can you offer something substantive to counter it, to demonstrate my purported confirmation bias?I am here because its fun to venture outside of snowflake la la land and watch the circle jerks.
Which premise do you want a response to? Your initial train of thought around interest rates or your broader question to affirm your own confirmation bias? Just making sure we are having a legitimate conversation around ideas.
You should compare Kansas to Michigan or Connecticut or Pennsylvania if you want an apples to apples comparison of economic miracles. Similarly, many red states, like the Carolinas and Georgia, are becoming increasingly attractive and economically diverse.What's the last economic idea that conservatives were right about? Remember how California was doomed because of its' high taxes and Kansas was going to have an economic miracle because it cut theirs? Where did that go?
You should compare Kansas to Michigan or Connecticut or Pennsylvania if you want an apples to apples comparison of economic miracles. Similarly, many red states, like the Carolinas and Georgia, are becoming increasingly attractive and economically diverse.
As for California, many of us do not want to live in the liberal utopia of over budget infrastructure projects, underfunded pensions, insufficient middle class housing inventory and wealth disparity comperable to places like Honduras. California is a boom and bust state. Can only kick the can so far.
The latter question is not an intellectually honest one, so let's stick with inflation.I think I pretty clearly left the door wide open. Respond to either, or something in between. Inflation dogma is a specific example of a broader trend I've observed. Can you offer something substantive to counter it, to demonstrate my purported confirmation bias?
That's revisionist history. They were more concerned with allaying fears of inflation rather than inflation itself in at the time.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kohn20100513a.htm
But he acknowledged that if higher prices persist, inflation could become a serious risk. "Sustained rises in the prices of oil or other commodities would represent a threat both to economic growth and to overall price stability," he said.
The committee voted to hold rates firm. It hotly debated, however, what to say in its statement. Some members wanted to signal that the committee considered an economic slowdown to be the greater risk. Markets, well-versed in Fed-speak, would interpret that to mean that a rate cut might be in the offing later. Bernanke maintained that inflation was still the greater risk, and he prevailed.
Kansas was a disaster, but it also does not possess the geographic resilience, population density or economic diversity of California. It's like asking why an elementary school kid can't compete in the NFL.Why are those states better comparisons? California and Kansas both embarked on (in a US sense) diametrically opposed economic platforms at the same time. Since then California has dramatically outperformed the US average on most economic indicators while Kansas has lagged badly against not only the country but it’s immediate neighbors and is suffering from repeated fiscal crises so severe that it’s caused the legislature to abandon the plan. By any reasonable measure one was a success and the other a failure.
This thread is all about admitting our mistakes and learning from them. If we can’t admit that even a disaster as large as Kansas’s ‘experiment’ was a mistake then what can we admit?
Kansas was a disaster, but it also does not possess the geographic resilience, population density or economic diversity of California. It's like asking why an elementary school kid can't compete in the NFL.
If you want to have a fair discussion, you either compare California to Texas (successful models in political opposition) or Michigan to Kansas (failed models in political opposition).
As we continue to pursue a service, automation and distuption based economy, states like Kansas will be in perpetual catch up, unless they can learn from states like Missouri, North Carolina and Georgia who are attracting companies from high tax states.Since the differences we are talking about are in percentage change over time all of those things are already accounted for, unless you believe the middle of the country is inevitably geographically destined for economic failure. Also, prior to these policy changes their economic fortunes weren’t nearly so divergent. Why did that suddenly change in 2012?
Don’t let your hate for California blind you to the lessons it can teach people. Some of those lessons are things to not do, like prop 13 (this is a large contributor to the ‘boom-bust’ cycle in CA). Others are lessons of what can work.
Why are those states better comparisons? California and Kansas both embarked on (in a US sense) diametrically opposed economic platforms at the same time. Since then California has dramatically outperformed the US average on most economic indicators while Kansas has lagged badly against not only the country but it’s immediate neighbors and is suffering from repeated fiscal crises so severe that it’s caused the legislature to abandon the plan. By any reasonable measure one was a success and the other a failure.
This thread is all about admitting our mistakes and learning from them. If we can’t admit that even a disaster as large as Kansas’s ‘experiment’ was a mistake then what can we admit?
If the center had focused on internet infrastructure handled and maintained by its various governments, they could mitigate their geographical limitations. But nope!I think the center will have a harder time of it due to the lack of sea ports. International trade in an increasingly globalized economy is a major component to be missing for economic growth.
That said Kansas was wrong.
Wasn't one of the complaints about the tech boom\bust that the feds didn't track asset appreciation in its basket of goods? The same with the housing bust? I remember Krugman complaining about cheap capital leading to a housing boom circa 2004. Money not flowing into business expansion\economic growth but instead into assets. Now we are looking at a stock market\economic boom that is on a 9 year run. And a hot real estate market. The last year the market is well beyond natural growth. Maybe the fed is finally learning and trying to slow down this bubble before it pops and affects the collection of goods they measure?
Yes, California is kicking ass despite insufficient housing and high taxes. Kansas should be cleaning up, with their miracle tax cuts and all that land for companies to grow and house workers. But nope, companies would rather pay engineers extra $100K to live in California, and Kansas is the one that busted. What self reflection have conservatives done as a result of this reality not matching their predictions? They decided to take the failed Kansas model nationwide.You should compare Kansas to Michigan or Connecticut or Pennsylvania if you want an apples to apples comparison of economic miracles. Similarly, many red states, like the Carolinas and Georgia, are becoming increasingly attractive and economically diverse.
As for California, many of us do not want to live in the liberal utopia of over budget infrastructure projects, underfunded pensions, insufficient middle class housing inventory and wealth disparity comperable to places like Honduras. California is a boom and bust state. Can only kick the can so far.
If you think its revisionist history its pretty clear you do not understand the recession. Your link above certainly does nothing to support your claim that inflation concerns were 'absurd'. If anything is supports the idea that there were inflation concerns as it goes on to underscore one of the reasons why they didn't set a higher inflation target - mainly that a higher target would entail more inflation risk. If inflation concerns are absurd then you wouldn't have to deal with this issue.
The Fed's releases are just as much about policy as showmanship. Yes he set a specific inflation target to assuage population fears but the biggest reason to do so is to prevent self fulfilling actions meaning setting a target is an implicit sign that Ben had concerns over inflation risks
Ben himself on the risks:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/01/news/economy/bernanke_senate_testimony/index.htm
The Fed, early on, expected inflation to fall yet it rose contrary to their expectations which proved to be a significant point of concern (late 2007- early 2008)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20Ben-Bernanke-t.html
Of course there was also the deflationary risk too. He had to thread a very narrow path between too much inflation and too much deflation amidst an economy that didn't behave as expected. If you are interested I highly recommend reading his book for a significant amount of insight as to the concerns (including inflation) they had and had to deal with.
If you think its revisionist history its pretty clear you do not understand the recession. Your link above certainly does nothing to support your claim that inflation concerns were 'absurd'. If anything is supports the idea that there were inflation concerns as it goes on to underscore one of the reasons why they didn't set a higher inflation target - mainly that a higher target would entail more inflation risk. If inflation concerns are absurd then you wouldn't have to deal with this issue.
The Fed's releases are just as much about policy as showmanship. Yes he set a specific inflation target to assuage population fears but the biggest reason to do so is to prevent self fulfilling actions meaning setting a target is an implicit sign that Ben had concerns over inflation risks
Ben himself on the risks:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/01/news/economy/bernanke_senate_testimony/index.htm
The Fed, early on, expected inflation to fall yet it rose contrary to their expectations which proved to be a significant point of concern (late 2007- early 2008)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20Ben-Bernanke-t.html
Of course there was also the deflationary risk too. He had to thread a very narrow path between too much inflation and too much deflation amidst an economy that didn't behave as expected. If you are interested I highly recommend reading his book for a significant amount of insight as to the concerns (including inflation) they had and had to deal with.
Some companies are paying engineers an extra $100k to live in California. Many others are lifting and shifting entire engineering functions to low cost states. Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop, Nissan and Honeywell all did this, and none of those companies are losing a competitive edge.Yes, California is kicking ass despite insufficient housing and high taxes. Kansas should be cleaning up, with their miracle tax cuts and all that land for companies to grow and house workers. But nope, companies would rather pay engineers extra $100K to live in California, and Kansas is the one that busted. What self reflection have conservatives done as a result of this reality not matching their predictions? They decided to take the failed Kansas model nationwide.
These companies can't compete for talent with the likes of Google and Facebook. They don't have the margins. Boeing is losing competitive edge in rockets to SpaceX, which drove down the cost to half of ULA, despite being based in expensive California.Some companies are paying engineers an extra $100k to live in California. Many others are lifting and shifting entire engineering functions to low cost states. Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop, Nissan and Honeywell all did this, and none of those companies are losing a competitive edge.
Conservatives were the ones telling us how Kansas was going to have an economic miracle, but California was doomed. It didn't work out. Do you think Conservatives should at least have to explain why they were wrong before we adapt their failed policies nationally?That you need to gloat over your economic superiority to Kansas is a reflection of your own insecurity.
Sure they can. Google and Facebook are not competing for the same types of engineers. Boeing makes more than just rockets. SpaceX came up with an interesting disruptive model to rocket payloads, but thats the way technology works. The Elon Musk companies are uniquely innovative and exceptional. Uber was supposed to eliminate the taxi industry, yet they adapted.These companies can't compete for talent with the likes of Google and Facebook. They don't have the margins. Boeing is losing competitive edge in rockets to SpaceX, which drove down the cost to half of ULA, despite being based in expensive California.
Major automakers, including Nissan, are scared sh!tless of self driving cars eating their lunch, and are rushing to open offices in Silicon Valley, just for the privilege of paying AI researchers that Google doesn't want half a million dollars a year.
Conservatives were the ones telling us how Kansas was going to have an economic miracle, but California was doomed. It didn't work out. Do you think Conservatives should at least have to explain why they were wrong before we adapt their failed policies nationally?
High speed rail boondoggles and underfunded pensions and debt ridden municipalities and the worst wealth disparity in the nation...there is a lot wrong with CA.Ok, let's see what Texas media thinks about California vs. Texas. Of course, in California you had a Republican governor who blew up the state deficit, spending more while cutting taxes...that didn't help.
But once a Democrat balances the budget and uses Texas' playbook against it (business incentives) and it looks like California is winning again.
Make fun of the high speed rail boondoggle all you want but California seems to have their house in order.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/bus...eps-bashing-California-but-Texas-11202452.php
You have made the wrong assumption, and thus you are asking the wrong questions.I think it raises an interesting question. Conservative economists (and Republicans in general) cling to their economic dogma in spite of decades (centuries?) of empirical evidence that it's wrong. Why? Why won't they admit their errors? Why won't they revise their theories to incorporate real-world experience?
Sure they can. Google and Facebook are not competing for the same types of engineers. Boeing makes more than just rockets. SpaceX came up with an interesting disruptive model to rocket payloads, but thats the way technology works. The Elon Musk companies are uniquely innovative and exceptional. Uber was supposed to eliminate the taxi industry, yet they adapted.
Automakers are not scared sh!tless of self driving cars, because AI researchers are not going to will those cars into existence. Someone still needs to manufacture them.
Furthermore, academics at places like MIT are starting to temper expectations around AI, self driving cars and blockchain. Similarly, policy makers are starting to examine the regulatory and ethical aspects of these conversations.
Your post has the stench of someone who doesn't spend much time outside of the Silicon Valley bubble. It already burst once. It will again.