Also worth noting is that while the Hartungs fantasize about Pakistan's transition to democracy, the world has stood by mute and helpless as an existing parliamentary democracy in Bangladesh went by the boards. Bush plans to eradicate tyranny from the face of the earth, supplanting dictatorships with democracies, starting in the "greater Middle East," presumably including Pakistan. Yet, a Muslim country in the S. Asian subcontinent with some years of experience with elected governments has slipped into authoritarian rule with not much sign of concern. The population of Bangladesh is some five to six times that of Iraq and the country even has some fossil fuel reserves. What are the priorities?

Posted at December 28, 2007 3:23 PM in response to Musharraf Regime, R.I.P.

Bush's global democracy crusade has hit another bump in the road. To carry on the fight against bin Laden's crowd and the Taliban, he recruited Musharref, an outright dictator. As his legitimacy ebbed, Bush looked for a way to shore him up. Bhutto was called upon to present a credible opposition for a stage-managed election that would legitimize Musharref's continued grip on power. Bhutto is dead, and the predictable result will be nationwide paralysis, as South Asian politics return to the streets, as ever. The economy will barely function, and eventually the people who care about money will want to break the strikes and stoppages that will immobilize the country. To do that, they will have to break some heads. The targets will not take kindly to the treatment and will fight back. Things can and likely will get a lot worse. Musharraf has reportedly survived nine assassination attempts already. Don't be surprised if the next one is an inside job and it succeeds. What then?

As for Hartung's comment, he's in a fantasy land. The assumption is that some kind of managed transition to "democracy" can occur prior to and without civil war. You can't get there from here.

Posted at December 28, 2007 1:13 PM in response to Musharraf Regime, R.I.P.

My point is that inflation is not confined to energy and health care. I noted almost in jest that perhaps food prices were staying low because we were counting the little used commodities along with the staples. And along comes the McClatchy article to say that, yes, that is exactly what is happening.

Anyway, inflation is not about price rises in sectors. Inflation is a general rise in prices. I suggested that it is said to be low because it is not being measured correctly, and that if we look at what people actually buy, we are not doing well at all. I will be interested in Jared's forthcoming analysis of that issue.

Posted at August 15, 2007 6:27 PM in response to What Does it All Mean?

What a coincidence. If you are still checking into this thread, let me alert you to a McClatchy story on food prices.

"Prices for Key Foods Are Rising Sharply"
By Kevin G. Hall
McClatchy Newspapers

It is posted over at truthout. The gist is that such staples as eggs and meat are running as high as double digit inflation while the overall rate is below 5 percent. Even potatoes, at the low end, are showing price rises above the inflation rate. I wonder what the real income numbers will look like in a year or two. We saw some modest gains under Clinton. We knew that would end under Bush, but it might be worse than anyone could have expected.

Posted at August 14, 2007 7:53 PM in response to What Does it All Mean?

Personally, I think the inflation at the grocery store is moving along quite well. Maybe, as Jared suggested, the price of stuff we rarely buy is staying down so that the overall inflation rate for food looks lower than if we paid attention only to the bread and the hamburger. Pickled squid, anyone?

Posted at August 12, 2007 9:38 PM in response to What Does it All Mean?

Say, Albert. I will bet you a cup of coffee that no financial catastrophe on the scale you are suggesting occurs in, say, the next two years. How about it?

Posted at August 12, 2007 9:35 PM in response to What Does it All Mean?

Perhaps the issue, then, is how much? Bush has been implementing military Keynesianism for some years now. The deficit is already running strong (although getting the actual number is not so easy nowadays, from what I have read). And here we are talking about how to head off a recession. Will retargeting the stimulus do the job, or will it take more deficit spending than now? If so, how much? I'm afraid that unless it is a shockingly large number, it won't have much effect on a 13 trillion dollar economy.

It goes without saying that to get a stimulus package targeted at low income families and state infrastructure budgets is currently impossible. That would mean that the only hope would be a Democratic president and Congress that would actually pass such a program, an eventuality that is both uncertain and nearly two years off. Then, we'd have to wait another budget cycle for the stimulus program to by implemented.

Posted at August 12, 2007 9:32 PM in response to What Does it All Mean?

I have doubts that the fiscal tools will do the job. For one, the effect can be too slow. For another, Bush's tax cuts and wild spending don't leave much room for Keynesian demand stimulus. And in today's global economy, it is not certain that money poured into the American economy won't leak out. (I just drove a stretch a long stretch of interstate, and the trains alongside were loaded with containers market China Shipping, Ying Mao, etc.)

I also wonder whether this particular problem will have any greater long term impact than such as the S&L crisis, or the Latin American debt crisis, or what have you. The economy today seems to be so big and mushy that nothing really makes all that much difference, including policy.

Of course, I distrusted the crazy mortgage options and took out a fixed rate 15-year, just as that guy on the radio (Dave something) said to do.

IMO, the underlying problem is inflation, which is not being well measured at all. At the checkbook level I think it is running well ahead of official statistics.

Posted at August 11, 2007 8:57 PM in response to What Does it All Mean?

Hi, BVZ. Hope you are having a good day. As for me, I am glad to hear that the Braves have acquired an All Star first baseman in Tiexeria, but I think the left handed relief pitcher they also got might be as important to the run for a playoff birth. Sad to see a great prospect like Saltalamacchia go, but where was he going to play with McCann already at catcher?

Anyway, I think you have given us a definition but not much analysis. A slave is a person who does not have the opportunity to earn an independent living. Okay. But some of us gain an independent living from a job, and some of us do so by collecting dividend checks. The difference is crucial. It seems all you are saying is that the liberties one finds in a capitalist society cannot exist without capitalism, or something to that effect.

If you find references to the ultra-rich or the idle rich (Paris Hilton, eg) unhelpful, well, then let's put it in general terms.

I fail to see how my right to free speech depends on the right of the rich to collect dividend checks. This requires more than simple assertion.

Go Braves!

Posted at July 30, 2007 6:04 PM in response to Renegotiating the Social Contract

BVZ betrays his non-sequitur with the circular assertion that if one does not have freedom (if you will) then one has no freedom. No argument is offered to show that my freedom of speech, for instance, depends on the Walton family's right to sit around collecting dividend checks (thus achieving "economic independence").

Posted at July 28, 2007 6:48 AM in response to Renegotiating the Social Contract