Jedno sasvim novo i drugačije Presidency..

[Indy]

... antikomunizma...

S tim što je za njih komunizam izgleda sve od Gingriča pa na levo.

[Gandalf]

interesantno kako je AZ postala 1 avangarda mrznje, rasizma i antikomunizma (kime, this is your cue to jump in :P)

The scalp bounty was not always so effective in procuring the death of Apaches as in this case. A few years after our conquest, when the vigilance committees of California had filled Arizona with the most villainous collection of white men that ever breathed, there was enacted a comic tragedy in which the principal performer was John Gallantin. He was a desperate scoundrel, and had gathered about him a band of cutthroats whose infamous characters were excelled only by his own.

Massacres of the Mountains; A History of the Indian Wars of the Far West Edited January 27, 2012 by Gandalf

[Eraserhead]

Da ne kvarim topic o GOP primaries evo ovde jedan zanimljiv tekst Jeffreya Frankelaprofesora sa Harvarda o efektima Obamine ekonomske politike.

Obama’s Recovery?Jeffrey FrankelCAMBRIDGE – With November’s election in the United States fast approaching, the Republican candidates seeking to challenge President Barack Obama claim that his policies have done nothing to support recovery from the recession that he inherited in January 2009. If anything, they claim, his fiscal stimulus, the bank bailouts, and US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s aggressive monetary policy made matters worse.Obama’s Democratic defenders counter that his policies staved off a second Great Depression, and that the US economy has been steadily working its way out of a deep hole ever since. Middle-ground observers, meanwhile, typically conclude that one cannot settle the debate, because one cannot know what would have happened otherwise.There is a good case to be made that government policies – while not strong enough to return the economy rapidly to health – did halt an accelerating economic decline. But the middle-ground observers are right that one cannot prove what would have happened otherwise. It is also true that it is rare for a government’s policies to have a major impact on the economy immediately.But here is the remarkable thing: whether one listens to the Republicans, the Democrats, or the middle-ground observers, one gets the impression that economic statistics show no discernible improvement around the time that Obama took office. In fact, the reality could hardly be more different.This is especially true if one looks at revised data, which show the US economy to have been in far worse shape in January 2009 than was reported at the time. In January 2009, the annualized growth rate in the second half of 2008 was officially estimated to have been -2.2%; but current figures reveal the contraction to have been much sharper – a horrendous -6.3%. This is the main reason why economic activity in 2009 and 2010 was so much lower than had been forecast – and why unemployment was so much higher.The maximum rate of economic contraction – a veritable freefall – came in the last quarter of 2008. More specifically, according to the monthly GDP estimates from the highly respected forecaster Macroeconomic Advisers, it came in December – the month before Obama was inaugurated. As the graphs below plainly show, the growth trajectory miraculously reversed as soon as Obama’s term began, yielding a clear “V” pattern in 2008-09.The full force of the fiscal stimulus package began to go into effect in the second quarter of 2009, with the US National Bureau of Economic Research officially designating the end of the recession as having come in June of that year. Real GDP growth turned positive in the third quarter, but slowed again in late 2010 and early 2011, which coincides with the beginning of the withdrawal of the Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus.Other economic indicators, such as interest-rate spreads and the rate of job loss, also turned around in early 2009. Labor-market recovery normally lags behind that of GDP – hence the “jobless recoveries” of recent decades. But official data on monthly job losses and gains reveal an obvious V-shape here, too: as the graph below shows, the end of the free-fall for private-sector employment came precisely when Obama was inaugurated.Again, such data do not demonstrate that Obama’s policies yielded an immediate payoff. In addition to the lags in policies’ effects, many other factors influence the economy every month, making it difficult to disentangle the true causes underlying particular outcomes.Given that difficulty, the right way to assess whether the fiscal stimulus enacted in January 2009 had a positive impact is to start with common sense. When the government spends $800 billion on such things as highway construction, salaries for teachers and policemen who were about to be laid off, and so on, it has an effect. Workers who otherwise would not have a job now have one, and may spend some of their income on goods and services produced by other people, creating a multiplier effect.Those who claim that this spending does not boost income and employment (or that it causes harm) apparently believe that as soon as a teacher is laid off, a new job is created somewhere else in the economy, or even that the same teacher finds a new job right away. Neither can be true, not with unemployment so high and the average spell of unemployment much longer than usual.They also believe that the government deficit drives up inflation and interest rates, thereby crowding out other spending by consumers and firms. But interest rates are at rock-bottom levels – even lower than in January 2009 – while core inflation has slowed to a pace unseen since the early 1960’s. The conditions of the last four years – high unemployment, depressed output, low inflation, and low interest rates – are precisely those for which traditional “Keynesian” remedies were designed.Economists’ more sophisticated forecasting models also show that the fiscal stimulus had an important positive effect, for much the same reasons as the common-sense approach. The non-partisan US Congressional Budget Office reports that the 2009 spending increase and tax cuts gave a positive boost to the economy, and indeed had the extra multiplier effects predicted by traditional Keynesian models. Allowing for a wide range of uncertainty, the CBO estimates that the stimulus added 1.5-3.5% to GDP by the fourth quarter, relative to where it otherwise would have been. The boost to 2010 GDP, when the peak effect of the stimulus kicked in, was roughly twice as great.Of course, econometric models do not much interest most of the public. A turnaround needs to be visible to the naked eye to impress voters. Given this, one can only wonder why basic charts, such as the 2008-2009 “V” shape in growth and employment, have not been used – and reused – to make the case.

[Anduril]

Meni je samo zanimljivo kako se ovakvi "znalci" uopste usudjuju da pisu nesto o ekonomiji:

Given that difficulty, the right way to assess whether the fiscal stimulus enacted in January 2009 had a positive impact is to start with common sense. When the government spends $800 billion on such things as highway construction, salaries for teachers and policemen who were about to be laid off, and so on, it has an effect. Workers who otherwise would not have a job now have one, and may spend some of their income on goods and services produced by other people, creating a multiplier effect.

Sve je ovde super osim sto ne kaze odakle tih 800 milijardi, jel to neki visak ili se za to placaju kamate u buducnosti sa sve multiplier efekt katastrofom kad dodje do duznicke krize ala Grcka koju ovaj i slicni pametnjakovici verovatno nece iskusiti u punom zamahu. Kakva moroncina.

Those who claim that this spending does not boost income and employment (or that it causes harm) apparently believe that as soon as a teacher is laid off, a new job is created somewhere else in the economy, or even that the same teacher finds a new job right away. Neither can be true, not with unemployment so high and the average spell of unemployment much longer than usual.

Ovde je u pravu samo sto bi nezaposlen ucitelj onda verovatno poceo da trazi neki produktivan posao drugde, poceo bi sa prekvalifikacijom na vreme i ne bi cekao da ga otpuste pet godina kasnije kad ne bude vise para za subvencije i kad ce to sve biti mnogo teze jer je recimo zasnovao porodicu ili usao u godine. Dakle, cisti narkomanski high posle koga sledi jos veca kriza.

They also believe that the government deficit drives up inflation and interest rates, thereby crowding out other spending by consumers and firms. But interest rates are at rock-bottom levels – even lower than in January 2009 – while core inflation has slowed to a pace unseen since the early 1960’s. The conditions of the last four years – high unemployment, depressed output, low inflation, and low interest rates – are precisely those for which traditional “Keynesian” remedies were designed.

I opet moroncina pise napamet - sam Keynes je advokatisao svojevremeno koriscenje drzavne slamarice a ne masivne dugove za stimulaciju ekonomije jer su u njegovo vreme ovoliki dugovi i drzavna potrosnja bili nezamislivi - ipak zlato ne mozes stampati. Drugo, interesantno je kako spominje "core inflation" a misli na CIP index a ne spominje sta se recimo dogodilo sa cenama obrazovanja (na univerzitetu gde radi i mnogim mnogo manje poznatim), sada sa naftom, zlatom, akcijama, jos uvek visoke vestacke cene nekretnina koje prosecni mladi par nema sanse sebi da priusti kao ranije, itd. To se cenim ne racuna, od toga se ne zivi kao i masovna kupovina drzavnih obveznica od strane Fed-a da bi se vestacki odrzao nizak nivo kamatnih stopa. Zanima me sta ce ovaj gospodin da piskara, sta ce da predaje kad stignu do predvidivog tipping point-a koji je matematicki nezaobilazan i kad investitori, trgovici naftom i uopste internacionalna razmena pocnu da beze iz dolara a kamatna stopa i inflacija krenu nevidjeno da divljaju. Onda ce verovatno isto tako pisati o multiplier efektu - pucnjave i nereda po americkim gradovima a on ce zajedno sa kolegama iz prosle politicko-ekonomske elite da smugne na sigurno kao sto to rade masovno i ovi u Grckoj umesto da ih skinu finansijski do gole koze i postave na stub srama. Edited February 27, 2012 by Anduril

[mandingo]

Dok austrijanci mrace i lupetaju o nekoj inflaciji i dugovima, nobelovci nude prosta resenja za izlazak iz globalne krize... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XynpMUGVGGc

[Anduril]

Dok austrijanci mrace i lupetaju o nekoj inflaciji i dugovima, nobelovci nude prosta resenja za izlazak iz globalne krize... ...

I na stranu ekonomske teorije i svi ti sukobi ali prosto je zapanjujuce sa kakvom lakocom oni daju recepte poput "kako propiti buducnost vase dece" ili "kako najbolje spiskati tudje pare". Ovaj Krugmanov kolega cak i sam kaze:

Middle-ground observers, meanwhile, typically conclude that one cannot settle the debate, because one cannot know what would have happened otherwise.

Dakle, njemu je jasno da u stvari ne moze znati sa sigurnoscu sta bi bilo bolje ali ga to ne sprecava da mudruje o stimulusima i 800 milijardi.

This is especially true if one looks at revised data, which show the US economy to have been in far worse shape in January 2009 than was reported at the time. In January 2009, the annualized growth rate in the second half of 2008 was officially estimated to have been -2.2%; but current figures reveal the contraction to have been much sharper – a horrendous -6.3%. This is the main reason why economic activity in 2009 and 2010 was so much lower than had been forecast – and why unemployment was so much higher.

I ovo je posebno zanimljivo - ovaj lik upravo i radi za statisticki biro i ova mala "greska" od 4% negativnog rasta je skandal samo po sebi. Sta ce im uopste statistika sa ovakim problematicnim predvidjanjima i greskama?

In addition to the lags in policies’ effects, many other factors influence the economy every month, making it difficult to disentangle the true causes underlying particular outcomes.

I opet covek priznaje da se radi o kompleksnom sistemu koji sa sadasnjom metodologijom tesko da mogu sa sigurnoscu da shvate a opet, to njega i kolege mu na narenomiranijim univerzitetima ne sprecava da dalje deli recepte kao da je rec o nekakvom naucnom saznanju a ne o pukom verovanju.P.S. Pogledao sam klip - neverovatno i pazi ta budala pise feljton za Nju Jork Tajms i ima znacajan uticaj na politiku. Njemu je inflacija super a 2. Svetski i rekonstrukciju nakon toga poredi sa stimulusima. Pa pola Evrope i sveta je bilo razruseno - naravno da su americke kompanije prvo imale ofanzivu inovacija a onda pocele da izvoze i pokrecu celu ekonomiju jer su pre svega Zapadna Evropa i Japan zavisili od americkih proizvoda. Covek poredi zasiceno trziste sa trzistem gladnim svega u vreme tehnoloske revolucije. Edited February 27, 2012 by Anduril

[Gandalf]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/wall-street-bonus-withdrawal-means-trading-aspen-for-cheap-chex.html

Schiff, 46, is facing another kind of jam this year: Paid a lower bonus, he said the $350,000 he earns, enough to put him in the country’s top 1 percent by income, doesn’t cover his family’s private-school tuition, a Kent, Connecticut, summer rental and the upgrade they would like from their 1,200-square- foot Brooklyn duplex.“I feel stuck,” Schiff said. “The New York that I wanted to have is still just beyond my reach.”The smaller bonus checks that hit accounts across the financial-services industry this month are making it difficult to maintain the lifestyles that Wall Street workers expect, according to interviews with bankers and their accountants, therapists, advisers and headhunters.“People who don’t have money don’t understand the stress,” said Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy. “Could you imagine what it’s like to say I got three kids in private school, I have to think about pulling them out? How do you do that?”

Edited February 29, 2012 by Gandalf

[WTF]

Uzas! Morace covek da se preseli na Staten Island, Long Island ili neki slican jad i cemer.

“I feel stuck,” Schiff said. “The New York that I wanted to have is still just beyond my reach.”

Ovo nije moj New York!

[Аврам Гојић]

http://www.bloomberg...cheap-chex.html

:Hail:ovo ko da je sa oniona, osim sto nijejadni, jadni ljudi.

“I can’t imagine what I’m going to do,” Schiff said. “I’m crammed into 1,200 square feet. I don’t have a dishwasher. We do all our dishes by hand.”

Executive-search veterans who work with hedge funds and banks make about $500,000 in good years, said Arbeeny, managing principal at New York-based CMF Partners LLC, declining to discuss specifics about his own income. He said he no longer goes on annual ski trips to Whistler (WB), Tahoe or Aspen.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Marko M. Dabovic

[hazard]

sakom uglavu! <_<

[Budja]

Da ne kvarim topic o GOP primaries evo ovde jedan zanimljiv tekst Jeffreya Frankelaprofesora sa Harvarda o efektima Obamine ekonomske politike.

Pa, dobro, 1970 su bile davno, zaboravilo se.Greota je sto moze, sada, recimo Politika da citira ovog znalca pa onda i DS i Mladja i SNS postignu jedan lep konsensus kako je stancovanje para kul, narocito onda kada bude bilo preskupo da se zaduzivanje finansira spoljnotrgovinsi i ini deficit. Na svu srecu, nase pamcenje je svezije pa ce to teze da se proda.Kao da je tih 800 milijardi doslo iz svemira u vidu pozitivnog energetskog udara a ne suvom redistriibucijom. A Frankel, valjda, vazi za veliku facu. Edited March 2, 2012 by Budja

[Indy]

Ti zoves redistribucija, ja zovem civilizacija. Neki ljudi izgleda nisu srecni dok na coskovima ne ugledaju redove za supu.

[Budja]

Ti zoves redistribucija, ja zovem civilizacija. Neki ljudi izgleda nisu srecni dok na coskovima ne ugledaju redove za supu.

Well, ako nastave da ovako kreiraju ekonomiju, sa negativnim realnim kamatnim stopama, sutra neces imati samo coskove sa supama vec citave gradove. A ovi koji redistribuiraju sebi samima (kako je vec Anduril objasnio) ce se samo uz viski smeskati kako su opet uspeli da udare mosu hiljaditi put na istu populisticku foru.

[Indy]

Well, ako nastave da ovako kreiraju ekonomiju, sa negativnim realnim kamatnim stopama, sutra neces imati samo coskove sa supama vec citave gradove. A ovi koji redistribuiraju sebi samima (kako je vec Anduril objasnio) ce se samo uz viski smeskati kako su opet uspeli da udare mosu hiljaditi put na istu populisticku foru.

Redistribucija sebi samima nije redistribucija na koju se zale (recimo) Republikanci. Oni se zale na "socijalizam" (sto je za mene neverovatno iritirajuci americki vernikular, jedino kod njih na celoj planeti "socijalizam" znaci placanje cene u vidu poreza da bi se zivelo u civilizovanom drustvu).Ekonomski modeli, bilo koji, dokazano ne rade, prema tome, sumnjam i sumnjacu uvek kad mi se izvuku pred nos da dokazu kako je ova ili ona strana politike na ispravnom putu. Jednako mogu i zodijakom da me impresioniraju.

[Anduril]

Ti zoves redistribucija, ja zovem civilizacija. Neki ljudi izgleda nisu srecni dok na coskovima ne ugledaju redove za supu.

Inflacija i unistavanje valute je istorijski uvek vodilo raspadu civilizacije - od Rimljana, preko Nemacke 20-tih i 30-tih pa do Srbije devedesetih. Bar toliko bi trebalo da bude jasno. Sto se tice redova za supu, tu si u pravu jer kad se govori o "cuts" gotovo uvek se misli na najsiromasnije i one najslabije u drustvu. Grcka je dobar primer - umesto da se ukinu beneficije najbogatijima, spreci iznosenje para i izvrsi ekspropijacija koruptnih i poreskih neplatisa, reze se tamo gde najvise boli. Zato i nema druge do fizickih napada na koruptne bogatase, banke, njihova drustvena stigmatizacija (ne zato sto su bogati vec zato sto kradu) i nasilni pritisak na politicki sistem koji ocigledno ne reaguje na mirne proteste.