So Busy
As you've probably guessed, my time lately has been completely consumed by my real job. My responsibilities have changed quite a bit recently, and I'm not going to have much time to write until I figure out what I'm doing. I know that's a bit cryptic, but please bear with me. I'll return to regular posting eventually.
posted by A.L. at 10:12 PM
24 Comments:
Glad to hear your business is good and that you are well.
Looking forward to your return.
Partnership?
Some of us who share your title of "litigator at a large national law firm" frequently check your site in order to take solace in the knowledge that at least one of our colleagues, somewhere, has time for thoughtful and cogent political analysis. Hurry back, or it's back to more traditional forms of solace for the rest of us.
(And, of course, please accept our congratulations on the new responsibilities, if they are welcome responsibilities.)
It's ok to wallow in depression over Obama's loss in New Hampshire. We won't think any less of you.
Good luck, hope these are positive developments.
Yes, I have missed not seeing any new posts but hope your "new responsibilities" is a good development for you.
I thought I might take the liberty of posting a question for some of the regulars here. Earlier the subject of Obama's past muslim background was raised. Someone mentioned to me that with the Islam religion you don't just walk away from it, you have to formally withdraw. I thought that during his childhood he was educated in the muslim religion. Otherwise, whether you like it or not, you're considered to be a muslim to the bitter end. Is this the case? Is Obama technically still a muslim (in the eyes of other muslims) even though he professes not to be? Is this something that could be raised after he might become the Democratic candidate?
Well I was baptized and went to a Catholic School up till the third grade but was skeptical of there being a GOD and never attended another mass after leaving that school. Upon adulthood I realized I was really an atheist.
Would other Catholics still believe I'm a Catholic since I was never excommunicated nor have I given notice to the Pope of my Atheism?
Frankly I don't give a Damn and neither should Obama over false accusations.
Islam does not hold that a child raised in Islam cannot simply walk away. Children don't have faith of their own, in Islamic societies (nor in Christian, Buddhist, or other societies). It is a duty of the parents, and the prerogative of the parents, to raise the child in the faith of their choice. Once they have reached the age of consent, they can (theoretically) choose whatever faith they wish. The age of consent may vary, according to authority consulted, but anybody who has not formally avowed their muslim faith after about the age of 15 is not considered a member of the faith by Islam.
Ergo, Barack Obama is not now, nor ever was, a muslim. On the other hand, since I was confirmed (as a child of 13, which most muslims would consider a travesty) in the Methodist church, I am now an apostate, since it's been roughly 25 years since I set foot in a Methodist church.
The irrational and insane fears that so many have about Islam continue to astound, don't they?
alley cat,
Obama never was a Muslim. I believe (check his website if you want to be sure) he spent two years in a Catholic school in Indonesia, and then two in a public school. Most of the students were, naturally, kids of Muslim parents at that school, but it was largely non-religiously orientated. (kids of Christians were educated as Christians)
Leeme guess, AL--you're first chair in an upcoming trial. Whatever it is, a change in responsibilities that increases them is bound to be grounds for congratulations.
No point in wallowing in the Obama defeat in NH--the race for the Democratic nomination is over; Hillary will be the nominee, and it's time to MoveOn.
Since Al is away, and since I know he's quite concerned about William Kristol being awarded a bully pulpit at the New York Times after being wrong so many times, let us have a little reprise of some gems from "economist," former Enron consultant and current New York Times columnist Paul Krugman:
"[R]ight now it looks as if the economy is stalling..." — Paul Krugman, September 2002
"We have a sluggish economy, which is, for all practical purposes, in recession..." — Paul Krugman, May 2003
"An oil-driven recession does not look at all far-fetched." — Paul Krugman, May 2004
"[A] mild form of stagflation - rising inflation in an economy still well short of full employment - has already arrived." — Paul Krugman, April 2005
"In fact, a growing number of economists are using the "R" word [i.e., "recession"] for 2006." - Paul Krugman, August 2005
"But based on what we know now, there’s an economic slowdown coming." - Paul Krugman, August 2006
"This kind of confusion about what’s going on is what typically happens when the economy is at a turning point, when an economic expansion is about to turn into a recession" - Paul Krugman, December 2006
"Right now, statistical models ... give roughly even odds that we’re about to experience a formal recession. ... [T]he odds are very good — maybe 2 to 1 — that 2007 will be a very tough year." - Paul Krugman, December 2006
The economy has limped along for the last several years, with first one sector showing weakness and then another. It was just a matter of time before the housing bubble burst, as Krugman correctly pointed out, and now we have the recession everybody expected.
On the other hand, any economist who predicts a recession will from time to time be correct. A person who predicted that Iraq could ever be fixed by invasion and occupation and that now will ever go back together again is at best delusional, and at worst, a lying, deceitful scumbag.
For all I know, Krugman was just about the last to predict the bursting of the housing bubble--even I did that, selling off vacation property at just the right time, and for that very reason.
A person who predicted that Iraq could be "fixed" by invasion would already have been proved correct, and could be forgiven a bit of joyful, triumphant gloating. Like every liberal worthy of the name over the past century, he would also exult in the displacement of a fascist regime with a democratic one. As for "occupation," it ended, according to the UN, back when the US handed over sovereignty.
With respect to the economy "limping along," why don't we look at the actual quarterly figures for GDP growth during the period when Mr. Krugman was holding forth? Keep in mind, also, that a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
2002 01 2.7442
2002 02 2.1948
2002 03 2.3775
2002 04 0.2023
2003 01 1.2019
2003 02 3.4691
2003 03 7.4865
2003 04 2.6532
2004 01 2.9596
2004 02 3.4817
2004 03 3.6022
2004 04 2.5481
2005 01 3.0728
2005 02 2.8127
2005 03 4.4620
2005 04 1.1936
2006 01 4.8204
2006 02 2.4423
2006 03 1.0655
2006 04 2.0909
2007 01 0.6016
2007 02 3.8213
2007 03 4.9072
(One always knows that poor C2H will rise to any bait, despite repeatedly being bludgeoned by unpleasant facts.)
Last two quarters of 2007? 3.8% and a hugely robust 4.9%. Some limping.
Neutral wants to use GDP as the final word on the economy, but it has many problems. For a couple, it is heavily weighted toward consumption, which means societies that borrow and have a low savings rate and are undergoing inflation look good, by measuring the GDP. Bubbles also make GDP better. That means that things typically get bad long before it shows up in GDP.
Some people say we should look at standard of living, but then, of course, having been bypassed by the British wouldn't be good for Neutral's argument.
Hugely robust. Yup, I'm sure everyone thinks so.
Keep digging, Neutral, old buddy. I'm sure we're giving everybody a real laugh. Remember, folks, Neutral is going to disappear if Huckabee gets the nomination -- a probability I don't rank high, but one can always hope. Enjoy him while you can.
As for me, I'm hoping A.L.'s news is wildly positive, and that he'll soon return, energized and inspired.
"Neutral wants to use GDP as the final word on the economy."
No, neutral wants to use GDP as the final word on whether or not the economy is in recession. Neutral wants to use it that way because, as a matter of definition, that is how one determines whether there is in fact a recession:
"Q. What is a Recession?
"A. The official definition of recession is when GDP growth is negative for two quarters or more."
"Neutral's argument" is that the economy is not in recession. It appears to this neutral observer that he wins, and in fact he has achieved an uncontested victory.
C2H's argument, so far as one can determine, is that C2H is very unhappy, and further, that not everyone thinks that four percent economic growth is robust.
The standard of living relative to Britain is determined by the exchange rate, about which the President of the United States has nothing whatsoever to do. And that standard has continued to rise in the US; the US standard of living is unrelated to that of the UK or any other country.
If you don't like the decision to allow the dollar to weaken in order to improve exports, direct your complaints to Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke. Or direct them anywhere you like--it is a great deal of fun to watch you whine and complain.
What is one to make of the collapse of the dot-com bubble in the final year of the Bubba presidency, during which the stock market lost a trillion dollars in equitey? Again, nothing at all--though Clinton was, as Bob Kerrey said, an "unusaually good liar," and he allowed those who would destroy this country to prepare to do so unabated, the collapse of that bubble is one albatross that honest people cannot place around his neck. Just as no honest person could saddle Bush with the bursting of the housing bubble.
Neutral,
It appears that, at the present time, the economy is in recession. Needless to say, this kind of destroys your argument.
The original argument was about the health of the US economy, not about whether it is in recession. You could, if you had the reading comprehension necessary, go back and re-read my comment to see that.
I don't think the standard of living is entirely about the exchange rate. There might be a few other items in the computation.
Oh, and finally, isn't it finally time to stop saying "Clinton!" every time you are losing an argument?
Neutral
I have two (unrelated)questions
1. Does Romney have any chance of winning the general election should he be the nominee?
2. If AL makes partner, will he discover the evils of high marginal tax rates?
First C2H says:
"...now we have the recession everybody expected."
Then he says:
"It appears that, at the present time, the economy is in recession."
Next he says:
"The original argument was about the health of the US economy, not about whether it is in recession."
Can anyone blame me for laughing out loud?
The "original argument" was about whether, as you stated, the economy is in recession. It isn't in recession, and by definition it cannot be, until there have been two successive quarters of negative GDP growth. The most recent quarter ended fifteen days ago, with 4.9% growth.
Unemployment, by the way, is below the historical average of the past 40 years.
Losers have been whining about the economy for more than a century in this country, regardless of the facts. Winners go out and take care of themselves and their families, taking advantage of the abundant opportunities available in the US.
Study hard, C2H. Work diligently. Remember the old adage that "real men don't complain." I'm sure you'll do just fine.
I'm not an economist, but "recession" is when the GDP shrinks. As you correctly point out, "a recession" is when it has declined for two successive quarters.
When you state that we're not in a recession, you can't know. Neither can I know that we are in a recession, but a whole parade of economists is saying the same thing I'm saying, so I think my statement is more correct than yours. If you are still around in six months, and GDP didn't shrink for the current and next quarter, you can remind me that I was wrong.
Save your condescending advice and your trite adages for someone impressed by them. They don't add anything to the discussion.
We agree, C2H: All we can do is guess whether, when all the data are in some months down the road, those data will show that the economy has shrunk instead of growing, and for what period time.
Meanwhile, some terribly disappointing news for those who fervently wish for a recession:
"Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Industrial production in the U.S. was greater than forecast in December as growth in exports helped make up for weakness in auto and housing-related industries.
"Production at factories, mines and utilities was unchanged following a 0.3 percent increase in November, Federal Reserve figures showed today. Economists had forecast a decline in production. Capacity utilization, which measures the proportion of plants in use, fell to 81.4 percent from 81.6 percent the prior month.
"Demand in overseas markets including Asia is helping keep U.S. factories busy filling orders for goods such as business equipment. Consumer spending, which is forecast to slow without collapsing, will help the economy to skirt a recession even as the housing slump deepens, economists said."
Sorry, just can't help myself with the condescension and the trite adages: you're just so pretty when you get mad.
I guess Bush must be president of Europe, too:
"Europe Economies Slow, Posing 'Stagflation' Risk
By Emma Charlton
"LONDON -- Europe's economies show signs of slowing significantly even as inflation rates rise, introducing the word 'stagflation' into the scenarios that some economists are sketching out for 2008.
"Across Europe, fresh data yesterday showed inflation rising in December on the heels of softening economic growth.
"'The outlook currently facing many central bankers has a stagflation feel about it,' said John Shepperd, an economist at Dresdner Kleinwort in London. 'The problem is that while Chinese and Asian growth cushions the impact of the ...'"
Ah, the dreaded "Hey, I haven't been updating my blog" post. Good luck sorting everything out, and hurry back.
From the BBC:
"Agencies see good year for Iraq
"Iraq faces a period of economic growth and political progress, according to assessments by the International Monetary Fund and the UN.
"The IMF sees 7% growth in 2008 and a similar rise next year, and says oil revenues from buoyant exports should be up by 200,000 barrels a day.
"The UN envoy to Iraq welcomed dialogue between the Sunni and Shia communities and praised the government's work."
oh noes! no AL!
come back!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home