Bad Graphs
Filed Under Economics, Economy, Porchy | 1 Comment
By which I mean graphs that make me (us) feel bad.
Ezra calls this “our lost decade in one graph,” and although economics is not my area of specialty, I have to agree.
It’s not just that over the seven years depicted here we lost $2000 in median income. That’s bad, but to some extent understandable. The 90s were very good. But as the new technology economy settled into place there was bound to be a plateau. Of course, when the technology economy was rising, people kept betting on it to rise more. Which naturally meant over pricing and a subsequent bursting of the tech bubble. What you see happening in 2000 to 2005 is the hyper correction of that over pricing and then between 2005 and 2006 a correction of the hyper correction. From 2006 to 2007 the graph is fairly flat, at least compared to the decline and subsequent rise.
It’s not all the tech burst either. Manufacturing has been in decline, but construction was up in this time. Industrial was down or flat but finance was up.
But we were in the beginnings of a potential recession at the end of 2000 Q1 that became a full blown recession by late 2001. And that was largely a readjustment period as people previously laid off because of technological advances–and a second group of people laid off during the burst, retooled and found new work.
But, as Ezra points out, this chart stops in 2007, just before the current recession began. Although the story here looks like a promising start back toward the 2000 high, to think that’s how it ended would be like Phoebe thinking Old Yeller turned out well. The part of the chart we don’t see is where Yeller has to be put down because he has the hyrdophobe.
Not Quite Breaking News on the Porch Dog Front
Filed Under Porchy | Leave a Comment
So, once again I have found myself exceptionally busy with way too many pans in the fire. But I do have some news after all this. I have, after facing the trials and tribulations of life, found my way back to graduate school.
I will begin studies in three days at the University of Indianapolis pursuing my Masters in International Relations. I will be focusing my attention there (and thus here) on the development of international black markets as unintended consequence of domestic and (mostly) foreign policy. So, if you have any excellent reading tips on the topics of human, drug, and arms trafficking be sure to send them my way. (bigporch@porch-dog.com)
More soon.
Obama’s Islamic…Roots? Seed? other Botanical Analogy?
Filed Under Barack Obama, In the News, Porchy | 3 Comments
Ahem.
People of Jewish faith believe that the seed of Judaism passes through the mother. Christians don’t believe that because they believe articles of Christian faith, not articles of Jewish faith. That’s what makes them Christians and not Jews.
Furthermore, even if Obama had been at one time Muslim and later converted, that would be OK because Christians believe in the power of Christ to transform. Denying Obama the Christianity he claim is bordering, if not crossing into, sacrilege. So..you know…tread carefully you doubting Thomases.
PS: I have no dog in this fight because even if Obama were a secret Muslim all that would mean is that America has its first Muslim president, which would be kind of cool in a Barrier Breaking sort of way. I’m just commenting on the poor theology that underpins this particular line of attack and Graham should (and most certainly does) know better. But you can’t take the Republican hackery out of the Graham clan.
Will Obama Hurt Race Relations in America?
Filed Under 2012 Election, 2016 Election, Barack Obama, Big Ideas, Domestic Politics, Politics, Porchy, Racism | Comments Off
Dave Weigel ponders the question at his new spot over at Slate.
I think Weigel’s analysis is off by degrees rather than just being wrong. Referencing a Ramesh Ponnuru column from pre-November 2008 which claimed that, if Obama had lost the general election, it would set race relations in this country backward, at least as far as it concerned the potential future election of elite African-Americans running for the highest office in the land/world, Weigel concludes that the question has changed and becomes “If Obama fails, will that set race relations back?” I don’t think so even though I agree with much of what he has to say.
It turns out that Ponnuru’s hypothesis lost its test because Obama won. But, for what it’s worth, I think he was wrong too. I, for example, had anticipated a larger Geraldine Ferraro effect on Clinton’s candidacy that never materialized. And indeed the post-Ferraro era of politics women have done quite well for themselves, at least in Congress if not in the Senate. It isn’t perfect, but it was less perfect 25 years ago, so it’s not as if Ferraro’s breakdown and the subsequent Reagan landslide hurt women too much in their pursuit of elected office. It hasn’t hurt them with the Democrats who have Pelosi running the show in the House; and it doesn’t seem it has hurt them with the Republicans who have seen fit to elevate both Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin to be key figures in their party.
I would go even further and say that Ponnuru missed the mark entirely. If Obama had lost when the academic literature predicted him winning with ~53% of the vote, then I think, rather than blame Obama or his race, we could have gone backward and blamed the miserable performances of the less-than-center African-American Democratic primary candidates before him: Jackson and Sharpton. The fact that their collective poor showings did not drag Obama down, I think, is a key tell in why I think Weigel is wrong now.
The party likely to elevate a black man with a Kenyan father to high office is also one not real likely to extrapolate his failures onto all blacks. I think Weigel is right that a lot of the conspiracy talk circulating about Obama is probably related to a general mistrust of him and his policies that is rooted in the continuing recession. But the people who are mostly likely to mutter racial epithets or say things like, “Well, if Obama can’t fix this I guess none of his kind could,” are the kind of people that 1) would never have voted for Obama in the first place (regardless of their previous party affiliation) and 2) already harbored thoughts of that nature before he took office. That is, his failure will “prove” racists right, but not add new racists.
Indeed, half of the Democratic/Liberal project in this country is protecting the image of its prior leaders and denigrating the image of their conservative counterparts. And the same is true for Republicans/Conservatives. The fact that Jimmy Carter had a more-or-less failed presidency was not proof that Georgians couldn’t lead. Nor was it proof that white people, southernors, or guys with big smiles couldn’t lead. It was however, proof that Democrats couldn’t lead. It was proof of that, that is, to everybody but Democrats.
And I think the same can be said of Obama. No Republican is going to stand up and say that Obama is doing a kick ass job and he should be allowed to advance his agenda unimpeded. And when he is gone, whether that’s in 2012 or 2016, they will begin the project to convince us that 1) he was horrible and 2) they always knew he would be, not because he’s black, but because he was liberal. They will do this even if we begin adding 400,000 jobs a month with no inflation starting tomorrow. They will do this even if a grant he personally champions, signs, and delivers results in emission-free, fusion-based, perpetual energy machines. They will do this even if we discover that he is a magical goose that literally craps golden eggs.
Not to say that Bill Clinton was any of those things but you can see what I’m talking about in his case. I don’t have to repeat the party line on this but I will anyway. Under Clinton several key conservative policies were promulgated including a large deficit reduction, a large cut in welfare and increases in military spending. The economy (although Clinton deserves little to no credit) saw its largest growth since World War II; and, crime and unemployment both went way, way down. And yet, almost literally crapping golden eggs hasn’t turned Republican/Conservative hardliners from their decades-old parlor game of “Who did Clinton have murdered in Arkansas?” and its conspiratorial ken.
Like I said, it’s just matters of degree my disagreement with Weigel, but I think that regardless of what happens to his presidency in the next 2 or 6 years, having a black president is still going to be an overall plus for race relations.
The Target Walk-back
Filed Under Domestic Politics, In the News, Politics, Porchy | Comments Off
So superstore chain Target donated a whole bunch of cash to a far-right candidate in Minnesota. The candidate in question, Republican Tom Emmer, hates teh gayz. Target on the other hand is sort of famously pro-gay. So when the pro-gay groups started a little uproar, threatening a boycott and whatnot, Target balked and issued an apology reaffirming their “unwavering” support of gay equality.
A lot of political analyst have jumped on the chance to say something that links this donation to the Citizens United decision that allows corporations more freedom in donating to campaigns. And I suppose that’s an important thing to make clear to readers.
Others have decided to point out that the donation and the immediate walkback are an examples of how fraught with danger political donations are and how Citizens leaves companies open to criticisms for the choices they can now make and how divisive both gay rights and Tea Party politics are.
To me, what’s astounding is that Target didn’t have the good sense to not back a candidate that cold be described as “far right” or, for that matter, “far left.”
It’s just not good PR policy to go around donating $150,000 to any sort of extremist, because no matter how much you like the politician’s opinions on one policy, you’re almost certain to disagree with them on some other one and it might just be a very big one.
In this case, Target (apparently) loved Emmer’s pro-business stance but realized too late that his homosexual bigotry interfered with a big part of Target’s social positioning.
I’m not wholly convinced that Citizens United will prove to be as devastating to progressive causes as I was when I first heard about the decision oh those many days ago; but, one would think that smart, successful companies like Target would know to choose their fights a bit more judiciously.
Besides, it’s not like any candidate is really anti-business, despite what you may heard.
keep looking »