New Deal Economics 101 and a Movie

So how many movies have you all seen where the romantic male lead is a middle level federal bureaucrat? Huh, Huh? Well the only one that I can think of is The Wild River staring Montgomery Clift and Lee Remick. It's great.

Watch Montgomery Clift get beat up more than once. Watch him propose to Lee Remick after they both get knocked out by Albert Salami (the only one dimensional character in the film). What's even better is the proposal line: "I'll probably regret this and I know you will." I had forgotten that I'd taped it some time ago and we watched it again last night. What a great film. Having a hard time finding a DVD of it though.

The feeling for the time and the place are near perfect. The writers' and director's liberalism shines through all. Highly recommended.

And just for the wonks a little Krugman. Just in time for the new Depression the right rides forth to attack the New Deal and try to convince us that it is better to starve and freeze then to try to do once again what worked in the past. (No I'm not talking about the New Deal itself [which tried, but didn't go far enough], but rather the spending from the Second World War).

I sometimes wonder if that isn't what has gotten us here. The lesson learned from the period 1932 through 1940 isn't that we can spend on stuff to make our lives better to get out of depressions. Nope. It's that we can get out of and keep out of depressions if we put mass amounts of money into our military. 1984 anyone?

The New Guy

Well one can only hope our beltway media royality ends the same way.

Well its down to work for the new guy. And the MSM continues much as it did yesterday. By mistake I read this article without first noticing that it is from the Politico.

First, the authors bemoan the fact that so far Obama hasn't had his "Sister Souljah" moment where he could repudiate his base (by attacking a straw [wo]man) as Clinton did. With the thought I guess that that worked so well for Clinton. Then he points out that Obama is unlikely to screw his supporters the way Clinton with NAFTA. This is apparently a bad thing. I mean NAFTA did turn out so well for the working and middle classes and in fact this country in general.

Second, he very briefly quotes "one recent report" which claims that Social Security will go into steep decline after 2011. However, everything I've read is that is just hooey. Most of the reputable economists (those who did fore see this financial collapse) say that Social Security will be fine for the fore see able future. The authors do not even bother to mention that many economists (including the most recent Noble winner) disagree strongly with that "recent report."

The people who own DC or at least think they own DC are going to fight like cornered rats to keep their power. This will include simple lies like the one about Social Security and just listing something as a "good thing" which is in reality a very questionable thing like Clinton's pushing for NAFTA.

Apparently, once a moderate/progressive/liberal is elected to office it is necessary for him to repudiate his base to show he can really govern. Like a real American. They can't stop themselves. It's just as though we aren't in the middle of the greatest financial crisis in the last 75 years. But then of course, they aren't going to hurt. Just the rest of us.

Well Well Well

Gas prices around here seem to be creeping up even though there was (according to a story I heard on N.P.R. a few weeks ago) [is?] a glut of oil that won't go away until after the summer. Hell it was so bad they had to store it on ships in the oceans. Where do you think that all went?

So I see that our new president elect wants to attack Social Security and Medicare (after voting to give greedy bankers all they want). Lets face it where do we get off demanding that the important people have to account for their welfare. It is the poor who really don't deserve it. So they should ------------- well not get it and kind of quietly go under. We wouldn't want them to starve (at least not in front of us), but you know if they'd kind of sort of just disapear because they can't afford a doctor or they can't afford to stay warm so they just quietly die a little early well is that so bad?

Boring Historical Statistical Shit

I am a true geek, I think. Although, not a particularly tech savvy one. I do love statistics. I often find that when I find something that just blows me away and I try to describe it to someone, I see their eyes glaze over and a kind of dead/I want to be some place (any place) else look.

Be that as it may (eh?), just go with it. This post concerning the effect that the New Deal had on unemployment is fascinating. Essentially arguing that the way unemployment was counted before 1940 makes the New Deal look a lot less successful than it really was.

As I think I've said before we appear to be in the middle of a train wreck, as a passenger in one of the rear cars, that could come close to equalling the 30s. The only reason it might not be as bad are the remnants of the New Deal programs that are still in effect. I think it is important to remember that all the people who wanted to be president this time wanted to gut these protections (to a greater or lesser extent) even more then has already been done.

We must never forget that that great radical Clinton helped this crisis along by agreeing in the final repeal of what was left of Glass Stengall . Who'd a thunk that people would not evolved past the self defeating greed of the 20s? What a shock.