The Unofficial Blog of Michael Coblenz
More economists have analyzed the data from Reinhart and Rogoff, which conservatives have been using to argue that excess debt stifles growth. The new analysis sasys that Reinhart and Rogoff are still wrong.
Here’s the story from Quartz, which contains some good links to further data. Reinhart and Rogoff are still wrong.
Yesterday there were three opinion essays in the Herald Leader – from Senator Mitch McConnell, Representative Andy Barr, and Bill Bissett, the President of the Kentucky Coal Association – decrying what they call the Obama Administration’s “War on Coal.” All three essentially said that federal regulations are killing the coal industry.
Then, in today’s paper, there is a blurb in the business section saying that a coal operator in Eastern Kentucky plans to open seven mines and employ roughly 250 people. According to Pike County Judge-Executive Wayne T. Rutherford, the long-term outlook for Eastern Kentucky coal is “rather bright.”
Apparently mines in Eastern Kentucky are planning to sell more coal to China, and need to open pits to meet demand. This would indicate that coal production was down because demand was down. According to Rutherford, the coal economy is cyclical, and the current lull appears to have “bottomed out.” He hopes that exports to China and India will help mines in the region return to a higher level of production.
I guess Mr. Rutherford didn’t get the memo from McConnell, Barr and Bissett.
Here are links to the stories:
I wrote previously about an idea I had to modify elections. Apparently I’m not the only one thinking about this. There is a group called Fair Vote (www.fairvote.org) with a number of proposals for modifying elections.
One of the most prominent members of the organization recently wrote an article for Salon describing a modified plan for proportional representation. It is found here: My Plan to Fix Congress.
It is a great idea.
The history of the modern world is the story of how science has altered human culture. You can date the beginning of the modern world in many different ways. Perhaps it started in 1439 when Gutenberg developed movable type and the printing revolution began. The printed word allows people to store knowledge, and Gutenberg’s invention allowed that knowledge to be distributed widely and relatively cheaply. Or you might say it began in 1765 when James Watt perfected a steam piston and made pumps effective, which then allowed him to modify the piston into an actual steam engine in 1776. That’s an important year: the American Declaration of Independence was signed and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was published. The steam engine powered trains and ships, and led to industrial manufacturing and a whole new world.
There are many other turning points when science changed society: Darwin’s publication of Origin of Species, Pasture’s development of germ theory, the Wright Brother’s first flight, Marconi’s wireless, Farnsworth’s television, the first digital computer (ENIAC), and the first nuclear explosion.
From this short list it should be fairly obvious that the world we now live in is the product of scientific advances. It’s a fairly direct line from Watt’s steam engine to steam locomotives to steam driven horseless carriages to Daimler’s petrol powered internal combustion engine to Henry Ford and the mass production of automobiles. The cell phone is the end product of the telegraph (invented by Pavel Schilling but made usable by Samuel Morse’s code), the telephone (invented contemporaneously by Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Grey) and Marconi’s wireless telegraph. As another example, the compute I type this on relies, in part, on theories of quantum physics developed by Niels Bohr, and the mathematical theories of Kurt Gödel.
Despite the fact that virtually every aspect of the modern world was created by science, large segments of society are highly skeptical of science. Part of the reason for this is that each scientific advance has challenged deeply held beliefs. Copernicus’ heliocentric model set off a fire storm in the Christian church. William Herschel began his astronomical career looking for men on the moon (really) but the increasingly powerful telescopes he built allowed him to see stars billions of miles from the earth. This observation made it obvious that the universe was far older than described in the Bible, which set off a wave of skepticism of all forms of religious teaching.
Cars changed traditional living patters, planes changed international relations, television allowed us to see how other people lived, which changed our understanding of the world and the people in it. And modern biology changed agriculture and medicine, and the lives we lead. Modern medicine vastly improved our lives, but challenged the long held view that disease is God’s will.
The modern economy is a direct product of science. Many of the scientific advances noted above eventually led to the creation of vast new industries. Electricity not only lighted houses, but led to the development of a vast array of electronic appliances from air conditioners to vacuum cleaners and everything in between.
Despite the fundamental importance of science in the modern economy, we have politicians who are ignorant of, or hostile to, science. State Senator Mike Wilson (R. Bowling Green), the Chair of the Senate Committee on Education, recently said: “My concern is our students are indoctrinated into one way of thinking without any sort of intellectual freedom. The evidence doesn’t support evolution.”
Medical research is a multi-trillion dollar industry, and is one of the fastest growing fields in the new world economy. Yet we have politicians who want to prevent the teaching of basic evolutionary science, thereby limiting the ability of Kentucky’s students to work in this field.
The modern economy depends on science. In order to improve our economy, we need politicians who understand this, and are willing to support science, even when it challenges traditional ideas. If Kentucky is to fully participate in the Twenty-First Century economy, we need to train a new generation of students who understand this new world and can work in it. But we won’t be able to do that with politicians who are stuck in the past.
In his most recent news letter, Representative Andy Barr proudly announces the birth of his new daughter (congratulations). But he doesn’t let this joyous news get in the way of a good political rant, and notes that she will be burdened with a huge public debt.
He says that:
“My top priority as your representative in Congress is to reduce our rapidly growing national debt that is choking our economy and which, if left unchecked, will cripple the futures of our children and grandchildren.”
Actually, funny story, but the deficit is actually shrinking. Don’t believe me?
Forbes Magazine ran an article with this headline:
The Best Kept Secret In American Politics-Federal Budget Deficits Are Actually Shrinking!
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/27/the-best-kept-secret-in-american-politics-federal-budget-deficits-are-actually-shrinking/]
According to the Non-Partisan Congressional Budget Office:
“Compared to the size of the economy, the deficit in 2013 is much lower than in 2009, when Obama took office. The deficit will be 5.3 percent of gross domestic product this year, nearly half the 10.1 percent of GDP in 2009.”
According to a report from Goldman Sachs:
The federal budget deficit is shrinking rapidly. …[I]n the 12 months through March 2013, the deficit totaled $911 billion, or 5.7% of GDP. In the first three months of calendar 2013–that is, since the increase in payroll and income tax rates took effect on January 1–we estimate that the deficit has averaged just 4.5% of GDP on a seasonally adjusted basis. This is less than half the peak annual deficit of 10.1% of GDP in fiscal 2009.
I was not able to find the full report on line, but found a good summary at the Calculated Risk Blog [http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/04/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit.html]
Here’s a story from the Investors Business Daily, hardly a liberal source. http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/021213-644063-chart-should-embarrass-deficit-hawks.htm
The reason the deficit is shrinking, according to the Goldman Sachs report, is the combination of three things: (1) reduced spending, (2) increased taxes, and (3) growing economy. Interesting. Number two didn’t impact number three. I thought that was why conservatives oppose tax increases.
Warren Buffett published an Op/Ed in Fortune Magazine about the contribution of women in the American Economy, and about how the American economy will only succeed if woman are allowed to fully participate in the economy. I couldn’t agree more, or say it better, so I’ll let Mr. Buffett speak: