This is getting out of hand...

it's hilariously hilarious!

Lost in translation

Oh my God — literally. Conservapedia is trying to produce a “fully conservative translation” of the Bible — although “translation” seems to be a misnomer, since they’re apparently going to start with King James and fix it, rather than go back to the original texts.

getting to the best parts, read some commnet postings...

I’m waiting to see how the parabel of the “Good Samaritan” is re-written to express its “full free-market meaning” to avoid financial responsibility for the health care of others.

— M. Nelson

These are people who know God’s will far better than God.

— Jan Baer

I especially like guideline number 7:

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

Remember Jesus’s rage against the temple merchants? How dare Jesus think that free-market competition at the temple did not end up with the best goods and services at the temple mount!

— edkw

Overheard in Texas, in my youth: “If the King James version was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it’s good enough for you.”
— James

In this the version where Jesus is a supply sider and marries Ayn Rand?
— rp

“Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for capital gains tax reductions.”
-Republican Jesus
— Al R.

In this new version of the bible, Jesus asks the lepers what health care plan they’re on before he cures them.
— Tim

They will probably add how to protect the big corporations, how Christ favors no taxes, how there are no climate problems and many more :)
— Chris

A version prepared at the behest of an absolute monarch is too liberal for these guys. That says alot—about them!
— MinuteMan

Every time scripture is edited or re-written through the prism of man’s political worldview, we become subtly more and more aware that it is only man’s political worldview that has indeed ever been dictated as scripture.
— Valpey

Of course they’re going to put their own spin on it. I wonder how many people will look at their efforts and say “Right!, now bring me the real book.”

Due to the vagaries of life I’ve had occasion to learn a bit of Greek & Latin (mostly for taxonomic purposes) & amused myself at one point in that endeavor by reading the New Testament in both languages. The KJV may have bits wrong here & there, but not THAT wrong.

I feel that their attempts at “improving” will just obfuscate matters more … but I guess obfuscate is what they do best.
— Fred in Colorado

Yet another piece of evidence that the words “conservative” and “conserve” having nothing to do with each other.
— Bryan

Uh, there aren’t any “original texts.” A great deal of biblical scholarship is about trying to get as close to the originals as possible, but this is still a pretty long way in terms of time and iterations of the texts. For example, see Bart D. Ehrman, MIsquoting Jesus, for a popular account of the scholarship by a top scholar. Richard Elliott Friedman does something similar for Hebrew scripture.

Needless to say, the conservative agenda is beyond ridiculous from a scholarly point of view. It is purely propaganda for their curious ideology, which shows little in the way of historical roots.
— Tom Hickey

There are theological reasons to take a KJV update approach. Part of the mystique of the KJV was that it was an “inspired” work, allegedly produced with God’s direction and guidance, much as the Torah, while recounting events which its author according to tradition (Moses) could not have known but was allegedly inspired in writing from the prior oral and fragmentary tradition. A similar process blessed the finalization of the Biblical canon.

Skeptics, myself among them, have doubts about the usefulness of this approach, but it dos have some theological merit and precedent — many of the first vernacular Bibles were derived not from original sources, but from St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation, and many more recent vernacular Bible translations (often partial) into lesser spoken languages outside Europe have used the KJV as a source.

Conservatives also have a barrier to working from the original sources. Most people today who have done the academic work necessary to read the texts in the original languages are, like most academics, more libeal than the Evangelical Christian laity. In contrast, the KJV translaters were, by contemporary standards, more theologically conservative.

Indeed, it is the direct access to the Bible that the KJV made widely available is one of the forces that made it possible for marginally educated evangelists, first in the Methodist movement and then in the Second Great Awakening that created what we know call Evangelical Christianity in the South in what had previous been the most secular part of the U.S. Fundamentalism in Christianity, with its strongy Biblical and literalist focus, is to a great extent a rejection of the gloss that more educated scholars put on Christianity through doctrine.
— ohwilleke

The bible may have been rewritten, but not a blatant attempt to change it so all that peace, love and forgiveness stuff can be toned down. These people are scary crazy.
— chris

Well, let’s see how that one develops. Self-proclaimed God’s lawyers usually end up being evil. We might be in 2009, but there are plenty of Inquisitors and Crusaders out there, not to mention a few KKK die-hards.

A former professor of religion suggested to me some 20 years ago the following scenario.

Jesus comes down to earth again, this time He visits New York City. He wants to see His Church. He opens a phone book at a public phone booth, looks for a church and surprise!, there are plenty of choices. “Where do I begin?”, Jesus says. He continues, “There are all sorts of churches with all sorts of names, all of them Christians. I think they mean by that that they are spreading my teachings and the love of our Father, but which one is my Church?” After a few weeks in the Big Apple, Jesus begins to wonder, do they all love God? And if so, why don’t some of those churches talk to each other? Why do some of their Christian followers simply hate each other so much?

…and now we are going to get another “new and improved” translation, with its self-proclaimed experts, interpreters, and, unavoidable, eventual earth-bound gate keepers. LOL!

Sadly, churches are like Cable TV or Satellite Dish: hundreds of options, some boring, some entertaining, some great, some disgusting, some profitable, some bankrupt, some center-left, some center-right, some extreme-left, some extreme-right, some open-minded, some close-minded, some egalitarian, some working-class, some ecumenical, and some just happen to be the right place for your heart! Professor, dealing with non-eternal economic matters is far more easier, safer, and educational than giving an opinion in an over-saturated field where every one with his or her bible feels like that they have Nobel Prize from God in religion interpretation.

Let’s stick to the numbers please. Thanks! I will pray for that.
— ANSFA

How can you change the literal words of God? Either the conservatives believe the bible is the word of God or they don’t.

If they do believe that then they are desecrating God’s words. Where are the OTHER conservative religions objections to this?

So it looks like what many of us have been saying, and illustrated by so many conservative scandals, that some conservatives use the bible for political gain when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn’t.

Now they are making a conservative “politically correct” version of the bible. Where’s the outrage? Hey PC police why are you ignoring this?

Hey Fox “News” where’s your “war on the bible” 24/7 coverage? Just think of the reaction if the liberals did this!
— J.H.

There’s King James and there’s whatever they are using. Judging from the excerpts I have seen, this is not the elegant King James version, possibly the Gideon Bible. Doesn’t ultimately matter since the point is to create a politically correct “Bible” of a modern GOP conservative slant. The whole idea is hilariously ridiculous especially since what we know of Jesus (Isa) is that he was a pretty radical guy who would be utterly condemned if he showed up at a Republican (or even “moderate” Democratic) gathering nowadays.
— Jim Tarrant

It’s a wiki project, which means that people are going to decide God’s will by popular vote.

It’s much easier to follow the rules if you write them yourself, I guess. What I don’t get is why they need a religion at all if they’re just making it up.
— Jennifer

After that lot have finished with the bible there is no chance that the meek will be inheriting the earth.
— Richard

“Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio”

Because Conservatives have such a low word-to-substance ratio, just listen to one of Sarah Palin’s 90 minute speeches…
— Scott MacGregor

I assume that they will “clarify” God’s opinion on public healthcare options.
— Viktor

This is what George Orwell would have called an “ideological translation”
— Laurence

In the beginning, was the word… Reaganomics. And the Lord sayeth, it is good.
— Shane

I’d have to agree with nyet, based on what I’ve read from Ehrman, this is nothing particularly new. Whether part of an organized group effort or the work of an individual’s intent or error, the Bible has been undergoing revisions of varying levels of impact throughout its history.

It’ll be fascinating to see what they do…
— Rob Milcik

There are no original texts of the Bible. That’s the problem with it. We have extent copies of the originals that do not agree with each other. If only there were one canonical “original draft” of that darn book, I feel many lives would not have been wasted through the centuries.
— Joe J.

If they start from the King James Version I hope they keep the unicorns.
— AgnosticOracle

This one is seriously funny...

We are all sinnners. We need the Bible and other books that tell us of Gods and their relatives so that we may know how to live our lives.

Many parts of the Old Testament sound rash and foolish at first glance, but on further study become clear, especially in the movie versions.

The books about the return of Jesus are particularly interesting because, as they have been interpreted, one may enter the kingdom of heaven by simply accepting Jesus as one’s savior and be taken–actually removed from one’s clothes–with him into Heaven.

It is not clear to me where that is, but perhaps I would know more about it if I had studied the Bible more critically. If it is someplace like west Texas, I am not sure I would want to go. On the other hand if it is more like Nice or Carmel-by-the-Sea, then I would think of getting clothes after I arrived.

There are a lot of wars and murders and people killing their brothers and people being crucifiied. Frankly, it was scarier than the soldier’s manual you receive when you enter the military. But not so boring.

There is a real problem with the Bible, and not only with Jesus and his Dad, but with all biblical stories from all faiths, and I have read some, and a few very intensly as a young man…the Greek and later the Roman Gods…pretty much cousins you might say. Famlies very similar. But very, very entertaining Gods. They actually “get it” about being Dieties. It’s about the fun times…and good, solid revenge.

But the problem with any of those stories is that I don’t know what the hell they want me to do. The Hindus contradict the Buddhists and the Shintos contradict the Christians and the Muslims contradict the Mormons.

Listen, I’m glad to do what I’m told, when I’m told, where I’m told to do it. I am nothing if not a good toady. I was a pretty good soldier. Followed orders. Never quite court-martialed. But I don’t know which of all these thousands of different immutable truths is immutable.

And now we’re going to have a new version by the same guys that brought us two wars, a mild Depression or a severe Recession…take your pick….and want to deny health care to my granddaughter…which won’t happen as long as I, too, have a gun. A new version of their idea of truth and beauty…fried chicken, NASCAR fumes, shooting up grade schools, high schools and deciding that all college students should be armed so we can have a total shootout there?

If that’s the new bible, I’ll stick with Zeus. If you disobeyed him you were literally toast.
— Joseph O’Shaughnessy

i can't stop laughing...

In a way, there is precedent for this nonsense. The King James Bible, for all its masterful English prose, is itself not a translation, but merely a “version.” It is a revision of translations such as the Geneva bIble, which had too many notes about the evils of kings. The difference between the King James and the (proposed) King Rush versions is that the KJV was not trying to correct political apostasies in the text.
— rbh

Serious, serious...

If it is a non-profit-work it will be much easier to revise the King James then to start from the beginning.

Easier, but both also lazy, non-scholarly, and unreliable. We’re not talking Sumerian, here, we’re talking about competency in something realistically achievable: koine Greek for the New Testament, Hebrew for the Old Testament. And, if I understand them correctly, they’re not interested in the OT, so that means only competency in koine Greek. (Though there’s a substantial number of transliterations from Aramaic and Hebrew into Greek in the NT, so any true quality translation would require fluency in those languages, as well as a fluency in the relevant cultural history.)

But, putting that objection aside, there’s also the problem that the King James version is not a very reliable translation. With regard to the New Testament, anyone with a small degree of competency in koine Greek today can read the texts which were its base and find numerous translation errors. This is because scholarly competence in classical Greek at the time of the KJV was not that high, for a number of reasons (mostly, though, that they had far fewer texts available from which to derive fluency and a consequentially much smaller body of reference works).

It’s also worth mentioning the Early Modern English, in which the KJV is written, is an archaic and unfamiliar dialect of English for most modern speakers and requires a certain degree of fluency in its own right. Just as many contemporary readers misunderstand Shakespeare (e.g., “O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?”), many contemporary readers misunderstand KJV text.

Given this, then a “re-translation” of the Bible beginning with the KJV will compound its unreliable translations with misunderstandings of its text.

It’s hard to imagine a more incompetent supposedly scholarly project. There is no excuse for this sort of thing. Many American evangelicals learn some koine Greek—it’s not asking very much for the Conservapedia folk to attain even the barest minimum competency for such a project.
— Keith M Ellis

The Conservative Bible Project calls for explaining Jesus’ parables about money as “free market parables.” They do not list any examples; however, I would counter that there are no “free market parables.” All the parables that include an illustration of money are of the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, how Christians are to think about God and treat each other as children of God, or are about stewardship. Although Jesus commends giving liberally (sorry, just couldn’t help myself) and with generosity, he is not giving a Dave Ramsey or Suze Orman seminar on investing or economics. In fact, his anger and rampage over the money changers in the Temple is an example of Jesus condemning unchecked and unethical free market practices.

The Christian Bible Project plan and intent, however, is far more dangerous than just spinning a passage to suit their ends. What they propose is tantamount to presenting another gospel. Hans Kung, the preeminent German Catholic theologian, in his book, The Church (Verlag Herder KG, 1967) says this is schisma of the worst kind:

“When the expression “heresy” is used in the New Testament, not in a neutral sense meaning “school” or “party”, but in a definitely negative sense, it implies something more than the word “scisma”. . .which indicates a “split” in the community based above all on personal quarrellings. “Heresy means a fellowship which questions the whole faith of the ecclesia by presenting “another gospel” (cf. Gal. 1:6-9), and which is therefore in opposition to the ecclesia (p 315).”

Heresy? Perhaps, perhaps not. But the authors of this version walk perilously close to “presenting another gospel” discounting 2000 years of scholarship and orthodoxy.

Dr. David Waggoner, PhD
http://www.extremethinkover.com

TSG (#100) writes:

“Does that mean they are going to edit out the New Testament?”

Edit it, not edit it out. There are a few parts that can stay, e.g.:

Luke 3:14: “Be content with your wages.”

Matthew 20: 15: “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?”

Mark 4:25: “For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.”

But from the OT, some things will have to go, such as all that those pesky prophets said about justice to the poor, too copious to do justice to in this comment. But one chapter I like is Micah 3, in which oppression of the poor is likened to cannibalism.

Then there’s Proverbs 21:13:

“Who stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.”
— miriam

i don't think they are serious... OMG! They are.

19 Dec 2009 (ROD 17th Anniversary)

Socially useless occupations

Krugman: "Darling, i love you"

OK, that’s way too strong. But Alistair Darling’s new super-tax on bank bonuses sounds like a good idea, on first read. Or as Justin Fox puts it, why the heck not?

Are we afraid that the best and the brightest will leave high finance and pursue other occupations? That strikes me as a good thing: everything we know suggests that the rapid growth in finance since 1980 has largely been a matter of rent-seeking, rather than true productivity. (As Paul Volcker says, it’s hard to come up with any clearly productive financial innovations of recent decades other than the ATM).

Or are we worried that it’s just unfair to discriminate against high-earning bankers? Bear with me while I stop laughing. More seriously, the whole sector has just been bailed out at immense taxpayer expense. Some payback seems entirely reasonable.

So, the details need analyzing. But on the face of it this looks entirely reasonable.

10 December 2009

it's not over

The Big Story, by Low Chee Kong of the Todayonline

GOVERNMENT interventions around the world may have staved off what was initially touted as the second Great Depression but they have created a dire side effect: Painful lessons have not been learnt as the global economy resumes business as usual.

As Financial Times associate editor and chief economics commentator Martin Wolf laments, there is a palpable air of complacency given how the global economy emerged relatively unscathed.

Speaking to Weekend Today, the renowned British economist-turned-journalist dismissed as "completely laughable" the idea that the global economy is back on the path of sustainable recovery.

Instead, he warns that the global economy could be set for a big, ugly fall should bullish political and business leaders believe too much of their own rhetoric. And if the cards are not played right, a fiscal and currency crisis could be just round the corner - triggering another recession which could usher the end of liberal trade as we know it.

Prominent figures around the world have been proclaiming that the worst is over - backed up by the economic statistics that are, generally, looking better by the day. How would you convince people that the global economic crisis is far from over?

A turnaround is not the end of the crisis - the crisis ends when you get back to where you were before.

The main reason for this turnaround has been massive - indeed completely unprecedented - stimulus policies around the world, particularly in the Western economies and in China. None of this is sustainable in the long run.

At some point, all these exceptional policies will have to be reversed. (Then) the private sector will have to take up the strain of spending. And we are years - and I mean years - away from seeing that sort of private sector upsurge.

One of the main reasons is there was an extraordinary debt accumulation in the households and the financial sector during the boom time. The deleveraging of this debt accumulation is a long-term process and it has barely begun.

Finally, there is a real risk that a fiscal and currency crisis will emerge, affecting some of the world's most important currencies, and particularly, the US dollar.

Public debt is rising very rapidly ... the dollar is under strain and monetary policy is extremely aggressive. It is possible that there will be, at some point, a flight from the dollar which will force higher long-term interest rates in the United States and (set off) another recession.

Some commentators, including yourself, lament the speed at which the crisis has apparently been resolved. They believe that, as a result, lessons have not been learnt ...

We have encouraged the financial sector to go back to doing business as normal but with even more 'too-big-to-fail' firms than before, and even more confidence that they are too big to fail.

That's a recipe for a very substantial financial crisis again at some point in the future ... This does not mean that I think it would have been right to allow another Great Depression but one of the consequences of the tremendous government-led rescue effort is that we may have become too complacent.

What are the 'massive changes' that you believe are still needed to ensure a sustainable recovery?

If export demand is to play a much bigger role in income generation in countries like the US and the United Kingdom then, by definition, other countries in the world, which previously have large surpluses, must undergo a structural shift towards deficit - with demand rising faster than GDP.

At the moment, nearly all the strain (in the global economy) has been taken by increases in public sector demand and exceptional monetary policy designed to maintain private sector spending in the affected economies, rather than a long-term structural rebalancing of the world economy.

The Asian growth model - characterised by export-led growth, strong current account - is no longer a sustainable model because it has simply run out of credit-worthy spenders on the other side of the equation.

So the most pressing change is an adjustment in that model. It would also mean changes in exchange rate policy.

Meanwhile, in the developed countries, there's going to be a huge fiscal consolidation which is going to take many years. And all these changes have to occur together.

You believe that inaction could even mean the end of this era of globalisation. Is that too alarmist?

If the US does not get a healthy private sector-led and export-led growth, unemployment will not fall by any significant amount over the next year or so.

If, at the same time, the US current account deficit starts to expand again while the Chinese current account surplus starts rising again - add to that the possibility of rising oil prices which further exacerbates the global imbalances - then I think it's going to be very difficult to maintain liberal trade.

People underestimate the possibility that, if unemployment remains persistent in the US, the political commitment to open trade is going to collapse. This is a society extremely resistant to high unemployment and there is a very good chance that it's going to last for a very long time.

People are far too complacent, in my view, about the maintenance of the open world economy.

How much has the political dimension been a factor in what is essentially an economic problem?

An event of this kind is political in the highest degree. Just think of some of the political aspects: The imperative to avoid mass unemployment and depression; the immense unpopularity of being seen to help the financial sector; a very large potential for international friction over who is doing the right thing to save the financial sector and the world economy; and, particularly, the potential for conflict between China and the West, particularly the US.

Success or failure in managing the crisis is clearly regarded by policy-makers as determining their ability to hold on to power - that's true in a democratic system and probably even true in a non-democratic system.

I'm sure that one of the reasons the Chinese government was so aggressive in its stimulus programme is that it recognises the danger to political stability of a long-term fall in China's growth rate.

The question is whether the political realities allow policy-makers the right policy choices which would actually deliver results they want ...

To give you one example: At some point we are going to have to have a massive fiscal consolidation in the developed countries where the deficits are so large.

And it's not clear at the moment whether the countries will be able to make the commitments to massive tax rises and expenditure cuts which will be needed. So, that's again politics.

Mr Martin Wolf is associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times. He will be speaking on Dec 2 at the Global Insights Series organised by the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.

24 Nov 2009

But even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table

Banks do God's Work

The Great Wealth Transfer

Paul Krugman wrote this in Nov 2006:

"Why doesn't Bush get credit for the strong economy?" That question has been asked over and over again in recent months by political pundits. After all, they point out, the gross domestic product is up; unemployment, at least according to official figures, is low by historical standards; and stocks have recovered much of the ground they lost in the early years of the decade, with the Dow surpassing 12,000 for the first time. Yet the public remains deeply unhappy with the state of the economy. In a recent poll, only a minority of Americans rated the economy as "excellent" or "good," while most consider it no better than "fair" or "poor." Are people just ungrateful? ..."

hmm... sounds familiar.

"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Matthew 15:27 (NIV)
 
 
From Matthew Henry's concise commentary, read for the proper context of the above verse.
 

15:21-28 The dark corners of the country, the most remote, shall share Christ's influences; afterwards the ends of the earth shall see his salvation. The distress and trouble of her family brought a woman to Christ; and though it is need that drives us to Christ, yet we shall not therefore be driven from him. She did not limit Christ to any particular instance of mercy, but mercy, mercy, is what she begged for: she pleads not merit, but depends upon mercy. It is the duty of parents to pray for their children, and to be earnest in prayer for them, especially for their souls. Have you a son, a daughter, grievously vexed with a proud devil, an unclean devil, a malicious devil, led captive by him at his will? this is a case more deplorable than that of bodily possession, and you must bring them by faith and prayer to Christ, who alone is able to heal them. Many methods of Christ's providence, especially of his grace, in dealing with his people, which are dark and perplexing, may be explained by this story, which teaches that there may be love in Christ's heart while there are frowns in his face; and it encourages us, though he seems ready to slay us, yet to trust in him. Those whom Christ intends most to honour, he humbles to feel their own unworthiness. A proud, unhumbled heart would not have borne this; but she turned it into an argument to support her request. The state of this woman is an emblem of the state of a sinner, deeply conscious of the misery of his soul. The least of Christ is precious to a believer, even the very crumbs of the Bread of life. Of all graces, faith honours Christ most; therefore of all graces Christ honours faith most. He cured her daughter. He spake, and it was done. From hence let such as seek help from the Lord, and receive no gracious answer, learn to turn even their unworthiness and discouragements into pleas for mercy.

 

Just being cheeky with the title.

 

18 Nov 2009

Mr Yuan

Senior monetary officials usually talk in code. So when Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, spoke recently about Asia, international imbalances and the financial crisis, he didn’t specifically criticize China’s outrageous currency policy.

But he didn’t have to: everyone got the subtext. China’s bad behavior is posing a growing threat to the rest of the world economy. The only question now is what the world — and, in particular, the United States — will do about it.

Some background: The value of China’s currency, unlike, say, the value of the British pound, isn’t determined by supply and demand. Instead, Chinese authorities enforced that target by buying or selling their currency in the foreign exchange market — a policy made possible by restrictions on the ability of private investors to move their money either into or out of the country.

There’s nothing necessarily wrong with such a policy, especially in a still poor country whose financial system might all too easily be destabilized by volatile flows of hot money. In fact, the system served China well during the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s. The crucial question, however, is whether the target value of the yuan is reasonable.

Until around 2001, you could argue that it was: China’s overall trade position wasn’t too far out of balance. From then onward, however, the policy of keeping the yuan-dollar rate fixed came to look increasingly bizarre. First of all, the dollar slid in value, especially against the euro, so that by keeping the yuan/dollar rate fixed, Chinese officials were, in effect, devaluing their currency against everyone else’s. Meanwhile, productivity in China’s export industries soared; combined with the de facto devaluation, this made Chinese goods extremely cheap on world markets.

The result was a huge Chinese trade surplus. If supply and demand had been allowed to prevail, the value of China’s currency would have risen sharply. But Chinese authorities didn’t let it rise. They kept it down by selling vast quantities of the currency, acquiring in return an enormous hoard of foreign assets, mostly in dollars, currently worth about $2.1 trillion.

Many economists, myself included, believe that China’s asset-buying spree helped inflate the housing bubble, setting the stage for the global financial crisis. But China’s insistence on keeping the yuan/dollar rate fixed, even when the dollar declines, may be doing even more harm now.

Although there has been a lot of doomsaying about the falling dollar, that decline is actually both natural and desirable. America needs a weaker dollar to help reduce its trade deficit, and it’s getting that weaker dollar as nervous investors, who flocked into the presumed safety of U.S. debt at the peak of the crisis, have started putting their money to work elsewhere.

But China has been keeping its currency pegged to the dollar — which means that a country with a huge trade surplus and a rapidly recovering economy, a country whose currency should be rising in value, is in effect engineering a large devaluation instead.

And that’s a particularly bad thing to do at a time when the world economy remains deeply depressed due to inadequate overall demand. By pursuing a weak-currency policy, China is siphoning some of that inadequate demand away from other nations, which is hurting growth almost everywhere. The biggest victims, by the way, are probably workers in other poor countries. In normal times, I’d be among the first to reject claims that China is stealing other peoples’ jobs, but right now it’s the simple truth.

So what are we going to do?

U.S. officials have been extremely cautious about confronting the China problem, to such an extent that last week the Treasury Department, while expressing “concerns,” certified in a required report to Congress that China is not — repeat not — manipulating its currency. They’re kidding, right?

The thing is, right now this caution makes little sense. Suppose the Chinese were to do what Wall Street and Washington seem to fear and start selling some of their dollar hoard. Under current conditions, this would actually help the U.S. economy by making our exports more competitive.

In fact, some countries, most notably Switzerland, have been trying to support their economies by selling their own currencies on the foreign exchange market. The United States, mainly for diplomatic reasons, can’t do this; but if the Chinese decide to do it on our behalf, we should send them a thank-you note.

The point is that with the world economy still in a precarious state, beggar-thy-neighbor policies by major players can’t be tolerated. Something must be done about China’s currency.

Paul Krugman

28 Oct 2009

The Singapore Business Model

The SDP opposes plans to close five wet markets in Singapore to be replaced with supermarkets. This will increase the cost of doing business and raise prices of produce and other foodstuff.

Supermarket chain Sheng Shiong announced that it was buying over five wet markets in various housing estates and converting them into air-conditioned market facilities. The plan has sparked off unhappiness among Singaporeans.

The Singapore Democrats are concerned that such a conversion will mean that the stallholders will end up having to pay more for operating in the new facilities. The higher costs will be passed on to the shopper and add to the already high cost of living of Singaporeans.

At a time where inflation is already outstripping wages, such a move is reprehensible. It will only lead to more difficulties for the people.

If the idea is to create a one-store supermarket, the vendors will lose their independent livelihoods and may end up becoming workers of the supermarket. They will then have to compete with foreign workers which means that their income will be drastically reduced.

For these reasons, the Singapore Democrats are opposed to HDB approving the sale of the wet markets to Sheng Shiong. Among the five markets that are affected are: Choa Chu Kang Street 62, Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1, Serangoon North Avenue 3, Bukit Batok West Avenue 8 and Fajar Road.

The SDP will take the case to Singaporeans especially the residents at the Bukit Panjang constituency where we contested in the last general elections.

In our regular and on-going visits to the estate, we will draw attention to this unthinking and uncaring move, and will call on residents there to reject the politics of greed and profit-making at the expense of the economic well-being of the people.

We will ask the residents to oppose the sale of the wet market at Fajar Road and in so doing keep prices of foodstuff and other essentials from going up even further.

Singaporeans must put a stop to this hawking of the people's interests to the highest bidder. This has caused much hardship for the people as prices continue to escalate beyond our means.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with SDP that the government's system of allowing private vendors to bid for and operate basic facilities, amenities and services such as hawker centres, markets, carparks, traffic and parking warden services, postal services, factory spaces, building of public flats, etc.

These private bodies, whose sole prerogative is profit-making, only act as an additional cost layer that inflates prices to the lay consumers while providing minimal or no value-add. They also usually charge a premium to merely act as middle-men to resell the facilities to the final retailers.

Anecdotal evidences indicate that they do not provide a higher quality of services than that of the statutory boards or ministries who used to run these.

If the statutory boards and ministries profess themselves to be bodies of efficiency and cost prudence, then they should not take an easy way out by devolving basic responsibilities to private vendors.

If the statutory boards' and ministries scope of responsibilities have been reduced over the years, then there should be a corresponding reduction in budget allocated to them.

SDP should be commended if it can keep tab on how the government allows the private sector to encroach on basic services to the people. This article itself represents a measure and balanced approached taken by the party without innuendos and undue politicking. Kudos and keep it up.

Comments by BryanT

On a similar note: Third-party service provider business model enslaves the common worker.  Business owners have to out-bid their rivals to secure the contract at cut throat prices. As a result, workers (rank and file) terms of employment are most often unfavorable (Long hours and at low pay). Supervisors and managers have to juggle between the interest of their employer and their client. On the one hand, managers have to ensure the company make a profit and on the other, fulfil the demands of the client, of which the company is held bond by the terms of the service contract.

Where and who to squeeze? The lowly educated, out of options common worker. "You don't want this job?", "I can easily find foreign workers to fill in you know..."

Business owners need to maintain profit which leads to manpower and material constraints, which put the manager/supervisors in a precarious situation which, eventually (one of these days) leads to a breach of service contract. Lowered service quality impact the client  "business". In the case where the public is the end consumer, growing dissatisfaction ensue.

And where does all the profits go to?

While the rest of us are mirred in the blame game, workers blaming fellow workers (and even blaming foreign workers for taking away our jobs), the owners of capital (are government owners of capital?) are laughing to the bank.

05 October 2009

High Falutin

Dr Wong Wee Nam

Like the majority of Singaporeans, I learned to say the National Pledge when I was in school. Since then I think I have lived by the vow that I had made. I am still committed to building a democratic society as I am to speaking out against injustice and inequality. To me a pledge is a solemn promise or a vow. It is not like a New Year’s resolution that you make on the first day of the year and forget it immediately the next day.

When Mr S Rajaratnam crafted the National Pledge, I don’t think he meant it to be just a New Year’s resolution. I believe he wrote it with conviction. It is not just an aspiration to be desired but a goal to be attained.

The words in the National Pledge meant a lot to me as it was to the founding fathers of Singapore. After being suffocated by the turbulent years in Malaysia, all Singaporeans wanted was to breathe the air of freedom.

We had lived through authoritarianism. We were ruled by a government with such an overwhelming majority that it could easily, and did, brow-beat its opponents. We lived under a government with a more than two-thirds majority that could push through any law it wanted. It was a government that cared more for its political base than the general population.

Singaporeans were made to feel like second class citizens and we could do nothing about it. True, there were elections but that does not mean there was democracy, even though all the constituencies were single-seat constituencies.

The Press and the Media at that time were so biased and pro-Alliance that if there had been a ranking at that time, they would have ranked more than 150th. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

Fortunately, the situation was slightly better for the opposition then because the PAP in Singapore, at least, had the resources to counter the Malaysian government’s propaganda with Singapore’s own Radio and Television station and a government publication called the Mirror.

As a result, the separation from Malaysia came as a relief and the pledge was designed as a vow so that Singaporeans would not be subjected to the same conditions that we had broken away from.

Thus, the National Pledge is not just about protecting any racial minority. It is also about working towards social and economic justice. More so, it is about doing away with an authoritarian system and building a more democratic society.

Having gone through that period as an opposition political leader, one can understand why Mr Rajaratnam wrote those words and the spirit with which he crafted them.

As an ordinary young citizen who had lived through the period, I am, like all other Singaporeans, able to embrace the ideals behind the National Pledge.

After having lived under a government that bases its policies on the supremacy of race, language and religion, words like “regardless of race, language or religion” are like water in a dry season. After having lived under a system of injustice, inequality and a government-controlled media, we wanted change and more political freedom.

This is the reason why the pledge says we must strive to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. That is also why we believe, as the craftsmen then believed, that it is through democracy, justice and equality that we can bring happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

44 years on, times have changed. The National Pledge appears to have lost its original spirit. For every day of their school lives, young Singaporeans recite the Pledge over and over again. However, do they care to understand the meaning of democracy, justice and equality? When we were in Malaysia, these concepts were so important to us that we had a series of radio courses teaching us these concepts. Why are these concepts now not important enough to be taught to the young?

Thus it is a shame that after years of repeating it, one-third of Singaporeans still are unable to say it correctly, let alone understand the spirit behind the Pledge.

Whether the Pledge is recited at 8.22pm on National Day by everyone together or repeated everyday alone by oneself, it is meaningless if we do not believe in what we say.

How can we strive to build a democratic society based on justice and equality when the general population is so apathetic, the climate of fear still exists, the level of the political playing field uneven, the media is still state-controlled and when our leaders of a party, whose founding fathers introduced the Pledge, do not believe that democracy is the formula for happiness, prosperity and progress?

How can we talk about justice and equality when there is such a large income disparity after 44 years of pledge-reciting?

What is the meaning of putting our fists onto our heart and saying a vow when we are not likely to walk the talk?

Ten days before National Day, a telling phenomenon took place at the National Stadium. 50,000 fans converged on the National Stadium all dressed in Red. Many, if not all, had said the National Pledge in school. Unfortunately, they were not there to have a pre-National Day celebration. Neither were the majority there to support the National football team that was playing Liverpool. Instead they were there to support the Liverpool team, to turn the National Stadium into Anfield and to sing the Liverpool anthem, “You’ll Never Walk Alone”.

This may be a football match, but the display by the fans is a symptom of a national disease. I watched Manchester United played against Hangzhou Greentown. The Chinese supporters were cheering their team (even though not a National one) even when they were 6 nil down. And when their team scored the two consolation goals, they cheered as if they had won the match.

Alas, pledge or no pledge, Singapore has still a long way to go to achieve nationhood. I weep.

So besides Harry, there are others " who had lived through that period " ...

22 August 2009

Gut... feel.

Paul Krugman

Same.

sigh.

20 July 2009

Lions of Singapore

Funny Money

Larry Haverkamp

Creating Something from Nothing

DID you know that governments can create money from nothing? It is almost like creating matter from a vacuum and happens all the time.

It works like this: Suppose George finds an old brick, paints it gold and convinces his bank to accept it as a $1,000 deposit.

The bank retains 10 per cent ($100) and loans $900 to Pete who uses it to buy a flat-screen TV from Carolyn Cable.

She deposits the $900 in her bank which again holds back 10 per cent ($90) and lends out the rest ($810).

This continues until the new loans decline to $0. I added them up and it totals $10,000. (Trust me.)

Incredibly, George's gold brick was phoney but it managed to create $10,000 in real money. Economists call it 'printing money' and governments do it too. The only difference is that instead of a phoney gold brick, central banks write a $1,000 cheque backed by money it doesn't have.

Commercial banks are in on the scheme and agree not to cash the central bank's cheque, but to treat it like real money and lend it out immediately. The loans create $10,000 of new money in the process I've described above.

Central banks, especially in the US, have been doing this at a record pace recently.

In recessions - like now - it works well. It's free money, makes people feel richer and helps pull an economy out of its slump.

The only worry is inflation, but that's unlikely. If prices rise too fast, central banks can shrink the money supply by doing this same process in reverse.

Spend more to make more

An equally popular device is for countries to spend their way out of recession.

When you and I spend, we become poorer. But a country can spend, say, $1 billion for a bridge and generate new wealth that exceeds the cost of the bridge.

Does it mean the country gets a free bridge simply by spending the money to buy it? Incredibly, yes.

It is called 'stimulus spending' and is effective in boosting self-contained economies like the US, China and India.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work well for small open economies like ours. Most of our spending - about 60 per cent - flows out of the country to pay for the imports we need to survive.

An easy way to rid debts

LET'S say George visits from America and passes an art gallery in Ang Mo Kio.

He spots a lovely painting of a naked girl and asks the owner, Terrance, 'Is this pornography or art?'

Terrance says it's art so George whips out a $1,000 note as a deposit.

When George leaves the store, Terrance grabs the money and runs over to settle a $1,000 debt he owes to his daughter's tuition teacher, Ms Tay.

Ms Tay has a gambling problem and gives the $1,000 to her brother, Desmond, to repay money she had borrowed to play 4-D.

Desmond says, 'Thanks Sis' and uses the money to pay Calvin at Cool Computers where he had purchased a notebook on credit.

Calvin uses the $1,000 to pay Eric Wong for fixing his car six months ago.

Eric is a full-time mechanic and part-time art lover. He takes the $1,000 to his art dealer, Terrance, where this story began. He pays the final instalment on a picture he bought last year.

The next day, George shows up with his wife and - too bad - she won't have that naked girl in her house. Terrance has no choice but to refund George's $1,000 deposit.

Think about it. George left a $1,000 deposit and took it back the next day.

No income or profit was generated. Somehow, however, it has caused $5,000 of debts of five people to be repaid. All can now look optimistically toward a debt-free future.

Is this a solution to the world's financial crisis? Can we do the same to eliminate a few trillion dollars of worldwide debts?

It's food for thought.

09 June 2009

Now, where's Larry when i was in school ?

By Larry Haverkamp

From: The ElectricNewPaper

Who really knows when the recession will end ?

EVERY now and then, we need to take a step back and look at the big picture.

The world's wealth, for instance, stands at around US$200 trillion (S$300 trillion). That is the value of everything everyone owns.

Two years ago, it was higher - US$250 trillion - but we lost US$50 trillion in the financial crisis.

By the way, 1 trillion is a really BIG number. It is 1,000 billion, which is four times everything we make in a year - four times Singapore's GDP. The question of the day is: 'When will this recession end and GDP grow again?'

The official answer is: 'World economies will see gradual improvement from the middle of next year.'

The unofficial answer is: 'Who knows?' This recession is different from anything we have seen in the past. It is a beast that comes at us in the night.

Times have changed

In the US, it used to be easy to get a '100 per cent no-doc home loan'. The homeowner would put down no money of his own and provide no documentation.

If a bank was impolite enough to ask, 'Do you have a job?', the borrower could say, 'Excuse me. Are you prying into my personal life?'. The bank would then back off.

Nowadays, US home loans require a down payment of at least 20 per cent, up from 0 per cent two years ago.

Company loans are tough to get too, which has brought some businesses - especially in exports - to a near standstill. On the positive side, less debt means lower risks, so we will see fewer defaults in the future.

The problem is if a home or office building can't get financed, it won't be built. The same for a factory. Fewer things get made and GDP grows slowly, if at all.

It means, for the first time in history, our children may end up with lower living standards than their parents. We may have to go back to living 'the simple life'.

That was the name of Paris Hilton's reality TV show. Perhaps she can show us how to do it.

Good v bad risk

US$200 trillion in world wealth is small compared to the new centrepiece of this recession:

Derivatives

They are US$1,232 trillion, which is - get ready - US$1.232 quadrillion. A quadrillion is 1,000 trillion, or 1 followed by 15 zeros.

By the way, did you know that a googol is 1 followed by 100 zeros? That's huge.

Back to derivatives.

In June 1998, the underlying value of privately traded (over the counter) derivatives was US$75 trillion. Ten years later, it had grown to US$684 trillion. The other half of the story is exchange traded derivatives like futures and options. These come to US$548 trillion, bringing the grand total to US$1,232 trillion or US$1.232 quadrillion as of June 2008.

Here's how they work

Derivatives make it possible to bet on the rise or fall of interest rates, currencies, oil, food, metals and more.

Instead of buying gold, for example, you can make a bet with a counterparty that gold prices will go up. It is speculation (gambling) and it creates a new risk that wasn't there previously.

Derivatives can also reduce risk through hedging.

Do they reduce risk through hedging (good) or increase it through speculation (bad)?

We can get a hint by looking at the value of all derivatives. As explained, it stands at US$1,232 trillion, which is six times the US$200 trillion value of the world's wealth. It shows that something besides innocent hedging is going on since there is not that much wealth in the world to hedge. Speculation is likely.

This speculation is crowding out 'good' risk. For example, a bank giving a car loan produces risk, but it is productive since it results in someone owning a car. It boosts GDP. (Good.)

Derivatives speculation also produces risk but it is not productive. It does not add to GDP or the world's wealth. It only shifts it around through counterparty bets that are won and lost. (Bad.)

The move from productive to unproductive risk is a new development. It is a dark force that is unique to this recession.

01 May 2009

Trickle-down Economics

Read At the Polls, Icelanders Punish Conservatives.

...“It is the same poisonous philosophy that we had here, based on a lack of moral awareness and greed, and people who thought nothing of flying Elton John into Iceland for their 50th birthdays and paying him 70 million Icelandic kronur,”

Steingrimur Sigfusson, Iceland interim finance minister.

Photographs of bankers who left Iceland after the financial crisis have a new use in the restroom of a bar in Reykjavik, the capital.

27 April 2009

Statistics

A reader's comment on TOC It does get worse.

" I heard on CNA yesterday that the new HDB development, The Peak @ Toa Payoh is selling at $720k for a 5 room flat…To me, this is a ridiculous price to pay.

I remember that when I first graduated as an Engineer 18 years ago, my starting pay was at $2+k then (common amongst my cohorts) and now after so many years I am hiring fresh graduates also in the same $2+k range.

I struggled then to pay my executive HDB flat as a fresh grad which cost me $200k then.

I wonder how the young graduates can pay for decent living in Singapore with the same salary I had when I first graduated so many years ago.

Life in Singapore has regressed. Sad. "

The Peak @ Toa Payoh

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/04/it-does-get-worse/#comments

18 April 2009

Fancy Finance = Economic Progress ?

Paul Krugman on Making Banking Boring.

"... Despite everything that has happened, most people in positions of power still associate fancy finance with economic progress. "


Some readers' comments:

" Funny you should mention "The Gilded Age". Mark Twain co-authored a satirical novel of the same name in 1873 and I quote his view of the world economy at the time.

(A US congressman is giving his view of a woman lobbyist): "She was nothing but a woman, and did not know how much of the business prosperity of the world is only a bubble of credit and speculation, one scheme helping to float another which is no better than it, and the whole liable to come to naught and confusion as soon as the busy brain that conceived them ceases its power to devise, or when some accident produces a sudden panic".

This is 1873 mind you! I guess we will now start the cycle over again. "

— Gerry, Sherborn,MA

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/04/10/opinion/10krugman.html

" The insane elevation of finance in our country reminds me of crank mega-vitamin health theories. Of course it turns out that finance really is like vitamins:

we need some. More than enough doesn't really help. Too much can be toxic. "

— Joe, Somerville, Massachusetts

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/04/10/opinion/10krugman.html

" If the money supply and the banking industry are modeling what is happening in the real economy, then any extreme growth of profits in the banking industry vastly overwhelming the growth in the real economy must be a sign of serious distortion.

The model takes off on its own, but that doesn't mean real life has gotten better. It only means that the model is out of whack.

Unfortunately the keepers of the model stand to profit short-term from distorting it and the public needs to keep a watchful eye. How come the conservatives can see distortions of the model when it comes to grades and school performance, but why are they so blind when it comes to the modeling role of the financial system relative to the underlying real economy? "

— E. Kuhn-Osius, New York

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/04/10/opinion/10krugman.html

" One aspect of banking that also influenced the current financial meltdown is the advent in the 1980s of the 401k.

With so many Americans now having considerable "skin in the game" and with the banking sector contributing significantly to mutual fund gains over the past 20 years, it will be difficult to implement regulations that reduce the influence of this sector.

Other less risky options for retirement planning will need to be developed before strong regulations in the banking sector can be implemented.

Or, another sector, perhaps energy, will need to show promise as a replacement option in IRA portfolios. "

— Dianne, Columbus

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/04/10/opinion/10krugman.html

I would like to think that our CPF (Central Provident Fund) is generally safe and also prudent. What with a rate of return of "only" 2.5% and 4% for the Ordinary and Special account respectively. I hope our skin, as a nation, is not too deep into the game.

11 April 2009

Universal Healthcare

China says will have healthcare for all by 2020.


08 April 2009

Paul Krugman is a bad influence... ?

A reader's comment on Krugman's "The Market Mystique"

" A pretty good piece, Mr. Krugman. It embodies the views supporting it very well – that the purpose of any humanly engineered framework (such as markets, governments) is to improve the lot of man irrespective of individual efforts.

Don’t get me wrong: while I disagree with the underlying premise, it certainly is a legitimate view to hold, and is held by many.But it’s wrong. At least for America.We start from very different premises.

To me, the purpose of government is NOT to tell me what I must do but what I must not do (for the benefit of all, or at least the great majority). It’s up to me to improve my own lot and, to the extent that my abilities and character permit, to improve the lot of man.

I work within a framework of law that tries to keep me honest and seeks to protect others from my possible predations.To you, the purpose of any such framework is to advance the material well-being of people. Sounds great, but it’s never worked – nothing planned and acted on by anything other than individuals ever has. Beyond that, it’s dreadfully condescending – in that world people are incapable of transcending difficulties and natural challenges through hard work, risk-taking and guts, and coming out the other side as winners in life; they require organized help from a paternalistic system, a market that’s gerry rigged to try to guarantee an outcome that some believe is good. So, while I acknowledge your premise I disagree with it.

The “Market Mystique” is not invalid because it occasionally fails without appropriate controls, and that’s bad because markets have as their purpose some social good. They don’t. They’re merely mechanisms that allow people to do what they want to do – it’s people who either embrace social advance or don’t and through their own actions validate themselves or don’t.

So, by all means, re-regulate those markets to limit potential for catastrophic failure. But stop thinking that they’re the answer to poverty, disease and the failings of the human spirit.

They’re not. You are. "

Richard Luettgen, New Jersey

Stop begging! Work hard!

No matter. Just keep writing...

" ...If Singaporeans share no idealism except the logic of the free market, we will sell our citizenships to the highest bidder, the country that can accord us the better standard of life... "

The Online Citizen.

And why not! (In a moment of despair...)

06 April 2009

Voodoo Economy

CEO to leave GM with US$20m

Good deal!

Now, he can do without the work stress and still get to keep US$ 20, 000, 000.

What is US$ 20, 000, 000 ? This amount is just too mind boggling for lesser mortals to comprehend.

How the world economic system can get so out of whack that we can pay a person twenty million US dollars, while 1.1 billion people are living on US$1.00 and another 2.7 billion people living on US$2.00 a day ?

How do you value money? Imagine with all the money in this world put together, can the earth produce enough to meet the money? If not, then the prices of these "produce" will have to be increased until such point where all goods equal all these money.

But with this rise in price, the very poor might as well go kill themselves!

02 April 2009

Do world's corporate leaders know the value of money?

Straits Times Forum 02 April 2009

" REFER to Mr Liew Kai Khiun's Forum letter, "Review executive rewards", last Thursday.

I agree with him that companies should always review their top executives' remuneration packages periodically to stay in tune with the economic situation and communicate to the public a sense of fairness and decency - more so in these challenging times.

What is happening to our world's top corporate leaders?

Minutes after the Edinburgh home of RBS bank's disgraced former chief executive was vandalised, an e-mail message that was sent read: 'We are angry that rich people like him (Sir Fred Goodwin) are paying themselves a huge amount of money and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made unemployed, destitute and homeless.'

Among his excesses was the 5.3 million pound sterling (S$11.5 million) refurbishment of a building - styled "Sir Fred's Pleasure Dome" by staff - that was barely used.

Do the world's top corporate leaders have so much money that they have forgotten its real value?

The wealth wasted could have been used to save millions of people out there who are homeless and struggling to have a simple meal.

United States President Barack Obama has indeed a mammoth task ahead of him to try to cleanup this mess that has been left behind by these so-called 'most successful' corporate leaders.

Phang Geak Lean (Ms)
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_357434.html

Protests flare in London

" We have been robbed. I am coming to support the older people who have been working all these years. If we did any stealing we would go to jail. "

Vinzcente Oliver, 22, from northern England, protesting about how low interest rates have hit savers and pensioners

No wonder they are so angry !

02 April 2009

Performing CPR on a Voodoo Economy

" How did so much of our economy become defined by the process of turning money into more money, with no new product, service, or innovation in between?

And merely openning up the flow of credit is not going to create jobs -- already, there are many who would qualify for loans, especially at these low rates, but don't borrow, because there is no demand for whatever enterprize they are investing in.

The economy is a living system -- and just as multi-organ failure creates vicious cycles that make survival nearly impossible, it feels as though there are too many things that have gone wrong, too badly, to expect a single solution to work.

It is like trying to feed a banana to someone in cardiac arrest because they have low potassium.

What they really need is potassium IV, oxygen, a defibrillator, intubation, a ventilator, and dialysis -- with a lot of close monitoring to be sure the patient isn't brain dead. And if there is active bleeding, that needs to be stopped too, and the blood replaced.

I know "the problem was building up over a long time, and won't be solved overnight" -- but this doesn't address the fact that our living economy is at risk of becoming brain dead as we speak -- the life support of bailouts will create the illusion of survival for a while, but the patient may never wake up.

We really only have about four minutes to get this initial resuscitation right. "

— Randall, Minnesota

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/03/27/opinion/27krugman.html?s=3&pg=9

02 April 2009

How many swedish cheese can you buy with...

US$ 50,000,000,000,000

50 trillion dollars in perceived value have been wiped off the world's books.

US$ 50,000,000,000

50 billion dollars was the cost of just one fraud.

50,000,000 jobs

50 million jobs are likely to be lost by the end of 2009.

David Rothkopf Consider this final point: How can Sweden (which got the bank nationalization thing right, by the way, Tim Geithner's comments about how the United States is not Sweden aside) afford to say no to bailing out Saab, a national icon, while we can't afford the same with GM? Which country is more committed to letting the markets work in healthier ways? Which therefore might be seen as more truly capitalist? The reason they can make it happen politically is because

they have a social system which ensures no Swede fears that economic upheaval will leave him or her destitute or without healthcare.

Thus they can afford the creative destruction of markets, but we cannot. Their "socialism" is in this respect more capitalist than our system of bailouts for the richest and subsidies for the greediest. The United States needs new models and to be open to new ideas and we had better start thinking about looking elsewhere because to date precious few are coming from Washington.

But Krugman says...

European Stability

"... I think it’s important, however, to distinguish between the role of the welfare state in stabilizing society and its role in stabilizing GDP.

On the social front, there’s a quantum difference. For given depth of recession, the human suffering in America — where losing your job means losing your family’s health insurance, and unemployment benefits are minimal at best — is vastly greater than in Europe.

On the macroeconomic front, however, the strength of Europe’s “automatic stabilizers” has been exaggerated. Yes, government is about 12 percentage points of GDP larger; so each 1 percent fall of GDP automatically increases deficits by more than in the US. But unless the slump is much deeper than even pessimists expect, that won’t be enough to offset the stronger US discretionary action.

The IMF has tried to incorporate the automatic stabilizer effect; by their estimates, it still comes up short. So yes, the European response is better than it might seem at first sight; but it’s still pretty bad." (Revision 30 March 2009)

24 March 2009

What is your price ?

Everyone has a price.

Read Aaron Smith's Big Pharma opens wallet to Dems.

You, How much ?

20 March 2009