Government borrowing doesn't always crowd out private borrowing
Four years after the end of the presidency that must not be named, Republicans are no closer to figuring out what went wrong or what comes next.
Sure, the GOP has decided Bush spent too much, but there's been little other reckoning (outside of wonks like David Frum, Reihan Salam, and Ross Douthat). After all, it's hard to see what fiscal profligacy had to do with stagnant median incomes, rising healthcare and college costs, and a fragile financial system -- and harder still to see what remedies the Republicans have to offer. When it comes to policy, the GOP is stuck in 1980: lower taxes, less regulation, and more drilling for oil are always and everywhere the answer, no matter the question. (No, really).
Even Obama's reelection hasn't been enough to wake the Republicans from their Reagan von Winkle slumber. The GOP has chosen re-branding over rethinking. In other words, they think they have a messenger, not a message, problem -- and that's where Marco Rubio comes in. As Jonathan Chait of New York explains, Rubio offers the party an appealing, young salesman for its same, old policies, immigration aside. It was no accident his response to the State of the Union was so devoid of anything resembling new thinking. It was the point. Indeed, Rubio just rounded up the usual talking points, saying, among other things, that the government was a major cause of the housing bubble (it wasn't), and that Washington needs a balanced budget amendment (it very much does not). These are certainly cringe-worthy mistakes, but Rubio's biggest one is even more fundamental. He doesn't think the government can create jobs, except when it does.
Every dollar our government borrows is money that isn't being invested to create jobs. And the uncertainty created by the debt is one reason why many businesses aren't hiring.
Rubio has fallen victim to one of the classic economic blunders. It's called Say's Law, and it's not, in fact, a law. It's more like a guideline. The idea is that supply creates its own demand, which is true enough during booms, but not so during busts. The underlying logic here -- producing goods gives you the income to buy other goods -- makes sense, but only as long as you don't include money. Then everything falls apart. We'll return to why money is the root of all depressions in a second, but first, let's think about what it would mean if Say's Law were true. It would mean a world where demand can never lag supply; where unemployment is either voluntary or transient (when people switch jobs); and where government spending can never help the economy. After all, public borrowing has to come from somewhere, and a dollar the government borrows is a dollar the private sector doesn't. In other words, government borrowing "crowds out" private borrowing, pushing up interest rates as it competes for funds.
But this is terribly wrong. In the real world, people are out of work because they can't find work, not because they don't want it; the Great Recession has not been a Great Vacation. Supply doesn't always create its own demand, because demand for money might increase. In other words, people might hoard money. Now, "hoard" probably brings to mind people frantically stuffing money into mattresses, but it's a bit different than that today. It means households don't want to spend, and businesses don't want to invest, and banks don't want to lend. There's an excess of desired savings over desired investment -- or, as it's more commonly called, a recession. The Fed can make hoarding less appealing by cutting interest rates to inject money into the economy, but it can't do so now, at least not easily. Interest rates are already at zero, and unconventional money-printing hasn't been quite as effective. In short, the Fed hasn't been able to get us to stop hoarding right now.
That leaves two options: depression or deficits. In other words, either nobody borrows the unborrowed money, or the government does. If nobody does, the economy will contract by as much as isn't borrowed; if the government does, the economy will (at least) stabilize. As Matthew Yglesias of Slate points out, it's easy enough to tell the government is borrowing money that otherwise wouldn't be today, since interest rates have fallen despite big deficits. There has been no crowding out.
But it turns out we are actually all Keynesians now, even Marco Rubio. At least when it comes to military spending. (Though he's hardly alone with this cognitive dissonance). Here's what he told HispanicBusiness.com last September about the upcoming sequester cuts set to hit the Pentagon:
Thousands of jobs in defense-related enterprises have been lost already, with many more projected to go if the sequester crisis is not averted. These defense cuts hurt innovation, medical research and thousands of small businesses who subcontract for defense-related work.
Rubio is actually a pretty ambitious Keynesian! Not only does he think the government can create jobs, but he also thinks those jobs create other jobs -- that is, there's a multiplier on government spending.
In a unique, home-spun experiment, researchers found that centripetal force could help people pass kidney stones—before they become a serious health-care cost.
East Lansing, Michigan, becomes a ghost town during spring break. Families head south, often to the theme parks in Orlando. A week later, the Midwesterners return sunburned and bereft of disposable income, and, urological surgeon David Wartinger noticed, some also come home with fewer kidney stones.
Wartinger is a professor emeritus at Michigan State, where he has dealt for decades with the scourge of kidney stones, which affect around one in 10 people at some point in life. Most are small, and they pass through us without issue. But many linger in our kidneys and grow, sending hundreds of thousands of people to emergency rooms and costing around $3.8 billion every year in treatment and extraction. The pain of passing a larger stone is often compared to child birth.
After Donald Trump became the Republican nominee, he was asked on Fox News about his views on NATO and other American alliances. He gave his familiar “they’re freeloaders” answer:
The fact is we are protecting so many countries that are not paying for the protection. When a country isn’t paying us and these are countries in some cases in most cases that have the ability to pay, and they are not paying because nobody is asking….
We’re protecting all of these countries. They have an agreement to reimburse us and pay us and they are not doing it and if they are not going to do that. We have to seriously rethink at least those countries. It’s very unfair.
For decades, the candidate has willfully inflicted pain and humiliation.
Donald J. Trump has a cruel streak. He willfully causes pain and distress to others. And he repeats this public behavior so frequently that it’s fair to call it a character trait. Any single example would be off-putting but forgivable. Being shown many examples across many years should make any decent person recoil in disgust.
Judge for yourself if these examples qualify.
* * *
In national politics, harsh attacks are to be expected. I certainly don’t fault Trump for calling Hillary Clinton dishonest, or wrongheaded, or possessed of bad judgment, even if it’s a jarring departure from the glowing compliments that he used to pay her.
But even in a realm where the harshest critiques are part of the civic process, Trump crossed a line this week when he declared his intention to invite Gennifer Flowers to today’s presidential debate. What kind of man invites a husband’s former mistress to an event to taunt his wife? Trump managed to launch an attack that couldn’t be less relevant to his opponent’s qualifications or more personally cruel. His campaign and his running-mate later said that it was all a big joke. No matter. Whether in earnest or in jest, Trump showed his tendency to humiliate others.
A new study looks at rates of lethal violence across a thousand species to better understand the evolutionary origins of humanity’s own inhumanity.
Which mammal is most likely to be murdered by its own kind? It’s certainly not humans—not even close. Nor is it a top predator like the grey wolf or lion, although those at least are #11 and #9 in the league table of murdery mammals. No, according to a study led by José María Gómez from the University of Granada, the top spot goes to… the meerkat. These endearing black-masked creatures might be famous for their cooperative ways, but they kill each other at a rate that makes man’s inhumanity to man look meek. Almost one in five meerkats, mostly youngsters, lose their lives at the paws and jaws of their peers.
Gómez’s study is the first thorough survey of violence in the mammal world, collating data on more than a thousand species. It clearly shows that we humans are not alone in our capacity to kill each other. Our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, have been known to wage brutal war, but even apparently peaceful creatures take each other’s lives. When ranked according to their rates of lethal violence, ground squirrels, wild horses, gazelle, and deer all feature in the top 50. So do long-tailed chinchillas, which kill each other more frequently than tigers and bears do.
One man conducted hundreds of interviews to understand the motivation and morality of those in the finance industry.
How can bankers live with themselves after the destruction wrought by their industry? That’s in part what the Dutch journalist Joris Luyendijk sets out to uncover in his new book, Among the Bankers: A Journey Into the Heart of Finance, which was published overseas last year under the title Swimming with Sharks. The book attempts to lay bare not the technical workings of a very opaque industry, but the emotional and moral considerations of those who operate within it.
Luyendijk, a reporter at The Guardian who has a background in anthropology, poses that question of conscience over and over again. To answer it, he conducted hundreds of interviews with people who work in the City, London’s version of Wall Street.
From the “400-pound” hacker to Alicia Machado, the candidate’s denigration of fat people has a long tradition—but may be a liability.
One of the odder moments of Monday’s presidential debate came when Donald Trump speculated that the DNC had been hacked not by Russia but by “someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.” He was trying to suggest the crime had been committed by someone unaffiliated with a government—but why bring up fatness?
Weight seems to be one of Trump’s preoccupations. The debate and its fallout highlighted how he publicly ridiculed the Miss Universe winner Alicia Machado as “Miss Piggy” and an “eating machine,” and how he called Rosie O’Donnell a “fat pig” with “a fat, ugly face” (“I think everyone would agree that she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her,” he said onstage Monday). He also recently poked fun at his ally Chris Christie’s weight-loss struggles and called out a protestor as “seriously overweight.” And when he was host of The Apprentice, he insisted on keeping a “funny fat guy” on the show, according to one of its producers.
The films touted for consideration this year include prestige projects like Martin Scorsese’s Silence and festival hits like Barry Jenkins’s Moonlight.
With the main film festivals of the fall (Telluride, Venice, and Toronto) now concluded, and Martin Scorsese finally confirming that his much-anticipated drama Silence will come out at the end of the year, the next three months will bring a calendar loaded with prestige releases. Among them are films that better reflect the wide range of faces and voices in America (and around the world), which have recently been severely under-represented on Oscar night. Audiences and critics will be paying especially close attention to the works and actors the Academy chooses to recognize, after the awards were condemned this year for nominating only white performers two years in a row.
The question, as always, is which films will be able to stand out once studios begin their awards campaigns in earnest. A lot can happen in a few months; after all, the season has already seen its earliest anointed front-runner practically disappear from the race. The former Best Picture favorite was the big story out of Sundance: The Birth of a Nation(October 7), a searing depiction of Nat Turner’s 1831 slave rebellion in Virginia written and directed by Nate Parker. The film won the festival’s Grand Jury Prize just as the conversation over the largely white Oscar nominations was at its loudest. The movie was acquired by Fox Searchlight for a record $17.5 million, with the studio promising a huge publicity campaign in the fall to help push it for awards contention.
In a clip unearthed by Mother Jones, the Republican presidential nominee boasts about hiring a possibly underage woman simply because she was attractive.
Donald Trump has faced a deficit among female voters throughout the campaign, and with just over a month left, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is seeking to throw gasoline on the fire.
In that effort, Clinton has a willing partner in arson: The ghost of Trump past.
On Wednesday, Pema Levy of Mother Jones dug up a video that will fuel the flames. It shows Trump at a 2007 appearance in San Francisco. A young woman steps to a microphone and asks how many jets she has and whether she can work on one. “Come on up here,” Trump says. “I think she’s hired.”
As the woman walks to the lectern, the crowd hoots. As she gets near, Trump takes a good long look at her décolletage, then says, “You’re hired.” What happens next is even stranger. He tells a story:
Narcissism, disagreeableness, grandiosity—a psychologist investigates how Trump’s extraordinary personality might shape his possible presidency.
In 2006, Donald Trump made plans to purchase the Menie Estate, near Aberdeen, Scotland, aiming to convert the dunes and grassland into a luxury golf resort. He and the estate’s owner, Tom Griffin, sat down to discuss the transaction at the Cock & Bull restaurant. Griffin recalls that Trump was a hard-nosed negotiator, reluctant to give in on even the tiniest details. But, as Michael D’Antonio writes in his recent biography of Trump, Never Enough, Griffin’s most vivid recollection of the evening pertains to the theatrics. It was as if the golden-haired guest sitting across the table were an actor playing a part on the London stage.
“It was Donald Trump playing Donald Trump,” Griffin observed. There was something unreal about it.
The country's historic peace deal means thousands of female fighters are giving up their weapons. But what happens then?
From her perch at the top of a hill at a school for at-risk youth in Bogotá, a 17-year-old girl wearing a white track suit, her hair pulled into a ponytail, could see the city stretch before her. Her straight back and easy assertiveness were the only signs that, just six months earlier, she was roaming the jungle with the Popular Liberation Army (EPL), a communist guerrilla group that formed in the late 1960s with the aim of overthrowing the Colombian government. The group formally demobilized in 1991, but since then, dissident factions have continued to fight and finance themselves via drug trafficking. Nowadays, the group’s ranks have dwindled to around 100 fighters, down from 3,000 at its peak in the 1970s, but it still holds sway in some rural areas of Colombia where the state is largely absent.