Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

Glad to hear you're still drinking wine Scott!
I agree, Ian, I enjoy Scott's input because he is from Cincinnati which, of course, is Ground Zero in American politics.
I enjoy hearing from the land of Spiro Agnew as well but they are all Marxists there.
(Is that O'Malley guy serious? He seems like a lightweight to me, was he considered a successful governor?)
Hillary just seems like her time has come and gone to me Ian.
I think the young Rubio is going to provide a very stark generational contrast on the debate stage if it gets that far.

Post deleted

I'm a devout progressive, yet Hillary leaves me cold. Still, I'll vote for her with the hope that she's a competent manager, which the 2000-2008 period placed a premium on for me. But she doesn't inspire and I worry about her electability.

The funny thing is, I think Obama has turned out to be a good president. He inherited a crazy, once in a lifetime economic mess and and crazy, once in a generation debacle in Iraq and the Middle East, and he's done pretty well. The job's recovery and economic expansion has been faster than under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, faster than any time since the Clinton 90's. He was open to a grand bargain with House Republicans on the budget and he avoided the scandals which plagued the Clinton and Bush II administrations. Obamacare has proven a qualified success so far, thanks for the idea Heritage Foundation. Inflation is low.

Yet the Tea Party and apparently most of the Republican Party considers him a disaster, a socialist, an "other". From my point of view, there is no democratic president that the post-Gingrich Republican Party will ever accept, ever willingly compromise with, ever not try to destroy and discredit. It was done with Carter (to some degree), Clinton and now Obama. And I think we should start questioning the patriosism of a group so bent on their own success that they will never work with the democratically elected leader of the country.

Scott, what do you think of Kasich? He gets little attention from the national press. Is it because he is too sensible?

With respect, Blanquito, your synopsis is at best lacking consensus. Even the most ardent supporters of this president have not disputed that this economic recovery is the feeblest in 50+ years. Supporters will note, as you have, that it isn't necessarily fair to compare recoveries because every downturn is different and this one was epic, but until now I've heard no one try to make the case that this one is best recovery in recent history. Jobs recovery is also problematic, as we are currently at record levels of non-participants in the workforce and many of the jobs gains are entry level and part time. Economics is not the place to make hay in support of this administration, other than pulling back from what everyone agrees was a true potential historical disaster. Personally, I'm also not thrilled with our results in the Middle East. The JV is still running the show there.....

Also, if we're being objective regarding your last point, I don't recall Progressives rallying around Bush. He was burned in effigy, called Satan and worse. I think you would have a very hard time making the case that Bush got strong patriotic support form the Left, other than immediately post 9/11. Divisiveness is unfortunately an equal opportunity, non-partisan trait these days. I personally find myself on the whole rather disappointed with this administration, as I was the one before. Maybe I'm too hard to please!

Hi Bill! Long time! Kasich has definite plusses and has done well economically for Ohio. He has done some good things and we have definitely had worse governors. He came off well in the debates, probably enough to lift himself toward the top tier. But I think the more you see of him the less you will like him. I will be fascinated to see what you all think as this progresses. The GOP badly needs to thin the thundering herd and consolidate their message. The Donald is Hillary's best friend.

Just watched the Trump presser in Mich.
The guy is indefatigable!
Dare I say it… "presidential"?

Thanks, Scott. It is good to have you back. Have you regained some sense of smell?

Sanders well ahead of Clinton in Nh poll.
I think the Dems had better find a new candidate. And fast.
Or maybe Bernie is the man?

Bill, it kind of comes and goes a bit, which is better than nothing at all, but as I mentioned makes me a very inconsistent evaluator and maybe the last person you'd want to follow notes on. It does allow me still to enjoy it. For the record, I still lurk here and read your notes.

Blanquito, I've seen those charts but they are problematic. We are near full employment by the unemployment rate typically circulated, but that is clearly not reality. We are near highs (in a bad way) for minorities and women. The reason is the number is coupled with a new record high in the number not participating in the labor force and near highs on the percentage. The number you're reporting excludes those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and those no longer looking for work. When that figure is corrected for, the unemployment rate is over 10%. Regarding the second chart, that is using raw numbers, not percentages. Of course there are more raw jobs because there are more people. By that logic, since the IRS set a new record in revenues this year, I could say that Obama has raised taxes more than anyone in history (and that would be equally inaccurate). Again, I want to be fair in that what we are trying to recover from was also unprecedented, but this recovery is the slowest in modern history, and there's no way to put a happier face on it. We're left wondering if it would've been better or worse with another approach, but that is angels and the head of a pin.....

Jim, I don't know who else is out there and willing to incur the wrath of Team Clinton. Bernie has a real buzz among the millennials, the way Paul Sr. did for that set. He's the cool uncle who'll smoke pot with you and Hillary is the old lady next door who won't give your ball back if it goes in her yard. I don't know how many times she can re-message. Underestimate the Clinton machine at your own peril, though.....

Scott,

I'm not sure what you mean by "We are near full employment by the unemployment rate typically circulated, but that is clearly not reality".

That women and blacks have fared worse is unfortunate, but the figures speak for themselves - the total is much, much better than when Obama took over.
It's *half* of what it is in France...
Please, let's give credit where credit is due.
Or you can call Obama "just lucky" if you prefer....

Also, Obama helped restore America's image abroad after the disastrous Bush Jr. presidency.
I, as an ex-pat American, was infinitely grateful that he defeated the Republican candidate.
There was no need to keep my tail between my legs anymore.
(That having been said, the Nobel Peace Prize winner did not hesitate to use force in various conflicts around the world).

You make an interesting point though. Do yesterday's Bush haters (count me) outweigh today's Obama-haters in number and vindictiveness?

The infighting among Republicans is making Hillary look more and more like a shoe-in.
Personally, I dislike her for her for her about face with regard to Palestine when she went from First Lady to candidate for a senate seat in New York.
She is a consummate politician and an arch hypocrite.
Which is perhaps one-and-the-same thing...

Best regards,
Alex R.

Hi Alex! What I mean is that an unemployment rate of about 5% in this country is typically considered "full employment" (this has always struck me as odd, but economists say that at that rate everyone who really wants work has it). We are near that rate now, and it's clear that we still have a significant unemployment/underemployment problem, as I detailed earlier for the reasons I described. Yes things are undeniably better than when he took office, as I said, starting from an unprecedented, frightening fiscal crisis. I am trying to give credit where it is due regarding that. All I am saying is that objectively it is a stretch to call this one of the best economic performances or recoveries in recent history.

Scott,

You imply that the government’s unemployment figures are untrustworthy.
Could you please elaborate?
If millions are below the radar, how can you be sure they’re there or, more to the point, how many of them there are?
As for the budget, am I not right in thinking that George W. Bush created far more of a deficit than Barak Obama?

If there is a frightening fiscal crisis, isn’t that because the Republican-dominated legislative branch blocks more equitable tax laws (i.e. making the wealthy pay more)?
Where we agree is that the recovery is probably not as earth-shaking as has been put forth.

All the best,
Alex

What about Bernie Sanders? Can somebody provide a quick overview of his platform?

Alex,

I'm not distrusting the government's numbers - I'm using the government's numbers. It's something called the U-6 rate. What is traditionally reported is the U-1 number, which measures the number of people working at least 15 weeks consecutively. It is the simplest (and probably least helpful) number that is always reported, and is currently around 5.4%. The U-6 number measures underemployed, unemployed, those no longer eligible for unemployment, and those that are unemployed and have quit looking. That number is as much as 15-20%. The government produces these numbers (Gallup also produces their own set, which can sometimes vary significantly, but that's another issue). Another economist calculated the number of hours eligible for work based on the population versus the number actually working and calculated a "true" unemployment number of something like 47% (this is controversial and meaningless regardless because there is nothing to compare it to across administrations and eras).

The fiscal crisis I was referring to was the one Obama inherited almost immediately - the Lehman collapse, etc. It was caused by not just negligence but also greed, terrible policy and hubris across multiple administrations and both parties. There is plenty of blame to go around for it, except for Obama, who got to deal with it.

Claret,

Bernie is a proud and avowed Socialist. He's a 60's era maverick, Independent in every sense and devoted to his beliefs. He currently proposes "free" higher education (I use quotes because it will of course not be free, but added to the social debt). He supports higher taxes, higher minimum wage, and national health care among other things.

Perhaps we could remove some of the profit motive from education.
You want to grow an economy then INVENT.
But we can't saddle students with such debt.

Does anyone think Biden has wheels? That's the only other name that keeps coming up. I don't see it.....

Krugman is always trying to score political points with his charts. You could re-present them to paint a different picture.

I wish he would go back and do some proper academic research than lazily taking pot shots at Conservatives on his blog .

Unemployment is low in the US in large part because the participation rate has fallen sharply, even for prime working age males. There are also a lot of people working part time who would rather work full time.

The employment population ratio is 4% points below its previous peak.

So the unemployment rate over-states the health of the US labour market.

IIRC U6 is in the low 10s.

Claret wrote:What about Bernie Sanders? Can somebody provide a quick overview of his platform?

I thought Jim meant Bernie Maddoff for a minute

Comte Flaneur wrote:

Claret wrote:What about Bernie Sanders? Can somebody provide a quick overview of his platform?

I thought Jim meant Bernie Maddoff for a minute

LOL! Bernie Madoff was definitely NOT a Socialist. Is there such a thing as an Anti-Socialist?

Second your thoughts on Krugman. He's a very bright guy who has done some very fine academic work in his career. He's capable of much more than cheerleading.

Harry C. wrote:Alex, I usually don't comment on political posts but you raise an interesting point. I feel the Republicans have become more of a local/state party and the Dems are National. This can be at least partially drawn to a deft way they gerrymander. Multiple decades they happen to be in power when the results of the census comes in and they have to add or subtract legislators. They are experts-not that they are the only party to do this, but timing is all. Also, Fox News has been non-stop tooting the GOP horn for years and it is paying off somewhat.

Hi Harry,

Must disagree. Just look at Maryland's districts since the 1990 census for a gerrymandering tour de force. Yes, small potatoes compared to Texas on a voter by voter basis, but actually much more egregious.

Scott,

Thanks for your reply. I looked up the U6 rate on the Interet.

I think that governments everywhere try to fiddle with unemployment figures.
They just did it in France, where unemployment is a game changer politically.
François Holland promised to reverse the trend two years ago and did not succeed. He has already said that if he doesn't do so by the end of his term, he will not run again in 2017.
The dilemma here is that you can't create jobs without economic growth, and that this is only just above zero...
And, even there, lots of jobs are being automated and productivity per worker is increasing.

What to make of the marginally attached workers"?
This covers a wide variety of categories, including people who only want to work part time (young mothers, for instance).

And what to make of the swelling army of independent workers and sub-contractors, many of whom work from their own homes?

However, getting back to the original subject, how in the world is one supposed, objectively, to know the level of unemployment?
The overall rate and the UG rate vary enormously.
What does each mean, how have they both changed over the years, how accurate are the statistics, etc.

All the best,
Alex

Alex, agreed, the numbers are constantly being revised after the fact, etc. I mentioned that independent agencies are now producing their own numbers alongside the government ones. Of course those "independent" agencies are not necessarily without their own agenda too! We've arrived at a time where we have more instantly and publicly available information than ever in human history, but where ironically it takes more work than ever to dig for what is true and real, if that's even possible. To be clear here, my goal isn't to bash Obama, just to be accurate, sober and as fair as possible in appraisal of him (and the rest of the motley crew.)

Starting to hear the "draft Warren" drumbeat again.......

Comte Flaneur wrote:Unemployment is low in the US in large part because the participation rate has fallen sharply, even for prime working age males. There are also a lot of people working part time who would rather work full time.

The employment population ratio is 4% points below its previous peak.

So the unemployment rate over-states the health of the US labour market.

IIRC U6 is in the low 10s.

As a (very) small-business owner responsible for maintaining a workforce of 8 or so employees, I'm seeing this from a different perspective.

Where are all these people in the US who want to work? I see plenty who want to be employed. Who want a paycheck. And benefits. But want to actually work? Not so much.

And what's going on in my second-favorite country…?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/opini ... egion&_r=0

Just finished watching Trump press conference in a packed auditorium in NH… Likeable. Witty. Completely on his game. Even spoke out against Citizens United. "Telling it like it is." Presidential.

Good grief. I mean, we all know it's going to come crashing down. Seriously, he cannot win, not with the country's demographics. But man is this cat on a roll!

Not to get too far afield, but there is another interesting political development here in Ohio. This week signatures collected for a marijuana legalization issue to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot this year were officially approved by the courts. Advocates like NORML have invested substantial effort here, as this is viewed as a real watershed, tipping point for the issue, both because heartland Ohio is viewed as a bellwether, but also because the proposal is the boldest yet. It proposes the usual state-sanctioned distributorships, taxation and medical use concepts, but also a provision for individuals. Possession by any non-minor of up to one ounce would be legal, and any individual can apply for a certificate ($50 fee) to grow up to four flowering plants at home for personal use. Proponents on the national level are perhaps rightly viewing this as the toe in the door. We live in interesting times.....

DavidG wrote:

Comte Flaneur wrote:Unemployment is low in the US in large part because the participation rate has fallen sharply, even for prime working age males. There are also a lot of people working part time who would rather work full time.

The employment population ratio is 4% points below its previous peak.

So the unemployment rate over-states the health of the US labour market.

IIRC U6 is in the low 10s.

As a (very) small-business owner responsible for maintaining a workforce of 8 or so employees, I'm seeing this from a different perspective.

Where are all these people in the US who want to work? I see plenty who want to be employed. Who want a paycheck. And benefits. But want to actually work? Not so much.

....then there's that......

The Donald and Bernie continue to barnstorm, and Hillary's woes continue to mount. The FBI will find nothing but blank space on those hard drives (or they wouldn't have been finally turned over). The drive will only be potentially a monument to a cover up, if it exists. Her real risk is the one I keep trying to preach to the kids - once it's out there, you can't get it back. The next step in this investigation will be all the recipients of the emails. Will the investigators pursue this vigorously or perfunctorily? How long will it take? Will everyone else be as meticulous in scrubbing their drives? She's potentially exposed not just by State employees, but also by the many donors and participants in the Clinton Foundation. How powerful and organized is the Clinton machine? And was there really ever anything damning to begin with? If there's truly nothing there, she's done almost everything possible to make it look like there is. Fascinating stuff, really.

Earlier on this board we had a spirited discussion about Benghazi and culpability. In the emails Hillary did turn over, there is a dip to nearly zero in activity and volume for a couple month period right around the time of that event. Either she and the rest of State coincidentally lost interest in communicating during that time, or something has been withheld.

JScott wrote:Not to get too far afield, but there is another interesting political development here in Ohio. This week signatures collected for a marijuana legalization issue to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot this year were officially approved by the courts. Advocates like NORML have invested substantial effort here, as this is viewed as a real watershed, tipping point for the issue, both because heartland Ohio is viewed as a bellwether, but also because the proposal is the boldest yet. It proposes the usual state-sanctioned distributorships, taxation and medical use concepts, but also a provision for individuals. Possession by any non-minor of up to one ounce would be legal, and any individual can apply for a certificate ($50 fee) to grow up to four flowering plants at home for personal use. Proponents on the national level are perhaps rightly viewing this as the toe in the door. We live in interesting times.....

Marijuana is such a non issue anymore. The genie is out of the bottle. I have always believed it is a religious issue. Western religions embraced alcohol. Eastern religions embraced cannabis.
It does make Christy look like an idiot though. He has less chance of "The Donald" of ever being president.

JScott wrote:.....
Earlier on this board we had a spirited discussion about Benghazi and culpability. In the emails Hillary did turn over, there is a dip to nearly zero in activity and volume for a couple month period right around the time of that event. Either she and the rest of State coincidentally lost interest in communicating during that time, or something has been withheld.

My guitar player Michael "Wolf" Ingmire lost a nephew , Sean Smith, at Benghazi. We've had many discussion about it. I've always asked was it maliciousness or incompetency. I personally think incompetency.
Mike may still be mad at me but I told him we just had to play blues. Almost like tilting at windmills as they are too well protected.................. If there's a smoking gun it has be dissembled and parts thrown in different oceans.

Imagine a Trump/Fiorina ticket vs. Sanders/Warren.
Wow!

Keep an eye on Jim Webb. I've always been impressed by that guy.
I'm beginning to think Hillary may be unelectable.

RDD wrote:

JScott wrote:.....
Earlier on this board we had a spirited discussion about Benghazi and culpability. In the emails Hillary did turn over, there is a dip to nearly zero in activity and volume for a couple month period right around the time of that event. Either she and the rest of State coincidentally lost interest in communicating during that time, or something has been withheld.

My guitar player Michael "Wolf" Ingmire lost a nephew , Sean Smith, at Benghazi. We've had many discussion about it. I've always asked was it maliciousness or incompetency. I personally think incompetency.
Mike may still be mad at me but I told him we just had to play blues. Almost like tilting at windmills as they are too well protected.................. If there's a smoking gun it has be dissembled and parts thrown in different oceans.

Agree, RDD. I really can't imagine malicious intent. I think there were likely some poor decisions, bad ideas and incompetence. I also think there was a concerted attempt to cover those things up.

Biden-Warren?