Whoops. Sorry about stomping. Your title is awesome, though.
If we want the debt ceiling raised, and I suppose we do, it is going to have to be Democrats in the House that do it.
There are around 50 House Repubs who will flat out not vote for a ceiling raise, and another 50 that will only raise it if the gov't is eliminated or Obama resigns. To get all the Democrats and say 60 Republicans will take the 80% spending cuts/20% taxes (to get the Democrats) and will be tough.
Hey, what happens if we default? Last time I think it raised rates for a decade (people make money). It will make it harder to borrow, harder to spend, why should Republicans be against that?
Beside helping to elect Fuehrer Bachmann.
Some are predicting that the House will at the last minute vote to raise the ceiling in a bill that shreds the safety net. Then it will be on the Senate and Obama to crash the world economy. All Obama would have to do is sign it, you know.
Was this about war? War isn't even what America does, it is what we are. Empire. Y'all want to stop the wars, you have to burn it all down.
I pray for total default.
If default raises rates, then people who hold debt now, like Pete Peterson, lose money. Only people who borrow in the future make money.
5 is correct. Raising yields is equivalent to "reducing the market value of US debt".
A bad, terrible part of me wants the US to default just to see what happens next. Part of me wanted Bush to win in 2004 just to find out if we really would invade Iran.
A bad, terrible part of me wants the US to default just to see what happens next.
There is am (understandable) tendency for US economists like Krugman to write things like "The British government's austerity campaign is a huge, stupid mistake, but I can't help admitting that, purely from an academic point of view, it'll be kind of interesting to watch what happens to the country as a result".
A bad, terrible part of me wants the US to default just to see what happens next.
You could go find this essay about the day the US "defaulted" in 1979.
7: No, that's bullshit. I want the real thing -- the US to fail to send out interest payments, with no one having any idea as to when the interest payments will resume.
When there's a crisis, investors run to Treasuries. But what if the crisis is Treasuries? Where do they go? Maybe they'll run to Treasuries out of habit.
And will investors flood into European sovereign debt? Or will they think no sovereign can be trusted anymore, and flee to gold? Man must know the answers to these questions.
Sorry, why is running into the debt ceiling routinely described as "default"? It means we won't be able to pay everything the government has promised to in law, but as I guest-posted earlier, those obligations aren't the same as debt as conventionally understood. I assume that in the process of picking and choosing which obligations to meet, debt service would get top priority.
why is running into the debt ceiling routinely described as "default"
The U.S. already ran into the debt ceiling months ago. The August 2 date is the estimated date after which even aggressive jiggery-pokery with cash receipts will no longer suffice to pay both debt service and lawful appropriations.
I assume that in the process of picking and choosing which obligations to meet, debt service would get top priority.
Probably true, but beside the point. In addition to interest on the debt, the government needs to issue new debt to roll over old debt as it matures. At some point (there is room for disagreement about when), default becomes inevitable, even if you're willing to stop cutting the checks promised to Granny and the troops.
Ah, thanks. I was very unclear on that.
Based on the article Stanley linked and perfunctory googling of gross public debt and maturity distribution, it looks like if we had a 1% rate increase that lasted about 5yrs (similar to the last era following that wee default), we'd be out like $50B/yr in additional interest costs. That would amount to increasing the interest paid by 20%, or increasing spending by about 1.5%.
Of course I could be doing it wrong, but there's rough order of magnitude, as far as I can tell. If the rate increase were larger, it'd look all the worse. Plus I didn't really look at the detailed maturity, only the average. My indications are that the distribution is skew towards the origin, so that'd push the estimate up in the near years.
11:That's the ticket. We need to save Portugal
FDL today has decided it's over, based on some McConnell bs, that the Repubs have caved and will send a clean bill. Maybe. Victory?
Besides the theory that Obama is evil, there is a theory that Boehner and Cantor just don't have the votes, and won't for a long time after the jackals roam and the dust blows and hedge traders take flight from scrapers and we envy the dead. Minn and Cali Repubs aren't shy about crashing their states. In this case, in order to save the world, Obama will have to either give up everything, or borrow somebody else's balls.
15:Like Walt says, what are Bundesbankers gonna do, buy Yen? Euros? Latvian bonds?
It isn't as if there already isn't a threat or problem, and 5-years are negatory. If we go, the rest of the world, currently carrying us on their shoulders, goes under us into the earth. They know this.
We are Empire!
We will start to understand what that means soon.
My moaning and groaning usually goes unheeded here, but still: Jesus Jesus Jesus here in Israel it is now illegal to boycott the settlements (even on a personal basis)! This country is headed for fascism in a bad way, so so depressing...
18: And remember kiddos, whatever happens Obama is a *BAD* man.
18:Which country do you mean, Awl?
Look, when Michelle Bachmann can get fucking odds, it means you are already truly fucked, and all roads lead over the cliff into a JamesHowardKunstler novel.
I call for violent communist revolution because all the alternatives are worse
I mean, when the tornado is comin at ya, and you aren't gonna get out of the way, might as well stand tall, appreciate and enjoy the fucking awesome beauty of the damn thing. Even run at it.
I didn't know the majority leader had a synagogue at all.
19:Yes, he is, but only what we deserve.
Republicans, I'm told, plan to argue that the Democrats did agree to these spending cuts as part of a final deal, and since they've already made clear that they believe they could support these cuts, it makes no sense to let the debt ceiling collapse just because the two sides can't agree on taxes. To that end, House Republicans are likely to move a bill next week that includes these cuts, perhaps without some of the Medicare savings, and also raises the debt ceiling. Then, if Senate Democrats and the White House refuse to pass the legislation, they figure that they can blame the Democrats for letting the debt ceiling collapse, as Republicans will have already passed legislation that could have lifted it.In theory, President Obama rejected such a strategy in Monday's press conference. "If the basic proposition is 'it's my way or the highway,'" he said, "then we're probably not going to get something done because we've got divided government." But Republicans know the White House is terrified of what default could do to an already fragile recovery. Given the choice between their way and a fresh recession, they think there's some chance he may change his mind.
You should listen to me.
Jesus Jesus Jesus here in Israel
He's back? But they told me in college that was all bullshit!
He never left - we're taking more pleasure in killing him real slow.
He is summoned like Beetlejuice.
Also He shouldn't be fed after midnight.
FDL today has decided it's over, based on some McConnell bs, that the Repubs have caved and will send a clean bill.
If true, Obama supporters will be able to legitimately claim a successful 11-dimensional chess gambit.
No, the McConnell BS is truly idiotic. Observe. Obama will have to ask three separate times, then congress will have to approve it; if they disapprove, Obama will have to veto it, then it will get sent back … We'll be treated to even more meaningless posturing for a long time to come.
That's McConnell's opening bid. The Democrats can counter with one embarrassing vote instead of two, and voila, clean bill. It's what I knew but somehow didn't believe would have to happen in the end.
The fact that we extended the Bush tax cuts last year infuriates me endlessly with the current debates, even though they're not exactly related. By now, had they just expired, it would have been long forgotten by the media.
I momentarily respect McConnell for like the first time ever -- it's an act of monumental irresponsibility to play russian roulette with the world economy around this debt limit crap. That proposal would neatly exile the issue into the realm of political posturing where it belongs. By the third "tranche" no one outside of Fox news will even be paying attention.
It's really over. Boehner is on board with a clean bill.
The Speaker shares the Leader's frustration. Republicans are unified in our commitment to ensuring that the debt limit is not used as leverage to saddle small businesses wth increased taxes that destroy jobs.
He won't allow Democrats to hold the debt ceiling hostage for tax hikes, I guess. Phew!
I sometimes hope for a nuclear apocalypse to see if we'd really wind up riding around the desert in jury-rigged jeeps wearing leather-covered shoulder pads.
Also, if there is a zombie apocalypse, I might end up hiding in a shopping mall with Sarah Polley.
jury-rigged jeeps
Pretty sure that the first thing to go will be the legal system.
It's really over. Boehner is on board with a clean bill.
Wait, are you really saying that this whole fight could end as an (approximate) victory for the Democrats? I have to admit I never saw that happening.
No conclusions until the smoke clears, and it sure hasn't cleared yet.
Wait, are you really saying that this whole fight could end as an (approximate) victory for the Democrats?
There is still plenty of time for the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I wouldn't exactly call a clean debt ceiling increase a victory; it's been increased consistently for 30 years without being considered any sort of prize for anyone.
I wouldn't exactly call a clean debt ceiling increase a victory
It would be a pretty huge defeat for the tea party and sew some serious rancor within the Republican party. That is something of a victory in itself.
Also, avoiding a catastrophic financial collapse is good.
And there's some weird requirement that the president go through a kabuki process of a series of votes intended to establish that raising the debt limit is all his fault, scheduled right before the election. I honestly don't know what the upshot of that is likely to be, but it does seem like a downside.
But this does mostly seem like a win. Weird. This is me not trusting it as such until it's safely in the past and I'm sure there wasn't anything non-obviously untoward about it.
I wouldn't exactly call a clean debt ceiling increase a victory; it's been increased consistently for 30 years without being considered any sort of prize for anyone.
It would be a pretty huge defeat for the tea party
The other thing that makes it a win is that the Republicans would generally come out looking ridiculous. The amazing thing would be if it ended up working to the political benefit of congressional Dems as well as Obama which seems possible.
a series of votes ... scheduled right before the election
Yeah, that worried me too.
There is still plenty of time for the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Ooh, yes. What would be the most politically unpopular thing possible? Levy a tax on ice cream? Put Carrot Top on the five-dollar bill?
The other thing that makes it a win is that the Republicans would generally come out looking ridiculous.
They might come out looking ridiculous to a subset of people, but I really wonder if they'll be presented as ridiculous generally, and therefore how many people will actually perceive them as ridiculous.
I place absolutely no weight on what McConnell actually is asking for here. The key point is that he isn't asking for any spending cuts, or anything else substantive. He's suing for peace.
I don't usually put much trust in the political radar of Kos, but I think he gets this one right: McConnell is caving -- to Wall Street. He's been talking out of both sides of his mouth on the debt ceiling for weeks, reassuring Wall Street donors that he would never allow a default to happen, but posturing tough in negotiations with Obama. He can't maintain the duplicity forever.
Note that the incentives for McConnell are very different from those of the House leadership. For him to become Senate Majority Leader, he needs to do more than run against Obama in a lousy economy and fight to a draw; he needs to unseat five sitting senators. To accomplish that he needs (1) ungodly amounts of money, hence the solicitousness of Wall Street; and (2) some embarassing votes to hang on the incumbents, for which he believes the debt ceiling votes to be well-suited.
Embarassing Obama is a distinctly secondary benefit.
47: That makes sense. Weeks ago, I had thought that this couldn't be a problem because of the Wall Street factor, but it got close enough that I assumed that Wall Street wasn't going to step in for some reason. I guess I just underestimated the willingness to play chicken.
I really don't think Boehner's statement can be taken as endorsing McConnell's idiotic proposal*, much less a clean bill.
*Honestly, it's like his first idea was "okay, but what if we make him promise to go on TV and say 'I am a poopy head!' every Saturday for a month!" but some staffer told him that was insufficiently serious.
Goddamn good-for-nothing Republicans, I can't count on them for anything. Maybe Trichet and the Europeans will bring on the apocalypse.
Also, McConnell has a lot to fear from a tea party backlash. They never trusted him to begin with, and while they can't depose him as leader (like they could Boehner), they can primary his incumbents and cause havoc with his picks to challenge vulnerable Dems. Washing his hands of the debt ceiling issue is probably the safest course of action for him.
The main question, and I don't know who if anyone really knows the answer to this, is whether Boehner can actually herd enough cats to get this done. For once, the margin of the 2010 victory is a stone in his shoe--even if every Democrat votes to raise the debt ceiling, he needs to get something like 25 Republican votes. And if he needs to get every Democrat to buy in, he'll probably have to make it a little more palatable for them (although I imagine that a plain old bill to increase the debt ceiling, with no Byzantine election-year-embarrassing-vote rider, would work). I assume he can get 25, but what's the margin?
51: I'm sure there'll be blood running in the gutters sometime soon, Bob. You just have to be patient.
is whether Boehner can actually herd enough cats to get this done
I'm still doubtful he will. I think the House will pass something with drastic, poison-pill spending cuts attached. What happens after that is anyone's guess.
53: There might be one or two defections, but I bet that getting the Democrats in line isn't going to be a significant problem if there's a realistic attempt at a clean bill. The Democrats making trouble were doing it when the debt limit was being used as a venue for policy haggling -- once that's not the issue, I doubt they'll screw Obama.
I have no idea if Boehner can get enough Republicans in line. I just think that if a clean bill passes, it'll have, say, three or fewer Democratic defections.
The main question, and I don't know who if anyone really knows the answer to this, is whether Boehner can actually herd enough cats to get this done.
Ezra says "like hell"
House Republicans, who already hold the majority, can't possibly accept this deal. It would mean they have to take a vote to hand power on the debt ceiling over to the White House. "We, the House, hate this and it will not move," a House GOP aide told the National Review. "It would basically mean that the president only needs one third of either body to raise the debt limit, meaning that we would cede our majority status in the House. Can you imagine how insane this would make the grass roots/tea party -- we have the numbers to stop an increase, but we completely give up and let Dems uphold a veto with a one-third vote. No way." Speaker John Boehner's spokesman Michael Steele, meanwhile, said, "the Speaker shares the Leader's frustration," but stopped well short of saying he shares his solution.Nor is it likely to be popular among conservative Republicans in the Senate. One anonymous aide told the Huffington Post's Jon Ward that the "McConnell plan is a full-surrender, white-flag approach."
My guess is McConnell is about to suffer a serious backlash from his base.
Fascism is bottom-up, folks.
House Republicans, who already hold the majority, can't possibly accept this deal.
The only way they can accept it is basically by pretending that the Democrats were holding the debt ceiling hostage and demanding tax cuts, and that they have to raise the debt ceiling in order not to allow that to happen. Which is why it's so interesting that Boehner's statement sets forth just this argument.
ps 53 was me
This is my current theory on what's been going on.
- Obama wanted a grand bargain to burnish his credentials as a moderate who gets things done. The debt ceiling allowed him to pretend that he was "forced" to compromise to his base.
- Given that they knew Obama wanted to make a deal, the Republican leadership went along, knowing that the longer they held out, the better the deal they'd get. I bet the original plan was to let Obama keep upping the offer, and then take the best deal on the table on August 2nd.
- Now they're losing control of the process, because the rank-and-file are crazy. If you're a freshman Republican who hates the welfare state, the debt ceiling has got to have filled you with an incredible sense of power, one that the leadership is going to take away.
Boehner might have to cave to get enough Democratic votes, but if he does that, he might lose the Speakership. So God knows what's going to happen.
My moaning and groaning usually goes unheeded here, but still: Jesus Jesus Jesus here in Israel it is now illegal to boycott the settlements (even on a personal basis)! This country is headed for fascism in a bad way, so so depressing...
Your moaning and groaning is duly noted. That is fucking awful.
61 -- I don't think Obama would have been looking for a deal if the Republicans hadn't made the ceiling an issue. They think he beat them on the shutdown deals earlier this year, so they want to play to finally win one. What they really need is, as bob says, a M/SS cutting bill that passes with all the Dems and just enough Republicans in safe seats to get it passed. The Reps can demagogue Obama cutting SS for all they're worth, safe that no one their voters listen to will call them on it. (Helped by the leftward fringe who'll spend the next year saying it's what Obama wanted all along.)
This is still on the table, I think.
How can they tell if you're personally boycotting? This reminds me of laws that effectively criminalize miscarriage (not least as creeping fascism). Commiseration.
How can they tell if you're personally boycotting? This reminds me of laws that effectively criminalize miscarriage (not least as creeping fascism). Commiseration.
And maybe McConnell is just signalling that that deal can get 60 votes to permit a final party-line vote.
Boehner might have to cave to get enough Democratic votes
For Boehner to bring it to the floor (not sure on this process) and pass it with 150 House Democrats it would have to be cleaner than the MCConnell maze. But Boehner would still need 75 Republicans willing to be primaried by the Tea Party. Good luck.
Until the sky is falling...then I suspect they will try desperate some variation on the $2 Trillion plan, passing with a majority of House Democrats, Obama and Geithner on their knees, said lefty Dems remembering how betrayed they felt about ACA and thinking that if they blame bipartisan Obama they might be ok in the fall 2012 by saying they will protect SS and Medicare from Obama.
Obama's bipartisanship and cave repeated caves to Nelson and Lieberman (and fucking Blanche Lincoln, and Snow) on stimulus and ACA cost them the House. He burned that bridge. Let him sleep with the Tea Party now.
Obama's bipartisanship and cave repeated caves to Nelson and Lieberman (and fucking Blanche Lincoln, and Snow) on stimulus and ACA cost them the House. He burned that bridge. Let him sleep with the Tea Party now.
Without strikes.
Hamsher thinks Pelosi will roll over as many times as Obama needs. I am not so sure. I can see a Democrat in a liberal district feeling pretty safe right now, blaming Repubs and Obama for the debt ceiling crash, running to his left and against President Comity.
Boehner has to pass something -- it doesn't have to be too similar to the final deal, certainly doesn't have to be Obama-approved -- and House Dems can carry the weight after a conference. This is the first problem, though: Boehner can't actually pass anything. Yet.
68 -- Sure there are lots of Dems who have no reason to be afraid of the voters, no matter what, and no reason to be afraid of the President. They'll still have to live with Pelosi and Hoyer, though.
Not very many people outside of the FantasyLeft actually think crippling the President and bringing on a Republican administration in 2012 is a good progressive strategy. I'm not saying there are no office-holders who fit in this group, but I can't imagine it's very many at all.
63: I think Obama let them make it into an issue because it would give him cover. Entitlements can only be cut as part of a "grand bargain". If Obama didn't want a deal, he would have been using harsher rhetoric all along, and he would have put forth a plan to fix the deficit that the Republicans could never accept.
Sometimes I think that progressives just don't know what winning looks like.
The Democrats have been consistently demanding either a clean bill or tax increases. The Republicans have been consistently demanding spending cuts--in equal proportion to a debt ceiling limit--but today, both Republican leaders dropped that demand. It's not hard to see what happened: the negotiations are over and the Democrats won without having to give anything away. It's hardly surprising; the Republicans were in an untenable position and everyone knew it.
I don't think it's a coincidence that this happened on the same day that Obama finally played the card of threatening next month's Social Security checks. I can only imagine that Congressional switchboards were going crazy today.
Boehner has now come out and endorsed the idea of a "backup plan." Whatever you need to call it, man
I am also sort of disappointed to see the bomb defused, bob. But don't worry, there's still a budget to negotiate about.
72: Huh? Approximately 150 people on the thread have said some variant of "the Democrats are winning".
Obligatory it's-not-over-until-it's-over: Of course, it's not over until it's over.
Congressional switchboards were going crazy today
In the modern era, you just get a message that the mailbox is full and then the line goes dead. Unless they've worked out some other system in the last two years.
I've got a friend who calls his Congressman at least once a week, and there are actual people answering the phones somewhere back there, but probably not enough to meet peak political demand.
Yeah, I've gotten through, but not when there's something big on the table. That's when the automated mailbox full message shows up. I guess they don't do busy signals.
72: eliot, you are inappropriately conflating progressives and Democrats here. The Democrats are potentially going to win one here. The progressives, by stopping any action, can claim a short-term draw.
But Social Security and Medicare are now on the table, while tax increases remain off the table. That's a defeat for progressives.
tax increases remain off the table
Wait, what? Hasn't Obama said, rather resolutely, that he's unwilling to take any deal that doesn't include revenue increases?
80: OTOH there is the chance of Republicans eating each other, which is an unambiguous win.
What does "on the table" mean? I mean, really? I don't know if I have the metaphysics straight. Did any Democrats vote for Social Security cuts? Promise to vote for Social Security cuts? Agree to vote for Social Security cuts? Trade anything for Social Security cuts?
I don't think that the Republicans ever took "tax reform" "off the table," either, for what that's worth. Obama has repeatedly said he won't accept any spending cuts without revenue increases, but if revenue increases are "off the table", why are they still negotiating?
There is no table.
I'm still waiting for Obama to say that the government is like a household, so it needs to put more people to work in order to make ends meet.
The table is portrayed in a stained-glass panel (upper left hand corner) of the Overton Window. It is, notably, shown to be on top of a pin, supported by a grouping of 17 angels.
The table is portrayed in a stained-glass panel (upper left hand corner) of the Overton Window. It is, notably, shown to be on top of a pin, supported by a grouping of 17 angels.
And upon it sits a chess board, rendered, improbably, in seventeen dimensions.
I'm trying to write a Green Eggs & Ham parody about the negotiations, but I can't think of anything that rhymes with "index tax brackets to chained CPI."
(I have to take the blame for 83 and for being so bad at using my name in general.)
81: I think we're talking about the McConnell "compromise" per the link in 28.
I don't understand why politicalfootball says in 80 that Social Security and Medicare remain on the table.
Sorry, not McConnell "compromise" but rather "contingency plan."
68:and House Dems can carry the weight after a conference.
Hoo, we have seen that show before.
1) Looks like Boehner is going to pass, if he can, a $2 T teaparty wetdream.
2) It will get to the Senate, where Joe Liebermann will run his grubby hands all over it, turning into a neo-liberal wetdream, adding enough taxes to make sure few House rethugs vote for it and allowing the Village to say "both sides lost"
3) House Dems say "No way Chained CPI" and Obama says "I'm with you 150%. Let's go to conference"
...
4) Dow drops 3000 and Geithner doesn't cut SS checks and Obots scream, including Carp, Halford, Lemieux:"OMG OMG Oh my fucking god Pass the Senate Bill right now you fucking nihilist monsters! Pass that Senate Bill!"
88: I understand that's the state of play, but I still don't know why pf is saying that tax increases are off the table while ss and medicare cuts are on it. Not to mention, I think it's probably best to wait to see what comes out in the wash with this one, as only yesterday (or was it the day before?) we were talking about a bargain so grand that it promised to raise Henry Clay from the dead.
Believe it or not, the coincidence of 90 and 91 were, actually, coincidental.
was
Stupid subjects and verbs are like cats and dogs.
Wait, why am I being cast as an O-Bot? My only political allegiance is to a radical, pro-bison Christian socialism in which I will act as Emperor.
That's pro-bison consumption, in case you were confused about my beliefs. Many bison would be raised, but many would die.
a bargain so grand that it promised to raise Henry Clay from the dead
Cut Texas, not taxes.
Looks like Boehner is going to pass, if he can, a $2 T teaparty wetdream
This I'll believe when I see.
I'm actually rooting for Boehner to keep the Speakership, over Cantor taking it. I'm unclear on when/how a House Speaker can be deposed. Only after an election cycle? Or any old time the majority party wishes?
MANY BISON DIED TO BRING US THIS INFORMATION.
Wait, what? Hasn't Obama said, rather resolutely, that he's unwilling to take any deal that doesn't include revenue increases?
Absolutely nobody believes this, including you. If he gets offered a clean bill, he'll take it (or such is the theory of people who interpret Obama's motives charitably).
Obama has established a consensus among the President and the Republican leadership that Medicare can be cut. He might be willing to agree to a deal that won't cut it right now. Woohoo! A progressive victory!
Sure, down the road, Obama can agree to a deal that includes some token tax increases - if he gets Republicans to agree even to tokenism. But now that Obama has put it on the table, it's hard to see a future deal that doesn't include the Medicare age rising to 67.
You've moved the goalposts, pf. I totally agree that Obama fucked up by putting SS and Medicare cuts on the table. But I got confused when you said that tax increases were off the table. They're not.
The table is portrayed in a stained-glass panel (upper left hand corner) of the Overton Window. It is, notably, shown to be on top of a pin, supported by a grouping of 17 angels.
Yes, yes, I know. It doesn't matter what the president says or does. He's not an actor here. He is merely acted upon by cold historical forces.
Futility is a big part of the Republican message. Global warming? Poverty? Joblessness? Healthcare? There's nothing that can be done. Sorry. Even if all you want to do is talk about these things, the proper response from the cognoscenti is mockery.
You've moved the goalposts, pf.
On the contrary. Here's where you placed the goalposts:
but I still don't know why pf is saying that tax increases are off the table while ss and medicare cuts are on it.
That's the remark I was answering in 100. Medicare is on the table because the President and Republicans agree that it belongs there. No such agreement exists on tax increases.
And now you're being disingenuous. Whatever, man. I thought maybe you actually knew something. But no, it turns out you were just venting. Which is cool and all, I suppose.
we were talking about a bargain so grand that it promised to raise Henry Clay from the dead.
I honestly don't understand what you're talking about. IF the McConnell contingency plan proceeds to a vote (a big if, but that's what we were talking about, I thought), there is no longer any grander or lesser bargain to be negotiated in order to raise the debt ceiling. The ceiling would be raised in exchange for Democrats voting for the McConnell contingency plan.
Now, IF the McConnell proposal went to a vote and were passed, there would be obnoxious battles now and then over whether to give Obama permission to raise the debt ceiling, and these would involve scrutinizing his spending cut proposals, and there would be no discussion of revenue increases (at least as the McConnell plan is sketchily sketched) -- is that what you mean?
Are you asking me, parsimon? If so, I'm talking about broader and ongoing negotiations about federal spending -- to be clear, these negotiations almost certainly won't become truly meaningful until after the 2012 election -- which is what this whole brouhaha has been about. Elevating the debt ceiling has just been an excuse to mount some political Kabuki and maybe also to broach some of these deeper issues.
The whole shebang gave the Administration political cover to enrage the gun nuts, so that's a progressive victory.
Parsi, I think the McConnell thing has already evaporated. Leaving a residue.
When I spell out 106.2 in that way, it doesn't sound like an awesome arrangement, obviously, as we knew. Of course the McConnell plan really is sketchy, and it's difficult to see how it would pan out in reality; I assume the Democrats are thinking about that even as we speak.
You have to ask yourself whether that arrangement would be preferable to the prospect of the kind of thing we're going through now, which would also likely occur time and again, but would at least have revenue increases on the table.
I wouldn't exactly call it a win if it occurred. It may well not even happen anyway.
I'm having trouble envisioning what it would mean for the intra-party disputes within the Republican party. Too many of the current Republican presidential candidates are on board with demanding a balanced budget amendment, for god's sake. It might be worth a McConnell plan dealio just to sidebar that fucking thing.
No, I think House Republicans have already killed it. Rush could save it, but no one else.
Rush could save it, but no one else.
I don't really see what skills Neil Peart brings to the table on this one.
He's no Steve Miller, that's for sure. Insufficient Pompitous.
Too depressing to think in depth about, I read this NY Times article which leads with quotes from Allan "no outlier in the House Republican majority" West with the opening to "Crazy Train" running through my head.
"That's not leadership; that is sad and pathetic," said Representative Allen West, a freshman Republican representing thousands of Social Security recipients in South Florida. He said the president and the Treasury secretary could pay pressing federal obligations out of money still coming in, and if they say they cannot, "Then they are liars."
I mean, fuck the Times, fuck the reporter, double fuck the fucking Republicans and fuck me.
Meant to quote the last paragraph as well. From some other fresher: "The thing to remember about the freshman class is we have 300 children and grandchildren among the members," he added. "We are going to protect their economic opportunities." Oh, the precious pretties.
I was just reading about the conservative reaction to the McConnell plan, and all I could think was "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA." Since I'm a bad, terrible person, I was a little deflated that the crisis looked like it would be diverted, and we were no longer facing economic Armageddon. Thank you, wacko Republicans!
The problem that McConnell faces is that the new Republicans are a bunch of morons who know nothing other than what they divine from their imagined rectitude.
Progressives had abandoned the debate, and Obama had been hand-selected by Wall Street to offer up Social Security. Just as only a Republican President could go to China, only a Democrat could finally kill the last remaining remnants of the New Deal. President Clinton had destroyed all the financial regulations, eliminated welfare, and undercut consumer protection. Now it is up to Obama to eliminate Social Security and Medicare.Obamacare will hand over the nation's healthcare system to Wall Street, with elimination of Medicare removing the last remaining obstacle to complete financialization of medical care. Similarly, getting rid of Social Security will put Wall Street in complete control of our nation's retirement system. Wall Street hates competition.
I should quote from the Galbraith too, in order to remind people what decent people, decent Democrats say and do. We do not waste time attacking Republicans.
If you wanted to build on that, the right steps would be to lower - not raise - the Social Security early retirement age, permitting for a few years older workers to exit the labor force permanently on better terms than are available to them today. This together with a lower age of access to Medicare would work quickly to rebalance the labor force, reducing unemployment and futile job search among older workers while increasing job openings for the young. It is the application of plain common sense. And unlike all the pressures to enact long-term cuts in these programs, it would help solve one of today's important problems right away.Instead of this, what do we have, from a President who claims to be a member of the Democratic Party? First, there is the claim that we face a fiscal crisis, which is a big untruth. Second, a concession in principle that we should deal with that crisis by enacting massive cuts in public services on one hand and in vital social insurance programs on the other. This is an arbitrary cruelty. Third, a refusal to stand on the strong ground of the Constitution, against those whose open and declared purpose is tear that document and the public credit to shreds.
I totally agree that Obama fucked up by putting SS and Medicare cuts on the table.
For the record, I don't think Obama "fucked up" in the sense of having erred.
Kevin Drum says it neatly here:
Just do this: whenever you think Obama has done something dumb or weak-minded or inexplicable, remind yourself that he doesn't necessarily have the same goals as you.
I honestly don't understand what you're talking about.
Like Von in 108, I'm talking about the broader issue of the ongoing negotiations. The current status of this broader issue? The President and the Republicans agree that Medicare and other cuts must be made. (Thus, in my locution, these cuts are "on the table." Perhaps there's a better way to say it.) The President thinks that taxes ought to increase. Neither side wants to confront the impact of military spending on the budget, the economy or the political economy.
I don't share the priorities of this president or the Republicans, so I'm unhappy about the way they've shaped the parameters of this negotiation.
And yes, I believe they've shaped the parameters of this negotiation, Halford and Von's mockery notwithstanding. I'm not sure to whom they assign agency in this matter. Maybe these things just happen.
I got directed to L Randall Wray and the Kansas City economists from a FDL link, but I liked what I read enough to go back to a blog I hadn't visited for a while.
The above may belong in h-g's QE post, but it is part of a series about money and national accounts etc, and the blog has lots of articles and links for learning about MMT and such. Greece. Good stuff.
Neither side wants to confront the impact of military spending
Seriously.
And yes, I believe they've shaped the parameters of this negotiation, Halford and Von's mockery notwithstanding. I'm not sure to whom they assign agency in this matter. Maybe these things just happen.
First, I wasn't mocking you. I was mocking people who think that Obama is playing multi-dimensional chess while the Republicans are playing checkers. Second, I didn't say that Obama has no agency (again, please stop being disingenuous). I said that he fucked up. That seems to suggest that he's an agent, doesn't it? Finally, for the record, I agree with Drum: what we're seeing is a reflection, in no small part, of Obama's priorities.
It's pretty clear that Obama would love to preside over a grand bargain (which doesn't mean that offering such a thing wasn't also shrewd tactics), certainly for political but also perhaps for policy reasons. It's also pretty clear that Obama believes that he needs the debt ceiling fight to end so that businesses will be begin to hire, that, in his view at least, these are negotiations over a de facto jobs bill (I have no idea if he's right, but it's pretty clear he thinks that's the case). And finally, it's pretty clear that Obama was willing to put SS and Medicare cuts on the table in order to make this happen. But again, so far as I know, he demanded increased revenues (in the form of tax increases) from the Republicans in exchange for those cuts. And he never dropped that demand. When you said otherwise, I thought maybe you knew something that I didn't. But like I said above, you didn't know anything of the sort; you were just venting. Which, again, is fine. If you want to climb the moral high ground, I'm pretty sure it's unoccupied.
As for military spending, everything I read that mentioned the issue at all suggested that Obama's grand bargain included substantial cuts to the Pentagon budget. Would it have been enough to satisfy me? Or you, pf? As a counterweight to SS or Medicare cuts? Of course not. But once again, it's disingenuous to claim otherwise -- unless you want to show me where you've read that such cuts weren't on the table (I mean, I'm happy to believe just about anything when it comes to these negotiations, but I'd like to see a source other than Marcy Wheeler or whomever).
Shorter Von: there's plenty of real stuff to be disappointed in about Obama, so there's no reason to make shit up to add to the list.
Yglesias reads the same NYT article linked by Stormcrow in 117:
Carl Hulse of The New York Times goes full scale shrill blogger and accuses House Republicans of deliberately engineering economic chaos
I have to say that although Yglesias backs this opinion with a quote from the article, I'm more sympathetic to Stormcrow's view expressed in 118. The article as a whole represents a whitewash of Republican malfeasance, not an attack on it.
Obama's wrong about this being a de facto jobs bill (if that's what he thinks). The mechanism by which it would work is by lowering nominal interest rates. Nominal interest rates are basically as low as they can go.
I'm surprised this experience hasn't killed Krugman. It would be like if you were a historian, and you discovered that the President of your party thought that the Civil War was fought entirely over the Tariff of Abominations. Obama has gone the Full Hoover. At this point, the only thing between us and a repeat of the Great Depression is luck.
131: as I understand it (which isn't very well at all), Obama believes that businesses, which have been very profitable in may cases over the previous year, aren't hiring because of uncertainty, because they don't know if there will be changes in corporate tax code or if the full faith and credit of the US will be null and void. Businesses, in this view, are primed to hire but can't because the debt ceiling nonsense clouds the future too much. Is that wrong? I have no earthly idea. But it seems to be an animating idea for the president and his advisers.
As to the other stuff, I agree nearly 100%. I truly can't stomach the fact that Obama has embraced austerity during a recession, that he's put SS and Medicare cuts on the table when his negotiating partners are thugs, cretins, and morons, and that he thinks a grand bargain is a good idea. As a colleague and I have been saying lately, I think Obama had the chance to be a Roosevelt, wanted badly to be Lincoln, and could end up being Buchanan or Pierce. Unless, of course, this latest gambit really does fracture the Republican Party, in which case all bets are off.
Is that wrong?
It is not wrong; it is INSANE. But it is one more checkbox to attempt to remove from the Republican list of bullshit complaints; but since that list is infinite there is little profit in removing any one (or 50) item(s).
Businesses aren't hiring because they don't have enough consumer demand. End of story.
127-129: We're talking past each other a bit here. When I say this:
Neither side wants to confront the impact of military spending on the budget, the economy or the political economy.
I don't regard it as being inconsistent with your view here:
Would it have been enough to satisfy me? Or you, pf? ... Of course not.
Right. I'm guilty of what you accuse me of here. I do insist that in order to support Obama's proposals, I must in some sense be "satisfied" by them.
Sure, Obama, Gates and Panetta talk about "cuts," but whenever you get into the details, they are talking about cuts to the rate of the growth of an already bloated Defense monstrosity. Or cuts to some programs matched by increases to others. But there's been nothing to suggest that the president is interested in confronting "the impact of military spending on the budget, the economy or the political economy" (as I put it).
This president was quite willing to blow up American dollars in Libya, and he's made it clear that he doesn't feel constrained in the matter of making war - not by the budget; not even by the Constitution.
I don't like it. I don't support it. And I don't think any of it is unintentional on the president's part.
The New Keynesians screwed it up when they tried to change the Bible to the "General Theory of Interest and Money" as if if they got those right employment would be ok.
Keynes is a little counter-intuitive and "spending to prosperity" is a hard sell. FDR was just trying to help people but by the time we got through WW II the pr campaign was developed:"jobs to prosperity"
The other thing that helped was, well, the draft and military Keynesian. Those demons, Greenspan and Friedman knew exactly what they were doing when they talk Nixon into ending the draft. For the vast majority of young men, the dsraft was just another temporary gov't job, dangerous, but 19-yr-olds often get very difficult and dangerous jobs on oil derricks or deep-sea fishing boats.
And the bottom line was that it was automatic for thirty years that the Federal Gov't was a big fucking job creator, and everybody thought that was way cool.
Obama believes that businesses, which have been very profitable in may cases over the previous year, aren't hiring because of uncertainty because they don't know if there will be changes in corporate tax code or if the full faith and credit of the US will be null and void.
Does Obama really believe this? I honestly believe anyone really believes this. If Obama actually believes this then he is not just a self-serving politician or a toady of corporate interests, he is a moron of epic proportions.
"I honestly believe" = "I honestly can't believe"
Keynes is only counter-intuitive if you buy the shit about the national budget being anything like the household budget. And you have to be pretty stupid to do that. How's your household defense budget? If you live in a city, how are your agricultural subsidies? Do you tax your children equally, on on a graduated scale? Most importantly, do you print your own money?
I mean. CCC and WPA and parks are decent gov't jobs, but sitting on a base in Munich for two years was pretty fucking cool, and an easy sell to a lot of political constituencies.
Course, soldiers were cheaper back then, a form of indentured vacation labor. the "reserve army of the unemployed" is just the place you burn money as broadly as possible, without inflationary overproduction or wage inflation. Digging and filling in.
Find me a jobs program you can sell to Mississippi as easy as a million man army.
I am not necessarily calling for the draft to return, but we have to if not the draft come up with another Federal Jobs program that doesn't look like featherbedding for bums and that can be sold to Mississippi.
Keynes is only counter-intuitive if you buy the shit about the national budget being anything like the household budget. And you have to be pretty stupid to do that.
Virtually everyone does, though. Obama, for example. And all the left-wing people I've ever heard talk about the national debt in real life take it for granted that the debt needs to go down, preferably by cutting the Pentagon budget by about 95%. I'm starting to think Keynesian economics is one of those concepts that only exists in internet discussions, like "LaTeX" and "Bloomsday".
and that can be sold to Mississippi
I think this is a big part of Obama's calculation in economic matters. Problem is, if we need Mississippi's approval on economic issues, our economy is going to end up like Mississippi's.
Find me a jobs program you can sell to Mississippi
Plantations!
143:Then secede. Or occupy Mississippi, and rule it from Boston.
Unfortunately, we either do need Mississippi's approval, or we go lefty auithoritarian.
Lefty authoritarian is actually my 1st preference, anybody remember me begging Obama to go Louis Napoleon on their asses, and put a solar roof on every house and a Shinkansen between every megaplex by dictatorial powers.
142: Thinking that the debt needs to go down eventually isn't anti-Keynesian; the Keynesian issue is that we shouldn't be paying down debt when unemployment is high and the economy is weak. There probably is a percentage of the size of the economy over which the debt shouldn't stay.
145: You forgot the arcologies. I'm only on board with the left-wing fascism if we get arcologies.
It's arguably rational for businesses to hold back investing due to uncertainty. The US seems increasingly ungovernable, and unable to address any of the significant problems it faces.
It's arguably rational for businesses to hold back investing due to uncertainty.
Sure, the Econ 101-type stories all make sense to those of us who took Econ 101. But that's not what's actually happening.
Mississippi has a >10% unemployment rate. You may be overestimating the challenge of selling a jobs program to them.
146:LB, the link to Wray at Kansas City was partly for you. The blog explains this stuff.
We don't have to and shouldn't worry about deficits or debt. A good inflationary (4-5%) economy takes care of it automatically. We had unimaginable debt after WW II; Germany and Japan had insane levels.
151:Like the family!
A twenty-something whose income is predictably increasing 10% a year doesn't worry about debt. Debt is only a problem if she loses her job or income falls.
In most cases.
145: You forgot the arcologies. I'm only on board with the left-wing fascism if we get arcologies.
I thought for a moment that was, "analogies" and that you were saying that the analogy band would end if and only if the socialist revolution occurred.
149: No, it's not what's happening, but it would be reasonable if it were. I'm consistently impressed by how hard Republicans work to make true their predictions of doom if Democrats are elected.
A good inflationary (4-5%) economy takes care of it automatically.
That's only true as long as (a) interest rates don't fully adjust to inflation and (b) workers have enough bargaining power to insure that wages rise faster than inflation. I don't know that either is true right now.
I'm in favor of more inflation in the short term, but I don't think constant inflation would solve our problems.
the analogy band would end
Until then, we can listen?
151, 152: Sure, that's what I meant by identifying the debt as possibly too big in terms of a percentage of the economy. If there's a reasonably likely future in which we're going to grow enough to reduce the relative size of the debt, everything's fine. But that's not necessarily always going to be true.
I'm starting to think Keynesian economics is one of those concepts that only exists in internet discussions, like "LaTeX" and "Bloomsday"
Or labor unions.
I think the appeal of Hooverism is that it sounds like the sophisticated view, while its easy to caricature the Keynesian view to be terribly naive. That makes Hooverism a natural appeal to smart people who have only thought about economics a little bit.
For example, one way to explain Keynesianism is to say "People don't have any money, so if we give them money, they'll spend it." This sounds terribly naive, right? Money is just little pieces of paper. How can little pieces of paper do that?
I was explaining to a math Ph.D. student how you can increase the money supply during a recession without causing inflation. She immediately dismissed that, and asserted the obvious truth of the simple quantity theory of money: that if you increase the money supply by 10%, then you'll get 10% inflation. This sounds more sophisticated than the naive view that if you give people money, they'll spend it and stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, in practice the naive view is right and the sophisticated view is wrong. The actual amount of money in circulation has very little predictive power for inflation. (Milton Friedman revived the quantity theory of money by broadening the definition of money to count things like bank accounts, which is why people talk about things like M2.)
(b) workers have enough bargaining power to insure that wages rise faster than inflation. I don't know that either is true right now.
Indeed. (What happened to thinkprogress' comments? I wanted to see if there were any snarky comments about the reserve army of the unemployed.)
It's arguably rational for businesses to hold back investing due to uncertainty.
There is *always* uncertainty. What's unusual about right now isn't the uncertainty, it's the pessimistic overall outlook.
159: You're on to something, although calling the Keynesian view naive doesn't work for me -- 'stimulating the economy' is already fairly sophisticated.
The naively cynical view is that nothing good can come of just handing out more paper -- that would be a 'free lunch', and we all know those don't exist. That was kind of why I jumped all over Eliot the other day for bringing up TANSTAAFL as if it were a useful concept; in my experience, it tends to leave people cynically dismissive of things that really do work.
Just to be clear, I wasn't mocking PF or anyone else's specific view of the negotiations. I do find the entire set-up of armchair-gaming Congressional negotiations like this over the blogs totally stupid -- and that's true for both the knowing reassurances about Obama's masterful negotiation style and for hysterical cries of betrayal. No one on the internet really has the remotest idea of what's actually going on or the state of political play, which is all subject to media spin, selective releases, and positioning we don't understand, and until there's actual a final deal announced, no one will. There's a lot of false sophistication based on thin air, but it's at about the same level of sports fans swapping trade rumors based on nothing.
Obama has said lots of things that appear to be deeply stupid. I'm happy to call them deeply stupid (based on my half-understood macroeconomics). I'm also glad to have people who more fully understand economics, like Krugman or Walt in this thread, call them stupid. But I don't purport to have any broader insight into how the negotiations are actually proceeding or will proceed, and until a deal is announced, no one else does either.
162 gets at something important. To be perfectly honest, my own preference for Keynsianism isn't based on a careful survey of the macroeconomic evidence, but on a general sense that government should be doing something to make the world more equitable and that a lot of people who I generally trust say (for reasons that seem to make sense) that focusing on cutting deficits in the middle of a recession is a dumb idea.
I imagine folks on the right are anti-Keynsian for somewhat similar reasons; it just kinda seems like getting something for nothing, which can't be right. Right?
163: Can we criticize the outcome of a negotiated process? After it's decided we will still have no better basis to evaluate it than selective releases, trial balloons, and spin.
Sure you do. You know whether the substance of the deal looks good or not. It's the reassurances about how the negotiation is actually proceeding and how it will play out that are almost 100% bullshit.
But the substance can always be explained away as the best of all possible outcomes. With no insight as to the truth of claims like this, you have no standing to criticize the results.
Well, but that's kind of an insoluble problem. Of course you have standing to criticize a result you don't like; of course you don't really know about the state of the negotiations (sometimes you can get more information about this over time, but almost never in the heat of the moment).
I think the way you deal with it is just to criticize substance on the merits, rather than the obsessive half-assed backseat role playing the negotatior that you see on the internet. Is Obama playing 11-dimensional chess or has he failed negotiating 101? No one has any fucking idea.
And it's not impossible to say some kind of informative stuff about whether an outcome was the best possible or not -- it's not necessarily easy, and it's certainly possible to talk nonsense about it, but it's much more practical than following along and critiquing the negotiations as they happen.
I think the way you deal with it is just to criticize substance on the merits, rather than the obsessive half-assed backseat role playing the negotatior that you see on the internet
But... it's the internet.
Keynesian stimulus is clearly not a free lunch. In the crude caricature of Keynesian stimulus, you give people money so that the net effect of them spending it will jump-start the economy. You're not giving it to them because they want lunch, although it is convenient that they do. It's another of those win-win situations.
I point this out not in defense of TANSTAAFL-runs-the-world theory, but against the idea that Keynesian stimulus means giving free stuff to poor people. How, goes the simplistic counterargument, is that supposed to help? Giving a man a fish and all that.
Exactly.
Now, giving free stuff to poor people is a more effective way of stimulating the economy than giving free stuff to rich people, because poor people spend extra money, which stimulates the economy, and rich people change extra money into gold coins and swim in their money-vaults, which doesn't. But the main point is the stimulus, not (in this case) the direct redistribution.
"Give a man a fish and you compel him to carry around a plastic bag full of water until he can either find a trash can when nobody is watching or he gets home."
Moving to a Goldfish standard wouldn't be more financially sound than having a fiat currency, but it would make people happy because they have smiles now.
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I was explaining to a math Ph.D. student how you can increase the money supply during a recession without causing inflation. She immediately dismissed that, and asserted the obvious truth of the simple quantity theory of money: that if you increase the money supply by 10%, then you'll get 10% inflation. This sounds more sophisticated than the naive view that if you give people money, they'll spend it and stimulate the economy.
Her view is neither obvious nor sophisticated. The whole point is that there is excess unused productive capacity so the additional money increases production. More money, more stuff = no inflation. More money, same amount of stuff=inflation.
176: I'm definitely going to use that one. I may pretend that I just came up with it on the spot.
168,169: I don't have time to respond carefully, but Halford's type of analysis doesn't let anyone know how well they are being represented.
I think the way you deal with it is just to criticize substance on the merits, rather than the obsessive half-assed backseat role playing the negotatior that you see on the internet
We tried talking about the public-option and drug pricing on the substance, and we got fucking rolled by backdoor deals, disingenuous public statements, and panic driven vote coercion.
We now think it is at least important to look at the sources of the words, and the possible machinations behind them, as to discuss high policy on the internets.
We don't do fucking policy on the internets or the streets. We do politics.
178: Not mine. I think it's Terry Pratchett -- definitely 'funny line from a book' not 'funny thing I saw online', but I'm not dead sure of the source.
we got fucking rolled
What do you mean 'we'? You didn't get tricked into anything, Bob, you weren't in a position to 'get rolled'. The politicians who were making the decisions may have gotten rolled, but not because of the tenor of online discussion about anything.
We don't do fucking policy on the internets or the streets. We do politics.
No, you don't.
182:There is more overlap than that. Specifically, Stoller and his crew, Hamsher and her crew, were in constant contact with the house progressive caucus to get a public promise not to vote for a bill without a public option.
You know, it's a continuum. I almost posted today's Ezra interview with Kent Conrad, who is frustrated waiting on the leadership so he can write a budget. IOW, a bystander, carping.
I don't have much power, and they care little about me, but I do have a little, and they can care a little if I can turn one person on the Internet who will bitch and turn one person...
183:Sure we do. How do you think I have turned Green of Sopcialist Worker's Party for 2012? It wasn't newspapers or Chris Matthews. It was Ian Welsh etc.
163: But I don't purport to have any broader insight into how the negotiations are actually proceeding or will proceed, and until a deal is announced, no one else does either.
Aren't we back to the dsquared principle here? Every other time Obama has negotiated, he's basically sold out the progressive side as a starting point, and then wound up selling out the liberal side as things go on. Why should this time be any different, and why would we think it would be, when every piece of news we've heard so far indicates that it isn't?
That said, I think putting SS cuts on the table is great. I'm sick of these bullshit austerity measures that everyone can write off because they only affect the very bottom rung of society. Let's hid the middle-class in their wallets and see how long the status quo prevails.
183:Why does Robert Reich have a blog?
You are as silly as Jonathan Rauch today.
I can do the "blog" gang sign. Does that help?
if I can turn one person on the Internet who will bitch and turn one person...
Call me a killjoy, but I think there is a fairly low natural ceiling of support for the platform of "burn shit down and take their stuff", or, indeed, "blood running in the gutters".
189: a fairly low natural ceiling of support
Sure, now. What happens 5 or 10 years down the road? Did anyone in Germany in 1911 think they'd live to see several political revolutions and two major military defeats in their lifetime?
189:You read the wrong blogs. It's called "confirmation bias."
"Blood running the gutters" was a Lizardbreath fantasy, not mine.
He already knows there's a lot of support for blogging about burning shit down and taking their stuff, I suspect. Between thought and expression...
"Blood running the gutters" was a Lizardbreath fantasy, not mine.
No, no, I was slandering you, rather than fantasizing on my own behalf.
190:KR and the liberals will be peaceniks until the last data entry worker signs her "no suicide" contract.. They will let us be enslaved, and consider themselves righteous. Tools.
192:The pros are more careful. And to be honest, a little decadent, deracinated, and demoralized.
Like I told Quiggin, you don't chose Revolution, Revolution chooses me. The only mistake is not going far enough when chaos calls. Poor Bahrain. Poor Syria.
Did anyone in Germany in 1911 think they'd live to see several political revolutions and two major military defeats in their lifetime?
Considering that non-Prussian Germans of sufficient age had already experienced all those things in their lifetimes, there were probably a few.
Poor Palestine.
Poor Greece, although a little too soon to tell. Looks like the Socialists passed Greek austerity they couldn't enforce, and the EU is going to have to cut them loose, or take a hit that will start a chain reaction.
195: Huh? If you were, say, 40 in 1911, and you grew up in Bavaria or the smaller states, basically all you would have seen was the largely peaceful and mostly bureaucratic transfer of sovereignty. No wars lost, no looting, no blood running down the gutters.
And even if we're talking about older folx, other than the actual casualties of the Austro-Prussian War, which weren't all that high, how much did daily life really change for the average person, solely due to the war and its political ramifications? Technological advances during the same time period totally overwhelmed the political in terms of promoting social change.
But if you were 60, you'd remember being on the losing side of the Austro-Prussian war. that set up the transfer of sovereignity.
I shaved my armpits yesterday, and now they're all itchy! Not the best!
Likewise, someone who is 40 years old today has no notion that it could be possible for street protests to convince anyone of anything, while older people like Bob may have more experience of what is possible.
A street protest once convinced me to cross the street.
199 pwned by 198. How much did daily life change? I don't really know, but getting annexed by Prussia/Germany meant, for plenty of Germans, moving from teeny little feudal states to an industrial country as it was setting up the first modern social welfare state. That's got to be noticeable.
I think it was mostly a happy change for the people involved -- Bismarck's Germany was probably an improvement on its predecessors for the residents thereof -- but a big change.
Right, because they don't name pastries after shitty leaders.
If you were, say, 40 in 1911, and you grew up in Bavaria or the smaller states, basically all you would have seen was the largely peaceful and mostly bureaucratic transfer of sovereignty. No wars lost, no looting, no blood running down the gutters.
If you were 70, you saw this.
The only other pastry I can think of named after a world leader is a Napoleon. So far, it works.
You can walk into any bakery in Pittsburgh and order a Lincoln.
They'll just stare at you like you are insane, but you can do it.
I'd think they'd refer you to the car dealership down the street.
205: But how many people born in some part of Germany in 1841 lived to see even the Spartacist uprising, to say nothing of Hitler's rise to power or the end of WWII?
203.a Well, now we're into base-and-superstructure territory. Could we posit an alternate history where a post-1866 divided Germany still became an industrial powerhouse, with all the concomitant changes in daily life? Probably. I agree that it would be hard to imagine it all shaking out in just the same way, although there were plenty of small European countries that did manage to industrialize in the same period.
And would people believe them? "Oh, it's just old Fritz nattering on again about how German unification actually paves the way for cataclysmic war on a scale nobody except H.G. Wells has yet imagined!"
210: Natilo, the largest party in the Reichstag in 1911 programmatically declared the collapse of the capitalist order and the triumph of the socialist revolution not only desirable, but inevitable. So it's safe to say that a few folks thought about the possibility of a revolution.
"Who would listen to that guy? He needs a little Freud to go with all his schaden!"
215: Right, there were revolutionaries, I'm not denying that, but what did socialist revolutionaries have to show for all of their agitation up to that point? Some electoral victories, some successful unionization, a little bit of influence on a few failed insurrections -- not that much, really. I think the average 1911 German citizen could easily be forgiven for thinking that the Socialist deputies were more interested in paying lip-service to revolution while consolidating their personal power than in actually mounting any barricades.
But actually, while I hadn't thought of it this way, German attitudes toward political upheaval were probably shaped interestingly by its nineteenth century experience. Nineteenth century Germany went through insane amounts of political upheaval, fundamental national restructuring, and war, and it all turned out pretty much great for them.
I wonder if that led twentieth century Germans to be a little unfortunately sanguine about how the next major set of upheavals were likely to turn out -- were they set up by their history to undervalue peace and stability?
"Those guys have been declaring the imminent death of Capitalism for 20 years now! Does Capitalism look dead to you, Traudl?"
"how many thought they'd see" is too wide open to be easily answerable, isn't it? There were plenty of marxists in Germany in 1911: many of them hoped and presumably at least some of them believed they'd see a revolution. There were many conservatives -- and liberals!! -- who feared that something like 1848 or the Commune could happen again: I imagine a handful of them gloomy enough on their own terms to assume it was a certainty.
And a LOT of Brits were convinced that a war with Germany was on the cards, from the late 1890s onwards: this assumption must have been somewhat reciprocated. The Kaiser badly wanted a colonial empire the size of the ones his cousins had (or the French): it couldn't get one without marching through somewhere.
And a LOT of Brits were convinced that a war with Germany was on the cards,
There's a little genre of Edwardian novels about when the German invasion is coming. Saki's When William Came, Erskine Childers The Riddle of the Sands, Wodehouse's The Swoop, and I figure if I can think of three there were probably a bunch more.
Not sure that Wells predicted WW1: "The Shape of Things to Come" is 1933
But there was a lot of Edwardian panic literature about invasions of Kent and attacks from the air by balloon and such.
I'm really getting this posts in early here.
177: As literally stated, isn't that false? The monetary base has little predictive power for the price level. That's why people invented the broader money aggregates.
I wonder if that led twentieth century Germans to be a little unfortunately sanguine about how the next major set of upheavals were likely to turn out -- were they set up by their history to undervalue peace and stability?
I would argue very nearly the opposite: the experience of upheaval (at home and next door in France, Russia, etc.) encouraged a fetishization of Ruhe und Ordnung as a value more important than liberty; and the experience of successfully cracking down on domestic consent in the Kaiserreich led the ruling class to believe they could continue to exercise power whatever the little Austrian might do.
220: Well, yeah, you only need to look at how jingoistic everyone was in 1914 (including a lot of Socialists) to see that many countries were spoiling for a fight. But as LB points out, a lot of those people probably sincerely believed that their chaps would be home by Christmas and that it would be those other fellows who had to pay reparations and taste the bitterness of defeat.
I think my larger point stands: Most revolutionary periods are not preceded by a well-paced build-up of obvious revolutionary precursors. There's always malcontents, there's always popular grievances. Most of the time they don't lead to revolution, and so most people are surprised by revolutions when they actually happen.
At the same time, that argues against my hopefulness that cuts to Social Security would spur people to sudden action. If Social Security does get cut in any meaningful way (or even on a very nominal basis), there are a lot of incumbents who are going to lose their jobs next year. At the same time, probably all that will mean is that there were strong primary challenges from the left and right, and there won't actually be much in the way of real political change in DC. If the 20th century teaches us anything, it's that people can endure a hell of a lot of oppression without rising up. But occasionally they do rise up.
The Battle of Dorking: 1870!
Most of the time they don't lead to revolution
...which sort of undercuts the whole argument you were making, no?
On second thought, this whole exchange illustrates the wisdom of the analogy ban.
222: I was thinking of The War in the Air from 1908.
Natilo, out of sincere curiosity, how does the MN anarchist community feel about the government shutdown? On the one hand, it emiserates a lot of vulnerable people. On the other hand, the state has voluntarily retreated!
The internet teaches me that Jesus and the revolution both come like a thief in the night.
Well, yeah, you only need to look at how jingoistic everyone was in 1914 (including a lot of Socialists) to see that many countries were spoiling for a fight
To quote Emerson, "Before WWI, for example, all the serious, normal people of the various nations wanted war, and only the bohemians, cynics, anarchists, Czechs and other lowlifes did not. Serious people often have bloody-minded hidden agendas."
Can't say that I expected the conversation to take this turn.
I think my larger point stands: Most revolutionary periods are not preceded by a well-paced build-up of obvious revolutionary precursors. There's always malcontents, there's always popular grievances. Most of the time they don't lead to revolution, and so most people are surprised by revolutions when they actually happen.
Sure, but I do think that the example of the French Revolution followed by the Russian Revolution was critical here for the 19th and early 20th Century and in some ways up until 1989 -- there was a political model for "revolution" that in some sense "worked." That wasn't true before 1789, and it really isn't true now. It's true I'm basically a complacent bourgeois asshole, but I tend to think of the concept of "revolution" these days as not only highly improbable but as essentially a nostalgic joke. "Revolution!" Maybe that's wrong.
it really isn't true now.
Eastern Europe? Tunis, just now? Revolutions do seem to happen occasionally.
It's true I'm basically a complacent bourgeois asshole, but I tend to think of the concept of "revolution" these days as not only highly improbable but as essentially a nostalgic joke.
That's because you don't have the guts to heighten the contradictions, Halford.
236: Tunis? Where'd I get that from? Tunisia.
236 -- Well, I should define terms a bit better.* Eastern Europe and Tunisia/Egypt were examples of popular demonstrations leading to political change, but not of "revolutions" in the kind of world-historical, creating a new order through social and political transformation kind of deal. The point of those populist revolts was basically to enter the mundane world of Western capitalism, not to remake society and government into some new revolutionary world order.
*I'm stealing all of this from a half-assed reading of Francois Furet, if you're interested. What, did you think I'm capable of manufacturing my own ideas?
232: Well, it's interesting you should ask that. We actually have contrived to have a central response, called "Shut Down, Rise Up!". So far, this has consisted of a sort of convention of anarchists, malcontents, etc. etc. in Powderhorn Park, where the focus has been on providing free meals, "skill shares" (this is the current term for a mostly-leaderless workshop focused on a practical topic like bicycle repair or gardening), and community meetings to discuss the situation. Unfortunately, I have not had the time to work on this project as I have several other activist commitments that I am already working on.
Frankly, for my part, I have been disappointed with this response. I think there is a lot of popular rage about the situation, and I think we would have done better to come up swinging. I'm much more disappointed with the progressive/liberal response, which has basically consisted of pearl-clutching editorials and a few amazingly anemic rallies -- like 200 people on the Capitol steps, when there were 2,500 rallying there in the dead of winter in solidarity with Wisconsin just a few months ago.
As I was saying a couple of weeks ago when the shutdown started, obviously, no one thinks that this presages the death of the state. Note that the police are still working as normal. However, I do think there is some reason to have hope, as the Republican/Tea Party legislators are catching most of the flak. The DFL legislators have basically been sitting it out, which is understandable, from a purely tactical standpoint, but which does not say much for their ideological commitment if you ask me.
Now, it is coming out today that about 350-500 bars are going to lose their licenses because there is no one at the Liquor Control Board to re-stamp them or whatever. Also, Miller-Coors is going to have to pull all their products from liquor stores (don't ask me how -- nobody knows what the mechanism would be) because they can't pay their $30 liquor marketing fee. That, plus the fact that we've had no lottery games for a couple of weeks, will probably have a pretty big impact on some segments of society that are traditionally disenfranchised.
As far as the people who are actually suffering because of this -- blind people are apparently SOL for a lot of their support, for instance -- I think I speak for most anarchist when I say that that really sucks and is pretty typical of how the priorities of both the government and the corporations work to immiserate the already-miserable. What can we do about it? Not a whole lot. The anarchist scene is pretty big right now, but not big enough to crack the locks off doors and start running these programs ourselves without the police shut us down in about 35 seconds.
about 350-500 bars are going to lose their licenses because there is no one at the Liquor Control Board to re-stamp them or whatever.
When I first read about that, I thought it might presage some kind of libertarian civil disobedience campaign: "See, we can operate bars without state licensing and everything is JUST FINE!"
OTOH, there seems to be no shortage of bars to pick up the slack.
241: Reading between the lines of the Strib article, it sounded like a lot of the bars in that situation might be small ones way out in the sticks.
Of course, here in Minneapolis you don't always get a license to open a bar, even if you're only a block from the police station.
I don't agree with 163. Sure there's a level of granularity that outsiders can't know. But the general personalities and incentives of the people involved are just not that difficult to know. And they are mostly playing to type.
I was driving in Idaho all day, and heard some radio news. McConnell was presented as reasonable, and the related item was that business leaders are agreeing with Obama. Ok, there was also the guy in New York caught with the remains of an 8 year old boy in his freezer. Equal billing. And the longer story was about how a guy in jail in Washington state is acting as his own lawyer, so he gets to review the evidence: 100 child porn tapes confiscated from his house.
Fortunately, there will be guards preventing the accused from masturbating to the evidence (or so I gathered).
Actually, that story chilled me because I can't think of anything more likely to drum up public support for changing the rules of evidence than the idea of a pervert using our tax dollars to watch kiddie porn! There otta be a law...
I don't agree with 163 if it's to mean that we have nothing to learn or gain by following (and discussing, since we're following) the detailed proceedings of, and fallout from, the debt ceiling negotiations. We clearly can learn a great deal. But I doubt that 163 was denying that.
Also, this rant by John Cole is wonderful. He admittedly exaggerates here and there (I don't think Ross Douthat is a creationist), but otherwise, for god's sake, people should really be saying this out loud more often.
I don't think there's anything useful that can be gained from closely following the negotiations right now. I mean, sure, you can learn generalities like Republicans are crazy, conservative Republicans are more crazy, Wall Street is scared of a debt crisis, etc. Beyond that, I think the value is extraordinarily small, especially in comparison to time wasted and the confidence with which claims are asserted. As I say, it's akin to sports fans speculations about trades, but with even less knowledge. People who want to be politically involved would be more productively engaged by, say, sending money to some advocacy group that is lobbying to avoid cuts in aid to the poor or writing on an actual issue they care about than armchair-generaling political negotiations.
Yes, I sort of enjoy this spectator sport too, but let's recognize it for what it is. In general, I think that following the near-last place, bankrupt Dodgers is more intellectually respectable and useful than following the minutia of Congressional negotations and making claims about them in real time.
*I say this in part because I have been privy to a few negotiations, admittedly not in Washington, in which there was press or outside interest, and the ongoing coverage and speculation inevitably got almost everything completely wrong. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the same is true of uninformed speculation on blogs about high stakes Congressional negotiations.
**And of course you can learn more when the dust settles and in historical perspective.
!! I am the sole patron at a restaurant-no one else was here when I arrived, and no one has come while I was eating. The food is really good. I feel like I should order (yet) another beer. Am I wrong? !>
You should order another beer, and they should give you a buyback.
248: I mean, sure, you can learn generalities like Republicans are crazy, conservative Republicans are more crazy,
Well, no, you also learn that the Republican caucus is divided within or amongst itself, that the leadership is adopting a somewhat different stance from that held by the freshmen Teapartiers, that the leadership is having to grapple with generating votes among its upstarts .. you can think about the fact that the Republican leadership might actually want to consider primarying some of the newly-elected Teapartiers.
You can notice that Democrats are actually taking advantage of the fact that the Republican leadership has a bunch of crazy members on its hands, and is no longer capable (at least in the House) of producing 100% party-line votes.
I understand what you're saying: armchair analysis, given that we don't know what's actually going on behind the scenes, is silly if it means that we think we could do it better. Of course we can't. It's nonetheless worthwhile to attend to what we do know.
249: at least one more beer. At least one more.
Also, you learn that in a representative democracy such as ours, no one has any idea what our elected official are doing behind closed doors with respect to matters of public interest, and for their part our elected officials, when they deign to acknowledge the existence of the idea of a more open and visible government, simply mock it. It's a strange sort of spectator sport where most of the plays are hidden from view, and you can't argue about the calls yourself, but can only listen to the players complain at the press conferences, and then every couple of years you're told it's your civic duty to keep buying a ticket.
You also learn that you can rant about just about anything on this internet.
(I'm not actually following these negotiations closely.)
no one has any idea what our elected official are doing behind closed doors
Goofing off on the internet, just like everyone else.
