"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter..."
~ Milton
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

Reading:
A Fistful of Euros
Andrew Tobias
Angry Liberal
Archy
Bad Attitudes
Common Dreams
Fablog
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
Madelaine Kane
Mahablog
Obsidian Wings
Off the Kuff
Orcinus
Sarah Kendzior
War and Piece
Washington Monthly

Books
The Emerging Democratic Majority (Judis & Teixeira)
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken)
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (Franken)
The True Believer (Hoffer)
Still Being Bushwhacked

All Book Reviews
Race, Gender, and Sexuality
It's always "us" vs "them"
Women's March on (fill in your location)
Children learn what their parents teach them.
You Got My Support. But.
Even Endangered Penguins Do It

All Race, Gender, and Sexuality
Campaigns and Voting
Where do we go from here?
It's always "us" vs "them"
Some interpretations
On and on I go
Just appalled

All Campaigns and Voting
Lecture Circuit
It Was 40 Years Ago Today
July 2, 1964
Pledge
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

All Lecture Circuit
Media
The Liberal Media, At It Again
Fairly UNbalanced
P.S.
What's this?
OHMIGOD

All Media
Big Brother
Shoulda' Guessed
Where did my country go?
You know what you never thought you'd read?
Not in his name
Sleight of Hand

All Big Brother
World O'Blog
It's Vocabulary Time!
They wrote it
Mighty-fine blogging
Other People Said....
Phillipines

All World O'Blog
Aimless Ranting
It's always "us" vs "them"
So, I'm thinking with half my brain
Do You Know Peter?
Long, Little Privacy Rant
My Takeaway

All Aimless Ranting
Archives
February 05, 2017 - February 11, 2017
January 22, 2017 - January 28, 2017
January 15, 2017 - January 21, 2017
November 13, 2016 - November 19, 2016
October 09, 2016 - October 15, 2016

All Weekly Archives


Electioneering
Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Politics1
Polling Report

Information
American Research Group
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Public Integrity
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Report Cards
Death Row Roll Call
DebtChannel.org
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Inequality
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
JobWatch
Lying in ponds
Media Reform
Media Transparency
Move On
One World
Open Democracy
Pew Research Center
Project Censored
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Take Back The Media
The Urban Institute
WHO Outbreak News

Connections
XML & RDF
Peevish for PDA



Blog Directory


Search








Credits
Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori





All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

September 26, 2003
Blogging Around

Brace yourself. Read Nathan Newman and then (it pains me to type this, yes), support the Bush Administration in calling for European countries to forgive outstanding Iraqi loans. Well, "loans" where the money was used to buy weapons, anyhow. Also read the comments on the post, where a few interesting points have been raised.

(Clicking on link on Nathan's site I see that the Bush Administration didn't "napalm" Iraq, they "firebombed" Iraq. That's a pretty tiny hair to split.)

Via John McKay, we get to the " Reagan had 'evil sex' angst story, which I mention only because of my amusement that in the "see also" column next to it is the headline, "Is George Bush following the Reagan path?"

Okay, it wasn't actually that funny. Reagan and Bush both rank about the same on my "interested in their sex life" scale, which is in significant 3-digit negative numbers.

On the other hand, I'm impressed by this Reagan letter excerpt:

But in a personal letter to Brezhnev at the height of the Cold War, he asked: "Is it possible that we have let ideology, political and economical philosophy and government policies keep us from considering the very real, everyday problems of the people we represent?"

As a matter of fact, I'm very impressed. I may buy the book.

Via Cursor, an interesting WaPo story

Some Republican aides say the numbers may be more defensible than they sound because the budget is not quite real. They suggest the administration has inflated costs, in part to avoid having to come back next year for a new emergency spending bill, and in part so they can skim some of the money for classified military efforts.

Remember that "cancelled" Pentagon spy program we were discussing just recently? The one I said the Pentagon could probably skim money from other places to fund if it wanted to?

Check out Hellblazer and be sure and click through from the link he provides to read the full text.

I'm pleased to read that someone with more expert knowledge than I have (well, that wouldn't be hard), Matthew Yglesias, thinks the "freedom of speech" connection to telemarketing is nonexistent. Many commenters disagree with him.

Over at TAPPED, John Judis says skeptics were right about Iraq. It's not news to the skeptics, but he's always worth reading.

Ezra Klein at NotGeniuses discusses tariffs. They're a tricky proposition.

The simplest illustration is that the Feds collect tax money from you to give to cotton farmers so that the price of cotton stays low. That's a subsidy.

You pay for the cotton, you understand. Whether directly or indirectly, you're paying for it.

In fact, it could be argued that because of the inefficiencies of large organizations, the amount of money swallowed up in "administrative costs" to process the tax dollars through the system and then get what's left to the cotton farmers makes the true cost of cotton much higher than it has to be.

But it's a mistake to look at economic questions too simplistically and you have to stop and remember that Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet are both paying about $3 to keep a bale of cotton cheap for every fifty cents that you pay (numbers grossly oversimplified). They pay $2 so that Pauline living in public housing and trying to raise three kids on her own and on an income of $12,000 a year, only has to pay 5 cents for her share of the subsidy. Since there are more Paulines in the country than Cheneys, Cheney's higher taxes support his "share" of the subsidy and the "shares" of several poor families. That keeps cotton cheap enough, in theory, that Pauline can afford to buy tee shirts for her three kids. A subsidy, looked at that way, is a way of spreading wealth around more equitably. It supports the cotton farmer (before the age of corporate farming, the vast majority of farms in the USofA were break-even family ventures) and gives the Paulines a little break.

Then you have to add international trade into the mix. It does no good to subsidize the price of USofA cotton to keep it within Pauline's reach if USofA cotton prices are higher than the price of cotton imported from Otherland. Pauline still has to pay her 5 cent subsidy, but with the 45 cents she saves, she can buy twice as much Otherland cotton as USofA cotton, so she does. That means the collected tax dollars are, effectively, being wasted. There's no point in subsidizing prices to keep them low unless you can keep them so low that demand remains high. There's no point in making Pauline pay five cents, or even making Cheney pay $3, if it's not going to result in a saleable crop (i.e., economic activity where the money spent and collected remains inside of and a part of the USofA economic cycle).

Anyhow, tariffs are extra taxes imposed on Otherland's cotton so that it's not cheaper than USofA cotton. So when you considering removing tariffs, you have to consider whether or not there's any real point, in the end, of continuing in the many, many domestic subsidies that the tariffs help make economically effective.

I'd imagine that an economist would have nightmares about that simplistic explanation and of course it leaves out a lot of critical factors like the lobbying dollars of the cotton industry and, in fact, the amazingly destructive impact on the environment that processing cotton makes anyhow, but my point, which I haven't quite lost sight of yet, is that while I support doing what we can to improve the economies of third-world countries, I'm not sure I support doing it at the expense of the domestic economy which is already pretty much in the toilet, so removing tariffs or rethinking subsidies is something we should really approach with enormous care.

When I re-read sentences like the one above, I wonder why anyone tries to read this blog at all.

You'd be better off going to check out Emma who is in the midst of educating herself about a related topic.

Posted by AnneZook at 10:17 AM


Comments