The first entry of a revived blog and its about espresso . . .
As a semi-random plan I've decided to start reviewing places in the Twin Cities that serve espresso. I'm sure from a connoisseurs perspective I am completely unqualified to carry out any such review, but I could care less; I know what I like.
A double espresso at Hard Times cafe will cost you $2.00 plus a little something for the barista. Overall the espresso was good. It wasn't overly bitter or burnt tasting and had a nice creamy texture. It was served without frills, but in a ceramic espresso cup which is a huge plus in my book as this is becoming harder to find. Espresso in a paper cup just isn't the same. The atmosphere of Hard Times is also pretty cool and I was glad to finally check it out after hearing a lot about it. Would I go back: yes. Is it the best espresso ever: no.
On another random note, it was interesting - almost surreal - to go back and read some of my political posts from 2008.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Sunday, November 2, 2008
HOPE
I have written a lot about policy and in particular, about economic policy. While I think we need to consider what types of policy decisions a candidate stands for and will make, I am realizing that is only half of the reason why we might vote for a candidate. The other half rests upon a candidates ability to inspire, upon their ability to give us hope that no matter what may come a better future awaits us.
While I tend to agree with Obama on policy, I am also realizing that what gets me so excited about him has nothing to do with any particular position on taxation, health care, or foreign policy. Whether one disagrees with Senator Obama or not, there are substantial arguments to be made for all of his positions. So if it is not policy, what is it?
It is hope.
A recent opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor entitled My wife made me canvass for Obama; Here's what I learned states,
While some may argue that such a feeling (yes it is an emotional response) ought not to be a reason to vote for a candidate, I think we're being naive if can't admit that our emotions play a role. Moreover, I think we're being naive if we can't see the importance of that role. Just imagine a nation that cannot unite itself in common purpose in times of great tragedy and challenge. Just imagine a nation whose people cannot be summoned to aim for a greater good, for the common good. Self-interest, after all, has its limits.
As this is likely one of my last posts on this blog I find myself reflecting on why I am voting for Obama. I do indeed agree with many of his policies and I opine that they are well crafted and thoroughly thought out. I do indeed value his experience as a professor of Constitutional Law, as the president of the Harvard Law Review, his time spent in the Economics department at the University of Chicago, and his time working as a community organizer. I also appreciate his pragmatism and his interest in looking at what research says actually works. In addition, his ability to assemble an impressive team of experts, something which David Brooks event commented upon, is something I value.
Yet with all this substance, I have to admit the biggest reason I'm voting for Obama is hope. Hope that despite our differences we can still come together. Hope that all the rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is indeed more than mere words. Hope that America will remain the greatest nation on earth, not because of our military or economic might, but because of the ideals we aspire to. Moreover, I think Obama inspires an active form of hope. A hope that we are the ones who will live up to those ideals. A hope that does not look to someone else to bring change, but rather a hope that empowers, a hope that we are the ones who will change this world.
If artist endorsements ever account for much, it is their ability to capture the emotions that a candidate inspires. The song Yes We Can by will.i.am should not be taken in and of itself as a reason to vote for Obama, but as an embodiment of the hope that Obama inspires. Whether one likes this or not, agrees with it or not, this ability to inspire hope ought to be taken seriously.
It is for many reasons that I am voting for Obama, but above all, it is hope.
While I tend to agree with Obama on policy, I am also realizing that what gets me so excited about him has nothing to do with any particular position on taxation, health care, or foreign policy. Whether one disagrees with Senator Obama or not, there are substantial arguments to be made for all of his positions. So if it is not policy, what is it?
It is hope.
A recent opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor entitled My wife made me canvass for Obama; Here's what I learned states,
I've learned that this election is about the heart of America. It's about the young people who are losing hope and the old people who have been forgotten. It's about those who have worked all their lives and never fully realized the promise of America, but see that promise for their grandchildren in Barack Obama. The poor see a chance, when they often have few. I saw hope in the eyes and faces in those doorways.While I've respected and even admired John McCain at times, he simply does not embody this sense of hope. While I may not agree with all of his policy positions, I recognize that substantial arguments can be made for them. Yet this is not enough. John McCain simply does not have the same ability to inspire, to unite, and to provide hope in the same way Obama does.
While some may argue that such a feeling (yes it is an emotional response) ought not to be a reason to vote for a candidate, I think we're being naive if can't admit that our emotions play a role. Moreover, I think we're being naive if we can't see the importance of that role. Just imagine a nation that cannot unite itself in common purpose in times of great tragedy and challenge. Just imagine a nation whose people cannot be summoned to aim for a greater good, for the common good. Self-interest, after all, has its limits.
As this is likely one of my last posts on this blog I find myself reflecting on why I am voting for Obama. I do indeed agree with many of his policies and I opine that they are well crafted and thoroughly thought out. I do indeed value his experience as a professor of Constitutional Law, as the president of the Harvard Law Review, his time spent in the Economics department at the University of Chicago, and his time working as a community organizer. I also appreciate his pragmatism and his interest in looking at what research says actually works. In addition, his ability to assemble an impressive team of experts, something which David Brooks event commented upon, is something I value.
Yet with all this substance, I have to admit the biggest reason I'm voting for Obama is hope. Hope that despite our differences we can still come together. Hope that all the rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is indeed more than mere words. Hope that America will remain the greatest nation on earth, not because of our military or economic might, but because of the ideals we aspire to. Moreover, I think Obama inspires an active form of hope. A hope that we are the ones who will live up to those ideals. A hope that does not look to someone else to bring change, but rather a hope that empowers, a hope that we are the ones who will change this world.
If artist endorsements ever account for much, it is their ability to capture the emotions that a candidate inspires. The song Yes We Can by will.i.am should not be taken in and of itself as a reason to vote for Obama, but as an embodiment of the hope that Obama inspires. Whether one likes this or not, agrees with it or not, this ability to inspire hope ought to be taken seriously.
It is for many reasons that I am voting for Obama, but above all, it is hope.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Mr. Greenspan
I highly recommend reading any article about Mr. Greenspan's Congressional hearing. A few highlights as quoted by J. Chait of The New Republic:
As the pendulum swings back and forth between ideological poles, my hope is that it comes to rest in the middle. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I like Obama more and more. McCain seems to be bent on the free market, despite populist outcries at the greed and excess of wall street (can anyone explain how you can be whipping mad at big business yet still want to give them a huge tax break? not to mention the data simply doesn't show that supply side policies will really benefit or "trickle down" to everyone else).
Ironically it is the home of Milton Friedman, the University of Chicago, where Obama has formed his economic thought. This has given him an understanding of the value of the free market and its potential for growth. After all, you can't deny that deregulation has had some very positive outcomes. On the other hand, I think Obama also understands the limits of deregulation and free markets. While this might lead one to believe that soon the government will be back in control, I doubt it. Most impressively, I think Obama is unlikely to see government as the only solution to the problems of the market and will look for market solutions to market problems. I suppose only time will tell, but this is a major reason why Mr. Obama will receive my vote.
On a lighter note, I have been reading a number of endorsements for Obama lately. I have a great affinity for endorsements that are given almost grudgingly, pointing out both flaws and strengths. I respected and admired Colin Powell's greatly. I also had to chuckle when Leon Wieseltier wrote in his endorsement entitled Washington Diarist,
Greenspan concedes error on regulation
“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” Mr. Greenspan said.Is this the end of the free market as we know it? I doubt it. While regulation is clearly needed and proposed by both candidates, what will it look like? As I've said numerous times, this crisis is so complex that I'm not sure anyone really knows whats going on. I highly recommend reading the recent Economist article, Link by Link: A short history of modern finance. What's clear is the deregulation has been on the rise since Milton Friedman's arguments finally defeated Keynesian ideas in the 1970s. Friedman emphasized the free market whereas Keynes emphasized government intervention.
Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”
Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Mr. Waxman said.
“Absolutely, precisely,” Mr. Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”
As the pendulum swings back and forth between ideological poles, my hope is that it comes to rest in the middle. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I like Obama more and more. McCain seems to be bent on the free market, despite populist outcries at the greed and excess of wall street (can anyone explain how you can be whipping mad at big business yet still want to give them a huge tax break? not to mention the data simply doesn't show that supply side policies will really benefit or "trickle down" to everyone else).
Ironically it is the home of Milton Friedman, the University of Chicago, where Obama has formed his economic thought. This has given him an understanding of the value of the free market and its potential for growth. After all, you can't deny that deregulation has had some very positive outcomes. On the other hand, I think Obama also understands the limits of deregulation and free markets. While this might lead one to believe that soon the government will be back in control, I doubt it. Most impressively, I think Obama is unlikely to see government as the only solution to the problems of the market and will look for market solutions to market problems. I suppose only time will tell, but this is a major reason why Mr. Obama will receive my vote.
On a lighter note, I have been reading a number of endorsements for Obama lately. I have a great affinity for endorsements that are given almost grudgingly, pointing out both flaws and strengths. I respected and admired Colin Powell's greatly. I also had to chuckle when Leon Wieseltier wrote in his endorsement entitled Washington Diarist,
. . . McCain's sense of reality seems to be narrowing. The financial crisis harshly exposed these limitations: it made McCain more dogmatic and more doctrinaire, with his wild refrain about tax cuts and his unmaverick-like refusal to examine his party's cult of corporations. His economics refuted his compassion. McCain feels with his heart, but he thinks with his base. And when he picked Sarah Palin, he told the United States of America to go fuck itself.Only 11 more days!
Greenspan concedes error on regulation
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Spreading the wealth
It would seem that a new four letter word has been added to the political lexicon. That word is "socialist." It's hard for me to understand why this is seen as an automatic insult. Like all systems, it has its merits and its faults. Or perhaps after living in Norway, one of those Scandinavian varieties of "socialist" countries, I am a bit more willing to accept some of its tenets as viable options.
The most recent discussion/controversy revolves around the idea of "spreading the wealth," a notion that is anathema to many. While I think there are many arguments to be made from a social justice and fairness standpoint in favor of a progressive tax structure that "spreads the wealth," this is not the strongest argument.
Moreover, I think the simplest point to be made is that "spreading the wealth" is something that happens irregardless of whatever approach a government takes. The question is really, how will wealth be spread about?
I think its fair to consider regressive and progressive tax policies, in their various extremes, as opposite poles on a spectrum of wealth re/distribution. Flat taxes are for all intents and purposes regressive. While on paper everyone may pay the same percentage, that percentage is a much larger chunk of a lower income than a higher one. In any case, my basic premise is that regressive policies simply spread the wealth upwards while progressive tax policies help to spread the wealth downwards. I might also add that the lower the tax rate the more wealth stays distributed on the top end while higher tax rates are dependent upon what the government decides to do with it.
One might argue that there is no such thing as spreading the wealth upward. By definition a tax is taking money away from one group for the government to spend for either the benefit of the whole or a more specific group. If one ignores the reality of market conditions, this might be true. However, in any competitive market there will be winners and losers. The winners will continue to earn and the losers, well they lost. We currently have the largest income disparity since the 1920s with the richest 10 percent earning an average of $93,000 a year and the poorest 10 percent earning only $5,800 a year*. If such a trend continues the end result gets closer and closer to a monopoly with a few oligarchs perched high above the rest. Clearly such a situation promotes the accumulation of wealth at the top.
Furthermore, I would argue that the market for many laborers, especially the unskilled, is imperfect. This means that supply and demand models simply do not hold for such a group. They do not have the luxury to reject certain jobs and force competition to raise their wages. In fact, competition nearly always favors businesses and pushes their wages down. This is in part because the opportunity costs for the poor are always higher, often exponentially higher than they are for the wealthy.
Consider the value of $150 in forgone income to a family making $800 a month compared to a family making $3,000. For the poor family, losing $150 could mean eviction or not being able to put food on the table. For the wealthier family, it probably only means putting off a luxury purchase of some type until next month. As such, retraining or additional education are often simply not an option for families struggling to put food on the table. This further limits their opportunity for any type of real economic growth along with any meaningful accumulation of wealth.
As I said above, while there are strong social justice arguments to be made for a "fair" system of re/distribution of wealth, the strongest argument revolves around the health of the economy. While I am no expert on this topic, I think a balance needs to be kept between moving wealth up and down to help benefit as many as possible and ultimately, to maintain the healthy competition that allows the invisible hand to work.
On the one hand, spreading the wealth up (tax cuts to businesses, etc.) does help promote economic growth through the creation of new jobs. This can be good provided those jobs actually improve the lives of people. It is problematic if those jobs don't really improve people's lives and they might as well be called a hand-out to big business. We've witnessed this in the last 10+ years. While GDP has grown and executive salaries have risen, the majority of Americans have not seen any real growth in their standard of living.
On the other hand, consumer spending also has the potential to drive the economy and indeed has in recent years. You can have all the jobs you want, but if people can't afford your goods and services it doesn't matter. Moreover, helping those out at the bottom helps to lower their opportunity costs and begin to accumulate meaningful wealth (probably the biggest reason the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich).
Thus, this is not an either or issue. The major reason I think government should be actively involved in spreading the wealth is to keep the free market working. Every game needs a referee to maintain fair competition and the free market is no different. Without competition the indivisible hand starts throwing rights and lefts. With competition it helps out, maybe even gives a nice back rub. When those at the top start earning disproportionately, they effectively limit the opportunities of those below.
What we need to understand is that wealth re/distribution does not and should not mean the extreme of the government making everyone equal. That is indeed anathema to our freedoms and basic rights. However, it does mean that we need to promote fair and continual competition. There will still be winners and losers. Yet it doesn't help anyone if we don't find a way to help those who have fallen to get back in the game. You can call it wealth redistribution if you like, I'd simply prefer to call it pragmatic economic policy.
* Spreading the wealth? US already does it
Also see Spreading the wealth
The most recent discussion/controversy revolves around the idea of "spreading the wealth," a notion that is anathema to many. While I think there are many arguments to be made from a social justice and fairness standpoint in favor of a progressive tax structure that "spreads the wealth," this is not the strongest argument.
Moreover, I think the simplest point to be made is that "spreading the wealth" is something that happens irregardless of whatever approach a government takes. The question is really, how will wealth be spread about?
I think its fair to consider regressive and progressive tax policies, in their various extremes, as opposite poles on a spectrum of wealth re/distribution. Flat taxes are for all intents and purposes regressive. While on paper everyone may pay the same percentage, that percentage is a much larger chunk of a lower income than a higher one. In any case, my basic premise is that regressive policies simply spread the wealth upwards while progressive tax policies help to spread the wealth downwards. I might also add that the lower the tax rate the more wealth stays distributed on the top end while higher tax rates are dependent upon what the government decides to do with it.
One might argue that there is no such thing as spreading the wealth upward. By definition a tax is taking money away from one group for the government to spend for either the benefit of the whole or a more specific group. If one ignores the reality of market conditions, this might be true. However, in any competitive market there will be winners and losers. The winners will continue to earn and the losers, well they lost. We currently have the largest income disparity since the 1920s with the richest 10 percent earning an average of $93,000 a year and the poorest 10 percent earning only $5,800 a year*. If such a trend continues the end result gets closer and closer to a monopoly with a few oligarchs perched high above the rest. Clearly such a situation promotes the accumulation of wealth at the top.
Furthermore, I would argue that the market for many laborers, especially the unskilled, is imperfect. This means that supply and demand models simply do not hold for such a group. They do not have the luxury to reject certain jobs and force competition to raise their wages. In fact, competition nearly always favors businesses and pushes their wages down. This is in part because the opportunity costs for the poor are always higher, often exponentially higher than they are for the wealthy.
Consider the value of $150 in forgone income to a family making $800 a month compared to a family making $3,000. For the poor family, losing $150 could mean eviction or not being able to put food on the table. For the wealthier family, it probably only means putting off a luxury purchase of some type until next month. As such, retraining or additional education are often simply not an option for families struggling to put food on the table. This further limits their opportunity for any type of real economic growth along with any meaningful accumulation of wealth.
As I said above, while there are strong social justice arguments to be made for a "fair" system of re/distribution of wealth, the strongest argument revolves around the health of the economy. While I am no expert on this topic, I think a balance needs to be kept between moving wealth up and down to help benefit as many as possible and ultimately, to maintain the healthy competition that allows the invisible hand to work.
On the one hand, spreading the wealth up (tax cuts to businesses, etc.) does help promote economic growth through the creation of new jobs. This can be good provided those jobs actually improve the lives of people. It is problematic if those jobs don't really improve people's lives and they might as well be called a hand-out to big business. We've witnessed this in the last 10+ years. While GDP has grown and executive salaries have risen, the majority of Americans have not seen any real growth in their standard of living.
On the other hand, consumer spending also has the potential to drive the economy and indeed has in recent years. You can have all the jobs you want, but if people can't afford your goods and services it doesn't matter. Moreover, helping those out at the bottom helps to lower their opportunity costs and begin to accumulate meaningful wealth (probably the biggest reason the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich).
Thus, this is not an either or issue. The major reason I think government should be actively involved in spreading the wealth is to keep the free market working. Every game needs a referee to maintain fair competition and the free market is no different. Without competition the indivisible hand starts throwing rights and lefts. With competition it helps out, maybe even gives a nice back rub. When those at the top start earning disproportionately, they effectively limit the opportunities of those below.
What we need to understand is that wealth re/distribution does not and should not mean the extreme of the government making everyone equal. That is indeed anathema to our freedoms and basic rights. However, it does mean that we need to promote fair and continual competition. There will still be winners and losers. Yet it doesn't help anyone if we don't find a way to help those who have fallen to get back in the game. You can call it wealth redistribution if you like, I'd simply prefer to call it pragmatic economic policy.
* Spreading the wealth? US already does it
Also see Spreading the wealth
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Joe McCarthy, meet Michelle Bachman
I have a couple of posts in the works (re/distribution of wealth, Ayers, more on "anti-Americanism," etc.) but had to put up a quick post regarding the comments of Michelle Bachman. For one, I can't believe we have not moved passed this type of divisive politics. In so many words, Bachman basically said all liberals are anti-American and that an expose should be undertaken on all members of congress to see who is pro-American and who is anti-American. While Chris Mathews gave her the rope to hang herself, it is unbelievable that such opinions are still alive and well.
Here's a brief passage from an article by Michael Tomasky entitled, "The Republicans have lifted the lid off their rightwing id"
Here's a brief passage from an article by Michael Tomasky entitled, "The Republicans have lifted the lid off their rightwing id"
This point was proved most dramatically by a woman named Michele Bachmann, a member of Congress from Minnesota. In an interview last Friday on Hardball, a leading US cable talk show, host Chris Matthews asked Bachmann whether Obama worried her. "Absolutely. I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views," she said. He asked her what she thought distinguished liberal from hard left from anti-American. If she maintains such distinctions in her mind, she refused to acknowledge them. Then, finally, Matthews - who deftly fed her the rope to hang herself - asked her how many members of the US Congress held, in her view, anti-American views.
It's been almost a two-year campaign. There have been moments we've thought of as memorable, only to see the tide of events erase their mark from the sand. Bachmann's answer, however, will live imperishably: "What I would say - what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating exposé and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an exposé like that."
. . . .
The call for an investigation into the beliefs of every federal lawmaker, and an exposé of those found wanting in their patriotism, certainly takes us into deeply creepy territory. I would not call Bachmann herself a fascist. Odd as it sounds, to do so would be to grant her far too much credit. For one to embrace an -ism, even a repugnant one, one needs to have read a certain amount of history and political philosophy. Bachmann is just an idiot. She wouldn't know Edmund Burke from Billie Burke (she played the good witch in the Wizard of Oz), and she obviously has no idea that, in her rejection of the two bedrock American principles of separation of church and state and freedom of thought, she is the one who is as anti-American as they come.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
What's next?
Tonight's debate brought nothing new or at least very little. I will say I think it was McCain's worst debate by far. The first 20 minutes or so I thought were absolutely terrible for McCain. He recovered somewhat, but poorly. My impressions have been wrong about the last two, so we'll see what the polls say.
I still think what to do about the economy was a missed opportunity for both candidates. I also think what to do about the deficit was also a missed opportunity.
I was very impressed with Obama's ability to counter some of McCain's best punches, especially in regards to his voting record and Ayers.
I think McCain dug himself a hole on the personal attacks piece. I almost got the feeling he was trying to play the victim and the "poor me" card.
One observation I have is about their tax policies. I wonder how McCain reconciles the anger for those in wall street (i.e. the rich) yet his insistence on supply side economics. Whatever the merits of supply side economics, do they really square with perceptions of fairness, especially now. I don't think he is selling his position very well.
I still wish Obama would highlight the failure of supply side economics to benefit the majority of Americans. If you look at real income (adjusted for inflation) over the last 20 years, the top 1% has grown by ~11% while the remaining 99% has only grown by ~1-2% (see July 26th, 2008 Economist articles Unhappy America and Workingman's Blues). Perhaps the argument is too hard to make and this is why he sticks to his tax cuts and predominantly demand side economics rather than critiquing supply side policies.
I think there are arguments for both demand side and supply side economics but ultimately this is not an either or question. I think demand side tends to benefit the vast majority of people while supply side is more effective at economic growth (think GDP). The problem is both are needed. The real question to me seems to be: How do you balance these to get the best of both? Which candidate is more likely to find this balance? While I don't think either (or anyone for that matter) is likely to get it perfectly, Obama seems far more likely to do so than McCain.
Whatever your thoughts on tonight's debate the bottom line is - this was no "game changer."
I still think what to do about the economy was a missed opportunity for both candidates. I also think what to do about the deficit was also a missed opportunity.
I was very impressed with Obama's ability to counter some of McCain's best punches, especially in regards to his voting record and Ayers.
I think McCain dug himself a hole on the personal attacks piece. I almost got the feeling he was trying to play the victim and the "poor me" card.
One observation I have is about their tax policies. I wonder how McCain reconciles the anger for those in wall street (i.e. the rich) yet his insistence on supply side economics. Whatever the merits of supply side economics, do they really square with perceptions of fairness, especially now. I don't think he is selling his position very well.
I still wish Obama would highlight the failure of supply side economics to benefit the majority of Americans. If you look at real income (adjusted for inflation) over the last 20 years, the top 1% has grown by ~11% while the remaining 99% has only grown by ~1-2% (see July 26th, 2008 Economist articles Unhappy America and Workingman's Blues). Perhaps the argument is too hard to make and this is why he sticks to his tax cuts and predominantly demand side economics rather than critiquing supply side policies.
I think there are arguments for both demand side and supply side economics but ultimately this is not an either or question. I think demand side tends to benefit the vast majority of people while supply side is more effective at economic growth (think GDP). The problem is both are needed. The real question to me seems to be: How do you balance these to get the best of both? Which candidate is more likely to find this balance? While I don't think either (or anyone for that matter) is likely to get it perfectly, Obama seems far more likely to do so than McCain.
Whatever your thoughts on tonight's debate the bottom line is - this was no "game changer."
The Last Debate
The final debate is about to start. Here's my bullet points
- The economy is likely to dominate
- Each candidate is likely to expound on new plans to get the economy back on track
- Look for McCain to try and score points, maybe even by taking big risks
- McCain has to change the tone if he's going to stand a chance - I don't think he can afford to go negative
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)