From My Inbox
I will never complain about my job again!
Posted in Culture, Humor, New | 1 Comment »
‘New’ Articles
Goolsbee To Replace Romer
Yet another example of an economist whoring out to sit in Obama’s circle of love. It’s summed up at The Slack Wire:
Looks like Goolsbee is the perfect pick to succeed Romer — his advice is already being ignored even before he’s been hired.
This is said in the face of Obama’s call for new business incentives of which Goolsbee previously wrote in his academic research:
Although there appears to be an abiding faith among policy makers that tax incentives can influence the investment decisions of firms and serve as a tool for stabilizing the economy, empirical evidence for the connection is weak. Econometric research has commonly found that tax policy and the cost of capital have little effect on real investment. Economic theory predicts that the marginal user cost of capital should be the primary determinant of investment demand but actual estimates of the price elasticity of nvestment … mostly lie between zero and -0.4… The evidence that investment is only modestly responsive to price has been one of the most robust findings of the empirical investment literature…
In addition to their large revenue costs, investment tax subsidies may give large, unintended rents to capital suppliers without increasing real investment until several years later because of the short-run asset price responses of capital goods. For policy makers interested in using tax policy to stimulate investment or, especially, to smooth business cycle fluctuations, the results are not promising.
Another otherwise good economist down the drain.
Posted in Economy, New, Political Economy | No Comments »
What the Tea Party Does and Does Not Stand For
Having read the Facebook exchange which led to the ouster the “leader” of “Montana’s Tea Party” (sarcastic quotes because such concepts water down the very notion of the grassroots Tea Party), I’m not sure how Tim Ravndal’s comments reported first in the Tribune could be “taken out of context,” as he and others are claiming.
The exchange in question, if you have been living under a rock, features a friend of Mr Ravndal’s writing on his Facebook page, in response to the issue of gay marriage: “I think fruits are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions.”
Mr Ravndal then replies: “Where can I get that Wyoming printed instruction manual?”
The reference, of course, is to the brutal murder of Matthew Shephard, who was pistol-whipped, tortured, and hanged on a fence post. He was, when found, mistaken for a scarecrow, so badly was he beaten and mutilated. Shephard died, in a unresponsive coma, several days later.
Anyone who does not see the Facebook back-and-forth as an allusion to the Matthew Shephard murder is guilty of fibbing or idiocy.
I was not going to comment on this, other than to say the Tea Party organization did exactly the right thing in removing Mr Ravndal. Anyone who thinks the murder of Matthew Shephard is comedic fare or anything other than a profound tragedy needs to square up with his or her conscience, and remove himself or herself from public life.
Now it appears the group which removed Mr Ravndal may reconsider its decision. They will very much diminish their credibility if they do this.
It is unmanly and inappropriate–and it does his cause absolutely no justice–for Mr Ravndal to put a spin on this in a mealy-mouthed and non sequitur press release which more befits the CYA lingo one would expect from a long-time politician.
I’ve hung out with Tea Partiers in Great Falls for quite some time. They are all honest, genuine people who believe in the non-violent expression of their constitutional rights. As a group, they have been viciously stereotyped as rubes in the national press–all for doing something which is the foundational right of us as American citizens. How many other groups can you think of that actually use their First Amendment rights to peaceably Assembly and Petition with any regularity?
Moreover, I’ve never even met Tim Ravndal, Jim Walker, any of these people who are in the “Big Sky Tea Party” — I have no idea who they are, wouldn’t know them if I saw them.
That’s the real beauty of the Tea Party: It is not centrally organized. It is locally organized, and as often or not, the “leaders” are not titled, merely the people who work the hardest and put things together.
So what a shame it will be if this one organization decides to reinstate Mr Ravndal and thereby detract from the mission of these diverse organizations.
I’m happy to be supported by Tea Party organizations throughout my district, from Great Falls to Glendive. Every single person I’ve talked to in the Tea Party has the same message: Get government out of our lives, and increase the liberty enjoyed by the individual citizens of the United States. It is, then, mostly a movement for economic liberty–designed to prevent the government from taking over the American economy, sector by sector. Let’s remember what TEA stands for: Taxed Enough Already.
Posted in Local & State Government, New | 51 Comments »
Strange
I wonder why the Tribune turned off the comments on its article about outgoing County Commissioner, Peggy Beltrone.
[H/T: WP]
Posted in Cascade County Government, Local & State Government, Media, New | 6 Comments »
First Person Account of Adam & Eve
Here’s a description from someone who’s been in the store…but it’s not a sexually-oriented business:
They were very open about what they sell. (everything) There is “modest” type lingerie in the front of the store, which gets more “risque” as you move to the back. At this time, they are still unpacking, but there does not seem to be a “Back Room”. There are stands and shelving set up and it was represented that this area in the back of the store, (but not a “room” with a “door”) is where the books, video’s and toys will be displayed.
Hours: open till 10 on weeknights and 12 on weekends.
I hear they have some pretty bad ass slut shoes. They give you a $5 discount card when you pick up a job application.
Posted in Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New | 12 Comments »
“Just when I thought I was out…they pull me back in.”
I’ve been enjoying a much needed slowdown in my blogging activity. As I noted last month, I’ve been a little worn out with the whole ’scene,’ so I have reduced the amount of time spent tapping away on the keyboard.
Local bureaucrats, though, make it almost impossible to stop. Seriously, if we don’t write about some of these issues, they just get ignored. And that’s just not right. It isn’t. Arbitrary and unfair treatment by City Hall costs local citizens money directly out of their pocket (as opposed to just soaking the taxpayers, as in the case of the Electric City Power fiasco) and, probably even worse, it hurts our community’s image and ability to grow and prosper.
Not too long ago I posted about the fact that the City of Great Falls has ignored its own zoning rules, which it shoves down the throat of local businesses whenever it feels like it, and allowed an Adam & Eve sex shop to open downtown on Central Avenue. As some of you may have deduced from the tone of my previous post, this is an issue that hits close to home with me. I am representing a local business. The City has classified this business as “sexually-oriented,” and is contesting its continued operation despite the fact that it has been in operation in this community for over a decade. Nevertheless, my client faces endless hassles from the City about its operation, and has been paying me to try to obtain approval for its continued transaction of business since April.
You can imagine how galling it is, then, for my client to see the City swiftly approve a similar business on Central Avenue at the same time we’re being put through the ringer. This is exacerbated in a general sense by the realization that City officials have chosen to patently ignore their own rules in favor of an out of town company while twisting the arm of a local resident, taxpayer and citizen. I don’t know if these people are merely inept, don’t bother to read their own laws, or if there is some worse reason why they are acting illegally. Frankly, it doesn’t matter what the reason is.
Mr. Haynes, the Director of Planning and Community Development, recently wrote the following:
Title 17 of City Code, the City’s Land Development Code, clearly defines a Sexually-Oriented Business as including “adult book stores/adult video stores.” Your client’s business includes such uses and is therefore a Sexually-Oriented Business.
Remember those words.
I recently sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the City, and obtained its entire file relative to the Adam & Eve zoning determination. Let’s begin with the Safety Inspection Certificate Application located at p. 3 of the information I received from the City. If you review it, you will see that the applicant is asked to describe a “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS.” Adam & Eve, quite truthfully, responded “Lingerie, Novelty, DVD w/ some adult product retail store.” Then, scan down to p. 4, the Safety Inspection Certificate Approval Sheet, and you will see where the applicant wrote, under “Type of Business,” that it is “Lingerie, Novelty, DVD Retailer. Adult Product Retail Store.”
According to Mr. Haynes, the code clearly defines “adult book stores/adult video stores,” and if a business “includes such uses,” then it is a sexually-oriented business. The City’s Land Development Code offers the following definitions:
“Sexually-oriented business” includes the following types of uses: adult arcades, adult book stores/adult video stores, adult cabarets, adult motels, and adult motion picture theaters.
“Adult book store/adult video store” means a commercial establishment which, as one of its principal business purposes, offers for sale or rental for any form of consideration any one or more of the following:
1. books, magazines, periodicals, or other printed matter, or photographs, films, motion pictures, video cassettes or video reproductions which are characterized by an emphasis on the depiction or descriptions of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas;
2. instruments, devices, or paraphernalia which are designed for use in connection with specified sexual activities.
“Specified sexual activity” means and includes any of the following: (1) the fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, anus, or female breasts; (2) sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including intercourse, oral copulation, or sodomy; (3) masturbation, actual or simulated; or (4) excretory functions as part of or in connection with any of the activities set forth in parts 1 through 3 of this definition.
The foregoing language seems pretty clear to me, once you see that the City’s interpretation of “principal business purposes” apparently means “includes such uses,” from the interpretation offered by Mr. Haynes.
Turning back to the Adam & Eve application, this store will sell novelties, and considers itself a “DVD retailer.” I haven’t been to the new downtown DVD retailer yet, but I was able to look at their website. I found lots of different videos that are characterized by an emphasis on the depiction or description of specified sexual activities (such as “Gonzo,” “Hairy,” and “Squirting” ) but, try as I might, I couldn’t find any non-adult videos available.
This whole analysis, then, leads one to wonder about the City Planning and Community Development Deparment, just what were they thinking? (Or, perhaps, more appropro to the situation, what the f*ck were they thinking?) Call me cynical, and many of you do, but it certainly appears to me that not only did these people not know what their own code says, they didn’t even bother to read it. Seriously, how could one possibly read the Land Development Code to determine that an adult video retailer is not a sexually-oriented business? How?
Well, apparently City staff reached the conclusion by ignoring the application of Adam & Eve, as well as ignoring its own laws. What is clear from the City’s actual zoning determination, p. 1, is that the City apparently elected to turn a blind eye to the whole operation: “The existing land use of the property is retail operations on the street level. As such Specialty sales, or in your case Adam and Eve Brand Store would be permitted within the C-4 Central business core zoning classification and the address stated above.”
Oh, I get it. All those retail DVD’s, adult products and novelties, the City will just overlook them. It’s “specialty sales.” According to the Code, Specialty Sales “means a place and/or building, or portion thereof, that is used or is intended for retail sale of a limited product line. The term includes antique shops, furniture stores, auto part stores, bookstores, drug stores, clothing boutiques, pet stores, and the like.” In this case, I guess the “limited product line” is adult products, although I am not sure how you get a limited product line when the application itself identifies at least 4 different product lines: lingerie, novelties, DVDs, and adult products.
We have some more explanation, too. Mr. Haynes wrote an email to his boss, City Manager Greg Doyon in response to a complaint from a citizen, and explained as follows: “Their application was for a retail store selling lingerie and novelties…” Well, Mr. Haynes, that’s not quite true, is it? In fact, we know their application also stated right on its face that the store would be selling adult products and DVDs. Why didn’t you tell Mr. Doyon the whole story? Hmmm.
He then goes on to compare this store to Victoria’s Secret and, presumably, Spencer Gifts in the mall. These are not really fair comparisons, though, and seem much more like contrivances invented to justify the determination. I haven’t been to Victoria’s Secret in a few months, but I have never seen anything there other than clothing and, perhaps, some limited perfumes and lotions. As far as Spencer’s, I am almost positive that it has been in the mall for more than 7 years and would therefore be grandfathered in under the zoning rules.
Thus, we have a situation where the applicant honestly disclosed its intentions and the City made an illegal determination that places a sexually-oriented business smack dab in the middle of our downtown retail area. When called on it by the City Manager, the Planning Director dissembled and offered an incomplete and inaccurate explanation to justify the mistake and, unfortunately, the City Manager didn’t open the Code for himself.
It’s not only the City Manager, either. City Commissioner Bill Bronson emailed Mr. Haynes. Apparently, Commissioner Bronson was “getting a lot concerned calls/emails from folks.” (p. 9) No worries, Mr. Haynes just copied his email to Mr. Doyon to Commissioner Bronson, falsely and incompletely assuring him that “their application was for a retail store selling lingerie and novelties.” More dissembling.
Mr. Haynes also buffaloed the press. He told KRTV that “[t]he request they made was for a lingerie store with novelties, and that’s what our zoning determination was based on. We would have to look at adult movies, etcetera, to see if that fits in with what’s permitted downtown.” We know that’s not true, don’t we. Adam & Eve also disclosed DVD and adult product sales on its application. Did Haynes not know that (bad) or, if he did, did he choose not to be truthful with the press? (worse)
Haynes went on to say: “With an estimated 10 new jobs for the area and the possibility for new business, the store should fit into the city’s plan to revitalize the downtown area; Haynes noted, ‘We’re always interested in having new businesses coming downtown.’” Really? It should fit into the City’s plan? What does the Land Development Code have to say about such ‘revitalization?’
The establishment of sexually-oriented businesses in business districts which are immediately adjacent to and which serve residential neighborhoods has a deleterious effect on both the business and residential segments of the neighborhood, causing or contributing to blight and a downgrading of property values.
Oh. I see. The revitalization plan is designed to encourage “blight and a downgrading of property values.” I wonder how much we paid consultants to write that plan?
Seriously, though, what is the explanation for this? Are we to believe that we have a City Planning Department that is so inept that it fails to read or understand its own Code? Or, accepting that this is something for interpretation, why is our City Staff straining that interpretation to locate a sex shop downtown in the face of reasonably clear language? Then, to come full circle, why strain that interpretation on behalf of Adam & Eve, but tighten it back up again for my client? What explains the disparate treatment? Why does Adam & Eve get a pass on Central Avenue while my client spends thousands of dollars to continue in operation? Where is it written that City Officials get to ‘pick the winners’ in our marketplace?
Let’s take it a step further. Now what? It’s quite apparent that the City has allowed an illegal use to occur downtown. Adam & Eve, based on this ludicrous zoning determination, is investing its capital to open and operate in accordance with the City’s determination. It wouldn’t be fair to Adam & Eve to force them to close their doors when they were perfectly honest about their intentions.
The whole situation isn’t fair to Valerie Evans (p. 6) either. She moved her family to “Mayberry” and bought a loft (which is touted to revitalize downtown), only to find the City has allowed a “Porn Store” across the street?
We have enjoyed the Art walk Friday nights, the farmers market, walking to the symphony and concerts, library, Paris Gibson, and feeling very happy at the progress the city seems to be making in attracting people to the downtown area.
It is with shock and great dismay that in google-ing our newest neighbor, I find the city leaders (??)have chosen to approve a Porn Store on Central Ave. I could not believe a city working so hard on the Downtown area would allow this. I don’t know who approved this, or why, but if you googlehttp://www.adameve.com/ you may see why l am so concerned.This is just silly. Absolutely there are places for business in this realm, just not smack dab in the middle of main street, where you are trying to attract businesses to move, and residents to stroll. I don’t need to be looking at this business out my front window, nor explaining what it is to my family and guests. I have a teenage daughter, who does not need to be walking by this daily.
I can not believe this city is that hard up to go this direction.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. (And I won’t “ignore her complaint.” p. 6). Not only is the City allowing this to happen, it is bending over backwards to allow it to happen. I’m sure Ms. Evans will be happy to learn the definitional leaps and omissions the City has chosen to engage when I send her a copy of this post, which I have every intention of doing. It’s one thing when your hands are tied, but to try to break the law? Is that why we pay these people?
Remember above where I said that arbitrary and idiotic behavior by the people we pay to operate our government hurts our community’s image and ability to grow and prosper? How do you think this whole fiasco sits in the craw of Ms. Evans, a newcomer to our community? What do you think she will tell others when asked about Great Falls?
Finally, I have one more question. Don’t we have a freakin’ newspaper in this community? Seriously, is there not someone in that fancy building down by the river whose job it is to keep tabs on these people? Journalists like to cloak themselves in the mantle of the ‘fourth branch of government,” touting themselves as the watchdogs of freedom. Yet an issue like this comes and goes and our watchdogs seem to be off chasing rabbits somewhere. Yawn.
So, here we are. Once again the City Staff steps in it, the whole thing is swept under the rug, and local taxpayers are left holding the bag. Will there be any negative consequences for this? I doubt it. If unelected staff members can squander millions of dollars of taxpayer cash on programs that, at least in part, benefit them personally without being fired or disciplined, can we really expect one screwed up, illegal zoning determination to cause a ruckus at City Hall?
Don’t hold your breath. You might need it for something else.
Posted in Great Falls City Government, Law, Local & State Government, Media, New, Policy | 19 Comments »
It’s National Bacon Day
And you thought we get Monday off to celebrate the labor movement!
Posted in Culture, New | 9 Comments »
Banana Republic, Cascade County Edition
Jane Weber’s a great lady, and I’d vote for her in an election based on personality and talent alone. I actually know nothing about her politics at all.
In any case, the appointment of her to be a Cascade County Commissioner yesterday quickly dissolved into chaos yesterday.
The law about filling a vacancy is perfectly clear, MCA 7-4-2106(2):
Whenever a vacancy occurs in the board of county commissioners … the remaining county commissioners shall fill the vacancy…
To me, this language indicates fairly clearly that a vacancy cannot be filled until the seat actually becomes vacant. It is vacant today, at 5:01 p.m. And that, at the earliest, should be the time to fill a vacancy. I’m not sure how Bill Salina and Peggy Beltrone considered that, against the obvious meaning of the language, a vote should be held this week and that Commissioner Beltrone was a “remaining commissioner” who is eligible to vote. If such a thing was allowed, why would the law use the adjective “remaining”? It’s only purpose is to convey that the resigned commissioner is not among those privileged to vote to fill a vacancy.
Then again, I suppose this seeming disobedience of statute, against the advice of the outgoing commissioner’s own legal counsel, isn’t actually worse than timing your resignation so that the party machine can choose the appointment, as opposed to letting the voters do so. If Beltrone had resigned 15 days ago, there would have been an election for this vacancy. Wouldn’t that have been nice and democratic?
This whole process — nomination by party central committee and the bizarro commission vote — sounds almost a throwback to some other, worse era.
Posted in Cascade County Government, New | 13 Comments »
Best Line Of The Day (So far)
From David Harsanyi:
Admitting you’re a fan of economics is another way of saying that you live a deeply tragic life.
Those of you who have expressed pity for me for where I am can now also pity me for the journey I’ve taken to get here.
And, after you’ve appropriately cast your sympathies, read the link.
Posted in Economy, New, Theory | 2 Comments »
Tell Us What You Really Think, Chuck
GMU Econ professor, Charles Rowley, takes issue with Robert Rubin’s call to affect a retroactive reinstatement of the estate tax. Regardless of my opinion on his larger point, I appreciated his invective:
I have discussed the views and personal career of Robert Rubin before in these columns, so I shall not track back over the reason why I label him the Prince of Darkness. Suffice it to say that Robert Rubin is one of those opportunists who bottom-feeds off state capitalism, taking whatever he can, from whomsoever suits his immediate purpose. He is a man without any evident principles save those of extreme narrow self-interest: a motive which potentially might have made him an entrepreneur, doing well while doing good, but, unfortunately has launched him on a career path designed to do well for himself while landing all the costs on unwary others.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Posted in Ideology, Liberalism, New | 1 Comment »
Those Dred Policies That Got Us Here
They told me that if I didn’t vote for Obama…
From the WaPo:
With the recovery faltering less than two months before the November congressional elections, President Obama’s economic team is considering another big dose of stimulus in the form of tax breaks for businesses – potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars, according to two people familiar with the talks.
Go figure.
Posted in Economy, New, Political Economy | 10 Comments »
Hoover v Roosevelt (v Obama & Others)
As a follow up to Gregg’s last post (with out regard to you know who.)
From Russ Robert’s EconTalk podcast:
David Kennedy of Stanford University and the author of Freedom from Fear talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the Great Depression and its political and economic relevance. Kennedy talks about the economic policies of Hoover and Roosevelt, and how the historical narrative was shaped and evolved over the decades. The conversation concludes with Kennedy’s thoughts on the nature and value of history.
Kennedy on the Great Depression
Kennedy would be better if he studied a bit more economics. But I think it’s a fair assessment even with his obvious approval of big government paternalism.
Crack a beer or two and give it a listen.
Posted in Culture, New | 4 Comments »
Michael Barone channels MarkT
In the 1930s Americans supposedly lost faith in markets and rallied to government. But if you go back and look at public opinion polling then, you find something rather different. You find majorities grumbling about Big Government, scorning Big Business and opposing Big Labor.
The 1940s were different. Facing the threat of total war, Franklin Roosevelt transformed himself from “Dr. New Deal” to “Dr. Win the War.” He fostered cooperation between Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor. Roosevelt was brilliant at selecting, from all these sources, the best men (and women) for jobs he considered important.
The result was a war effort that was brilliantly successful. America was the arsenal of democracy, vanquishing its enemies and inventing the atomic bomb. Big Unit governance gained enormous prestige and held onto it for a generation after the war.
Posted in Economy, Ideology, National Politics, New | 40 Comments »
How True
Ross Douthat on Glenn Beck’s mega-rally at the Lincoln Memorial the other day:
Similarly, one could call the rally a gross affront to the memory of King, who presumably wouldn’t have cared much for Beck’s right-wing politics. But one could also call the day a strange, unlooked-for fulfillment of King’s prophecies: 47 years after the “I Have a Dream” speech, here were tens of thousands of white conservatives roaring their approval of its author. …
In a sense, Beck’s “Restoring Honor” was like an Obama rally through the looking glass. It was a long festival of affirmation for middle-class white Christians — square, earnest, patriotic and religious. If a speaker had suddenly burst out with an Obama-esque “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” the message would have fit right in.
Posted in National Politics, New | 34 Comments »
Unfortunate Illusions
When I was an undergrad in finance I had a remarkable teacher, Dick Smith, who taught a course in Banking. Smith’s resume included a long stint as CFO of Potlatch Corp which made him unusual as a Biz Prof simply for his deep real world experience.
Fortunately for us (and I suppose Smith too) Smith authored the course text book which included a chapter titled: The Unfortunate Fact That Balance Sheets Balance. This notion raised eyebrows amongst the students who were all well taught in financial accounting (which doesn’t presuppose that we were all well learned in such.) But the Cliffs Notes on the chapter are that the there is an illusion of legitimacy from the equal footings represented on a financial statement which, if not there, would cause a credit analyst to dig further into the “accounting risk” that all financial statements have. As a young credit analyst this notion served me better, or at least as well, as anything I learned in collage.
I thought of this as I was reading the comments in Gregg’s previous post about the effectiveness of the federal stimulus where David Crisp linked to the CBO blog which says the ARRA:
Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million…
Pointing out the CBO’s admission of it’s own uncertainty in these numbers, Mr. Crisp responded:
Dave, Methodological shortcomings acknowledged. But if I have to choose between the CBO and Boehner, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, guess where I’m going.
I have to agree with David that given this (false) choice I would defer to the CBO as well. The problem is, of course, that supporters of the ARRA hold up the CBO numbers as proof positive that that jobs were “created or saved” due to the stimulus. My challenge to those is: prove it! The whole idea behind the fiscal multiplier came from Keynes General Theory of Employment which, to date, is still theory and still general.
Arnold Kling, writing on another matter, wrote yesterday:
I suspect that a big reason that mathematics took over economics is that it gives you a sense of mastery. Indeed, it may give you a false sense of mastery. As you learn mathematical economics, you realize that you are getting really good at doing something that only a small group of people is able to master. And you get the sense that because you completed a mathematical proof that you accomplished something. It is very seductive.
Which brings me back to Dr. Smith’s “unfortunate fact(s).”
Now, as you might guess, I’m not convinced that the multiplier works at all or, at a minimum, any fiscal stimulus can be a Pareto improvement – a state where it is possible to make someone better-off without making someone else worse off. But let’s take Dr. Smith’s advice and dig deeper. Megan McArdle does the thought experiment:
How much unemployment reduction you get for a given amount of stimulus spending is, obviously, at best an imperfect estimation. But let’s take the CBO’s estimates as representing a rough consensus of those who favor stimulus: for our $800 billion, we got a reduction of 0.7 to 1.8 percentage points.
Full employment is perhaps 4.5-5%. If we assume that stimulus benefits increase linearly, that means we would have needed a stimulus of, on the low end, $2.5 trillion. On the high end, it would have been in the $4-5 trillion range.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that even if Republicans had simply magically disappeared, the government still would not have been able to borrow and spend $2.5 trillion in any reasonably short time frame, much less $4-5 trillion. The political support for that level of government expansion simply wasn’t there among Democrats, much less their constituents. Even if they had found the political will, I doubt that government institutions could have effectively channeled that much new spending. And assuming away those two problems, would lenders really have been available to fund 18% deficits at rock-bottom rates?
[...]
Which raises an interesting question: what if Keynesian stimulus works, but no one can ever actually afford to do it, short of something like World War II, where the government can tap into a patriotic outpouring of national savings by issuing bonds with negative real yields.
Well, I’m equally unconvinced that WWII cured the depression with negative real interest rates but, more likely, the lack of consumption goods forced the savings rate so high that, after the war, there was huge pent-up demand and a great deal of savings in the bank to satisfy it that finally stimulated the economy (amongst other factors like being the last industrial base standing.)
But so far no one has yet proved that the stimulus is noting but an economic transfer benefiting some cohorts at the expense of others. And the more I hear “but at least the stimulus made things better than they would have been” the more I believe that the conventional wisdom is nothing more than an unfortunate illusion.
Since we’ve already spent most of the money, I hope someone would prove me wrong. But I won’t hold my breath.
Posted in Economy, New, Political Economy, Theory | 31 Comments »
Got Nuthin’
As Craig pointed out below, even the NY Times is starting to question the efficacy of President Obama’s $787,000,000,000.00 stimulus plan. It’s no wonder, given that we have now spent $505,000,000,000.00 to create what is self-reported as 749,597 jobs. (For those of you keeping track at home, that’s $673,695.00 per job.)
Even people who believe in Keynesian intervention would have to admit, I think, that President Obama and the Democrat Congress have made a terrible mess of it. I feel compelled to agree with Congressional Republicans who accuse “the administration of squandering stimulus spending on efforts that brought little gain.” I don’t believe in Keynesian policy because I think the private sector is far better at conducting economic activities than the government (as I believe the per job spending demonstrates), but even if I did, I would have to feel let down by my elected leaders because they have screwed the whole thing up so badly that any more ’stimulus’ is probably politically impossible.
Nice work. We’ll see you in November…
Posted in Economy, New | 28 Comments »
The Bailout Will Not Be Televised
From Andy Harless:
Americans got angry when the federal government tried to bail out banks by buying assets or taking capital positions. Whatever you may think of those bailout programs, they at least had the advantage that taxpayers were getting something in return for their money. There is another bank bailout program going on now – one that allows the federal government to recapitalize banks with public money, receive nothing at all in return, and somehow escape criticism for doing so. That bailout program is called the Recession.
How does the Recession allow the government to bail out banks? With the recession going on, people are afraid to do anything risky with their assets, so they keep them deposited in banks, earning no interest. Banks can then invest these deposits in Treasury notes and credit the interest on those Treasury notes to their bottom line, thus improving their balance sheets. So the government pays to recapitalize banks while receiving nothing in return.
[...]
So the success of this bailout program depends on avoiding recovery, avoiding increases in inflation expectations, and avoiding major declines in Treasury note yields. Now do you understand why the Federal Reserve Bank presidents – representatives of the banking sector – are the most hawkish voices at the FOMC’s policy meetings?
To which Arnold Kling adds:
I call it neutron-bomb monetary policy. The banks are still standing, while the people are getting killed. I don’t think that is the explicit intent of the Fed, but the structure of the organization makes it much more responsive to the thought process of bankers than to that of ordinary Americans.
This isn’t the first time this has happened and it bolsters the argument that the Fed’s mission creep needs to be reigned back to one of simple price stability (if we continue to allow them to exist at all.) Bailing out borrowers on the backs of savers is wrong from either an egalitarian or free market perspective – especially if the “borrowers” are zombie financial institutions.
But the unfortunate fact is that the average Joe has no idea they’re getting screwed.
Posted in Economy, Markets, New, Political Economy | 2 Comments »
Genesis
Adam and Eve are coming to town.
No, not this Adam and Eve:
This one. You know, the “anal sex toys” and “kinky bondage” people. Not only are they coming to town, they’re opening up right on Central Avenue in good old downtown Great Falls.
I must preface this whole piece by pointing out that I am not opposed to Adam & Eve, the store, and I don’t really care where they open. If they own the land, or the rights to occupy the land, and their business is legal, they should be able to ply their trade anywhere they damned well please.
In fact, those of you who know me, know that I oppose any but the most broad and general zoning or land use restrictions for otherwise legal enterprises. I oppose the very notion of zoning. To me, complex “land use codes” are nothing more than one group of people deciding to use political power to impose their will on another group of people. These types of situations invariably result in bureaucrat, administrator-types developing and maintaining their own power base in a community by picking winners and losers based on their personal, subjective desires. The opening of the Adam and Eve store downtown provides a perfect example.
Let’s start with the definitions contained in the City of Great Falls Land Use Code:
“Adult book store/adult video store” means a commercial establishment which, as one of its principal business purposes, offers for sale or rental for any form of consideration any one or more of the following:
1. books, magazines, periodicals, or other printed matter, or photographs, films, motion pictures, video cassettes or video reproductions which are characterized by an emphasis on the depiction or descriptions of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas;
2. instruments, devices, or paraphernalia which are designed for use in connection with specified sexual activities.
Does the Adam & Eve store fit the bill? You tell me:
I would submit that, any portion of one’s product line that is significant enough to advertise publicly can reasonably considered a “principal business purpose.” The Land Use Code, though, does not define a “principal business purpose,” it defines a principal land use. According to the Code, that is: “the dominant land use of a parcel of land.”
Here’s our first problem. The pointy-headed types who drafted the Code goofed. A “principal land use” is defined in the singular, yet the definition of an adult video store clearly contemplates more than one principal business purpose. Hmmm. I guess that leaves us with an interpretation question. We therefore must conclude that a “principal land use,” which the Code defines singularly, is something different from a “principal business purpose,” of which a business can have more than one. As noted above, though, a “principal busines purpose,” is apparently not defined by the Code. (An interesting aside: The Code was adopted in 2003, apparently having been lifted verbatim from a different city’s code. A simple bit of legal research would have pointed out that at least one Court had already found the problematic ambiguity in the code. Nice drafting guys…)
I guess we’ll need to do some interpretation, won’t we? Let’s turn to the introductory language: “The establishment of sexually-oriented businesses in business districts which are immediately adjacent to and which serve residential neighborhoods has a deleterious effect on both the business and residential segments of the neighborhood, causing or contributing to blight and a downgrading of property values.” Oh my gosh, we wouldn’t want that to happen! Based on the foregoing fear of blight and downgrading, the City Commission legislated that these businesses can only operate in I-1 or I-2 districts, Light or Heavy Industrial.
You can review the Zoning Map to see that the downtown area is most definitely not Light Industrial or Heavy Industrial. Nevertheless, the Adam & Eve store is allowed to sell the Katie Morgan Cyberskin Ass on Central Avenue. (But it’s not a “sexually oriented business.”)
How?
Let’s thank our Planning Director, Michael Haynes, who solved the problem. “The request they made was for a lingerie store with novelties, and that’s what our zoning determination was based on. We would have to look at adult movies, etcetera, to see if that fits in with what’s permitted downtown.” Oh. We would “have to look” at it? When would that be? Would that be when they advertise DVDs and adult toys in their window? Or would it be…say…never?
Further, while Mr. Haynes is not directly quoted, the KRTV piece cited above implies that the City has adopted this test: “If the majority of sales came from adult movies and sexual novelties, zoning restrictions would apply.” If, in fact, the City has adopted such a test, that is simply absurd.
Think about it. We know from the City’s own definition that an adult bookstore can have more than one “principal business purpose,” becuase it uses the plural “purposes.” If we are going to consider, though, a majority of sales, that would mean a business could have only one principal purpose since two different items cannot both be a majority of sales; there’s only one majority. Thus, the test apparently applied by the City violates the City’s own Code. You tell me if this is interpretation or legislation.
Anyway, here we are. The City adopts a restrictive ordinance and then turns around and ignores its own ordinance to allow a business to open in clear violation of its own Code. I can already smell the blight wafting toward my office.
“But wait Smith!” you exclaim, “you said you’re against land use restrictions. This should be a good thing.”
Sure, I am against land use restrictions. On the other hand, they exist and are presently the law in our town. What I am really opposed to is what we have here. A poorly drafted law that is now interpreted in a discretionary fashion to pick a winner and a loser. Adam & Eve wins. Michael Haynes has decided that this company, for whatever reason, and no matter how much he tries to rationalize his decision by resort to seemingly objective criteria, gets to win.
What about the next guy (or gal), though? What if Michael Haynes doesn’t like the next business to come along?
Well, then he can resort to seemingly objective criteria and decide that the next one loses. But no one person, Michael Haynes or otherwise, is supposed to pick the mercantile winners in our capitalist society. We, the consumers and citizens, are supposed to pick the winners. When did we, as the citizens of this community, agree that the City can hire one person who can tell us how to use our land?
We abolished the monarchy over 200 years ago.
Or did we?
Posted in Great Falls City Government, Local & State Government, New, Policy | 14 Comments »
‘Red Corner’
Talk about a forgotten slice of Montana history: A new history monograph, Red Corner: The Rise and Fall of Communism in Northeastern Montana, details the history of communism in Sheridan County (Plentywood).
This was real, hard-core, hammer-and-sickle communism; the county elected a communist state senator (also the editor of The Producers News) and a sheriff. They extorted their opponents, and firebombed a rival newspaper.
The book, which I just got the other day, leads with a story of a 1930s funeral, where a 14-year-old girl was memorialized at the Farmer-Labor Temple, her casket draped with the red flag, with mourners singing the International. Bizarre.
Personally, I’m a bit surprised one doesn’t hear about this chapter of Montana history more often.
Posted in Culture, Literature, New | 38 Comments »
David Brooks & Gail Collins Talk Montana
Sort-of-conservative columnist David Brooks went on vacation to Glacier, which he says might be his favorite state (thanks David, we’ll try not to totally hate on you). Anyways, he is now back on the East Coast to tell snarky lib columnist Gail Collins the skinny.
Verdict: Anger, disillusionment, etc.
At least he’s self-deprecating (I think):
David Brooks: After Ms. Bachmann leads her revolution I think I may retreat to northern Montana [I'd give him real points if that meant Wolf Point -Ed.] and write samizdat publications for people who have faith in limited but energetic government. Then I’ll write soulful novels about trout whisperers and spend my evenings playing 25-cent-a-hand video poker.
Speaking of Glacier vacations, I’m off tomorrow to Polebridge in the far west of Glacier for a long weekend with an eclectic bunch of friends — a British financial journalist who is very excited about Montana’s wheat prices, an analyst for the UK’s Conservative Party, an MIT climate modeler and son of a past GF mayor, a Saskatchewan socialist, and a short-story author.
I am expecting lots of political conversations.
Posted in New | 1 Comment »