My afternoon train reads:

• Banks Discover Money Management Again as Trading Declines (Bloomberg)
• U.S. GDP on the road to zero growth by 2050 (MarketWatch) see also Just what is a recession? (The Economist)
• Resisted for Blocking the View, Dunes Prove They Blunt Storms (NYT)
• How an all-star team put an end to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (ars technica)
• Industrialists vs. the rest of us (Seth Godin)
• Why the GOP Won’t Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed (The Fiscal Times) see also Lessons from a Half Century of Federal Individual Income Tax Changes (Owenzidar)
• What Would Happen If the Bush tax cuts all lapsed? (Econbrowswer)
• Why ‘The Daily’ Failed (Daring Fireball)
• Investors’ 10 Most Common Behavioral Biases (Above the Market) see also Comparative perceptions of driver ability— A confirmation and expansion (Science Direct)

What are you reading?

U.S. Sues Big Firms Over China Audit

Source: WSJ

• Cut Medicare and Social Security? What’s the rush? (LA Times)

Category: Financial Press

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

10 Responses to “10 Tuesday PM Reads”

  1. Jojo says:

    The demise of the Teaparty power?
    Two conservative Republicans booted from House budget panel

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Two of the most conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives have been kicked off the House Budget Committee, a rare move that could make it easier for the panel to advance a deal with Democrats to cut fiscal deficits.

    Representatives Tim Huelskamp of Kansas and Justin Amash of Michigan – both favorites of the anti-tax Tea Party movement – are among those Republicans voting most often against House Speaker John Boehner.

    Huelskamp and Amash, who both will begin second terms in the House next month, voted against last year’s deal to raise the federal debt limit and staunchly oppose any tax increases. Boehner has now included new revenue in his latest offer to avert the “fiscal cliff” of year-end tax hikes and automatic spending cuts. Given their voting records, winning support from Huelskamp and Amash for such a compromise seemed an uphill battle.

    Huelskamp released a statement saying the Republican leadership “might think they have silenced conservatives but removing me and others from key committees only confirms our conservative convictions.

    “This is clearly a vindictive move and a sure sign that the GOP establishment cannot handle disagreement,” he said.–business.html

  2. RW says:

    Republicans not handling election results well

    PPP’s first post election national poll finds that Republicans are taking the results pretty hard… 49% of GOP voters nationally say they think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama. We found that 52% of Republicans thought that ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama, so this is a modest decline, but perhaps smaller than might have been expected given that ACORN doesn’t exist anymore.

  3. romerjt says:

    @RW – That’s priceless.

  4. Jack Damn says:

    I quit Twitter for a month and it completely changed my thinking about mostly everything.

    I’ve realized—Twitter is outsourced schizophrenia. I have a couple hundred voices I have consensually agreed to allow residence inside my brain.

  5. Lyle says:

    Re: The idea of zero real growth by 2050, IMHO the first factor for economic growth is the number of folks in their 20s and 30s when folks are more open to new ideas than later. If the recent trends in total fertility continue then the us population will level out in 2030 or so. I suspect that a level to declining total population makes economic growth harder. Japan is an example where I suspect the declining population has led to the low economic growth of the last 20 years, China starts that next year as the working age population peaks next year.

  6. ironman says:

    Your Paycheck Over the Fiscal Cliff (how your paycheck will change if all the Bush era tax cuts go away after 31 December 2012 as currently scheduled):

  7. Lukey says:

    I don’t understand why we continue to call what the Bush Administration did “supply side” and then insist it proves “supply side” doesn’t work. They reduced current tax revenues while vastly increasing government spending. That is exactly what the Obama “stimulus” did and no one suggests that IT was “supply side.” And neither worked for the same reason. Spending = Taxes (current + deferred). So you can’t call a vast increase in the size and scope of government “supply side” regardless of what you do with (current) marginal tax rates.

    On the other hand, the Clinton boom resulted from a reduction in (or curtailment in the growth of) overall taxation, despite his higher marginal tax rates, because it reduced the crowding out effect of government spending (deferred taxation). The result was millions of new jobs and a widespread increase in prosperity. Of course, none of this suggests the Republicans have a clue. If they were smart they’d declare victory in their “starve the beast” strategy and accept slightly higher marginal rates in exchange for tangible cuts in current government spending. That would be the most “supply side” thing they could possibly do.


    BR: First, you should read the article, which you apparently didn’t. They explain what Bush did from a supply side basis.

    Bush cut taxes, arguing it would lead to an increase in government revenues. This is consistent with what Reagan, Bush I and Bush II claimed — only the data shows that it only works when you are slashing very high rates — like Kennedy did.

  8. Lukey says:

    I read the article, Barry – I just don’t agree with their premise. How was what Bush did different from Obama’s “stimulus?” Obama cut wage tax rates and spent big time. Bush did the same thing but with marginal income tax rates. Same sh*t, different day, if you ask me. Bush was a Kloset Keynesian, and it failed. Clinton was ten times the supply sider that Bush was. Bush cut current tax revenues, not “taxes” per se, because his deferred tax increases swamped his current tax rate cuts.