LMK5 said:

---

Tom, I didn't go to Berkeley.

---

Least surprising news ever.

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Mr. Dajo,
What is your opinion on this theme called Japanification?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4375527-japanification-of-united-states-is-complete

---

The United States and Japan suffer from the same problem - wealth inequality. The concept of Japanification is a misdiagnosis of the problem, in which the government is blamed for natural impacts of capitalism. In capitalism, the quest for efficiency is a process that naturally consolidates means of production and wealth. Liberal economic policies are needed to offset this natural impulse of capitalism. But people who want to believe in free markets find ways to blame the government. The "Monetary Death Spiral" described in the article is a perfect example of blaming the government for the effects of capitalism.

Before you go and google Japan wealth inequality and say that Japan does not have wealth inequality, you need to consider the impacts of Japanese businesses. Japan's businesses have been hoarding cash for decades. The wealth is hidden away in these companies, and therefore Japan actually scores very well on wealth inequality measures. But the economic impact of corporate wealth inequality is the same as individual wealth inequality.

Japan borrows from cash hoarding businesses (and their central bank) while the United States borrows from cash hoarding individuals (and our central bank). They both need to be taxed higher and the money spent on the middle class.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-biggest-failure-of-abenomics-japan-inc-is-still-hoarding-cash-51599253201

---

Thank you, Dajo:

My 19 year old daughter has surprised me recently by continually attacking "capitalism". Sometimes I don't even think she knows what it is. I have tried to have conversation with her about this.

Some of the (general understanding, non-textbook) things I have been able to say off the top of my head in between her breaths of accusation:

• Capitalism is distinct from socialism or communism where individual actors (people/businesses) determine and own the means of production/consumption - not the central government.
• Capitalism allows the "invisible hand" forces of supply and demand of the market place to determine what gets produced/consumed, and at what prices.
• I believe in the best and most efficient use of capital, while adding in "externalities", such as adding a cost (or outright banning thru regulation) to pollution or local/global resources consumption and depletion.
• Capitalism harnesses innovation via the risk/reward of a return on capital invested. Take away the reward and nobody would risk.
• Central government planned economy (communist) USSR failed because it is killed individual motivation to produce/invent. That's what you get when you take away the risk/reward factor of a "capitalist" economy.
• Popular memes on social media that "you (daughter)" are reading which criticize "capitalism" are shortsighted. You don't even know how to think your way through this. Take a few economics classes and come back and see me (okay, I didn't talk to her like that, but that's what I tried to gently convey.)
• Capitalism causes wealth inequality (as you say, Dajo) and so we need to work to resolve that. I gave her the link to Cal's Gabriel Zucman talk about how we effectively have a "flat tax" in the US, and need to return to a "progressive" tax system - via his proposal for a wealth tax, which I believe was the basis for Elizabeth Warren's plan. Watch minutes 7 thru 20 if interested.

So, when you say above, "Liberal economic policies are needed to offset this natural impulse of capitalism", what sort of proposals might you suggest?

---

It's great that your daughter is willing to have a discussion. I also have 2 daughters about the same age. I agree with your talking points. My daughters have grandparents and other relatives who grew up under socialist and communist systems, so they know about those firsthand. Their uncle from Cuba visited here a couple of years ago, and when given a strawberry, he told us it was the first one he'd ever seen in his life! Sadly, many of our youth, including lots of Cal students, embrace these systems without ever learning the effects on everyday people. They're proud of their Che' t-shirts.

I grew up in the 70s.They were awful times. Inflation was talked about constantly, we waited in gas lines, and businesses were closing. For the first time, a car's gas cap came with a lock. Our landlord didn't give us the heat we needed because heating oil prices were so high. My grandfather, a retired shop-owner at the time, used to recoil at the sight of closed small businesses in our area of northern New Jersey. Yet, wages of blue collar workers were comparatively high, and unions were quite strong, but I don't remember people living well. My friends' parents were always concerned about money.

People used to be able to buy cars more frequently back then, but the quality was also terrible (Japanese cars were just beginning to penetrate the market). Water and air pollution were major issues of the day. Remember Lake Erie catching fire in Cleveland? For a quick recalibration of what those times were like, one should review Carter's famous "Malaise" speech: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106508243

I know quite a few people who grew up in the old USSR under their centrally-planned system. Boy do they have stories to tell of the shortages and inefficiencies they witnessed, not to mention the hypocrisy of the party members who lived like financiers. Citizens learned to become masters at working around entrenched "systems." Their experiences seemed to have destroyed their trust in authority of any kind.

Capitalism certainly does have its issues, but for now it seems to be the best of the worst.

---

But the sucking 70's was also the era of disco, let's not forget. It also brought us streaking, the bicentennial, and the Oakland Raiders first Super Bowl title!

So, if you grew up in NJ, how'd did you make it to Berkeley for college?

I went to Moscow in Jan of 90 for a week. The job of the mother-in-law was to stand in lines all day, many day, to buy things for the family:
Meat one day
Dairy the next
You get the picture...

You're right. I should focus more on the fact that she has opinions and is testing them with me, rather than get too upset about how silly she sounds. It's true, I've told her I'm proud that she vocalizes and cares. She just needs seasoning to speak more intelligently, rather than railing for the purpose of railing.

We talked about ethical capitalism, capitalism with a heart - and not just as a do-nothing talking point typical of pre-Trump republicans who tried to appeal to the middle left.

.... LMK5, when Democrats march and complain, I do NOT think for a nanosecond that they are rallying to tear this system we have down, though you will hear that assertion from Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, etc. That's a scare tactic - don't buy it!

Lean in, listen, consider the merits of the protest. Don't shun them just because they may be your natural "other", full of a bunch of "thems".

Collectively, we are simply in the generations long push-pull process of figuring out how to live in mass civilization without burning down the planet first.
Wish us all luck - we need it.

---

Tom, I didn't go to Berkeley. I went to SUNY. One of my kids attends Cal. However, my father did attend Cal for awhile. Strangely, I've been watching Cal football for a long time, mostly becasue I've always been curious as to how the "smart" schools (Cal, Northwestern, Stanford) perform. I figured they always had a built-in disadvantage.

Yes, the fact that your daughter does wish to engage with you is certainly a a positive sign. If the exchanges were negative in her view, she'd likely refrain from them altogether. Thankfully I'm able to discuss topics with my kids also. To me the key is to listen rather than talk at them. Then when they're done, I give them something to chew on.

I have no issues with people marching. I think most have good intentions. I do have a an issue with protesters like the ones in Portland (yes those are still going on).

For sure people on Fox News are trying to appeal to a particular audience, just like the other cable channels. They are all trying to keep their viewers in the fold by fomenting their outrage. This is what needs to be done when there is this much competition. My issue is with CBS, ABC, and NBC. They have a multi-decade reputation to uphold. We're talking Cronkite, Murrrow, Chancellor, Brinkley, well... you get the picture. But they have abandoned their impartiality, something that will take them forever to regain--if at all. Does this not sadden you?

I've been watching NBC Nightly News for decades. When I saw, 2 weeks ago, how Lester Holt presented the video of the Columbus Ohio police shooting I was really taken aback once I saw the full video. Holt could have just as easily presented the video as a cop saving the life of a woman who was about to be stabbed, but that angle was abandoned in favor of a (white) cop shooting a (black) person. He needed to keep the theme of outrage fomentation going. Anyway, I'm now trying ABC News LOL!

And I do agree with "Collectively, we are simply in the generations long push-pull process of figuring out how to live in mass civilization without burning down the planet first."

---

1. Thanks

2. No it does not sadden me that ABC, CBS, NBC has turned biased against Trump - because I am extremely biased against him. I compare him and his followers to Hitler and Naziism. I think the media tried to be respectful to him, especially after he won, but that only served to normalize and win him more favor amongst those on the fence. "Well, he IS the President," people would say. No. He is a crook, a cad, and a very dangerous person. Anyone who disagrees with me on those points can, well, I don't really give a F. It's idiotic in my mind to rationalize that Trump and Trumpism is okay. This is not a normal case of simply being upset about some politician I don't like. This is very serious sh*t! He's that dangerous in my mind. I think many others feel the same way I do, and those media people who have gone activist in delivering that message have surely been compelled to abandon the traditional norms in favor of calling a pig a pig. Wouldn't it have been nice if the Nazi movement had been stopped by Germans before all the insanity began? You can disagree with me and say "Oh, that isn't what we are talking about here," and "that would never happen here". I will disagree with you and maintain my belief. The insanity of crowds. The cult of personality.

3. My parents and grandparents both met at Cal. I did not go there. SDSU and American U in DC. Grew up going to Cal football games, parking lot tailgates. Aunt, Sister also went to Cal. Family endows a couple professorships. It's in the blood. An aunt and uncle of my grandmother also went to Cal, and I think her father did for a time, before finding school wasn't for him. 1908 era...

4. Shooting in Ohio. I have not seen the full video, but I understood someone had a knife and was freaking out? Does that make the shooting justifiable?
I think the way to look at this is thusly: Perhaps MANY of these situations are "justifiable". But are they the best policing tactics? Should an officer SO OFTEN be pulling out there guns as a de-escalation tactic? No.

I saw this news story yesterday and what struck me is how the cops gathered afterwards to digest what happened. They were replaying it in their mind, testosterone was (understandably) amped. But what if their attitude was one of "how can we help this person?" rather than the attitude of an exciting chase and catch ("at that point she earned it")? THAT is the change in policing attitude that is being requested.



I had some solar sales-people come by my house in Dec. Some neighbor called police on the "suspicious vehicle". A cop pulled into my driveway as I spoke to the salesmen. We ended up talking to the cop (about 30, and an Iraq-vet). Somehow we got into the issue of police shootings and George Floyd. He ended up telling us about the time recently he was at Thunder Valley Casino in Lincoln CA. Said it's all trash there. He said there was somebody suspicious slumped in his car in the parking lot, and how he ended up quietly behind him with his hand on the trigger with pressure, gun pointed at head. The fellow had a lighter in his lap that was in the shape of (looked like) a gun. The young cop told them guy to raise his hands slowly. Now, imagine hanging out in your car and suddenly you hear that voice, not knowing who it was or what was going on. Fortunately, the guy didn't do something to spook the cop and the trigger wasn't pulled, but the cop ended up telling us "I would have been completely justified had I shot him", but clearly the reason for his telling us this is that months later, he's still quite aware he nearly became an internet star, the next Derek Chauvin.

Cops have an attitude bias, whether to guns, to blacks to the poor and downtrodden. The protests and calls by media are to alter this policing bias and tactics.
The guy in the car was just smoking pot, a dirty lowlife in his car at a casino.
There but for the grace of god go you or I.

Anyone who has experienced the sh*t side of life at one time or another can have a heart for these masses. Not everyone makes it out of that ditch. Your family did. Be grateful.

---

Tom, if Trump was the impetus for the media to become activists instead of journalists, that era has passed. They urgently need to go back to the tenets of the profession. You and I lose big time without an impartial press.

As far as the cops go, I see many issues. First, it seems to me that the cops are a sort of a closed brotherhood. Even in my home town, where crime is not a problem, cops don't engage with the public, even on a superficial level. For instance, if a cop is posted at a HS sporting event, they seem to make sure they don't interact with the public even though, I feel, it is important to do so (it's not exactly a tense atmosphere).

Second, I see too many cops who don't follow the law. On the roadways, cops speed without their lights on and almost never use their turn signals. I also see lots of unsafe joyriding by motorcycle cops. This, to me, is pure arrogance and presents a terrible example to our teen drivers. Third, it seems that in major cities, the cops have an "us vs. them" mentality. They see who commits the crimes, and over time the police culture forms a bias towards that group. This makes their interactions dangerous, which brings up training. Perhaps police training needs to somehow make deadly force less of a prime option while also keeping the police safe. That's a tall order but it needs to happen.

BTW, since you're an SDSU guy are you secretly happy that Matt Bradley transferred LOL?

When I was at SDSU, we voted on whether to raise student tuition fees in order to build what eventually became Viejas Arena. At the time, we thought, "oh, this will be awesome - we'll get to walk right to the gym. It'll be packed and we'll be a top20 team!"

(They had been playing at the downtown Sports Arena - which no students ever went to.)

We were stupid to not realize that we'd be long gone before it ever got built.

Yes, I think it's great that they have a gym right at the back of Frat Row. Or at least what used to be Frat Row. I think my frat house has moved. But, SDSU is not a stellar college in my opinion. It was too crowded, too hard to get classes my sophomore year, too much of a party attitude and did not do a good enough job of matriculating me and many of my friends. I tell my kids NOT to consider going there, although many of their friends are there now and loving it.

I transferred to American U in DC and, having gotten the parties and bigtime D1 stuff out of my system (football at the Murph), I really liked being in DC and having smaller class sizes. A number of classes incorporated things IN DC and I learned a lot more than at SD. Surely a lot of that has to do with maturity level, but I advise my kids to go elsewhere.

In summary - no, I don't care about Aztec sports. It sucks that Bradley transferred there.
Berkeley is more where my heart is at, though I never went there. I root for Cal over SDSU if they meet up. SDSU was formative, but ultimately failed me.

At least we were right about SDSU's eventual Viejas. They've been able to build a strong team as a result. The campus student body has all the ingredients for success. Viejas is one big party, as I understand it.



And I see they've added something called Aztec Nights and Carnival as well? WTH???
People say, "oh, it's much harder to get into and not so much a party school anymore."
Yeah, right! When pigs fly!

LeninBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Combative Dick said:

---

Paul Krugman has been wrong about so many things, I don’t know why he thinks his opinion even matters anymore.

— Smartass Iconoclast 🦥 (@snarktasticgirl) April 16, 2021

.

---

I'm enjoying this article, thank you.

It's cool to see that someone who gets punched around big time by the right is making an argument they should embrace.

Quote:

---

Is his universal basic income proposal a good idea?

No, it isn't. It's both too expensive to be sustainable without a very large tax increase and inadequate for Americans who really need help. I've done the math.

First, we really would be talking about a lot of money. The recently enacted American Rescue Plan gave most adults a one-time $1,400 payment, at a cost of $411 billion. These payments make some sense given the lingering economic effects of the pandemic, although other components of the plan, especially enhanced unemployment benefits, are playing a more crucial role in limiting financial misery.

But the Yang proposal to pay $12,000 a year would cost more than eight times as much every year well over $3 trillion a year, in perpetuity. Even if you aren't much worried about either debt or inflationary overheating right now (which I'm not), you have to think that sustained spending at that rate would both cause problems and conflict with other priorities, from infrastructure to child care.

Yet these payments would also be grossly inadequate for Americans who actually did lose their jobs, whether to automation or something else. The median full-time worker in the United States currently earns about $1,000 per week.

The point is that for now, at least, the best way to provide an adequate safety net is to make aid conditional. We can and should provide generous aid to the unemployed; we can and should provide aid to families with children. But sending checks to everyone, every month, is just too poorly focused on the real problems.

---

Maybe people see the words Paul and Krugman next to each other and decide without additional thought to get out their bashing sticks.

---

The right hates Paul Krugman because week after week he eviscerated George W Bush and was right over and over again. The left hates Krugman because he is not a radical.

When you do punditry as long as Krugman you're going to say some incorrect things. But I'd take his track record over any other pundit I can think of, in terms of boldness and accuracy (most pundits never say anything of substance).

---

People hate Krugman because he's a shytty economist and an even shyttier pundit. Worst Nobel winning economist of all time.

---

That's sort of like being the worst Super Bowl winner or the worst heavyweight boxing champion of the world. It's still an extremely significant feat.

The Mask said:

---

LeninBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Combative Dick said:

---

Paul Krugman has been wrong about so many things, I don’t know why he thinks his opinion even matters anymore.

— Smartass Iconoclast 🦥 (@snarktasticgirl) April 16, 2021

.

---

I'm enjoying this article, thank you.

It's cool to see that someone who gets punched around big time by the right is making an argument they should embrace.

Quote:

---

Is his universal basic income proposal a good idea?

No, it isn't. It's both too expensive to be sustainable without a very large tax increase and inadequate for Americans who really need help. I've done the math.

First, we really would be talking about a lot of money. The recently enacted American Rescue Plan gave most adults a one-time $1,400 payment, at a cost of $411 billion. These payments make some sense given the lingering economic effects of the pandemic, although other components of the plan, especially enhanced unemployment benefits, are playing a more crucial role in limiting financial misery.

But the Yang proposal to pay $12,000 a year would cost more than eight times as much every year well over $3 trillion a year, in perpetuity. Even if you aren't much worried about either debt or inflationary overheating right now (which I'm not), you have to think that sustained spending at that rate would both cause problems and conflict with other priorities, from infrastructure to child care.

Yet these payments would also be grossly inadequate for Americans who actually did lose their jobs, whether to automation or something else. The median full-time worker in the United States currently earns about $1,000 per week.

The point is that for now, at least, the best way to provide an adequate safety net is to make aid conditional. We can and should provide generous aid to the unemployed; we can and should provide aid to families with children. But sending checks to everyone, every month, is just too poorly focused on the real problems.

---

Maybe people see the words Paul and Krugman next to each other and decide without additional thought to get out their bashing sticks.

---

The right hates Paul Krugman because week after week he eviscerated George W Bush and was right over and over again. The left hates Krugman because he is not a radical.

When you do punditry as long as Krugman you're going to say some incorrect things. But I'd take his track record over any other pundit I can think of, in terms of boldness and accuracy (most pundits never say anything of substance).

---

People hate Krugman because he's a shytty economist and an even shyttier pundit. Worst Nobel winning economist of all time.

---

Inflation update

When Yellen says that she wants to raise interest rates to slow inflation, what she means is she wants to slow the economy so more people are unemployed, desperate and willing to take lower wages. That's their inflation strategy. From me and @KateAronoff: https://t.co/j6qehtN88c pic.twitter.com/9KFditQE89

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) May 5, 2021

---

This is true but it's even worse. Yellen can't raise rates, in the larger sense of the word. When she said rates may have to go up, rates went down. If the Fed raised the rates it controls, all the other rates would go down. When she walked back her comments then rates went back up. The Fed is the tail, not the dog.

This is what happens when retailers try to pass higher costs on to customers who don't have the money (i.e. inflation is transitory)

🚨US #RetailSales APR (MoM): 0% vs 1% expected
US Retail Sales Ex Autos APR (MOM): -0.8% vs 0.7% expected

BIG MISS!! #USDJPY #USDCAD https://t.co/mwltXVyrFS

— Joe Perry FOREX.com (@JoeP_FOREXcom) May 14, 2021

dajo9 said:

---

This is what happens when retailers try to pass higher costs on to customers who don't have the money (i.e. inflation is transitory)

🚨US #RetailSales APR (MoM): 0% vs 1% expected
US Retail Sales Ex Autos APR (MOM): -0.8% vs 0.7% expected

BIG MISS!! #USDJPY #USDCAD https://t.co/mwltXVyrFS

— Joe Perry FOREX.com (@JoeP_FOREXcom) May 14, 2021

---

Gas sales were unexpectedly down too which contributed. Auto sales had a big month so I'm not sure why he chose to exclude them, unless it was just to find the biggest miss he could.

It was expected to be a low growth month following the March stimulus-fueled increase.

I'm not saying inflation isn't coming, but I wouldn't draw too much from this one data point.

I find the level of consumer debt pay down to be quite interesting. We are still seeing an increase in delinquencies (where there is no forbearance) which is more evidence of a K shaped recovery.

https://wolfstreet.com/2021/05/13/state-of-the-american-debt-slaves-fed-confounded-as-consumers-pay-down-credit-cards-other-high-interest-debt-and-helocs/

dajo9 said:

---

This is purely antidotal but I talked with a homebuilder in my community yesterday. He said that because of high lumber prices he has stopped doing all work except for what he is contractually obligated to do.

You can't have inflation when consumers won't / can't put up the money. Instead you get reduced business activity until input prices normalize. If a business COULD charge a higher price, they already would be, regardless of input prices - if they are good at business.

---

My local anecdote has turned into data

U.S. housing starts fell by more than forecast in April https://t.co/mrNtX2zg6f

— Bloomberg (@business) May 18, 2021

The wealth inequality trade (all assets go up) still seems to be the dominant trade. The S&P 500 closed at an all-time high last Friday and interest rates are dropping (price increasing). As I type, the 10 year rate is at 1.37%. It peaked at 1.74% in March and was at 1.29% when this thread began.

The inflation story has come full circle now with the "inflation is transitory" crowd being the decisive winner at least as far as capital markets are concerned. This morning the 10 year U.S. Treasury is at 1.28%, or basically where it was at when this thread was started.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

LeninBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Combative Dick said:

---

Paul Krugman has been wrong about so many things, I don’t know why he thinks his opinion even matters anymore.

— Smartass Iconoclast 🦥 (@snarktasticgirl) April 16, 2021

.

---

I'm enjoying this article, thank you.

It's cool to see that someone who gets punched around big time by the right is making an argument they should embrace.

Quote:

---

Is his universal basic income proposal a good idea?

No, it isn't. It's both too expensive to be sustainable without a very large tax increase and inadequate for Americans who really need help. I've done the math.

First, we really would be talking about a lot of money. The recently enacted American Rescue Plan gave most adults a one-time $1,400 payment, at a cost of $411 billion. These payments make some sense given the lingering economic effects of the pandemic, although other components of the plan, especially enhanced unemployment benefits, are playing a more crucial role in limiting financial misery.

But the Yang proposal to pay $12,000 a year would cost more than eight times as much every year well over $3 trillion a year, in perpetuity. Even if you aren't much worried about either debt or inflationary overheating right now (which I'm not), you have to think that sustained spending at that rate would both cause problems and conflict with other priorities, from infrastructure to child care.

Yet these payments would also be grossly inadequate for Americans who actually did lose their jobs, whether to automation or something else. The median full-time worker in the United States currently earns about $1,000 per week.

The point is that for now, at least, the best way to provide an adequate safety net is to make aid conditional. We can and should provide generous aid to the unemployed; we can and should provide aid to families with children. But sending checks to everyone, every month, is just too poorly focused on the real problems.

---

Maybe people see the words Paul and Krugman next to each other and decide without additional thought to get out their bashing sticks.

---

The right hates Paul Krugman because week after week he eviscerated George W Bush and was right over and over again. The left hates Krugman because he is not a radical.

When you do punditry as long as Krugman you're going to say some incorrect things. But I'd take his track record over any other pundit I can think of, in terms of boldness and accuracy (most pundits never say anything of substance).

---

People hate Krugman because he's a shytty economist and an even shyttier pundit. Worst Nobel winning economist of all time.

---

That's sort of like being the worst Super Bowl winner or the worst heavyweight boxing champion of the world. It's still an extremely significant feat.

---

Or the worst president of all time.

Our country is terrible at doing painful things today in order to secure a better tomorrow. And it starts at the very top.