home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:26:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

< Is Health Care Reform The Key To Saving The Auto Industry? | California Into the Abyss >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Morning Open Thread | 68 comments (68 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    More Krugman worth reading (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:39:56 AM EST
    here.

    Depressing stuff (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:45:01 AM EST
    This part really bummed me out:

    What's notable about this theory is that it made no use of the self-correcting mechanism expounded in every principles textbook, mine included -- the mechanism in which falling prices lead to a rising real money supply, which shifts the aggregate demand curve out. Why? Well, as we've now learned the hard way, a sufficiently severe bubble-bursting pushes you into the liquidity trap, and makes the aggregate demand curve more or less vertical.

    A "vertical aggregate demand curve" is a fancy way of saying the Greatest Depression.

    Parent

    Yup, me too (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:48:12 AM EST
    It's the "L shaped" recession.

    Parent
    Prepare to be unbummed! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Samuel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:23:09 PM EST
    "...it made no use of the self-correcting mechanism ...in which falling prices lead to a rising real money supply, which shifts the aggregate demand curve out...Instead, recovery comes because low investment eventually produces a backlog of desired capital stock, through use, delay, and obsolescence. And eventually this leads to an investment recovery, which is self-reinforcing."  - This is a misnomer applied to the still existent self-correcting mechanism.  In reality, existing (and perhaps some slumpy additional as Paul says) capitol stock becomes liquidated as holders of that capitol cannot apply it towards a profitable use - they will surely lower the prices.  A new investor will wait for the capitol good price to drop to a point in which his own business model can be considered sustainable.  

    Now I get he's asserting that this will take a while in our current scenario - I still don't see how increasing spending will do anything but lengthen the amount of time it will take for asset values to drop.

    As for his AS-AD analysis - is he talking about supply and demand for investment (with the interest rate as price) - or labor (with wage as price)?  He linked to a aggregated labor supply graph and I don't think that's what we're meant to look at.

    Parent

    And the credentialed economist (none / 0) (#55)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:37:19 PM EST
    who supports your verbal gyrations is:?

    Parent
    I hope you're seriously asking! (none / 0) (#59)
    by Samuel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:16:22 PM EST
    If you are interested - try Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, R Murphy (contemporary example), Hazlitt.

    Hayek won the nobel in 1971 before it was handed out by central bankers.  

    Feel free to weigh his opinion against a guy who used to work a few doors down from the current Fed chair and teaches at an econ department named for the president residing over the creation of the income tax and the Fed 1913/1914.  Krugman was right about Iraq, he was right about the internal economics of Hillary vs Barack healthcare proposals - that doesn't mean you should just trust what he says right now.  

    Wilson had this to say on his signing into law of the Fed:

    "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

    If you want more specific reck's - probably on business cycle theory - let me know.

    Parent

    I would like (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:29:22 PM EST
    a source for that Woodrow Wilson quote, which appears to be a fabrication that you can find on many kooky conspiracy websites.

    Parent
    Wow get this... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Samuel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:13:28 PM EST
    he did say it - but about free market capitalist colluding - in a book about a year before the Fed was created.

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14811/14811-h/14811-h.htm

    The New Freedom (1913)
    Chapter VIII - Monopoly vs Opportunity

    From reading the chapter it seems that he feared cartelization of the credit industry as manipulating rates and the effective supply of money wields power over an economy.  I would note that the Federal Reserve act served to codify this cartel - that is allow for legal recourse in the event that banks to do not comply with lending policies AND ultimately allowing the issuance of new currency with depleted reserve rations (which I'm guessing you're well aware of).

    And after all that I just found this Salon article http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/12/21/woodrow_wilson_federal_reserve/

    Thanks for calling me out.  Wilson quotation retracted and I apologize for posting what has amounted to a garbage line.  You're one step closer to curing me of my wild youth... now all I need is a concise refutation of Hayek.


    Parent

    Hehe (none / 0) (#63)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    I am confident that Hayek is a much tougher nut to crack!

    Parent
    Darn Kids! (none / 0) (#68)
    by Samuel on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 01:38:37 PM EST
    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html

    Parent
    Why is Obama going to Denver (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:45:35 AM EST
    just to sign a bill?   Can someone tell me why he could not stay home and sign the stimulus bill?  Every time he flies he is  using taxpayers money.  How much does it cost every time he lifts off on Marine 1 then from there to AF 1.

    I mean we jumped all over the CEOs for flying into DC in their private jets.

    He showed so much disrespect (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Amiss on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:21:05 AM EST
    to the Senator that flew back in the middle of burying his Mother to vote for the stimulus bill, IMHO, by jetting off to spend a long weekend in Chicago.

    I had hoped for so much more from him than I feel we are getting.

    I am of the age that I am supposed to be able to draw finally after so many years of paying into SS, to be able to retire. Our 401k's are in terrible shape and I am terrified of what he wants to do with SS.

    Parent

    GOP is poised to be "populist" (none / 0) (#18)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    From David Sirota, who is often wrong, but right today on this one: GOP Aims to Outflank Dems on Economic Populism, it includes this quote from Michael Lind:
    "The Obama administration has seemed more concerned with reassuring Wall Street that it will be protected against Main Street hotheads than in disciplining Wall Street on behalf of Main Street Americans who have lost jobs, homes, and savings."

    In the 2008 Republican primary, we saw the rise of the economic populist wing of the GOP through Mike Huckabee. This faction has started making waves in Congress, too - many Republicans voted against the bank bailout, and there were a few Republican-backed amendments aimed at forcing stimulus money to be spent on specific projects in the United States, and not on job outsourcing (Sanders-Grassley was one of them). And now, Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham is endorsing bank nationalization.

    If the Democrats don't embrace their populist wing, they will find the Republicans trying to outflank them on some hot-button economic issues like trade, outsourcing, and economic patriotism.

    *No doubt, this is how the GOP plans to win back majorities in the 2010 midterms. The Dems can't help but KNOW that right? If they don't want to 'throw the fight', they had better get on the populist message before Day 100.

    Parent

    See Monday night's open thread. (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:52:12 AM EST


    Parent
    better (none / 0) (#10)
    by jedimom on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:58:36 AM EST
    well he apparently plant to 'govern' like Richard the lionheart ie by not being in the palace/WH

    roy is he plans to travel WEEKLY to get in touch with the people. uhhmm okayyy, the permanent campaign...

    he is coming to phoenix tomorrow to announce the housing plan at 1030 am mst, from Dobson in Mesa
    Geithner and Shaun Donovan HUD are to be with him

    he is still double talking on housing, last week in Indiana saying he is for cramdowns but HUD Donovan said that isnt happening anytime soon....

    they better do better than they did last week
    there is NO REASON not to do HOLC other than Obama being to the right of Hillary and McCain on Housing which he was all thru the primaries

    yet another example of how different Obama and Hilary positions and skillsets are imo, I see BTD say a lot they were the same not at all, housing, UHC, SS reform ie payroll caps, diplomacy, leadership style, very different and it shows now

    obama has now setup a CMTE for the Auto crisis

    everything has everyone giving input and NO ONE calling the shots, that is why Geithner fell flat, he changed his mind at he last minute after months of dithering

    we need Trumanesque -buck stops here- after the input is recvd

    these guys get the input wait for a few polls, dither about, and come out half axxed without making the hard decisions

    look at the stimulus as a result

    lets see what they do with housing, will they be 'pragmatic; ie sell out to the banks and not force principal writedowns?? hmmmmm?? I wil bet the money I dont have in equity in my home, LOL, that Jamie Dimon has Obamas blackberry number folks..

    Hillary would have rolled out HOLC weeks ago,,,

    Parent

    Is Axelrod in charge? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:01:36 AM EST


    Parent
    I hope he is taking time to tour (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:23:08 AM EST
    the communities that are more vacant than occupied. It can't be too hard to locate some close enough to where he will be. Since Bush would land AFO at Luke Air Force Base, I presume Obama will be, too. I am very familiar with the neighborhoods in that area and he needs to tour the empty homes, stopped construction, and mess the housing problems left behind.

    I have this bad feeling that he travels because he needs the people to see HIM, not because he needs to see the people.  

    I thought his appearance was scheduled for today, though, not tomorrow?


    Parent

    If he made a point (none / 0) (#19)
    by Fabian on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:10:11 PM EST
    for some one on one time with the mayors & governors, I could see the point.

    But if you say, the point is to keep himself in the public eye (& news), then it's more or less a photo op.

    Parent

    He wants Repub govs, state/local officials to push (none / 0) (#28)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:07:44 PM EST
    the DC Congressional Repubs to back the Obama proposals.

    Of course, know what they are could go a long way toward increasing support....

    Parent

    Christ (none / 0) (#30)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    Is going to push his people- the problem is that at the House level both sides (but the Repubs far more- this isn't some Broder "both sides bad" crap just a reflection of reality) a far more ideologically pure than Governors or Presidents (at least responsible non-Dubya ones) ever could be (since executives actually have to govern), interestingly this with some exceptions (Senators from Oklahoma, um outside of Kennedy and Sanders I can't think of a left wing equivalence) Senators seem to be more moderate (still douchey for the GOP hence only 3 crossover votes, but not as terminally douchey).

    Parent
    Crist (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:26:03 PM EST
    not Christ, I doubt Jesus used that much bronzer (among other reasons for the distinction).

    Parent
    Were you thinking of this "portrait"? (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    link

    Since the historical Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, his complexion was probably darker than it would appear from viewing the depictions in Caucusian-based Christian churches.  

    Parent

    If Repub senators were any more rightwad and rigid (none / 0) (#43)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    I can't imagine how much worse they would be!

    Moderate Repubs are gonzo. Even someone who could be moderate, such as Specter, has to be ideologically idiotic to prevent being "primaried" from the Right.

    Parent

    The Story I Read about Geithner's ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:11:34 PM EST
    roll out of the the outline of his plan last week was that he and his group had settled on a plan for dealing with the toxic assets but that a few days before the roll out they decided on a different approach but hadn't consulted with enough people in the financial industry to be more specific about their ideas.  If true, this does not inspire a lot of confidence in the objectivity of Obama's Economic team or in their having a solid plan for the financial institutions.  I know it is still early in the Obama presidency but I'm becoming more skeptical about the team by the day.

    Parent
    I read that too with a different take (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by DFLer on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    They just re-evaluated their approach, and decided they had it wrong:

    According to several sources involved in the deliberations, Geithner had come to the conclusion that the strategies he and his team had spent weeks working on were too expensive, too complex and too risky for taxpayers.

    They needed an alternative and found it in a previously considered initiative to pair private investments and public loans to try to buy the risky assets and take them off the books of banks. There was one problem: They didn't have enough time to work out many details or consult with others before the plan was supposed to be unveiled.

    Still, the tale is not without problems. Krugmans' reaction to this news:

    In a way, that's encouraging: we were spared Hankie Pankie II. But it's a bit alarming that it took so long for the team to figure out the problems -- and that they apparently spent a long time going down a route that led to a dead end. Many of these issues had been hashed out in public discussion last fall, when Paulson made his play. And I can't believe that the discussions would have gone so off the rails if any of the high-visibility outsiders had been in the loop -- Joe Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini, Simon Johnson, etc. (No, I wasn't in the loop either.)

    So what the WaPo report seems to suggest is a worrisome insularity. Geithner and Summers are smart guys -- but they need to get out more.



    Parent
    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by santarita on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:50:11 PM EST
    that they, at least, exhibited a willingness to change, which is good but doing so at the 11th hour is not confidence-inspiring.  And as you mention, their insularity is troublesome.  I'd be equally concerned if they adopted on a wholesale basis the recommendations of any of the various economists, including Roubini and Krugman.  But I would like to see them address head on the various suggestions and critiques.  To the extent that financial system turn around is dependent on trust and confidence, Summers and Geithner are not at this point inspiring too much trust and confidence.

    Parent
    It sounded like (none / 0) (#36)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:55:31 PM EST
    they wanted to go with the bad bank idea, but public reaction to their trial balloon was so negative that they scrapped it.  If they determined that the political will wasn't there for another huge infusion of money from the taxpayers to buy up toxic assets, sure I can wish they had handled things more smoothly, but maybe they didn't have much choice at the end of the day.

    Parent
    Michael Kirk who produced tonight's Frontline on (none / 0) (#40)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:05:43 PM EST
    the Big Meltdown in mid-September '08 is also working on a documentary about the banking breakdown and bailout(s), the how's and why's.

    He said he got this realization that the people in charge do not know what to do.

    On Charlie Rose last night--and I couldn't find video link. I'm hoping it's up later....

    Hope people watch and comment tonight/or when they catch in on the web.

    Parent

    Looking forward to tonight's Frontline (none / 0) (#44)
    by DFLer on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:14:50 PM EST
    Also, the piece on CNBC that's been running on and off about the meltdown and the practices leading up to it (sorry, can't remember or find the name of the special)has been very interesting and illuminating.

    Parent
    How 'bout that chimp... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:46:32 AM EST
    mauling that woman up in Connecticut?

    I feel bad for her of course, she got roughed up pretty good...but like I said when Roy got mauled, play with matches and you're gonna get burned...tigers or chimps are not domesticated animals like dogs or cats or horses...leave 'em the f&ck alone.

    Not good (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:43:27 PM EST
    It supposedly has Lyme disease.

    Parent
    Kansas (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:54:05 AM EST
    So, Kansas is suuposedly facing a budget crisis that may suspend state tax refunds, Medicaid reimbursements, and salaries to state workers.  Gov. Sebelius called a meeting of the State Finance Council to seek authority for a $225 million certificate of indebtedness to cover a cash flow crisis (The third request this year). The meeting was postponed, Republican legislative leaders said, when they made clear to Sebelius that the Legislature couldn't authorize additional debt.

    Now, it is against Kansas law to run a deficit, so, in theory, asking for this third certificate of indebtedness actually runs contrary to law, but Republicans are saying that she is running the clock out and that she knew about this months ago and has other options available to her, but she has refused to explore other options (for example: the Legislature wants her to at least signal that sufficient cuts contained in the bill will be enacted so the Legislature is assured that it will be able to cover the certificates to comply with state law.)

    Who's right?  Anyone live in Kansas and know what's really going on?

    krugman (none / 0) (#6)
    by jedimom on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:51:01 AM EST
    was just on cnbc with trish regan
    says we will need second stimulus
    great discussion
    i will post linky yo video when it is up!

    I would like to see Krugman (none / 0) (#15)
    by DFLer on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:21:06 AM EST
    put that awful, officious, snooty Kudlow in his place. Take about a let-them-eat-cake guy!

    Parent
    Bad numbers for Paterson and Gillibrand (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:51:57 AM EST
    here

    If those numbers hold up, Cuomo won't (none / 0) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 10:59:59 AM EST
    be able to resist.

    Parent
    Hm (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    Those numbers don't look particularly bad for Gillibrand.  The only one that's negative is the hypothetical primary matchup against McCarthy, but look, I will stake any sum of money on the proposition that Carolyn McCarthy is not beating Kirsten Gillibrand in that primary.  I'll be surprised if she even runs, but she would be completely outclassed either way.

    Parent
    Gillibrand Is Formidable (none / 0) (#42)
    by daring grace on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:09:01 PM EST
    as a campaigner and fundraiser.

    She will be extremely competitive.

    She was not quite my cup of tea as congresswoman because of her 'centrism' but that went with the district she was representing.

    And it was a delicious joy to see the seat of Sweeney and Solomon go D!

    OTOH, Paterson looks more and more vulnerable every day...

    And I worry about the Dems ability to hold the majority in the (Albany) senate. That I want them to do so is just a knee-jerk thing, because the New York legislature as a whole is a vipers' pit that is long overdue for a systemic hygienic flush that is probably never (in my lifetime) going to happen.

    Parent

    She might be a formidable campaigner (none / 0) (#52)
    by tigercourse on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:37:51 PM EST
    and fundraiser, but she still mamages to step in it. When you are trying to fend off a primary from someone who cares deeply about gun control, it's not a great idea to talk about the cache you keep under the bed.

    Parent
    I Only Know McCarthy (none / 0) (#53)
    by daring grace on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:44:14 PM EST
    from her bio--how she came to run and be elected to Congress. So I can't speak to her competitiveness as a campaigner against Gillibrand.

    Not sure that the 'it' that Gillibrand stepped in with this will play that badly in some parts of the state where Independents and 'flexible' Repubs vote.

    But we'll see. As I said, she isn't precisely my favorite either.

    Parent

    I think we can stipulate (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:15:33 PM EST
    that Gillibrand's only race is the primary. Does anyone think that numbers like this won't attract others to enter?

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#46)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:21:43 PM EST
    Anyone who is a known quantity in Democratic politics probably understands that right now, they're going to poll pretty well against the unknown new Senator.  They probably didn't need this poll to tell them that.

    These numbers are actually better for Gillibrand than I'd expect to see.  They reflect relatively little angst among Democrats over the gun and immigration issues, which is a nice place for her to be starting out.

    I don't think these are bad numbers unless you are surprised to find out that Gillibrand is relatively unknown.

    Parent

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:24:49 PM EST
    She is the Senator. Everyone Knows that she is the Senator. And yet she can't break 30% in her own primary polling. I'm sorry, but that's just not good news for her.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:31:58 PM EST
    I assure you that not everyone knows she is the Senator.

    Parent
    Every 2010 Democratic primary voter (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:35:38 PM EST
    does. At least 90%. That's a pretty small universe.

    Parent
    Cite? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:37:24 PM EST
    You have this really bad habit of assuming that everybody thinks as you do, and knows the same things you do.  That's how we can live in a world where everybody knows that American cars are crappy, and yet the Big Three sold 13 million vehicles last year.

    Parent
    She has been all over the news (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:47:38 PM EST
    It is impossible to say with any certainty who is a "likely voter" for a primary that will take place in September of 2010, but 55% of registered Democrats have an opinion in the Q poll.

    In 2006, 707,119 Democrats voted in the primary. At the time, there were many more registered (enrolled) Democrats (PDF).

    None of this is direct evidence of my original proposition that most primary voters know that KG is already the Senator, but I think it's a pretty fair guess.

    Parent

    Sometimes (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:19:49 AM EST
    I love my state's politicians.  

    Lefties that aren't afraid of being lefties, plus, the accents are priceless - although Capuono's isn't as good as Frank's.

    My favorite line "I don't actually have a question but I was told I had 5 minutes".

    CST.... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:10:30 PM EST
    I didn't have time to say last week before you left... so sorry for your loss. I hope you're OK.

    Parent
    I second that emotion... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:26:12 PM EST
    good to see you back, hope all is as well as can be expected my friend.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by CST on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:11:57 PM EST
    To all you guys.

    It's been a rough month but we're hanging in there.  It's not actually my family (yet?...)
    but they're very large and so have lots of support.  It's sad, but sometimes these things can bring people together as well, silver lining I guess...  Sure makes watching the news harder, but I've sworn off most of it anyways since the election.

    p.s. Dr. - I second your thoughts about the other thread.  I'm not going near that one with a ten foot pole.

    Parent

    Good strategy. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:30:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Tyranny Alert, UK Edition.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:56:27 AM EST
    Our friends across the pond doing there damndest to prove Orwell a prophet...again.  They can take your picture, you can't take theirs.  Some animals are more equal than others.  Link

    Imagine that... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    even a former head of MI5 thinks they've gone coo-coo for police state Coco-Puffs over there.

    When I piss and moan its one thing, but a former MI5 heavy?  Link

    Parent

    Wild...and kinda scary.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    New drug research into erasing bad memories...Link.

    I immediately thought of the film "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"...I don't think I would ever take this stuff no matter how bad the memories, too scary for my taste.

    But if others feel different, and it works and helps those scarred or paralyzed by the their past, more power to them.

    Propranolol has been around since 1950s (none / 0) (#64)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 06:39:31 PM EST
    for treatment of hypertension and anxieties like stage fright. However, for anxiety, I don't know anybody who doesn't prefer Valium (diazepam) which has the potential for addiction as it is a  benzodiazepine  

    Like propranolol, Valium has also been in the news lately as a treatment for post-traumatic stress. Imo, the VA is hoping to find an out-patient drug treatment/prophylactic for PTSD in military personnel returning from the Middle East.

    Parent

    Could someone (none / 0) (#31)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    please tell me why Pete Sessions still has a fricking post in the GOP heiarchy, I mean I get nasty partisanship, I get obstructionism, I even get a certain level of corruption, but I've never seen on either side a party leader talk about how they need to be more like an ant-American enemy, make no mustake when Sessions said the RNC needs to be "more like the Taliban" it was the equivalent of a Eugene McCarthy saying the Dems needed to be more like the Viet Cong in 1970 or a Dewey saying the GOP should model itself after the Fasicists in 1943- its both disgusting and frankly offensive and should be occasion for the man to be removed not just from his post but also from polite society.

    Ironically, he basically called for his party to model itself along the lines of what its enemies viewed it as- I mean in my darker moments I've thought of the RNC base as a christian Taliban, its like one of ours saying we need to emulate the CCP.

    What could he have meant by that? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Samuel on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:26:16 PM EST


    Parent
    Dana Miliband (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:24:38 PM EST
    is in trouble:

    The full extent of the complicity of the UK government in the US "war on terror" policy of torture and extraordinary rendition is now fast being uncovered. The foreign secretary, David Miliband, has exposed himself to allegations of lying to the high court about a threat from the US to withdraw co-operation in intelligence matters if documents about Binyam Mohammed were disclosed.

    ...

    The court's agreement to reopening consideration of whether the documents about Binyam Mohamed should be disclosed came before the further revelation that the US government had only written the letter containing the "threat" at the request of the Foreign Office. Even if, as the prime minister's office tried to claim yesterday, the request was simply to confirm the known position of the US government, there is a very nasty smell about it. The judicial review of the failure to prosecute BAE for bribery was halted because of a similar "threat" from the Saudi government. We cannot help but wonder if such threats are now seen by governments as their alibi for avoiding the rule of law.

    It is a small step from this for governments then actually to suggest making such threats to each other. In this case the suspicion of falsehood is the greater because the position of the US government is not the same now as it was at the beginning of the year. President Obama has specifically promised to put a stop to torture and rendition. But no attempt appears to have been made by Miliband or indeed by Gordon Brown to ask the US to reconsider the "threat" which prevents disclosure of the documents about Binyam Mohammed's treatment.

    I can't really imagine how he is going to successfully explain this one.

    This may have an effect of elections, right? (none / 0) (#38)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 02:00:57 PM EST
    Of course, New Labour seems to have forgotten its roots in just plain Labour and ignored many of its principles in cosying up to Big Bidness a la the US parties.

    Oh, my.

    Now, where can the voters turn?

    Parent

    Frontline covering the Sept meltdown and how our (none / 0) (#35)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    leaders of gov't and banks responded to it.

    I heard the producer, Michael Kirk, on Charlie Rose last night, and he said he is a political reporter who deals in stories, looks for the personal stories, so that may affect how this is reported. He seemed to have, to me, misplaced awe and respect for Paulson. I can't find a link for video (Rose is not putting entire program on web anymore??).

    But, Calculated Risk recommending it --on TV or internet (with previews).

    Also discussed on the Leonard Lopate Show on WNYC today with Michael Kirk and John Cassidy, New Yorker staff writer. Audio will be available later today.

    Video up on Michael Kirk/Cassidy interview w/ Rose (none / 0) (#67)
    by jawbone on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 06:18:01 PM EST
    LINK

    Guess I just needed a bit of patience.

    Parent

    Trump Casinos.... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:41:43 PM EST
    filed for bankruptcy...again.  Link

    Every degenerate on the AC boardwalk knows why...too tight with the slots and the comps, aka greedy. Bally's always put them to shame, with the comps especially, I've gotten hundreds of free room offers from Bally's, bubkis from Trump....a much better run outfit that Bally's.

    Gibbs won't rule out the idea of another stimulus (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:53:01 PM EST
    Link

    Gibbs won't rule it out

    By ANDY BARR

    Obama's press secretary told reporters on board Air Force One that he "wouldn't foreclose" the idea, but added. . .
    Reduce...

    . . . that there are "no particular plans at this point for a second stimulus package at the moment."

    Robert Gibbs also ducked a question on reports that former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) could be Obama's third-choice pick for Commerce Secretary.

    "I think you guys know that with the existence of this many microphones, I'm very reticent to play the name game," he said.
    Another Mini Madoff Scandal (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:58:44 PM EST
    Or equal?

    HOUSTON -- The Securities and Exchange Commission accused Robert Allen Stanford, the chief of the Stanford Financial Group, on Tuesday of conducting "a massive ongoing fraud" in the sale of about $8 billion of high-yielding certificates of deposit held in the firm's bank in Antigua. Also named in the suit were two other executives and some affiliates of the financial group.

    [snip]

    Shortly after 10 a.m. Central time, about 40 police officers and other law enforcement officials simultaneously entered Stanford Group's two office buildings in Houston. Many of the law enforcement personnel carried large black briefcases.

    [snip]

    Law enforcement officials hung up two white signs stating that the offices of Stanford Financial Group were temporarily closed. "The company is still in operation but under the management of a receiver," the signs read.

    [snip]

    Stanford Financial asserts that it advises about $50 billion in assets.

    NYT

    Dow tumbles (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 05:15:02 PM EST
    Link

    NEW YORK - Investors around the world are betting that even with government stimulus and bailout programs, the global recession will just have to run its course.

    The problems that slammed stocks last year -- ailing banks, foundering automakers, tumbling home prices and cash-strapped consumers -- haven't let up. Instead, the issues have festered, and are threatening to push U.S. stocks back to levels not seen since the late 1990s.

    As Obama signed his $787 billion stimulus bill and automakers scrambled to come up with restructuring plans, the Dow Jones industrial average closed down 297.81 points, or 3.79 percent, at 7,552.60 -- just 31-hundredths of a point above its post-meltdown Nov. 20 close of 7,552.29, which was its lowest close in five-and-a-half years.



    ARRA! Krugman correct-It 's the Talk Like A Pirate (none / 0) (#65)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 06:42:11 PM EST
    Obama Stimulus Bill.

    But least ye think we're approaching safe harbor, there be dragons!

    Arra! On the horizon, just over the weekend, that SocSec (sell out?) Summit which Obama told the Blue Dogs he would have, coming up February 23. Next Monday, ye landlubbers.  Want to be set adrift on a sea of troubles with that to think about?

    And the 24th? Oh, just a little state-of-the-union type speech.

    Now, What Digby Said --

    Digby's hair is definitely singed, and Jane Hamsher is calling for the email brigade ASAP.

    Seems some Dems' hair is on fire to get this "fiscal responsibility" dingy under way -- have to fix what doesn't need fixing. NOW, NOW  NOW! Jim Cooper, Kent Conrad. Oh, and that Judd Gregg.... Some conservative House Repubs.

    Any Dems from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party?

    Does Obama think he can trade changes to SocSec for Repub votes? OMG! Somebody stop him before he negotiates with himself again!

    As Dean Baker put it, talking about messing around with SocSec, the single thing still secure for most retirees, does not increase confidence.

    Now, single payer healthcare...that would make millions of Americans feel more secure....

    Seems there be ponies aboard the ship of state.

    And, again, where's the Josh Marshall Anti-Bamboozlement Call to Action lifeboat?

    how about investing in hydrogen infrastructure? (none / 0) (#66)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 09:19:30 AM EST
    For years we have heard about the promise of the hydrogen economy.  Hydrogen is the most plentiful element on Earth and can be extracted from water via electrolysis, from natural gas, and yesterday I came across this interesting article explaining recent developments in extracting hydrogen from biomass:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/...

    The naysayers always point out the chicken and egg nature that impedes development of the hydrogen economy.  There are precious few automobiles capable of running on hydrogen, no hydrogen transmission and distribution network, and few retail pumping stations in place.  The carmakers point to the lack of hydrogen infrastructure as the reason for not building hydrogen fueled vehicles, and those who might invest in infrastructure see no demand for the fuel.  

    So long as we are spending hundreds of billions on "infrastructure" why not invest in a project that cries out for government investment?  Just as private industry saw little incentive to extend electricity to rural areas in the 1920s and 30s, and the federal government created TVA and BPA etc., today we need the government to construct the pipelines and stations needed to bring the hydrogen economy to life.  A few years back I was told the infrastructure investment would need to be on the order of 200-300 billion dollars.  These days I think it is safe to ask, is that all?  What are we waiting for?  

    With wind-generated electricity in the sparsely populated Artic and sub-artic areas of North America used to extract hydrogen from the plentiful water resources up north (including the ocean), we can begin weaning away from gasoline combustion engines and move to fuel cells, or simply burn hydrogen directly as we do with natural gas today in CNG vehicles.  We create thousands of jobs for engineers and other professionals and construciton workers in the US and Canada while at the same time address global warming concerns.

    Keynes taught that to stimulate demand having people at work burying cash in Mason jars would suffice.  We all know the stimulus package just signed into law will not be enough.  When the next round of stimulus legislation begins, as it inevitably will, let's be ready to push for inclusion of hydrogen delivery and point of sale infrastructure. This investment will pay huge dividends for generations into the future.

    I for one am convinced that this is a case of "if you build it they will come."

    Tuesday Morning Open Thread | 68 comments (68 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment