« Markets in everything countercyclical asset of the day | Main | A new theory of suicide »
Assorted Links
- Twenty depressing graphs from Calculated Risk.
- In Italy a credit crunch is what happens when you don't pay your loan.
- The Wire's David Simon on how the death of newspapers leaves the guardians unguarded.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on March 1, 2009 at 08:38 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
That David Simon link is empty...
Posted by: Adrian Monck at Mar 1, 2009 8:51:57 AM
Regarding the depressing graphs, you should not be surprised of what happened in the past three months. Just after the election, BHO opted for talking down the economy, to be sure that the collapse will be charged to GWB. Good luck, it'll be a long ride in the dark.
Posted by: E. Barandiaran at Mar 1, 2009 8:55:25 AM
So, the internet doesnt reach Baltimore. Who will know?
Posted by: k at Mar 1, 2009 10:32:53 AM
Bail out the newspapers that nobody read!
Posted by: k at Mar 1, 2009 10:36:27 AM
Who would have guessed that a former newspaper reporter would say that we need newspapers? If he thinks that there is no one left to expose abuses by the police, he needs to take a look at www.theagitator.com which is a website devoted almost entirely to that issue.
Posted by: Euler at Mar 1, 2009 12:21:06 PM
Recently on Jay Leno’s show, Bill Marr said that being president after George W. Bush is like being a hotel chambermaid after Led Zeppelin had stayed there.
E. Barandiaran: Regarding the depressing graphs, you should not be surprised of what happened in the past three months. Just after the election, BHO opted for talking down the economy, to be sure that the collapse will be charged to GWB. Good luck, it'll be a long ride in the dark.
Conservatives’ inability and unwillingness to take responsibility for their screw-ups is mind-boggling.
Posted by: Joe Gideon at Mar 1, 2009 1:03:42 PM
Death of Newspapers...
There will always be news and there will always be "newspapers" to satiate my appetite. Why I should be concerned with the form of delivery is beyond my ability to appreciate.
Posted by: twwren at Mar 1, 2009 1:47:29 PM
"If he thinks that there is no one left to expose abuses by the police, he needs to take a look at www.theagitator.com which is a website devoted almost entirely to that issue."
Awesome. So there's a website devoted to that issue. It appears to be run by one guy. Is he going to visit every city and do the footwork to get this type of information in every case that's needed?
So, maybe there will be more such sites in the future. The question is whether they will provide as much coverage of these issues as newspapers do today. Most people who post on blogs seem to simply assert that, of course, the answer will be 'yes'. Why? What's the evidence and reasoning? The Internet and citizen journalism do some wonderful things, but I've seen no proof that they'll fill the necessary roles as well as newspapers do (even in their currently poor state). Convince me otherwise.
Posted by: lnm at Mar 1, 2009 2:10:02 PM
Let expand on my previous comment. BHO talked down the economy since his election and until ten days ago when Bill Clinton told him to be positive. Upon recommendations from Ralph Emanuel, BHO did it for two reasons: TO BE SURE that the collapse was charged to GWB, and to urge the undertaking of his new policies.
Posted by: E. Barandiaran at Mar 1, 2009 2:10:28 PM
Joe Gideon said: Conservatives inability and unwillingness to take responsibility for their screw-ups is mind boggling.
I do not like this line of reasoning by either side. To paint with such a wide brush and simply pigeon hole the ups and downs of the economy to the efficacy of a particular political administration is beyond comprehension. To be sure, we should be critical of Bush for the bad things he did. Cutting taxes while embarking on a massively expensive war campaign and racking up loads of debt in the process is brutalism at its finest.
However, I cant fault Bush for the collapse of the financial sector. He is not responsible for that and neither are conservatives. I guess you could make a weak left wing case that a lack of financial regulation got us in this mess to begin with but that would be more of a faith based argument. Anyways, my point here is that we should stay VERY VERY specific in these arguments. We should criticize political groups for the bad decisions they make and analyze economic phenomena understanding that causality can be complex and varied.
I will not crucify President Obama for this crisis. I will criticize the president for being an ineffective leader who is completely in over his head in this mess. In the year 2009, it is wholly unacceptable, in my mind, for a president in the midst of a serious economic downturn to try and artificially prop up demand in the short run as his major policy prescription. That is the type of base thinking that will not get us out of this mess and will surly prolong the recession.
I was hoping that after Bush and all of the hulabaloo over Obama that we would get a little more imaginative policy then simple Keynsian guesswork. I mean a 900 billion dollar spending spree is just a bit boring if you ask me. How about having the government sponsor a few X prizes? That way you can signal demand to the market without actually having to make the immediate pay out.
Posted by: John Pertz at Mar 1, 2009 2:10:36 PM
Since "the guardians" stopped "guarding" long ago, even before the Judith Miller-Iraq disaster at the NY Times, who cares if they die? They have failed their purpose, so they deserve to be history.
Posted by: StreetWalker at Mar 1, 2009 2:49:15 PM
"Stronger organized crime means a weaker state."
Ah, the eternal libertarian dilemma: who do you root for?
Posted by: mobile at Mar 1, 2009 4:45:45 PM
I look forward to the day when we can argue about what got us out of this economic downturn -- rather than who's to blame for getting us in it.
Posted by: ZBicyclist at Mar 1, 2009 6:02:52 PM
All of the plummeting housing graphs is sort-of-good-news, right? The faster the bubble finishes bursting, in spite of the government's best efforts to prop it up, the quicker we can recover?
However I think the most important graph is the one that showed non-residential construction peaking. I didn't know it was even still rising during all of this residential plummeting, but I have come across a couple links about the next crisis involving the commercial side of construction.. retail.. real estate... empty malls... etc, etc. That graph would confirm that inclination.
Posted by: Josh at Mar 2, 2009 11:34:05 AM
