Your number isn't up

Hoover's John Taylor and Russ Roberts tell it, devastatingly, in twelve minutes; this recovery is anemic.  Contrary to all the protestations coming from North Carolina this week.

Symphony in Give Me a G (three movements)

Even noticed beyond the sea;

So in removing the phrase "God-given" from their promise to help people "make the most of their potential", the Democrats were flying in the face of the founding fathers' explicit principle [in the Declaration of Independence]. Which, as it happens is the basis for the doctrine of American exceptionalism: its moral mission in the world being to deliver those God-given universal rights to all people. So, is that what this was about? Was the Democratic National Committee intending to make precisely the point that the US is now opting out of that role?

But back to the Convention shambles: restoring the more conventional wording to the platform required a two thirds vote from the convention floor. This is generally done by voice alone: the loudest shout wins it. The Chair took three attempts to get what he then decided rather arbitrarily was a vote in favour of restoring the references. (A process not unlike referendums on EU treaties: you keep them voting until they get it right.) The vote against was vociferously led by some very aggressive members of a group called "Arab Americans" whose chief interest was the de-recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

The White House team may have have won the battle in the end, but not before some serious damage had been done – and and some very serious questions raised about political tendencies within the present Democratic party.

Next, motherhood and apple pie?

As we were saying, J Bradford...

Somewhere around a decade ago, that you would have to choose what you really want; a tax system that is progressive in form (high marginal rates on higher incomes), or one that is progressive in substance (the one that we have since Reagan);

One the one hand, a clear picture emerges from our findings. Effective tax rates on most households are relatively low (below 10%) and differ substantially from those at the top. For instance, married household around median income experience tax rates around 4%, while those at the top 1% face tax rates of around 23%. Furthermore, taxes paid are concentrated at the top. In a nutshell, the provisions in the law, in conjunction with the observed dispersion in income lead to the finding that the bulk of tax payments are concentrated in upper income households and that a large fraction of US households have effectively no tax liabilities. From this perspective, the answer to the question above is that there is substantial progressivity in the tax burden as measured by effective, average tax rates. Put differently and in plain terms, moving a hypothetical household along the income ladder implies substantial increases in average tax rates.

On the other hand, tax rates at the top of the income distribution are essentially constant as income changes. Once high income levels are reached, effective tax rates do not change.

Elsewhere in the piece is the information that the top 1% of earners pay about double 'their share' of taxes.  I.e., they earn about 20% of the income and pay a little less than 36% of the taxes.  

Pyrrhic, Pyrrhiccer, Pyrrhiccest

The latter being the Apple over Samsung patent infringement lawsuit, according to John Dvorak (wonderfully ironic name in this context);

Apple designer Susan Kare actually testified that when she was playing with the Samsung phone, she swore it was an Apple iPhone! Her testimony was quite convincing. It convinced millions of people that for a lot less money, they can get an iPhone by buying Samsung's phone. Genius!

....This is a disaster for Apple no matter what Samsung does to its interface and its rounded corners. The case and its results, because of Apple testimonies, make it sound as if Apple was suing because a better product evolved.

Will the public stick with the iPhone just to be loyal to the creator of the modern smartphone concepts? In a down economy where every penny counts, it's doubtful. Samsung is not only a cheaper alternative but has many more models. Combine this with the scandals at Foxconn, Apple's manufacturer, and Apple is in trouble.

[Thanks to NC State's Craig Newmark]

God bless the child

Who's got his own computer in school in Seattle, thanks to the Gates Foundation;

St. Therese also is attracting families with a new emphasis on computer instruction.

All students in the K-8 school will soon be spending 30 to 50 percent of each school day on laptops, clicking their way through software that covers all of their subjects except religion, and lets their teachers track how they're doing.
With $433,000 in grants to date, including $300,000 from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, St. Therese is the second Catholic school in the nation to adopt a blended-learning model, which combines computer-based learning with traditional classroom instruction.

The program is patterned after ones used in a handful of well-known charter schools — programs that have drawn criticism from those who think blended learning is just the latest unproven education fad, but have generated strong interest from schools like St. Therese, which are impressed with the results some of the charters are getting.

Not that everyone is down with it (from the comments section); 

It's not surprising that Gates Foundation would fund a school that has kids spending up to 50% of their time on computers. One might see this as a bit of self interest.

and;

Of course I say this if you believe the argument for charters is to help kids who aren't performing in a public school. You're going to slap a kid who doesn't perform well in a regular classroom infront of a computer for hours a day? Really? That's going to work? 

and

Foundations run by corporate people who have constantly sought an assumed unlimited growth by encouraging immigration-driven population growth, and now hand out money to gain solutions to problems caused by this, and groups like the Catholic Church push to sanctify the same push for an assumed unlimited number of people and, voila, a lot of numbers "success." Only problem is the whole thing is clearly unsustainable. They don't understand the meaning of "enough."

Kick back

But don't relax, because Fair Play may mean mediocre for European football, says Rob Simmons of Lancaster University;

As the 2012/13 football season kicks off, many fans, journalists, and social commentators will be heard saying that: a) the gap in financial resources between large and small clubs is greater than ever, b) star players at big clubs such as Barcelona, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Manchester City and Manchester United earn exorbitant salaries, and c) the finances of several clubs are out of control, as clubs that are hungry for success generate large financial losses as their spending levels on transfer fees and player salaries are driven up.

Can't get away from those 1%ers!  What to do?  What to do?

This perceived lack of financial discipline has led to UEFA’s [Union of European Football Assns.] new Financial Fair Play initiative. As a condition of entry into UEFA's Champions League and Europa League tournaments, clubs that are eligible for these competitions have to demonstrate to UEFA that their finances are in good order. 

Which probably doesn't bode well for the quality of the teams' players;

• The player labour market is broadly competitive, and players will migrate to where expected returns are highest .... Expected returns are partly monetary (high salaries and opportunities for endorsements) and partly non-monetary (the value of winning trophies – which in turn helps raise salaries and endorsement potential). 

• Empirical research shows how high spending on players relative to rivals translates into higher team positions across several European leagues .... Restrictions on player budgets will translate into reduced potential to hire star players. This has two implications – it becomes harder for new teams to challenge established clubs in the Champions League. And empirical research from England shows that gate attendances and broadcast audiences are influenced by the total quality of two teams in a given league match as proxied by total wage bill .... Restrictions on player budgets could well imply reduced quality of league competition – and reduced values of broadcast rights sales.

• UEFA needs successful and glamorous players and teams in order to promote its Champions League brand. The Champions League would be far less attractive to viewers, sponsors, and advertisers without Barcelona and Lionel Messi, or Real Madrid and Cristiano Ronaldo. But Barcelona runs large deficits, underwritten by club members and local government. While Real Madrid posted healthy profits in 2009/10 and 2010/11 (£38m and £40m respectively), Barcelona posted a €69m loss on its 2009/10 balance sheet. In the end, a threat by UEFA to exclude Barcelona from the Champions League cannot be credible. These clubs could join with others to threaten formation of a rival league similar in format to the Champions League. Broadcasters, sponsors and fans would surely prefer a competition with deficit-ridden Barcelona and Manchester City to a competition without these big-spending teams but with a group of financially disciplined yet mediocre second-string teams from around Europe. 

One gets what one pays for, even in Europe.

Bernanke Hawk Down

David Glasner catches the Fed Chairman in an elementary error in monetary logic (which has had large consequences for the rest of us); conducting monetary policy with a focus on interest rates;

If the Fed has succeeded in driving down the yields on long term assets [through quantitative easing], it is because the Fed has driven down expectations of future inflation or has caused expectations of future real rates to fall.

....any signal by the central bank about the future path of the federal funds rate is ambiguous insofar as it reflects both a signal about the central bank’s assessment of the public’s demand for accommodation and the central bank’s supply of accommodation conditional on that assessment. When the central bank announces that its lending rate will remain close to zero for another year, that doesn’t mean that the central bank is planning to adopt a more accommodative policy stance unless the central bank provides other signals about what its assessment of, or target for, the economy is.  The only way to provide such a signal would be to announce a higher target for inflation or for NGDP, thus providing a context within which its lending rate can be meaningfully interpreted.  And a signal that increases household and business confidence by diminishing concerns about deflation should not be associated with falling nominal interest rates and falling inflation expectations — precisely the result that Bernanke feels that earlier rounds of QE have accomplished. Actually, the initial success of QE2 was associated with rising long-term rates and rising inflation expectations. It was only when the program petered out, after adverse supply shocks caused a temporary blip in commodity prices and CPI inflation in the spring of 2011, that real interest rates and inflation expectations began to drift downwards again.

Which is Friedman 101.  Interest rates are NOT the price of money.