The Hotel.

Bed Bugs or Bust.

Hanoi Hilton. View what war looks like through our eyes.

How 'bouts:

The Pittsburgh Hump Dump...Now Renting Rooms by the Hour!

Rub-a-Dub Shubh

If you can figure out how to get in to our new hotel, you get a free rub down.

The WPT. Short for Welcome to Pittsburgh. We can't afford to print it out.

Humilliation is a great moral enforcer:

Call it the "Paris Hilton"
featuring:

The Reefer Madness Penthouse

The Snow Spa

and you can check your friend's purse at the hat and coat check. Leave a fat tip and your lawyer's phone number.
The buffet dinner will put out huge 'spread.'

P.S. The guy in the other room came up with a witticism: Contrition is a lone contortionist making love.

How about just "Rooms", in flashing neon?

You're not a lefty, Reg.

I'm a lefty.

Viva la Revolucion!

The Democrat. Free rooms for all.

or

The Republican. Pay per view.

Or: The Independent. Stay or go, we don't care.

Say, this is fun

Okee dokey:

Don't call it anything. Just make it a halfway house for people who don't go all the way.

"The Y"



(Y not?)

And my personal favorite for the night (I promise) is:

THE PITTS

In the spirit of the Coen Brothers remake, The Ladykillers, call it The Waffle House.

I wonder if the PG will get as many angry letters about this place as it did the Civic Arena...

quoting from the scripture above:
" I am not for religion being banned from the public square (but you know that from previous posts)."

This furry four legged athiest doesn't begrudge practice of religeon, prayer in school (as long as kids aren't burned at the stake for resisting it)or public references to the Allmighty. The ten commandments are logical, and athiests should be capable of practicing the same Judeo/Christian ethics that Christians hold dear.

One of the Regs recommended the book "The Fatal Conceit" by F.A. Hayek, and I'm giving it a fast read now. Seems to make the issues much more complex than needed to show how socialism works lousy. The fatal flaw in socialism is self-interest, which blows collectivism to itty-bitty bits. Perhaps a good pow-wow over our unsupervised weekend will be fun.

The Algonquin hotel was famous for Carl Haas (National Public Radio, the Pathetique Sonata, 'Hello Everyone.') and much meeting of minds. Maybe the newly named Hilton Hovel could be a Mecca for Pittsburgh's low income brainiacs.

Call it: The Spectacles With Taped Temple Piece Inn

or: The Plastic Pocket Protector Travel Inn

or: The Bullies Used To Pick On Me Arms

As promised (or threatened) I'm back with more rediculous names for the hotel:

The Palin.

You can see Washington from here!

OOPS! Seems that was Mt. Washington.

The Patriot.

Pinheads not welcome.


The Steelers.

It hasn't been proven until we get in court.


El Kinda.

We're in talks to win the peace.

The Igloo.

We saved it for YOU!

The Fox.

Fair and balanced prices.

The Lego.

If we build it they will come.

The Obama.

We bill on the rich.

The Oreilly.

Welcome to our New Year's Eve Party. Eat drink and be merry. The spin stops here.

The Matthews Chris.

Chill out here.

The Obama. (should have read We bill only the rich) But you probably knew that.

RFSIII, I see somewhere in this maze you are reading economics. The cat-fight between economists since the 2008 meltdown is fascinating.

The big bone of contention is between the Rational Expectations/Efficient Market believers and those who think there's got to be something more than those simplistic principles to explain why people and markets act, react, and misbehave as they do.

Anatole Kaletsky writes:
"The scandal of modern economics is that these two false theories—rational expectations and the efficient market hypothesis—which are not only misleading but highly ideological, have become so dominant in academia (especially business schools), government and markets themselves.... [The author goes on to point out that no money is available in business schools to study anything NOT based on rational expectations/efficient markets.]

"To make matters worse, rational expectations gradually merged with the related theory of 'efficient' financial markets. ... This was the efficient market hypothesis (EMH), developed by another group of Chicago-influenced academics, all of whom received Nobel prizes just as their theories came apart at the seams. EMH, like rational expectations, assumed that there was a well-defined model of economic behaviour and that rational investors would all follow it; but it added another step. In the strong version of the theory, financial markets, because they were populated by a multitude of rational and competitive players, would always set prices that reflected all available information in the most accurate possible way. Because the market price would always reflect more perfect knowledge than was available to any one individual, no investor could “beat the market”—still less could a regulator ever hope to improve on market signals by substituting his own judgment. ... [In school and business I was taught the market is always right because it is perfect and efficient. Having lived through four major crashes, I learned to question this theory.]

"Why did such discredited theories flourish? Largely because they justified whatever outcomes the markets happened to decree—laissez-faire ideology, big salaries for top executives and billions in bonuses for traders. And, conveniently, these theories were regarded as the gold-standard by academic economists who won Nobel prizes.

"So what is to be done? There are two options. Either economics has to be abandoned as an academic discipline... Or it must undergo an intellectual revolution.[Pity the poor economists (or Alan Greenspan) whose livelihood depends on accepting a monumentally flawed set of assumptions with the point driven home by the economic catastrophe of 2008.]"

George Waters of Illinois State University on the economic crisis and the state of macroeconomics:

"Equilibrium in economics is such a ubiquitous concept some might be surprised to hear that it is also controversial. It is hard to imagine doing much economic analysis without examining the intersection of supply and demand, but whether we should focus exclusively on equilibrium outcomes is a critical question. Though the importance of equilibrium might seem like an esoteric debate, the attitude toward this question has deep implications for economists’ views on the correct policy response to the current economic crisis.

"Milton Friedman believed in equilibrium. An example of the intensity of his belief was his argument against requiring medical licenses for doctors on the grounds that more doctors would be allowed to practice, and market forces would weed out poor doctors and improve the quality of care. This argument makes perfect sense if we focus on the equilibrium outcome, but most people are instinctively repelled by this proposal. [Having worked in hospitals since he was a sprout, hubby assures that the idea of patients being able to weed out bad doctors is real knee-slapper.]"

Finally, the economists who are trying to rescue their profession from complete irrelevance since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 are faced with a serious obstacle: the cult of Rational Expectations and Efficient Markets has a stranglehold on funding and employment.

ciejai,

Thanks much. That last point you made is a lulu.

Glad you mentioned Greenspan, I'm getting over my snit about "I had no idea that the housing bubble might pop." At first I thought he was evil incarnate, but am now thinking he is simply a corrupted pawn of whomever and whatever cartels intend to stay rich and powerful. Again, self-interest and gross hypocracy renders global socialism a bad option.

Your point against Friedman is right on about not letting quack doctors roam free, but I am all for ending licensure of lawyers, as they have killed social justice by base self-interest. Let people make their arguments in court in front of an unbiased jury. I'm still a Friedman fan for his points regarding the significance of free speech and expression, both he says enable the individual to earn money and influence government.

Must reiterate, on the whole, that the problems with socialism are simple and observable. But I hope this chat session will keep a rolling like the train the Grand Funk Railroad tune.

RFSIII, your concern about socialism confuses me. Our world is still reeling from the effects of unbridled laissez-faire cowboy capitalism. The Bush era started with the implosion of Enron and ended with the near total collapse of the international banking system with our biggest capitalist institutions leading the way down the bung-hole. Deregulation, starting 1999, and continuing unabated during the Bush years set the table for the tasty meal we are consuming today: Huge deficits, war, and stagnation.

The election of 2008 seemed to have triggered more talk of socialism/communism than I've seen since being taught "duck and cover" in elementary school.

The assertion is that it is dangerous socialism if we go back to the pre-2001 tax structure. During the Clinton years the economy produced 20,569,000 private-sector jobs. The Bush era economy generated just 119,000 private-sector jobs from start to finish. It's in the B tables at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Millionaires and billionaires during the Clinton years did great, too. (An aside, I wonder what it would be if we went back to the Reagan-era tax rates?)

France seems to be the bete noire of the anti-socialism brigade. We are regularly warned about going down the Gaullist path.

The Socialist Party has been losing ground in the French National Assembly since 1981. France began privatizing previously nationalized industries decades ago. Per capita GDP in France is $48,012 compared to $47,025 here. The middle 40 percent of French earners contribute 23.5 per cent of tax revenues while the same cohort here foots the bill for 28.4 per cent of the tax obligation. The French are tenth in life expectancy while we are thirty-fifth. U.S. infant mortality is twice the French rate, teen pregnancy is five times, obesity is three times, and child poverty here in the US is three times the French rate.

You say "Must reiterate, on the whole, that the problems with socialism are simple and observable." Pardon me for being dense, but I would sincerely like to know which of our problems you attribute to socialism.

Joomla needs to get it's specs checked. Sheesh.

Ciejai,

Thanks again for the hard, factual input. The macro-economics are difficult to argue. Some believe the 'communist conspiracy' began long before Clinton, and that what may appear to be capitalism is in fact part of a complex plot to control the world. It sounds crazy, but huge global corporations may have to be viewed as neither capitalist nor communist, but are rather a cartel.

The 'observable stuff' is best seen in our own fair city. With nonprofits using pulbic, the top brass of UPMC is rich enough. Do they and Highmark strike you as compassionate? In the smaller ponds, individuals use nonprofits to enrich themselves, often under the aegis of a social cause. Countless organizations raise money all year long, while providing no service. More of this venom later. Stay tuned.

I look forward to it, RFSIII. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. It seems the well-heeled capitalist have negotiated non-profit status for UPMC. I'd call that cronyism. The folks yelling loudest about socialism seem to have something diffent in mind-- like privatizing or dismantling or personlizing Social Security. Again, maybe it's just a matter of semantics.

I'd have no problem getting rid of not-for-profit statuses of the industry. I see it as political favoritism, too. If everyone is paying taxes, then the overall rate of taxation can be lower.

Another law to add to Reg's list:

The Joomla Law of Comment Acceptance: The speed of Joomla's posting of a comment increases in direct proportion to the number of typos in the post.

The extreme adherents of the efficient market hypothesis ( self regulating or lax regulating markets) gave us the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act of 1999, Greenspan, the housing bubble, 2008 banking collapse, Enron, Tyco& World Com scandals , obscene CEO compensation and Bernie Madoff. When will people learn that "in medio stat virtus"

Okee, there's the relationship of city gov and union labor. All municipal construction is given to union contractors. This isn't exactly socialism, but some see it as such. Note the inneficiency: No sooner was the new library on Federal Street built, funding for the entire library system runs short. Not good resource management.


With municipal construction said to be near complete, there is still no long term plan to rebuild the private sector. Sketchy as this post is, it seems this is an example of socialism leaving the city in permanent fiscal crisis.

"but I would sincerely like to know which of our problems you attribute to socialism."

Many of the ills you mentioned can be attributed,in part, to the welfare system, which broke up families and paid poeple to have kids. Again though, this is simplistic. The poor stewarding of social programs could be indicated as the real problem.

I understand what you are saying. At the same time I have difficulty with the idea that we penalize the unfortunate babies whose only mistake was to be born into the broken families by grace of the great lottery of life.

Ciejai,

True. Conservatives like the saying "The path to heck is paved with good intentions." Seems the US has painted itself into a corner.

Didn't mean to raise the same arguments that have already been discussed here. Was hoping for a lit discussion on Hayek's book.

The path may be paved with something more than good intentions. The corner we are in has a great deal to do with policies that were shaped by something other than unselfish national interest. As you know, my husband was in Iraq in 2003. Lots of money was made by the well-connected with a vested stake in war. But since the country is all about page-turning these days, that's old news.

ciejai,

add that the communism/capitalism debates don't fully account for the greed and disregard for life.

I reread the book 1984 about once a year, and it always resonates. At the time, ruthless people are ruthless people, no matter what the reasoning.

RFSIII, You re-read 1984 and I re-read Dickens and we both come to the same conclusion! When you speak of disregard for life I think about the decision to put arsenic in chicken feed because it increased the formation of capillaries and made the meat look pinker. I would seriously have liked to be in the meeting when somebody said, "Hey, I've got an idea to increase market share. Let's lace the feed with arsenic!" I want to look at the faces of the people who said, "Wow, that's a great idea."

Sorry to say the Hayek book doesn't interest me at this time. I read an economics blog (as well as The Economist) to keep up a little with the debate going in economic circles. That's about all I can handle.
This guy writes for the London Times:

"Goodbye, homo economicus, by Anatole Kaletsky: Was Adam Smith an economist? Was Keynes, Ricardo or Schumpeter? By the standards of today’s academic economists, the answer is no. Smith, Ricardo and Keynes produced no mathematical models. Their work lacked the “analytical rigour” and precise deductive logic demanded by modern economics. And none of them ever produced an econometric forecast (although Keynes and Schumpeter were able mathematicians). If any of these giants of economics applied for a university job today, they would be rejected. As for their written work, it would not have a chance of acceptance in the Economic Journal or American Economic Review. The editors, if they felt charitable, might advise Smith and Keynes to try a journal of history or sociology."

This from Mark Thoma:

"The reason the Keynesian model is finding new life is that it specifically built to answer the questions that are important at the moment. The theorists who built modern macro models, those largely in control of where the profession has spent its effort in recent decades,; did not even envision that this [the economic melt-down] could happen, let alone build it into their models. Markets work, they don't break down, so why waste time thinking about those possibilities."

"What happens in non-normal times, i.e. when markets break down, or when markets are not complete, agents are not rational, etc., was far down the agenda of important questions, partly because those in control of the journals, those who largely dictated the direction of research, did not think those questions were very important (some don't even believe that policy can help the economy, so why put effort into studying it?).

I think that the current crisis has dealt a bigger blow to macroeconomic theory and modeling than many of us realize."

Yeah, The Fatal Conceit is a thick read. I was actually using one of Hayek's arguments on spontaneous order in another thread here the other day...

I'm working through The Constitution of Liberty, although I haven't had much time for leisure reading lately.

As for Smith, Wealth of Nations was more of his observations of the world around him than it was trying to theorize economic models. He didn't "invent" capitalism, he was just the first to do a comprehensive look at how it worked through an in-depth & historical look at British markets.

ciejai,

On a side note, I read an article some years ago about a study commissioned in a Slavic country, with the blessing of the US. It was to determine if cigarette smoking would shorten life enough to reduce the financial burden on national health care.

In the words of Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen: Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette. It's your patriotic duty.

I may still have my Commander Cody album. Hadn't thought about it in years. Who knows, maybe I saw those guys in concert...??? They got their start in Ann Arbor. I been there. And Andy Stein plays on A Prairie Home Companion. Thank goodness for a colorful past.

ciejai,
yes, and another round of thanks.

Just finished "No one would listen" by Harry Markopolos. None of the mathematical models of the economy account for the Bernie Madoffs, Ken Lays or Jeff Skillings of the world.

myooz, I've seen Harry interviewed several times and watched his testimony in Congress. He said that regulators will always be underfunded and become captive of the industries they are supposed to be watch-dogging. So the way to curb Wall Street abuses is very simple. Pass a law that says anytime a bank or investment house offers a deal they must keep 25 per cent of it on their own books for the duration. It's called "eating your own cooking."

I do not think underfunding is the main problem.
Markopolos blames the breakdown of the SEC's regulation of Madoff and others on incompetence, inexperience and arrogance. They mostly hire fresh out of college neophytes who are mostly interested in using the SEC as a stepping stone into the industry they were supposed to be regulating. I think Harry is somewhat naive in not suspecting collusion and corruption within the SEC probably at the very top. When the 2009 investigation was complete Harry was surprised to learn that Madoff's scam was widely suspected in the industry for years and many others besides himself had filed warnings to the SEC. A ~15 year ~$65Billion Ponzi scheme could not possibly have been pulled off without decision makers in the SEC deliberately pigeon holing the numerous red flags and warnings and looking the other way. Many people in the SEC have been fired for incompetence and many others have left “ to explore other opportunities” but amazingly no criminal investigations within the SEC have been initiated thus far. The scam also could not have possibly been a one man operation. Harry only hints that Madoff's entire family was into it up to their eyeballs. Nor does he delve into how many of the original investors were able to pull most of their initial “investment” and all their millions if not billions of phony “earnings” out before Bernie confessed to his sons and they turned him in. There is no end to the corruption if the government does not claw back the billions that were pulled out by favored individuals and charities just before Bernie’s convenient mea culpa.

Madoff's Ponzi scheme was a massive transfer of wealth and it was not to just Madoff's family. The government's job should be to determine to who. "Follow the money"

Is everyone else getting these exasperating messages from joomia every time you post -"not logged in", "incorrect pass word" etc.??

myooz, my understanding is the same as yours. Many of Madoff's clients knew those returns were phony and pulled their money out before the scheme unwound.

Harry Markopoulos' comment on the SEC and other regulators had more to do with Wall Street abuses. Even if the rule he advocates were passed it wouldn't have affected Madoff's operation.

CJ-"Many of Madoff's clients knew those returns were phony and pulled their money out before the scheme unwound."
Exactly. Madoff claimed earnings of ~12% per year which means initial "investor's" money would have doubled every 6 years or quadrupled over 12. These people could have pulled out 75% of their accumulated phony earnings and still claimed they were losers. But none of the reporters ask these pertinant questions.

myooz,

Your point "None of the mathematical models of the economy account for the Bernie Madoffs, Ken Lays or Jeff Skillings of the world." is a good one. One simplistic answer is that people invest at their own risk, and getting hurt in the process goes with the territory. People may have lost touch with the old school of sense in not investing more than one can afford to lose.

Another point to throw in, and this another weak argument, has to do with anti-trust laws. These were intended to prevent industries from becoming 'too big to fail.' I've been wondering what became of the Sherman Antitrust law.' Too, I thought those laws were intended to allow smaller business to remain comptetitive.

Perhaps the best that can be hoped for is more vigorous prosecution of the criminals.

Last on the list, I started rereading W. Cleon Skousen's book "The Naked Capitalist." This is conspiracy buff material, but may put some light on the capitalism/communism debate. Again, it's hard to validate it or apply it to now.

Just one more thing: One big conspiracy, or a lot of little one's? Hayek wrote about 'randomness' over an organised economic strategy. The Madoff scandal, Enron too, might fall into the randomness thing.

RFSIII, I haven't read the material, but just guessing from what I know of the underlying philosophy, it may be that randomness is used to explain asset-pricing (stocks, bonds, companies) that can't be explained by the Rational Expectations/Efficient Market Hypothesis. It's the accounting equivalent of using a "fudge factor" when the books don't balance. It's like "random noise."


When an entire regulatory structure is dismantled and what follows is Enron, etc. there is something more than randomness going on. The "partnerships" that brought Enron down were designed for a purpose. Every time one got put on the books, Skilling and Fastow were able to deposit $1 million -$2 milliion in their personal accounts. Still like the characterization that a great swath of that business as well as investment banking is populated by "narcissists with MBA's."

ciejai,
I was not too clear on what the randomness referred to, and that's probably a better answer.

Narcissism and other personality models seem to fit the big picture. Some people have even blamed Dr. Spock and secular humanism for creating people who think the sun shines out their buns, and gave no conscience.

The book by Skousen is one of many sources that claim the communist conspiracty begins with the Rothschild banking family, and 'international bankers.' Also, secret societies that included Cecil Rhoades and John Ruskin. After fishing the internet, I found that Bill Clinton was a student of a Dr. Carroll Quigley, who supposedly exposed the mass conspiracy after being an 'insider.' Twilight Zone music in the background.

typos. curse of AD/HD.

RFSIII,
On that note, I'm going for my bike ride. It's a great place to zone out and think. Thanks for these conversations. I'm enjoying them.

Stlll confused about some of Hayek's material, I thought that asset prices were supposed to be based on the earnings of the company, and that method may have lost its substance. During the dot com craze, stock prices rose wildly, independent of a company's earnings and assets, or lack of.

RSF,
"Your point "None of the mathematical models of the economy account for the Bernie Madoffs, Ken Lays or Jeff Skillings of the world." is a good one."

I should have mentioned GBBush, Cheney and Bliar. Madoff, Lay and Skilling were armatures compared to them in blowing rational expectations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html

$3+ trillion Iraq war

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...02200.html

$3+ TRILLION!
How's that 2004 vote for Bush workin for ya now ugsy, sentinel and rocks?

myooz, 2435 US service members killed in OIF since the 2005 inauguration and tens of thousands wounded. Now Alan Simpson serving on the White House fiscal commission says that veterans aren't helping the country in its current financial situation. If you don't want to take care of the soldiers who suffered Traumatic Brain Injury don't send them off to war in unarmored soft-sided HMMWV's.

Amen to that.

That's for sure. It was not the war itself. It was soft sided unarmed Humvees that were the real moral calamity of Iraq. Maybe they can harden the GI's heads prior Operation Iran Freedom. Tony Bliar obviously had his done.

myooz, you know in my heart I meant to say "don't send them off to war at all much less in unarmored Humvees."

As my husband likes to say, sometimes you go to war with the Secretary of Defense you have, not the one you might wish to have.

cj,
I thought you would understand that my comment was aimed at the neo-con amen corner who still think Bush's war was justified and the real travesty was the troops hands were tied, they were not protected enough and are chomping at the bit to attack Iran.

After the reception Tony Bliar is receiving I can's wait for GWBush's memoir to be published.

myooz, the image of him speeding away in his black BMW with a flip-flop on the roof...

Yep. With the egg and tomato splatters. Maybe Bush will use one of those harded Humvees for his book tour. Rob Rogers should have a field day. And Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity,the Neo-cons and tea baggers who have done their utmost to demonize Obama will be screaming about how the Liberals have no respect for the presidency