Statsguy on the environmental impact of Fed/ECB policy

Here’s Statsguy from the comment section of an earlier post:

I would add only this: The Fed (and ECB) are doing tremendous STRUCTURAL damage by over-targeting (rear-looking) headline inflation. That doesn’t mean I don’t think headline inflation is important (it’s quite real, particularly if you’re in the lower income strata), but it’s counterproductive.

Why? Essentially, we’re knee-capping the economy to drop AD to bring down the price of oil (in dollars), which in a sense is SUSTAINING THE OIL INTENSITY OF THE ECONOMY to a great[er] degree than is optimal. What do I mean by that? Simply this: if the price of oil went up (relative to labor and debt), then economic actors would accelerate substitution away from oil – that is, they would substitute more people and more technology for expensive oil. INSTEAD, we’re dropping oil use not by encouraging substitution to alternatives (including increasing labor intensity, which would help with unemployment) but by preserving the current oil intensity and reducing overall consumption (including reduction of consumption of non-oil-intense products, like digital “goods”). It’s dumb.

In a sense, that Fed policy is also encouraging developing economies to move toward a more oil-intense infrastructure than would otherwise exist if oil were priced higher. It is encouraging LESS drilling, LESS technological innovation in the drilling sector, LESS demand for fuel efficient vehicles, LESS investment in alternative transportation, and WORSE city planning.

I don’t have strong views on this issue, but it’s an interesting perspective.

2.  Off topic, but I was originally planning on doing a post criticizing Felix Salmon.  Fortunately, David Beckworth saved me the trouble.  I highly recommend the post.

3.  I get frustrated with a developing argument that it’s tough to address this AD problem because inflation is unpopular.  There are all sorts of flaws with this, which I have discussed elsewhere.  (Opinion polls on inflation are meaningless, and in the past the public has seemed far more satisfied with a bit higher inflation and a lot more jobs.)  But here’s what really frustrates me.  We are letting the Fed off the hook.  The Fed used the biggest debt crisis in world history as an opportunity to drive inflation (and inflation expectations) to the lowest levels in 50 years, to levels lower than their mandate, to 1% over the past three years.  And all along the way Bernanke kept insisting that they had more ammo, but just didn’t think more stimulus would be appropriate.  None of the recent posts claiming the Fed has a political problem because the public hates inflation have addressed this issue.  I guarantee that if interest rates were 8.5%, many unions, Congressmen and business people would be demanding rate cuts right now, inflation or no inflation.  The Fed is EXTREMELY lucky that 99.999% of people don’t have a clue as to how monetary policy works (beyond interest rates.)

4.  Totally off topic, but Matt Yglesias’s predictions are quite similar to my own.  I’m agnostic on his health cost argument, and would clarify his point that although China can grow fast for many years, the actual growth rate will likely slow somewhat.  But those are my forecasts.  However if they are wrong I’ll blame Yglesias, as he’s much smarter than me and should have known better.

PS.  Yesterday I finally answered lots of old comments from a week back.  The backlog was overwhelming.  I do eventually read all the comments, and answer most.  But after three years I am reaching the end of the road for these two:

A.  Liberals asking how monetary policy can work when rates are zero.

B.  Conservatives conceding QE2 raised inflation, but asking how more inflation can boost output.

I think I’ll just start directing people to FAQs.  The blog isn’t really set up for people who don’t understand the AS/AD model.  If they disagree with it fine, tell me why.  But faking ignorance by claiming not to understand how nominal shocks can have real effects is very annoying.


Tags:

 
 
 

60 Responses to “Statsguy on the environmental impact of Fed/ECB policy”

  1. Gravatar of Cthorm Cthorm
    27. September 2011 at 06:09

    >A. Liberals asking how monetary policy can work when rates are zero.

    B. Conservatives conceding QE2 raised inflation, but asking how more inflation can boost output.

    I think I’ll just start directing people to FAQs. The blog isn’t really set up for people who don’t understand the AS/AD model. If they disagree with it fine, tell me why. But faking ignorance by claiming not to understand how nominal shocks can have real effects is very annoying.
    >

    I’m sure it’s an order of magnitude beyond repetitive, but I doubt they’re faking ignorance. In the curricula for a BA in Economics, up to and including intermediate micro and macro (plus some filler like international trade, economic history, development economics etc), inflation is practically ignored beyond 2 roles: inflation expectations as a component of interest rates; and adjusting historical figures. Unless you specifically choose to take a course on monetary policy, you will likely walk away without knowing there are more monetary policy levers than nominal interest rates (even traditional tools like reserve requirements). I took a monetary theory class as an undergrad in 2008 (the professor’s doctoral adviser was Bernanke) and there were 20-25 students, compared to at least 100 in the other economics electives.

    I get the feeling that the liberals/conservatives you cite are the same people that ask questions that are directly covered in the course material already covered.

  2. Gravatar of John Thacker John Thacker
    27. September 2011 at 06:33

    I’m not sure that I entirely understand the “sustaining oil intensity” argument. Isn’t the relative price of oil still increasing, so the reduction in overall consumption should still shift us away from oil intensity? Is this an argument about how a smaller economy retards technological development that would shift us from oil.

    I agree that the Fed shouldn’t be restricted by public opinion very much.

    None of the recent posts claiming the Fed has a political problem because the public hates inflation have addressed this issue. I guarantee that if interest rates were 8.5%, many unions, Congressmen and business people would be demanding rate cuts right now, inflation or no inflation. The Fed is EXTREMELY lucky that 99.999% of people don’t have a clue as to how monetary policy works (beyond interest rates.)

    I’m sorry, but I don’t find these arguments consistent. If the public had a clue about how monetary policy worked, then they’d understand that the Fed still had ammunition. But your second sentence implies that if we were in a situation where the public understood the Fed still had ammunition, then more people would be demanding inflation. Presumably your third sentence means that the Fed is “EXTREMELY lucky” because they would be under intense political pressure right now for not lowering rates and creating inflation. If they’re “EXTREMELY lucky” to be avoiding such political pressure, then they would have a political problem if they had the pressure.

    But how do you square that with your first sentence and your argument that the Fed can basically ignore political problems? If the Fed can just ignore public opinion (and politicians pressured by public opinion, including the politicians that appoint the Fed) in the hard money direction, couldn’t it just ignore public opinion in the pro-inflation direction? Why is the Fed “EXTREMELY lucky” that there’s no political pressure arguing for more inflation? They shouldn’t have to worry about it one way or the other, by your argument.

    Sure, it’s possible to make an argument that plenty of people upset at the Fed because they want lower rates and more inflation creates a long term problem for the Fed, threatening its independence and so forth. But it seems to me that if that’s a problem, then the same problem is posed to the Fed by the hard money types, at least in the short run. And you still can’t ignore that even if higher inflation lead to more growth, many people, who don’t understand monetary policy, would like the growth, give higher approval ratings to the politicians– and still blast the Fed and hate the inflation and agitate for lower inflation because they wouldn’t see that one action led to the result.

    The Fed cannot possibly be “EXTREMELY lucky” right now that more people don’t understand monetary policy enough to demand a higher money supply and be upset at the Fed for failing to do so, unless it’s “EXTREMELY unlucky” right now that so many people are demanding lower inflation.

  3. Gravatar of John Thacker John Thacker
    27. September 2011 at 06:45

    I guarantee that if interest rates were 8.5%, many unions, Congressmen and business people would be demanding rate cuts right now, inflation or no inflation. The Fed is EXTREMELY lucky that 99.999% of people don’t have a clue as to how monetary policy works (beyond interest rates.)

    I completely agree with this, but I think that it vitiates your own argument and agrees with me.

    What you’re saying in the above quoted section is that if people (both experts and the greater public) understood monetary policy than political pressure would exist for the Fed to do the right thing, and that that would have an effect on the Fed. And I agree! (I disagree in one sense, in that I would say that the Fed would be “lucky” to have pressure to do the right thing.)

    But it seems to me that since the public doesn’t understand monetary policy, it’s pressuring the Fed to do the wrong thing. The Fed is “EXTREMELY unlucky”– and so are the rest of us– to have intense pressure to do the wrong thing. It’s irrelevant whether the public *should* have an opinion on monetary policy. It’s irrelevant that the public likes more growth, and more NGDP would lead to more growth, if the public doesn’t know the latter.

    Opinion polls on inflation are meaningless, and in the past the public has seemed far more satisfied with a bit higher inflation and a lot more jobs.

    The fact that QE and QE2 remain unpopular in polls despite working seems to vitiate this argument. Under your model, the public should be demanding more QE after seeing the results. It isn’t. It won’t so long as people continue to ask “how more inflation can boost output.”

  4. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    27. September 2011 at 07:02

    John – it’s not just the public that doesn’t understand monetary policy.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-26/fed-s-bullard-says-long-term-economic-growth-may-be-lower-following-bubble.html

    “Monetary policy is ultra loose right now, and appropriately so,” Bullard said in response to an audience question.

    That means Bullard either doesn’t get it, or he’s intentionally lying. Bullard also has argued for month-by-month decisions on QE to keep policy responsive, and he’s argued against Twist as putting us on a Japan path. That suggests Bullard does get it. Thus, he’s lying. Next year, he votes.

    Raskin, a “dove”, sounds similar. Aggressive rejection of the “temporary 3% inflation target”.

  5. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    27. September 2011 at 07:11

    John, oil prices should be much higher. Here’s an example – the northeast still burns copious amounts of diesel each year to heat houses. Why? China is deliberately building car-intensive infrastructure. Why? Over the past couple years, large vehicle sales have partially recovered. Why?

  6. Gravatar of dwb dwb
    27. September 2011 at 07:19

    I am 100% with statsguy on this. Inflation is when everything goes up, not just oil. Focusing too heavily on one particular item in the basket, the one we spend money on, makes distinguishing between relative price changes and inflation muddled and misleading. the price of natural gas has come down significantly in the last few years. high oil prices encourage substitution towards other resources, like gas for heating. if home prices and mortgage rates go down (making owning cheaper) while rents go up is that inflation just cause i happen to rent? Well, if the CPI methodology is more weighted towards renting then the CPI says we have inflation when in reality we just have potential for substitution. There are ways of mitigating this, but the “commodities price rise equals inflation” crowd ignores the fact that not all energy prices (coal, oil, gas, etc) are going up at the same rate as oil, and many are substitutes. There are even different types of coal, used for different purposes (steel vs electricity), not all of which are going up at the same rate. Some, like natural gas, are actually quite plentiful and going down. just because the CPI is based on last year’s gas-guzzling car or oil-guzzling home heating burner does not make it so.

    The second point is that we have a huge output gap. When (if?) we return to full employment we will have higher resource utilization and therefore higher resource prices. duh. yes, everything would be cheaper if we had 25% unemployment because no one could buy anything. I make the counter argument: commodities prices are unnaturally low because of the output gap. commodities prices rising is proof that stimulus is working (monetary or fisal). but is that inflation -especially when the prices of other goods are going down, and when the CPI is based on last year’s gas-hog model car?

    these aren’t new arguments of course, but I feel like a vast swath of economists have traded in their economist hat for their political hat, willing to ignore data, unwilling to think critically, and all too eager make specious arguments for the sole purpose of getting their guy elected.

  7. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    27. September 2011 at 07:23

    Stats / Scott,

    I swear I think I can reach you, to make you better grasp what your “opponents” really think.

    All acceptable forms of Monetary strategy MUST force the government to shrink IMMEDIATELY.

    Your exponential KNOW, like the sun will come up tomorrow, that the Federal government MUST be smaller – not only in tasks it takes on, but more generally… less people are ALLOWED IN THE WAGON.

    So, they are not the “pain caucus” as if we have to suffer for past sins.

    NO, instead they are the “less shit caucus” – and ULTIMATELY the worm has turned there is going to be less free shit for people.

    HOW can Bullard or anyone else who looks at the system and sees money flowing out of every hole in the bucket to people who didn’t put money in the bucket, be expected to think that right now we need to print money to save a shitty leaky bucket?

    Our fight isn’t over Monetary, our fight is over whether we are going to fix the leaky bucket BEFORE or AFTER we do Monetary.

    This is my point:

    SCOTT wants to fix the leaky bucket later.

    STATS doesn’t think the bucket is leaking.

    SO, the most effective argument Scott can make is to kick Stats in the nuts over and over… constantly pointing out that the bucket is too leaky.

    This will give Scott credibility with those who want to fix the leaky bucket first.

    This is of course the real logic of the thing. And Scott will tilt at windmills for a couple more months until Nov 2012 is close enough, that he sees his best shot is to wait for the buckets holes to be plugged, cheer for the holes to be plugged, and wave his plan around in the face of conservatives just after the plug the holes and want to make sure they get a soaring economy.

  8. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    27. September 2011 at 07:25

    Your exponential KNOW…

    er, your opponents KNOW

    mobile browsers suck

  9. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    27. September 2011 at 07:29

    plugging holes in bucket = drill baby drill

    other things too, but all logic of Peak Oil says we want to consume as many fossil fuels at the lowest cost now WHILE we wait for alt.energy to mature.

    Basically we want to empty out the middle east, leave them with just sand, we’d prefer not to destroy our money to do it.

  10. Gravatar of ChacoKevy ChacoKevy
    27. September 2011 at 08:23

    I think you are wise to step away from some of the commenting. If you are looking for any ways in which you could cut down on what to respond to, I’d suggest responding only to those that are truly on the topic of monetary issues. I think the “Treason” post is a good example that the political anchoring of monetary policy (or any policy, I suppose) moves the discussion from the empirical to the subjective. Political discussion is more approachable for the charlatans (i.e. me) and before you know it, BAM! You’ve got several hundred comments that are a few grammar mistakes from devolving into discussion on par with me yelling at you because I hate the Packers*. So, yeah, don’t respond to this.

    *Not as much as I hate the Bears right now.

  11. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    27. September 2011 at 08:49

    Another solid post by Scott Sumner. I also do not believe that people worry about inflation before jobs and economic growth. I will happily take prosperity and five percent inflation anyday. I do not happily endure perma-recession and “price stability.”

    A side note about Scott Sumner: I am thrilled that Sumner is getting so much national attention and notoriety. But we lose the friendly little coterie of regular commenters “talking” to Sumner through this medium. For example, I do not “talk” to Krugman, as my comments are lost in the cacophony with hundreds of other commenters.

    A small price to pay if Sumner’s views prevail, but a personal loss nonetheless.

  12. Gravatar of OneEyedMan OneEyedMan
    27. September 2011 at 09:34

    I love the fact that you engage your comments section. It substantially raises the quality of the blog and a creates community that other blogs lack.

    If you are looking to cut back, I’d suggest two changes.
    1) Take the link round up parts of your posts and put them into new posts with comments disabled. If you didn’t have much to say about it in the first place, why spend time policing and engaging the comments on it?

    2) Raise the barrier to entry for comments. Require an account. Maybe even make them wait 24 hours after creating an account to post.

    I’m similarly confused about the relative price of oil argument. Doesn’t keeping interest rates low weaken the dollar, which raises the price of oil relative to other goods? I don’t see how it mutes the price increase of oil. In any case, isn’t the excess volatility exactly why the Fed looks at core inflation?

  13. Gravatar of Carl Lumma Carl Lumma
    27. September 2011 at 09:52

    Statsguy overlooks that money has units of energy, not the other way around. Until another primary source of industrial energy is found, **there is no way to change the real price of oil** other than by changing its supply. Does raising oil’s nominal price encourage increased supply, or discourage consumption? No, it just raises the nominal price of everything else, as Statsguy correctly assumes. The supply of oil relative to demand depends only on its real cost of production — which also has units of energy. That is, it depends only on how easy it is to extract from the ground. Because oil has superior energy density to alternatives, its supply will always outstrip that of those alternatives. This is why industrial society has only ever transitioned to more dense sources of energy, and never to less dense ones, like the ones statsguy probably thinks we should be transitioning to. It will not happen without catastrophic (not necessarily bad) changes in the structure of our civilization.

  14. Gravatar of Mark H Mark H
    27. September 2011 at 10:06

    A “nudge” might be good here: insert a link to the FAQ by the comment form, and inform would-be commenters that their questions might already have been answered there. Could cut down on your comment load.

  15. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    27. September 2011 at 10:07

    Excellent point by Stats Guy. It’s the exact argument I’ve been using for driving a 12 cylinder 5700 pound car. It’s my contribution to a long term reduction in global warming.

  16. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    27. September 2011 at 10:22

    Scott,
    I think the real but not-stated arguments against monetary policy is not a concern about inflation but rather:

    1) A general widely held conception by conservatives that “printing money” allows an expansion of government debt and/or spending.

    2) A belief by liberals that monetary policy reduces the likelihood of fiscal stimulus and thus the opportunity for expanding government programs and raising taxes.

    3) The belief (disguised by feigned ignorance) of FOMC members that looser monetary policy will enhance Obama’s reelection prospects in 2012.

  17. Gravatar of Contemplationist Contemplationist
    27. September 2011 at 10:27

    When I was an ABCT follower, I had no idea that nominal shocks had real effects and that THIS HAD BEEN KNOWN FOR CENTURIES. It’s fine for people like Steve Horwitz and George Selgin to disagree with Fed prescriptions, however I believe (and they might acknowledge) that most “folk” Austrianism is driven by a complete ignorance of the real effects of nominal shocks.

  18. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    27. September 2011 at 10:31

    FWIW – Yglesias is wrong on health care. The cost of diagnosis will come down, but not because of informative technology but because of advances in epigenetics. The problem is that the expensive part of medicine is therapy… not diagnosis.

  19. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    27. September 2011 at 10:42

    Scott,
    I think you are mistaken to view inflation through the lens of popularity or public opinion. You need to think about it in terms of it’s effectiveness for facile arguments and soundbites.

  20. Gravatar of Marcelo Marcelo
    27. September 2011 at 11:07

    Scott,
    I imagine you may already have something in the works, but Richard Fisher has explained his decision to dissent from the majority on the Fed’s action (http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2011/fs110927.cfm)

    You say that you think the Fed is lucky that 99.999999% of people don’t understand how monetary policy works, but I wonder how many on the FOMC understand? I imagine the best critique of these people is what their ideal monetary policy would be if interest rates were at 8% and everything else was the same.

    My thoughts on the subject is that eventually the Fed will have to set NGDP expectations, but that point seems to shift farther into the future….

    Something else: I remember back during the debate on the debt ceiling that some people said that Obama should use the coinage exception to mint $2Trillion dollar coins and deposit them in the treasury. I wonder if you think that might be a possible way of increasing NGDP, given Fed reluctance and Congressional uselessness (considering the potential destabilizing risks of such a policy)?

  21. Gravatar of K K
    27. September 2011 at 11:25

    Marcelo: “I remember back during the debate on the debt ceiling that some people said that Obama should use the coinage exception to mint $2Trillion dollar coins and deposit them in the treasury.”

    He wouldn’t be able to spend that money without congressional authority. He *might* be able to do QE with it though – which might be productive since he would really be debasing the Fed’s balance sheet which would destroy their independence for the purposes of fighting inflation – I think it’s a safe bet that no-one would ever relieve the Fed of those coins.

  22. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    27. September 2011 at 11:40

    Fisher…

    “To nonfinancial market types, this may seem a tad bit esoteric. The point is that the direct benefit of QE2 seemed small relative to the cost, including the complications arising from the expansion of our balance sheet and the stirring of suspicions among our critics that the FOMC is influenced too heavily by the financial interests that make more money from trading than from lending to job-creating businesses.”

    And the coupe de grace…

    “One other factor gave me pause and that was, and remains, the moral hazard of being too accommodative. For years, I have been arguing that monetary policy cannot solve the problem of substandard economic performance unless it is complemented by fiscal policy and regulatory reform that encourages the private sector to put to work the affordable and abundant liquidity we are able to create as the nation’s monetary authority. These actions are not within the Fed’s purview; they are the business of Congress and the president. Chairman (Ben) Bernanke said it well in his recent speech at Jackson Hole (Wyo.): “Most of the economic policies that support robust economic growth in the long run are outside the province of the central bank.”[6] Both within the FOMC and in public speeches, I have argued that until our fiscal authorities get their act together, further monetary accommodation”•be it in the form of quantitative easing or performing “jujitsu” on the yield curve through efforts such as Operation Twist”•will represent nothing more than pushing on a string.”

    These are the real deal, this is where Fed policy is NOT political, it is simply rightfully and thankfully private sector biased.

    The fiscal authorities need to get their act together.

    Next Chair of the Fed…

  23. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    27. September 2011 at 11:43

    It is funny, Fisher and Sumner probably agree 100% on how the fiscal authorities ought to get their house in order.

    I doubt there is one tax change or spending cut where they would fundamentally disagree.

    The difference is Fisher THINKS LIKE A BUSINESSMAN, and Sumner doesn’t have a cell phone.

  24. Gravatar of dwb dwb
    27. September 2011 at 11:56

    He wouldn’t be able to spend that money without congressional authority. He *might* be able to do QE with it though

    well, yes and no. you are right the money is already “appropriated,” so it does not increase expected AD beyond what congress has mandated, but he could use it to pay down debt, lowering expected future tax hikes. Surely lowering expected future tax burden by $2 Tn (relative to a $15 Tn debt) has some stimulative effect. Moreover, why only do something half crazy? “Look,” says the prez, “I found 2Tn in the treasury. oops. I cannot spend it so i am sending everyone a $6000 dividend/refund check. mean old congress wants you to send it back. Vote for me in 2012 and not for them.” I say, if you are gonna take that kind of gamble, go all-in, dream BIG. Presidents can do whatever they want and have proved it time and again, its up to someone with standing to sue them to stop them. Past Presidents have declared laws unconstitutional, ignored appropriations laws, unilaterally started wars. Congress has given after-the-fact authority on everything from wars to emergencies to departmental funding like the FAA. Sure, its crazy and will never happen. But its my kind of crazy- the unbounded kind.

  25. Gravatar of johnleemk johnleemk
    27. September 2011 at 13:08

    Mark H,

    Ordinarily I frown on blogs that require an account to comment, but it might be worth it for The Money Illusion now, since a community’s grown up around it, and more importantly, the incentive of being able to engage Scott in the comments is I think enough to overcome the barrier of having to register an account.

  26. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    27. September 2011 at 17:50

    Cthorm, You misunderstood my comment. I understand that people don’t learn about monetary policy, but everyone is taught AS/AD these days.

    John, You misunderstood my comment. I meant they are lucky in the sense that if the Fed did the same thing when people know what they were doing, they’d be highly unpopular. If the pressure led them to do something else then I agree that would be different.

    Statsguy, So does that mean the three dissenters will all be off the FOMC during 2012, an election year? Obama really blew it by not filling those empty Board seats earlier, when he had the chance.

    dwb, I agree.

    Morgan, You said;

    “SO, the most effective argument Scott can make is to kick Stats in the nuts over and over… constantly pointing out that the bucket is too leaky.”

    The only worse idea would be the reverse.

    ChacoKevy, Good advice.

    Ben, If it’s the price of success, I’ll take it.

    OneEyedMan, The tight monetary policy depresses NGDP growth, and this depresses oil prices.

    Carl, Changes in demand also affect oil prices. I’m thinking of switching my heating from oil to gas this year.

    mark, Thanks for the tip.

    dtoh, You said;

    “I think the real but not-stated arguments against monetary policy is not a concern about inflation but rather:

    1) A general widely held conception by conservatives that “printing money” allows an expansion of government debt and/or spending.”

    First, conservatives are not against monetary policy. Second, a more expansionary policy would mean “printing” much less money over the next five years, because as inflation rose banks wouldn’t want to hold onto lots of ERs.

    Regarding your criticism of statsguy, I thought of that too. It’s hard to know what policy is best in the long run.

    I agree with your “soundbites” comment, but I don’t think that contradicts what I argued.

    Contemplationist, But everyone learns that in EC101–the AS/AD model. I’m not saying you are wrong, but I’m shocked.

    Marcelo, I don’t think the coin option is realistic, even if technically it could be done.

    Morgan and Marcelo, Those Fisher quotations are scary. It’s amazing someone with those views is on the FOMC. The Fed’s job is not to “solve problems” it’s to avoid creating them. He doesn’t get it–NGDP has grown 4% in 3 years, when 15% is normal. That’s on the Fed.

    Morgan, You said;

    “The difference is Fisher THINKS LIKE A BUSINESSMAN, and Sumner doesn’t have a cell phone.”

    A reporter called me yesterday and was surprised that I don’t have caller ID. But I did upgrade from a rotary to a push button phone about 5 years ago. I had found when they say “press 4 for sales dept” there was nothing to push on my rotary phone. I’m old enough to remember when if you called a company you got a person, right away, every time, who knew what they were talking about. The good old days that you are too young to remember.

  27. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    27. September 2011 at 18:37

    “I’m old enough to remember when if you called a company you got a person, right away, every time, who knew what they were talking about. The good old days that you are too young to remember.”

    Call mcmaster-carr, they’ll answer before the first ring, and charge you $500 to deliver a bolt in 15 minutes.

    thats a fact.

    said another way, GET A SMART PHONE and you don’t need to speak to humans ever again.

  28. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    27. September 2011 at 22:06

    Scott,
    I think you’re right. Conservatives are against monetary policy in general, they’re just against it when it will help the democrats.

    That being said, there is a big chunk of the conservative population who you will never convince that having the FED buy government debt and other assets is a good idea. Much better to force the banks to buy (or create) the assets.

    I don’t think you actually fully understand the “soundbites” arguments. After all, you are a proponent of “Nominal GDP Level Targeting.” Geekspeak! I think you need something more along the Fordisian WIN tradition.

  29. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    28. September 2011 at 04:06

    Here are the FOMC members currently:

    Members
    Ben S. Bernanke, Board of Governors, Chairman
    William C. Dudley, New York, Vice Chairman
    Elizabeth A. Duke, Board of Governors
    Charles L. Evans, Chicago
    Richard W. Fisher, Dallas
    Narayana Kocherlakota, Minneapolis
    Charles I. Plosser, Philadelphia
    Sarah Bloom Raskin, Board of Governors
    Daniel K. Tarullo, Board of Governors
    Janet L. Yellen, Board of Governors

    Anyone who is “Board of Governors” is a voting member till their term expires. Other people are head of regional Feds (philly, etc.). The regional head members who voted against the limited “loosening” we saw at the last few meetings were Plosser, Kocherlakota, and Fisher. Evans has been the only person to publicly advocate a 3% inflation target.

    In 2012, the regionals switch out and the new regionals are:

    Jeffrey M. Lacker, Richmond
    Dennis P. Lockhart, Atlanta
    Sandra Pianalto, Cleveland
    John C. Williams, San Francisco
    Christine M. Cumming, First Vice President, New York

    That is, all in all, a net move to the dovish side. Here’s someone who put together their view of the hawkishness/dovishness of the 2011 board

    http://www.kathylien.com/site/fomc/fomc-voters-2011-dove-hawk-scale

    I don’t know how appropriate that is anymore, given the evans movement. However, Kocherlakota is a serious politico (he signed a petition against the 2008 stimulus bill, which is a political no no). Plosser and Fisher, well, you know them well. All three gone. (Recall the last time those three held a seat? Yes, 2008.)

    However, Lacker comes back (Richmond), and he’s hawkish. The other 4 regionals are all center or slightly dovish (New York stays voting, but may replace Dudley). Note that Obama doesn’t have any control over regionals, just the permanents – the regionals are a decidedly undemocratic holdover (chosen by regional bank shareholders, effectively). I think a lot has to do with the timidity of the crew; they lack a powerful intellectual on the Dovish side (Bernanke being the brightest of the bunch). Alas, Peter Diamond (love him or hate him) would have provided that intellectual punch.

    Duke, a relative dove, loses her permanent seat in Jan 31 of 2012 – let’s see how long it takes Team Obama to replace her. Next year should be a bit better, but how much better is anyone’s guess.

    I was disappointed with Raskin’s speech the other day, but so much of this is posturing and expectations setting, this might just have been a warning to not get too excited yet.

  30. Gravatar of John John
    28. September 2011 at 04:42

    No one who makes the economist for higher gas prices, even in the name of developing alternative energy, deserves to call themselves an economist. Oil is the lifeblood of the modern world and higher oil prices make everyone poorer in real terms.

  31. Gravatar of John John
    28. September 2011 at 04:43

    “No one who makes the argument for..” is what I meant to say

  32. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    28. September 2011 at 06:00

    Statsguy in not an economist.

    Neither is DeKrugman.

    If pressed, neither really cares about growth, they care about fairness.

    If Statsguy understood peak oil, he’d have been in favor of the Iraq war.

  33. Gravatar of Rob Rob
    28. September 2011 at 06:56

    “I’m agnostic on his health cost argument”

    This is one of those responses (like most on the board, I assume) that needs no response, especially because its off topic. But I can’t leave it alone. There is NO WAY that health care costs come down because of technology. There are almost too many reasons to state. They include: 1) technology (of all kinds) in health care is extremely expensive; 2) much of it is not focused on cost; 3) technology application (IS) creates capacity, which supply tends to increase demand, especially at a time of increased coverage; 4) the record of technology (IS) deployment in this space has been abysmal and, in general, the ability of organizations in the field to keep pace at reasonable cost and effectiveness has yet to be proven.

    Is technology (IS) in health care a good thing? Absolutely, and some providers streamline costs through technology. But it’s no system-wide panacea for excessive costs. End of life care impacts costs. Technology is a plug figure that makes optimistic models run. In my opinion.

  34. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    28. September 2011 at 07:04

    Morgan, thank you for painting me with such a flattering brush, but me to save you some future embarrassment:

    I am not pro-government. I am a pure pragmatist. I strongly believe in more efficient and less corrupt government because every piece of evidence I’ve seen indicates that it is the single most important factor in long term growth (and is a predecessor, rather than a result, of strong property rights). I note that the most rapid decrease in size of government in recent decades was achieved under Gore in 1992-2000. This is in absolute terms, in dollar as % of GDP terms, and in FTE (full time equivalent) terms. I say Gore, because he ran the bureaucracy while Clinton made speeches. I vocally opposed the health care mandate, however I also vocally opposed the 2nd Iraq War.

    I do care about fairness as well – in particularly generational equity, which is why I do not advocate increasing taxes on younger workers to maintain rich payments to underfunded pensioners in strong dollars. I also note there is a strong empirical relationship between wealth distribution and long term growth as well, but the causation remains unclear.

    I am only “pro-government” when juxtaposed to you, a self-declared political hack.

    I understand Peak Oil quite well, and for this reason I oppose war in Iraq even more strongly. That war incurred massive dollar debt, caused immense damage to the oil infrastructure (still being repaired), and was avoidable. Afghanistan less so, but if we’d aggressively moved there first (with the world’s support) we’d be living in a different world today. If we had deployed the money we spent in Iraq on energy conservation and new developments in the US, we would be in much better shape today.

  35. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    28. September 2011 at 07:13

    “No one who makes the economist for higher gas prices, even in the name of developing alternative energy, deserves to call themselves an economist.”

    I am not making an argument for higher gas prices – I’m making an argument for not subsidizing gas prices for cash-rich buyers by destroying AD. It introduces massive inefficiencies, as any honest economist should admit. Oil should be allowed to hit the market clearing price, subject to a level target on NGDP – or, at the minimum, a level target on core inflation.

    If there’s a sudden and massive increase in oil supply, then (externalities aside), bring on the cheap oil… Only a non-economist would argue for keeping oil cheap even as consumption is increasing and supply becoming more expensive. This should be obvious to anyone who would call themselves an economist.

  36. Gravatar of MikeDC MikeDC
    28. September 2011 at 07:22

    Rob- The biggest cost driver in health care is that cost and decision-making are so routinely divorced, especially at the patient level, that I don’t think anyone can have a reasonable idea about the long-term effects of anything else.

    But especially technology, since reducing the costs of new advances in any industry largely depends on efficient pricing signals from relatively flexible markets.

  37. Gravatar of dwb dwb
    28. September 2011 at 08:17

    Statsguy is not an economist….If Statsguy understood peak oil, he’d have been in favor of the Iraq war.

    there is no such thing as “peak oil.” One can use electricity generated by nuke plants to catalytically reduce CO2 to methane and then long chain hydrocarbons. This is not a fantasy, but present day technology. Carbon dioxide and uranium are very plentiful, therefore oil is too. Of course, that costs thousands and thousands of dollars per barrel to make oil that way. There are cheaper technologies like making oil from gas or coal, also plentiful and proven. But those are also more expensive than drilling.

    The point is, you cannot forecast the quantity of oil supplied absent the price. And the demand price is a function of the marginal cost of the nearest substitute. All one can predict is that the marginal/average cost of oil will continue to climb. At some point, substitutes become cheaper and people will shift away. The “peak” in supply is not when we “run out” – technically oil is a renewable resource! – but when people are unwilling to pay the marginal cost (clearly, at some point, it makes no sense to make oil from nuclear electricity, its cheaper to have an electric car and a battery). That’s not peak oil theory, thats economics 001.

    In other words, if you guarantee me that people will be willing to pay $3000/barrel ten years from now, I can give you a long list of supply options with a decent rate of return.

    As a way to obtain oil, the economics of the Iraq was economically stupid. Now, there may have been other strategic reasons, but solely confined to “oil” the US could have invested far less than the trillion dollar it cost in coal-to-oil and gas-to oil plants that utilize the U.S.’s tremendous coal and gas reserves – AND we could have paid for the environmental cleanup. In fact, I bet for a mere fraction of what we spent Hussein would have let us move right in.

  38. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    28. September 2011 at 09:30

    dwb and Stats,

    As a peak oiler, I’d stand 100% behind a $1-$1.50 gallon gas and diesel tax IF and ONLY IF is is pure revenue neutral and all the tax savings flow to small businessmen.

    It is simple unstoppable majority math: The C power (progressives) partners with the A power wherein C power gets a policy change, and A power get the immediate fiscal upside.

    We could do the same majority play on Natural Gas engine conversion tax credits if we use a lower cost less than super clean (but still cleaner than oil based stuff) conversion.

    BUT, the progressive left doesn’t actually WANT as a primary concern to cut gas consumption and let the market gravitate toward natural gas.

    And they will NOT let go of the idea of more tax revenue.

    It leads one to suspect they are not serious.

    Stats forgive me but our government is SO hugely inefficient that ANY argument besides, let’s focus on GOV2.0 BEFORE we do anything else – means you don’t really:

    1. grasp how inefficient it is.
    2. really care about efficient government.

    Choose.

  39. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    28. September 2011 at 10:08

    Stats Guys – Where is the empirical data on wealth distribution. There’s data for income distribution – sort of – but I don’t know where you are seeing data on wealth distribution.

  40. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    28. September 2011 at 10:37

    dtoh, I’m sorry, I meant income, although the two are correlated. The direction of causation is the difficult part.

    Morgan, have you noticed that most of your arguments rest on the following piece of evidence: “The fact that you don’t agree with me on priorities proves you’re an idiot.”?

    I’m all for faster/better/cheaper government – moreso than most. I do not think privatization is ubiquitously the solution, nor are unions always the problem. Why is the Post Office bloated? Because every time the postmaster tries to cut staff and close offices, small town republican congressmen scream like disemboweled goats.

    What about privatization? Without transparent and non-corrupt oversight, it’s just as bad as poorly run government. As to dealing with overpayment and pensions, the fastest and easiest solution would be a monetary policy change:

    Alter the CPI calculation to account for substitution, and increase the core inflation rate (letting headline inflation for food/energy increase if necessary). Effectively, a rate cut on payouts, starting immediately. The problem in the public sector isn’t so much the wage structure – it’s the inability to terminate subordinates (without a lawsuit) and the cost of retirement and other benefits.

    You also have to ask yourself how much of a premium you are paying for clean employees. Police are overpaid, but there’s a hidden benefit here – police have a high incentive to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Countries that underpay police (and judges) find they have even worse problems. Countries that privatize polices… well, even Singapore doesn’t do that.

  41. Gravatar of Carl Lumma Carl Lumma
    28. September 2011 at 12:23

    @Scott Nuclear power rapidly and almost completely replaced the use of oil for electricity generation both here and in France. Did this affect the price of oil? It didn’t.

    Not to say that an alternative energy source *couldn’t* do this. The infinite demand in the model I’m talking about applies only to energy overall – I’m just using oil as a proxy for energy, since it is currently a good one.

  42. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    28. September 2011 at 12:35

    Why is the Post Office bloated?

    “Because every time the postmaster tries to cut staff and close offices, small town republican congressmen scream like disemboweled goats.”

    rofl. keep telling yourself that. it is DEMS. I spent years in junk mail, do not convince yourself “its both” – it isn’t.

    Conservative districts by and large are far more comfy. Be honest with yourself. It is 500K public employee Dem voters. How you can skip over REALITY to be sooooo wrong.

    —-

    I’m paying no premium for clean. 70%+ of fireman are volunteer.

    Police? Sure pay them well, but end pensions, end Seniority pay, and audit them just enough to bring fear. make “open audits” part of the job…. no different than “expect to be video recorded.”

    You have a far too soft notion of what we should and are willing to do to ALL public employees with any sort of power, I’d put all of them through routine low cost audits – hiding money is very very hard.

    When they can’t unionize, the entire public sphere changes, huh?

    You need to be more honest about your wages are sticky argument too.

    Until you give my side the battle axe and a FULL COMMITMENT to let us unstick wages, you are just making milquetoast egghead excuses to prolong the inevitable.

    End Davis Bacon.
    End Minimum Wage.
    Bring loser pays tort reform.
    End public employee unions.

    And we’ll see how “sticky” wages really are.

  43. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    28. September 2011 at 14:05

    StatsGuy – Same question. Where is the empirical data on wealth that allows you to know its correlated with income.

  44. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    28. September 2011 at 16:26

    http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/214578-1110886258964/20748034/All.pdf

    You can find the income data on the world bank database, or nationmaster, or any number of other locations. You need to use 2000 data for income, to match the wealth data, which is assembled very infrequently.

  45. Gravatar of dwb dwb
    28. September 2011 at 16:44

    As a peak oiler, I’d stand 100% behind a $1-$1.50 gallon gas and diesel tax IF and ONLY IF is is pure revenue neutral and all the tax savings flow to small businessmen.

    huh? who said anything about higher energy taxes? and you’re giving back to small businessmen for what exactly? I believe my points were:
    1. we have a huge output gap, oil prices are lower than where they will be at full employment
    2. oil price rises are not inflation.
    3. higher prices (eventually) will induce a supply response; additional supply will become economic to produce at higher prices.
    4. there is no peak oil, there is only peak oil given current forecasted prices. oil supply will only peak when people are unwilling to pay the cost of production – because substitutes are cheaper.

    nope, did not say anything about taxes or subsidizing renewable energy.

  46. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    28. September 2011 at 16:58

    Morgan,

    You do know that you are slightly socially imbalanced, right? You are also far right of center, while I am (by almost any definition) a pragmatic centrist. Yet I should adopt your version of reality? Tell you what…

    1) I’ll agree to repealing ALL laws to support unions if you agree to repeal ALL laws which have been used to break strikes, including the executive power to call in the national guard, etc. Or don’t you remember that more often than not, the government’s power was historically wielded AGAINST unions? Not only in the US but elsewhere…

    http://www.economist.com/node/16282233

    2) I don’t doubt the government could beat the crud out of strikers and lower their wages. Then again, it’s hardly a contest when corporations have so many government enforced advantages that labor does not – including tax advantages (I don’t get to depreciate my education or cost of living, but I do depreciate my capital investment in a business),
    bankruptcy code (it’s easier for businesses to eliminate debt than individuals), tax location (I can own a business incorporated in Delaware without living there), limited legal liability (corporations can use shell vehicles to avoid liability for external harm or externalities), and much more. The legal structure is skewed heavily in favor of corporations, but you would create even more asymmetry? More than anything else, I would demand (in exchange for ending legal recognition of unions) that we end the legal doctrine which grants individuals (who either own corporations, or run them) legal impunity against lawsuits for illegal actions taken by the corporations – thus, any owner of a corporation can be sued for funds in excess of the value of corporate stock to compensate for corporate malfeasance or harm (just like a sole proprietorship).

    A fair trade, surely?

    3) Please stop misquoting me – if you’re going to go on a rant, at least pretend to use a bit of integrity. I have not made the primary sticky wage argument – that’s the keynesian/monetarist argument. My primary argument is about nominal debt. Feel free to dig through my comment record, since it’s all online. You can find several where I’ve argued with scott that the primary problem is nominal debt, not sticky wages.

    4) If you dig through other various comments, you’ll also note I’ve criticized the fact that public wages have risen relative to private sector wages (even controlling for shifts in industry concentration) and that pensions for boomers who failed to save and incurred debts (public and private) are being dumped onto younger generations. You’d be a lot more convincing if you stopped constantly insulting people who share 70% of your views, simply because they don’t care for the remaining 30%.

  47. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    28. September 2011 at 17:15

    Stats, if I have to dig you aren’t hanging meat in the window.

    I have the same complaint with Scott, people shouldn’t have to piece together his conservatism – altho Scott does it to try and win friends.

    1 is fine. Once you are rid of public sector unions, my opposition to them disappears.

    2 is fine. That’s what insurance is for. Insurance is private government. Just as long as we have loser pays, it all evens out.

    Remember I’m a fan of natural money, I want everyone exposed to risk as much as possible.

    3 nominal debt is never a problem once people EXPECT near zero inflation, the kind we’d get for level targeted 3% NGDP. Of course the cost of borrowing is way high, so you better be comfy with quick turn bankruptcy laws.

    4 just tell me when you’ll frog march the boomers in low consumption end of life plans – ya know as actual punishment for their sins.

  48. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    28. September 2011 at 17:19

    Regarding the post office –

    Postal workers are overpaid, although compared to UPS workers, not by as much as one would expect. There are also too many of them, and Democrats defend postal workers more heavily than Republicans.

    That’s what Democrats don’t like to hear. Now let’s talk about what Republicans don’t like to hear:

    The Republican efforts to “reform” the system are sheer idiocy, like the 75-year pension prefunding to make the post office behave “like a private business”. Show me the fortune 500 company – ANY fortune 500 company, that prefunds pensions for 75 years?

    When the postmaster general REQUESTED the opportunity to close 5000 branch offices in small towns and cut Saturday deliveries, who complained? EVERYONE.

    MAKE NO MISTAKE MORGAN – the reason the post office is unprofitable isn’t because of the big northeastern cities (with high population density), it’s because of all the small little routes and small corner offices that are subsidized by the rich coasts.

    If you had any integrity or guts, you’d admit this to yourself. You’d also admit that the reason the post office has all these tiny little offices is because of its legal mandate that it serve rural and disadvantaged areas (something no private business is required to do) and because so many congressmen (dems and reps) use post offices as pork.

    Chew on it for a while.

  49. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    28. September 2011 at 17:20

    close 3700, not 5000 branches

  50. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    28. September 2011 at 17:34

    “1. we have a huge output gap, oil prices are lower than where they will be at full employment
    2. oil price rises are not inflation.
    3. higher prices (eventually) will induce a supply response; additional supply will become economic to produce at higher prices.
    4. there is no peak oil, there is only peak oil given current forecasted prices. oil supply will only peak when people are unwilling to pay the cost of production – because substitutes are cheaper.”

    dwb,

    that sounds all god and nice, because substitutes are indeed eventually cheaper, but really what we’re talking about is:

    1. being able to maintain military hegemony while the cheap stuff continues to flow out of the middle east until they have none left.

    2. getting from here to alt.energy is technically a market based solution but so are roving hordes of starving people – nothing tells us the 9B are gong to make it. that’s REAL park oil theory.

    3. right now we don’t have an output gap, because we don’t have an unemployment problem.

    When my crowd gets done the public employees will be giving up EXACTLY the $$$ that goes to provide Guaranteed Income to all the unemployed.

    There’s nothing we can’t solve if we just treat public employees like we treated them in 1932.

    So I guess that means the same amount of oil gets consumed, right?

    Altho I STILL think pigovian taxes on transportation gas / diesel makes sense – because we need to fund those righteous tax cuts for SMB Tea Party guys.

  51. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    28. September 2011 at 17:35

    “just tell me when you’ll frog march the boomers in low consumption end of life plans – ya know as actual punishment for their sins.”

    Appropriate adjustments to CPI and an NGDP target accomplish this well enough, and I would likewise subject public health care to cost/benefit analyses (particularly end of life care).

    Show me the Republican (or Dem) candidate who publicly endorses both of these measures? The Reps may secretly agree, but they’re the same ones that slammed cost/benefit analysis as “death panels” to buy the votes of senior citizens. Think again who is pandering to the Boomers…

  52. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    28. September 2011 at 17:41

    StatsGuy,

    THERE WILL BE NO POSTAL SERVICE if it isn’t universal.

    Since it cannot afford to be universal, there will be no postal service.

    QED.

    If they want to TRULY privatize… fine. I firmly believe we should let them give it the good old Harvard try.

    But they don’t own their buildings or the land, they rent to whoever we sell the building to.

    There will be no bail outs, no savings of their pensions.

    And they can set rates wherever they want, and if their workforce decides to unionize, more power to them.

  53. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    28. September 2011 at 17:44

    Stats, we have to end public sector unions BEFORE we can take down entitlements. The right is 100% AWARE what has to happen.

    You get that right?

    If not for 9/11, we’d be farther down the field. Bush was gong to go right after EDU.

    There’s a truther argument for you…

    “The public employees did it!”

  54. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    28. September 2011 at 18:26

    Morgan, I like to speak to humans.

    dtoh. If conservatives opposed monetary policy then they’d have to favor barter, as barter is a system with no monetary policy.

    Statsguy, Thanks–excellent analysis.

    Now that I know Obama thinks the problem is too much productivity, I no longer see his delay in appointing as the big error–it’s not clear he would have even appointed all doves.

    John and Morgan, I favor a carbon tax–which would hit Texas hard.

    Rob, Maybe, but I just don’t know.

    Carl, Nuclear was many years ago, I have no idea if it affected the price back then.

  55. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    28. September 2011 at 20:06

    Scott – Nitpick. If conservatives disliked a monetary “system”, they would prefer barter. They could still dislike using the monetary “policy” tool while not having give up the “system” and revert to barter.

  56. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    29. September 2011 at 06:29

    “Morgan, I like to speak to humans.”

    And you should pay for that privilege, just like any other deviant with a fetish.

    I don’t need to pay money to be irritated.

    Scott, the other day while sitting at a red light, I was able to see a restaurant logo, find their #, ring them, ascertain that the Ohio State game was on, and that they had a seasonal beer I like on tap, before it turned green. In maybe 30 seconds, with nothing but a logo.

    That you don’t live this way, and worse pretend you don’t want to, makes it very hard to trust your prescriptions of what ails the economy.

  57. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    29. September 2011 at 17:14

    dtoh, No, all monetary regimes have a “policy.” There is no such thing as a monetary system that lacks a monetary policy. You might have a fixed price of gold, plus free banking. That’s a policy. So is a fixed money supply. Or some other policy. There is no such things as a lack of policy. I happen to favor a fixed NGDP growth rate plus free banking. I don’t favor “monetary policy” anymore than any of my critics.

    I don’t favor using monetary policy to “solve problems” like some people do.

    Morgan, I do fine using the old ways.

  58. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    29. September 2011 at 22:37

    That’s it Sumner, wrap yourself up in “bliss.”

    Maybe everyone will find it charming.

  59. Gravatar of grcridlan grcridlan
    30. September 2011 at 13:08

    Morgan, you said:

    “As a peak oiler, I’d stand 100% behind a $1-$1.50 gallon gas and diesel tax IF and ONLY IF is is pure revenue neutral and all the tax savings flow to small businessmen.”

    Crony capitalism at its finest.

    DWB, you said things with which I agree, and by which I am impressed.

  60. Gravatar of grcridlan grcridlan
    30. September 2011 at 13:10

    Also, technophilia is not an aid to effective monetary policy; seasonal beer even less so.

Leave a Reply