Paul Krugman Deliberately Misleads, Again and Again

I already have a blog post entitled "Paul Krugman Deliberately Misleads, Again".  So this post must be named "Again and Again"

In a recent blog, Krugman argues that there was no growth miracle under Reagan, and there was one under Clinton.  But he cherry picks the dates over which growth is measured.  It's trivial to debunk with a one minute Google search.

To see some real data, go to the excellent Trading Economics web site and look for US GDP growth.  Select 1973 in the Date Selection gizmo.  You should see this:



Judge for yourself the GDP growth during the Reagan and Clinton growth periods.  Looks pretty equal to me.  But Krugman includes the years of recession in the average.  There was a long and deep recession included in the Reagan totals, and a short and shallow recession in the Clinton total.  So of course the averaged growth rate over the entire period would be higher under Clinton.

In addition, for two of these years of the long recession, 1979 and 1980, which are included in the Reagan totals, Reagan wasn't even in office.  This is obvious BS.  (And kudos to Greg Mankiw for pointing it out)

Jon Carroll messes up

Jon Carroll, in a June 8 column, blasts Sarah Palin's comments on Paul Revere as embarrassing and garbled.  Others have been even less charitable.  When I first heard her comments, I thought the same thing.  But it turns out that she had the facts more or less correct.

BLOCK (the interviewer): So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.
Prof. ALLISON (the guest): Well, yeah, she did.

And this was a couple of days before Jon Carroll's column.  Now, maybe there is a lead time, and he wasn't aware of the NPR interview when the article was written.  However, it is now nearly a week later and he should apologize.

BTW, for an interesting take on Paul Revere as "not much of a hero", read The Fort by Bernard Cornwell.

New York Times cannot bring themselves to really criticize the Democrats

In today's editorial, "Passive in the Senate", the New York Times rightly criticizes the Democrat led US Senate for "not  producing a budget proposal in more than two years".  Last Wednesday, the Senate voted down the controversial Paul Ryan budget plan, 57 to 40.  They also voted down two other Republican plans.  For completeness, they then voted down President Obama's own budget, 97 to 0!.  A complete waste of time, staged for politics.

But, does the Times really criticize the Democrats in the Senate?  The following terms are used.

"deflect attention", "toxic plan", "outrageous", "extreme", "destructive".

However, as you probably suspect, these terms are all applied to the Republicans.

The editorial does criticize the Senate for being reactive, unoriginal, fearful, "play-it-safe", etc.  But it's quickly diluted by the Times defending the Democrat actions, as in these sections:

These political considerations should not be minimized. With only a three-vote majority, Democrats, led by Harry Reid, are understandably fearful about losing the Senate next year and have decided that treading water is better than taking a showy but risky dive.

and

It is fine — and important — to attack Mr. Ryan’s destructive Medicare plan, and such criticism seems to be remarkably effective among swing voters, as we saw in last week’s Democratic victory in a special election in western New York.

Even the criticism is based on political motivations.  The Times isn't criticizing the Senate Democrats for letting the country roll uncontrolled into a fiscal ditch, the criticism is completely political:  their passivity loses the Democratic momentum, and empowers the Republicans.

But if Democrats are ever going to regain the momentum in the national conversation, they have to stand for something. Standing pat gives Republicans huge openings to move the debate to the right. 

Democrats avoided passing appropriations bills last year for similar reasons, and that failure almost led to a government shutdown this year when Republicans exploited it. 

In other words, the Times is not particularly upset that the lack of Senate vision and leadership is hurting the country.  They are just upset that it is hurting the Democrats.

One other section of the editorial is very troubling.  It complains that the Senate is "hobbled", in part because "Its members are not elected from the carefully drawn partisan districts that in most years are a House luxury".  Sounds like the writer is in favor of Gerrymandering.  That way Democrats would have secure seats and could "get things done" without worrying about the will of the people.  Just like Tom Friedman admires China's ability to get things done.

I agree with the editorial that revenues must be increased, and that health care costs must be trimmed.  But we have a representative government that is supposed to handle that, not some all-powerful entrenched oligarchy and political class.  :-)  Irony intended, we do have a powerful entrenched political class, but Gerrymandering makes it even more entrenched.

Fantasy Baseball 2011 April Review

My team, "Boomer's Wallbangers", is off to a decent 2-1 start.  I thought I'd look at which players have been "surprises".  I'll define "steals" as players who are significantly over-performing their Average Draft Position (ADP), and 'disappointments" as those who have been under-performing.  Based on our H2H league's point system, the "steals" are listed below.  High numbers are good, meaning either lots of points, or they were drafted late.  A "-" for ADP means that, in the average ESPN league, these players were not drafted.


Catchers        Pts    ADP
Russel Martin    81     -   ("-" means undrafted)
Nick Hundley     69     -
Alex Avila       67     -


1B
Ike Davis        89    210


2B
Howie Kendrick   91    146
Neil Walker      80    166
Brian Roberts    70    150
D Espinosa       68    -
F Sanchez        67    -


3B
P. Polanco       84    203
Chipper Jones    73    202
Ryan Roberts     72     -
A Callapso       64     -


SS
Starlin Castro   82    151
A Cabrera        76    218
M Izturis        68     -
Angel Sanchez    68     -
Jed Lowrie       66     -


OF
Lance Berkman    99    204
Jonny Gomes      94     -
Jeff Francoeur   93     -
Alex Gordon      87     -
Sam Fuld         78     -
C. Maybin        73     -
B Boesch         73     -


SP
James Shields   100    204
K Lohse          96     -
A. Harang        82     -
M Harrison       82     -
I Kennedy        82    210
Randy Wolf       81    228
Josh Tomlin      80     -
J Masterson      79     -
A Ogando         79     -
AJ Burnett       76    211
J DeLaRosa       75    224
M Pineda         75    225
B Beachy         75     -
B McCarthy       73     -

Now, for the disappointments.  In many cases, these players are currently on the DL (marked with a *) or have spent much time on the DL.  Low numbers are bad - not many points or drafted early.


Catchers        Pts    ADP
Joe Mauer*      18     25
V Martinez*     46     43


1B
Adrian Gonzales 68     11
Adam Dunn       44     38


2B
Dustin Pedroia  69     28
Dan Uggla       65     34


3B
Evan Longoria*   1     5
R Zimmerman*    32    22


SS
Hanley Ramirez  43    2.5
Derek Jeter     45    56
Jimmy Rollins   56    64




OF
Carl Crawford   40     4
Josh Hamilton*  36    18
CarGo           61    11
Nelson Cruz     80    27
Matt Holliday   72    17
Jayson Werth    64    47




SP
Chris Carpenter 60    47
Tommy Hanson    61    49
Ubaldo Jimenez  24    47
F Liriano       14    86



Some thoughts.  Remember that these numbers are for less than one month of play, so this is still a small sample size.  That said...

First base has by far the fewest surprises.  Good place to spend an early draft pick if you want a solid pick, neither good nor bad.  In effect, at 1B, it's "reliable", you get what you pay for.  By contrast, catchers have the most surprises, both steals and disappointments.  IMO, catcher is not worth spending a high round draft pick, as you might be disappointed by an injury, and there seem to always be good steal catchers available for cheap.  Shortstop is also a spot where there seem to be many surprises.  Second base is kind of "medium".  Less surprises than at SS, but still some.  For catcher and middle infield, draft as best you can, but it is important to remain active with trades or on the waiver wire.

Third base and outfield have reasonably few surprises.  Remember that outfield has three times as many total players, so 6 "steals" is more like 2 steals at another position.   Most of the disappointments are due to injuries.  So, in general, you seem to get what you pay for here.

Starting pitcher is interesting.  There are a lot of positive "steals", pitchers who are doing far better than their ADP.  But relatively few "disappointments".  So, if you spend on a top-flite pitcher, you generally get what you pay for.  But plenty of bargains are there to be had.  Again, this is a key area to remain active with trade and on the waiver wire.

Will the New York Times make up their mind?

In late March, the New York Times ran an article saying that GE was using "aggressive...lobbying" and "innovative accounting" to avoid paying US taxes, and even claim a tax refund of billions.  There is some dispute as to the accuracy of the claims, but it's true that GE is taking advantage of tax laws to lower their tax burden.  Whether this is "fiduciary responsibility" or "exploiting loopholes" is debatable.

In today's editorials, the Times, as one would expect, blast Paul Ryan's budget proposal.  They blast it several times, including implicating it in any impending government shutdown, but I'm focusing on that one editorial.  I agree with the editorial that "serious deficit reduction requires everything to be on the table, including tax increases", something Ryan does not envision.  And Ryan dodges the whole third rail of Social Security.  However, the Times goes on to say (italics mine)

The Republican plan calls only for tax simplification. It would get rid of loopholes and reduce rates in a way that would not raise overall revenues but would invariably cut the tax bill of wealthy taxpayers for whom lower rates are more valuable than assorted loopholes.

The Times cannot run an article complaining that tax loopholes let GE get away with paying no taxes, then, just a couple of weeks later, run an editorial that belittles the value of loopholes.  This is intellectual dishonesty.

Instead of blanket condemnation of Ryan's proposals, how about "we like getting rid of the loopholes. but lets increase his top rate from 25% to X%", and actually propose something concrete and constructive.

A couple of the more conservative Times columnists offer a more balanced evaluation of the Ryan proposal, Ross Douhat and David Brooks.

The Sad Truth about TARP

Today's New York Times has a damning opinion piece about the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Where the Bank Bailout Went Wrong.  (see, I don't always disagree with NYT editorials!).  Though the government declares that TARP has been "remarkably effective", the author, Neil M. Barofsky, who was the Special Inspector General of the program, strongly disagrees.  Yes, the program "saved" our big banks.

From the perspective of the largest financial institutions, the glowing assessment is warranted: billions of dollars in taxpayer money allowed institutions that were on the brink of collapse not only to survive but even to flourish. These banks now enjoy record profits and the seemingly permanent competitive advantage that accompanies being deemed “too big to fail.”

But, as is painfully apparent to anyone, TARP failed in another goal, to protect home values.  

Treasury, however, provided the money to banks with no effective policy or effort to compel the extension of credit... not even a request that banks report how they used TARP funds.  ... It was therefore no surprise that lending did not increase but rather continued to decline well into the recovery.

Later, the Home Affordable Modification Program was announced, and has been a "colossal failure."  The housing bust means that (very roughly) 10 million homes could face foreclosure, and this program has modified only 540,000, about 5%.  Mortgage writedowns, where banks lower the principal on a mortgage (and take a big loss) were seen an "inevitable" in 2009.  But as of 2011 there haven't been many, as banks refuse to take the losses, and the government is still crafting proposals.


Even Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admits that the mortgage servicers are “still doing a terribly inadequate job.”  But Treasury Officials aren't fixing this.  Instead, Americans know that they were taken for a ride by "fat cat" bankers who exploited the crisis to save and enrich themselves, while many homeowners take a financial licking.  The last paragraph is chilling:

Indeed, Treasury’s mismanagement of TARP and its disregard for TARP’s Main Street goals — whether born of incompetence, timidity in the face of a crisis or a mindset too closely aligned with the banks it was supposed to rein in — may have so damaged the credibility of the government as a whole that future policy makers may be politically unable to take the necessary steps to save the system the next time a crisis arises. This avoidable political reality might just be TARP’s most lasting, and unfortunate, legacy.

Fantasy Baseball 2011 Starts

Our fantasy baseball league started again - in the wee hours of the morning the computer did an automated draft, and I woke up with much anticipation - what did Santa Claus being me this year?  Before the draft, you can adjust the ranking of players.  I targeted SS and 3B due to positional scarcity.  For example, I had moved Troy Tulowitski up the ranks.  Other teams seem to have targeted catchers, starting pitching, or relievers.  Here are "my" picks, round by round.  (I'm "Boomer's Wallbangers", picking sixth)  Note that we are a head-to-head league with fairly "sabremetric" scoring, so some of the player's values vary from the more common 5x5 format.  For example, steals aren't nearly as valuable in our league as in many, and walks are valuable.  Though most of the GMs are very baseball knowledgeable, it's a "fun" league, not too serious. And, the computer sometimes does strange things...

1.  Evan Longoria   I love it!  Had him last year, he's great and fills a relatively shallow position.
Many of the league members are Boston fans, so that somewhat explains the Pedroia and Lester picks.

2. Troy Tulowitzski  again, I'm very happy.  There aren't many good SSs.  I've now have elite players at two hard-to-fill positions.  The Daisuke pick is strange.  I'm surprised that Matt Cain went so high but he's done great in this league for two years.   Joey Votto at #19 looks like a steal for the Nerds.

3. Josh Hamilton.  In a "live" draft, I may have picked Mauer instead, but this seems a good pick.  Zimmerman is a good pick by the Marauders.

4. Nelson Cruz.  I'm disappointed that Tex went just one pick before.  (especially since I end up with no solid 1B at all!)  Then, though I'm not a big Kershaw fan, McCann, Carpenter, Fielder and Posey might be better picks.   But Cruz should put up huge numbers in Texas.  Some of our league members value relievers highly, which explains why they are starting to fall earlier than would be usual.  (I don't value them as much, but you do need a couple of good closers on your team)

5.  Jose Reyes.  I really don't need a second elite SS.  But, the players picked shortly after don't excite me.  So I can't blame the computer too much.  I'm a bit disappointed that I barely missed out on Jered Weaver and Tommy Hanson.  I've had Hanson on my team the past two years, and watching him grow and improve has been fun.  Good picks by the Pirates and Penguins.

6. Jayson Werth.  O.K.  But computer is picking too many outfielders.  I might have picked Kinsler or reached for Carlos Santana.  But a solid pick.  I had Jason Heyward last year, fun to watch him too, but I'm glad my friend Steven, who live and breathes Georgia sports, got him.

7. Michael Young.  Darned, missed on Carlos Santana by one!  Young is an interesting pick, especially if he stays in Texas and becomes eligible at multiple positions.   None of the next 10 picks excite me too much, so, o.k.  My team is getting a little "Texas heavy".

8. Zack Greinke.  About time to get a pitcher.  Two of the other teams (Comets and Pirates) obviously targeted top line pitching.  I targeted "undervalued good pitching".  At the end of the year we will see how well I rated them.  Also, have to admit (as you'll see soon) I wanted to get a bunch of As and Giants to root for.  :-)  Assuming Greinke's health is not an issue, he should be a solid pick.  I like the Prado and Stanton picks by the Penguins and Nerds.

9.  Chris Young (OF).  Picked him up last year and he was a pleasant surprise.  Another outfielder, but the next 10 picks aren't all that exciting - maybe Konerko or Billy Butler to get a 1B?.  Too bad I missed on Josh Johnson by 2 picks - a good pick by Displaced Braves Fan.  Victorino to the Nerds scotches my plan to lock up all the Hawaiian born players.  :-)

10.  Max Scherzer.  Love this pick, he was great for me the 2nd half of last year.  Even though I'll desperately need a 1B, I prefer him to Billy Butler.

11. Kelly Johnson.  O.K., gives me a good 2B.  Sorry I missed out on Zobrist, Drew Stubbs and Panda - good picks by my opponents.  If I didn't hate the Dodgers I might prefer Billingsly or Lilly.  Actually, live, I might have picked Shaun Marcum or my next round pick...

12. Joe Nathan.  If he's healthy, this is an awesome pick.  But Shaun Marcum (who goes next) is a safer, good pick.  Hard to say.  I'm a bit surprised that Papelbon and Bucholz go so late.

13. Tim Hudson.  Like him.  And I need some quality pitchers.  I'm a bit disappointed that Chris Perez, who did a good job for me last year, is off the board.  But I wouldn't pick him till later anyway.  Garza and Anderson are good picks by Monsters and Ewoks.

14. Jonathan Sanchez.  You need some patience with him, but we'll see.  I would have preferred Brett Anderson, but you can't have it all.  Angel Pagan is a good pick by Monsters.

15. Brian Roberts.  Another 2B?  And injury prone.  I don't like this pick.  But the other picks later in the round aren't exciting either - that's what you start to get around pick 150...  So, o.k., and some depth is good.  I think Hudson and Putz are good picks by Nerds and Braves Fan.

16. Andrew Bailey.  I like it - a good local reliever.  Hope his arm works.  Between Nathan and Bailey I may have to check the waiver wire for relievers the first couple of weeks.  Myers and Hellickson look like good value picks for Falcons and Nerds.

17.  Trevor Cahill.  Like it.  As you see, I bunched up many of the promising Bay Area pitchers in this area, and many have been drafted or will arrive soon...   Brandon Morrow is a good pick by Monsters, and Neil Walker might be a great pickup for the Comets.

18.  Madison Bumgartner.  Like it - another promising local pitcher.  Too bad Gaby Sanchez went two picks before, as I still don't have anybody for 1B!

19. Tsuyoshi Nishioka   Like it - I had bumped him "up" on the draft list.  But not sure why I need three second basemen!  More depth.  Live I may have picked Romero or Matusz, good value picks by the Falcons.

20. Denard Span.  O.K.  Solid outfielder who will probably improve over last year.  Beckett and Wieters look like good alternative picks by Penguins and Monsters.

21. Gio Gonzales.  I think this is an awesome pick.  Also like Asdrubal Cabrera and Ike Davis picks by Pirates and Comets.

22. Kurt Suzuki.  He was my catcher last year, and does a solid job.  If you don't get an elite catcher, he is a solid pick.  Escobar and Shields are good picks by Penguins and Monsters.

23. Austin Jackson.  Not sure why he fell so low, but he's pretty good for round 23, right?  I'm a bit disappointed that Freddie Freeman and Ryan Rayburn went just before.  Other than Dexter Fowler, not sure who I would have picked instead, so lets hope Austin learns to make better contact.

24.  Wade Davis.  I like this pick too.  A reasonable pitcher with upside.  Jair Jurgens might be a good value pick by Pirates.

25. Logan Morrison.  He's a good player, especially under our league rules where walks count.  I like the pick, though I'm getting too many OF.  Jake Peavy is the other interesting pick this round, by the Comets.

26. Michael Pineda - glad I got him.  He was one of my "sleeper" picks.  I'm really surprised that Posada, McLouth, Garland and Lackey fell so low.  They could be great value picks.

27.  Kila Ka'aihue.  Another one of my "sleeper picks".  And, a real 1B, finally, in round 27!  Not sure what the computer was thinking.  De La Rosa is a great value pick by Monsters.


Other than 1B, I'm happy with my team.  So far...