Noah Smith: Noahpinion: Two versions of Goodhart's Law: "If the Fed targeted the prices of inflation-linked assets, those prices would mostly contain information about expectations of Fed policy decisions (which the Fed already knows better than the asset market), rather than about non-Fed economic forces that might affect inflation or people's utility of stable prices (i.e. the things the Fed wants to use the asset prices to ascertain). So Goodhart's Law, in its obviously true form, seems very important for policymaking."
Richard Eskow: No, Obama and His Staff Don't Know How to Play This Game. Why Do You Ask?: "GOP’s Not-So-Shocking 'Shocking Attack' On Obama’s Chained-CPI Cuts: That was fast. Yesterday we suggested that the chained-CPI cut in President Obama’s budget, which was presented as a gesture to Republicans, might instead be used to rebrand Democrats as 'the anti-Social Security party'. It took them fifteen minutes. A GOP official quickly called the chained CPI a 'shocking betrayal of seniors'. That’s a replay of the Republicans’ 2010 campaign, which used a “Seniors’ Bill of Rights” to paint Democrats as the anti-Medicare party. That strategy helped them retake the House, and could be at least as effective in 2014. This not-so-shocking 'shocking' comment is further proof that it’s political suicide for Democrats to support the chained CPI, a combined tax hike and Social Security cut in Obama’s new budget."
The Roast Beef of Old England | Ann Marie Marciarille: Prime Health Care Comes to Kansas City | Devin Smith: What Does Paul Ryan NOT Understand about Reserve Banking? | Agonistic Liberal: Surviving Econ 101 | Michael Tomasky: Obama and the Nihilists | Matthew Yglesias: Is the Chained CPI more accurate: It is, but that doesn't mean we should cut Social Security benefits | Austin Frakt: Chart of the day: Subsidies change everything | Henry Blodget: Profits At High, Wages At Low | Justin Green: Why is Obama Taxing a Pre-existing Condition? | Kevin Drum: Raw Data: The Deficit is Shri-i-i-i-nking |
- Scott Lemieux: Rand Paul Never Wavered!: "Rand Paul is a totally unwavering supporter of the Civil Rights Act…. [I]n what seems like a tacit acknowledgement that his past position on a piece of historic civil rights legislation is embarrassing, Paul fibbed about what that position actually was…. Edroso, of course, hits it out of the park like he was world-historic power-hitting catcher John Buck: 'In other words: The Democrats bribed you to forget all your old friends. No mention of Republican racial politics from the Compromise of 1877 to Nixon’s Southern Strategy, nor of the traditional conservative attitude toward integration and equal rights, nor Jesse Helms, nor Strom Thurmond, et alia and ad nauseam. The Civil Rights Act Paul only mentioned defensively, as something from which he’d “never wavered” except for that part about using the power of the state to enforce it. Layer in a generous helping of self-pity (“and when I think of how political enemies often twist and distort my positions… My hope is that you will hear me out, that you will see me for who I am, not the caricature sometimes presented by political opponents… Republicans are often miscast as uncaring or condemning…”) and you’ve got a perfect speech — not for the folks at Howard University, but for the commenters at Reason who seem to understand Paul perfectly (“Maybe Paul should have offered up more free shit since that seems to work so well”).'"