He's obsessed with proving how popular he is because he's an insecure man.

Anna Kasperian at The Young Turks

I truly love Anna from afar. Her mind, her personality, her feisty spirit, her sense of justice, her empathy, her playfulness, ... she is cool. I'm probably 15 years older, but I so feel her compassion and genuine soul every time. I admit I'm attracted to her smile.

And as usual Anna is spot on. Our dear President is a seriously flawed man. You think Hilary or Obama or Bush or Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan or ... or even Richard Nixon ... was flawed. Whoa-boy you got truck load after truck load of education coming big dawg (and dawgettes ). This is where the last 40 years of bullshit corporate conservatism and their fucking lackeys crash in front of Joe and Jill Q Public showing their ass for all to see.

Case in point: you gotta be broken if you found some way to criticism the 21 January Women's marches on Saturday. But alas there are fools who need to earn a living. claiming the movement discredited itself. Because?

But these marches can never be an effective opposition to Donald Trump.

In the first place, this movement focuses on the wrong issues.

Oh fuck. The wrong issues. My fucking god y'all. Shoulda stayed home and watched Fox News so we could learn about the "right" issues. Just like our President elect himself.

Second, there was too big a gap between Saturday’s marches and the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Really? Too big a gap you say. Please. Elaborate.

Sometimes social change happens through grass-roots movements — the civil rights movement. But most of the time change happens through political parties: The New Deal, the Great Society, the Reagan Revolution. Change happens when people run for office, amass coalitions of interest groups, engage in the messy practice of politics.

Without the discipline of party politics, social movements devolve into mere feeling, especially in our age of expressive individualism. People march and feel good and think they have accomplished something. They have a social experience with a lot of people and fool themselves into thinking they are members of a coherent and demanding community. Such movements descend to the language of mass therapy.

It’s significant that as marching and movements have risen, the actual power of the parties has collapsed. Marching is a seductive substitute for action in an antipolitical era, and leaves the field open for a rogue like Trump.

Finally, identity politics is too small for this moment. On Friday, Trump offered a version of unabashed populist nationalism. On Saturday, the anti-Trump forces could have offered a red, white and blue alternative patriotism, a modern, forward-looking patriotism based on pluralism, dynamism, growth, racial and gender equality and global engagement.

Instead, the marches offered the pink hats, an anti-Trump movement built, oddly, around Planned Parenthood, and lots of signs with the word “pussy” in them. The definition of America is up for grabs. Our fundamental institutions have been exposed as shockingly hollow. But the marches couldn’t escape the language and tropes of identity politics.

The only one who is hollow, it's you David Brooks. You are the one who is hollow. You stand on the curvature of history and pretend to distill events through the lens of history that you are paid to create, spinning moralistic eulogies about how the resistance to the aristocracy is silly and illegitimate because you have access to a large massive newspaper that pays you to spew bullshit.

For instance, when you say this:

It’s significant that as marching and movements have risen, the actual power of the parties has collapsed.

But alas, very few persons are actually fooled. That's the thing these morons don't get. People know a con artist when they hear one after a few iterations. They can own the media but they can't own the common sense of the average American.

Oh and by the way, "the definition of America" is NOT "up for grabs" merely because of "lots of signs with the word 'pussy' in them" or because "the marches offered the pink hats" or because "people march and feel good and think they have accomplished something". The "definition of America" has been up for grabs for a while now, and has little to do with your gymnastic attempts to pigeon-hole this massive historical moment in the beginning of the resistance. We fight for "the definition of America" every single day that we live. Or we get paid to promote a certain "definition of America" and have a massive newspaper in the queen city of a major world nation from which to preach.

Fuck you David Brooks. When in our history has a mass protest the day after a newly elected president ever far out-numbered the inauguration? When in the history of our republic? You want to belittle this fucking history with some microscopic shallow splicing of hairs about the word "pussy". Or your absolutely pathetic opinion that "such movements descend into the language of mass therapy."

Hmmm. Funny that it is David Brooks who speaks of "the language of mass therapy".

Uhgh. I so detest this mother fucker.

[SOURCE: David Brooks | New York Times | 24 January 2017]

From Driftglass

Make a little Post-It note and put it up where you can see it every day to remind you to begin your thinking about resistance each day with two, cold facts: First, from the Bastard President all the way down to your Crazy Uncle Liberty, the Republican Party is a rabid dog, and second, the Fourth Estate sold us out and abandoned their post years ago.

Do not look for help from the media. Do not delude yourself into believing that there is any spark of humanity or sanity left inside the Party of Lincoln. Both institutions are rubble and their ruins are ruled over by swine and goblins who do not give the tiniest shit about this country or about you.

Do not waste your time trying to reason with Conservative zombies or the ghosts who haunt the boneyard of American journalism. They cannot hear you and they do not care

I have reached the point in my perspective of history and my country that I completely agree with this statement. It has come time for every single democracy-loving honest citizen to take part in their civic duties rather than sit back and watch the event unfold, hoping some hero leaders out there will do the right thing, make the right speech, and then presto magic we get our democracy back. Nope. Our politics is corrupt, bought and paid for. What the fuck is Democrat honcho Charles Schumer doing even smiling at the words of Mr. Trump and voting for his cabinet picks? Whose side are you on boy? Real patriots say "Fuck You" and vote no with a spine. Real patriots sit their stoically and do not laugh at contrived bullshit attempts at humor by the authoritarian racist in charge.

I am so over this bullshit. Every single Democrat should vote "no" on every single cabinet pick and filibuster all four years if necessary. Who cares if you lose? Consistency is what matters at this point. You are getting nothing for your vote, nothing at all, because these people just pretend to negotiate. Once you put your balls on the table, they bring out the hammer and smash you every ... single ... time. You can't compromise with authoritarians, because they are always angling in need of dominance. Just like bullies. If you don't resist and stand firm from day one they will continue their constant barrage of anti-democratic injustices as far as society will permit.

The time is now people. The only one here to save you is you.

Click here for the story on how reporters are being arrested for covering anti-Trump inauguration events, AND

at least six media workers are facing up to 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine if convicted.

News flash. The Donald is insecure and petty. This is how authoritarian's roll. This is why Trump is bringing staffers and acolytes to every single time he makes a speech or press conference. They clap and applaud and make The Donald happy.

OMFG is this really happening.

From the Bill Miller blog, an article about Modern Monetary Theory in defense of the mainstream corporate media's need to defend the status quo of Rational Economic Humans.

The mainstream promote the idea that an economic proposition that is not backed up by some mathematical expressions is clearly inferior and likely to be wrong.

Suffice to say that the great works of Marx and Keynes, among others would be disregarded if the inclusion of mathematical squiggles was the demarcation criteria between deficient and sound analysis.

But it is also not correct that MMT economists have avoided formal expressions when they consider them to be useful in advancing comprehension.

For example, in my 2008 book with Joan Muysken – Full Employment abandoned – there is a lot of mathematical exposition, where appropriate and effective.

Further, the expression Garbage-In, Garbage-Out applies in this case.

A formal mathematical model is just a logical construct following the rules of mathematics. Whether it has traction with the real world is another matter all together and that depends, in part, on the assumptions we start with to ‘set up’ the formal model.

So if we start by assume there is a ‘representative agent’ (representing us all to overcome intractable aggregation problems) that is always rational and maximising and who follows the formal dictates of rational expectations (which assume on average the guesses about the future are always correct) and can ‘solve’ complex intertemporal (across time) maximising problems that require understanding of the techniques, such as random process, measure theory, Lebesque integrals, Ito Calculus and the rest, then it is pretty certain, the output from such an exercise will be nonsense.

Hence, the failure to predict the Global Financial Crisis or even see that there was any problem at all developing.

The evidence is clearly that people within social systems do not behave remotely like the ‘single person’ (agent) in the mainstream macroeconomics models.

The introduction of rational expectations into the literature (in the late 1960s but the idea really gathered pace in the late 1970s) led to mainstream economists talking endlessly about ‘forward-looking maximising behaviour’.

John Muth (1961), who introduced the idea to economists, claimed (p.316) that:

I should like to suggest that expectations, since they are informed predictions of future events, are essentially the same as the predictions of the relevant economic theory …

[Reference: Muth, J.F. (1961) ‘Rational Expectations and the Theory of Price Movements’, Econometrica, 29(3), 315-35.]

In other words, when we make guesses about the future, we are assumed to be acting as if we know the actual data generating process that will deliver that future. We are sometimes wrong but on average our errors net to zero – which means we have more or less perfect foresight.

William Poole summarised the literature in this way (p.468):

The rational-expectations hypothesis is that the market’s psychological anticipation … [future price] … equals the true model’s expectation …

[Reference: Poole, W. (1976) ‘Rational Expectations in the Macro Model’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 463-514.]

The economic modelling task then came down to the following steps:

1. Assume – that is, assert without foundation – that all persons are rational and deploy rational expectations. They interact within efficient, competitive markets (that is, where prices shift to balance demand and supply to ensure the configuration of outcomes (resource usage) is optimal for all.

2. Write some mathematical equations reflecting this.

3. Solve the equations for the unknown outcomes.

4. Shock the ‘solution’ with some policy change and ‘prove’ it is ineffective because as a result of (1) all agents predict in advance the shock and act to negate it.

5. Write ridiculous articles that claim that fiscal policy is ineffective.

... Arthur Okun (hardly a radical economist) once mused that if the mathematical depiction of decision making represented by the rational expectations literature was correct then all the economists on payrolls around the world were redundant because even the person delivering the post ‘knew’ the underlying economic model that generated the empirical observations we call economic data.

While reflecting on the usefulness of rational expectations, James Tobin noted in 1980 that (p.796):

Herbert Simon and others have accumulated considerable evidence to support the hypothesis that decision makers, from students and consumers to executives and statesmen, use “rules of thumb” in the face of uncertainties and complexities that defy detailed anaylsis and explicit optimization. Decision making itself is costly. The rules that simplify decisions are not unalterable, of course, but they tend to persist unless the environment is perceived to have changed drastically or they yield disastrous results.

[Reference: Tobin, J. (1980) ‘Are New Classical Models Plausible Enough to Guide Policy?’, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 12(4), 788-799.]

There has been a long-standing tradition of institutional researchers who have understood that individuals do not behave in the way depicted by these streamlined mathematical frameworks deployed by economists. The more recent behavioural economics research has ratified the conclusions of those past understandings.

Tobin had earlier written (1972, p.13):

Lucas’ paper provides a rigorous defense of the natural rate hypothesis, and the study’s rigor and sophistication have the virtue of making clear exactly what the hypothesis requires. The structure of the economy, including the rules guiding fiscal and monetary policy, must be stable and must be understood by all participants. The participants not only must receive the correct information about the structure but also must use all of the data correctly in estimating prices and in making quantity decisions. These participants must be better econometricians than any of us at the Conference. If they are, they will always be – except unavoidable mistakes due to purely random elements in the time sequence of aggregate money demand – at their utility- and profit-maximizing real positions.

The was a touch of humour here but the point he was making was obvious. The sort of requirements that these mathematical models that mainstream economists deploy place such unrealistic demands on human reasoning that they are of little use in understanding what actually goes on in the real world.

[Reference: Tobin, J. (1972) ‘The Wage-Price Mechanism: Overview of the Conference’, in Eckstein, O. (ed.) The Econometrics of Price Determination, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Social Science Research Council, Washington, 5-15.]

But research communities that become crippled by the onset of Groupthink avoid these intersections with reality.

Exactly. I call it paralysis by analysis. Falling in love with data at the expense of the individuals behind the data. Numbers are only as good as their interpretation, and numbers are easily misinterpreted if you have misconceptions or biases about the underlying phenomenom because humans innately see what they want to see.

This is Sean Spicer, President Trump's press secretary. He did not take questions from the media journalists at this, the first of President Trump's press conferences. Mind you this comes off the last press conference, which was from President Trump himself, when he called CNN a fake news outlet.

At times like this it’s common to speak of shared purpose and national unity. If that’s what you’re looking for, there are plenty of other voices you can listen to.

It would be wonderful if national unity were possible, but it isn’t. Perhaps Donald Trump will surprise us all and turn out to be a temperate, careful, and wise president. If that should happen, I’ll join with conservatives to give him the praise he deserves. But he hasn’t earned it yet, not by a mile.

Please, don’t tell us liberals that when we criticize Trump we’re doing terrible damage to the convivial spirit that would otherwise prevail were we not so rude. We’ve heard that baloney before, and it’s pretty rich coming from people who spent the last eight years saying that Barack Obama was a foreign socialist tyrant carrying out a secret plan to destroy America.

So spare us your hypocritical talk of unity, because your champion sure doesn’t believe it. We’ve seen it clearly since the election: once he goes off his teleprompter, we get not even the pretense of unity from Donald Trump. Quite the contrary; he communicates again and again that he has nothing but contempt for those who don’t pay him proper tribute. After a campaign that was built on hatred and resentment from its very first moment, he couldn’t bring himself to reach out to the majority of Americans who didn’t vote for him, mounting a “thank you tour” only of states he won (think what you would have said if Hillary Clinton had been the victor and done that) and lashing out on Twitter like a cranky toddler at anyone who criticized him.

Being elected to the presidency wasn’t enough to grant him an iota of generosity or magnanimity. He may be the most powerful person on earth, but he’s still a tiny, petty, insecure, vengeful man whose only measure of any human being’s worth is whether they’ve praised him recently.

It will be a long time before the contrast in the character of these two presidents ceases to bring us pain. We won’t forget how Trump treated Barack Obama, a man who despite every rancid personal attack you threw at him conducted himself in office with an uncommon level of grace and class. And now he has handed the keys to the White House to a man who launched his political career with a despicable campaign to question to question Obama’s birthplace, and who in every way is his opposite: impulsive where Obama is thoughtful, ignorant where Obama is informed, disrespectful where Obama is polite, vindictive where Obama is generous, a walking collection of character flaws where Obama is a role model.

I created this myself by the way. No copy and paste bullshit for me. More like crop the picture, read and listen to the speech, then manifest my own gestalt (look up that awesome word) in my own words.

Thank you Jake Tapper.

Paul Krugman is awesome. Here is his brief and cogent explanation of why the insurance market for health care is problematic.

...providing health care to those previously denied it is, necessarily, a matter of redistributing from the lucky to the unlucky. And, of course, reversing a policy that expanded health care is redistribution in reverse. You can’t make this reality go away.

Left to its own devices, a market economy won’t care for the sick unless they can pay for it; insurance can help up to a point, but insurance companies have no interest in covering people they suspect will get sick. So unfettered markets mean that health care goes only to those who are wealthy and/or healthy enough that they won’t need it often, and hence can get insurance.

If that’s a state of affairs you’re comfortable with, so be it. But the public doesn’t share your sentiments. Health care is an issue on which most people are natural Rawlsians: they can easily imagine themselves in the position of those who, through no fault of their own, experience expensive medical problems, and feel that society should protect people like themselves from such straits.

The thing is, however, that guaranteeing health care comes with a cost. You can tell insurance companies that they can’t discriminate based on medical history, but that means higher premiums for the healthy — and you also create an incentive to stay uninsured until or unless you get sick, which pushes premiums even higher. So you have to regulate individuals as well as insurers, requiring that everyone sign up — the mandate, And since some people won’t be able to obey such a mandate, you need subsidies, which must be paid for out of taxes.

[SOURCE: Paul Krugman | New York Times | 18 January 2017]

So you fools who think repealing the Affordable Care Act is going to automatically launch free-market nirvana need to throw up the cool-aid immediately. When people think of free markets, they act like all interactions between professionals, citizens, customers, and people are the exact same. They treat every business and economic sector like a flea market or restaurant industry: everyone is freely interacting with the same access to customers and citizens based upon the same criteria, so those that use their resources more efficiently or perform the best services will inherently succeed. In this model, hard work will accrue profit and customers will benefit.

Which is fine, but health care is not a flea market or a restaurant. You can choose if you want to shop and dine, where you want to shop and dine, AND even whether you want to shop and dine. When you get sick or have health issues, ignoring the problem is not an option. It's also not beneficial to society at large because people with contagious diseases or chronic disorders that forego treatment affect everyone as a result and turn a bad situation worse, thereby increasing the necessary health costs. When costs increase on those who cannot afford such costs, when costs increase because of delayed or decreased treatment options, these costs spread out over those who can pay, namely those who do buy insurance. This is why health insurance costs increased every year in the decades preceding president Obama.

Costs will be increasing very shortly. Bank on it. Health care rationing will also increase, which means micro-management of individual cost decisions will affect decisions about customer health that probably will not be in the best interest of the health of that individual -- but in the best interest of the insurance company. It is precisely these perverse incentives that make health care an economic sector than CANNOT achieve efficiency if it is treated like a free market.

Repealing the ACA was stupid, but you never know, this might precipitate the ground-work for something that will be much better, because the pain of this stupid action will arrive very shortly. Middle class voters everywhere will not be happy when their precious health insurace costs increase by 20% per year or more over the next few years.