Political Matrix

[oabmarcus]

Porn diverts sexual energy away from legitimate sexual gratification, which involves personal interaction and risk, further increasing the perceived need for porn.  A vicious cycle.   Similar to junk foods, which give you a sugar hit with no nutrients.

and you have some empirical scientific research to back this up?

[Scarpia]

and you have some empirical scientific research to back this up?

You'll have to perform your own experiments. 

[oabmarcus]

You'll have to perform your own experiments. 

it's actually not a bad hypothesis. One of my friend is a psych major, I might pitch the idea to him.
But, you have to remember. In a real relationship, you get companionship. That's something porn can never replace. Nor decrease your appetite for. 

[oabmarcus]

If you go to a mall, you'll see that most products on sale are food, beverages, clothing, shoes, and home appliances --- which cover not luxury or superfluous needs but the basic necessities of modern life. So yes, I'm sure that most products on the market meet the demand instead of creating it.

okay, this is getting under my skin a little bit. Supply doesn't create demand, period. It just doesn't happen. What you are observing is merely what has been there the whole time. People wanted porn. And they got it. Why isn't our internet full of websites about Beethoven and Bach? Is it because we aren't "supply" enough forums/website? no, the demand for it is small. So people don't even bother making them.

If I throw a mountain load of porn at you. Will you start watching it? (the response is probably yes) but that's not because "supply creates demand". That's because you wanted it, all along, and you just are too prude or chicken to admit it.

[Todd]

Not being an economist, I don't keep that sort of information on file.  But all that money the government put into TARP and the stimulus package--wasn't that a substantial addition to the money supply? Approximately equal to the amount of money already in circulation.

So in other words you cannot answer the question.  The increase of assets of the Fed is not strictly the same as an increase of the money supply.  (Incidentally, assets more than doubled.)  No money supply measure has doubled or more than doubled.  Even if it did, that may not be enough if deflation occurs.

Also, since you fancy yourself a libertarian, and you obviously have a problem with the Fed flooding the system with cash, something that was advocated by even Milton Friedman for a dire enough situation, how would you address the liquidity trap we were facing in 2008 and would face if the Fed started withdrawing the funds now?  I know that you have said that the market would clear "all at once," though you have steadfastly refused to say how long that would take.  Would you literally prefer that nothing were done, even though even some (indeed, many) staunchly conservative and/or libertarian economists and financiers have advocated both fiscal and monetary action?  Please, what is your preferred policy response?  And how long would it take?

Prices increased sharply roughly two and a half years-three and a half years ago, then remained stable until about a year ago, when they began to rise, and still are rising. The rate of increase is not as sharp as it was during the prior increase, but is steadier and seems to be lasting longer.

Do you know the definition of inflation?  It is not an increase in prices for specific products or classes of products over a short period of time.  The price increases for food of several years ago were attributable to increases in commodity prices, which is not the same as inflation.  (There were deadly food riots in some poor countries, and the foolish idea of corn based biofuel has hopefully met its death, so I hope people can remember what happened.)  Where I live, food prices went up, and then they went down a bit, and now they are going up again.  That is not inflation either.  You see, inflation is the increase in the general price level over time.  (It's interesting that you at least implicitly accept the monetarist position on inflation – ie, that inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon – yet you also apparently dismiss policy suggestions of Monetarism's highest priest.)  Perhaps a new definition of inflation is needed.  What should that be?

I don't see the specter of inflation out there.  For instance, two years ago I bought a variety of new bigger ticket items.  The television I bought had decreased in price by over a third before it was taken off the market, and the model that replaced it is now cheaper yet.  I also bought a new range.  The same model is about $100 less than I paid, and it was on sale when I bought it.  That's not inflation.  Or is it?  You are very clearly concerned about inflation, but in some classes of consumer goods, exactly the opposite is happening. 

Now, when economic expansion begins in earnest, the vast increase in liquidity could and probably will lead to inflation.  That is why the Fed already has plans to absorb the excess liquidity.  They will not be able to eliminate every bit of excess inflation – ie, inflation above 2% per year – but it will most likely not be what we experienced in the 70s, and it certainly will not be the rapid or semi-rapid doubling of prices you alluded to earlier.  The Fed will have a variety of tools at its disposal to tame inflation, including a repeat of Paul Volcker's approach if need be.  That is a much better and easier scenario to deal with than a prolonged slump, or even deflation.  Making policy involves selecting from imperfect options, and in my view, as unambiguously imperfect as the policy decisions of the past few years have been, a good mix of policy options has been selected.

I'm giving details of something that occurred directly in my purview during the Clinton Administration, as evidence that manipulation was done in the past.

But what you described doesn't strike me as some type of (insidious) manipulation.  The BLS generally does a very good job at calculating CPI, and follows established guidelines in selecting substitutes.  Your example/implication simply doesn't carry much weight. 

But let's consider measuring the CPI a bit more.  How would you do things differently from the thousands of trained economists who have built statistical models and sampling techniques to calculate the CPI?  I've read and heard complaints similar to yours for a couple decades, but I have yet to see or hear anyone come up with a viable alternative.  Your fictitious bread example is but one case, but how would you extend this to the literally millions of products that Americans can buy?  How and when would you substitute goods?  How many consumer regions would you construct for your models?  How would you weight various items?  Etc.

I would never recommend to anyone that they take CPI or any government figures as gospel, but they are generally reliable indicators and are established and managed professionally.  You are merely griping.

As to your hypothetical about the computer--I would say that for purposes of determinging the CPI, a baseline, lower end computer shoudl be used.  For instance,  a computer that could allow for average gaming, internet, and home business use.

You missed the point, then.  Let's change things a bit.  I'll use my own computer purchases as an example, if you don't mind.  In 2003 I bought a moderately priced computer package – computer, monitor, printer – for around $550-$600 (I can't remember the exact price – I hope that's okay).  I'm not a heavy user at home, so that was sufficient.  To get an appreciable improvement in performance cost several hundred more, and I had no desire to spend that.  What I bought was still a pretty good machine and met my needs until a hardware failure occurred.  Then in 2007 I bought a new computer package.  It cost about $700.  There was no option in the same price range I had paid in 2003 at the store I bought from.  (It was Best Buy in both cases.)  For the $150 or so premium I got over ten times as much storage, a dual core processor that measured at least ten times as fast, a larger, flat screen monitor, and a better color printer with a pretty nifty scanner.  So I spent roughly 27% more, but by every objective measure I got substantially more than that.  That's not inflation, not by any measure.  My computer example holds across all price levels, and if anything is more pronounced at the lower end of the spectrum.  I could have also used cell phones, which have become more and more common, and have advanced, if anything, even more.  I guess you could say that cell phones and cell phone plans are more expensive than the landlines they replaced, but then could you ever text or take pictures or surf the net with a landline?  Would the transition from landlines to cell phones, if people choose to make it, also represent inflation?

[DavidRoss]

But, you have to remember. In a real relationship, you get companionship. That's something porn can never replace.

You're either very slow or even more cleverly whimsically ironic than I...maybe even than Nigel! 


Oh, thanks, your next post cleared that up.  Nigel keeps the belt.

[Scarpia]

okay, this is getting under my skin a little bit. Supply doesn't create demand, period. It just doesn't happen. What you are observing is merely what has been there the whole time. People wanted porn. And they got it. Why isn't our internet full of websites about Beethoven and Bach? Is it because we aren't "supply" enough forums/website? no, the demand for it is small. So people don't even bother making them.

If I throw a mountain load of porn at you. Will you start watching it? (the response is probably yes) but that's not because "supply creates demand". That's because you wanted it, all along, and you just are too prude or chicken to admit it.

The human organism was given a strong sex drive because in pre-history sex was hard to obtain and necessary for the species to survive.   It is also a facilitator of social interactions between humans.   I wouldn't claim that porn created this "demand," but it seems to me that it diverts it from its proper subject to another, degrading one.  Creating an easy outlet for sex that is isolating amd degrading  rather than social and empowering seems like a perversion to me.  In a similar sense "Coco-Puffs" or "Captain Crunch" divert a child's natural craving for carbohydrates, leading to malnutrition and obesity.

[Florestan]

I haven't got a wife.

No surprise. What sane woman would want to marry a porn addict?

[Bulldog]

I am against gay marriage for the same reasons JdP stated. I think abortion should be legal only in a few cases (i.e. rape or when the mother's life is threatened) and it should be paid by the person who wants it (or her relatives, or private charities) not by the taxpayers at large. In sexual matters I believe that what two or more people do in their private home is no business for the government but I also believe government has a duty to promote and encourage public decency and prevent and discourage public immorality. In short, I am for personal responsibility and restraint and freedom under law. How authoritarian is that?

It sounds highly authoritarian to me.

[Florestan]

It sounds highly authoritarian to me.

Breaks my heart. 

[DavidRoss]

I haven't got a wife.

No surprise. What sane woman would want to marry a porn addict?

Bear in mind also that the nature of many of Mr. oabmarcus's opinions--as well as the vehemence and language of their expression--suggest that he's scarcely beyond the age of consent, so he's probably not even in the market for marriage, yet.

[DavidRoss]

I don't see the specter of inflation out there.

Now, when economic expansion begins in earnest, the vast increase in liquidity could and probably will lead to inflation.  That is why the Fed already has plans to absorb the excess liquidity.  They will not be able to eliminate every bit of excess inflation – ie, inflation above 2% per year – but it will most likely not be what we experienced in the 70s, and it certainly will not be the rapid or semi-rapid doubling of prices you alluded to earlier.  The Fed will have a variety of tools at its disposal to tame inflation, including a repeat of Paul Volcker's approach if need be.  That is a much better and easier scenario to deal with than a prolonged slump, or even deflation.  Making policy involves selecting from imperfect options, and in my view, as unambiguously imperfect as the policy decisions of the past few years have been, a good mix of policy options has been selected.

So you don't foresee prolonged money supply increases in an effort to jump-start the stalled economy and (not entirely incidentally) to decrease the debt burden in real terms through inflation and bracket-creep?  You think Bernanke able to resist political pressure in the runup to Nov 2012?

Thanks, by the way, for sharing something of your professional perspective on such matters.  And I doubt I'm the only one who comes here hoping to learn something that might broaden my own understanding (though it's somewhat unexpected on this thread!). 

[Bulldog]

Supply and demand respond to one another.  It's common knowledge that an increase in the demand for a product will likely result in an increase in supply to meet the increased demand.  Further, an increase in supply accompanied by "advertising" can certainly increase the demand for a product; this applies to a host of products including pornography.

[Philoctetes]

Supply and demand respond to one another.  It's common knowledge that an increase in the demand for a product will likely result in an increase in supply to meet the increased demand.  Further, an increase in supply accompanied by "advertising" can certainly increase the demand for a product; this applies to a host of products including pornography.

I think what oab was trying to indicate, is that while it can be the case that demand can be 'created', it is generally not the case, as it is generally not prudent to create a product without there being an audience ready to absorb the product.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Its pointless to discuss these things with her, she is not willing to change a single millimeter . . .

In other words, she's just like you when anyone attempts to give you advice about your music.

[oabmarcus]

You're either very slow or even more cleverly whimsically ironic than I...maybe even than Nigel! 


Oh, thanks, your next post cleared that up.  Nigel keeps the belt.

personal attacks time, classy move.  Personal attack #1, instead of responding to my last response, brings up some pure nonsense to distract everyone from the fact that he hadn't anything useful to say.

[oabmarcus]

No surprise. What sane woman would want to marry a porn addict?

personal attack #2, keep em coming. Since you are better at that rather than actually saying anything of actual substance.

[oabmarcus]

Supply and demand respond to one another.  It's common knowledge that an increase in the demand for a product will likely result in an increase in supply to meet the increased demand.  Further, an increase in supply accompanied by "advertising" can certainly increase the demand for a product; this applies to a host of products including pornography.

it doesn't. Demand induce supply, but supply doesn't do shit to demand. Again, a clown who doesn't know what his talking about pretending to be an expert. Only to mislead people.

[Bulldog]

it doesn't. Demand induce supply, but supply doesn't do shit to demand.

That's an entirely inaccurate statement.  One doesn't need to be an expert to know that supply/advertising affects demand; all you have to do is look around and see what's going on OR take a couple of courses in basic macro and micro economics.

[oabmarcus]

That's an entirely inaccurate statement.  One doesn't need to be an expert to know that supply/advertising affects demand; all you have to do is look around and see what's going on OR take a couple of courses in basic macro and micro economics.

I have, i majored in Economics/Mathematics