So much in our hectic, 21st century lives takes place onscreen, why not literature?
Jeff Bezos and his company Amazon have treaded where all other such attempts have failed: into the land of e-book readers. Bezos’s device is called the “Kindle” and features a six-inch screen and a $400 price tag. Mediabistro’s GalleyCat blog today displays the headline, “Two Weeks In, Kindle Still ‘Fugly’ & Expensive.”
It seems the Kindle could become a kind of iPod for books, where content can be catalogued and shared. Personally, I find it difficult to read at length onscreen. But if the device were comfortable to use, I would do so. And let’s face it, books are dirty and take up space. Why not get rid of them?
According to an opinion column in last week’s Wall Street Journal, reading is on the way out. Do electronics like the Kindle have what it takes to save reading?
A head spinning flip-flop from Jennifer Rubin and Contentions. Only a few months ago, they were telling us why the fiscal conservatives were wrong and why we had to support a $700 billion bailout. Now, they’re not even arguing for tax cuts. They want to fix this with only monetary policy. What happens when interest rates get to zero, Jennifer? We’re almost there. The fact is, this is not your average recession. It already is longer than many, and we haven’t yet hit bottom. Without government intervention, this might become a depression. That’s not hyperbole.
Transparency hasn’t been a strong suit of the Obama team, so I’m skeptical when I hear him talk about transparency of the stimulus package. And no earmarks? Yea, right. Congress will call his bluff on this one. They will load it with pet projects that they will claim are “shovel ready”, and dare him to veto the entire package. Earmarks are to Congress what water is to fish.
I want Obama to succeed, not because I’m a fan, but because the failure of his administration has dire consequences for all of us. But trying to boil the ocean like this isn’t the recipe for success. And his relationship with Congress is off to a rough start, which means the legislation they produce won’t be what he wants. But I’m afraid he’ll be forced into signing it for political reasons.
In a battle between Congress and the Obama administration, I’ll bet on Congress. Which causes me great concern for any stimulus program Pelosi and Reid put forward. The GOP needs to propose a simple alternative, led and dominated by tax cuts and investment incentives, and without the New Deal type programs Obama seems determined to implement.
“Israel simply needs us not to pressure her into a premature ceasefire that will undo the good that may be achieved.”
Please describe exactly the “pressure” you are referring to. Are we going to cut back on aid,arms to Israel? Are we going to offer aid,arms to the Palestinians? What are you saying?
Some of this is arguably good (some infrastructure spending is warranted). But the idea this will happen with full transparency and without earmarks, pork or other shennanigans is beyond naive.
#3,Sorry,I put this in the wrong segment.
Jennifer, you don’t know what you’re talking about. “First, this sort of thing really hasn’t ever pulled us out of a recession.” Please name a recession that we didn’t pull out of without massive government intervention. Thanks.
You trying to tell me with government overspending tax revenues by $1.2 trillion, we are going to spend another $1 trillion? My first instinct is for government to take a haircut and restrain spending growth, like McCain’s spending freeze. But if we have to spend, we should invest money into making us energy independent. That means building the nuclear power plants that will power our future production and population growth, and our fuel efficient vehicles. And we need to concede the complexity of our economy (not meet this complexity with complex legislation) and feed the dynamic parts of our economy by changing the incentives to invest, save, and work. We need to cut all taxes on capital and we need to make permanent the tax cuts that are in place now so that the govenment’s baseline stays what it has been for that last 20 years, about 20% GDP. Otherwise, we are looking at a massive tax increase in 2010, inflation, and bigger government in excess of 30% of GDP from here on out.
Psychology plays a role in markets and economies, and there is a chance that the mere attempt by the President-elect to speak plainly and directly to the people will have a beneficial effect on consumer confidence. A poor policy presented with clarity will be an improvement over the ad hoc, never-explained Bush/Paulson response to the meltdown.
Inagua — naaaahh. No matter what Obama says, my consumer “confidence” will not come back to the extent of increasing spending — which is what the economic theory behind the “stimulus” package demands. People don’t feel free to spend because of promises from politicians. They feel free to spend because their household wealth is robust, and in THEIR eyes, their jobs/incomes look secure, and the economy looks prosperous.
All the promises in the world from Obama can’t make home equity go back up for millions of Americans, or make the value of their IRAs and 401(k)s start climbing again. Many credit card holders who make payments on time, but carry balances, have seen their interest rates adjusted upward. They aren’t in default, but they have no intention of putting more on those cards at, say, 15.99%. Their focus is on paying off the balances they accumulated at 9.99%.
Interest rates are friendly right now for car buyers, but many Americans are unwilling to take on the commitment of a new car payment when they’re not sure their jobs are secure, and the equity in their homes has fallen to a razor-thin level. Gas might skip back up to over $4 a gallon at any time, and make it cost, again, the equivalent of a car loan payment just to fill your tank each month. Other Americans who may have $30-40K on-hand aren’t going to spend it on a car in 2009. A cash security blanket seems much more important today than it did 2-3 years ago.
Obama can’t change what is obvious to people about their own finances and prospects, by making promises and pushing stimulus spending. People don’t want to lose their homes. Millions of SOLVENT Americans have no intention of spending for the foreseeable future. They are going to pay down balances, and save. At some point, when market securities and real estate look like real bargains (and some of them out there already do), they will resume investing with some level of optimism. But the spending confidence that comes from a healthy wealth portfolio, whether home equity or market investments, is gone for now.
“A cash security blanket seems much more important today than it did 2-3 years ago”. Dead on, Dyer.
We’ve always saved about 10% of annual income, but we’ve restructured our budget to save up to 20%. Cash is king! I was laid off back in the summer for 7 weeks, and while fortunate enough to find a very good job, there’s too much uncertainty right now not to be stuffing away as much savings as we can afford. I’m afraid if I were laid off again, it would be for a much more extended time. And talking to our friends, they all feel the same way. They are all saving much more and cutting back discretionary spending.
So a large tax cut has to be part of the solution. And not just for middle class. The rich should get a tax break as well. It’s simple math. A tax break for me might put several thousand a year back in my pocket. A tax break for someone making $500k will put tens of thousands in their pocket. Once there, we will invest it, either by starting a business, investing in someone else’s start up, or providing more capital for established businesses by buying stocks and bonds.
Government intervention will help end this, but not through expansive spending or wasteful programs. Building roads might get me to work faster, but I’m not in the construction business, so it has no benefit to me. I won’t spend or make a dime more from these various programs. Two years from now I’ll make less when taxes go up to pay for it all.
Amen, Richard. Everyone I know is doing exactly the same thing. The risk threshhold has plummeted for middle-income householders. It’s not just that using credit cards has become riskier, it’s that spending cash instead of saving it has become riskier.
The only thing that would change the risk calculus in the short run is a guarantee that people could keep more of their incomes. That would actually make a difference to me. If my tax rate were cut, I would spend more. (I would have more to spend after saving more.) I could also save faster to fund the “expansion” (kind of grandiose to call it that) of a home-based business — since I have no intention, in 2009, of borrowing against home equity for that purpose. That would be much too high a risk, given the $80-90K loss of market value my home has undergone in the last three years.
My generation (I call us Generation W, the one between the Boomers and the Xers) also has the concern that Social Security will not “take care of us” in our old age. It will be entirely out of money when I am 81, based on the latest projections. I don’t know anyone my age who plans to rely on SS. Investing for our own retirement years is very important to Gen W, and for obvious reasons. The current economic downturn is making that both harder, and yet even more evidently necessary. Discretionary spending has to come AFTER the mortgage payment, the savings, the retirement of any remaining consumer debt, and the investment.
And these days, discretionary spending includes things like turning the heat on when you can get by without it. Forget buying new electronic gadgets, or shoes you don’t need.
Speaking of profligacy, Commentary’s silence on the largest financial fraud in American history is deafening. What’s the matter, does Bernie Madoff’s cat have your tongue?
J.E. Dyer,
I said “benefical effect.” If consumer confidence stops eroding it will be a good sign. The only measure of this I am aware of is the Unversity of Michigan survey. Let’s see what is says in the next few months. If memory serves it is about 60, down fron the mid-90s before the meltdown.
You are obviously correct that home and stock market wealth supported spending is not coming back for a long time, but just a sense that things have bottomed out will help a lot. And remember there is a huge amount of capital on strike in T-bills that will come out as soon as the rules of the road are clear.
Here’s what I posted at the website criticizing “neocons”:
““Jennifer, please name a recession where it didn’t require massive government intervention to pull us out of it.”
Every recession prior to Herbert Hoover intervening in the government.
A better way to state your proposition above is, “Please name a massive government intervention that has prevented a recession.””
And I agree with J.E. Dyer’s analysis about the importance of saving. Many economists are stating that recovery in housing will signal an end to the recession. I may not be as smart as many of these economists, but I beg to differ: if people still can’t afford a house, or are inundated with debt, then they will not buy one. Instead I am, and always have been, of the firm belief that we needed to increase our savings rate. Only when we properly increase our savings rate, and at the same time pay down our debt, will we see a lasting recovery. It makes no sense to reload ourselves with debt if we don’t reduce existing debt levels and then have an adequate amount of savings to support us when times get tough.