Irresponsibility

BLOGOPHILE
My blog is now approaching working order again. I haven't had much time to work on it at all, so things have been somewhat inactive, but I'm working on fixing the cosmetic problems, the archives, and other remaining problems. Some people have complained that the commenting system no longer works, but I currently have it set such that no comments actually get posted officially until I have approved them. This serves to cut down on the flow of penis-enlargement comment-spam, of which I receive abhorrent quantities.

THE STRAIGHT JEWISH TICKET
The class elections were this Tuesday and Wednesday, and this year's ballot was particularly interesting. Myself and three of my very good friends each ended up running for one of the four available senior class positions. This happened slightly by fortuitous chance. However, each of us was opposed by one other person who, in all cases, was remarkably incompetant. These other people were so incompetant, in fact, that we were all quite scared of losing. Yet the possibility of failure loomed great in our minds because of the "vote-getting" power of our opponents, however unfit they were, was still significant due to their social posture. Nevertheless, as the ballots poured in and the victors were declared, we expelled a sigh of excited relief. Interestingly, everyone on the cabinet other than me is Jewish, and if Hannah gets the humans relations spot (as she undoubtedly will) there will be even more Jews. Thank god Nazism failed, because otherwise I would be having a very miserable time next year. And so here is what Sra. Flores termed, "un grupo muy fuerte":

Senior Class:
President: Adam Anderson
Vice-President: Leeor Schweitzer
Treasurer: Jonathan Kadish
Secretary: Jodi Meyerowitz

CEREBRAL MASOCHISM
So, it occurred to me the other day that I have seven AP tests to take. Two (BC Calc and Physics C) are easy 5s in the bag. Three more shouldn't be bad if I continue to ramp up my studying. And then there are yet two more for which I haven't studied at all. This is all very interesting because the tests are in less than two weeks. As Mr. Zaraza would say, this is when "the feces hit the vertically oscillating blade." I've never been able to figure out what he means by that, but it seems oddly appropriate.

ECONOM--POLITICS!!!
A few days ago, Dr. Marchese taught stabilization policies for fiscal and monetary policy. Textbooks tend to emphasize the use of the demand-side Keynesian approach as being the standard fiscal policy used to deal with recessions. So, after we covered all of that nonsense, he spent a day talking about supply-side economics. Being a Republican, he of course favors supply-side economics, and that can be apparent when he starts screaming the phrase, "eight trillion dollars!!" while pointing at the side of the board with "demand-side" scrawled on it. Now, it just so happens that the majority of the class (including every single person who is vocal) is of a more liberal political persuasion, which automatically leads them to favor a demand-side approach--myself, included. But this is where the problem starts. People are utterly incapable of separating their economic judgement from their political belief, leading to an extraordinary amount of incredibly wasteful argumentation. Even Marchese himself is a victim of this plague, claiming that supply-side economics does not lead to deficit spending, even though it generally makes no stipulation about expenditure levels, merely taxation patterns. So, his sensational accusation that the nearly $8 trillion of US debt is a sole consequence of demand-side economics, is truly a gross overexaggeration. It is mainly a consequence of massive military expenditures in the Reagan and Bush I and II eras, which is not associated with economic policy. True, depending on how you want to distribute the blame, you could argue that it is the result of demand-side economics, because without social programs we wouldn't have the debt, but the line between causation and correlation is really quite nonexistant in this case--it's hardly even a blur. But this is all very frustrating for people that can see through the fog of emotion. The fact is that supply- and demand-side approaches both have the same effect and have different consequences. Of course none of this actually matters in the real world since politicians merely lower taxes and increase spending all of the time anyway: the Republicans cut more taxes and spend, the Democrats cut taxes less and spend a little more--the net result is the same.

And so I would like to postulate that there are very different circumstances under which each policy is useful--in fact, there ideally should be little question about when it is best to use a particular policy. I propose that demand-side fiscal policy is useful when aggregate demand is intersecting the short-run aggregate supply curve in the Keynesian range or lower intermediate range. If the premise of demand-side theory is "to first raise demand and supply will follow," then raising demand in this range will lead to negligible increases in inflation, while increasing GDP immediately. In these more severe recessions, demand-side approaches are appropriate because they act quickly, since the economy does not have to wait for capital stocks to accumulate in order for consumption to be resuscitated. Supply-side theory is therefore useful when the economy is operating in the upper end of the intermediate range of short-run aggregate supply. Demand-side policies may work, but they would cause higher levels of inflation, which could negate increases in GDP. Although supply-side theory is slower acting, it automatically lowers the price level and pushes out an economy's long-run aggregate supply first, while incurring fewer deficits. Finally, when the economy is operating in the classical sector on long-run aggregate supply, it of course makes sense to tax the crap out of everyone and give them nothing back. The government should hoard the money and possibly consider buying me a small island in the South Pacific or an education.

DOMINATION
And there is one more matter to consider: the state speech and debate tournament. We had 15 entries, three state champions (including Jonathan Kadish and Ian Rocker in public debate), and took 2nd place overall, out of 57 teams. Ashland, the team that beat us, had 25 entries, earning a total of 75 points to our 65. 10 more points with 10 more entries. We're losing two seniors that actually produced points at this tournament. I'll leave it at that. You connect next year's dots.