Over the weekend, Dean Baker wrote, Fed Fails to Raise Rates in Timely Manner, End of the World Is Imminent. For normal people, hearing that the Federal Reserve didn’t raise interest rates last week would be like being told we weren’t invaded by space aliens: it hadn’t occurred to them that such a thing might have happened. But for economists and financial types, the last month was spent speculating whether the Fed would raise interest rates to head off inflation.

The weird thing about it is that it would have made no sense. Analysts have to turn themselves into intellectual contortionists in order to justify raising rates. But that didn’t mean that the Fed was not going to raise rates. There are always those who want the Fed to raise rates because they can make (even more) money from the move. But mostly, the argument is incredibly selfish for a certain class a people. Inflation is way below where even the Fed wants it — much less where I think it should be. But these people argue that we must raise rates because even the prospect of a little inflation is far worse than putting real people out of work.

Also this weekend, Paul Krugman wrote, The Creativity of the Permahawks. In this context, a “hawk” is someone who wants to raise interest rates — thus slowing the economy — because she is afraid of inflation or something. But a “permahawk” is someone who always wants to raise interest rates. And the point that he was making in the article is that the permahawks are very creative: they can always find a justification for why we absolutely have to raise interest rates now now now!

The thing is that all of these people were screaming about inflation back in 2010. And they kept saying it year after year. Well, now they just sound silly. So they can’t reasonably claim that unless the Fed raises interest rates, we are going to turn into Zimbabwe. But they always find some excuse to push for higher interest rates from the Fed. And this is so because they want higher interest rates because it benefits them — not because they are worried about inflation or financial vulnerabilities or anything else that they claim. It’s like Republicans running around claiming we must cut Social Security benefits because they are worried about its long-term finances, when they really just want to cut Social Security benefits because they want to destroy all of the New Deal and Great Society programs.

But Krugman brought up a great comparison. The truth is that the people who always and forever want to raise interest rates are treated seriously by economists and the media. This is the way, is it not? When people are spouting nonsense that will hurt workers, then it is Very Serious. But the same thing coming in support of workers is a very different matter:

In another article, Krugman provided an analytical reason why it is that the finance types are always screaming for interest rate increases. It’s a bit technical, but it turns out that the lower the interest rate the the Fed sets, the smaller the difference between the the amount of money that banks borrow and lend at. Thus: low Fed rate means lower profits for banks.

None of this would probably matter if we lived in a democracy. But we don’t. Those of us who risk losing our jobs aren’t listened to at all. Those who own banks are listened to a great deal.

According to The New York Times, “Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin has concluded he no longer has a path to the Republican presidential nomination and plans to drop out of the 2016 campaign.” By the time you read this, he will have held his press conference and explained to the world that sadly, it is true: the Republican presidential contest will have to live without the bright light of his charisma. Oh, what will it do!

But who are we kidding here? This is a clear sign of the Republican Party establishment trying to take control of the presidential nominating contest. There are currently four candidates who are diluting the already anemic “establishment” vote. So I’m sure that the power brokers in the party went to him and said, “Kid, this ain’t your night — I mean, year.” And I suspect that the party promised him something like a top spot on the VP list. So if Rubio or Bush get the nod, don’t be surprised if Walker gets the backup spot.

It’s funny that the 2016 nominating contest is turning out to be a far bigger problem than the 2012 contest. Remember all the wringing of hands about how the “moderate” Romney was “forced” to take extreme positions — and how that ruined him for the general election? And then there was The Republican Autopsy Report, which said that the party kinda maybe shoulda not work so hard at alienating everyone outside its old bigoted white man base. But this year was going to be different with the “deep bench.” But it has turned out that the three top contenders for the nomination — the people who the base most like — are the people with literally no actual experience in politics.

So I suspect that the Republican power brokers really are freaking out. First it was thought that Trump would collapse after the first debate. He didn’t; he really took off after it. Then Bush was really going to destroy Trump in the second debate — or at least hold his own. Instead, he looked weaker than he ever has before. The big winner of the debate was Carly Fiorina — a candidate who is probably even worse for the party than Trump. The only glimmer of hope was that Marco Rubio did well as the Eagle Scout who will get tough with Russia, Iran, and most of all, Cuba.

I’m sure there is some pressure on John Kasich to get out of the race. I think that would be very shortsighted. In the end, he may be the only reasonable choice. But if the Republican establishment thought long-term about things, it wouldn’t be in the mess it now finds itself in. I wonder if there isn’t pressure on Jeb Bush to exit the race. After all, that $100+ million that he raised is almost all in a super pac. If Bush left the race, it could be used to finance Rubio’s campaign. Again: I think Rubio is a mistake, because I think that he ultimately comes off as very un-serious — like one of those Republican kids (eg, Jonathan Krohn) who is really good at repeating talking points, but who really doesn’t understand them.

But I suppose that I should come clean: I really thought that Walker would get the Republican nomination. That was based upon the fact that he was everything that the power elite wants. Even though I knew him to be a very boring fellow — like the Republican kids, but without any of the charm — I figured that he could finesse his way into the nomination. But I was so wrong! First, he apparently can’t finesse anything at all. Second, he was even more boring than I had thought before. He is not a man who wears well.

Overall, this is good news. It means I will likely never again have to hear about how he stood up to angry workers from inside his limo. But ultimately, I must admit: Scotty, I Hardly Knew Ye. Because there wasn’t much to know.

See also: Scott Walker Is a Follower and the Base Knows It.

Update (21 September 2015 3:41 pm)

According to USA Today, it’s even more explicit than I thought:

When the subject of global warming came up at last week’s Republican presidential debate, the responses were slightly different than I had expected. Apparently, no Republican wants to be seen as a global warming denier. They are more than willing to admit that something is happening. They didn’t get into it (because the CNN moderators sucked), but they would probably even agree that humans are having some effect. But now it is just a matter that doing anything would destroy our economy. We also heard that we can’t do anything on our own, even though we emit a fifth of the carbon pollution, and other countries are doing things their their own. What ever happened to American leadership?

Of course, this is nonsense anyway. Do you know when would have been a great time to tackle the problem of climate change? Ever since the bursting of the housing bubble and the crashing of the economy. Ever since then, there has been an enormous amount of slack in the economy and the government has been able to borrow for basically nothing. We could have done massive infrastructure projects that would have made our country more green. We could have invested even more in green technologies. We could have trained all those coal miners to do something less damaging (and dangerous).

But we couldn’t do that because, as they always do when a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans discovered “fiscal responsibility.” So we couldn’t spend any money on anything. Meanwhile, even apart from global warming, our infrastructure is crumbling and lives are wasted due to unnecessary unemployment. And it is all so that they can make a point: they ought to be in power and they are going to do everything they can to destroy the economy until they are.

But on Friday, Mark Thoma wrote a very interesting article at CBS Money Water about another side of this issue, Candidates Shouldn’t Wait to Address Climate Change. The Republicans were specifically asked if it mightn’t be a good idea to hedge our bets — to do something about global warming just in case. But they really didn’t engage with the question. Instead, their answers all implied that if there was some cost to it, it would be minor. There was no reason to do anything that might hurt our economy in any way at all right now.

Thomas quoted the Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (pdf). I wasn’t aware of it, but it was a study commissioned by the UK government to determine the economic effect of climate change. And it concluded “if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever.” Thoma sums up the state of knowledge this way, “My reading of the evidence — and the totality of the work on this question comprises far more than just this report — is that the consequences will be large, and the longer we wait to begin serious abatement, the larger the impacts will be.”

He contrasts this with the most optimistic analysis by Richard Tol, who still thinks the costs will be large, but will fall mostly on developing countries. Thoma noted that we in the developed world would still have to help them out. But I think it is far worse than a moral obligation. If the effects are dire on developed regions, there is going to be a great increase in war. And I think it is outrageous to think that we are not going to be touched by that in a big way.

Regardless, the Republicans have shown themselves to be the polar opposite of what is traditionally considered “conservative.” They behave like teenagers who don’t have a care in the world. “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!” That’s no way to run a family, much less a country, much less a global empire. But of course I would think that way. As I’ve noted many times, I am a deeply conservative person when it comes to personal conduct. That’s one of the reasons I vote for the Democrats.

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but have you noticed how many people who call themselves social democrats or democratic socialists seem to be terrified at the prospect of Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic presidential nomination? It reminds me of a line from the musical 1776, “Maryland would welcome independence if it were given, but is highly skeptical that it can be taken. Maryland says nay.” It is as if they are only dedicated to this ideal as long as it doesn’t risk anything — as long as it doesn’t require a fight. And I’m afraid that it does require risk and a fight.

I understand the counterargument: if the Republicans get in, it will be a catastrophe. But this is how we find ourselves far, far to the right after 40 years of this kind of thinking. The Democratic Party establishment decided that it lost the 1972 election because George McGovern was too liberal. That’s such a vague claim as to be meaningless. There were a lot of reasons he lost, of course. A big one was that the south turned against the Democratic Party because of the civil rights laws passed under Johnson. Another was that McGovern was painted as weak on crime and “those people.” None of that should have caused the Democratic Party running to go running to the right on economic issues.

But in 1976, they ran a very conservative man for his time, Jimmy Carter. He barely won. Then in 1980, he lost by a lot. This was followed by Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. All of those elections were classic economics-trumps-all elections. They were the Republicans’ elections to lose. Similarly, Bill Clinton didn’t win in 1992 because he was conservative but because the economy had tanked. All these moves to the right, have only pushed the Republicans further to the right. So the whole idea that the Democratic Party must move to the right only means that when Republicans do get into power they are even worse than they were before.

Matt Bruenig asked a really good question recently, What is the Left Supposed to Do Electorally? He considered Jeremy Corbyn in the UK primarily, but also Bernie Sanders. Here, all good Democrats know that Ralph Nader cost the Democrats the election in 2000. (I don’t know; that may be a myth; but it is what all good Democrats know.) So Sanders is not running a third party candidacy, and has been very clear that he will support whichever candidates the Democrats nominate. But running inside the party is apparently only acceptable if the leftist loses, as we are seeing with Corbyn. “Similarly, if Sanders manages to win the Democratic primary in the US, you can be sure the same centrist Democrats screaming at Nader to run in the primary will immediately sour on the idea of left-wing primary challenges.”

I truly do not know where I stand in this election. I support Sanders because he is the closest fit to my major issues, which are economic. But if I think he has little chance of winning the general election, I will not vote for him. I am a pragmatist. But I haven’t seen any information to indicate that this is the case. If I think that Hillary Clinton has a 55% chance of winning the general election and Bernie Sanders has a 45% chance, then there is no question: I’ll go with Bernie. If Bernie has a 10% chance, I’ll go with Hillary. But it is worth some risk to get the extra gain that is Bernie Sanders.

Recently, when The Wall Street Journal wrote a big article about how Bernie Sanders’ proposals would cost $18 trillion, I was mostly pleased. It indicated two things that are good. First, it showed that he is succeeding enough to cause people to notice. Second, it shows that conservatives are at least a little concerned about him. Republicans can just dismiss him as a socialist if they want. But that’s just for public consumption. They know that in a general election, that isn’t going to mean much. Unless they can tie that word to Sanders’ actual (hugely popular) policies, it won’t mean a thing.

The big “$18 trillion” article is an attempt to do just that. But as Dean Baker has already shown, $15 trillion of that is universal Medicare. And if everyone had Medicare, they wouldn’t have to have private insurance (although they still could). And the one thing we know about Medicare is that it is far more efficient than private insurance. And the bottom line is that the $15 trillion would save the private sector more than $15 trillion. James Kwak laid it out:

So how much would Sander’s $15 trillion Medicare for All system save? That’s open to debate. But one of the economists that The Wall Street Journal article quoted, Gerald Friedman, did some calculations. And he found that over the ten year window that we are talking about here, Sanders’ plan would save the US $5 trillion. So if you add in the $3 trillion of other programs, Bernie Sanders would be saving us $2 trillion — or $200 billion per year. Oh! My! God!

Of course, this isn’t going to make The Wall Street Journal sing the praises of Bernie Sanders. They aren’t interested in saving money. They are interested in serving the interests of the power elite — even if those interests are very short sighted. And even if they liked the Medicare for All program, they know that Sanders is going to push all kinds of other policies that will challenge the rich.

Robert Reich wrote a short article about this issue, 4 Reasons Why The Wall Street Journal’s Attack on Bernie is Bogus. Mostly, it covers ground that I’ve been talking about here. But I thought his fourth point was important:

This is typical. Bernie Sanders has some great ideas for improving the nation. But the conservative response is not to consider them seriously. It is just to start shouting large numbers that are meaningless.

When Carly Fiorina ran for Senate from California back 2010, her campaign was so hapless, that I didn’t even much pay attention to it. She ran against Barbara Boxer — always a bit of a climb for the idiots down in the southern part of the state — in a great year for Republicans, and she still managed to lose by 10 percentage points. The main thing I knew about her was that she had had a terrible career in business. But apparently, in the business world, there is no such thing as failure, so she ran around acting like she was some great hero.

But Friday morning, I was reading Paul Krugman, Fantasies and Fictions at GOP Debate. It’s a good article, but I was shocked by something he wrote in passing, “Oh, and if her life is a story of going from ‘secretary to CEO,’ mine is one of going from mailman to columnist and economist. Sorry, working menial jobs while you’re in school doesn’t make your life a Horatio Alger story.” It shocked me because I had taken that whole story at face value. It’s one of her big selling points: meritocracy and all that — she started at the bottom!

So I turned to Wikipedia. She wasn’t some lower middle class girl who went on to make it big. She wasn’t even an ordinary middle (or upper-middle or upper) class girl who went on to make it big. Her father was Joseph Tyree Sneed III. He was dean of the Duke University School of Law before becoming a justice on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He was at least a law professor from the time that Carly was three years old. These are all indicative of the kind of childhood that creates successful people. Freedom from want and exposure to the best that our society offers are what we should strive to provide for all children — but don’t.

Now, I’m not putting down Fiorina for this. It’s great that she had this kind of life growing up. But she’s lying about her career — in a big and calculated way. In 1976, she got her Bachelor’s degree from Stanford — a school her father taught at from 1962 to 1971 — I wonder if that helped her get admitted?! She then got a Master’s degree in business (What else?!) from University of Maryland. From there, she went straight into a management trainee program at AT&T.

So where does all this business about “secretary to CEO” come from? Well, after she got her undergraduate degree, she headed down to UCLA to study law. I guess she was gonna be like her old man. But after one semester, she decided it wasn’t for her. So she got a job as a secretary for a real estate brokerage. She had it for six months — I assume until she could start another academic year. So basically: it was a summer job. I’m sure there are lots of people born rich who could similarly claim that they went from “waiter to CEO.”

What’s so terrible about this is that there have been people who have worked their way up in this way — although I know of none in such a spectacular way as Fiorina implies. And that makes it that much worse. She was never one of those people who started at the bottom. She started on the management track and did what was expected of her.

She really is a vile human being. A great social conservative who lies with aplomb.

Update (21 September 2015 8:46 am)

According to Melinda Henneberger, “She worked only briefly in that real estate office before heading off to Italy for a year with her first husband, Todd Bartlem.” So she didn’t go straight off to the University of Maryland. Instead, like poor Americans everywhere, she took a year off to live in Europe.