Farewell. The Flying Pig Has Left The Building.

Steve Hynd, August 16, 2012

After four years on the Typepad site, eight years total blogging, Newshoggers is closing it's doors today. We've been coasting the last year or so, with many of us moving on to bigger projects (Hey, Eric!) or simply running out of blogging enthusiasm, and it's time to give the old flying pig a rest.

We've done okay over those eight years, although never being quite PC enough to gain wider acceptance from the partisan "party right or wrong" crowds. We like to think we moved political conversations a little, on the ever-present wish to rush to war with Iran, on the need for a real Left that isn't licking corporatist Dem boots every cycle, on America's foreign misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. We like to think we made a small difference while writing under that flying pig banner. We did pretty good for a bunch with no ties to big-party apparatuses or think tanks.

Those eight years of blogging will still exist. Because we're ending this typepad account, we've been archiving the typepad blog here. And the original blogger archive is still here. There will still be new content from the old 'hoggers crew too. Ron writes for The Moderate Voice, I post at The Agonist and Eric Martin's lucid foreign policy thoughts can be read at Democracy Arsenal.

I'd like to thank all our regular commenters, readers and the other bloggers who regularly linked to our posts over the years to agree or disagree. You all made writing for 'hoggers an amazingly fun and stimulating experience.

Thank you very much.

Note: This is an archive copy of Newshoggers. Most of the pictures are gone but the words are all here. There may be some occasional new content, John may do some posts and Ron will cross post some of his contributions to The Moderate Voice so check back.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Dumb analogies and budget constraints

By Dave Anderson: Most middle class and above American households do not operate under a strict balance budget constraint on an annual basis.Some years, any particular household will disperse more than they earned, and other years they'll earn more than they will disperse. For instance, I don't think I have had two years since I was out of graduate school when my family income was within three percent of my family's disbursements.


  • 2003 --- roughly even

  • 2004 -- slightly behind as we bought a new car

  • 2005 --- Way in the hole (buying a house and getting married within a three month span does that)

  • 2006 --- got ahead by a decent amount

  • 2007 --- slightly behind as I was out of work for a while

  • 2008 --- slightly behind as my wife was out of work for a while

  • 2009 --- slightly ahead despite having a newborn and getting laid off again in the 4th quarter of the year

  • 2010 --- got ahead by a decent bit

  • 2011 --- getting ahead by a good chunk

  • This is not particularly unusual. Some years are good years, and some years are bad years. Some years have significant capital purchases and other years don't.

    Individual households don't operate under strict balanced budget constraints. They operate under fairly loose balanced budget preferences if they have access to both reasonably affordable debt markets and very secure savings markets. This is what allows for Milton Friedman's permanent income hypothesis to work in reality. People will spend roughly what they expect their average annual remaining lifetime incomes will be even if they are having a great year or a crappy year. This hypothesis significantly weakens when the individual is unable to affordably or securely access debt or savings vehicles.

    I say all of this because an anaology is pissing me off. The Federal budget is not a household budget and a household budget is not strictly balanced over a course of a year. It is balanced over the course of several years to a lifetime if the household can access credit markets.



    4 comments:

    1. Excellent point. In my case from the time I left home until I was 26 years old I lived on some combination of borrowed money and part-time jobs, with borrowed money outstanding the whole time except for a few months in the military when I got caught up (even at enlisted man's pay). All this chatter about running the country like we run household budgets is a meaningless, steaming pile of crap, not befitting intelligent people. But,as Twain might say, I repeat myself.

      ReplyDelete
    2. This is why the Koch-Bros-pushed TABOR is devastating the budgets of the states that adopted it.

      ReplyDelete
    3. Also your family like most, probably makes a distinction between borrowing to finance the kid's education or pay for needed medical care or purchasing a home and borrowing to buy a new Hummer or a 3D TV. Sometimes spending is a good investment in the future and sometimes it is a stupid waste of money. Of course the stupid wastes of money provide profits to campaign contributors (aka the owners). That's another distinction we don't hear made too often.

      ReplyDelete
    4. My list would be much longer than yours. I was an engineer in the high tech industry. It was always a series of booms and busts. I would just recover from the last bust when the next one would happen. And the technology changed - I had to reinvent myself each time.

      ReplyDelete