Quick Hits: Olympics Edition!

Hello, SPORTS FANS!



(sorry, I got a little excited there. But it's the olympics! We're all excited, kind of, sort of).

...


So, anyway...The Olympics! It's kind of everywhere. Because that's what people do. But not on NBC networks, because they fail!

Anyway, I won't be witty, because it's late and all that junk. I'll let these people do it for me!

Canada:
Skeleton: Good or Bad? Well, apparently alcohol helps!

Second, a straight man's interpretation of the Men's Figure Skating. I think it's not a stretch to say this is not what I was thinking while watching...

Third, an Olympic events guide for any sane person, or anyone not devoted to frantically channel surfing so as to see everything.

And finally, it wouldn't be the Canadian section without an article bemoaning the hockey team. And WHAT a lament it is.

America

I figure you guys don't read too many of the blogs I do, so I can get away with this. Luckily, I'm doing this so I don't forget all of these, not because I think you'll read them all :D But if there's one article from here that is really worth it, it's this dissection of NBC's handling of the Olympics. There are certainly plenty more entertaining posts where that came from, so feel free to peruse!

Anyway, I really got a blast out of the figure skating, but mostly for the wrong reasons. I have to admit I wanted Plushenko to win, because, well, he's got my attitude and philosophy on competition. And the jumps. Wow the jumps. However, this is nothing on my love of Johnny Weir, who should get the gold for sheer awesomeness of performance. Anyway, there's this that covers all the bases (for Americans). And THIS! YOU NEED TO WATCH THIS!

Awesome

Kate Beaton: The torch, the opening ceremonies


And finally, an article on everyone's favorite drunk skier. And, awesomely enough, gold medal winner.

Well, that's it for right now! Hope you enjoy the links, and I'll return to my regularly scheduled mayhem soon.

The Fed Did What Exactly?

So, the Federal Reserve came out today and said they were raising the discount rate 25 basis points from 50 to 75 (or, 0.5% to 0.75%). Now, from my previous blog posts, you'd think that I'd be up in arms about this, saying that it's a bad move and will do more harm than good and lead to more unemployment. However, that is not my opinion. In fact, the raising of the discount rate doesn't really do anything to worry me for a few reasons:

1. The discount rate is the rate at which banks borrow directly from the Federal Reserve's discount window. Banks typically don't borrow directly from the Federal Reserve for a few reasons. First, it means they have to show the Fed their balance sheet which could lead to a shut down. Second, it shows that they couldn't raise the money through normal channels and needed help from the government. This could potentially cost them their FDIC insurance for the same reason the Fed would shut them down. So really, all that has changed is the price of a tool banks very rarely use. The federal funds rate, which is the rate at which banks borrow from each other, is still being held between 0% and 0.25%. When that goes up, there could be a problem.

2. Banks aren't really lending right now. If banks were actually lending, the discount rate could matter (of course, if banks were lending all the interest rates would be higher than they are now). Banks that don't lend typically don't need to borrow emergency funds. So again, they wouldn't really be using the discount window to borrow.

3. Fed Chairmen Ben Bernanke told congress last week that this was going to happen. Therefore, it really isn't a surprise. Investors have had time to plan and account for this, so this increase in the discount rate shouldn't really send the markets into a panic (shouldn't being the operative word).

Now, it is true that this does have an effect on the overall economy. The dollar, for example, rose in value which is good (not a lot, but a little). But really, it's not that big of a deal. After all, the market us used to having the discount rate be higher than the fed funds rate by about 1%, so it's still lower than normal. Mostly, I feel the Fed did this to show that it was ready to pull back on the stimulus when needed and to try and give the dollar a small boost, neither of which are surprising. However, if the Fed decides to raise the Federal Funds rate at all while the economy is still sluggish, we could be in real trouble. For now though, small, expected changes in the discount rate don't really worry me.


- The Economist

The NEWS, back from the dead

Hey everyone!

I know I haven't blogged too much lately, but I'm working on it. So here's the first set of links to ease back in, some lolziness for everyone. Yes, a real blog post is in the works. And yes, because I know you all love these, there are more to follow!


First, plans for the movie about the Conan v. NBC situation were unveiled this week. Or at least the star.

Second, this is the movie that everyone who is able to HAS to see. Seriously, so irreverent and awesome and geeky and awesome and what not.

Third, people might argue about religion, but at least some part of the population has a sense of humor (or greedy eyes).

Fourth, all the Olympic coverage you need, if you don't care about the events themselves but do want to lolz about Canada.

Remember Folks: Taxes Can Be A GOOD Thing

So, I was reading Krugman's blog the other day, and he linked to a story about Colorado Springs. Apparently, the city is broke and cutting costs everywhere. Streetlights will not be lit, police and firefighters are being laid off, parks are going to be left to die (according to the article, the fertilizer and flower budget for parks is a whopping $0), streets will not be repaved, public funded buildings (ie, museums and city pools) will close unless they get private funding.

All this because the voters said no to a property tax increase. In November, the city voted on whether or not to triple the property tax, a tax which traditionally affects the richer citizens. This tax would have restored over $27 million in revenue to the city and would have prevented many of the cuts they now face (not all of them, but enough to make a difference). Unfortunately, the voters said no.

"Fowler and many other residents say voters don't trust city government to wisely spend a general tax increase and don't believe the current cuts are the only way to balance a budget."

Really? So balancing the budget through tax increases are out because you don't trust the government to spend it correctly, but cutting costs the way they are isn't the only way? Well, how, voters of Colorado Springs, would you solve the budget deficit. Remember, states are not financially sovereign, and therefore cannot run a budget deficit. So, explain to me how you would balance the budget. Cut education costs? Cut welfare funding? Cut unemployment benefits? Yeah, that'll really help.

NEWS FLASH: Taxes are not evil! The government doesn't take your money for shits and giggles, they actually use it to fund programs to help keep the state afloat! Now, I'd understand voting down the tax hike and then using that money to help pay for these programs, but you're not doing that. If you don't trust the government to do it, then do it yourself.

There's a larger picture to all of this, however. This is what happens when people feel small government is the way to go. Small government only works if people directly pay for these programs out of their own pockets. In other words, you'll pay less in taxes, but the money you save from taxes you need to pay firefighters, school teachers, etc... However, people often don't understand this. Voting down a tax hike leads to cuts in a state budget (national budget is different) unless that money comes from somewhere else. However, I'm guessing the people who turned down the tax hike would laugh if you asked them to help pay for some of these programs.

So really, the choice is this: You can have big government where your taxes will be higher, but programs will be funded and you'll probably get most of that money back through the multiplier effect (people who get that funding will spend it on things you produce, increasing your income). Or, you can have smaller government. Sure, you may pay less in taxes, but you'll end up like Colorado Springs: Underfunded and in trouble.

Me? I'd rather pay more in taxes and make sure the school system has funding, the police and firefighters are there to protect me, and the roads are safe to drive on.

But that's just my opinion.


-The Economist