The Stabilization Bill's effect: ... Part II
Reader AM writes in about yesterday's post:

I agree that there's been much more stabilization than stimulus, but I think you're being a bit less than fair here.

First off, we did stabilize the private sector -- that's what TARP was. The top priority was the financial system, and then the two auto companies were added. (As it happens, this took the form of temporary "nationalization" in a few cases, but private sector stabilization was the goal.)

Second, public sector stabilization was where the votes were. It's relatively difficult for members of Congress to resist entreaties from officials back home, and public sector spending looks less like a giveaway. (Capuano couldn't get $ for independent as well as public universities.) There wasn't anyone advocating for directing money to the private side instead of the public side.

Third, a good deal of the public sector money went to construction, public projects but private employment.

Fourth, when the bill was passed the economy was in free fall, so stability was progress; of course it doesn't look the same in the recovery phase.

Finally, most liberal economists (and some less liberal) said all along that the stimulus was inadequate. We would have heard a lot more about that from the start had it been obvious that there wouldn't be more to come.

My only real quibbles are that TARP was specifically for Wall Street, not Main Street, and it certainly didn't "stabilize the private sector," which proceeded to nosedive into a severe recession after (though not because of) TARP; and only one out of eight dollars went to what might loosely be called construction-related fields.  ¶ 7:59 AM

The Stabilization Bill’s effect: ‘This is Not a Recovery’
OK, you know we’ve reached some sort of milestone when even Paul Krugman admits we’re not in a classic recovery, and may even be slipping backward. Krugman’s fallback excuse: The original stimulus package wasn’t big enough.

But I’ll restate my case (made here and here and here, even before the stimulus bill was officially passed): It wasn’t a “stimulus” bill. It was more of a “stabilization” bill. The stabilization bill was primarily aimed at propping up the public sector, not the private sector, where the true problems lay. There was nothing wrong per se with spending money to preserve public-sector jobs. But that’s not “stimulating” the economy. Again, it's more about "stabilizing” the economy, i.e. preventing things from getting worse. The Dems either never understood this -- or didn’t care. They eagerly embraced the argument that federal debt spending actually creates jobs, latching onto a “jobs multiplier” theory uttered by one economist at Moody’s Economy.com, and then launched a massive spending spree on programs that had nothing to do with the underlying economic problems at hand. Sure, they preserved public-sector jobs. But how can you have a new jobs multiplier effect by preserving already existing jobs? You’re merely preserving the already existing jobs-multiplier effect. Right? Repeat: The “stimulus” bill was largely a “stabilization” bill.

There may yet be a need for another “stabilization” bill. The signs are ominous. The last thing we need is more massive layoffs. It will only make matters worse if something isn’t done. But please don’t call it a “second stimulus bill." It will be a “second stabilization’’ bill – one that still doesn’t address the underlying problems within the economy's private sector. …  ¶ 7:16 AM

'Harm minimization,' Part II
Can't say I'm surprised. He's a weird dude.  ¶ 9:23 AM

The Parable Method
Perhaps the worst use ever of a parable to explain a complex subject. Try to follow it. I couldn’t. He would have been better off simply explaining how lawmakers screwed up the Social Security system. … Maybe he could have tried a non-parable parable. … You see, once upon a time there was this thing called “Congress” and its members saw a great big stream of “retirement” money flowing in from the provinces, and ...  ¶ 6:08 AM

The Shaq signing: Our very own Over The Hill Gang
But I like it. ... Bob: "Let the jokes begin." ... Lauren: "Finally, a Celtic whose stats I can understand. Eleven movies, six kids, five albums, three reality shows and one expensive wedding. Boston, get ready for a Shaq Attack." ... The Track is already going non-Lady ga ga. ... Steve hints at the new Prime Directive for the 2010-2011 Celts:

But there’s something more at play here. Did you watch that silly, downright insulting television extravaganza last month when LeBron James sat down with those impoverished kids from the mean streets of Greenwich, Conn., and announced he was signing up with the Miami Heat? A lot of us are asking if we’re ever going to get back that hour that ESPN took away from us, and the answer is, no, we never will.

The best we can hope for is a crash-and-burn by the Miami Heat in the NBA playoffs.

If the Celts can't achieve their Prime Directive (defeat Miami), then Prime Directive II must be employed (inflict maximum hack damage). At the very least, it's going to be fun watching Shaq strut around Boston the next two years. ... BTW, I always liked George Allen's teams.  ¶ 5:27 AM

'Congratulations To Barack Obama For Plugging The Oil Leak'
Well put: “We criticize him when he screws up, so it's only proper that we congratulate him when he gets something right.” … Many lobbed harsh criticism at him during the height of the oil-spill disaster. So if the crisis is suddenly and unexpectedly resolved, doesn't the same logic dictate that he be given credit for the solution?  ¶ 12:07 PM

What's the matter with the Red Sox? Part II
Reader AM makes some excellent points about what's wrong with the Sox this year. The last line is a definite "ouch" moment:

This is actually (and surprisingly) a very, very good team -- injuries apart. But many fans went into the season expecting a "bridge" year, and then the injuries hit -- and fairly early, not in August as in '78 and '06 (the other really good teams derailed by injuries). The only impact of the Celts, apart from a few weeks of distraction, is that the Sox look like more of the same. (And of course the NBA finals, like the World Cup, were so bad as to discredit the sport, so that might yet be a plus for baseball.)

The other problem with the Sox is that they are, after all, a team without stars. I love Pedroia's game, Youkilis is pretty good, Beltre's having a good year, but these are not among the big stars of the game. (Ortiz is still the big name.) Lester's excellent, but Beckett's the star pitcher nominally, and his career is unlikely to be as good as Derek Lowe's. Last year's team was deeply unlikable; this year we've seen a few of our guys, some second-rate free agents, and callups from Pawtucket and Portland (bear in mind that our best minor league position player and our best minor league pitcher went down in April.)

Nobody likes Cameron. Nobody likes Scutaro, steady as he may be. Nobody likes Drew. Nobody likes Lackey. Everyone assumes Beltre and Martinez are gone after this year. It's nice to see Ortiz, Varitek, and Lowell, when healthy, hit some, but basically they're done.

Here's the deal: If you have Manny Ramirez, in his prime, you sell out 500+ straight games. And it helps to have Martinez and Schilling, and to be in contention. This team is the Toronto Blue Jays.

  ¶ 11:52 AM

‘What’s the matter with the Red Sox?’
Sure, they had an exciting weekend. But what explains the general fan lethargy this year? Bill Simmons takes a swing at explaining. I’m not buying his ‘time’ argument (or at least the percentage of blame he assigns it). Games are definitely getting longer. It's not good for the game. But it didn’t happen overnight. A large chunk of the fan base didn't all of a sudden decide over the winter to stop tuning into NESN and 'EEI. … I’d assign more blame to 1.) the dullness factor 2.) the post-championships hangover. I’d also add the resurgence of the Celts. I wouldn’t attribute too much to it. But the Sox now have a major competitor for fans’ attention during the spring. I’d give the Celts factor a 3 percent blame assignment. … Bill S piece via Reader No. 1.

Update -- From Reader No. 1:

Don't get the Celtics at all as a factor in Red Sox Attention Disorder (RSAD). If anything, success of one local team tends to spur interest in others.

As so often the case, I think Sox problem is a combination of factors including the two you cite (post-championship, dull team), plus the fact that we have been looking up in the standings without gaining much ground - add that to the intolerable game length and you have a recipe for RSAD.

RE the Celts, I based my observation purely on my own reaction to Boston sports over the past three years. I haven't paid as much attention to the Sox in the spring due to the suddenly competitive Celts, triggering a RSAD that tends to last long after the Celts are done. I assume others feel the same way, though I don't believe there's that many of us out there (thus only a 3 percent blame assignment).  ¶ 5:58 AM