Paul Smalera

When President Obama signed legislation in mid-June to bring tobacco under FDA regulation, few seemed outraged that the legislation had been co-written by Philip Morris USA (PM). The bill was designed, critics say, to stabilize the place of cigarettes in our society: to diminish the threat of health-related lawsuits, to prevent competitive yet possibly safer products from being introduced, and to lock in Philip Morris’ market share. It’s not just the Harvard School of Public Health leveling these charges but even Sen. Bob Bennett, Republican of Utah, a supporter of the intent of the bill who was nonetheless “convinced we would do better if we told Philip Morris to stay out of the process of writing tobacco legislation.”

Lost in the Weed | The Big Money.

“A weird quiet seems to have settled over the country. We’re in the midst of the financial crisis, yet it feels like the whole thing has somehow passed. In fact, the ionized air around us suggests we’re in the eye of this hurricane—experiencing a moment of calm before the storm whips up again.”-me

I explain why, here:

The Next Financial Explosion: Will the government have to bail out the commercial real estate market? | The Big Money.

Krugman: “I think quantitative easing (it’s really qualitative easing, but I give up on trying to fix the terminology) is the right way to go. But we should go into it with our eyes open.” Fiscal aspects of quantitative easing (wonkish) - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com.

I agree. The idea of quantitative easing is to prevent deflation. I’ve heard deflation compared to a runaway train: impossible to stop once it’s rolling. Q.E. is supposed to keep that particular train from getting away from us by powering the engine (with a big pile of fresh money) in the other direction. Yes, possibly creating inflation, but would you rather be going uphill in the right direction, or rolling downhill backwards?