PDA

View Full Version : The Era of Living Dangerously



AdamG
08-17-2011, 02:20 PM
The world is on edge: On the edge of another financial crisis, another global recession, another bout of extreme weather, another humanitarian disaster, another food crisis, and another round of violence and civil unrest. The world's problems, it seems, are not being solved; they are being recycled with rising -- and disturbing -- rapidity.

If this were a movie, we might borrow a title from yesteryear and call it "The Year of Living Dangerously." But, unfortunately, this is not a movie; and the challenges that we face will not be resolved anytime soon. Our troubles are not cyclical, they are structural. We live in a world that is fundamentally out of balance, and rectifying those imbalances will take years, if not decades, to correct. Welcome to "The Era of Living Dangerously."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-walker/the-era-of-living-dangero_1_b_923423.html

Ken White
08-17-2011, 04:57 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-walker/the-era-of-living-dangero_1_b_923423.htmlThe lack of knowledge of and appreciation for history tends to make the current generation, the one that preceded it and most Baby Boomers snivel about reality. The Puffington Host excels at that... :D

The World has always been out of balance. Note in the quote provided the extensive use of the word 'another'...

The problem is that many of the rather pampered today want stability and security that have never been and are unlikely to be available regardless of things flaky politicians and 'The Sky IS FALLING' news media and punditidiocy say... :rolleyes:

Same stuff, different day. :wry:

AdamG
08-18-2011, 06:19 PM
Granted, the world has always been chaotic but in ways it can be predictable as the seasons. I'd recommend reading THE FOURTH TURNING.


Strauss and Howe base this vision on a provocative theory of American history as a series of recurring 80- to 100-year cycles. Each cycle has four "turnings"-a High, an Awakening, anUnraveling, and a Crisis. The authors locate today's America as midway through an Unraveling, roughly a decade away from the next Crisis (or Fourth Turning). And they recommend ways Americans can prepare for what's ahead, as a nation and as individuals.
http://www.fourthturning.com/html/fourth_turning.html

They put the Third Turning as "the Culture Wars (1984 to 2005?)". That's pretty accurate forecasting, from 1997. This is a good page

http://www.fourthturning.com/html/turnings_3.html

and the wiki -


In 1997, the authors published The Fourth Turning, which expanded on the ideas presented in Generations. Examining 500 years of Anglo-American history, The Fourth Turning reveals a distinct historical pattern: Modern history moves in cycles, each one lasting approximately the length of a long human life (about 80–90 years), and each composed of four different types of mood eras, or "turnings". Offering a detailed analysis of the period from the Great Depression through today, the authors describe the collective persona of each living generation. These include the upbeat, team-playing G.I.s, the indecisive Silent, the values-obsessed Boomers, the pragmatic 13ers, and the new coming-of-age generation of upbeat, team-playing, Millennials. By situating each living generation in the context of a historical generational cycle and archetype, the authors claim to clarify the personality and role of each—and the inevitability of a coming crisis in America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_and_Howe

see also
http://www.fourthturning.com/html/winter_is_coming.html

From Chapter 10 (A Fourth Turning Prophecy), page 273 - copied verbatim.


An impasse over the Federal budget reaches a stalemate. The President and Congress both refuse to back down, triggering a near-total government shutdown. The President declares emergency powers. Congress rescinds his authority. Dollar and bond prices plummet. The President threatens to stop Social Security checks. Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling. Default looms. Wall Street panics.

Ken White
08-18-2011, 08:34 PM
Granted, the world has always been chaotic but in ways it can be predictable as the seasons. I'd recommend reading THE FOURTH TURNING.I'll do that -- though I don't expect much edification but I can always use a chuckle or two. This blurb from your first link:

""As Future Shock did in the 1970s and Megatrends did in the 1980s, this groundbreaking book will have a profound effect on every reader's perception of America's past, present, and future.""

is probably indicative of the total value of the Book -- both the two cited were IMO flops and of small merit. Few books live up to their hype and as Neils Bohr said, "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." People are too erratic and individually different to be pigeonholed as most predictive efforts have to try to do.

However, no argument on broad predictability. Everything goes in cycles including American domestic politics which are boringly predictable and cyclical.
They put the Third Turning as "the Culture Wars (1984 to 2005?)". That's pretty accurate forecasting, from 1997...Mid stream, time wise. Not so good, just belated and somewhat reasonable guesses -- which are what most 'forecasts' are. Actually, I'd say they missed it by 20 years. That turning was mid 60s to mid 80s and the US (as well as most of the rest of the world) has yet to understand how much the world changed in that time frame. The world's power structures, mostly, did not adapt (Singapore one bright exception, there are a couple of others) -- and is still fighting and trying to avoid adapting to it. Witness everything that's driving the nervous types up a wall today and it all started between 1965-1985, we're just cleaning up the aftermath.

Note also US domestic programs oriented to the 1930s by all those left leaners who have not yet realized that their dreams of dependency and an all powerful government are not going to happen. Today, most western nation are just beginning to adjust to the changes that were glaringly obvious in the 1980s but which power structures diligently ignored as threatening to their 'vision.' Generational change is part of that adaptation but public discontent with the political classes worldwide is a more important driver of belated change.

The fascinating thing is that Karl Marx, bourgeois soul that he was, got confused and though disagreement with the human condition was about class -- it was not and is not, it's about fairness of opportunity -- not outcome, opportunity. Very few begrudge he or she who has great wealth as long as they believe they could achieve that or close to it under their system of government. The socialist or populist idea opposes that fairness, by denying chance for great success in order to attempt 'equal' outcomes -- most people do not agree with that model.The Social Democratic governments of Europe got cranked up in the 30s, went for broke (literally) after WW II and, finally really broke, can snicker at the idiotic USA which is still trying to implement that foolishness as opposed to wisely scaling it back as Europe is doing. That model does not work for the long haul because it is intrinsically unfair and people will passively at first, actively if necessary, opt for change. There may be a "Fourth Turning," may not -- much depends on what a few people do or do not do -- and authors who have attempted to predict what people will do fail every bit as badly as the Generals who busily prepare for the last war.

As to the full effects of "the new coming-of-age generation of upbeat, team-playing, Millennials," we'll see. Too early to tell, as is true of the Gen Xers and even the Baby Boomers. Generational change is real -- but only rarely is it truly significant.

Your final quote from the book:
"An impasse over the Federal budget reaches a stalemate. The President and Congress both refuse to back down, triggering a near-total government shutdown. The President declares emergency powers. Congress rescinds his authority. Dollar and bond prices plummet. The President threatens to stop Social Security checks. Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling. Default looms. Wall Street panics."May or may not occur, elements of it have (a number of times during the last 220 years and including this year... :D ) and certainly will again. Default has loomed, will again and is vastly overblown as a potential problem.

I think Wall Street and Panics is almost certainly an oxymoron... :D

Fuchs
08-18-2011, 09:24 PM
How dangerous can the world be if life expectancy is still rising in many if not most countries and populations are growing in most places, too?

This is rather the age of confused people who lost their sense or reality.
This applies especially to those who command attention in talks in a security policy context.


For a while I ran a series on my blog, comparing errorist effects with the effects of bus drivers.
The latter turned out to be way more dangerous in every metric.

This was a statistic I distilled:


Year Kills by bus drivers
2001 42
2002 34
2003 30
2004 31
2005 28
2006 20
2007 31

Errorists don't even come close.

Steve the Planner
08-19-2011, 02:02 AM
Ken:

Oh for the post-Vietnam, post Watergate peace and love generation.

Wait. Aren't they the same greedy bastards, in later life, running Wall Street and pushing George Bush's GWOT and deficit explosions.

So much for over-generalizations. (and projections).

I keep looking for this mythical historical time of perfect synchronization, and usually find that, on deeper analysis, there was great strife, challenge and change in that time, too.

My computer programmer mom always said: Life IS problems, and the fun is solving them.

Ken White
08-19-2011, 04:13 AM
My computer programmer mom always said: Life IS problems, and the fun is solving them.is one smart and quite correct lady, she's got that right. Stability and security are vastly over rated. The knottier the issue, the more fun that can be had... :cool:

Entropy
08-19-2011, 05:11 AM
I'm reminded of an anecdote I read a couple of years ago: A British intelligence analyst in the first half the 20th century, when talking about his career said something to the effect of (paraphrasing from memory): "I always predicted the status quo, that there would be no war. I was only wrong twice."

Fuchs,

That's all true, but the problem is that most people don't judge risk based on statistics or a strict utilitarian worldview.

davidbfpo
08-19-2011, 08:18 AM
For a while I ran a series on my blog, comparing errorist effects with the effects of bus drivers. The latter turned out to be way more dangerous in every metric. Errorists don't even come close.

Errorists is a very clever, nay subtle way of imparting a new message regarding their actions. Well done Fuchs!

J Wolfsberger
08-19-2011, 11:20 AM
Errorists is a very clever, nay subtle way of imparting a new message regarding their actions. Well done Fuchs!

I had to look it up:

Urban Dictionary: errorist (www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=errorist)
Someone who repeatedly makes mistakes. Says stuff he believes is true, but anyone with common sense can see he's wrong. A dumbass.

Dayuhan
08-19-2011, 11:47 AM
Someone who repeatedly makes mistakes. Says stuff he believes is true, but anyone with common sense can see he's wrong. A dumbass.

They're everywhere, and they are a threat... a clear and omnipresent danger.

We clearly need a Global War on Error. Big job. Somebody needs to get Ken White out of retirement...

Ken White
08-19-2011, 03:07 PM
I'm tired. Fought them for 45 years, have tried to aid the fight for another 15 plus with only marginal success either way; there are too many of them, they are all cagey, risk averse PT Studs or Stud-ettes and they multiply like rabbits. On top of that, they promote each other and appear destined to rule the world. The problem is the apparent modern era proscription on firing incompetents and instead promoting them or moving them to higher office -- that and the disappearance of summary executions for idiocy. :wry:

You kids need to take over... ;)

As an ancient oriental philosopher once said, rots a ruck... :D

slapout9
08-19-2011, 04:13 PM
Yves Smith of Naked capitalism explains the Rich People's Propaganda that is the real problem. The Orphans(rich people) want help(tax beaks and bailouts) but it turns out they are Oprpahns because they murdered their parents.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JPa2s-HYuvE

Ken White
08-19-2011, 07:19 PM
The Orphans(rich people) want help(tax beaks and bailouts) but it turns out they are Oprpahns because they murdered their parents.If you really believe that, I got a bridge across Jordan Lake I'll sell you... :D

There are some rich people that want tax breaks and bailouts -- and there are some far from rich people that want no taxes and handouts. Both of those crowds are wrong. Fortunately, there aren't many of them. Most people act like they have some sense and some balance... :wry:

Unfortunately, the governing class (which Marx foolishly thought would behave properly but who never have or do) have not acted properly to restrain the worst instincts of capitalism nor have they have they halted the worst instincts of populism. Government has an obligation to restrain both and it has -- worldwide, not just in the US -- failed to do that. It has tried and will try to pander to both ends and thus will fail at its job of maintaining and fostering sense and balance.

Rich people's propaganda isn't the problem -- nor is Smith's and other's anti-capitalism cant a real problem. Government failure to behave responsibly is a BIG problem and it will never go away. So Marx was way wrong; the less government, the better and both the rich and unrich would have to take care of themselves instead of relying on a government that will generally fail to really take care of either side. :mad:

Not that any of that has the slightest thing to do with the thread...;)

J Wolfsberger
08-19-2011, 07:47 PM
... the less government, the better and both the rich and unrich would have to take care of themselves instead of relying on a government that will generally fail to really take care of either side. :mad:


Wouldn't it be great if some country were to establish that as its governing principle? :wry:

Wonder how long that would last? :(

Ken White
08-19-2011, 08:09 PM
Wouldn't it be great if some country were to establish that as its governing principle?
Wonder how long that would last? :( From 1787 until 1913 is...:confused: :o

I know, I know -- 126 years!!! :D

slapout9
08-20-2011, 03:13 AM
If you really believe that, I got a bridge across Jordan Lake I'll sell you... :D




I should have put quotes around the oprhans, it is from the video link I posted. Yes Marx was an Oprhan or rather little Freddie Engels was or the book would likley never have been written. However in the sense that oprhans are used in the video I do believe it is accurate. You cain't complain about big guvmint, and taxes and then go running to them for orphan help when things don't work out.

We need to get ride of the bridge... it messes up the Bass tournements.;)

Ken White
08-20-2011, 03:52 AM
but then, I don't hit 'em up for help... ;)


You cain't complain about big guvmint, and taxes and then go running to them for orphan help when things don't work out.That doesn't seem to bother a lot of people... :D

Then there are those of us that are pretty sure the guvmint really cannot afford the cost of doing all that orphan help...
We need to get ride of the bridge... it messes up the Bass tournements.;)Can't have that, I'll sell the Bridge to Bob Jones, he can shorten his commute by zipping across Hillsborough Bay... :wry:

motorfirebox
08-20-2011, 05:00 AM
I think before we worry about the question of too much/not enough government, we should worry about the problem of unbelievable stupidity (http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/archives/550?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980).

Ken White
08-20-2011, 05:29 AM
Needs to be fixed, not worried about...

The problem, however, is that 'ignorance' cited in the linked article is due to the deliberate dumbing down of the electorate by the governing squirrels, on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue who work quite hard to obscure how deeply their hands are in the fabric of the nation -- mostly with a slew of programs that insinuate the government into everything to insure its primacy -- and the reelection of incumbents to the maximum possible extent. We are confronted with a Federal government that cannot do well the things it is supposed to do because it is so deeply enmeshed into many things that are none of its business

There's a simple solution; it started in 2010 -- vote 'em out of office. All of them, do not vote for any incumbent and eventually, those elected to Congress will get the word and fix it -- it will not get any better until they are forced to fix the damage they've done and they have no incentive to fix it as long as they're being reelected.

To return to the thread, none of that is really terribly dangerous -- so far -- it's just annoying... :rolleyes:

Bob's World
08-20-2011, 01:48 PM
Our government is excellent. But by "our government" I mean the Constitution that defines it. Our politicians and federal bureaucracy? Sadly, sadly off track.

Now, a certain amount of dysfunction is by design, as any government that can become too effective will also soon come to exercise too much control over the populace (for those who have studied our official COIN doctrine, yes, I realize "effective" governments that have "control" over the populace are promoted as excellent things. They aren't. They are just as often the cause of insurgency as the cure.)

The design of the US government is to keep control over government in the hands of the people, but it is incumbent upon the people to exercise that control or risk losing it. Even a masterpiece of COIN such as the US Constitution can be defeated if the people and the government over generations of stability come to forget or misunderstand why it is the way it is.

Even those Tea Partiers who wave their pocket copies of the Constitution like Southern Evangelists wave their Bibles don't fully appreciate WHY the Constitution is important, but even so they are on the right track in their commitment to the fact that it is.

Liberal, Conservative; Republican, Democrat. Personally I could not care less about such things. As Americans we have the right to believe whatever we want, and to stand on the corner and proclaim those beliefs alone, assembled in groups, or published in the press. That I care about. I have no entitlements as an American citizen other than the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anything else must be earned, and I am cool with that hard fact of life as well.

We are blessed with legal options to express our feelings and to shape our government. This was not something that was given to us, this is not something that was learned by smart people reading theoretical books on democracy and liberalism. This is the product of a group of men who grew to manhood under conditions of governance that they came to see as foreign, oppressive, and illegitimate in its claims to have the right to exercise such government over them. It came from their personal experience in dealing with the measures that oppressive regime applied to retain its control over them. It came from their decade long insurgency to throw off that hand that had grown oppressive and illegitimate over time. And it came from their realization just a couple years into "victory" that pure democracy was perhaps even more dangerous than effective oppression; and that securing the principles of good governance would have to occur first, to build the requisite trust to ever get to a degree of effectiveness that would allow a nation to grow and flourish.

But we forget the reasons behind the rules and rights laid out in our Constitution. We do so at our peril.

Insurgency does not happen when a government loses control of the populace; it happens when the populace loses control of the government. We are a long ways from that point, but we have been off track for a few generations, and it is never to early recognize that we are off azimuth and get back on track.

One mil of azimuth = one meter deviation at 1000 Meters. Anyone who has any experience in indirect fire or land nav appreciates that small azimuth errors compound quickly; whereas major location errors can be easily overcome. We may not know were we are, but that will sort out. Getting back on the right azimuth is the critical task.

Fuchs
08-20-2011, 03:09 PM
Our government is excellent. But by "our government" I mean the Constitution that defines it.

Hardly. You're sticking to an outdated early try to get a constitution right.
It's so full of gaps and badly outdated stuff. Just look at the election process for presidency that allows for a president who lost the popular vote.

The primitive majority vote that discards millions of votes it badly obsolete as well. It was actually never necessary to have such a primitive mode of elections. Basic math allows for a much better mode.

A mix of voting for party AND voting for candidates (~as in Germany) allows for having regional representatives with strong connection to their region AND a representation that's proportional tot he actual preferences for parties. It also allows for more than two practical parties, while the obsolete majority vote systems force a two-party system onto the land.


There's even more to be criticised, but we hadn't any major attempts at improving constitutions for six decades, thus few examples of really advanced designs.


Your constitution that was basically designed for oligarchy is hardly "excellent".

Bob's World
08-20-2011, 03:27 PM
The flaws are part of the excellence. Like a beautiful woman, sure those flaws seem more obvious with age, but within the "flaws" you point out lie much of the perfection.

Like I said, most don't appreciate it for what it is, or why it is.

So, would love to discuss in detail to better highlight the points a short post on SWJ can hardly do justice to, but it was, and remains, a bit of governmental genius.

The day we "fix" the flaws is the day we begin our slide into being just like everyone else.

Bob's World
08-20-2011, 03:59 PM
Also, for what it is worth, Hitler had 44% of the popular vote in 33; and the Nazis pulled down 99% with 99% of the populace offically voting in the Referendum of '36.

The people had lost control of the government and did not realize it yet. That realization would come soon enough, but first they celebrated the very real positive aspects of effectiveness of government before the ugly downside of such effectiveness born of total control came to fruition.

No, I prefer the flawed beauty of goodness over the stark perfection of effectiveness any day.

J Wolfsberger
08-20-2011, 05:24 PM
Our government is excellent. But by "our government" I mean the Constitution that defines it. Our politicians and federal bureaucracy? Sadly, sadly off track.

...

Excellent post.

J Wolfsberger
08-20-2011, 05:46 PM
... Just look at the election process for presidency that allows for a president who lost the popular vote.

Deliberately designed to provide for exactly that possibility, by people who understood that a majority could screw things up just as thoroughly as an unelected, tiny minority (at the time referred to as "nobility") and thought it prudent to design a system that forced the presidency to represent as much of the diversity of a large country as possible.


A mix of voting for party AND voting for candidates (~as in Germany) allows for having ...

... real jerks elected on a party ticket who would never get into office any other way, since it makes it rather difficult to "split the ticket."


Your constitution that was basically designed for oligarchy is hardly "excellent".

No. It was basically designed by and for people who embraced the ideas of self determination and limited government and rejected a great deal of arrogant, hereditary "elitism" found in Europe then and now. (Then = aristocracy, now = progressive elite, both = [self snip to avoid the ire of moderators]) Which is why our government, when working properly, is structured around the exact "dysfunction" quite a few people are complaining of today. The semantic content of that complaining is: "the system is working but we aren't getting our way."

I wouldn't expect you to understand the why's of our culture and government. But when criticizing what you don't understand, keep in mind that this country was founded and built by people who wanted to discard much of what they left behind. That includes political structures designed and intended then, as now, to entrench self appointed elites. We aren't perfect, we get things wrong, and sometimes we take to long to recognize and fix our mistakes, but for all that we do a better job than most other countries, most of the time.

Fuchs
08-20-2011, 05:51 PM
Also, for what it is worth, Hitler had 44% of the popular vote in 33; and the Nazis pulled down 99% with 99% of the populace offically voting in the Referendum of '36.


WRONG.
That was no election, that was a racket.

The last real election of the Weimar Republic was in November 1932; 33% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932)

What Americans rarely grasp is that in many countries governments are not one-party governments, but coalitions. Hitler needed and got the support of the national-conservative party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_National_People%27s_Party) for a coalition to rule Germany.

Fuchs
08-20-2011, 06:09 PM
Deliberately designed to provide for exactly that possibility, by people who understood that a majority could screw things up just as thoroughly as an unelected, tiny minority (at the time referred to as "nobility") and thought it prudent to design a system that forced the presidency to represent as much of the diversity of a large country as possible.



... real jerks elected on a party ticket who would never get into office any other way, since it makes it rather difficult to "split the ticket."



No. It was basically designed by and for people who embraced the ideas of self determination and limited government and rejected a great deal of arrogant, hereditary "elitism" found in Europe then and now. (Then = aristocracy, now = progressive elite, both = [self snip to avoid the ire of moderators]) Which is why our government, when working properly, is structured around the exact "dysfunction" quite a few people are complaining of today. The semantic content of that complaining is: "the system is working but we aren't getting our way."

I wouldn't expect you to understand the why's of our culture and government. But when criticizing what you don't understand, keep in mind that this country was founded and built by people who wanted to discard much of what they left behind. That includes political structures designed and intended then, as now, to entrench self appointed elites. We aren't perfect, we get things wrong, and sometimes we take to long to recognize and fix our mistakes, but for all that we do a better job than most other countries, most of the time.

You are likely ill-informed.

The very early constitution led to little more than a club of gentlemen voting on how to rule the country as an oligarchy.


German can and do "split " their vote. I have two votes. One is for a choice of candidates and one is for a choice of parties. I can withhold one or for example choose a red candidate and a black party.


What Americans left behind was economic misery, some religious suppression, some African tribal societies, some famine and last but not least some monarchies.
Their constitution answered the latter, and that was more than 200 years ago. Newer constitutions include many more lessons, most obvious in the German one. That, by the way, was influenced by Americans who gave council and did not promote a 1:1 copy, but an advance over it.



What you demonstrate is the belief in (U.S.) American exceptionalism (in a positive meaning). That's quite fitting, as it's an as outdated view in this context as in many others.
Nowadays the U.S. constitution is merely an obsolete piece, full of poorly designed features, lacking incorporation of many important lessons and fitting only for a culture of inability to reform.


I don't claim that ours is near-perfect or a good example, but it was written to incorporate advances of more than 150 years over the U.S. constitution.


Btw, the U.S. constitution wasn't the first or even the first modern constitution. Corsica had the first modern one, in 1755. The oldest constitution still in use dates back to 1600; San Marino.


I understand that there has been a revival of interest in the U.S. constitution, if not even worshipping. Same for "founding fathers".
This doesn't change the fact that its lack of reform (instead mere amendments) means that it's a low quality constitution by modern Western standards.

You gotta read more than one constitution to see that with your own eyes, of course.

J Wolfsberger
08-20-2011, 08:50 PM
German can and do "split " their vote. I have two votes. One is for a choice of candidates and one is for a choice of parties. I can withhold one or for example choose a red candidate and a black party.

OK. Your country, not mine. Sorry if I gave any impression that I thought I had a detailed understanding of how your electoral process works. I'd be interested in what the two vote system accomplishes, if you want to explain.


The very early constitution led to little more than a club of gentlemen voting on how to rule the country as an oligarchy.


No. Period. To borrow a quote, "You are likely ill-informed." But then, it's our history not yours, so that's understandable. And if you have tried to get an understanding of our history from left wing, revisionist, post modern, progressive, etc. "historians" you have a great deal to unlearn.

You might, however, consider that our form of government is "republican," not "democratic." It is based on the concept of shared, limited sovereignty. That is a fact quite a few of my fellow countrymen don't grasp, and since many of the writers for national media fall in that group, if they (or the previously mentioned "historians") are your source of information you'll be a bit confused about what the U.S. is and is supposed to be, as well as one of the major sources of our current internal dispute.

If I understand your criticisms, The U.S. Constitution is "low quality" because

it's not shiny new
doesn't include some undefined "lessons"
fitting only for a culture of inability to reform.


OK. The first, I'll give you. Many of us are quite happy with that, see no need to change it for the sake of changing it, have severe reservations about some of the esoteric features of shinier, newer constitutions, and tend to tune out critics who can't explain the features of what we've got now. On this point, guilty as charged and happy about it.

On the second, you could describe the "lessons" you think we should pay attention to.

On the third, well, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. You could clarify that, too.

Fuchs
08-20-2011, 09:20 PM
Wolfsberger, the early U.S. elections had property requirements for voting eligibility. That WAS oligarchy. Less than 1% of the population voted in 1792. Medieval independent German cities were more of a republic than that.
The constitution did not ensure that voting rights were truly universal. That lesson had to be learned and was incorporated in later constitutions with a more precise wording.

The U.S. itself corrected much of this problem with a patchwork of amendments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#History_of_suffrage_in_the_United_States) , but there are still over 5 million people excluded from voting because of felonies in the U.S. - and the responsible legislation varies between states. Even minor offenses suffice to take away many people's voting rights.

This and the horrible effects of a pure majority voting system (-> two party system) are among the most important lessons learned for later constitutions. The lingering threat of rotten boroughs is another failure of the U.S. and many states' constitution(s). Some congressional district redefinitions have strongly favoured the ruling party of the state.



No. Period. To borrow a quote, "You are likely ill-informed."

I retract the "likely".

J Wolfsberger
08-20-2011, 09:40 PM
I retract the "likely".

As will I.

motorfirebox
08-21-2011, 12:35 AM
I think our Constitution is pretty good for what it is, but I had my druthers there would be some changes. For instance, to heck with this 'one man, one vote' crap; I want one man, five votes, weighted by order of preference. Or at least something like Germany's simultaneous candidate/party vote. That, plus some very sharp limits on corporations.

But frankly, I would be absolutely terrified if a new Constitutional Convention were formed in this day and age. With tempers this high, and rhetoric this inflamed, the best we could possibly hope for would be semi-peaceful Balkanization.

Dayuhan
08-21-2011, 01:16 AM
I think our Constitution is pretty good for what it is, but I had my druthers there would be some changes. For instance, to heck with this 'one man, one vote' crap; I want one man, five votes, weighted by order of preference. Or at least something like Germany's simultaneous candidate/party vote. That, plus some very sharp limits on corporations.

I've always thought of a "none of the above" option: if "none of the above" won the parties would have to pick new candidates and do it again. Of course in practice that would probably just leave us stuck with the incumbents, which would suck.

I don't really see "the system" as the problem, more the people in it, and no system is going to be immune to that problem.

Americans all love to hate "the corporations" [insert warding-off-evil symbol here], but might do well to reflect on where those "high paying jobs" everyone talks about actually come from. Ghastly as the corporations are, we'd be well stuffed without them.

J Wolfsberger
08-21-2011, 03:13 AM
I've always thought of a "none of the above" option: if "none of the above" won the parties would have to pick new candidates and do it again. Of course in practice that would probably just leave us stuck with the incumbents, which would suck.


Or we could just leave the office empty. :eek:

Which ...

... might not suck when you think about it. :D

Entropy
08-21-2011, 09:04 PM
I understand that there has been a revival of interest in the U.S. constitution, if not even worshipping. Same for "founding fathers".
This doesn't change the fact that its lack of reform (instead mere amendments) means that it's a low quality constitution by modern Western standards.

Fuchs,

Constitutions reflect the the values of the people and the circumstances under which they are governed. America is exceptional in this regard, and by exceptional I do not mean "better" but "different." The USA is a political union and not a nation-state like Germany which, like most of Europe, is a collection of people who are largely homogenous in terms of ethnicity, language, culture and religion. You don't see, for example, something like birthright citizenship in most nation-states for this reason - a homogenous people are ever afraid that the "other" will come in, multiply and dilute the ethnic and cultural values upon which the nation-state is based. Birthright citizenship is one feature our political union that sets us apart from nation-states. Another is decentralized power since our states are, technically at least, still sovereign entities in many respects. The federal government has no power to redraw state borders, for example.

Our constitution was a compromise between the original states which were, at the time, sovereign entities, and its purpose was to create a federal government to provide services for those states. The other states that joined since the first are now part of that "deal" and are more that mere administrative divisions.

Secondly, stating that this or that constitution is "better" doesn't really mean much. How does one define "better" in terms of a constitution? Is there some objective standard that all nations aspire too? I don't think so once one moves beyond basic civil rights. People's and cultures are different and to suggest that something is wrong, or outdated, or obsolete is to engage in the arrogant paternalistic assumption that one knows what's best for others. The US system is not without its flaws but it's served us well throughout our history.

slapout9
08-22-2011, 05:55 AM
Real news Network interview on is Capitalism dead. Near the end you will here the comment of how we are living dangerously.There is some Marxian analysis in here also on how economics leads to Revolutions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy5iGE19boE&feature=feedu

Ken White
08-22-2011, 03:46 PM
It's not dead -- or even wounded. Humans living dangerously is not new, that's well over 5,000 years old as well -- only the predators and jungles change a bit. :D

Marx, OTOH is dead and though his system and aberrations of it still live, sort of, they're on shaky legs simply because people can be greedy and just won't play fair. Every system of nominal socialism over the last 50 centuries has failed and has generally done so catastrophically but folks will keep trying... :rolleyes:

Those failures are proof that capitalism won't die. Instead of trying to replace it -- which is futile -- great thinkers ought to concentrate on ways to improve it instead of wasting time on something that human foibles will not permit to attain lasting success. :wry:

I never cease to be amazed at the number of folks who want to make frontal assaults instead of figuring out what and where the flaws are and using those as leverage to obtain lasting as opposed to possible temporary improvements. Many of those folks want level playing fields, forgetting the earth has very few level spots and if man makes one, he needs to watch it or Mother earth will unlevel it for him. They also want people to be equal -- that's not going to happen until we can manufacture them. Greed, energy, ambition and ego intertwine in too many ways for perfect or even much improved social equilibrium to ever be attained. Instead of trying to replace a natural tendency with one that is unnatural we should try to assist Mama Nature and do it her way...

Bob's World
08-22-2011, 04:59 PM
Agree. Capitalism, that is properly regulated, is the way to go. The debate of Capitalism vs Marxism reminds me of one of my favorite quotes on Democracy.

"We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government." Alexander Hamilton, June 26, 1787

The "extremes of capitalism / Marxism" are to economies much as the extremes of despotism / democracy are to governance. Finding that sweet spot and guarding effectively against those who will always seek to abuse any system for their own selfish gains is the key to success.

We are so far away from the "sweet spot" that it is no wonder many are ready to throw out the baby with the bath.

slapout9
08-22-2011, 08:38 PM
I never cease to be amazed at the number of folks who want to make frontal assaults instead of figuring out what and where the flaws are and using those as leverage to obtain lasting as opposed to possible temporary improvements.

I was tempted to say so you agree completely with Marx:eek: But I think you would want a little more detail. So I will break it done in parts. First there were 2 Marx (probably done intentionally by the Commies) There was Marx the economist and Marx the social revolutionary. One wrote On Capitol and the other wrote the Communist Manifesto(which was probably more Engels than Marx,some evidence to that but no real proof).

Some back round on how I came to this conclusion. My main mission in life at the time I joined the 82nd back in 72 was to find the Billy Jack Green Beret manual and to find out what these Green Beret guys really did. I accomplished both reasonably well IMO. When I went through the one minute guerrilla warfare course I had to stay behind for 2 extra days after the problem was over(for reasons I want go into:D) but I spent a great deal of time with a Team Sergeant who had been doing his job since.....a long time. Behind an excellent Fish Camp he drank a lot of beer and I ate a lot of cheeseburgers and drank a lot of coffee. And he told me to read Karl Marx for basic grounding on what is happening in the world and a lot of other things as well. So as soon as I got back to Bragg I beat feet down to the Special Forces bookstore and got a copy of the Commie Manifest but had to go to the Main Post Library to get On Capitol. To very different people wrote those books even though there is some basic commonality in both of them.

So in order to understand the enemy I came away with 3 main rules of Commie Revolutionary Warfare(Living Dangerously). Rule 2 is that the Commies believed the best way to take over a country is to destroy the Economy, this makes Capitalism(capitalism is banking) extremely vulnerable because of our belief that if the Government acts to protect the economic well being of the people we are all turning into Commies by default as opposed to actually stopping the threat from gaining hold in America. As you point out it is out vulnerable flank and they are exploiting it to this day, except now they have religion thrown in with it. End of part 1

Ken White
08-23-2011, 01:56 AM
I was tempted to say so you agree completely with Marx:eek:With respect to what you quoted, yep, I do. BUT that sin't "completely." :D
First there were 2 Marx (probably done intentionally by the Commies) There was Marx the economist and Marx the social revolutionary. One wrote On Capitol and the other wrote the Communist Manifesto(which was probably more Engels than Marx,some evidence to that but no real proof).Agree it was probably more attributable the guy from the even more wealthy Engels family. While I don't agree with Marx on capital and its evils, he wasn't totally out to lunch economically speaking -- politically, he was just overly hopeful. People can't or won't go that route for very long, greed and generational change get involved...
...had to go to the Main Post Library to get On Capitol.If you'de been there three years earlier, we might have bumped into each other -- I spent a lot of time there... :wry:
Rule 2 is that the Commies believed the best way to take over a country is to destroy the Economy, this makes Capitalism(capitalism is banking) extremely vulnerable because of our belief that if the Government acts to protect the economic well being of the people we are all turning into Commies by default as opposed to actually stopping the threat from gaining hold in America. As you point out it is out vulnerable flank and they are exploiting it to this day, except now they have religion thrown in with it. End of part 1Education. True on the economy and on religion (or strong secularity...) -- and they had success in getting us to harm our own economic system by properly leveraging our flaws.

However, they also spent much time and effort on corrupting the western education systems. Due to our decentralized approach, they had a great deal of success here as was true in the UK. France and Germany with more centralized systems were able to blunt most of the efforts of the KGB et.al. with respect to dimunition of the educational systems. Note that education attack had and has -- and will continue to have -- follow on second, third and more order economic effects as well... :mad:

motorfirebox
08-23-2011, 05:17 PM
Americans all love to hate "the corporations" [insert warding-off-evil symbol here], but might do well to reflect on where those "high paying jobs" everyone talks about actually come from. Ghastly as the corporations are, we'd be well stuffed without them.
Well, sure. We'd be stuffed without fire, too, but that's no reason to let folks run around with flamethrowers.

I'm pro-capitalism, but I'm also pro-not losing sight of the fact that the economic system serves the nation--not the other way around.

Fuchs
08-23-2011, 05:39 PM
Americans all love to hate "the corporations" [insert warding-off-evil symbol here], but might do well to reflect on where those "high paying jobs" everyone talks about actually come from. Ghastly as the corporations are, we'd be well stuffed without them.

Not necessarily.

The biggest advantage of a corporation over a SMEs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_and_medium_enterprises) is power, and more rarely economies of scale.

Power translates into better safety against legal claims, ability to bully and push out smaller competition (even small patent applicants) with legal claims, get better purchase deals (and at times even get a discount with threat of legal action).


Now think about it; such a power asymmetry exploitation enterprise pays a higher salary than a SME in the same market.
This is often in part compensation for a worse work environment, and thus not always an employee's advantage tot he full extent.

The corporation may also pay a higher salary because I exploited power asymmetry to gain a high market share in a generally very profitable market. Meanwhile, the SME can pay less in the same market because its lesser power leads to additional costs.


I see no real reason why corporations should pay systematically better salaries/wages because they're somehow better organisations. In fact, up to 100% of the salary difference may be compensation for the job being ####tier and the ability to pay a high salary might be transferred to all SMEs in the same market if you get rid of the corporation(s).

Did salaries drop when AT&T got dismembered, did they rise when it reassembled itself?



The German economy rests on SMEs, many of them were founded during the rebuilding of the economy in the 50's. Our big corporations are mostly consumer brand enterprises. The B2B sector is mostly about SME suppliers.
We seem to do fine. One nice trait of SMEs is that their direct investments in foreign countries are mostly marketing investments, not about exporting jobs.

Dayuhan
08-24-2011, 12:07 PM
I see no real reason why corporations should pay systematically better salaries/wages because they're somehow better organisations. In fact, up to 100% of the salary difference may be compensation for the job being ####tier and the ability to pay a high salary might be transferred to all SMEs in the same market if you get rid of the corporation(s).

The reasons may be open to debate, but if you look at the salaries paid by major corporations in the US, even at the fairly mundane level (secrataries, office managers, etc), they tend to be at the high end of the wage spectrum for the job in question. Whether or not those jobs are in fact $#!ttier than equivalent jobs elsewhere is something I suspect neither of us knows. In any event the Government doesn't choose whether a given economic sector will be dominated by large corporations or SME's, neither is there anything preventing the two from coexisting. It's by no means an either/or situation.

Fuchs
08-24-2011, 03:46 PM
No, but legislation and gubernation can steer an economy towards a dominance of corporations or SMEs.

Turnover taxation details, anti-trust legislation, taxation differences between ltd and inc, patent legislation, subsidies...

slapout9
08-24-2011, 06:14 PM
While I don't agree with Marx on capital and its evils, he wasn't totally out to lunch economically speaking -- politically, he was just overly hopeful.

Politically.....he was nuts:D

Economically his market value theory vs. his labor value theory was spot on and I never new why people thought it was bad or radical. All the man said was. Some People make Products to make Profits/Some People make PAPER to make Profits. Whenever the right side becomes unbalanced (make more money with Paper as opposed to Products) the people will rise up. I could never understand what is so radical or un-American about that? To me that is exactly the problem we have today. Marx was not really anti-business.....he was anti-Wall Street bank. His solution was to Nationalize the banking system to SUPPORT Production(business). You have to have Production before you can have Consumption. Never understood the big deal myself. "Ike" understood it perfectly.

Ken White
08-24-2011, 06:58 PM
Politically.....he was nuts:DVery harsh. To be more collegial, can't we just say his theories were, umm, different? :D

Then again, given the people that aberrations of his political system killed in the name of helping them, maybe nuts is a good pick...
Economically his market value theory vs. his labor value theory was spot on and I never new why people thought it was bad or radical.Not sure that people did. However, I think the Paper creators knew it was bad -- for them!
...His solution was to Nationalize the banking system to SUPPORT Production(business). You have to have Production before you can have Consumption. Never understood the big deal myself. "Ike" understood it perfectly.Those Wall Street folks made it into a big deal because it would hit them where it hurt. So they bought -- er, contributed to -- politicians to preclude that.

In fairness to them and to others who disagreed and do disagree (I'm one...) with that nationalizing approach, their argument was and is valid and twofold. (a) Governmental operations tend to develop inefficiencies and bureaucracies grow and lose sight of their original purpose. (b) One cannot trust politicians one bit more than one can trust rampant capitalists or bankers. In fact and in my observation, one can trust them less because they garner power and power does corrupt...

Speaking of which, the Feds are down here now, in the County next door, investigating the building of a commercially operated prison and the self enriching involvement of our wunnerful Florda Legisladers therein... :rolleyes:

Ideally a mix of governmental and private commercial institutions will work with and against each other and thus keep the total system fairly honest most of the time. As long as people are involved, some will find a way to game any system. :eek:

J Wolfsberger
08-24-2011, 08:25 PM
Politically.....he was nuts:D

...

I think Terry Pratchett referred to him in one of his Discworld novels. As best I recall, the vignette involved an old man who wrote a book about economics as a practical joke. Unfortunately, a lot of people didn't get it it and millions died before it was all sorted out.

The one thing Marx got close to right was the labor theory of value, but only close. As individuals, the one thing each of us owns that can be sold is our labor. Unfortunately, Marx and other communists/socialists/Leftists/progressives/whatevers still haven't figured out that not all labor hours are created equal, that the right to property is fundamental if the right to one's labor is to mean anything , and so on.

What can I say? Some people are slow to get the punch line.

Dayuhan
08-24-2011, 10:31 PM
No, but legislation and gubernation can steer an economy towards a dominance of corporations or SMEs.

Turnover taxation details, anti-trust legislation, taxation differences between ltd and inc, patent legislation, subsidies...

To some extent, yes, though the extent to which these have actually influenced conditions on the ground is in any case debatable.

In the US, small businesses (>500 employees) account for a bit over 50% of private nonfarm GDP and close to 50% of employment, so it's hard to argue that they have been marginalized by large corporations. 65% of new hires in the 17 years ending 2009 were from small business, though of course these jobs tend to pay less and be less secure than those in large companies.

The two co-exist, and dominate the respective niches where they are most efficient. Obviously Boeing, GM, Apple, ExxonMobil, Lockheed Martin etc are not going to be replaceable by small businesses, nor would it make sense for government to try to initiate such a dramatic change.

ganulv
08-25-2011, 01:08 AM
Politically.....he was nuts:D

I think that the notion that the workers should be arguing about who owns the bakery rather than about the size of their slice of the pie is sensible enough. He did glorify violence (more than) a bit, though. (Though I don’t think he can touch Fanon on that count.)


All the man said was. Some People make Products to make Profits/Some People make PAPER to make Profits.

The productive/unproductive labor distinction really jumps out at you when you keep in mind that the Party boys in China all received an education founded in Marxist economic principles—where it’s all about materialism—and you compare how wealth has been generated and invested in the PRC for the past couple of decades vs. the same in the United States. I have to say that the development of high speed rail and overall infrastructure improvement strike me as better long term bets than rent seeking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking) and credit default swaps.


Then again, given the people that aberrations of his political system killed in the name of helping them, maybe nuts is a good pick...

Judging Marx by the Marxists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Guesde) seems as unfair as judging Jesus by the Christians, at least to me. But I confess to a certain fondness for both of those guys. :p

Ken White
08-25-2011, 03:34 AM
I think that the notion that the workers should be arguing about who owns the bakery rather than about the size of their slice of the pie is sensible enough.True -- problem is some workers won't argue who but wish to argue why... :D
I have to say that the development of high speed rail and overall infrastructure improvement strike me as better long term bets than ... and credit default swaps.Can't disagree with the motherhood and apple Pie of infrastructure improvement. The States whose responsibility that is could perhaps do a better job were not excessive income going to the Feds as opposed to the States or were the Feds to pass that excess back down to the States with less social engineering attached. We have plenty of money to do things, the governmental intakes are just terribly skewed and Federal grants and transfers are a woefully inefficient method of papering over that.

As for High Speed Rail, in this country, it makes sense in the Northeast Corridor, Washington to Boston -- other than that, not so much. Distance and empty spaces -- it'll never compete with flying for passenger count no matter how difficult the government makes it for the airlines to compete. Problem of course is that in the corridor and the very few other places where it might be a bit beneficial, construction costs are beyond astronomical. It is a political toy and not a very smart one...

It's not quite as dumb as the CAFE standards but almost.

Speaking of credit default swaps, much of the recent spate thereof was engendered by rent seeking (which Adam and his brethren taught me about fifty years or so ago...) politicians, only nominally non-Marxist (Barney, Bernie et.al. ... :D), tilting the playing field in order to buy votes for selected constituencies and to raise and lower all boats to marginal mediocrity. Add in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- political ploys of the first water with the same goal -- and ol' Karl was a piker...
Judging Marx by the Marxists seems as unfair as judging Jesus by the Christians, at least to me. But I confess to a certain fondness for both of those guys. :pWhile I'm not particularly enamored of either...

I did not know either of those gentlemen so my judgment must by default be based on their legacies and writings, pro and con, about them -- all of which IMO leave a great deal to be desired based on the number of bodies they strewed about and the rapaciousness and intransigence of their more 'dedicated' followers. In this case, I not only don't share the opinion, I also respectfully disagree with it. Again, that's why there are many manufacturers of automobobils and such -- choices... :wry:

Both those folks also made much of 'equality.' People did not understand 'equality' and thus they've failed to do a decent job of ensuring equality of opportunity while they have tried, quite futilely, wasting untold Billions and much effort, to insure equality of outcome. That has never been achieved and will never be. Nope, both those folks, or, more correctly, their followers, have much to answer for...

ganulv
08-25-2011, 05:32 AM
However, must the Bakers support the Candle Stick makers? What of the Butchers?

The state as the enforcer of the must is where Lenin parted ways with Marx, FWIW.


The States whose responsibility that is could perhaps do a better job were not excessive income going to the Feds as opposed to the States or were the Feds to pass that excess back down to the States with less social engineering attached.

That’s pretty much the same tension that lead to the Nullification Crisis, isn’t it? Efficiency is best assured at the local level, but the free flow of capital is best assured by fewer local agendas and more standardization, something best assured at the supralocal level. I don’t know that you can make that tension disappear.


As for High Speed Rail, in this country, it makes sense in the Northeast Corridor, Washington to Boston -- other than that, not so much.

The two-to-four hour journey is where it makes sense. Add Chicagoland, the Texas Triangle, and California.


Problem of course is that in the corridor and the very few other places where it might be a bit beneficial, construction costs are beyond astronomical.

There are also costs associated with the status quo. Decisions, decisions…


Both those folks also made much of 'equality.'

I imagine there is something about being a Jew that lends itself to the realization, “People keep telling me I’m a dog but I’m quite sure that I’m not.” Their equality was more about acknowledgment as fully human, not three weeks paid vacation a year and a pension at 58.


People did not understand 'equality'

Yep, as with Sherman’s (in)famous march, a historical perspective is indeed woefully lacking.

motorfirebox
08-25-2011, 11:19 AM
Ah. However, must the Bakers support the Candle Stick makers? What of the Butchers?
Well... to an extent, yeah. This goes back to what I said earlier about the economic system serving the country rather than the other way around. The purpose of an economic system isn't to allow some people to get rich. That's an outcome, and it's not an undesirable one, but it's not the goal. The goal is to create prosperity for the nation as a whole.

But I don't think that's really the right question anyway. Asking if butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers should have to support each other assumes that all three are starting on the same footing. If they are, and if one of them fails, well, better luck next time--failure is a necessary part of a capitalist economy. What we have now, though, is candlestick makers running up the cost of candles while simultaneously using the excess money they gain from doing so to legislate against butchering and baking during daylight hours. Preventing that sort of thing isn't asking candlestick makers to "support" butchers and bakers.

Ken White
08-25-2011, 04:23 PM
Ganulv:

Yes, Lenin did part way with Marx -- so have most of Karl's hangers-on. As I said, they have much to answer for... ;)

You make that tension disappear by having the Federal government do the things it is supposed to do and cease doing all the many things that are none of its business. That proliferation of assumed tasks has created an overlarge governmental crowd that doesn't do much of anything well because it is trying to do too much. I say that based on 45 years in uniform and as a civilian working for that government. It generally means well; it always is over-involved. To rid us of that problem we can vote out all incumbents in Congress. Both Parties. Repeatedly. Until they get the message and reform the process -- without that, it will not reform; not seen as in the interest of its politicians and employees -- perspective again.

I'll grant two -- California is woefully suspect other than San Diego to LA. To San Francisco you'll never beat the air time. Rather than trying to force people to do something they likely will not be interested in doing, why not cater to their wishes and simply improve the quo???

True on decisions and those are best made locally. that would be definitely less efficient but we can afford it, we're wealthy but just do not spend well. Local effort is certainly far more effective -- and that, not efficency, is or should be the goal of governance. This nation is simply too large and diverse to adopt one-size-fits-all solutions to satisfy all the Nannies involved. Distressing but there you have it.

No problem with acknowledging full humanity -- that would be guaranteeing equality of opportunity -- but I do have problems with three weeks vacation and a pension at 58 for everyone. Some jobs merit it, all do not and my quarrel is with those who would say all must be treated equally because they are all people. People and jobs are not all equal, never have been or will be until we perfect cloning. Michael Jordan is certainly a far better Basketball player than I. The Cop who puts his life on the line daily deserves different treatment than the soldier who only does that occasionally but who deserves different treatment than the medical professional who works long hard hours but with little danger -- or the Butchers and Bakers who cope with none of the above... :wry:

Not only a historical perspective but, too often, just common sense...

motorfirebox:

The goal is not or should not be to create prosperity for the nation as a whole. That it is now a nominal goal is really a part of the problem. "Prosperity for the country" implies (not states, just implies...) a certain equality of outcome. That the implication is having adverse effects on us is shown by your second paragraph with which I agree -- the system has been corrupted and our Political Class has not only allowed that, they have (foolishly IMO) encouraged it.

I'm reminded of this little tale I recently noted:
A doctor, a priest, a lawyer and an engineer are waiting to tee up, but they have to wait an inordinate amount of time. The club pro explains that the foursome ahead of them are firefighters who lost their sight saving children. in a local school fire, and that the club lets then play any day they want. The golfers answer the pro:
Pastor: Forgive my impatience, I’ll pray for them.
Lawyer: Well, the club should give us a discount.
Doctor: Maybe they can be cured; I’ll talk to my ophthalmologist friend.
Engineer: Why can’t these guys play at night?

Quoted from p. 126, "Winning Insurgent War, Back to Basics" (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/683-batsonleonardotucker2.pdf) by Geoff Demarest , Foreign Military Studies Office, Ft. Leavenworth. Problem is, of course, that we all see things from our own perspective and self protection is instinctive. In that tale, the four golfers would have worked it out on their own and the 'help' of the Pro would have been unnecessary. My point is that effective leadership and / or politics should account for that perspective issue and arrive at a fair consensus of courses of action. History shows us that such leadership or political acumen is actually and unfortunately rather rare. The counterpoint is that most societies if not unduly manipulated by their government will slowly arrive at a correct balance. In prior centuries a lack of education made the process haphazard and agonizingly slow. Given today's educational capability (as opposed to demonstrated production...:( ) there's a case to be made for less, not more governmental intrusion as the tendency to get to a satisfactory conclusion is more likely than ever...

The linkage of all this to the Thread is that this era is no more dangerous than any prior era. A strong argument that it is less dangerous due to world wide societal advances could in fact be made.

The linkage to Small Wars is that we do not do them at all well. A large contributor to that shortcoming is that steep declines in US some military capabilities, not offset by known and obvious improvements in other areas of armed forces conduct and equipage, are societally or governmentally induced. The drive toward the equality of mediocrity, excessive concerns with stability and security -- 'force protection' -- and a fragmented government funded by a Congress that has its nose in too many things have had severe detrimental impacts on our education, our training and our performance in too many -- not all by any means, but far too many -- aspects

ganulv
08-25-2011, 05:14 PM
You make that tension disappear by having the Federal government do the things it is supposed to do and cease doing all the many things that are none of its business. […] To rid us of that problem we can vote out all incumbents in Congress. Both Parties. Repeatedly. Until they get the message and reform the process -- without that, it will not reform; not seen as in the interest of its politicians and employees -- perspective again.

I grew up on an Indian reservation so you’re preaching to the choir. The irony is that one gets elected to the House (and often enough to the Tribal Council) by promising and proving s/he can milk the Feds to the benefit of the district/reserve.


True on decisions and those are best made locally. that would be definitely less efficient but we can afford it, we're wealthy but just do not spend well. Local effort is certainly far more effective -- and that, not efficency, is or should be the goal of governance. This nation is simply too large and diverse to adopt one-size-fits-all solutions to satisfy all the Nannies involved. Distressing but there you have it.

I don’t disagree with any particular part here, but do think Americans should keep in mind the Federal Government’s role in creating some of that wealth. Not saying it doesn’t do its fair share of standing in the way, but it also opens doors. The current political discourse is focused on the former to the point of excluding the latter.

Ken White
08-25-2011, 07:54 PM
We agree on every point. While I didn't address it, no question in my mind that apparent selfishness on the part of voters at all levels has for many years aided Congress and legislative bodies in general in their unending pursuit of venality... :mad:

We started educating people to preclude that and -- Hanlons razor here (mostly...) -- in the early 60s we quit, dumbed down 7-12 education to promote self esteem over basic competence and began insisting on a Degree for more jobs than should logically require one. That did tertiary education no favors. I know more than one degreed 20-30 something who's amazingly naive and short on, to me, rudimentary knowledge -- but they can tell me anything I want to know about their I-Pod or the travails of Amy Winehouse. Sad, really. I digress. That educational regression allowed a relapse to the 19th century model of US voting... :wry:

I know it's more complex than that but the failures in education are a big part of the flawed politics problem. The good news is that seems to be slowly being retooled.

Bob's World
08-25-2011, 09:29 PM
-- but they can tell me anything I want to know about their I-Pod or the travails of Amy Winehouse. .


You run with a pretty hip crowd ... :D

Ken White
08-25-2011, 10:51 PM
You run with a pretty hip crowd ... :DThey have too much money and too much time on their hands... :D

motorfirebox
08-25-2011, 11:39 PM
motorfirebox:

The goal is not or should not be to create prosperity for the nation as a whole. That it is now a nominal goal is really a part of the problem. "Prosperity for the country" implies (not states, just implies...) a certain equality of outcome. That the implication is having adverse effects on us is shown by your second paragraph with which I agree -- the system has been corrupted and our Political Class has not only allowed that, they have (foolishly IMO) encouraged it.
By "nation as a whole" I don't necessarily mean every individual person in the nation. I mean the average--the whole. Enforcing absolute equality of outcome is bad, but it's just as bad as a system that results in absolute inequality of outcome. There has to be a certain general parity--the bottom end can't drag too far behind the top end, if only to satisfy the demands generational wealth places on equality of opportunity.




The counterpoint is that most societies if not unduly manipulated by their government will slowly arrive at a correct balance. In prior centuries a lack of education made the process haphazard and agonizingly slow. Given today's educational capability (as opposed to demonstrated production...:( ) there's a case to be made for less, not more governmental intrusion as the tendency to get to a satisfactory conclusion is more likely than ever...
Economically, the idea that too much government is the major source of harm just doesn't fly--our current woes came after decades of stripping government oversight.

Ken White
08-26-2011, 01:25 AM
Economically, the idea that too much government is the major source of harm just doesn't fly--our current woes came after decades of stripping government oversight.I think that the problem was not stripping of government oversight in the deregulation sense but lack of effective government oversight in still regulated industries and sectors at the behest of Congroids who wanted favors for donors and forced Regulators to back off by threatenting their budgets (or adding to same as a carrot...). Our current woes were caused, more than any one thing, by the bundling of mortgages and governmental entities Fannie and Freddy were in the midst of that -- and Congress resisted calls from three Presidents from both parties to clean up that mess. They also protected the SEC in the face of whistleblowers (plural) that tried to warn them of the impending crunch. :mad:

Don't forget several Presidnts who overspent deliberately and / or structured governmental responses for purely partisan political purposes...

Add in the plethora of Federal programs that pass money to States, localities and individuals in monumental vote buying schemes. A great deal of the money in those grants and transfers is frittered away on nice to have stuff.

Then there's Medicare and Social Security -- neither of which I particularly need or want; so by spending money on me, someone who needs help isn't getting it -- or is getting less than they should. There's no excuse for not means testing those programs. The Medicare is particularly onerous because even though I do not need it, the system virtually forces me to use it...

Governance failure by design. Whether too much government is the major problem is arguable -- that excessive government IS bad and ineffective government is worse should not be in dispute. Combine the two flaws and you have today's USA. The governmental milieu and its excesses may not be the major problem but it is certainly one of them.

Ain't we got fun... :rolleyes:

Dayuhan
08-26-2011, 03:00 AM
By "nation as a whole" I don't necessarily mean every individual person in the nation. I mean the average--the whole. Enforcing absolute equality of outcome is bad, but it's just as bad as a system that results in absolute inequality of outcome. There has to be a certain general parity--the bottom end can't drag too far behind the top end, if only to satisfy the demands generational wealth places on equality of opportunity.

I don't think anyone would argue against the proposition that economic policy should serve the nation as a whole. What policies will actually come closest to that goal are a matter of some dispute, and many proposals seem to be either clueless, or thinly disguised attempts to advance specific agendas, or barefaced pseudo-populist attempts to play to popular illusions. Frequently they are all three.


Economically, the idea that too much government is the major source of harm just doesn't fly--our current woes came after decades of stripping government oversight.

Our current woes came after a good number of other things as well, and I see no good reason to believe that oversight or lack thereof was the critical factor. There was also a long series of short-sighted policies targeting political advantage rather than long-term economic health. After a fair number of years of watching, I've personally come to believe that sound management of macro incentives achieves far more than oversight... though sound management of macro incentives often conflict with political agendas and is consequently ignored. Both political parties in the US have done their share of that, and both have shown themselves eager to focus blame on the ever-available scapegoat of Wall Street to distract attention from their own rather gargantuan contribution to the situation.

slapout9
08-26-2011, 05:13 AM
What happened was this.

"Ike" was spending 12.5% of GDP(Gross Domestic Product) a year on Infrastructure and Taxing Rich People up to 90% of their income. Population about 165 million people.

As of 2009 (or about then) we were barley spending 2.5% of our GDP on Infrastructure and rich people are only paying a 17% Capitol gains tax. Population about 310 million.


Infrastructure back during "Ike" was not just roads and bridges, but electrical grid, water systems,sewer systems,phone company(we used to have one)schools,hospitals,libraries,court houses, and medical clinics. Yes "Ike" was going to provide actual Health Care to people not some phony health insurance company scam(Insurance is a racket). It was gone by about 1965 or so. Oh Yea Cats and Dogs were living together in the same house.

Fuchs
08-26-2011, 02:00 PM
Our current woes were caused, more than any one thing, by the bundling of mortgages and governmental entities Fannie and Freddy were in the midst of that --

The root causes were macroeconomic and easily visible even in macroeconomic abstracts of monthly BEA reports for more than a decade.

Any single institution was merely a cog wheel in the whole.


edit: Blame your media. There are 24/7 "business" channels that didn't devote a single hour in a full decade to these obvious macroeconomic disaster-in-waiting.
Even today they don't appear to explain that the root causes still exist and the whole attention is focused at petty symptoms.


You simply cannot run a nation with -1% GDP net capital investment, +1% population growth, a trade balance deficit equalling a quarter of your goods production and expect it to run 'great'.

motorfirebox
08-26-2011, 04:00 PM
I think that the problem was not stripping of government oversight in the deregulation sense but lack of effective government oversight in still regulated industries and sectors at the behest of Congroids who wanted favors for donors and forced Regulators to back off by threatenting their budgets (or adding to same as a carrot...).

Our current woes were caused, more than any one thing, by the bundling of mortgages and governmental entities Fannie and Freddy were in the midst of that -- and Congress resisted calls from three Presidents from both parties to clean up that mess. They also protected the SEC in the face of whistleblowers (plural) that tried to warn them of the impending crunch. :mad:

I don't see how the first doesn't lead to the second. It seems strikingly probable to me, for instance, that not passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act would have either prevented the housing crisis entirely or strictly limited its impact. Fannie and Freddie were the method by which a financial crunch occurred; their involvement dictated that it would be a housing crunch rather than a student loan crunch or a commercial real estate crunch. Lack of effective oversight was certainly a big problem, but to give financial entities carte blanche to completely make up as much wealth as they want is going to have political ramifications. It is hard to have effective financial regulation when you allow the creation of entities which have enough purchasing power to buy the SEC as a conversation piece to mount in the living room. The only solution to that is to limit the amount of wealth financial entities are allowed to spin out of thin air.

Ken White
08-26-2011, 04:45 PM
I don't see how the first doesn't lead to the second. It seems strikingly probable to me, for instance, that not passing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act would have either prevented the housing crisis entirely or strictly limited its impact.Why did it pass? Politicians doing things that didn't need to be done because they are impelled to do 'something.' Too often, 'something' that is designed to slip through and cater to a particular constituency that supports one party or the other. The larger the governmental milieu, the easier to hide things. :mad:
Fannie and Freddie were the method by which a financial crunch occurred; their involvement dictated that it would be a housing crunch rather than a student loan crunch or a commercial real estate crunch. Lack of effective oversight was certainly a big problemThat's perhaps an understatement. I'd go much further. Protection -- protection, not lack of oversight -- protection of Fanny and Freddie for political / ideological and not practical purposes were not only the method but principal cause.
but to give financial entities carte blanche to completely make up as much wealth as they want is going to have political ramifications.Of course it is and I certainly am not advocating that -- regulation is needed, no question. What is NOT needed is the political skewing of what gets regulated on ideological grounds as opposed to logical, balanced and minimal curbs on excess.
It is hard to have effective financial regulation when you allow the creation of entities which have enough purchasing power to buy the SEC as a conversation piece to mount in the living room. The only solution to that is to limit the amount of wealth financial entities are allowed to spin out of thin air.I think you just said there should be no Fannie, no Freddie. I agree. That also means there should be no Bank of America, Citi or J.P. Morgan et.al. in their current forms -- I agree.

Bottom line on all that is big government per se is neutral on these particular economic issues (though not necessarily on different economic and on many other issues...) but that excessive government fiddling, allowed by a government that is too big to restrict its focus to the basics and is thus encouraged to engage in politically oriented tinkering in order to obtain funds or votes and to expand a party's or the government's reach, is indeed the culprit...:D

ganulv
08-26-2011, 04:47 PM
The root causes were macroeconomic and easily visible even in macroeconomic abstracts of monthly BEA reports for more than a decade. […] edit: Blame your media. There are 24/7 "business" channels that didn't devote a single hour in a full decade to these obvious macroeconomic disaster-in-waiting.

Keep in mind that the U.S. is a society in which many parents are resistant to childhood vaccinations—maybe the greatest achievement in human history, as far as I am concerned—because they are convinced they cause autism, and evolution and climate change are also widely portrayed as political opinions. Most Americans seem to understand that alternative hypotheses are part of science, but far fewer seem to understand that strongly held opinions (http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.html?/video/bestoftv/2009/03/02/larry.king.30.rock.cnn) do not count as support for them.

Ken White
08-26-2011, 05:57 PM
"Ike" was spending 12.5% of GDP(Gross Domestic Product) a year on Infrastructure and Taxing Rich People up to 90% of their income. Population about 165 million people.That tax rate was sustained only by the need to pay off the WW II debt, no way it could have or should have lasted much longer; that it produced excess is shown by that 12.5% spending on infrastructure. Not saying that expenditure was bad, just that it was large.

To put that in perspective the 1954 GDP was $2,582.1B (roughly 19.4 Trillion today), 12.5% of that was $322.7B (roughly 2.4 Trillion today)
As of 2009 (or about then) we were barley spending 2.5% of our GDP on Infrastructure...The GDP in 2009 was only $12.8 Trillion (not 19.4 Trillion), thus 2.5% on Infrastructure was about $320 B, roughly the same amount but from a relatively lower if actually larger GDP (so one could say we're spending more...) -- and we are not building an interstate system, not supporting as heavily an inefficient rail passenger system or, unfortunately, not paying off a massive debt. We have instead opted to spend far more of our money on Social programs to the detriment of things the Federal Government should be doing -- highways, incidentally and as you know, are a State responsibility.

I'm assuming your figure are accurate and just working off them. My experience is that it is really quite difficult to pin down the actual numbers though you can get a broad approximation -- which is good enough for internet discussion purposes. To provide a bit more contrast, if you check this LINK (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/hist.html)and got to the Outlays by Super function, you'll see that total Federal Outlay in 1954 was $76.1B, Social program spending was 18.5% of the total (including massive Veterans benefits and services, the largest single item as a result of WW II). In 2009, outlays were $3.5 Trillion and Social program spending was 61.3% of that. Different world Slap -- those Ike days are gone and they won't ever come back.

Not to mention that much of the then infrastructure spending was on things now far more in the private sector -- like the grid. Not arguing who should pay, just that comparing the two pots of spending is a bit of apple and orange.

Same thing holds true on your tax rate and population numbers -- then and now have a lot of different parameters.
...not some phony health insurance company scam(Insurance is a racket).True. You mention that to your Congress critter? :D
It was gone by about 1965 or so.Wasn't that when Lyndon introduced the Great Society -- and Medicare??? :wry:

Fuchs
Blame your media. There are 24/7 "business" channels that didn't devote a single hour in a full decade to these obvious macroeconomic disaster-in-waiting. Even today they don't appear to explain that the root causes still exist and the whole attention is focused at petty symptoms.True, our pathetic media is almost as responsible for the shape we're in as is excessive government, wrongly focused... :mad:
You simply cannot run a nation with -1% GDP net capital investment, +1% population growth, a trade balance deficit equalling a quarter of your goods production and expect it to run 'great'.Yes. you'd think that would be obvious...

I think it is obvious -- to everyone except our Politicians, both parties, both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue...:mad:

Fuchs
08-26-2011, 06:31 PM
My experience is that it is really quite difficult to pin down the actual numbers (...)

These things take five minutes for me...

lines 22, 23, 26:
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2011/08%20August/NIPA_Section5.pdf

page 6 (table 3), first line:
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/pdf/gdp2q11_2nd.pdf


Minor revisions are to be expected for the more recent values, the maximum error for 2010 and earlier values should be +/- 2% in worst case, more likely far below +/-1%. (This means per cent for actual aggregated values, per cent points for change values.)


Correction of my previous post: The trade balance deficit is close to a FIFTH of domestic goods production. I got my fractions mixed up (one fifth missing = one fourth more would be needed to close the gap).

ganulv
08-26-2011, 06:41 PM
The trade balance deficit is close to a FIFTH of domestic goods production.

Yeah, but my country owns the printing presses for the world’s reserve currency. :D Though not for much longer if the current crew of elected officials in D.C. keep up their recent behavior. :mad:

Fuchs
08-26-2011, 07:14 PM
I looked at the M2 (a measure for the amount of cash) of the USD recently and estimated that the value would drop by about 60% if the government debt would be paid for with 'printed' money. Now that was government debt.

National debt is something very different.

A trade balance deficit means net capital import. This means among other things that foreigners buy business shares in the U.S. or set up businesses in the U.S.. You can't do #### against this with a printing press. This part of the accumulated debt is not some bond or IOU, but a claim for a share of the domestic business profits.

A permanent printing press action for paying for imports year after year won't work; the foreign suppliers wouldn't accept such deals. More importantly, the exchange rate of the USD would drop so badly that the much-changed terms of trade would balance the trade balance anyway.



Btw, the accumulation of debt by trade balance deficits is one of the areas where BEA has a poor reputation (the other is iirc unemployment stats). Its data is inconsistent. That's the 'nice' description.

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

Btw, the trade balance deficit is almost back to pre-crash heights: (-) 53 billion USD in June 2011 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/2011/pdf/trad0611.pdf page 4). The lowest was about (-) 25.5 bn and the record shortly before the bust was about (-) 67 bn.
Yay. I told u; the real root problems are in a great shape, while the media and politics steer the attention onto symptoms.
The share of manufacturing in GDP is still only close to 20%; Germany is close to 30%. About 25% would be healthy (and necessary for the U.S.).


You cannot get there without much capital investment (several more % GDP p.a., but that would require much more savings (to lend from foreign sources instead would drive up the trade balance deficit even more and might hasten a bust). How to raise savings without decreasing consumption? In short term it's possible to improve the degree of capacity utilisation, but that's not going to suffice, for it will at best lead back to a bit lower than immediate pre-bust levels. The answer is that consumption has to drop.
Now that won't happen voluntarily in a country that still believes that consumption (and really almost only consumption) drives the economy.

The tragedy is that this consumption thing is even correct for combating the short-term problems (low capacity utilisation), a.k.a. the symptoms. It's 180° wrong for combating the long-term problems (insufficient manufacturing for the level of demand).
A great success in defeating the symptoms will further fortify the belief in the importance of consumption .. .and thus grow the root problem, hasten the travel to the next, greater, bust.

In the end, it doesn't matter how the bust looks. Housing bubble or not - the key is that the whole is unsustainable in many ways and the internal dynamics are even reinforcing this.

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


Meanwhile, many people (for whose courage and rationality I have little respect) jump mentally overboard because of fantasy "threats" and want to allocate major amounts of resources against these "threats"...

Ken White
08-26-2011, 08:12 PM
These things take five minutes for me...Thanks for the links. They'll come in handy for beating up on Slap... :cool:

Problem I've noted is that statistics of most types are fairly easily located but often, variations in collection and presentation in different periods of time make simple (underline that word -- for us non econometric / math deprived folks) comparisons speculative in many cases. :mad:
In short term it's possible to improve the degree of capacity utilisation, but that's not going to suffice...Now that won't happen voluntarily in a country that still believes that consumption (and really almost only consumption) drives the economy...A great success in defeating the symptoms will further fortify the belief in the importance of consumption ...Witness the Fed's unbelievable position on rates... :mad:
and thus grow the root problem, hasten the travel to the next, greater, bust.Yes. I don't think that result is inevitable -- but it is, sadly, the most likely... :(

motorfirebox
08-27-2011, 01:14 AM
That's perhaps an understatement. I'd go much further. Protection -- protection, not lack of oversight -- protection of Fanny and Freddie for political / ideological and not practical purposes were not only the method but principal cause.
I don't see it that way. Fannie and Freddie certainly provided the opportunity, but the opportunity couldn't have been taken advantage of to this disastrous extent without a) the massive capital available to the megabanks that emerged in the wake of the repeal of Glass/Steagal, and b) the criminal complicity of private ratings agencies such as Standard & Poor's. Without those two factors, the actions of Fannie and Freddie would have been harmless or even beneficial.


Of course it is and I certainly am not advocating that -- regulation is needed, no question. What is NOT needed is the political skewing of what gets regulated on ideological grounds as opposed to logical, balanced and minimal curbs on excess.I think you just said there should be no Fannie, no Freddie. I agree. That also means there should be no Bank of America, Citi or J.P. Morgan et.al. in their current forms -- I agree.
The concept behind Fannie and Freddie is a good one--striving to keep the bottom end of the economy from dragging too far behind the top end, as I mentioned earlier. I'm not going to try very hard to defend them in the form they'd taken circa 2007, but I think we do need entities who fill the function Fannie and Freddie were intended to fill.



Bottom line on all that is big government per se is neutral on these particular economic issues (though not necessarily on different economic and on many other issues...) but that excessive government fiddling, allowed by a government that is too big to restrict its focus to the basics and is thus encouraged to engage in politically oriented tinkering in order to obtain funds or votes and to expand a party's or the government's reach, is indeed the culprit...:D
That's a valid perspective, but I'm not convinced it's the one most suited to fixing our current problems and/or ensuring another 50ish years of relatively uninterrupted prosperity. I generally take the position that there's not enough government fiddling, where "fiddling" is defined as "dragging S&P and Goldman Sachs into the street and clubbing them like baby seals".

slapout9
08-27-2011, 02:38 AM
But you got my point anyway
Different world Slap -- those Ike days are gone and they won't ever come back.



I will try again. We have rising and unsatble energy, debt and population costs....we are going to have to look at something new or differant.

This is a little boring but look at the Chinese/Marxian view of banking, they do not use the same methods we do and these guys really have a hard time understanding it because they are trying to view bank debt from a western viewpoint.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/chinese-banks-these-things-arent-banks.html

slapout9
08-27-2011, 02:41 AM
I don't see it that way. Fannie and Freddie certainly provided the opportunity, but the opportunity couldn't have been taken advantage of to this disastrous extent without a) the massive capital available to the megabanks that emerged in the wake of the repeal of Glass/Steagal, and b) the criminal complicity of private ratings agencies such as Standard & Poor's. Without those two factors, the actions of Fannie and Freddie would have been harmless or even beneficial.




Good job!, also nobody has mentioned that Fannie and Freddie had no problems until 1968 I think??? when Nixon privatized them.:eek:

Ken White
08-27-2011, 03:12 AM
I don't see it that way. Fannie and Freddie certainly provided the opportunity, but the opportunity couldn't have been taken advantage of to this disastrous extent without a) the massive capital available to the megabanks that emerged in the wake of the repeal of Glass/Steagal...I'll match your Glass/Stegall repeal fiddle with the passage of Title VIII fiddle and raise you an ECOA fiddle. :D
...and b) the criminal complicity of private ratings agencies such as Standard & Poor's.Agree totally on that. I also think there's more to S&P in several aspects than has yet come out. I look forward to some actual prosecutions though I suspect the main culprit will skate. Moles are hard to kill...
Without those two factors, the actions of Fannie and Freddie would have been harmless or even beneficial.We can disagree on that. Fannie and Freddie are both 'remedies' to the fact that the market works but it is admittedly slow and uneven in its effects -- that is anathema to big guvmint types who want absolute equality NOW. Well that's a little hyperbolic on my part -- but Fannie etc. are in fact efforts to speed the market and apply a uniform standard nationwide (Not accounting for the fact that this nation is too large geographically and too diverse demographically for any one size solution to really work well...).

The Fannie / Freddie approach is pandering vote buying disguised as social engineering disguised as economic policy and it is a corrupt idea with corrupt efforts and corrupt protectors in the congress. It is still asking for tax dollars. :mad:
The concept behind Fannie and Freddie is a good one--striving to keep the bottom end of the economy from dragging too far behind the top end, as I mentioned earlier. I'm not going to try very hard to defend them in the form they'd taken circa 2007, but I think we do need entities who fill the function Fannie and Freddie were intended to fill.We're unlikely to find agreement on that. IMO, such entities skew the market and for all the acknowledged good they do, they end in always causing more harm. It is also noteworthy that there are other, better ways to keep that top from getting too far ahead or the bottom from falling too far behind but they require Politicians with testicular fortitude -- those are rara avis.

The real role of Fannie and Freddie (as well as Social Security and Medicare et. al.) is to buy complacency and votes in that order. The social engineering aid to the downtrodden that is the nominal reason for them does exist but it is secondary to wooing the complaisant contributing voter. It is effective because it is hard to counter as concepts and talking points -- who can argue with taking care of the disadvantaged -- but there are two very practical, not propagandistic, things that will mean the death or dismemberment of all those programs. First, they were and are absolutely unaffordable as structured over the last 50 years or so (and most who passed them into law knew that but didn't care because they'd be gone...). Secondly, The insidious harm of dependency and over reliance on a government that absolutely cannot -- not now, not ever -- do all it alleges it can and will do for its citizens is becoming apparent and the natives are becoming very aware -- and quite restless. Both Parties are venal, corrupt and place garnering votes and their interests ahead of those of the Nation and voters are beginning to wake up to that fact. I look forward to the 2012 Election; my guess is there will be blood (figuratively speaking) and the decimation of incumbents, long overdue, will continue. Hopefully, it'll make the 2010 election look like a quiet picnic in the park.

Consider that the directed equality approach as I mentioned elsewhere, does raise boats -- it also lowers some which can have adverse impacts of second and third orders. Raising some is merely attacking the symptoms, lowering too many high flyers will merely create harsher symptoms and can do long term damage. It also enforces mediocrity. Do we really want to do that?

Companies today are sitting on piles of cash but they won't spend due to the chaotic regulatory environment. Not harsh, not overly restrictive (if anything, most are too lenient) but excessive in volume and reach. IOW there is not too much regulation, there are simply too man regulations, a different thing. Instead of regulatory effectiveness we have regulation aggrandizement and proliferation inducing bureaucratic sclerosis. The US government doe not need to prescribe the lighting and sleeping requirements for the quarters provided Goat Herders -- but it proposes to do so... :rolleyes:

That's the kind of thing I mean when I said the government does a lousy job of things it is supposed to do (foreign intelligence, diplomacy, defense, policing Wall Street...) because it is too busy raiding Gibson Guitars on the off chance they may have a piece of ebony, finding ways to for the EPA penalize Texas for daring to defy DC, 'No Child Left Behind' (Republican foolishness), fixing No Child Left Behind (Democratic counter foolishness) and magnanimously allowing kerosene lantern to be used for Shepherds and Herders...
That's a valid perspective, but I'm not convinced it's the one most suited to fixing our current problems and/or ensuring another 50ish years of relatively uninterrupted prosperity.[/quote[Hmm. Having looked futilely for work during the recession in the mid 50s, participated to an extent in those of the 70s and 80s I would agree that the "uninterrupted prosperity" is indeed relative... :wry:[quote]I generally take the position that there's not enough government fiddling, where "fiddling" is defined as "dragging S&P and Goldman Sachs into the street and clubbing them like baby seals".Is that fiddling? Not to me, that's merely enforcing the law -- as opposed to deliberately not doing so as a political gesture. Such political gestures and turning a blind eye are fiddling. Fannie and Freddie are fiddling. Repeal of Glass/Stegall and passing of Title VIII are fiddling.

Where's Yo Ma Ma -- er, Yo Yo Ma -- we need a little lite classic on the Cello to offset all the fiddling...

And what, ask many, does Yo Yo Ma have to do with eras of living dangerously. Little to nothing -- but the fiddles of the US Congress, both parties, over the years but particularly in the last 40-45 have contributed to the perception that we live in dangerous times because, simply, it is to their advantage to do so. Fear, real, imagined or manufactured is used by politicians to sow anxiety and suggest that only they can be trusted to bring us through these 'perils.' They try to fix things that aren't broken. H.L. Mencken as quoted in Dayuhan's sig line has it right:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

Ken White
08-27-2011, 03:40 AM
Good job!, also nobody has mentioned that Fannie and Freddie had no problems until 1968 I think??? when Nixon privatized them.:eek:Uh, not quite...

Fannie was fairly cool -- if unnecessary -- from its inception in 1938 until its transition began in 1954 -- under; wait for it, Ike -- when it became a mixed ownership corporation (part Fed, part investor owned). It still puttered along okay.

Federal interest was removed and it was totally privatized in '68 but it was a Johnson, not a Nixon, initiative to get the Fannie debt off the Federal Budget -- same time as he began raiding Social Security to provide guns and butter... :rolleyes:

Nixon did father Freddie Mac in 1970 but both of those corporations really screwed the pooch when they created mortgage passthroughs in 1971 at selective Congressional urging. Been downhill ever since.

G.H.W. Bush and his directive to "facilitate the financing of affordable housing" in '91 was not helpful. The Clinton initiative of '99 to push Fannie and Freddie into heavy support of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (Carter's contribution) was the straw that broke their backs. G.W. Bush tried several times to rein them in but was stymied by Congress. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd among others protected them to the bitter end. Those two BTW were big pushers of Clinton to 'energize' Fannie and Freddie...

The rest, as they say is history... :rolleyes:

Government fiddling. In things they do not understand. In things that are in many respects none of the Federal governments business...

Slap, I agree we're going to have to look at something different, the old stuff won't work -- I believe the old Congroids will not work. Kick 'em all out... :D

slapout9
08-27-2011, 03:47 AM
Federal interest was removed and it was totally privatized in '68 but it was a Johnson, not a Nixon, initiative to get the Fannie debt off the Federal Budget -- same time as he began raiding Social Security to provide guns and butter... :rolleyes:

Nixon did father Freddie Mac in 1970 but both of those corporations really screwed the pooch when they created mortgage passthroughs in 1971 at selective Congressional urging. Been downhill ever since.



I was close:)

slapout9
08-27-2011, 03:55 AM
Really,really,really good article on the history of what is debt. Also links the debt crises to wars/rebellions/revolutions/etc. through history. The man calls himself a Economic Anthropologist....never met one of them.


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/what-is-debt-%e2%80%93-an-interview-with-economic-anthropologist-david-graeber.html

Historic answer is,in order to keep the peace governments used to Cancel the Debt and start over. Also traces the very definition of the word FREEDOM to a meaning of no debt!

motorfirebox
08-27-2011, 06:15 AM
I'll match your Glass/Stegall repeal fiddle with the passage of Title VIII fiddle and raise you an ECOA fiddle. :D
You mean FHIP and USC §1691(2)(a-b)? I still don't see it. That's still only providing the opportunity, not the means to exploit it to the immense detriment of the rest of the country. The worst result of those two elements alone would be the failure of banks that aren't large enough to sink the economy.


Fannie and Freddie are both 'remedies' to the fact that the market works but it is admittedly slow and uneven in its effects -- that is anathema to big guvmint types who want absolute equality NOW. Well that's a little hyperbolic on my part -- but Fannie etc. are in fact efforts to speed the market and apply a uniform standard nationwide (Not accounting for the fact that this nation is too large geographically and too diverse demographically for any one size solution to really work well...).
They're efforts to speed the market, but that's not a bad thing unless you keep the pedal to the floor all the way and let go of the steering wheel. Housing assistance is a great way to bootstrap the lower class. You just can't base the entire frickin' economy on it.

We don't need absolute equality now. We don't need absolute equality at all, and I don't think Fannie and Freddie were ever intended to provide that. And the "now" question is moot--we don't need it now, but I think more than a century, for certain sectors (well, a certain sector) is a long enough wait. Aside from that, it's not a "now" concern, it's a continuing concern. Capitalism is, to use the scientific term, awesome. But over time it engenders a class system consisting of those whose ancestors succeeded versus those whose ancestors did not. Housing assistance is one way to help a person whose ancestors did not succeed become an ancestor who succeeded.


The Fannie / Freddie approach is pandering vote buying disguised as social engineering disguised as economic policy and it is a corrupt idea with corrupt efforts and corrupt protectors in the congress. It is still asking for tax dollars. :mad:We're unlikely to find agreement on that. IMO, such entities skew the market and for all the acknowledged good they do, they end in always causing more harm. It is also noteworthy that there are other, better ways to keep that top from getting too far ahead or the bottom from falling too far behind but they require Politicians with testicular fortitude -- those are rara avis.
Well, what's "the end", here? Because they seemed to work pretty well for about, what, seventy years? Forty of which were after changes which arguably set them on the path to failure? That just doesn't meet my criteria for "bad idea". Actually, it comes pretty close to my criteria for "good idea".


The real role of Fannie and Freddie (as well as Social Security and Medicare et. al.) is to buy complacency and votes in that order. The social engineering aid to the downtrodden that is the nominal reason for them does exist but it is secondary to wooing the complaisant contributing voter. It is effective because it is hard to counter as concepts and talking points -- who can argue with taking care of the disadvantaged -- but there are two very practical, not propagandistic, things that will mean the death or dismemberment of all those programs. First, they were and are absolutely unaffordable as structured over the last 50 years or so (and most who passed them into law knew that but didn't care because they'd be gone...). Secondly, The insidious harm of dependency and over reliance on a government that absolutely cannot -- not now, not ever -- do all it alleges it can and will do for its citizens is becoming apparent and the natives are becoming very aware -- and quite restless.
Man, you want to talk about planning for failure, go ahead and roll with that "to heck with the poor" paradigm. That would be a really excellent way to foment actual, no-kidding revolution. The money to pay for these programs--and it should be noted that "affordability", in terms of nations with fiat currency, is a really slippery concept--is there; we're just not taking it and, yes, we're also spending what we have unwisely. To me, that's a reason to try to fix things, not to just throw up our hands and say everything since Ike has been a bad idea.


Both Parties are venal, corrupt and place garnering votes and their interests ahead of those of the Nation and voters are beginning to wake up to that fact. I look forward to the 2012 Election; my guess is there will be blood (figuratively speaking) and the decimation of incumbents, long overdue, will continue. Hopefully, it'll make the 2010 election look like a quiet picnic in the park.
No argument there.


Companies today are sitting on piles of cash but they won't spend due to the chaotic regulatory environment. Not harsh, not overly restrictive (if anything, most are too lenient) but excessive in volume and reach. IOW there is not too much regulation, there are simply too man regulations, a different thing. Instead of regulatory effectiveness we have regulation aggrandizement and proliferation inducing bureaucratic sclerosis. The US government doe not need to prescribe the lighting and sleeping requirements for the quarters provided Goat Herders -- but it proposes to do so... :rolleyes:
Er, my impression is that most companies sitting on piles of cash are doing so because the housing bubble isn't done popping. The major lenders are sitting on their money because they're also sitting on massive collections of properties whose actual worth isn't worth the paper their deeds are printed on (assuming the deeds can be located!). Everyone else is following suit because credit is so tight. Where does regulation come in?


Hmm. Having looked futilely for work during the recession in the mid 50s, participated to an extent in those of the 70s and 80s I would agree that the "uninterrupted prosperity" is indeed relative... :wry:
It's absolutely relative. Even at our current low point, we're really well off. Consumer spending just jumped because many Americans have exhausted their savings and have switched to living off credit cards. That sucks, and it's certainly a portent of impending doom, but the fact that it's even possible--and that it's taken four years after the crash to reach this point--speaks volumes to our prosperity.

ganulv
08-27-2011, 07:18 AM
Really,really,really good article on the history of what is debt. Also links the debt crises to wars/rebellions/revolutions/etc. through history. The man calls himself a Economic Anthropologist....never met one of them.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/what-is-debt-%e2%80%93-an-interview-with-economic-anthropologist-david-graeber.html

Well I’ll be, a link to something by David Graeber at the SWC! Sidney Mintz and Eric Wolf might also be of interest. Mintz’s Sweetness and power is one of my personal favorites.

Regarding Fannie Mae, there was a very good interview (http://www.npr.org/2011/05/24/136496032/how-reckless-greed-contributed-to-financial-crisis) on Fresh Air a few months ago.

Ken White
08-27-2011, 04:38 PM
You mean FHIP and USC §1691(2)(a-b)? The worst result of those two elements alone would be the failure of banks that aren't large enough to sink the economy.The point I was trying to make, apparently poorly, was not based on the effect but on manipulation -- both sides do it, both fiddle with the economy in accordance with their nominal ideologies -- or their voters interests. That's politics and thus understandable. It's not governance or leadership. So IMO, while understandable it is wrong and enlightened voters wouldn't tolerate it. The fact that most voters are not all that enlightened is a by product of elevating politics over governance -- the complaisant voters bit...
You just can't base the entire frickin' economy on it.You, I and many others know that -- why does Congress not???
Capitalism is, to use the scientific term, awesome. But over time it engenders a class system consisting of those whose ancestors succeeded versus those whose ancestors did not. Housing assistance is one way to help a person whose ancestors did not succeed become an ancestor who succeeded.This is the source of a basic philosophical difference between us. I understand what you write and there is much truth in it -- but I'm also pretty well convinced that you could redistribute all the money in the world today and within a year, most of it would migrate back to the same people without a great number of exceptions. Class, as used here, is as natural as breathing and it is not going to be eliminated no matter how hard some wish and some try. :(
Well, what's "the end", here? Because they seemed to work pretty well for about, what, seventy years? Forty of which were after changes which arguably set them on the path to failure? That just doesn't meet my criteria for "bad idea". Actually, it comes pretty close to my criteria for "good idea".Most programs start as good ideas -- the problems accrue as they are modified by politics to cater to certain events, persons or efforts. That is a natural evolution and will only be changed by changing the players or actors on the political scene very regularly. Those actors know that and thus try to skew things to insure their continuity or continuing incumbency. Programs must be modified to adapt to changing circumstances and doing that with politicians as opposed to referendums is more efficient and effective.

In the US that tension tilts to stasis and if funds are involved, to under the table manipulation. Those two factors also are countered by a regular change of politicians. The Pols do not like that thought. Your next comment is the interesting corollary to all that verbiage:
Man, you want to talk about planning for failure, go ahead and roll with that "to heck with the poor" paradigm...That's the progressive mantra. Unfortunately, it's not at all what I wrote, not even close. I wrote "they were and are absolutely unaffordable as structured over the last 50 years or so (emphasis added / kw) and "Secondly, The insidious harm of dependency and over reliance on a government that absolutely cannot -- not now, not ever -- do all it alleges it can and will do for its citizens..." That in no way attacks the poor -- it attacks the Politicians who took advantage of programs to assist those poor and award unneeded 'assistance' in the form of funding and other support to persons who were and are not poor in an effort to obtain votes for themselves and their parties.

There is no logical reason to not means test Medicare and Social Security -- yet that idea is strongly resisted by many politicians not due to their oft stated 'slippery slope' argument but because in reality it would mean lessened 'loyalty' bought from voters, lessened control by those who wish to impose their vision of 'governance' (scare quotes obligatory because that is scary...) on a docile populace. I don't buy it

My comments also attack the "what's the government going to do about this" outlook of a great many Americans of all classes and wealth levels today. Sixty or so years ago, one rarely heard or read that, people would pitch in an fix things themselves. There was, for example no FEMA. Are we better off now with FEMA? Unquestionably. Does the existence of FEMA adversely impact self sufficiency and foster reliance on the government? Also unquestionable. Whether this is a good or bad thing is viewpoint dependent. In my view it is not totally beneficial. For example, FEMA says that, post hurricane, you must be prepared to survive on your own for a week or so without their assistance (the States are far faster, Counties and cities faster yet...) but they downplay that excellent advice, tout their good works -- and provide oversized checks to people not always in need in an effort to buy loyalty and keep the local Congroids happy with FEMA 'performance.' Good program -- manipulated and misused -- needs adjustment (Not by any Congress person whose district or State benefited from FEMA's excessive largesse... :mad: ).

There are those who contend one should not confront miscreants; let the Police do it. Unfortuantely, it's proven that there's never a cop around when you need one... :D

Government absolutely cannot do everything for everyone, regardless of income level, and it is IMO criminal for politicians and academics to imply that it can. It is also probably unwise for folks to believe they can rely on the government to make bad things go away...
That would be a really excellent way to foment actual, no-kidding revolution. The money to pay for these programs--and it should be noted that "affordability", in terms of nations with fiat currency, is a really slippery concept--is there;That's sorta specious, isn't it? Regardless of fiat-ability, one can only get so much blood even from a turnip. It becomes an issue of priorities. I gather your priority would be toward social spending with a view toward 'equalizing'. Mine would provide adequate social spending to care for those with needs but would means test such funding; 'equality' would not be a goal but equal opportunity (which we do not now emphasize -- been to Court lately?) would be a major goal.
...we're just not taking it and, yes, we're also spending what we have unwisely. To me, that's a reason to try to fix things, not to just throw up our hands and say everything since Ike has been a bad idea.That again is something I did not suggest or write. What I have written is that most social programs have merit but have been prostituted and transmuted into vote buying schemes by venal Congressional fiddles and that fiddling should be eliminated.
Er, my impression is that most companies sitting on piles of cash are doing so because the housing bubble isn't done popping. The major lenders are sitting on their money because they're also sitting on massive collections of properties whose actual worth isn't worth the paper their deeds are printed on (assuming the deeds can be located!). Everyone else is following suit because credit is so tight. Where does regulation come in?Your comment addresses part of it, no question but the excessive emphasis by the Federal Government on the regulation of every facet of business is burdensome and expensive. A Doctor I know could operate his Office with himself and two others. He has seven and is hiring another because the new computerized medical record requirement will add another to his two billing and insurance clerks who are needed not to answer the insurance company requirements but to insure compliance with federal regulations. The burden is not due to this Administration (in fact, they've vowed to try to reduce the problem (LINK) (http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/08/23/obama-administration-plans-cut-hundreds-regulations/) the Regulatory overkill has been building for years and both parties as well as our governmental system are at fault. Congress can effect change but it is not in their interest to do so -- unless the voters start wholesale firings of them to send a message. As I said above, the issue is not the burden of any particular regulation and few of them are very onerous, it is the cumulative effect of a massive government that is trying to do things to justify its existence -- or, more correctly, of the various departments and agencies of a massive government who must justify the existence by doing something...

A significant part of the that regulatory problem is that those diktats from one Agency often contradict those from another and adjudication is required, the bureaucracy grinds very slowly and to most businesses, time is money.
It's absolutely relative...speaks volumes to our prosperity.I agree with that. We probably agree on goals -- we just disagree on how to get there... ;)

Proving yet again that this era is not really very dangerous...

I probably should disclose that my views on all this are indeed involved with dangerous eras. This one is not but they do occur. In order to be prepared for the unexpected onset of such an era, that Congressional / Political malfeasance concerns me because in funding efforts and in the societal changes induced it adversely affects the Armed Forces of the US. The societal bit affects serving persons, our risk aversion problem is largely societally induced.

On the funding, I'm not speaking of the net defense budget -- IMO it's over large, needs reduction and fosters much fraud, waste and abuse -- but of the misplaced spending priorities (that complaisant bit isn't restricted to civilians...). The Congressional emphasis on jobs in the district and pushing major equipment purchases for that purpose as opposed to fostering a well trained and competent force to do the Nation's bidding is dangerous...

motorfirebox
08-27-2011, 06:35 PM
This is the source of a basic philosophical difference between us. I understand what you write and there is much truth in it -- but I'm also pretty well convinced that you could redistribute all the money in the world today and within a year, most of it would migrate back to the same people without a great number of exceptions. Class, as used here, is as natural as breathing and it is not going to be eliminated no matter how hard some wish and some try. :(
I agree to a large extent. Class isn't ever going away, and I wouldn't get rid of it if I could--not only is it as natural as breathing, it's a necessary result of a system that allows success.

But the role class plays in future success can and should be limited. If we're not going to limit it, then we ought to quit pussyfooting around and go back to absolute monarchy. The purpose of a capitalist economy, as opposed to an economic free-for-all, is to keep the pot stirred. When the top goes up, part of that good result should be used to bring the bottom up a few points. Not up to the top, not so much that the top goes down to the bottom, but enough to keep circulation happening.

Because what's happening now is the exact opposite. The top is going up, which is fine, but it's doing do in large part by lowering the bottom. That is natural, too--as natural as the strong caveman barging in and taking the weaker caveman's wife.


Most programs start as good ideas -- the problems accrue as they are modified by politics to cater to certain events, persons or efforts. That is a natural evolution and will only be changed by changing the players or actors on the political scene very regularly. Those actors know that and thus try to skew things to insure their continuity or continuing incumbency. Programs must be modified to adapt to changing circumstances and doing that with politicians as opposed to referendums is more efficient and effective.
I agree. I've often thought that most laws and government programs ought to come with an expiration date rather than automatically being perpetual. Even that can stagnate, of course, and result in a government that spends most of its time voting to renew aging laws, but that's a procedural issue rather than a matter of principle.


There is no logical reason to not means test Medicare and Social Security -- yet that idea is strongly resisted by many politicians not due to their oft stated 'slippery slope' argument but because in reality it would mean lessened 'loyalty' bought from voters, lessened control by those who wish to impose their vision of 'governance' (scare quotes obligatory because that is scary...) on a docile populace. I don't buy it
Sure, that's fair.


That's the progressive mantra. Unfortunately, it's not at all what I wrote, not even close.

...That again is something I did not suggest or write. What I have written is that most social programs have merit but have been prostituted and transmuted into vote buying schemes by venal Congressional fiddles and that fiddling should be eliminated.
Hyberbole on my part, and some conflation with those who actually do argue that result is the sole indicator of ability and worth. Buuuuut...


My comments also attack the "what's the government going to do about this" outlook of a great many Americans of all classes and wealth levels today. Sixty or so years ago, one rarely heard or read that, people would pitch in an fix things themselves. There was, for example no FEMA. Are we better off now with FEMA? Unquestionably. Does the existence of FEMA adversely impact self sufficiency and foster reliance on the government? Also unquestionable. Whether this is a good or bad thing is viewpoint dependent. In my view it is not totally beneficial. For example, FEMA says that, post hurricane, you must be prepared to survive on your own for a week or so without their assistance (the States are far faster, Counties and cities faster yet...) but they downplay that excellent advice, tout their good works -- and provide oversized checks to people not always in need in an effort to buy loyalty and keep the local Congroids happy with FEMA 'performance.' Good program -- manipulated and misused -- needs adjustment (Not by any Congress person whose district or State benefited from FEMA's excessive largesse... :mad: ).

There are those who contend one should not confront miscreants; let the Police do it. Unfortuantely, it's proven that there's never a cop around when you need one... :D

Government absolutely cannot do everything for everyone, regardless of income level, and it is IMO criminal for politicians and academics to imply that it can. It is also probably unwise for folks to believe they can rely on the government to make bad things go away...
I don't deny that there's over reliance on government, but I don't think that over reliance is on the part of people who have to worry about whether or not there's a cop around when they need one. Most of the reliance seems to be on the top end, rather than the bottom end--it's on the part of the guys who are able to afford personal security. Gosh darn those poor and middle class people, why can't they go get their own multi-billion-dollar bailout instead of trying to steal what the financial industry rightfully obtained as ransom!


That's sorta specious, isn't it? Regardless of fiat-ability, one can only get so much blood even from a turnip. It becomes an issue of priorities. I gather your priority would be toward social spending with a view toward 'equalizing'. Mine would provide adequate social spending to care for those with needs but would means test such funding; 'equality' would not be a goal but equal opportunity (which we do not now emphasize -- been to Court lately?) would be a major goal.
Not really. The US isn't a turnip, it's a... tick. You can get a lot of blood from a tick if you squeeze it hard enough! Gross analogy, but it's hard to buy the turnip argument when Wall Street is posting record profits.

I don't see equalizing--movement towards equalizing, not to be confused with absolute imposition of equality--as separate from equal opportunity.



Your comment addresses part of it, no question but the excessive emphasis by the Federal Government on the regulation of every facet of business is burdensome and expensive. A Doctor I know could operate his Office with himself and two others. He has seven and is hiring another because the new computerized medical record requirement will add another to his two billing and insurance clerks who are needed not to answer the insurance company requirements but to insure compliance with federal regulations. The burden is not due to this Administration (in fact, they've vowed to try to reduce the problem (LINK) (http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/08/23/obama-administration-plans-cut-hundreds-regulations/) the Regulatory overkill has been building for years and both parties as well as our governmental system are at fault. Congress can effect change but it is not in their interest to do so -- unless the voters start wholesale firings of them to send a message. As I said above, the issue is not the burden of any particular regulation and few of them are very onerous, it is the cumulative effect of a massive government that is trying to do things to justify its existence -- or, more correctly, of the various departments and agencies of a massive government who must justify the existence by doing something...

A significant part of the that regulatory problem is that those diktats from one Agency often contradict those from another and adjudication is required, the bureaucracy grinds very slowly and to most businesses, time is money.
Mmmmm okay. There's bloat. My concern is that in getting rid of the bloat, we'll end up skewing things even more to favor those who already well-positioned.


I agree with that. We probably agree on goals -- we just disagree on how to get there... ;)
I think that's true. Mainly, I think that our current situation comes as close to fulfilling the phrase "fox guarding the henhouse" as one can get without involving actual poultry, and I think the most effective solutions are going to be those that remedy that.


Proving yet again that this era is not really very dangerous...
I think we're heading towards danger, but I agree that we're not really in danger right now. We're a lot closer than is comfortable, though, and I think a lot of current violence that is attributed to other causes--mainly race--is more accurately the result of financial distress.

(I've cut out a lot, trying to keep my responses to the main points--starting to run into the text length limit.)

Pete
08-27-2011, 06:50 PM
The most amazing thing about this thread is that it's about politics but has not turned into a partisan mud-slinging contest. No Democrat vs. Republican vs. Tea Party stuff here. The discussion in this thread is mainly conducted on a philosophical level.

Not once in this thread has our venerable Brown Shoe said, "Impeach Earl Warren!" But like they said back in 1964, "In Your Heart You Know He's Right."

Ken White
08-27-2011, 08:44 PM
But the role class plays in future success can and should be limited. If we're not going to limit it, then we ought to quit pussyfooting around and go back to absolute monarchy.Don't agree. Monarchy has little or nothing to do with class in the US (as opposed to many other nations...). Our classes divide by wealth, by job or career field, by academic accomplishments (a relatively recent addition...) and ethnically or nationally (and I mean that not in the racist sense. The Scotch Irish despise the English, many Italians do not like Germans, etc.). Even geography enters into it -- royal or peerage issues not at all.
The purpose of a capitalist economy, as opposed to an economic free-for-all, is to keep the pot stirred.Is that a purpose or a by product?
When the top goes up, part of that good result should be used to bring the bottom up a few points. Not up to the top, not so much that the top goes down to the bottom, but enough to keep circulation happening.Most will agree, many will quibble about mechanisms and degrees of up...
Because what's happening now is the exact opposite. The top is going up, which is fine, but it's doing do in large part by lowering the bottom. That is natural, too--as natural as the strong caveman barging in and taking the weaker caveman's wife.There's truth in that and it does make a good if questionable talking point (in that it is repeatedly raised by some media personages and some politicians for partisan, not altruistic, reasons) but there's also a degree of unintended consequence. Recall that part of the top's recent upward trajectory was imparted by failures of social policies aimed at raising the bottom...
I agree. I've often thought that most laws and government programs ought to come with an expiration date rather than automatically being perpetual...Strongly agree. I'd also add the stringent Hodenosaunee or Iroquois requirement that the Sachems and councils had to consider effects unto the seventh generation.
I don't deny that there's over reliance on government, but I don't think that over reliance is on the part of people who have to worry about whether or not there's a cop around when they need one...Gosh darn those poor and middle class people, why can't they go get their own multi-billion-dollar bailout instead of trying to steal what the financial industry rightfully obtained as ransom!Hyperbole again??? ;)

My observation -- admittedly mostly but not exclusively in the South -- is that the over reliance exists in all strata but the emphasis on what's expected differs sometimes strongly from locale to locale and level to level in a rather complex mix.

Regardless, it is IMO becoming more problematical and has contributed to a somewhat coddled and certainly risk averse society. It also seem to have a slight adverse impact on initiative and innovation.
Not really. The US isn't a turnip, it's a... tick... it's hard to buy the turnip argument when Wall Street is posting record profits.True on the profits but consider also that the sale of new cars (as opposed to homes -- though we are arguably already over endowed with individually owned homes in comparison with most other nations even considering the Housing crunch) and large flat screen TVs to the great unwashed (we just bought a flat screen... :D ) indicate that while the bottom may not be getting elevated as much as many of us would like, much -- not all but much -- of it is living better than that Royalty did a few years ago. :wry:
I don't see equalizing--movement towards equalizing, not to be confused with absolute imposition of equality--as separate from equal opportunity.We can disagree. Equal opportunity to me is to offer unimpeded access to use one's potential. Equal outcomes are efforts to insure that, regardless of capabilities, effort, merit or productivity, all have a relatively even standing in all things. In no case is the sorting of that simple, nor can, due to the variation in people and circumstances, hard and fast rule be laid down. It is also very important that everyone realize that nuances aside, there will always be outliers and exceptions and that, while true in any event, is particularly true in an issue this complex and in a nation as large and diverse as are we. One of the major flaws with the big government crowd is their refusal to acknowledge the inevitability due to our size of poor rules that will not work in all segments of the society or nation. They create flawed law, see inequities and try to fix it, often only making it worse for someone else...

For most of us the difference between those things is nuanced and probably variable, the largest discriminator IMO being the amount of effort required by the individual versus the amount given by the state.
Mmmmm okay. There's bloat. My concern is that in getting rid of the bloat, we'll end up skewing things even more to favor those who already well-positioned.The well positioned will certainly try to insure that is the case. Rather logical and to be expected. the role of the politicians is to insure that does not happen. Experience shows that Politicians each side will skew the efforts to suit their ideology and that, whether they champion 'more freedom' or 'better control,' the result will be the favoring of the well positioned.

Is that the fault of the well positioned or of politicians from both sides who simply do not do their job and place partisan interests, contributions and votes ahead of the interests of the nation and its people?

Whatever the answer to that question, history says we will screw it up, one way or another and then slowly, over many years adjust and eventually get it about right. It's the American way; we always over react then over correct. :wry:
I think that's true. Mainly, I think that our current situation comes as close to fulfilling the phrase "fox guarding the henhouse" as one can get without involving actual poultry, and I think the most effective solutions are going to be those that remedy that.Being old, I can sigh and write: It's been worse, yeah, we'll mess it up but eventually sort it a bit and then it'll later return. Everything goes in cycles...
...and I think a lot of current violence that is attributed to other causes--mainly race--is more accurately the result of financial distress.Yep. That too is historically illustrated. It'll probably get worse before it gets better. Democracy is messy and inefficient. American democracy is particularly messy and extremely inefficient. Based on time spent in 30 plus other nations, it still beats most others in most ways most of the time...

Dayuhan
08-28-2011, 03:42 AM
Kind of lost track of this one, consequence of a big typhoon knocking out the power for a while...

It's way too easy to assume that "oversight" and "regulation" are the answer, and way to easy to look back and think that rule x, y, or z could have prevented this or that. In practice it's not quite so simple, and looking forward isn't like looking back. Seems to me that government had all the tools it needed to manage the events since the mid 90s, which are inextricably related, but for political purposes declined to use them in the way that was needed. It's not about the toolkit, it's about the political will to use it, and that's constrained as much by playing to Main Street as it is by playing to Wall Street.


I think we're heading towards danger, but I agree that we're not really in danger right now. We're a lot closer than is comfortable, though, and I think a lot of current violence that is attributed to other causes--mainly race--is more accurately the result of financial distress.

Seems to me we're just adjusting to having to play on the same field as everyone else, and to the need to compete. A shocking thing, for Americans, but it was going to happen sooner or later.

Again, the ogre of Wall Street is easy to hang the blame on, but if we don't look at the real contributions to the mess coming from DC and from Main Street, we're going to keep going in circles. Lots of fundamental shifts in attitude needed, not just stricter rules on those Bad Rich People.

motorfirebox
08-28-2011, 04:36 AM
Don't agree. Monarchy has little or nothing to do with class in the US (as opposed to many other nations...). Our classes divide by wealth, by job or career field, by academic accomplishments (a relatively recent addition...) and ethnically or nationally (and I mean that not in the racist sense. The Scotch Irish despise the English, many Italians do not like Germans, etc.). Even geography enters into it -- royal or peerage issues not at all.
So our derivatives-based monarchy will look a little different. It won't change its basic nature: peasants go down here, stockholder-royalty goes up here.


Is that a purpose or a by product?
A purpose. Otherwise, why not just let the financial elite run over everyone else?


Most will agree, many will quibble about mechanisms and degrees of up...There's truth in that and it does make a good if questionable talking point (in that it is repeatedly raised by some media personages and some politicians for partisan, not altruistic, reasons) but there's also a degree of unintended consequence. Recall that part of the top's recent upward trajectory was imparted by failures of social policies aimed at raising the bottom...
I still don't completely agree on that point. I don't think the social policies aimed at raising the bottom were the problem--the problem was the ability of those at the top, caused by reduced and weakened oversight, to exploit those programs to a disastrous degree.


My observation -- admittedly mostly but not exclusively in the South -- is that the over reliance exists in all strata but the emphasis on what's expected differs sometimes strongly from locale to locale and level to level in a rather complex mix.
Possibly, but I don't see the alleged over reliance of the lower strata as causing nearly as much of a problem as the over reliance of the upper.


True on the profits but consider also that the sale of new cars (as opposed to homes -- though we are arguably already over endowed with individually owned homes in comparison with most other nations even considering the Housing crunch) and large flat screen TVs to the great unwashed (we just bought a flat screen... :D ) indicate that while the bottom may not be getting elevated as much as many of us would like, much -- not all but much -- of it is living better than that Royalty did a few years ago. :wry:
That's becoming less true. While the middle class is doing better now--arguably--than it was two decades ago, we're eating into the middle class's savings and shunting them into the lower class.


We can disagree. Equal opportunity to me is to offer unimpeded access to use one's potential. Equal outcomes are efforts to insure that, regardless of capabilities, effort, merit or productivity, all have a relatively even standing in all things. In no case is the sorting of that simple, nor can, due to the variation in people and circumstances, hard and fast rule be laid down. It is also very important that everyone realize that nuances aside, there will always be outliers and exceptions and that, while true in any event, is particularly true in an issue this complex and in a nation as large and diverse as are we. One of the major flaws with the big government crowd is their refusal to acknowledge the inevitability due to our size of poor rules that will not work in all segments of the society or nation. They create flawed law, see inequities and try to fix it, often only making it worse for someone else...
I'm not talking about the same kind of equality of outcome you are. I am especially not speaking in favor of equal outcomes "regardless of capabilities, effort, merit or productivity". What I am in favor of is addressing the issue of generational wealth. In large part, generational wealth has to do with equality of outcome, because the outcome (or rather the income) of one generation directly affects the opportunities of the next. Now, let me be clear: people should never be prevented from using their wealth to improve the lives of their children. But. What concerns me is that lack of generational wealth--people lacking wealth with which to improve the lives of their children--has far too large a negative impact on the outcomes of their childrens' lives. This isn't a matter of Bobby being born in a poor household and growing up to be a poor man, while Charlie is born in a rich household and grows up to be a rich man--this is a matter of Bobby's great-great-great grandfather being poor, and all of Bobby's friends' great-great-great grandfathers being poor, and very few of them ever escaping being poor. At some point, the disparity of outcome between population groups over time becomes a clear indicator that there is a severe inequality of opportunity.

Ken White
08-28-2011, 05:26 AM
So our derivatives-based monarchy will look a little different. It won't change its basic nature: peasants go down here, stockholder-royalty goes up here.Hyperprole! :D
A purpose. Otherwise, why not just let the financial elite run over everyone else?The financial elite would like that especially as they think the pur[pose of capitalism is to provide them with lots of capital. Stirring the pot is NOT on their agenda. They want stability -- tranquility, even -- and they're willing ala Alfred Krupp and Otto Von Bismark to pay to get it -- but not too much...
I still don't completely agree on that point. I don't think the social policies aimed at raising the bottom were the problem--the problem was the ability of those at the top, caused by reduced and weakened oversight, to exploit those programs to a disastrous degree.Not a problem, we can disagree; you blame those at the top, I blame politicians. Both are at fault -- but the politicians had and have the responsibility to mitigate the excesses of those at the nominal top who may or may not be altruistic. Been my observation that altruism needs encouragement... ;)
Possibly, but I don't see the alleged over reliance of the lower strata as causing nearly as much of a problem as the over reliance of the upper.The detriment is about equal IMO but they're different in their effect. The upper are simply manipulating the system; the lower believe that the government will and can do things that are far from certain thus the incentive to prepare oneself for potential problems or to enhance one's potential for success is removed -- so the nominal underclass stays where it is with little change . Want evidence? Look at the history of the US and its 'efforts' to improve the lot of that underclass over the last 100 years...
That's becoming less true. While the middle class is doing better now--arguably--than it was two decades ago, we're eating into the middle class's savings and shunting them into the lower class.True to an extent but mostly as a result of our failure in 1990 to start adapting to a world that had changed in the previous 20 plus years. Needed efforts were identified but not implemented because they were not believed to be important or were politically unpalatable. However, my comment reached into all classes -- because all are buying big flat screens (to use a metaphor...). Even those lower class folks, old and new...
What I am in favor of is addressing the issue of generational wealth. In large part, generational wealth has to do with equality of outcome, because the outcome (or rather the income) of one generation directly affects the opportunities of the next. Now, let me be clear: people should never be prevented from using their wealth to improve the lives of their children. But. What concerns me is that lack of generational wealth--people lacking wealth with which to improve the lives of their children--has far too large a negative impact on the outcomes of their childrens' lives. This isn't a matter of Bobby being born in a poor household and growing up to be a poor man, while Charlie is born in a rich household and grows up to be a rich man--this is a matter of Bobby's great-great-great grandfather being poor, and all of Bobby's friends' great-great-great grandfathers being poor, and very few of them ever escaping being poor. At some point, the disparity of outcome between population groups over time becomes a clear indicator that there is a severe inequality of opportunity.I totally agree there is a severe inequality of opportunity in this country (thus my been to Court lately question). What you say is generally correct --Charlie sometimes fritters away the Shekels and Bobby sometimes gather more wealth than Charlie could have dreamed of -- but by and large, you're right. Where we differ is on the solution. Since the 1930s, we have spent an inordinate amount of money and effort in trying to insure equality of outcome with little success. That's why Bobby and his friends are caught in the trap. You may not think of equality as equality of outcome but your government, mostly, has and that to the exclusion of rectifying the terrible problems of unequal opportunity. Throwing money at schools isn't the answer, nor are jobs programs -- fixing schools and making jobs are the answers. The first is a governmental responsibility and most governments at all levels have done an abysmal job of operating schools and they have killed efforts that succeeded where they could because that might upset the status quo. As a friend said, "Those latte drinkers need Baristas -- and sweepers; plus somebody's gotta build those bike trails."

The second is not (because government will never offer more than scut work on a temporary basis for mediocre pay...). Government just needs set the stage, provide employers some incentives and then get out of the way...

slapout9
08-28-2011, 03:25 PM
The second is not (because government will never offer more than scut work on a temporary basis for mediocre pay...). Government just needs set the stage, provide employers some incentives and then get out of the way...

Ken, that just isn't true. They created the Hoover Dam,They electrified the south through the TVA(Tennessee Valley Authority) they created Nuclear Energy, and they created NASA which has created more physical wealth that is used by Americans than any organization in the history of Mankind! Them wuz guvmint jobs!

And more important it is not just Government but it is the American Government. "We the people" not "I" the banker.

Fuchs
08-28-2011, 04:28 PM
All general remarks on the role of government tend to be wrong much of the time.

This age is an age of difficulties - as probably every age before, too.
You cannot set up a maxim/ideology/rule and expect to be right more than about 60% of the time.

Example (de)regulation:
There's no simple answer. You need to look at the issues on a case-by-case basis and take many, many second order effects into account.
Sometimes you'll end up discovering the need for more regulation, sometimes one for better one, sometimes for less.


There's little hope that governments will be gotten right until people (at least the powerful ones) understand that simple maxims and rules are nonsense.
Simplification allows laymen to discuss things, but applied at actual decision-making it merely means that the decision-maker flips a coin and is essentially ignorant.


The whole small government - big government debate is thus a huge display of ignorance.

Btw, this small government - big government thing is a fixation of the anglophone world, most evidently of the U.S.. It's not among the top 100 memes of many, many developed countries world-wide while Americans appear to even go crazy about it.

motorfirebox
08-28-2011, 05:09 PM
Hyperprole! :D
Honestly? Not so much. I'm not saying we're there yet, but I think we're headed directly to that state of affairs.


Not a problem, we can disagree; you blame those at the top, I blame politicians. Both are at fault -- but the politicians had and have the responsibility to mitigate the excesses of those at the nominal top who may or may not be altruistic. Been my observation that altruism needs encouragement... ;)
Actually, I place more root blame on the politicians. Those at the top are doing what they're supposed to be doing--trying to make a buck any way they can. Gasoline is supposed to burn. The politicians' job is to encourage that when it's needed and to limit it when it would be harmful, the way a fuel system directs more or less gas to combust depending on the needs of the system and the direction of the driver. I think S&P ought to be punished, for instance, because I think their actions are harmful to the system and that situation needs to be corrected. Any personal satisfaction--while very real!--would not be the driving concern.


The detriment is about equal IMO but they're different in their effect. The upper are simply manipulating the system; the lower believe that the government will and can do things that are far from certain thus the incentive to prepare oneself for potential problems or to enhance one's potential for success is removed -- so the nominal underclass stays where it is with little change . Want evidence? Look at the history of the US and its 'efforts' to improve the lot of that underclass over the last 100 years...
So if people get help they won't want to succeed? That's simply not a position that makes any sense as a philosophy of government. Why have cops, it just encourages people to leave their doors unlocked. There's certainly a point at which help becomes harm, but when the median wealth of a black woman is $5 (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10068/1041225-84.stm) I don't see how it's possible to argue we're helping her too much.


True to an extent but mostly as a result of our failure in 1990 to start adapting to a world that had changed in the previous 20 plus years. Needed efforts were identified but not implemented because they were not believed to be important or were politically unpalatable. However, my comment reached into all classes -- because all are buying big flat screens (to use a metaphor...). Even those lower class folks, old and new...
I would say the failure started in the 70s, when we started shifting the majority of our profits into capital gains rather than splitting it with guys who actually make the widgets. The original comment, though, was about squeezing blood from a turnip. The US certainly isn't a turnip--the funding to do the things that, in my opinion, ought to be done is there for the taking.


I totally agree there is a severe inequality of opportunity in this country (thus my been to Court lately question). What you say is generally correct --Charlie sometimes fritters away the Shekels and Bobby sometimes gather more wealth than Charlie could have dreamed of -- but by and large, you're right. Where we differ is on the solution. Since the 1930s, we have spent an inordinate amount of money and effort in trying to insure equality of outcome with little success. That's why Bobby and his friends are caught in the trap. You may not think of equality as equality of outcome but your government, mostly, has and that to the exclusion of rectifying the terrible problems of unequal opportunity. Throwing money at schools isn't the answer, nor are jobs programs -- fixing schools and making jobs are the answers. The first is a governmental responsibility and most governments at all levels have done an abysmal job of operating schools and they have killed efforts that succeeded where they could because that might upset the status quo. As a friend said, "Those latte drinkers need Baristas -- and sweepers; plus somebody's gotta build those bike trails."

The second is not (because government will never offer more than scut work on a temporary basis for mediocre pay...). Government just needs set the stage, provide employers some incentives and then get out of the way...
Throwing money at schools may not be the whole solution, but I find it hard to believe that continually reducing school funding is the way to go, either.

To a large extent, I think we agree on the solution: I think we're both in favor of empowering individuals. I think greatly disincentivizing capital gains, and greatly limiting the power and rights of corporations, would be a good start. But I also think there myriad ways in which the government, right now, can and should shift wealth from the top of the pyramid to the bottom. Not because rich people shouldn't be rich--as fun as it is to bash executives, this isn't about wealthy individuals as it is about corporate machinery--but because the manner in which the financial elite have gained much of their current wealth amounts to outright theft from the rest of the country.

slapout9
08-28-2011, 05:33 PM
Link to interview of Economic Historian Dr. Michael Hudson by Max Keiser.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bC-EQM7YHz0#!

slapout9
08-28-2011, 05:39 PM
All general remarks on the role of government tend to be wrong much of the time.

This age is an age of difficulties - as probably every age before, too.
You cannot set up a maxim/ideology/rule and expect to be right more than about 60% of the time.

Example (de)regulation:
There's no simple answer. You need to look at the issues on a case-by-case basis and take many, many second order effects into account.
Sometimes you'll end up discovering the need for more regulation, sometimes one for better one, sometimes for less.


There's little hope that governments will be gotten right until people (at least the powerful ones) understand that simple maxims and rules are nonsense.
Simplification allows laymen to discuss things, but applied at actual decision-making it merely means that the decision-maker flips a coin and is essentially ignorant.


The whole small government - big government debate is thus a huge display of ignorance.

Btw, this small government - big government thing is a fixation of the anglophone world, most evidently of the U.S.. It's not among the top 100 memes of many, many developed countries world-wide while Americans appear to even go crazy about it.

Nope. Here is my general simplistic theory. America largely grew to such prominence because after WW2 we developed all the advanced German technology when we gained access to the German Scientific Archives. If it hadn't been for that we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Science is the real creator of wealth and it dosen't care what your politics/or economic philosophy are.

ganulv
08-28-2011, 05:54 PM
Here is my general simplistic theory. America largely grew to such prominence because after WW2 we developed all the advanced German technology when we gained access to the German Scientific Archives.

How many other nations apart from Sweden even had an intact industrial infrastructure to take advantage of it in the immediate post-War years? That’s something I wish everyone who wants the America their daddy grew up in back would keep in mind.

Fuchs
08-28-2011, 06:01 PM
Those "archives" exceeded by far the ability of allied countries to absorb and exploit their content. Aerospace know-how transfer was spectacular, but didn't carry more forward than for a few years.
The deletion of previously published patents on the other hand helped the Western Allies' chemical industries a lot.

The classic economic science answer to what creates economic output is still
* labour input
* natural resources input
* capital usage
* productivity (productivity gain = "technological progress", but it's not wholly about tech or even science)

And then there's the issue whether economic output - be it nominal or in PPP - does mean a lot or not. 'happiness' studies don't show a very strong correlation, and a sizeable chunk of our economic output is about repairing BS or socially useless activity.

slapout9
08-28-2011, 06:04 PM
Well I’ll be, a link to something by David Graeber at the SWC! Sidney Mintz and Eric Wolf might also be of interest. Mintz’s Sweetness and power is one of my personal favorites.

Regarding Fannie Mae, there was a very good interview (http://www.npr.org/2011/05/24/136496032/how-reckless-greed-contributed-to-financial-crisis) on Fresh Air a few months ago.

ganulv, do you know him? Here is my theory it's not credit and debt....it was the pervsion of the words credit and debit! They simply mean right and left:D side of your account. Debit was perverted to the word debt which means you owe with interest probably by so historic Mafia type:D

Ken White
08-28-2011, 07:58 PM
Ken, that just isn't true. I'm afraid it is very true -- in part. Anbother part is as you say untrue but that's my fault for not being clear about the type of program to which I referred.
They created the Hoover Dam...Google Six Companies, Inc. Note that both Bechtel and Morrrison-Knudsen were involved. :D
They electrified the south through the TVA(Tennessee Valley Authority)The government did -- but TVA was exceptional in several respects, was and is controversial and most of the high paying jobs were not typical Government make work efforts -- though some were:

""The unemployed were hired for conservation, economic development, and social programs such as a library service that operated for the surrounding area. The professional staff headquarters was composed of experts from outside the region. The workers were categorized into the usual racial and gender lines of the day. TVA hired a few African-Americans for janitorial positions. TVA recognized labor unions; its skilled and semi-skilled blue collar employees were unionized, a breakthrough in an area known for corporations hostile to miners' unions and textile unions. Women were excluded from construction work, although TVA's cheap electricity attracted textile mills that hired mostly women."" (LINK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority).
they created Nuclear Energy, and they created NASA which has created more physical wealth that is used by Americans than any organization in the history of Mankind! Them wuz guvmint jobs!Yes, they were -- and both the AEC and NASA are productive and permanenet entities of the US Government and not the often temporary make-work government programs like the CCC and WPA were and that many suggest today. Or as had been suggested, expanding AmeriCorps. I should have made clear are the types of thing I was referring to... :(

Particularly as I had one of those permanent type Guvmint jobs for which I was significantly overpaid...:o
And more important it is not just Government but it is the American Government. "We the people" not "I" the banker.Bankers are people, too. they just have different priorites than you or I do... ;)

Surferbeetle
08-28-2011, 08:33 PM
...it's interesting to consider the capacity of the current crop of the 1st world's political class. Is this crop able to successfully conduct demographic analysis, conduct risk analysis, understand technical (economic, military, etc) considerations, negotiate, craft deals, lead, and perform as committed statesmen and stateswomen? :eek: :wry:

From the Financial Times, European Officials Round on Lagarde, by FT Reporters, 28 Aug 2011


European officials rounded on Christine Lagarde on Sunday, accusing the managing director of the International Monetary Fund of making a “confused” and “misguided” attack on the health of Europe’s banks.

Ms Lagarde, the former French finance minister who replaced Dominique Strauss-Kahn as head of the IMF in July, used her address at an annual meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, to call for an “urgent” recapitalisation of Europe’s weakest lenders, saying that shoring up the banking system was key to cutting “chains of contagion” across the region.


From the Financial Times, Caterpillar Chief Attacks Washington, by Hal Weitzman, August 28, 2011


Mr Oberhelman joins a growing chorus of US business leaders who say they are fed up with the widening gap between Democrats and Republicans, displayed most recently in the gridlock over the debate to raise the country’s debt ceiling.

Howard Schultz, Starbucks chief executive, has called on his peers to stop donating to politicians until Congress reaches a bipartisan agreement on debt reduction. More than 100 business leaders have backed the campaign, including Duncan Niederauer of NYSE Euronext, Walter Robb of Whole Foods and Myron Ullman of JC Penney.

Ken White
08-28-2011, 08:42 PM
Honestly? Not so much. I'm not saying we're there yet, but I think we're headed directly to that state of affairs.Sigh. Okay, no more plays on words... :(
Actually, I place more root blame on the politicians...That's good to know but hard to divine from your comments.
So if people get help they won't want to succeed?Not what I wrote but a good snap back on what I did write. The granting of excessive aid and creating of excessive dependency on government can have that effect on some persons. Note the use of "excessive." That's a value determination that will vary widely among people; some are more susceptible to coasting than are others.
That's simply not a position that makes any sense as a philosophy of government. Why have cops, it just encourages people to leave their doors unlocked. There's certainly a point at which help becomes harm, but when the median wealth of a black woman is $5 (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10068/1041225-84.stm) I don't see how it's possible to argue we're helping her too much.The existence of Cops doesn't encourage that -- though one's place of residence can -- and we have Cops to take care of most law enforcement issues to the best of their ability. Note use of the words "most" and "best of their ability." The Cops cannot take care of all such issues, just as Government in toto cannot take care of all issues. Nor can you or I take care of every issue with which we're confronted -- that's just reality. Sometimes we need help, nice if its available -- it is also nice and quite satisfying to be able to do things by and for oneself (well, for most people, anyway...). The question is what capabilities are needed and what are we willing to pay for or do to get a selected capability...

The real issue here is not the provision of help but the methods used. We've been trying what you seem to wish for approaching 80 years -- effectively for my lifetime -- and the underclass still exists. Net figures for poverty and such have changed very little. Educational attainment has in many instances declined in spite significantly more spending (we tie with Switzerland in first in the world for the amount per pupil, K-12). What you seem to want to continue, even expand, simply is proven to not work.
...The US certainly isn't a turnip--the funding to do the things that, in my opinion, ought to be done is there for the taking.Still, if that is done, they will come at the expense of something else; wealth, yes -- unlimited wealth, no. Someone has to work to make that money that is taxed to feed the Turnip Crusher. Yes, we're wealthy, perhaps too wealthy in some senses -- but like many with inherited wealth or other wealth that isn't hard earned by ourselves, we do not spend wisely. IMO, you propose to keep spending the same way -- except more. :eek:
Throwing money at schools may not be the whole solution, but I find it hard to believe that continually reducing school funding is the way to go, either.There is no continuing or consistent reduction in school spending nationwide of which I'm aware. There are cases of temporary reduction due to tax shortfalls. Where I live, there is for example a slight retrenchment, they're letting a few teachers go (but no Administrators -- claiming State and Federal Regulatory requirements make them necessary :D) -- though I note we're buying a multi million dollar AV system for the City Council and Bike Path construction continues...
... But I also think there myriad ways in which the government, right now, can and should shift wealth from the top of the pyramid to the bottom.So can I. Most of them have been tried and do not work because people find a way to manipulate them and because they eventually cut too heavily into the tax base and revenues decline so retrenchment is necessary and the cycle begins anew...
Not because rich people shouldn't be rich--as fun as it is to bash executives, this isn't about wealthy individuals as it is about corporate machinery--but because the manner in which the financial elite have gained much of their current wealth amounts to outright theft from the rest of the country.You forget to add in there somewhere 'abetted by Politicians.' You keep leaving that part out. It modifies your complaint a considerable amount. ;)

Until the political problem is fixed, your issues will continue apace...

omarali50
08-29-2011, 02:31 PM
As an immigrant, some random thoughts: There seems to be very little (by world standards) retail corruption and a high level of trust in daily life; If I get ticketed, I dont expect to buy off the officer, and we have left a wallet and a phone in a major mall and had if turned in to the lost and found both times, and so on. But expectation of incorruptibility in govt is rather low.... There seems to be more corruption in the county aldermen and suchlike, and then there seems to be quite a lot of higher level corruption (Congress, for example). Since it seems to have been even worse in the 19th century, one wonders if its actually compatible with long term growth? Or does it eventually filter down to the retail level and then the whole culture decays and looks more like India or Pakistan? How does a culture of basic honesty and trust get transmitted? how long can it survive? And does it even exist or is Wisconsin just an illusion? (leftists tell me that its only because most of the country is so "rich"...let them become poor and watch the trust evaporate..I am not sure I buy that either) And why is guvmint expected to be corrupt in a society that is not so corrupt in everyday life? Does that mistrust in guvmint fuel corruption or reflect a healthy aversion to corruption?
Just wondering...

slapout9
08-29-2011, 03:34 PM
Those "archives" exceeded by far the ability of allied countries to absorb and exploit their content. Aerospace know-how transfer was spectacular, but didn't carry more forward than for a few years.
The deletion of previously published patents on the other hand helped the Western Allies' chemical industries a lot.



I would say it is was much more than that. They had Television,better vacum tubes, and the beginnings of genetic engineering, and a very differant view of how to finance an economy. My Physics professor was named Han Ri Furherand (who was a real live rocket scientist:eek:) and he had to stick pretty much to the standard stuuf in the textbook but occasionly he would talk about an alternative view of just what science was.The German view of science stood the world on it's head. Short answer Einstein said the universe expands but the Germans said the universe spins.
What that means is zero-point energy is possible but that it the subject of a another thread I will start shortly, hope you stick around for it.

slapout9
08-29-2011, 03:47 PM
As an immigrant, some random thoughts: There seems to be very little (by world standards) retail corruption and a high level of trust in daily life; If I get ticketed, I dont expect to buy off the officer, and we have left a wallet and a phone in a major mall and had if turned in to the lost and found both times, and so on. But expectation of incorruptibility in govt is rather low.... There seems to be more corruption in the county aldermen and suchlike, and then there seems to be quite a lot of higher level corruption (Congress, for example). Since it seems to have been even worse in the 19th century, one wonders if its actually compatible with long term growth? Or does it eventually filter down to the retail level and then the whole culture decays and looks more like India or Pakistan? How does a culture of basic honesty and trust get transmitted? how long can it survive? And does it even exist or is Wisconsin just an illusion? (leftists tell me that its only because most of the country is so "rich"...let them become poor and watch the trust evaporate..I am not sure I buy that either) And why is guvmint expected to be corrupt in a society that is not so corrupt in everyday life? Does that mistrust in guvmint fuel corruption or reflect a healthy aversion to corruption?
Just wondering...


Real News interview on the subject. Economic instability leas to Political Instability leads to Insurgencies....living dangerously.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7169

Ken White
08-29-2011, 03:58 PM
...And does it even exist or is Wisconsin just an illusion? (leftists tell me that its only because most of the country is so "rich"...let them become poor and watch the trust evaporate..I am not sure I buy that)I do not buy it either. Not at all. I'm old enough to recall the so-called Great Depression and the US was several orders of magnitude more poor than we are today. There was a bit more corruption at lower levels but less at higher levels and the national trust factor reflected that. People did more for themselves -- government also had little money -- and cooperation at all levels was less grudging. I have watched this slowly change through the intervening decades and most corruption and malfeasance has been modified, often but not always for the better, as more wealth accrued to the system.

IMO cooperation between the levels of government today is generally only fair. While it is somewhat facilitated by the process of Federal grants and transfers of money to states and localities, it is impeded -- harmed, even -- by the Federal penchant for excessive interference and ill-thought out laws and regulations. The arrogance of Federal agencies in dealing with other entities is real, palpable and is, I think, due to patronizing engendered by the fact that they have the power of those transfers. Individually or en masse, the wealthy tend to look down their noses at the proles. :rolleyes:

I suspect a shift in tax policy to more correctly place tax authority at the point of need -- education and medical care are State, not Federal responsibilities would be helpful in that regard. Such an effort would also curtail the elements of corruption induced by excessive amounts of money that can be obtained from the Feds. :eek:
And why is guvmint expected to be corrupt in a society that is not so corrupt in everyday life? Does that mistrust in guvmint fuel corruption or reflect a healthy aversion to corruption?...Good question and something to ponder. :confused:

I wonder if the explosion of media outlets by sheer volume and which have to raise issues to garner attention has not caused an attack dog mentality on the part of that media and caused them to be aggressive to the point where they overstate issue and thus, deliberately or inadvertently, sow distrust?

I think your point on low level (city and county) and high level (federal) corruption may be explained by the visibility factor. The local issues are always readily apparent to everyone while the federal level is heavily if usually poorly covered by the national media and punditocracy -- the equally human State level is generally noted only by political junkies and those close to particular issues; State government news and event coverage in the dozen or so states in which I've lived as an adult is generally poor. My perception mirrors yours, that it was worse in the 19th century and my belief is that it was worse in the 1940s and 50s than it now is as I wrote above...

We are, I believe, improving -- if only slowly. People are people, after all. :wry:

Ken White
08-29-2011, 04:17 PM
Real News interview on the subject. Economic instability leas to Political Instability leads to Insurgencies....living dangerously.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7169Who knew...:D

His comments are supported by this Study (LINK .pdf) (http://vox.cepr.org/sites/default/files/file/DP8513.pdf) and 5,000years of history. Poor people riot... :rolleyes:

Particularly if they are incensed because their government told them everything was great and all would be well -- and then had to pull the rug out from under them due to its own flawed policies of trying to do too much in efforts that would obtain votes while not doing things that were needed for the nation. :mad:

"“It is simply, and solely, the abundance of money within a state [which] makes the difference in its grandeur and power.”"

"“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing.”"

Jean Baptist Colbert, circa 1680 ;)

slapout9
08-29-2011, 04:46 PM
Who knew...:D

His comments are supported by this Study (LINK .pdf) (http://vox.cepr.org/sites/default/files/file/DP8513.pdf) and 5,000years of history. Poor people riot... :rolleyes:

Particularly if they are incensed because their government told them everything was great and all would be well -- and then had to pull the rug out from under them due to its own flawed policies of trying to do too much in efforts that would obtain votes while not doing things that were needed for the nation. :mad:

"“It is simply, and solely, the abundance of money within a state [which] makes the difference in its grandeur and power.”"

"“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to get the most feathers with the least hissing.”"

Jean Baptist Colbert, circa 1680 ;)

It is all about who controls the money and Rothschild the Banker said this:

“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”

Ken White
08-29-2011, 05:20 PM
That's always been true and isn't going to change, it's a feature not a bug. It is also a people thing, thus my comment above that you could take all the money in the world and redistribute it and within a year or so, pretty much the same people would be controlling most of that money.

After WW I, when the US Troops arrived in Russia one mission was to aid the Czech Legion in getting to Vladivostok. When the 27th Infantry got to large PW camp full of Czech, German and Austrian PWs, the Russian Guards had fled, the Camp was ruled by huge Czech Corporal and they has Cops and Carpenters, Hunters and Farmers -- the best shoemaker was a former German Colonel IIRC. The Prisoners used wooden money they made. They had created a capitalist society from absolutely nothing other than the clothing on their backs when they'd arrived. That's the way humans operate...:wry:

Instead of trying to change something that isn't going to be changed, better to accept it as a feature and design processes that employ it rather than futilely objecting to it as unfair or illegal or whatever.

Big government fans -- Marx was far from the first -- have always believed, quite wrongly, that they can change it. Every attempt has failed -- but they will keep trying. They obviously still are trying. They can't. Better to harness it and use it... :cool:

Fuchs
08-29-2011, 06:15 PM
Let's not fool ourselves. Our societies are more than 50% planning economies. The government runs as a planning economy and all corporations do.

motorfirebox
08-29-2011, 06:30 PM
That's good to know but hard to divine from your comments.
Well, let me clarify. The problem is with the financial elite. The responsibility is on the politicians. You don't blame the dog over the owner, but the dog is what you worry about.


Not what I wrote but a good snap back on what I did write. The granting of excessive aid and creating of excessive dependency on government can have that effect on some persons. Note the use of "excessive." That's a value determination that will vary widely among people; some are more susceptible to coasting than are others.
I think there's coasting going on, but I think that coasting is a combinational result. Our social services provide some opportunity to coast, but we match that with a failure to provide opportunity to advance. I don't want to reduce the support structure we have--on which it is possible for some to coast--without first removing the obstacles that retard advancement. So it's those obstacles I see as the larger problem--larger in my perspective because they're closer.


The real issue here is not the provision of help but the methods used. We've been trying what you seem to wish for approaching 80 years -- effectively for my lifetime -- and the underclass still exists. Net figures for poverty and such have changed very little. Educational attainment has in many instances declined in spite significantly more spending (we tie with Switzerland in first in the world for the amount per pupil, K-12). What you seem to want to continue, even expand, simply is proven to not work.
If it doesn't work, it's because any benefit gained from these systems is immediately stripped away through other factors. We had a system which provided equity with which low-income families could bootstrap themselves--and when it failed, the penalty for that failure was foisted onto those the system was intended to help by those who made the system fail in the first place.

Most of the alternatives I see have to do with cutting taxes even further, starting at the top of the economy. The wealth gap is widening, the only cure is to make rich corporations even richer!


Still, if that is done, they will come at the expense of something else; wealth, yes -- unlimited wealth, no. Someone has to work to make that money that is taxed to feed the Turnip Crusher. Yes, we're wealthy, perhaps too wealthy in some senses -- but like many with inherited wealth or other wealth that isn't hard earned by ourselves, we do not spend wisely. IMO, you propose to keep spending the same way -- except more. :eek:
I'm proposing a fairly significant change in the way we spend, actually. Right now, we spend billions on assisting corporations that are already bringing in billions, and when that doesn't improve the job rate we spend billions more. Your paradigm is, "make the lower class work." Mine is, "provide them with the opportunity to work." Given how little average wages have increased over the past 40 years, and how much capital gains have increased over the same period, I really don't see how it's possible to entertain the idea that I'm proposing "the same, but moreso". That's like saying electing Obama means we've tried things the liberal way.


There is no continuing or consistent reduction in school spending nationwide of which I'm aware. There are cases of temporary reduction due to tax shortfalls. Where I live, there is for example a slight retrenchment, they're letting a few teachers go (but no Administrators -- claiming State and Federal Regulatory requirements make them necessary :D) -- though I note we're buying a multi million dollar AV system for the City Council and Bike Path construction continues...
There are cuts, (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/31/nation/la-na-education-budget-cuts-20110731) and likely more coming. Or, at least, I'm not optimistic about funding increasing during the Austerity Inquisition.


So can I. Most of them have been tried and do not work because people find a way to manipulate them and because they eventually cut too heavily into the tax base and revenues decline so retrenchment is necessary and the cycle begins anew...
Eh. For "cutting into the tax base" read instead "the guys who would be paying more taxes exercise too much political power to allow that to happen".


You forget to add in there somewhere 'abetted by Politicians.' You keep leaving that part out. It modifies your complaint a considerable amount. ;)

Until the political problem is fixed, your issues will continue apace...
I don't think they're separable like that. How can we elect politicians who will put big business in its place, in the face of actions like the Citizens United decision?

Ken White
08-29-2011, 07:58 PM
Well, let me clarify. The problem is with the financial elite. The responsibility is on the politicians. You don't blame the dog over the owner, but the dog is what you worry about.Bad simile. For most purposes the Dog cannot reason and mystify you with sleight of hand while stealing your Steak. People can and almost certainly will do that. The Dog can be controlled, chained or penned by his owner -- People tend to resist and evade that. The problem is not "with the financial elite," the problem is human greed and reasoning ability. That can only be countered with better reasoning and a better motive than greed. Thus far, most governments most places in the world have proven to be not particularly adept at the former and unable to consistently apply the latter to the extent it vanquishes their greed...
I think there's coasting going on...without first removing the obstacles that retard advancement. So it's those obstacles I see as the larger problem--larger in my perspective because they're closer.I agree. Where we seem to differ is in how to remove those obstacles. I contend that continuing what we are doing is bad and expanding most programs would only worsen the situation. Our problem as I see it is that a long term, multi-generational program is needed but that the American desire for a quick fix has led us since the '30s unto today to eschew long term thinking. There was a program, in Minnesota IIRC, that targeted at-risk families with several measures and it was proving successful in affecting the opportunities for the kids but not their parents. The program was halted because while quite successful, the parents and not the children had been the target audience. :rolleyes:

Social 'Science' at work...
If it doesn't work, it's because any benefit gained from these systems is immediately stripped away through other factors. We had a system which provided equity with which low-income families could bootstrap themselves--and when it failed, the penalty for that failure was foisted onto those the system was intended to help by those who made the system fail in the first place.Not sure of which program(s) you write but I suspect that there are counterpoints to it similar to the Minnesota program I cited above.
Most of the alternatives I see have to do with cutting taxes even further, starting at the top of the economy. The wealth gap is widening, the only cure is to make rich corporations even richer!Nor do I know what this refers to. Whose alternatives? Does this include those who want to increase taxes at the top?
...Your paradigm is, "make the lower class work." Mine is, "provide them with the opportunity to work." Given how little average wages have increased over the past 40 years, and how much capital gains have increased over the same period, I really don't see how it's possible to entertain the idea that I'm proposing "the same, but moreso"...That's an assumption on your part and it is not correct. My paradigm is remove excessive government interference in all aspects of American life. An action that I fully realize is highly unlikely but I am convinced that we can preclude further damage. Whether that will happen or not is unknown but I believe the 2012 Congressional elections will provide some indications -- the Presidential election is largely irrelevant to that, Congress does the money stuff...

slapout9 quoted Rothschild above: ""“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”" The US is a bit different -- here, Congress controls the Banks and thus the money supply. "We the people..." and all that. If the Bankers are not behaving as you wish, you need to speak to your Congress Critters...

Fuchs comment above is also quite germane: ""Let's not fool ourselves. Our societies are more than 50% planning economies. The government runs as a planning economy and all corporations do. "" That is absolutely correct IMO -- and while I know we will never undo that mistaken approach, we can mitigate the damage instead of exacerbating it as you seem to propose.

I do not advocate that we "make the lower class work." I just want the system changed to enable them to work and to provide reasonably rewarding work. The goal of 'meaningful' work is a chimera ('pleasant' even more so...). That's why they call it work instead of fun... :wry:
There are cuts, (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/31/nation/la-na-education-budget-cuts-20110731) and likely more coming. Or, at least, I'm not optimistic about funding increasing during the Austerity Inquisition.Of course there are cuts -- but those cuts are a reflection of a significantly tightened economy, not a concerted plan to deny education to the masses as that article could be assumed by some to impute. You are correct that it is likely to worsen because the economy almost certainly will worsen before it recovers, slowly -- but as the economy eventually climbs back from the pits, education spending is likely to continue its historic trend and inch back up to reach and then pass previous highs.

The real issue is for what those education dollars are spent. While there are some improvements taking place in K-6 (which has always been fairly good anyway), the same is not true for 7-12 -- we have really screwed that up but we sure have a lot of kids with great self esteem...
Eh. For "cutting into the tax base" read instead "the guys who would be paying more taxes exercise too much political power to allow that to happen".That's partly true in some cases -- and more true in some than others -- but anyway you handle it, there has to be a tax base of some sort. If the system is skewed to a particular segment of the population then it is up to the Politicians to change that. To hope they will clamp down and jail those who are paying a healthy percentage of the taxes that pay said Pols salaries seems, uh, unrealistic...

Unless they are confronted with loss of their political job. :D
I don't think they're separable like that. How can we elect politicians who will put big business in its place, in the face of actions like the Citizens United decision?That decision is over hyped under comprehended. It didn't really change much of anything. The FEC was formed in the wake of Watergate and has done as much harm as good; Mc Cain-Feingold, dearly loved by some is nothing but a very flawed incumbent protection act -- which gave to the media carte blanche while severely restricting the potential for dissenting views from others. What the Supreme court did with Citizens United is remove that media advantage, no more. That's why the media fulminates against it...

All that's needed to separate the evil wealthy from the nice (heh...) politicians is consistently voting for new faces in Congress. Ideally, we'd have better K-12 education and better informed electorate with some Civics and History classes under their belts. We don't but what we do have is a reasonably savvy collective knowledge and ability to force Congress to change their profligate and venal ways by sending the message that continued election is not a given. That's all it would take. Congress will not change until it is forced to. Short of a revolt, the only way -- and the best way -- to do that is to keep the doors of the Capitol, the House AND Senate Office buildings revolving...

None of that is going to dismantle or even roll back much of the Social Democratic state in which we live - but we can keep it from doing more damage by expanding previous failed efforts. ;)

Fuchs
08-29-2011, 08:48 PM
Ken, your stance on social insurances etc can be explained with personal preferences.
This means your stance is not qualified for a universal truth, but for being a foundation for deciding on how to vote ... and in the end it's bound to lose, for most people have different preferences.

You're furthermore making your assessment by looking back at life, while philosophy uses the fiction of how a human would choose if he didn't know what lays ahead of him (=not being born into any family yet) for investigating what's right or wrong.

A rational approach includes a certain appreciation of the risk mitigation by insurances, and this means that someone who doesn't know whether #### will happen to him or not will see a value in an insurance (unlike some people who already know that they didn't need one).

There are furthermore many reasons to believe that maximum output does not mean maximum joy. Most people tolerate certain inefficiencies in favour of conditions that promise greater satisfaction. This is one of the reasons why transfer systems exist in countries that have a majority in favour of state-organised social transfers.

A well-run social state has great merit (way beyond mere wealth-related stuff; it also helps to keep intra-society conflict in small, such as strikes).
The problem is that running it well requires much effort, unlike just laying back and do nothing, hoping that the #### won't hit the fan for yourself personally.

Finally, there are certain national experiences that should be exploited as experiences by all nations. Such as having seen the destruction of wealth four times in a single generation (First World War 1914-1918, Hyperinflation 1923-1924, Great Depression 1929-1932, Second World War 1939-1945).
A country with such a national memory won't be inclined to dismiss a transfer-based retirement insurance easily.
Nor should others, for it's stupid to learn only from one's own experiences.

slapout9
08-29-2011, 08:52 PM
After WW I, when the US Troops arrived in Russia one mission was to aid the Czech Legion in getting to Vladivostok. When the 27th Infantry got to large PW camp full of Czech, German and Austrian PWs, the Russian Guards had fled, the Camp was ruled by huge Czech Corporal and they has Cops and Carpenters, Hunters and Farmers -- the best shoemaker was a former German Colonel IIRC. The Prisoners used wooden money they made. They had created a capitalist society from absolutely nothing other than the clothing on their backs when they'd arrived. That's the way humans operate...:wry:



No Capitalism there Ken. No Bank Debt money no Capitalism! That is staright up Marx Labor Theory of Value. All value (usefullness)comes from Labor (people) thats why he(Marx) hated banks they BS people in to thinking money is the source of value. It is the "PRODUCT" being produced that has value to people. Which is why he said focus on the LEFT side (the production side)and you want have to worry about the concumption (consumer credit side)!

Congress does not control the Federal Reserve Banking System....that's the problem.

slapout9
08-29-2011, 08:58 PM
Here is a picture of real guvmint money vs. federal reserve money. One was printed DEBT the other was and still continues to be printed as DEBT not money with interest tacked on to it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note

We need Guvmint Money. Incidentally some these US notes may still be out there (they a red seal) if you ever run across one they are very valuable. All this saving the world economy stuff has made me hungry.....gonna go fry me some chicken and make some corn bread and some Baptist iced tea:)

Fuchs
08-29-2011, 09:03 PM
Yeah, he described "market economy", which ain't necessarily the same as capitalism.
Capitalism's central feature is that some of the worker's "value added" goes to the capital-owner(s).

In early capitalism, the factory owner is a natural person and in late capitalism the factory owner is a juristic person. The latter tends to involve much more banking than the former.

Marx basically decried mostly what we do nowadays know as a market failure: power asymmetry.


Market failures and the topics of safety/security and public organisation (such as traffic lights, assignment of radio frequencies) are the core justifications for a state.
Sadly, way too many people do know very little if anything about market failures. Only the monopoly is quite well-known by name.

Ken White
08-29-2011, 11:02 PM
Ken, your stance on social insurances etc can be explained with personal preferences.True, and I'm very much aware of that.
This means your stance is not qualified for a universal truth, but for being a foundation for deciding on how to vote ... and in the end it's bound to lose, for most people have different preferences.In order: Certainly true -- and I do not mean to imply that it is even a truth, much less universal; it is a position, a set of opinions and it is admittedly counter to much common wisdom. I write it not to persuade anyone to adopt those positions but to present an alternative viewpoint to that common wisdom (which also is not a universal truth...) and simply hope any who read it consider ALL the options carefully and then make their own decisions as they see the merits.

If I believed that it was bound to lose and that most people had different preferences, I wouldn't bother writing it -- I'm lazy. I do not believe that, I believe most people will accept a (any..) status quo UNTIL is is obvious the quo needs to go. That is particularly true if the status quo provides them some rewards for trivial expense -- and in the US it does, including many who neither deserve or need those rewards. When it appears the status quo is becoming inimical to their society, then and only then will they react and opt for something different. I cannot speak for Europe but my sensing is that many in the US -- certainly not all but a small majority -- are approaching that point and my faith in Congress to do the wrong thing and drive those people to seek change is reinforced by things I see and hear daily. The quo may soon go. We'll have to wait and see.
You're furthermore making your assessment by looking back at life, while philosophy uses the fiction of how a human would choose if he didn't know what lays ahead of him (=not being born into any family yet) for investigating what's right or wrong.Heh. In other words, some might think I should ignore a lifetime of experience, learning and observation to try to opt for academic musings or predicting. As Nils Bohr said, "Predictions are difficult, especially when they are about the future" ...
A rational approach includes a certain appreciation of the risk mitigation by insurances...I thought you knew -- we Americans aren't rational, we're a very emotional crowd... :wry:
There are furthermore many reasons to believe that maximum output does not mean maximum joy...A well-run social state has great merit (way beyond mere wealth-related stuff; it also helps to keep intra-society conflict in small, such as strikes). The problem is that running it well requires much effort, unlike just laying back and do nothing, hoping that the #### won't hit the fan for yourself personally.Nothing there with which to disagree. Though I will point out that, again, Americans don't do rational and our governmental process does not lend itself to either rational or long term decisions. IOW, I agree with you for most people most places but have strong reservations about that approach in the US. I know, if fully implemented, it would work quite well. For a time. Then the thing that is both a blessing and bane to this country would assert itself -- Individuality. While we have societal segments that revere that social stability, a large slice of the population does not revere it at all, quite the opposite. There could be trouble, scope dependent.

There are those in the US that worry about a revolt or major rioting due to economic problems and social inequities. Could happen but I hope not. It is notable that such riots in this country have in the past been rather easily provoked but have never been sustained or particularly deadly. People should worry more about trying to impose excessive communitarian values on the large number of individualists in the US. The first possibility is worrisome and would be harmful. The second should be more worrying because it would almost certainly be even more harmful. Let me emphasize that is not a left or right wing issue, it is a communitarian versus individualism issue and it has nothing to do with religions (any), geography, militias or any of that foolishness (the individualists do not really indulge in much of that). I've lived, traveled and worked all over this country and of those two groups, I have no doubt about which is the more dangerous -- but only if they're severely provoked. Ambrose Bierce noted the same thing... :wry:
Finally, there are certain national experiences that should be exploited as experiences by all nations...A country with such a national memory won't be inclined to dismiss a transfer-based retirement insurance easily...Understandable and commendable.
Nor should others, for it's stupid to learn only from one's own experiences.True, Unfortunately, few seem to be rational and dispassionate enough to do that consistently and we Americans with superheated egos are particularly bad at it.

I recall discussing a Kärcher decontamination apparatus with a Bundeswehr LTC. He said "You bought some to test, You'll test it, re-engineer it to 'Americanize' it for seven years until it no longer works, then you'll buy thousands of them, insisting they have to be built under license by a US manufacturer and pay a license fee to Kärcher. Strange..." He had that about right, I think...:D

In our defense, a number of our less than stellar governmental quirks are inherited for other nations and many of them do not translate well to an extremely diverse and geographically spread population. :o

Ken White
08-29-2011, 11:50 PM
No Capitalism there Ken. No Bank Debt money no Capitalism! That is staright up Marx Labor Theory of Value.Except they had a bank in the former PW compound at Irkutsk and it made loans to include construction loans. It was also responsible for marketing products made by the former prisoners to get real money and / or tools plus ammo for the hunters (from Trotsky's troops -- more capitalists...).

There was capitalism pure and simple

By late 1918 there were also conflicts between the Austrian and Germans on one side, joined by a few Czech allies and most of the Czechs joined by the few Italian on the other side. The former wanted to go west on foot and fight for Germany and its allies, the latter wanted to go east by train, travel by ship to France and fight Germans. Interestingly, As I recall, there was a healthy trade during that break up using the wooden money to build up supplies for the two sides based on their preferred or presumed modes of travel...
Congress does not control the Federal Reserve Banking System....that's the problem.That's not a problem, that's the myth. Check this LINK (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/politics/politico/main5097103.shtml)It's common knowledge and I'm sure you're aware of all of it -- I post it here only to note the first paragraph of the article and where the Chairman ate lunch -- and / or with whom...

Then there's the Feds mission. This is from their Web site, the Monetary Policy .pdf: ""The goals of monetary policy are spelled out in the Federal Reserve Act, which specifies that the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee should seek “to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”"

Why is the Fed keeping interest rates so low in the face of some say a very definite need for them to be raised to aid the economy and force more money into circulation to get employment going. There are also those who say that the -- so far -- mild inflation we're experiencing is due to that hold down in a perverse effort to get more money flowing... :eek:

Of course, if the Fed allowed the rates to climb, it would drive our interest on the national debt up which would thoroughly screw up the smoke and mirrors of the Great Deficit Reduction Scam by the Gang of Twelve. It would also adversely impact a number of reelection campaigns next year (that would be 2012...). Yet in spite of its own instincts and its Charter to do good for the Country and aid employment levels, independent of politics, the Fed not only holds 'em down but says it plans to do that until 2013. Why 2013? Ain't that weeeird...

Note also that those goals are specified in the Federal Reserve Act. Who does Acts? Beyond that:

Who spends funds the Federal Reserve plays with? Who can pass laws impacting the Fed's ability to do its job? Who must confirm the President's choices for the Fed Board and Directors? :wry:

You real sure you don't want that bridge? :D

motorfirebox
08-30-2011, 01:35 AM
The problem is not "with the financial elite," the problem is human greed and reasoning ability. That can only be countered with better reasoning and a better motive than greed. Thus far, most governments most places in the world have proven to be not particularly adept at the former and unable to consistently apply the latter to the extent it vanquishes their greed...
The problem is mostly a problem as it applies to the financial elite, because they possess far more ability to cause damage.


I agree. Where we seem to differ is in how to remove those obstacles. I contend that continuing what we are doing is bad and expanding most programs would only worsen the situation. Our problem as I see it is that a long term, multi-generational program is needed but that the American desire for a quick fix has led us since the '30s unto today to eschew long term thinking. There was a program, in Minnesota IIRC, that targeted at-risk families with several measures and it was proving successful in affecting the opportunities for the kids but not their parents. The program was halted because while quite successful, the parents and not the children had been the target audience. :rolleyes:
We disagree on what the obstacles are--we both agree that schooling is one obstacle, but you hold that social programs are another obstacle while I hold that social programs are all that keep the obstacles from completely crushing the lower class and much of the middle class.


Not sure of which program(s) you write but I suspect that there are counterpoints to it similar to the Minnesota program I cited above.
I'm talking about Fannie and Freddie and the recent creditpocalypse.


That's an assumption on your part and it is not correct. My paradigm is remove excessive government interference in all aspects of American life. An action that I fully realize is highly unlikely but I am convinced that we can preclude further damage. Whether that will happen or not is unknown but I believe the 2012 Congressional elections will provide some indications -- the Presidential election is largely irrelevant to that, Congress does the money stuff...
I think it's a pretty solid summary of your position, at least as I understand it. You view social programs, by and large, as an obstacle to getting people to work. You want to cut back on social programs with the goal of forcing people into the workplace in order to make up the subsistence they currently gain from those programs. That's a stick, not a carrot.


Fuchs comment above is also quite germane: ""Let's not fool ourselves. Our societies are more than 50% planning economies. The government runs as a planning economy and all corporations do. "" That is absolutely correct IMO -- and while I know we will never undo that mistaken approach, we can mitigate the damage instead of exacerbating it as you seem to propose.
I'm an advocate of planning better, whether that involves more or less planning overall. Cutting farm subsidies and oil company tax breaks would be 'less planning', I guess, but in their place I would put much stronger controls on the financial industry.


Of course there are cuts -- but those cuts are a reflection of a significantly tightened economy, not a concerted plan to deny education to the masses as that article could be assumed by some to impute. You are correct that it is likely to worsen because the economy almost certainly will worsen before it recovers, slowly -- but as the economy eventually climbs back from the pits, education spending is likely to continue its historic trend and inch back up to reach and then pass previous highs.
See, but I think the entire assumption on is terribly flawed. The most important time to spend on education--the most important time for the government to spend, period--is when the economy is down. Instead, we're shifting money from education to paying down the freakin' debt, which is the last thing you want to do during a downturn. Paying off credit card bills when you can't put food on the table is a really, really bad idea, if for no other reason than that if you starve to death, you won't be paying your bills anyway.


That's partly true in some cases -- and more true in some than others -- but anyway you handle it, there has to be a tax base of some sort. If the system is skewed to a particular segment of the population then it is up to the Politicians to change that. To hope they will clamp down and jail those who are paying a healthy percentage of the taxes that pay said Pols salaries seems, uh, unrealistic...
There is a tax base, that's my point. The upper tier of income tax was at 90% once, and it was during one of America's highest-growing periods. I don't suggest that we go back to that high a rate, but we can put some pressure on. Heck, I honestly wouldn't bother going for the straight income tax; instead, I'd jack up capital gains taxes, especially for banks and corporate entities. The lie that allowing these guys to do whatever they want because their earnings will result in more jobs is... well, a lie.


That decision is over hyped under comprehended. It didn't really change much of anything. The FEC was formed in the wake of Watergate and has done as much harm as good; Mc Cain-Feingold, dearly loved by some is nothing but a very flawed incumbent protection act -- which gave to the media carte blanche while severely restricting the potential for dissenting views from others. What the Supreme court did with Citizens United is remove that media advantage, no more. That's why the media fulminates against it...
Yes, now the media gets to compete more directly with the guys who sold securitized liar loans as good investments, and who now complain because people are mean to them. It's a good thing.


All that's needed to separate the evil wealthy from the nice (heh...) politicians is consistently voting for new faces in Congress. Ideally, we'd have better K-12 education and better informed electorate with some Civics and History classes under their belts. We don't but what we do have is a reasonably savvy collective knowledge and ability to force Congress to change their profligate and venal ways by sending the message that continued election is not a given. That's all it would take. Congress will not change until it is forced to. Short of a revolt, the only way -- and the best way -- to do that is to keep the doors of the Capitol, the House AND Senate Office buildings revolving...
We'd be voting for different new faces, but I'm down with that :)

Dayuhan
08-30-2011, 02:13 AM
See, but I think the entire assumption on is terribly flawed. The most important time to spend on education--the most important time for the government to spend, period--is when the economy is down. Instead, we're shifting money from education to paying down the freakin' debt, which is the last thing you want to do during a downturn.

Why would you assume that spending more on education would produce better education?

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b329/dayuhan/pupil.gif

Total Expenditures per Pupil (for Fall Enrollment)
NCES, Digest of Education Statistics, 2003

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html

Has education improved with higher spending?

American education doesn't need more money, it needs a change in attitude and purpose.

Ken White
08-30-2011, 03:42 AM
The problem is mostly a problem as it applies to the financial elite, because they possess far more ability to cause damage.Perhaps but there are far fewer of them in comparison to other problem causers...

Still there are probably too many to attack successfully. There are far, far fewer Congress Critters -- a much better and easier target.
We disagree on what the obstacles are--we both agree that schooling is one obstacle, but you hold that social programs are another obstacle while I hold that social programs are all that keep the obstacles from completely crushing the lower class and much of the middle class.Not so. I do not hold that Social Programs are "another obstacle" -- I simply say they are not helping as much as you appear to think they are, IOW, they do not work as designed or hoped for. That doesn't mean they don't work or are obstacles, it just means that IMO they are not fully effective. More on this in a bit.
I'm talking about Fannie and Freddie and the recent creditpocalypse.Ah, okay.We could trade dumb laws and flawed programs for weeks; Lord knows there are plenty out there on both sides of this discussion.
I think it's a pretty solid summary of your position, at least as I understand it. You view social programs, by and large, as an obstacle to getting people to work. You want to cut back on social programs with the goal of forcing people into the workplace in order to make up the subsistence they currently gain from those programs. That's a stick, not a carrot.Not at all. You keep writing that and I've never said they were an obstacle, what I've written is that they do not work, they don't usually achieve the intended effect. Back to square one:


We have been increasingly investing in social programs since the 1930s. Here were are, almost four generations later, approaching 80 years and by and large the same populations are still at risk, still having to cope, just barely in too many cases. The per capita numbers on those below the nominal poverty lines are much the same, education has regressed. If these programs could or had done what was expected (hoped...) that would not be the case. What you advocate has not worked as well as anyone could wish.



That's what I have consistently written, there may be minor variations but the theme is constant -- these programs do not work as designed, thus they are ineffective. I contend they deserve a hard look and much retooling if not elimination but do recall the Minnesota program I mentioned that was a success but was canceled for a, to me, very dubious reason. That was a program that should not have been eliminated. There are others that should stay. SS, Medicare and MedicAid (all of which should be means tested) should stay but there are as many or more that need significant recasting or to depart. That will probably not happen for a variety of reasons and we will see most stay with only minor tweaks and see new programs added.

You may be right, things may thus be improved. I hope you won't mind if I reluctantly and sadly bet against that? :(
I'm an advocate of planning better, whether that involves more or less planning overall. Cutting farm subsidies and oil company tax breaks would be 'less planning', I guess, but in their place I would put much stronger controls on the financial industry.I have no problem with either of those cuts (though a sensible farm policy to replace the loss of subsidies to those who get legitimate and need help should be a by product; Cargill can probably survive with no Federal assistance...

I could recommend several more; I too would opt for stronger financial controls -- but we are unlikely to get any of those things unless we can change the focus of Congress.That focus should be on the Nation. Currently it is on their reelection and their party in that order. That bit of human greed facilitates other greed, It is easier to control the greed of Congroids through the ballot box than it is to get all the humungously wealthy to be less greedy...
See, but I think the entire assumption on is terribly flawed...if for no other reason than that if you starve to death, you won't be paying your bills anyway.We'll have to disagree on some of that but we're getting way down in the weeds on this. Suffice to say that if you can't put food on the table and you use your credit card to do that, all you're doing is forestalling the inevitable and possibly making inevitability more unpleasant than it needs to be. Aside from the fact that, taken too far, it's just theft. Stealing from your Banker because he's rapacious (most of 'em are...) may be 'morally' satisfying but it's still theft...
There is a tax base, that's my point...The lie that allowing these guys to do whatever they want because their earnings will result in more jobs is... well, a lie.In some cases, not in others. My belief is that most of the things we've discussed aren't quite as simple as either of us have written for communications sake in a poor medium for discussion. We also aren't going to agree on many things and that should be okay; it is with me.
Yes, now the media gets to compete more directly with the guys who sold securitized liar loans as good investments, and who now complain because people are mean to them. It's a good thing.Good thing, bad thing -- either way it's more equitable than the media having an open door that was slammed in the face of everyone else. I'm sure that at the time of the Bill the fact that both sponsors were media darlings (though neither now is) might merit consideration as to their motive back in '02...

As for lying loan sharks, bad stuff that -- then, so are lying media types who seem to exist in about equal numbers. We could argue for days about which of those groups does the most damage to the nation... :wry:
We'd be voting for different new faces, but I'm down with that :)Works for me.

Time to move on , I guess, we've bored others long enough, we should let some of them comment... :D

Kiwigrunt
08-30-2011, 04:37 AM
Time to move on , I guess, we've bored others long enough, we should let some of them comment... :D

Nah, more than happy to observe. :)

Not much to do with small wars (yet), but a very interesting thread never the less.

slapout9
08-30-2011, 05:04 AM
You real sure you don't want that bridge? :D

Here is the differance copied from the link I posted above about Greenbacks.....Real US Currency is no interest money it is ALAWYS DEBT Free.

Comparison to Federal Reserve Notes

Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are parts of the national currency of the United States, and both have been legal tender since the gold recall of 1933. Both have been used in circulation as money in the same way. However, the issuing authority for them came from different statutes.[24] United States Notes were created as fiat currency, in that the government has never categorically guaranteed to redeem them for precious metal - even though at times, such as after the specie resumption of 1879, federal officials were authorized to do so if requested. The difference between a United States Note and a Federal Reserve Note is that a United States Note represented a "bill of credit" and was inserted by the Treasury directly into circulation free of interest. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by debt purchased by the Federal Reserve, and thus generate seigniorage, or interest, for the Federal Reserve System, which serves as a lending intermediary between the Treasury and the public.


Boldness was added by me.

Link to a quote on President Woodrow Wilson about the Federal Reserve Act...he was a most unhappy man!
http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2007/12/21/woodrow_wilson_federal_reserve

Ken White
08-30-2011, 05:12 AM
Here is the differance copied from the link I posted above about Greenbacks.....Real US Currency is no interest money it is ALAWYS DEBT Free.

Comparison to Federal Reserve Notes

Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are parts of the national currency of the United States, and both have been legal tender since the gold recall of 1933. Both have been used in circulation as money in the same way. However, the issuing authority for them came from different statutes.[24] United States Notes were created as fiat currency, in that the government has never categorically guaranteed to redeem them for precious metal - even though at times, such as after the specie resumption of 1879, federal officials were authorized to do so if requested. The difference between a United States Note and a Federal Reserve Note is that a United States Note represented a "bill of credit" and was inserted by the Treasury directly into circulation free of interest. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by debt purchased by the Federal Reserve, and thus generate seigniorage, or interest, for the Federal Reserve System, which serves as a lending intermediary between the Treasury and the public.


Boldness was added by me.I've still got a few small US Notes. Also got some ancient Series E Bonds, not many but they're still gathering interest.

I suspect we can both agree we'd be better of without the Fed... :mad:

If you don't want the Bridge, I'll keep flogging it to Bob Jones. :D

Surferbeetle
08-30-2011, 06:10 AM
Time to move on , I guess, we've bored others long enough, we should let some of them comment... :D

Tour de Force discussion...pray continue :)

As an aside, the consideration of probabilities have inspired a number of folks to include Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and even Michael Milken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken). :eek: During the late eighties financial probabilities took the form of Junk Bonds - > a shift in accepted business models from a focus upon cold cash tracked in balance sheets to that of future revenue streams. This shift in thinking allowed for a significant increase in available liquidity based upon the hope/probability of the future.

Probability is another word for risk. Risk not, gain not. One could argue that socialism reduces risk and increases certainty, thereby lifting the many by some small level. It's interesting to consider how many significant Dichter und Denker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Germany) were creating 'value' pre and post Bismark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck). It seems to be a common human experience, that when one is under pressure/experiencing risk & uncertainty 'value' creation occurs. Consider patent creation (patent creation map (http://thesocietypages.org/thickculture/files/2009/07/innovation-map1-400x297.jpg)) as a proxy for risk.

Financial regulation is necessary, but taken to far it will either unacceptably reduce both risk and reward or unacceptably increase both risk and reward. Glass-Stegall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act), Frank-Dodd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protect ion_Act), and Basel III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III) (among many others) are attempts to find a balance, a just price if you will...Thomas Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_economic_thought#Middle_Ages) gave this idea some thought as did Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_economic_thought#Aristotle). It would seem however, that the question has not yet been solved :D

When considering financial regulation it is important to ask how strong administrative and technical capacity is. Simplicity may be the answer to the lack of either/both? Free, transparent, predictable, and stable markets have been a force lifting the many out of poverty. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations) makes for an interesting read.

Pete
08-30-2011, 01:15 PM
After WW I, when the US Troops arrived in Russia one mission was to aid the Czech Legion in getting to Vladivostok.
When my Dad arrived at his U.S. Army reception station at the Presidio of Monterey, California in 1943 the recruits asked an older master sergeant there what his ribbons stood for. The sergeant obliged and named them one by one, saving the best for last, the one he was proudest of -- " ... and this one gentlemen is for the Siberian Expeditionary Force!"

slapout9
08-30-2011, 04:24 PM
Nah, more than happy to observe. :)

Not much to do with small wars (yet), but a very interesting thread never the less.

It really does because it goes to R.C.Jones concept of good government,he is right on the broad concept I have some disagreement on his details. A government to be a government has to have 4 major things. A Currency,An Army and National borders and a Post Office. It needs 4 departments.
1-Deperatment of the Treasury
2-Department of the Army
3-Department of Civil Engineering
4-A Postal service! this is a bigger but most folks don't talk about it.
If get those right the rest will follow.




Small wars are operations undertaken under executive authority, wherein military force is combined with diplomatic pressure in the internal or external affairs of another state whose government is unstable, inadequate, or unsatisfactory for the preservation of life and of such interests as are determined by the foreign policy of our Nation.

-- Small Wars Manual, 1940


Copied from the SWJ Journal cover page, that got it from the Small Wars Manual...Boldness is mine

Ken White
08-30-2011, 05:31 PM
Not much to do with small wars (yet), but a very interesting thread never the less.From way back in Post 80 on the thread, wherein I writ:

""I probably should disclose that my views on all this are indeed involved with dangerous eras. This one is not but they do occur. In order to be prepared for the unexpected onset of such an era, that Congressional / Political malfeasance concerns me because in funding efforts and in the societal changes induced it adversely affects the Armed Forces of the US. The societal bit affects serving persons, our risk aversion problem is largely societally induced.""

Linkage, no matter how tenousity... :D

motorfirebox
08-30-2011, 06:39 PM
I'll say one more thing about social programs: in 80 years, I don't think we've given them a fair shake. They've been shackled by Jim Crow laws, and they've been counteracted by an increasing investment in capital markets to the direct detriment of wages.

Ken, thanks very much for the interesting, intelligent, and exhausting discussion. If there were more non-liberals like you, I'd be much less liberal myself.

slapout9
08-30-2011, 07:23 PM
I'll say one more thing about social programs: in 80 years, I don't think we've given them a fair shake. They've been shackled by Jim Crow laws, and they've been counteracted by an increasing investment in capital markets to the direct detriment of wages.



The Job Corps as it was originally conceived was a big success, don't how well it is doing by todays standards. This was a very interesting program as it was conceived and if you can find some old stuff about the actual process they used it is pretty interesting stuff.

Ken White
08-30-2011, 07:42 PM
The human factor. All of the programs started off well and probably did considerable good under their original steers persons. then the Second string took over. Then the third.

Many today would be barely recognizable to their originators. I think FDR would be upset with what's been done to Social Security for just one example.

The programs are good and undeniably well intentioned -- the way they are modified by some (including Congress. Especially including Congress...) for their own understanding / misunderstandings of intent and their own purposes (all too often...) -- is not so good. It's not the programs, it's the people and /or system that run them -- or fails to do so...

I think that can be corrected but it will take a massive message to the Congress to make that happen. That may or may not occur. We'll see what 2012 brings...

Thank, you, motorfirebox for the civil and intelligent discussion. Intelligent on your side anyway, Slap'll tell you I ain't none too bright, too many HAH landings... :D

Stan
08-30-2011, 08:52 PM
... too many HAH landings... :D

Now that's a quote for year 2011 :eek:

slapout9
08-31-2011, 06:39 PM
Thank, you, motorfirebox for the civil and intelligent discussion. Intelligent on your side anyway, Slap'll tell you I ain't none too bright, too many HAH landings... :D

Slap would tell you that if it hadn't been for senior NCO's and a few Officers like Ken White Slap would probably be in Leavenworth making little rocks out of big rocks. I was just a little over 18 years old when I told the E-5 promotion board I had figured out how whoop Karl Marx A@@ anytime anyplace:D.


All you need is a PUBLIC BANK. This is a clip for the public state bank of California initiative. At the national Level America needs the Abraham Lincoln National Bank.....not the Federal Reserve. Honest Abe freed us from the concept of human slavery and bank slavery by telling folks the truth. We don't have to have slaves and we don't have to borrow a single dollar from the Tali-Banksters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8vJRo0VaGk&feature=youtu.be



Let Freedom Ring!

Surferbeetle
08-31-2011, 08:26 PM
All,

This video (Slapout inspired no doubt ;) ) is about the evolution of the world economy (1914 to 'today'), it is watchable from your computer, and has closed captioning for those of us whose hearing has had a workout over the years. ;)

Episode I - The Battle of Ideas


A global economy, energized by technological change and unprecedented flows of people and money, collapses in the wake of a terrorist attack .... The year is 1914.

Episode II - The Agony of Reform


As the 1980s begin and the Cold War grinds on, the existing world order appears firmly in place. Yet beneath the surface powerful currents are carving away at the economic foundations.

Episode III - The New Rules of the Game


With communism discredited, more and more nations harness their fortunes to the global free-market. China, Southeast Asia, India, Eastern Europe and Latin America all compete to attract the developed world's investment capital, and tariff barriers fall. In the United States Republican and Democratic administrations both embrace unfettered globalization over the objections of organized labor.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/

slapout9
09-01-2011, 04:09 PM
All,

This video (Slapout inspired no doubt ;) ) is about the evolution of the world economy (1914 to 'today'), it is watchable from your computer, and has closed captioning for those of us whose hearing has had a workout over the years. ;)



They forgto to call me, they got a couple of things wrong or at least don't understand them that well. But don't worry I'LL fix it:D
Thanks for posting the link, I'll get back when I finish watching them all, but so far some really good stuff in there.

Pete
09-01-2011, 06:06 PM
... if it hadn't been for senior NCO's and a few Officers like Ken White Slap would probably be in Leavenworth making little rocks out of big rocks.
In those days senior U.S. Army NCOs knew how to handle members of the various ethnic groups from the American South. They knew that their periods of industriousness and dedication would occasionally be followed by episodes of indolence and foot-dragging. Now and then they'd overindulge themselves or wind up landing themselves in trouble.

Other than that, we're just good ole' County Boys.

Were it not for the professionalism of the U.S. Army NCO Corps back then we would not have the mulicultural nation and service that we do today. :D

Surferbeetle
09-01-2011, 11:01 PM
Slap,

Glad you enjoy the series as much as I do. Your links are always interesting, the Walt Disney Airpower series way back when blew my mind. :)

All,

One can argue that an education enables one to connect the global flow of information and commerce. This connection has the potential to strengthen the connected, strengthen communities, and place positive pressure upon various elites (political, economic, military, etc.) to act in a responsible manner which benefits the whole.

With respect to outcomes, actions speak louder than rhetoric. We can observe that various organizations & individuals, state sponsored and transnational, consistently allocate capital (land, labor, entrepreneurship, organization, management, etc) across the globe in order to provide education to various demographics - (The spectrum includes local schools & universities, Catholic Schools, Madrassas, NGO's, IO's, SF Trainers, CA-Bubba's, etc). Some efforts are more efficient than others (http://www.sigir.mil/). Irrespective of efficiencies, all recognize the 'empowering' value of an education.

Visible points of measurement of educational effectiveness include International Trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_trade), Capital Flows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank), and Jobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Labour_Organization).

Business models for education are evolving. You, I, our relatives, and global inhabitants are no longer educationally circumscribed by various actors. An education enables one to connect the global flow of information and commerce.

Each of us can positively change the world at some level if we choose. Khan Academy (http://www.khanacademy.org/) pass it on...:wry:

slapout9
09-02-2011, 06:16 PM
Hi Beetle,
How about this? Land,Labor,Capitol,etc. the old factors of production may or may not have been OK for local production but Globalization is Long Range production. So the new factors are Time,Distance,and Energy. Don't think that is a sustainable model no matter what viewpoint you have Capitalism,Communism, or any other ism out there.

We need a new ism....Civil Engieeringism:cool:

motorfirebox
09-03-2011, 01:50 AM
Hi Beetle,
How about this? Land,Labor,Capitol,etc. the old factors of production may or may not have been OK for local production but Globalization is Long Range production. So the new factors are Time,Distance,and Energy. Don't think that is a sustainable model no matter what viewpoint you have Capitalism,Communism, or any other ism out there.

We need a new ism....Civil Engieeringism:cool:
I can't picture exactly what Civil Engineeringism would entail, but I'd sign up for the newsletter.

Surferbeetle
09-03-2011, 11:46 PM
Slapout,

Police work provides quite the vantage point and learning laboratory. MOM – Motive, opportunity, method and other heuristics learned here have come in handy over the years. Fortunately, one of my teams included a lawyer and policeman when we stumbled across that stolen vehicle bazaar…. ;)

Your observations about the importance of time, distance, and energy in the context of globalization echo some of the things I have experienced and learned about. With changing conditions as a constant backdrop, business models for the creation of value must change. Perhaps it is true that Globalization tilts the balance of power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power) in favor of markets instead of nation states. It is also described as speeding up, concentrating, and yet at the same time, expanding global relations. Globalization certainly appears to facilitate the global movement of goods, capital, and jobs. These observations are congruent with the idea that nations/societies/people are generally not containers with rigid and impermeable walls which serve to permanently separate/isolate them from the rest of the world.

Time – Global economic timelines are said to be compressed by Globalization. Tulipmania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania) of 1637, The Post Napoleonic Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Napoleonic_depression) of 1815, The Long Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression) of 1873, and the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression) of 1929 may be seen as early examples of global economic integration. The Commanding Heights (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/) video walks us through other examples and timelines of global economic integration. Fibonacci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci) had some interesting ideas about quantifying cycles. Attempts to quantify business cycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle#Classification_by_periods), both local and global, may be of interest and The Kiel Institute for World Economics (http://www.ifw-kiel.de/kiel-institute-for-the-world-economy/view) may be of interest as well.

Distance – Geographic and conceptual distances are compressed by Globalization. Today, in North America, we are able to wander down to Walmart and purchase cut flowers which a few hours earlier were growing in South America (http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/ellisonchair/media/ErnestoVelez-slides.pdf). In the space of time it takes to clear the register and get those babies back home we have managed to make the wife happy while simultaneously participating in a global value chain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_chain) which funds alternatives to nacrobusiness, enables cutting edge aircraft design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde), regulates aircraft maintenance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_maintenance#Regulation_of_Aircraft_Mainte nance), standardizes air transportation networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Air_Transport_Association), and keeps civil engineers employed building cool airports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Dhabi_International_Airport) :D We can contrast this modern transportation infrastructure network with our history at Lexington and Concord on April 19th, 1775. News of the battle made it to Williamsburg Virginia on April 28th and back to the Cabinet in England on May 28th via a special courier. It wasn’t until that 1817 Jeremiah Thompson, later channeled by FedEx, was able to establish regularly scheduled transatlantic service with his Black Ball Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Ball_Line_(trans-Atlantic_packet)) of sailing ships.

Energy – Globalization also impacts energy. Energy Value Chains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_chain) have taken a number of centuries to build and span the globe. Within this context it is interesting to consider the Energy Density of different types of fuel:
45,000 kg of wood=22,000 kg of coal=15,000 kg of gasoline=12,000 kg of diesel =1kg of uranium.

Slapout and Motorfirebox,

You might also be interested in the American Society of Civil Engineers Website (http://www.asce.org/). Cool stuff :)

slapout9
09-04-2011, 04:37 AM
Motorfire and Beetle, I was thinking more along these lines. We actually have/had our own System of Economics. :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)


I have been a long time reader at the American Society of Civil Engineers their paper on Critical Infrastructure for the 21st Century that is sustainable is outstanding. Write the Work Order and Print US Dollars and go do it, the Country needs it and there will be millions of jobs created:)



Notice how Henry Clay wanted to issue Soverign Credit as Opposed to Soverign Debt!!!!