Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 136

Thread: The Era of Living Dangerously

  1. #101
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Good comment and questions...

    Quote Originally Posted by omarali50 View Post
    ...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.

    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.
    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.

    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.

  2. #102
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Wow.

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Real News interview on the subject. Economic instability leas to Political Instability leads to Insurgencies....living dangerously.
    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...4&jumival=7169
    Who knew...

    His comments are supported by this Study (LINK .pdf) and 5,000years of history. Poor people riot...

    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.

    "“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

  3. #103
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Who knew...

    His comments are supported by this Study (LINK .pdf) and 5,000years of history. Poor people riot...

    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.

    "“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.”

  4. #104
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking I think Colbert beat Rothschild to that thought...

    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...

    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...

  5. #105
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Let's not fool ourselves. Our societies are more than 50% planning economies. The government runs as a planning economy and all corporations do.

  6. #106
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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 ) -- though I note we're buying a multi million dollar AV system for the City Council and Bike Path construction continues...
    There are cuts, and likely more coming. Or, at least, I'm not optimistic about funding increasing during the Austerity Inquisition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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?

  7. #107
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Social Democracy is anti-social...

    Quote Originally Posted by motorfirebox View Post
    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.

    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...
    There are cuts, 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.
    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.
    Last edited by Ken White; 08-29-2011 at 08:04 PM.

  8. #108
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.

  9. #109
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Talking Marx Would Give You A Red Star

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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...
    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.

  10. #110
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Here Is The Difference

    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

  11. #111
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.

  12. #112
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Wink Streusel is better than Scrapple. But...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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...
    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...
    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...

    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.

  13. #113
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking You sure you don't want that Bridge???

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    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 LINKIt'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...

    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?

    You real sure you don't want that bridge?

  14. #114
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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
    Last edited by motorfirebox; 08-30-2011 at 01:39 AM.

  15. #115
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motorfirebox View Post
    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?



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

    http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fe...ite-chart.html

    Has education improved with higher spending?

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

    H.L. Mencken

  16. #116
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motorfirebox View Post
    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...
    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...

  17. #117
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Time to move on , I guess, we've bored others long enough, we should let some of them comment...
    Nah, more than happy to observe.

    Not much to do with small wars (yet), but a very interesting thread never the less.
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  18. #118
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default I Want My Guvmint Money

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    You real sure you don't want that bridge?
    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_...ederal_reserve
    Last edited by slapout9; 08-30-2011 at 05:08 AM. Reason: stuff

  19. #119
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default U can't have it -- Blame FDR...

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    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...

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

  20. #120
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default Probabilities...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Time to move on , I guess, we've bored others long enough, we should let some of them comment...
    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. 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 were creating 'value' pre and post Bismark. 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) 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, Frank-Dodd, and Basel III (among many others) are attempts to find a balance, a just price if you will...Thomas Aquinas gave this idea some thought as did Aristotle. It would seem however, that the question has not yet been solved

    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 makes for an interesting read.
    Last edited by Surferbeetle; 08-30-2011 at 06:12 AM.
    Sapere Aude

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-07-2009, 01:14 PM
  2. Hakim-Sadr Pact: A New Era in Shiite Politics?
    By tequila in forum Who is Fighting Whom? How and Why?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-10-2008, 05:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •