The Export Problem
As the United States continues to borrow more money from its foreign trading partners we must come to the conclusion that there are only two ways we will be able to pay back this money. One is to sell off our assets piece by piece to the Chinese and Arab countries that own our debt. Warren Buffett calls this solution the Sharecropper Society–one in which the Millenials will be “working for da’ Man” in Beijing.
The other solution is to manufacture goods and services that our trading partners want to buy–to become an export economy like Germany, Japan and China. But if you look at the chart above of job growth and shrinkage by sector, it’s obvious were are losing jobs in every sector that could possibly be an export power. We have already discussed here the problem with the export of our Intellectual Property,in that the BRIC’s (Brazil, Russia, India, China) have no intention of paying for our IP if they can steal it. I have made the suggestion that a compulsory license paid at the ISP level (the transportation layer for the theft) might solve that problem, but this is going to take a global consensus and until Chinese filmmakers and Brazilian musicians get pissed off that there IP is being stolen, nothing will happen.
This leaves the issue of manufactured exports. There must be a reason why an American Solar Power company, Sun Power, has its largest manufacturing facility in Germany. Because for ten years the German government has built incentives for homeowners to put solar on their roofs, guaranteeing to buy the excess energy for a fixed price. There is no reason, with the right incentives why the U.S. could not be the world’s leader in solar and wind technology, but for General Electric to manufacture its wind turbines in the U.S. instead of China, it is going to need incentives. The obvious place for this to work is in the area of labor and environmental standards. If the Chinese can manufacture goods with no protection for labor and no attempt to control pollution, they will always be the low cost producer. As a New York Times editorial this morning points out there are ways to deal with this.
Congress is concerned that domestic limits on carbon emissions would put American companies at a competitive disadvantage with rivals in countries with no such caps. But that is not the only problem. In the absence of a system of import duties related to carbon, industries with high emissions might relocate to nonsignatory countries to save money. Or they might fail, unable to compete with dirtier and cheaper foreign rivals.
There are precedents for using trade measures for environmental goals. The Montreal Agreement to curb the use of ozone-depleting gases included trade controls on such substances. And the World Trade Organization has suggested that levying taxes at the border on the carbon content of imports would be acceptable if they are devised properly — in the same sort of way as some consumption taxes are levied on imports, ensuring equal treatment with domestic products.
A tariff on imported goods that are not manufactured under certain environmental and labor standards would level the playing field to revive our hollowed out manufacturing sector. Just like the dogma of “efficient markets” has proved to be fallacious in the last 16 months, we must realize that the religion of “free trade” is a trap. America can either sell itself off to our creditors around the world or figure out how to incentivise our manufacturers to relocate their factories in this country to put the 30 million underemployed back to work.
OMG.
Jon… CUT CORPORATE TAXES TO ZERO. Or you aren’t serious. Those are zero-sum jobs, if the company decides not to be here, those jobs are gone.
Look, you can fund a very liberal government using only consumption taxes. Provide lots of services. Boss lots of people around. You just need to RAISE consumption taxes to acheive your goals.
But, you’ve got to cut corporate taxes and you’ve to get rid of unions. You can have MILLIONS of manufacturing jobs, but they can’t pay union wages.
End GM, think Toyota.
—–
Can’t we actually have the thought exercise where we imagine such a world?
——
Look at food production. We haven’t lost many jobs in that space because we:
1. don’t have union wages.
2. are able to export our goods.
3. have low enough costs that foriegn countries are still at a disadvantage becuase of shipping costs.
#3 is key. You can basically DETERMINE manufacturing wages here based on labor costs “over there” + cost of shipping.
OMG.
Jon… CUT CORPORATE TAXES TO ZERO. Or you aren’t serious. Those are zero-sum jobs, if the company decides not to be here, those jobs are gone.
Look, you can fund a very liberal government using only consumption taxes. Provide lots of services. Boss lots of people around. You just need to RAISE consumption taxes to acheive your goals.
But, you’ve got to cut corporate taxes and you’ve to get rid of unions. You can have MILLIONS of manufacturing jobs, but they can’t pay union wages.
End GM, think Toyota.
—–
Can’t we actually have the thought exercise where we imagine such a world?
——
Look at food production. We haven’t lost many jobs in that space because we:
1. don’t have union wages.
2. are able to export our goods.
3. have low enough costs that foriegn countries are still at a disadvantage becuase of shipping costs.
#3 is key. You can basically DETERMINE manufacturing wages here based on labor costs “over there” + cost of shipping.
The game to play is “would you trade?”
Would you rather be Russia right now, with an economy based on commodities?
Would you rather be China ,holding a lot of US debt and unstable export markets?
Who would you willingly trade places with if you could? Now, how would you get there from where we are today?
The game to play is “would you trade?”
Would you rather be Russia right now, with an economy based on commodities?
Would you rather be China ,holding a lot of US debt and unstable export markets?
Who would you willingly trade places with if you could? Now, how would you get there from where we are today?
Jon,
While I appreciate this analysis, and your macroanalytical skills generally, I do want to point out that there’s a third way out of this hole. That would be to reduce public expenditures through greater efficiency.
I note that, on the plus side of this legdger, the side accounting for increases in employment expenditures, the largest category is education, which accounts for 7.4% of increases while the next larger category, federal expendires, clocks in at 6.5. (A portion of this federal increase presumably is owing to the burgeoning, moreover, of federal spending on education.)
I can’t except that increased education spending during these hard times is strictly necessary, or good. We’ve got to divorce ourselves from what a former partner of mine, a lifelong expert in school finance, once facetiously dubbed “the More model”.
What’s wanted is a model in which we produce the same results, or student outcomes, with fewer resources each year–or, better still, more with less. Especially through a wiser use of communications breakthroughs–which hold the potential to cheapen everything from teacher training to textbook publishing and actual service delivery–we ought to be able to achieve in education every bit as much, economically, as the advanced work in energy you so consistently and eloquently call for.
Jon,
While I appreciate this analysis, and your macroanalytical skills generally, I do want to point out that there’s a third way out of this hole. That would be to reduce public expenditures through greater efficiency.
I note that, on the plus side of this legdger, the side accounting for increases in employment expenditures, the largest category is education, which accounts for 7.4% of increases while the next larger category, federal expendires, clocks in at 6.5. (A portion of this federal increase presumably is owing to the burgeoning, moreover, of federal spending on education.)
I can’t except that increased education spending during these hard times is strictly necessary, or good. We’ve got to divorce ourselves from what a former partner of mine, a lifelong expert in school finance, once facetiously dubbed “the More model”.
What’s wanted is a model in which we produce the same results, or student outcomes, with fewer resources each year–or, better still, more with less. Especially through a wiser use of communications breakthroughs–which hold the potential to cheapen everything from teacher training to textbook publishing and actual service delivery–we ought to be able to achieve in education every bit as much, economically, as the advanced work in energy you so consistently and eloquently call for.
One thing I’ve noticed is that when school districts do cut back, it’s teachers that get the axe while the admin people hang onto their cushy jobs with fantastic benefits, early retirement packages, and gold plated medical insurance.
For that matter, how is it that our public servants seem to feel entitled to full retirement benefits after only 25 or 30 years on the job? Let public servants’ retirement start at the Social Security full retirement age…now 66…irrespective of years on the payroll. Maybe make it earlier for cops and firemen or others whose jobs are pretty intensely physical, but frankly, my job is pretty physical, and I won’t get to retire until I’m way past 70.
Time to take the teeth out of SEIU, etc…
One thing I’ve noticed is that when school districts do cut back, it’s teachers that get the axe while the admin people hang onto their cushy jobs with fantastic benefits, early retirement packages, and gold plated medical insurance.
For that matter, how is it that our public servants seem to feel entitled to full retirement benefits after only 25 or 30 years on the job? Let public servants’ retirement start at the Social Security full retirement age…now 66…irrespective of years on the payroll. Maybe make it earlier for cops and firemen or others whose jobs are pretty intensely physical, but frankly, my job is pretty physical, and I won’t get to retire until I’m way past 70.
Time to take the teeth out of SEIU, etc…
One thing I’ve noticed is that when school districts do cut back, it’s teachers that get the axe while the admin people hang onto their cushy jobs with fantastic benefits, early retirement packages, and gold plated medical insurance.
For that matter, how is it that our public servants seem to feel entitled to full retirement benefits after only 25 or 30 years on the job? Let public servants’ retirement start at the Social Security full retirement age…now 66…irrespective of years on the payroll. Maybe make it earlier for cops and firemen or others whose jobs are pretty intensely physical, but frankly, my job is pretty physical, and I won’t get to retire until I’m way past 70.
Time to take the teeth out of SEIU, etc…
I was with a VP at Mattel at lunch today. Taxes has nothing to do with why all their toys are made in China. It’s wages and no environmental laws (lot’s of icky runoff from all that handling of platics moulding).
I was with a VP at Mattel at lunch today. Taxes has nothing to do with why all their toys are made in China. It’s wages and no environmental laws (lot’s of icky runoff from all that handling of platics moulding).
I was with a VP at Mattel at lunch today. Taxes has nothing to do with why all their toys are made in China. It’s wages and no environmental laws (lot’s of icky runoff from all that handling of platics moulding).
Oh Jon. Jon Jon Jon. Don’t you see, it’s *always* the taxes. If only we could reduce the burden of taxation on our noble corporations to zero, everything would be sweetness and light, peace would come to Middle East, cancer would be cured, and –
Oh, I can’t keep it up. Haven’t the Randoids figured out yet that their ideology is as dead and discredited as communism?
Oh Jon. Jon Jon Jon. Don’t you see, it’s *always* the taxes. If only we could reduce the burden of taxation on our noble corporations to zero, everything would be sweetness and light, peace would come to Middle East, cancer would be cured, and –
Oh, I can’t keep it up. Haven’t the Randoids figured out yet that their ideology is as dead and discredited as communism?
Oh and of course those dastardly unions, can’t forget about them. Had a guy in Home Depot just a few weeks ago explain to me how unions are responsible for the entire trade defecit…while trying to sell me a Black & Decker drill made in China.
I just didn’t know where to begin.
Oh and of course those dastardly unions, can’t forget about them. Had a guy in Home Depot just a few weeks ago explain to me how unions are responsible for the entire trade defecit…while trying to sell me a Black & Decker drill made in China.
I just didn’t know where to begin.
Morgan, I’m surprised you haven’t noted the increase in home health care and suggested mandatory suicide for those over 65…
Morgan, I’m surprised you haven’t noted the increase in home health care and suggested mandatory suicide for those over 65…
And here’s why we don’t need to worry about China:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/kids-lower-iq-scores-link_1_n_240541.html
They’ll all be nice and stupid in a generation or so…
And here’s why we don’t need to worry about China:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/kids-lower-iq-scores-link_1_n_240541.html
They’ll all be nice and stupid in a generation or so…
Jon, it is ironic that you dream about other countries “respecting” the artificial monopolies of the lobbyist infested US entertainment industrial complex.
Why should other countries not fight against the corruption that has increased the lenght and scope of copyright? Why should they not fight the insanity of software patents?
Jon, it is ironic that you dream about other countries “respecting” the artificial monopolies of the lobbyist infested US entertainment industrial complex.
Why should other countries not fight against the corruption that has increased the lenght and scope of copyright? Why should they not fight the insanity of software patents?
Rick,
IQs are going up fast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Repeat after me, a kid 50 years younger than you, is 15 IQ points smarter. Roll around in that a while. I guess that means less pollution these days huh?
——
Jon, its wages, regulation, and taxes. WHY DENY FACTS? Countless multinational companies HQ’d here, are warning us about the issue…. don’t pretend otherwise.
Again, I’m not saying our government has to get smaller. I’m saying you can get taxes from individuals for consumption, not companies, and you can still be progressive. This is HOW you win over libertarians… you say “we still require X amount of tax revenue, we want it to be progressive, but we’ll listen to you on tax strategy.”
Rick,
IQs are going up fast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Repeat after me, a kid 50 years younger than you, is 15 IQ points smarter. Roll around in that a while. I guess that means less pollution these days huh?
——
Jon, its wages, regulation, and taxes. WHY DENY FACTS? Countless multinational companies HQ’d here, are warning us about the issue…. don’t pretend otherwise.
Again, I’m not saying our government has to get smaller. I’m saying you can get taxes from individuals for consumption, not companies, and you can still be progressive. This is HOW you win over libertarians… you say “we still require X amount of tax revenue, we want it to be progressive, but we’ll listen to you on tax strategy.”
I wise the U.S would hurry up and put barriers based on carbon consumption in place.
It’d take the lead in stopping all the mucking about among governments like mine that keep whining about the cost of committing to reducing emissions.
If it’s made clear to them that one way or the other we’ll be paying for emissions they might get encouraged to make it the sensible cost of reducing emissions at their source.
I wise the U.S would hurry up and put barriers based on carbon consumption in place.
It’d take the lead in stopping all the mucking about among governments like mine that keep whining about the cost of committing to reducing emissions.
If it’s made clear to them that one way or the other we’ll be paying for emissions they might get encouraged to make it the sensible cost of reducing emissions at their source.
Seems to me the root of all of this is apparent in the mindset of our friend Morgan. There’s a huge and grotesque disconnect at work, and the plugs that are separated have a lot more than 15 pins.
And the force that pulled the plug is one we never want to acknowledge and will never change: the primacy of individual and tribal interests over any possible notion of even aspiring to, let alone attaining, a steady-state set of economic and political and yes, moral and ethical systems.
The guys on K Street and on the Hill and in the White House and every state and local political hierarchy. Most poignantly, the Wall Streeters and “commodity speculators” who are still skimming the future to jack their personal bottom line, and the whole educational structure that feeds that set. The folks who run the MIC structure. Every Millenial and all their predecessors who hope to make the Next Big Thing or at least feed off it. Anyone who still believes that somehow “we” can GROW our way out of the traps of greed and self-interest. Add here: your own personal notion of who gets more than their fair share here, from Welfare Queens to the CEO and the other little weasels in suits at Goldman Sachs.
Internalize costs? Carbon restriction? Dirty water? Dying oceans? Every other bit of the transaction structures that make up human intercourse across the planet? The worm in the apple is that individual and all the other individuals like him or her who put self and self-advancement and self-satisfaction ahead of any concern about What Comes After Them. Profit while you may, dance on the graves of those who built the house you live in and those who will be stillborn, because of the “What’s in it for me?” mantra of all us self-interested, hyperactive, “growth-”promoting dancers of today.
Climate change likely came from the Wonders of Industrialization and Post-Industrialization. A Flat Earth means mutual vulnerability on an unimaginable scale, from H1N1 to global economic collapse (which is really mostly collapse of the House of Cards Funny-Munny game.) We humans seem to me to be engaged in a mortal negative-sum game, while pretending that it’s positive-sum or at least zero-sum.
There’s supposed to be this extinct bird, a crossbill that got its liviing from prying seeds out of pine cones with a beak like a garden shear — the top and bottom scissored past each other. The problem the bird had was that the female was wired to mate with the birds with the biggest crossover, since short-term anyway, that improve the male’s food-gathering ability. But at the limit of what’s good for the individual (getting seeds and getting laid) is the problem that surfaces when the greedy bill develops so much of a cross that the last generation can’t even open wide enough to dig into the pine cones.
Not that anything is going to change in the human ecology. I got this really cool idea for virtual-space financial and economic gaming that GUARANTEES that I will profit from every transaction I put my avatar’s hands on. The really cool part is that it doesn’t really produce anything except a price gradient and attendant volatililty. It’ll fuck up the lives of countless slower Fuzzies and eat a lot of dinosaur eggs too. It’ll make me rich without my having to do much other than line up some really speedy processing, So Where’s Mine?
Stupid human tricks. As a species, we’re stupid and we’ll die.
Seems to me the root of all of this is apparent in the mindset of our friend Morgan. There’s a huge and grotesque disconnect at work, and the plugs that are separated have a lot more than 15 pins.
And the force that pulled the plug is one we never want to acknowledge and will never change: the primacy of individual and tribal interests over any possible notion of even aspiring to, let alone attaining, a steady-state set of economic and political and yes, moral and ethical systems.
The guys on K Street and on the Hill and in the White House and every state and local political hierarchy. Most poignantly, the Wall Streeters and “commodity speculators” who are still skimming the future to jack their personal bottom line, and the whole educational structure that feeds that set. The folks who run the MIC structure. Every Millenial and all their predecessors who hope to make the Next Big Thing or at least feed off it. Anyone who still believes that somehow “we” can GROW our way out of the traps of greed and self-interest. Add here: your own personal notion of who gets more than their fair share here, from Welfare Queens to the CEO and the other little weasels in suits at Goldman Sachs.
Internalize costs? Carbon restriction? Dirty water? Dying oceans? Every other bit of the transaction structures that make up human intercourse across the planet? The worm in the apple is that individual and all the other individuals like him or her who put self and self-advancement and self-satisfaction ahead of any concern about What Comes After Them. Profit while you may, dance on the graves of those who built the house you live in and those who will be stillborn, because of the “What’s in it for me?” mantra of all us self-interested, hyperactive, “growth-”promoting dancers of today.
Climate change likely came from the Wonders of Industrialization and Post-Industrialization. A Flat Earth means mutual vulnerability on an unimaginable scale, from H1N1 to global economic collapse (which is really mostly collapse of the House of Cards Funny-Munny game.) We humans seem to me to be engaged in a mortal negative-sum game, while pretending that it’s positive-sum or at least zero-sum.
There’s supposed to be this extinct bird, a crossbill that got its liviing from prying seeds out of pine cones with a beak like a garden shear — the top and bottom scissored past each other. The problem the bird had was that the female was wired to mate with the birds with the biggest crossover, since short-term anyway, that improve the male’s food-gathering ability. But at the limit of what’s good for the individual (getting seeds and getting laid) is the problem that surfaces when the greedy bill develops so much of a cross that the last generation can’t even open wide enough to dig into the pine cones.
Not that anything is going to change in the human ecology. I got this really cool idea for virtual-space financial and economic gaming that GUARANTEES that I will profit from every transaction I put my avatar’s hands on. The really cool part is that it doesn’t really produce anything except a price gradient and attendant volatililty. It’ll fuck up the lives of countless slower Fuzzies and eat a lot of dinosaur eggs too. It’ll make me rich without my having to do much other than line up some really speedy processing, So Where’s Mine?
Stupid human tricks. As a species, we’re stupid and we’ll die.
JTM,
If you found an inefficiency in the system, and your avatar benefits from it, the COOL part is sooner than later another avatar will skim up the juice before you get it or the ones who were losing some juice through an error will fix it.
We could of had 500 newcos start up in the death of GM, bringing us new cars built new ways. Your world approach blew that chance.
You think you create government to help solve for the non-problem in the first paragraph…. but what happens is really the second paragraph.
Professors and lawyers aren’t supposed to run the world. Anything else is bullshit.
JTM,
If you found an inefficiency in the system, and your avatar benefits from it, the COOL part is sooner than later another avatar will skim up the juice before you get it or the ones who were losing some juice through an error will fix it.
We could of had 500 newcos start up in the death of GM, bringing us new cars built new ways. Your world approach blew that chance.
You think you create government to help solve for the non-problem in the first paragraph…. but what happens is really the second paragraph.
Professors and lawyers aren’t supposed to run the world. Anything else is bullshit.
What are you producing, Morgan, other than hot air and worthless bits of zeros and ones? 500 NewCo automobile companies? Yeah, sure…
What are you producing, Morgan, other than hot air and worthless bits of zeros and ones? 500 NewCo automobile companies? Yeah, sure…
Morgan, do you pay any attention at all? For you and your cronies, let me say it plainer:
NOTHING is going to help. There’s 6.5 billion humans, more and more of whom are going to be grabbing the same way you advise. There is NO REMEDY IN GOVERNMENT, and NO REMEDY IN EDUCATION, and NO REMEDY IN “SOCIETY” OR “CULTURE.”
You may live out your life in a dream of “agile” self-indulgence and always-partially-satisfied greed. But if, God help us, you have kids, their world is most definitley not going to be a “better” place more suitable for continued human habitation than the one you are being handed by the “old people.”
Even the Borg know how to do it better.
Morgan, do you pay any attention at all? For you and your cronies, let me say it plainer:
NOTHING is going to help. There’s 6.5 billion humans, more and more of whom are going to be grabbing the same way you advise. There is NO REMEDY IN GOVERNMENT, and NO REMEDY IN EDUCATION, and NO REMEDY IN “SOCIETY” OR “CULTURE.”
You may live out your life in a dream of “agile” self-indulgence and always-partially-satisfied greed. But if, God help us, you have kids, their world is most definitley not going to be a “better” place more suitable for continued human habitation than the one you are being handed by the “old people.”
Even the Borg know how to do it better.
Professors and lawyers aren’t supposed to run the world, self-appointed internet blowhards are.
Professors and lawyers aren’t supposed to run the world, self-appointed internet blowhards are.
Boys are you guys downers.
Dan, “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” – Buckley
JTM, man don’t worry the kids today are plenty smart to fix our screw ups. We just gotta stay out of the way.
Rick, I spend my days trying to make new kinds of TV/Net commercials… one where brands buy the time, and let local community members use it to tell people about local events and businesses. During the elections, we let individuals buys ads in their own name. I’m all about new ways to do shit on TV. So yes, moving around zeros and ones.
Boys are you guys downers.
Dan, “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” – Buckley
JTM, man don’t worry the kids today are plenty smart to fix our screw ups. We just gotta stay out of the way.
Rick, I spend my days trying to make new kinds of TV/Net commercials… one where brands buy the time, and let local community members use it to tell people about local events and businesses. During the elections, we let individuals buys ads in their own name. I’m all about new ways to do shit on TV. So yes, moving around zeros and ones.
Boys are you guys downers.
Dan, “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” – Buckley
JTM, man don’t worry the kids today are plenty smart to fix our screw ups. We just gotta stay out of the way.
Rick, I spend my days trying to make new kinds of TV/Net commercials… one where brands buy the time, and let local community members use it to tell people about local events and businesses. During the elections, we let individuals buys ads in their own name. I’m all about new ways to do shit on TV. So yes, moving around zeros and ones.
The best take on our world trade predicament I’ve ever seen is from an exchange Charlie Munger reports he had with George Schultz. Read the whole thing, but this is the key passage:
Apart from parochial concern for the declining economic privilege of being an American citizen, this is a world tragedy because China is proving to the corporate aristocracy that “democracy is irrelevant”. While China adopts our economic system, we are gradually importing their political system.
The best take on our world trade predicament I’ve ever seen is from an exchange Charlie Munger reports he had with George Schultz. Read the whole thing, but this is the key passage:
Apart from parochial concern for the declining economic privilege of being an American citizen, this is a world tragedy because China is proving to the corporate aristocracy that “democracy is irrelevant”. While China adopts our economic system, we are gradually importing their political system.
The best take on our world trade predicament I’ve ever seen is from an exchange Charlie Munger reports he had with George Schultz. Read the whole thing, but this is the key passage:
Apart from parochial concern for the declining economic privilege of being an American citizen, this is a world tragedy because China is proving to the corporate aristocracy that “democracy is irrelevant”. While China adopts our economic system, we are gradually importing their political system.
Kudos, Seth.
Kudos, Seth.
Kudos, Seth.
Seth, I am so glad to have this presented by someone other than me.
Its why we want to have all of the owners of the world to live here. The richest spend exponentially more on day-to-day goods and services. They shop and buy close to home. They are likely to invest in keeping their local community liveable. As a strategy competing with China (who has many natural advantages), we have a tremendous card to play of being the place the world’s rich would like to live.
Why chase them away? They are our best play.
Seth, I am so glad to have this presented by someone other than me.
Its why we want to have all of the owners of the world to live here. The richest spend exponentially more on day-to-day goods and services. They shop and buy close to home. They are likely to invest in keeping their local community liveable. As a strategy competing with China (who has many natural advantages), we have a tremendous card to play of being the place the world’s rich would like to live.
Why chase them away? They are our best play.
Seth, I am so glad to have this presented by someone other than me.
Its why we want to have all of the owners of the world to live here. The richest spend exponentially more on day-to-day goods and services. They shop and buy close to home. They are likely to invest in keeping their local community liveable. As a strategy competing with China (who has many natural advantages), we have a tremendous card to play of being the place the world’s rich would like to live.
Why chase them away? They are our best play.
So tell me again, Warstler, why the world’s rich would have any reason to want to live “here” with torrid summers and a midsection of violent weather and for God’s sake, Western West Virginia and Minne-freezeyourassoff-sota? When there are places that are actually closer to what our Great Religions told us were the conditions in Eden?
Oh, I guess that if “we” go all the way to zeroing out taxes, or better yet “tax expenditure gifts and incentives” and becoming the new Switzercaymans and helping these paragons of public virtue hide and grow their wealth without fear of “tax burdens” that might be imposed by the force of the state in any other place, and if “we” all learn to tug our forelocks and their dorks with appropriate fervor, why then, “we will have a tremendous card to play” in the game of submission to these people who no way in Hell are going to keep any “local community liveable” beyond the range of the plantings and Potemkin villages they might want to arrange for.
Just curious: What “goods and services” do you personally think you can sell to “the people who own the world”? In doing your part to ensure that people who have assets that are many orders of magnitude bigger than even a Donald Trump’s or Saudi prince’s notion of “needs?” And who spend a good part of their lives figuring out how, in the Game of Risk! and “high finance,” to just have More?
Do you even “get” Seth’s point, or like everything else you hear or read, is it just something to fire off one of your neurons in that random mental walk of yours? My bet is that even now, there’s a way to a sustainable future, and actually enough to go around and then some for even the population we’ve got, but not if “the system” is jiggered like Goldman Sachs’s program trading to move everything ineluctably to not even 80-20 but 99.9-0.1 in the realm of Who’s Got All the Money And Stuff.
But once again, what more proof is needed (especially if your Messianic WonderfulVision of Terminal Feudalism ever becomes the Real Everything) that humans by and large are idiots, not even close to smart enough to keep their species alive much longer, and not really giving a steaming turd about that?
So tell me again, Warstler, why the world’s rich would have any reason to want to live “here” with torrid summers and a midsection of violent weather and for God’s sake, Western West Virginia and Minne-freezeyourassoff-sota? When there are places that are actually closer to what our Great Religions told us were the conditions in Eden?
Oh, I guess that if “we” go all the way to zeroing out taxes, or better yet “tax expenditure gifts and incentives” and becoming the new Switzercaymans and helping these paragons of public virtue hide and grow their wealth without fear of “tax burdens” that might be imposed by the force of the state in any other place, and if “we” all learn to tug our forelocks and their dorks with appropriate fervor, why then, “we will have a tremendous card to play” in the game of submission to these people who no way in Hell are going to keep any “local community liveable” beyond the range of the plantings and Potemkin villages they might want to arrange for.
Just curious: What “goods and services” do you personally think you can sell to “the people who own the world”? In doing your part to ensure that people who have assets that are many orders of magnitude bigger than even a Donald Trump’s or Saudi prince’s notion of “needs?” And who spend a good part of their lives figuring out how, in the Game of Risk! and “high finance,” to just have More?
Do you even “get” Seth’s point, or like everything else you hear or read, is it just something to fire off one of your neurons in that random mental walk of yours? My bet is that even now, there’s a way to a sustainable future, and actually enough to go around and then some for even the population we’ve got, but not if “the system” is jiggered like Goldman Sachs’s program trading to move everything ineluctably to not even 80-20 but 99.9-0.1 in the realm of Who’s Got All the Money And Stuff.
But once again, what more proof is needed (especially if your Messianic WonderfulVision of Terminal Feudalism ever becomes the Real Everything) that humans by and large are idiots, not even close to smart enough to keep their species alive much longer, and not really giving a steaming turd about that?
So tell me again, Warstler, why the world’s rich would have any reason to want to live “here” with torrid summers and a midsection of violent weather and for God’s sake, Western West Virginia and Minne-freezeyourassoff-sota? When there are places that are actually closer to what our Great Religions told us were the conditions in Eden?
Oh, I guess that if “we” go all the way to zeroing out taxes, or better yet “tax expenditure gifts and incentives” and becoming the new Switzercaymans and helping these paragons of public virtue hide and grow their wealth without fear of “tax burdens” that might be imposed by the force of the state in any other place, and if “we” all learn to tug our forelocks and their dorks with appropriate fervor, why then, “we will have a tremendous card to play” in the game of submission to these people who no way in Hell are going to keep any “local community liveable” beyond the range of the plantings and Potemkin villages they might want to arrange for.
Just curious: What “goods and services” do you personally think you can sell to “the people who own the world”? In doing your part to ensure that people who have assets that are many orders of magnitude bigger than even a Donald Trump’s or Saudi prince’s notion of “needs?” And who spend a good part of their lives figuring out how, in the Game of Risk! and “high finance,” to just have More?
Do you even “get” Seth’s point, or like everything else you hear or read, is it just something to fire off one of your neurons in that random mental walk of yours? My bet is that even now, there’s a way to a sustainable future, and actually enough to go around and then some for even the population we’ve got, but not if “the system” is jiggered like Goldman Sachs’s program trading to move everything ineluctably to not even 80-20 but 99.9-0.1 in the realm of Who’s Got All the Money And Stuff.
But once again, what more proof is needed (especially if your Messianic WonderfulVision of Terminal Feudalism ever becomes the Real Everything) that humans by and large are idiots, not even close to smart enough to keep their species alive much longer, and not really giving a steaming turd about that?
They are our best play, Morgan? Our best one?
They are, admittedly, the best hope to finance America’s rush toward socialism, but are they the best hope otherwise? Methinks we might do best to launch a concerted effort to defund them (though, as Jon points out, that would be a long, twilight struggle). I’ll take OPEC over the Chinese any day. If we can screw the latter, then let’s screw the former first. As swinish as the petro’s may be, they still look good in comparison with Chicom, Ltd.
They are our best play, Morgan? Our best one?
They are, admittedly, the best hope to finance America’s rush toward socialism, but are they the best hope otherwise? Methinks we might do best to launch a concerted effort to defund them (though, as Jon points out, that would be a long, twilight struggle). I’ll take OPEC over the Chinese any day. If we can screw the latter, then let’s screw the former first. As swinish as the petro’s may be, they still look good in comparison with Chicom, Ltd.
I’d rather be ruled by the first two thousand names in the Boston phone book than two thousand know-it-all “smarter than you” internet blowhards.
I’d rather be ruled by the first two thousand names in the Boston phone book than two thousand know-it-all “smarter than you” internet blowhards.
I’d rather be ruled by the first two thousand names in the Boston phone book than two thousand know-it-all “smarter than you” internet blowhards.
> you’ve just invented a new form of
> the tragedy of the commons.
Speaking of which, here’s an interesting article on the ‘Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons’.
Basically the author points out that there’s no reason to think a community can’t act in it’s own common interest.
Which when you think about it argues for a need to have a community to protect a commons, and accepting individual priviledges over community participation being a bad idea.
Arguments about humanities smarts as a group always remind me of ‘Men in Black’ and K’s point that “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals.”
> you’ve just invented a new form of
> the tragedy of the commons.
Speaking of which, here’s an interesting article on the ‘Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons’.
Basically the author points out that there’s no reason to think a community can’t act in it’s own common interest.
Which when you think about it argues for a need to have a community to protect a commons, and accepting individual priviledges over community participation being a bad idea.
Arguments about humanities smarts as a group always remind me of ‘Men in Black’ and K’s point that “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals.”
> you’ve just invented a new form of
> the tragedy of the commons.
Speaking of which, here’s an interesting article on the ‘Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons’.
Basically the author points out that there’s no reason to think a community can’t act in it’s own common interest.
Which when you think about it argues for a need to have a community to protect a commons, and accepting individual priviledges over community participation being a bad idea.
Arguments about humanities smarts as a group always remind me of ‘Men in Black’ and K’s point that “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals.”
Once again Dan, we agree. Get out the phone book.
JTM, I don’t think YOU undertand it. Too many low level folks here, are about to get their wages driven lower by global competition.
And the horrible pisser is if you try to make up for it by taxing the rich too aggressively, as compared to years before, modern wealth just moves away. Gone. I’m NOT saying we can’t go back to Clinton/Reagan era taxes, I’m saying we can’t go past that. Stop dreaming.
Why am I the bad guy for pointing this out? I didn’t invent this shit storm. But now that we’re here, dealing with it, I’ll be damned if the best thing for tomorrow’s generation is having today’s old men fight battles from the friggin 60’s.
1. You get to raise taxes to 80-90’s levels. Check.
2. You want to cut MIC. Check.
Ok, we’re still getting crushed. Now can we finally talk about the good stuff?
Here’s a good one… WHY do government employees get to have more job security than private sector employees? Don’t you feel an teensy bit hijacked?
Hugo, there’s plenty of reasons to think we can outperform over authoritarian capitalism – you know it. But to do it, well have to keep all the top foreign students here after school. We need to let anyone who can buy a house have a green card. We must reduce corporate taxes, and don’t regulate and unionize new businesses. We need to be the Texas of the International business community.
—–
Look I watched you all piss and moan a couple weeks ago about CA, and tonight what do we see?
“We have closed the deficit. … We have protected the safety net,” said Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles.
After “finding” $15B in cuts – the safety net is still in place.
You guys arguments would be soooo much stronger if you were the ones screaming for $15B in cuts two weeks ago. But Ms. Bass just threw you under the bus!
Once again Dan, we agree. Get out the phone book.
JTM, I don’t think YOU undertand it. Too many low level folks here, are about to get their wages driven lower by global competition.
And the horrible pisser is if you try to make up for it by taxing the rich too aggressively, as compared to years before, modern wealth just moves away. Gone. I’m NOT saying we can’t go back to Clinton/Reagan era taxes, I’m saying we can’t go past that. Stop dreaming.
Why am I the bad guy for pointing this out? I didn’t invent this shit storm. But now that we’re here, dealing with it, I’ll be damned if the best thing for tomorrow’s generation is having today’s old men fight battles from the friggin 60’s.
1. You get to raise taxes to 80-90’s levels. Check.
2. You want to cut MIC. Check.
Ok, we’re still getting crushed. Now can we finally talk about the good stuff?
Here’s a good one… WHY do government employees get to have more job security than private sector employees? Don’t you feel an teensy bit hijacked?
Hugo, there’s plenty of reasons to think we can outperform over authoritarian capitalism – you know it. But to do it, well have to keep all the top foreign students here after school. We need to let anyone who can buy a house have a green card. We must reduce corporate taxes, and don’t regulate and unionize new businesses. We need to be the Texas of the International business community.
—–
Look I watched you all piss and moan a couple weeks ago about CA, and tonight what do we see?
“We have closed the deficit. … We have protected the safety net,” said Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles.
After “finding” $15B in cuts – the safety net is still in place.
You guys arguments would be soooo much stronger if you were the ones screaming for $15B in cuts two weeks ago. But Ms. Bass just threw you under the bus!
Once again Dan, we agree. Get out the phone book.
JTM, I don’t think YOU undertand it. Too many low level folks here, are about to get their wages driven lower by global competition.
And the horrible pisser is if you try to make up for it by taxing the rich too aggressively, as compared to years before, modern wealth just moves away. Gone. I’m NOT saying we can’t go back to Clinton/Reagan era taxes, I’m saying we can’t go past that. Stop dreaming.
Why am I the bad guy for pointing this out? I didn’t invent this shit storm. But now that we’re here, dealing with it, I’ll be damned if the best thing for tomorrow’s generation is having today’s old men fight battles from the friggin 60’s.
1. You get to raise taxes to 80-90’s levels. Check.
2. You want to cut MIC. Check.
Ok, we’re still getting crushed. Now can we finally talk about the good stuff?
Here’s a good one… WHY do government employees get to have more job security than private sector employees? Don’t you feel an teensy bit hijacked?
Hugo, there’s plenty of reasons to think we can outperform over authoritarian capitalism – you know it. But to do it, well have to keep all the top foreign students here after school. We need to let anyone who can buy a house have a green card. We must reduce corporate taxes, and don’t regulate and unionize new businesses. We need to be the Texas of the International business community.
—–
Look I watched you all piss and moan a couple weeks ago about CA, and tonight what do we see?
“We have closed the deficit. … We have protected the safety net,” said Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles.
After “finding” $15B in cuts – the safety net is still in place.
You guys arguments would be soooo much stronger if you were the ones screaming for $15B in cuts two weeks ago. But Ms. Bass just threw you under the bus!
Seth_ This little nugget is fabulous!
Seth_ This little nugget is fabulous!
Fentex, as usual thanks for the Angus reference. Says the author, with some justification,
“Hardin assumed [and maybe Morgan? And maybe this cynic too?] that human nature is selfish and unchanging and that society is just an assemblage of self-interested individuals who don’t care about the impact of their actions on the community. The same idea, explicitly or implicitly, is a fundamental component of mainstream (i.e., pro-capitalist) economic theory.
“All the evidence (not to mention common sense) shows that this is absurd: people are social beings, and society is much more than the arithmetic sum of its members. Even capitalist society, which rewards the most anti-social behavior, has not crushed human cooperation and solidarity. The very fact that for centuries “rational herdsmen” did not overgraze the commons disproves Hardin’s most fundamental assumptions — but that hasn’t stopped him or his disciples from erecting policy castles on foundations of sand….
“…What’s shocking is the fact that this piece of reactionary nonsense has been hailed as a brilliant analysis of the causes of human suffering and environmental destruction, and adopted as a basis for social policy by supposed experts ranging from economists and environmentalists to governments and United Nations agencies.
“Despite being refuted again and again, it is still used today to support private ownership and uncontrolled markets as sure-fire roads to economic growth.
“The success of Hardin’s argument reflects its usefulness as a pseudo-scientific explanation of global poverty and inequality, an explanation that doesn’t question the dominant social and political order. It confirms the prejudices of those in power: logical and factual errors are nothing compared to the very attractive (to the rich) claim that the poor are responsible for their own poverty. The fact that Hardin’s argument also blames the poor for ecological destruction is a bonus.”
The truth is somewhere around here, I know it. Haiti, I read, is deforested by “the poor” who hold tenaciously as in some African countries to cooking with charcoal, which you get by burning wood. And of course Haiti and those failed African states are all good examples of how humans can work cooperatively for the good of all.
And one of the first principles of Common Law in the area of property that you learn about in law school is the notion of “ferae naturae,” that is, you can take whatever you can kill from a place not enclosed by metes and bounds. Like the critters in the ocean, or the passenger pigeon. Quite a number of fish species, and cetaceans, have been hunted to or near to extinction by unregulated fishers with high-tech gear and electronics, to make cat food and sushi and those mercury-laden tuna steaks.
Are mountains with their tops lopped off to get at the coal, or surface-stripped oil-sand areas, any part of a “commons?”
Seems to me that there may be some small examples of communities of humans protecting their future by selfless fostering and management of resources held in common. Maybe the people we condescend to call Aborigines and Bushmen. I would think this kind of behavior is circumscribed by the diameter of a circle of face-to-face relationships, in the presence of a leavening of a tradition of civility and husbandry and governance and millenia of weeding of the greedy by a harsh landscape and the mark of Cain.
When wealth concentrations and power concentrations, “justified” by stuff like Calvinism and the notion of the commons tragedy and and other rationalizations, or a simply more honest “Fuck you, you can’t stop me!”, get to rolling over the landscape, the perpetuating wisdom of the yeoman farmer and hunter-gatherer gets crushed.
How big are the meshes in the CA safety net, again?
Fentex, as usual thanks for the Angus reference. Says the author, with some justification,
“Hardin assumed [and maybe Morgan? And maybe this cynic too?] that human nature is selfish and unchanging and that society is just an assemblage of self-interested individuals who don’t care about the impact of their actions on the community. The same idea, explicitly or implicitly, is a fundamental component of mainstream (i.e., pro-capitalist) economic theory.
“All the evidence (not to mention common sense) shows that this is absurd: people are social beings, and society is much more than the arithmetic sum of its members. Even capitalist society, which rewards the most anti-social behavior, has not crushed human cooperation and solidarity. The very fact that for centuries “rational herdsmen” did not overgraze the commons disproves Hardin’s most fundamental assumptions — but that hasn’t stopped him or his disciples from erecting policy castles on foundations of sand….
“…What’s shocking is the fact that this piece of reactionary nonsense has been hailed as a brilliant analysis of the causes of human suffering and environmental destruction, and adopted as a basis for social policy by supposed experts ranging from economists and environmentalists to governments and United Nations agencies.
“Despite being refuted again and again, it is still used today to support private ownership and uncontrolled markets as sure-fire roads to economic growth.
“The success of Hardin’s argument reflects its usefulness as a pseudo-scientific explanation of global poverty and inequality, an explanation that doesn’t question the dominant social and political order. It confirms the prejudices of those in power: logical and factual errors are nothing compared to the very attractive (to the rich) claim that the poor are responsible for their own poverty. The fact that Hardin’s argument also blames the poor for ecological destruction is a bonus.”
The truth is somewhere around here, I know it. Haiti, I read, is deforested by “the poor” who hold tenaciously as in some African countries to cooking with charcoal, which you get by burning wood. And of course Haiti and those failed African states are all good examples of how humans can work cooperatively for the good of all.
And one of the first principles of Common Law in the area of property that you learn about in law school is the notion of “ferae naturae,” that is, you can take whatever you can kill from a place not enclosed by metes and bounds. Like the critters in the ocean, or the passenger pigeon. Quite a number of fish species, and cetaceans, have been hunted to or near to extinction by unregulated fishers with high-tech gear and electronics, to make cat food and sushi and those mercury-laden tuna steaks.
Are mountains with their tops lopped off to get at the coal, or surface-stripped oil-sand areas, any part of a “commons?”
Seems to me that there may be some small examples of communities of humans protecting their future by selfless fostering and management of resources held in common. Maybe the people we condescend to call Aborigines and Bushmen. I would think this kind of behavior is circumscribed by the diameter of a circle of face-to-face relationships, in the presence of a leavening of a tradition of civility and husbandry and governance and millenia of weeding of the greedy by a harsh landscape and the mark of Cain.
When wealth concentrations and power concentrations, “justified” by stuff like Calvinism and the notion of the commons tragedy and and other rationalizations, or a simply more honest “Fuck you, you can’t stop me!”, get to rolling over the landscape, the perpetuating wisdom of the yeoman farmer and hunter-gatherer gets crushed.
How big are the meshes in the CA safety net, again?
To answer my own question, http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_12880235?nclick_check=1
I would feel much safer now if I were a Californian…
To answer my own question, http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_12880235?nclick_check=1
I would feel much safer now if I were a Californian…
To answer my own question, http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_12880235?nclick_check=1
I would feel much safer now if I were a Californian…
Just for the sake of argument: Do any of you produce anything, have a business that produces anything other than words or ideas, “I am not belittling these”, and do you on a daily basis have to deal with government to do what you do? To get permission, to comply with governmental regulations, be licensed, certified, indemnified, cauterized and then simonized?
A product is a vesicle of energy, the producer puts the energy in, and consumers take the energy out. The viability of the “product” from the stand point of the producer and the consumer depends on the cost of the energy going in, producer, and for the consumer, the perceived potential energy out. Now, the consumer only cares about the cost of the potential energy at purchase, “can anyone spell Wally-World?”, the producers, the cost of that energy. This is the “Market’ If any of you produces anything that requires dealing with the government bureaucracy then you know that government, at all levels, sucks the energy out of your product, reducing it’s viability to you. The “Anti-Market”, large government is merely another redistribution of energy and at some point most of our industrial production will move elsewhere leaving us only one unsustainable entity, the “constructed progression we are moving towards”. The unsustainable part is what “progressives” don’t get or don’t care about or is this their end product?
Health care is already moving off shore. I see it now: a felony, if you leave the country for health care purposes. “While you are out of town, gun confiscation????” It will be cheaper and faster to pay the fine and go to Malaysia, than to stand in line here. Of course this will not apply to the oligarchs, they will remain separate and above it all. People “Will” act in heir own best interest, “progressives” get this.
My Dr, a fine and moral man was complaining how medicine had changed since the 50s. He blamed most this on the large corporations becoming involved for profit in the 60’s. I asked him where all of a sudden that extra money/profit was coming from? It was a “great society”, anti-market epiphany. It’s the little things.
By the way, I believe that ideas sustain their energy level in direct proportion to how viable they are. What would happen to your ideas, if your ideas/words had to pass through government bureaucracy before anyone had the chance to consume that energy?
Oh! That’s right we have freedom of speech. Our forefathers were freakin amazing, weren’t they?
Regions wrote off 250M last quarter and then had to pay a 65M special assessment to the FDIC, that sucking sound was stockholder energy being redistributed.
Just for the sake of argument: Do any of you produce anything, have a business that produces anything other than words or ideas, “I am not belittling these”, and do you on a daily basis have to deal with government to do what you do? To get permission, to comply with governmental regulations, be licensed, certified, indemnified, cauterized and then simonized?
A product is a vesicle of energy, the producer puts the energy in, and consumers take the energy out. The viability of the “product” from the stand point of the producer and the consumer depends on the cost of the energy going in, producer, and for the consumer, the perceived potential energy out. Now, the consumer only cares about the cost of the potential energy at purchase, “can anyone spell Wally-World?”, the producers, the cost of that energy. This is the “Market’ If any of you produces anything that requires dealing with the government bureaucracy then you know that government, at all levels, sucks the energy out of your product, reducing it’s viability to you. The “Anti-Market”, large government is merely another redistribution of energy and at some point most of our industrial production will move elsewhere leaving us only one unsustainable entity, the “constructed progression we are moving towards”. The unsustainable part is what “progressives” don’t get or don’t care about or is this their end product?
Health care is already moving off shore. I see it now: a felony, if you leave the country for health care purposes. “While you are out of town, gun confiscation????” It will be cheaper and faster to pay the fine and go to Malaysia, than to stand in line here. Of course this will not apply to the oligarchs, they will remain separate and above it all. People “Will” act in heir own best interest, “progressives” get this.
My Dr, a fine and moral man was complaining how medicine had changed since the 50s. He blamed most this on the large corporations becoming involved for profit in the 60’s. I asked him where all of a sudden that extra money/profit was coming from? It was a “great society”, anti-market epiphany. It’s the little things.
By the way, I believe that ideas sustain their energy level in direct proportion to how viable they are. What would happen to your ideas, if your ideas/words had to pass through government bureaucracy before anyone had the chance to consume that energy?
Oh! That’s right we have freedom of speech. Our forefathers were freakin amazing, weren’t they?
Regions wrote off 250M last quarter and then had to pay a 65M special assessment to the FDIC, that sucking sound was stockholder energy being redistributed.
Just for the sake of argument: Do any of you produce anything, have a business that produces anything other than words or ideas, “I am not belittling these”, and do you on a daily basis have to deal with government to do what you do? To get permission, to comply with governmental regulations, be licensed, certified, indemnified, cauterized and then simonized?
A product is a vesicle of energy, the producer puts the energy in, and consumers take the energy out. The viability of the “product” from the stand point of the producer and the consumer depends on the cost of the energy going in, producer, and for the consumer, the perceived potential energy out. Now, the consumer only cares about the cost of the potential energy at purchase, “can anyone spell Wally-World?”, the producers, the cost of that energy. This is the “Market’ If any of you produces anything that requires dealing with the government bureaucracy then you know that government, at all levels, sucks the energy out of your product, reducing it’s viability to you. The “Anti-Market”, large government is merely another redistribution of energy and at some point most of our industrial production will move elsewhere leaving us only one unsustainable entity, the “constructed progression we are moving towards”. The unsustainable part is what “progressives” don’t get or don’t care about or is this their end product?
Health care is already moving off shore. I see it now: a felony, if you leave the country for health care purposes. “While you are out of town, gun confiscation????” It will be cheaper and faster to pay the fine and go to Malaysia, than to stand in line here. Of course this will not apply to the oligarchs, they will remain separate and above it all. People “Will” act in heir own best interest, “progressives” get this.
My Dr, a fine and moral man was complaining how medicine had changed since the 50s. He blamed most this on the large corporations becoming involved for profit in the 60’s. I asked him where all of a sudden that extra money/profit was coming from? It was a “great society”, anti-market epiphany. It’s the little things.
By the way, I believe that ideas sustain their energy level in direct proportion to how viable they are. What would happen to your ideas, if your ideas/words had to pass through government bureaucracy before anyone had the chance to consume that energy?
Oh! That’s right we have freedom of speech. Our forefathers were freakin amazing, weren’t they?
Regions wrote off 250M last quarter and then had to pay a 65M special assessment to the FDIC, that sucking sound was stockholder energy being redistributed.
“What would happen to your ideas, if your ideas/words had to pass through government bureaucracy before anyone had the chance to consume that energy?”
To answer your first question, I do, or the company does. We build and sell government-spec’d software (specifically, CDC-spec’d health systems) and host government services (specifically, HUD systems for HUD homes).
To answer the question above, the ideas slow down as spec’d or standardized. Then they become contractural meaning they are evolutionarily frozen. Both of these effects are good in the sense of the market having a reasonable description of what they are procuring. They are deleterious when some technology applied to the specifications gets locked in a sub-optimal phase of development. Think about the computers on the Space Shuttle which handle flight. Until just a few years ago, they were obsolete but could not be replaced because of the deep dependencies in their implementation to the rest of the system.
Think multiple controls over a single input/output. Unless well-executed, the process becomes chaotic. To avoid harmful consequences, the system runs in low gear until right before products of it are delivered. Then it’s ‘crunch time’.
“What would happen to your ideas, if your ideas/words had to pass through government bureaucracy before anyone had the chance to consume that energy?”
To answer your first question, I do, or the company does. We build and sell government-spec’d software (specifically, CDC-spec’d health systems) and host government services (specifically, HUD systems for HUD homes).
To answer the question above, the ideas slow down as spec’d or standardized. Then they become contractural meaning they are evolutionarily frozen. Both of these effects are good in the sense of the market having a reasonable description of what they are procuring. They are deleterious when some technology applied to the specifications gets locked in a sub-optimal phase of development. Think about the computers on the Space Shuttle which handle flight. Until just a few years ago, they were obsolete but could not be replaced because of the deep dependencies in their implementation to the rest of the system.
Think multiple controls over a single input/output. Unless well-executed, the process becomes chaotic. To avoid harmful consequences, the system runs in low gear until right before products of it are delivered. Then it’s ‘crunch time’.
“What would happen to your ideas, if your ideas/words had to pass through government bureaucracy before anyone had the chance to consume that energy?”
To answer your first question, I do, or the company does. We build and sell government-spec’d software (specifically, CDC-spec’d health systems) and host government services (specifically, HUD systems for HUD homes).
To answer the question above, the ideas slow down as spec’d or standardized. Then they become contractural meaning they are evolutionarily frozen. Both of these effects are good in the sense of the market having a reasonable description of what they are procuring. They are deleterious when some technology applied to the specifications gets locked in a sub-optimal phase of development. Think about the computers on the Space Shuttle which handle flight. Until just a few years ago, they were obsolete but could not be replaced because of the deep dependencies in their implementation to the rest of the system.
Think multiple controls over a single input/output. Unless well-executed, the process becomes chaotic. To avoid harmful consequences, the system runs in low gear until right before products of it are delivered. Then it’s ‘crunch time’.
I’m going to take a wild guess, PRC, and you tell me if I’m right: The answer to ALL problems ALL of the time is to eliminate ALL government and cut ALL taxes* to zero.
*For the wealthy.
Right?
I’m going to take a wild guess, PRC, and you tell me if I’m right: The answer to ALL problems ALL of the time is to eliminate ALL government and cut ALL taxes* to zero.
*For the wealthy.
Right?
Len, so the government is the market and you chose to operate within that market framework , what, for arguments sake, would happen to your product if another entity arbitrarily forced you to abide by another set of rules before product delivery. Rules that you have to abide by but not your competitors. If the only way around this was to change locations, say move across the street, what would you do?
Len, so the government is the market and you chose to operate within that market framework , what, for arguments sake, would happen to your product if another entity arbitrarily forced you to abide by another set of rules before product delivery. Rules that you have to abide by but not your competitors. If the only way around this was to change locations, say move across the street, what would you do?
Dan, never said that, somebody once said that the least government governs best. Responsible citizenship promotes responsible government.
Individual responsibility and rights with accountability.
For the most part they try to keep the people fiddling while they burn Rome.
Dan, never said that, somebody once said that the least government governs best. Responsible citizenship promotes responsible government.
Individual responsibility and rights with accountability.
For the most part they try to keep the people fiddling while they burn Rome.
Dan, never said that, somebody once said that the least government governs best. Responsible citizenship promotes responsible government.
Individual responsibility and rights with accountability.
For the most part they try to keep the people fiddling while they burn Rome.
Dan, never said that, somebody once said that the least government governs best. Responsible citizenship promotes responsible government.
Individual responsibility and rights with accountability.
For the most part they try to keep the people fiddling while they burn Rome.
Dan,
Whatever your class, education, employment is… this much I’m sure of, you’re better off, or you’d be better off in that station living here in the US for the past 30 years.
Meaning you’d have cheaper food, a bigger car, more room to live in, more channels on your TV, better quality healthcare (even if it is going to the emergency room), better free education. If you were born very poor here, your better off than if you were born very poor ANYWHERE else.
And if you won’t stipulate that, then I’m sure you have an idolized view of the other places. I’m not even close to saying we’re perfect, I’m just saying we’re better.
Try reading this: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082806E
—–
I say that because in the 1970’s we were dangerously close to becoming France, and over the next 30 years, we totally altered our trajectory and were saved. And it WILL happen again. This country to side with her Cowboy history, and come down safely on a deep belief in personal economic freedom and distrust of authority, and national umbrella thinking.
Dan,
Whatever your class, education, employment is… this much I’m sure of, you’re better off, or you’d be better off in that station living here in the US for the past 30 years.
Meaning you’d have cheaper food, a bigger car, more room to live in, more channels on your TV, better quality healthcare (even if it is going to the emergency room), better free education. If you were born very poor here, your better off than if you were born very poor ANYWHERE else.
And if you won’t stipulate that, then I’m sure you have an idolized view of the other places. I’m not even close to saying we’re perfect, I’m just saying we’re better.
Try reading this: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082806E
—–
I say that because in the 1970’s we were dangerously close to becoming France, and over the next 30 years, we totally altered our trajectory and were saved. And it WILL happen again. This country to side with her Cowboy history, and come down safely on a deep belief in personal economic freedom and distrust of authority, and national umbrella thinking.
Dan,
Whatever your class, education, employment is… this much I’m sure of, you’re better off, or you’d be better off in that station living here in the US for the past 30 years.
Meaning you’d have cheaper food, a bigger car, more room to live in, more channels on your TV, better quality healthcare (even if it is going to the emergency room), better free education. If you were born very poor here, your better off than if you were born very poor ANYWHERE else.
And if you won’t stipulate that, then I’m sure you have an idolized view of the other places. I’m not even close to saying we’re perfect, I’m just saying we’re better.
Try reading this: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082806E
—–
I say that because in the 1970’s we were dangerously close to becoming France, and over the next 30 years, we totally altered our trajectory and were saved. And it WILL happen again. This country to side with her Cowboy history, and come down safely on a deep belief in personal economic freedom and distrust of authority, and national umbrella thinking.
Dan,
Whatever your class, education, employment is… this much I’m sure of, you’re better off, or you’d be better off in that station living here in the US for the past 30 years.
Meaning you’d have cheaper food, a bigger car, more room to live in, more channels on your TV, better quality healthcare (even if it is going to the emergency room), better free education. If you were born very poor here, your better off than if you were born very poor ANYWHERE else.
And if you won’t stipulate that, then I’m sure you have an idolized view of the other places. I’m not even close to saying we’re perfect, I’m just saying we’re better.
Try reading this: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082806E
—–
I say that because in the 1970’s we were dangerously close to becoming France, and over the next 30 years, we totally altered our trajectory and were saved. And it WILL happen again. This country to side with her Cowboy history, and come down safely on a deep belief in personal economic freedom and distrust of authority, and national umbrella thinking.
Now is it “dumb terminal,” or “terminally dumb,” as informed and educated by the Limbaugh School of Anal Fissures?
It’s not just the economy that blows bubbles.
Now is it “dumb terminal,” or “terminally dumb,” as informed and educated by the Limbaugh School of Anal Fissures?
It’s not just the economy that blows bubbles.
Now is it “dumb terminal,” or “terminally dumb,” as informed and educated by the Limbaugh School of Anal Fissures?
It’s not just the economy that blows bubbles.
And PRC, just a quickie: Those big private free-our-market profit-grabbing private businesses that peddle “health insurance” are very busy right now on a variety of fronts. Other than killing rational health care that would cut into their stockholder’s Divine Right of Profit-Taking and the CEO’s bone-us, they are also setting up what they want to call “medical tourism.” Which used to be for people who wanted cheap boob and butt and blepharo jobs in those tropical-paradise or Old World “socialized medicine” countries that supposedly have such inferior medical care. Now, they’re planning, every year, to FORCE 20 million or more “policy holders,” those rational self-actualizing Ayn Rand heroes, to go to those same Evil Socialized Medicine Countries for everything from cardiac to gall bladder to prostate to amputations. Ain’t got nothing to do with the “guv’mint” (except to regulatorily capture the guv’mint’s blessing, and get some more “tax expenditure” help for the old Bottom Line.)
Having worked in both state and federal government (but not in decades) I know there’s a lot of lost motion and succumbing to the bureaucratic, Puritanical, Church Lady impulses.
You got any idea what “the governemt” actually is, in all its complexity and with all its faults and institutional evils? Tell you what, Charlie, the government is not some entity, some megalith, some black box you can think of as The Enemy. It’s a lot of people just like you, many of whom are trying to Do The Right Thing by restraining some of that wonderful free market energy that ends up burning down the houses of your other neighbors. And some of whom are feathering their own nests, big time, out of the tax money they take in.
And as a nurse, I can tell you that not all doctors are fine, moral, disinterested, charitable care dispensers. I have sat in my own doctor’s office and listened to him on his personal communicator plotting with other docs on how to beat the tax system and bring in more income from “the government.”
The Government is your Enemy, your personal Bete Noir, the Monster Under The Bed? Then go build your own damn roads and sewers and bridges. And fire up your own stupid Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines.
And PRC, just a quickie: Those big private free-our-market profit-grabbing private businesses that peddle “health insurance” are very busy right now on a variety of fronts. Other than killing rational health care that would cut into their stockholder’s Divine Right of Profit-Taking and the CEO’s bone-us, they are also setting up what they want to call “medical tourism.” Which used to be for people who wanted cheap boob and butt and blepharo jobs in those tropical-paradise or Old World “socialized medicine” countries that supposedly have such inferior medical care. Now, they’re planning, every year, to FORCE 20 million or more “policy holders,” those rational self-actualizing Ayn Rand heroes, to go to those same Evil Socialized Medicine Countries for everything from cardiac to gall bladder to prostate to amputations. Ain’t got nothing to do with the “guv’mint” (except to regulatorily capture the guv’mint’s blessing, and get some more “tax expenditure” help for the old Bottom Line.)
Having worked in both state and federal government (but not in decades) I know there’s a lot of lost motion and succumbing to the bureaucratic, Puritanical, Church Lady impulses.
You got any idea what “the governemt” actually is, in all its complexity and with all its faults and institutional evils? Tell you what, Charlie, the government is not some entity, some megalith, some black box you can think of as The Enemy. It’s a lot of people just like you, many of whom are trying to Do The Right Thing by restraining some of that wonderful free market energy that ends up burning down the houses of your other neighbors. And some of whom are feathering their own nests, big time, out of the tax money they take in.
And as a nurse, I can tell you that not all doctors are fine, moral, disinterested, charitable care dispensers. I have sat in my own doctor’s office and listened to him on his personal communicator plotting with other docs on how to beat the tax system and bring in more income from “the government.”
The Government is your Enemy, your personal Bete Noir, the Monster Under The Bed? Then go build your own damn roads and sewers and bridges. And fire up your own stupid Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines.
And PRC, just a quickie: Those big private free-our-market profit-grabbing private businesses that peddle “health insurance” are very busy right now on a variety of fronts. Other than killing rational health care that would cut into their stockholder’s Divine Right of Profit-Taking and the CEO’s bone-us, they are also setting up what they want to call “medical tourism.” Which used to be for people who wanted cheap boob and butt and blepharo jobs in those tropical-paradise or Old World “socialized medicine” countries that supposedly have such inferior medical care. Now, they’re planning, every year, to FORCE 20 million or more “policy holders,” those rational self-actualizing Ayn Rand heroes, to go to those same Evil Socialized Medicine Countries for everything from cardiac to gall bladder to prostate to amputations. Ain’t got nothing to do with the “guv’mint” (except to regulatorily capture the guv’mint’s blessing, and get some more “tax expenditure” help for the old Bottom Line.)
Having worked in both state and federal government (but not in decades) I know there’s a lot of lost motion and succumbing to the bureaucratic, Puritanical, Church Lady impulses.
You got any idea what “the governemt” actually is, in all its complexity and with all its faults and institutional evils? Tell you what, Charlie, the government is not some entity, some megalith, some black box you can think of as The Enemy. It’s a lot of people just like you, many of whom are trying to Do The Right Thing by restraining some of that wonderful free market energy that ends up burning down the houses of your other neighbors. And some of whom are feathering their own nests, big time, out of the tax money they take in.
And as a nurse, I can tell you that not all doctors are fine, moral, disinterested, charitable care dispensers. I have sat in my own doctor’s office and listened to him on his personal communicator plotting with other docs on how to beat the tax system and bring in more income from “the government.”
The Government is your Enemy, your personal Bete Noir, the Monster Under The Bed? Then go build your own damn roads and sewers and bridges. And fire up your own stupid Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines.
And PRC, just a quickie: Those big private free-our-market profit-grabbing private businesses that peddle “health insurance” are very busy right now on a variety of fronts. Other than killing rational health care that would cut into their stockholder’s Divine Right of Profit-Taking and the CEO’s bone-us, they are also setting up what they want to call “medical tourism.” Which used to be for people who wanted cheap boob and butt and blepharo jobs in those tropical-paradise or Old World “socialized medicine” countries that supposedly have such inferior medical care. Now, they’re planning, every year, to FORCE 20 million or more “policy holders,” those rational self-actualizing Ayn Rand heroes, to go to those same Evil Socialized Medicine Countries for everything from cardiac to gall bladder to prostate to amputations. Ain’t got nothing to do with the “guv’mint” (except to regulatorily capture the guv’mint’s blessing, and get some more “tax expenditure” help for the old Bottom Line.)
Having worked in both state and federal government (but not in decades) I know there’s a lot of lost motion and succumbing to the bureaucratic, Puritanical, Church Lady impulses.
You got any idea what “the governemt” actually is, in all its complexity and with all its faults and institutional evils? Tell you what, Charlie, the government is not some entity, some megalith, some black box you can think of as The Enemy. It’s a lot of people just like you, many of whom are trying to Do The Right Thing by restraining some of that wonderful free market energy that ends up burning down the houses of your other neighbors. And some of whom are feathering their own nests, big time, out of the tax money they take in.
And as a nurse, I can tell you that not all doctors are fine, moral, disinterested, charitable care dispensers. I have sat in my own doctor’s office and listened to him on his personal communicator plotting with other docs on how to beat the tax system and bring in more income from “the government.”
The Government is your Enemy, your personal Bete Noir, the Monster Under The Bed? Then go build your own damn roads and sewers and bridges. And fire up your own stupid Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines.
JTM, notice you don’t say:
“then go build your own affirmative action hiring policies…”
“then go subsidize your own farmers”
“then go worry about your own environment”
“then go pay to educate your own children”
No, when pushed, you fall back on the things, conservatives are most likely to accept government for… the RATIONAL stuff.
p.s. you have a shitty view of doctors.
JTM, notice you don’t say:
“then go build your own affirmative action hiring policies…”
“then go subsidize your own farmers”
“then go worry about your own environment”
“then go pay to educate your own children”
No, when pushed, you fall back on the things, conservatives are most likely to accept government for… the RATIONAL stuff.
p.s. you have a shitty view of doctors.
Maybe I wasn’t clear, I think that the influx of big business into the medical field has been a huge cluster”" it was enabled by the government getting involved in the market in the first damn place. Their isn’t a market on the planet that the bureaucrats can’t screw up and I don’t give a rats ass what the motives are.
I am truly sorry about your speech problems, I am sure The obama plan will have something to help you deal with it.
Maybe I wasn’t clear, I think that the influx of big business into the medical field has been a huge cluster”" it was enabled by the government getting involved in the market in the first damn place. Their isn’t a market on the planet that the bureaucrats can’t screw up and I don’t give a rats ass what the motives are.
I am truly sorry about your speech problems, I am sure The obama plan will have something to help you deal with it.
Maybe I wasn’t clear, I think that the influx of big business into the medical field has been a huge cluster”" it was enabled by the government getting involved in the market in the first damn place. Their isn’t a market on the planet that the bureaucrats can’t screw up and I don’t give a rats ass what the motives are.
I am truly sorry about your speech problems, I am sure The obama plan will have something to help you deal with it.
BTM, not Morgan, sorry about that
BTM, not Morgan, sorry about that
BTM, not Morgan, sorry about that
“conservatives are most likely to accept government for… the RATIONAL stuff”
Like spending eleventy billion dollars in Iraq on a tissue of transparent lies to protect us from an imaginary Freedom Fries threat, when in fact all that money was spent on something that only increased worldwide anger and resentment against us.
“conservatives are most likely to accept government for… the RATIONAL stuff”
Like spending eleventy billion dollars in Iraq on a tissue of transparent lies to protect us from an imaginary Freedom Fries threat, when in fact all that money was spent on something that only increased worldwide anger and resentment against us.
“conservatives are most likely to accept government for… the RATIONAL stuff”
Like spending eleventy billion dollars in Iraq on a tissue of transparent lies to protect us from an imaginary Freedom Fries threat, when in fact all that money was spent on something that only increased worldwide anger and resentment against us.
“conservatives are most likely to accept government for… the RATIONAL stuff”
Like spending eleventy billion dollars in Iraq on a tissue of transparent lies to protect us from an imaginary Freedom Fries threat, when in fact all that money was spent on something that only increased worldwide anger and resentment against us.
Dan, dude, teaching you this point is Sisyphean, but I will try one more time:
The ONLY way to truly reduce spending on guns is a balanced budget amendment. It may not get you all the butter you want, BUT you’ll have the support many “real” conservatives as well.
When deficit spending is possible, it is easy to rally people into war, they aren’t giving up any other programs. And once the deficit is in place, even in peace time there is not enough money for butter.
So if you REALLY want to kill off MIC spending, think long term, and demand a balanced budget amendment…. start using people’s pocketbook to promote peace – you might actually get somewhere.
Dan, dude, teaching you this point is Sisyphean, but I will try one more time:
The ONLY way to truly reduce spending on guns is a balanced budget amendment. It may not get you all the butter you want, BUT you’ll have the support many “real” conservatives as well.
When deficit spending is possible, it is easy to rally people into war, they aren’t giving up any other programs. And once the deficit is in place, even in peace time there is not enough money for butter.
So if you REALLY want to kill off MIC spending, think long term, and demand a balanced budget amendment…. start using people’s pocketbook to promote peace – you might actually get somewhere.
Is that why conservatives crawled so far up Bush’s ass in 2003 that they popped out of his ears and signed every goddamn blank check for a phony war that he placed in front of them? Is that why any hint of hesitation evoked howls of patriotic horror?
Is that why conservatives crawled so far up Bush’s ass in 2003 that they popped out of his ears and signed every goddamn blank check for a phony war that he placed in front of them? Is that why any hint of hesitation evoked howls of patriotic horror?
Dan, thats EXACTLY why! That’s my whole message here at Jon’s blog.
From 1913-1980, Repubs tried to balance budgets (cut taxes, cut services). Dems kicked their asses, they kept buying votes with more services. Then Repubs changed strategies. NOW, they spend all the money PRECISELY so the deficit is so big, Dems can’t buy votes with new shit.
Now it is almost like all your hopes for more government services are pinned to this incredibly compelling guy, but holy shit, he like Clinton is just friggin stuck. What lesson gets taught to another generation of young liberal voters if they get NO PAYBACK?
MY POINT, which you should be honest and support, is that IF spending is based solely on revenue, voters will be MUCH LESS likely to support guns over butter. They will HATE war. War will = more taxes or less school and they won’t stand for it.
Dan, thats EXACTLY why! That’s my whole message here at Jon’s blog.
From 1913-1980, Repubs tried to balance budgets (cut taxes, cut services). Dems kicked their asses, they kept buying votes with more services. Then Repubs changed strategies. NOW, they spend all the money PRECISELY so the deficit is so big, Dems can’t buy votes with new shit.
Now it is almost like all your hopes for more government services are pinned to this incredibly compelling guy, but holy shit, he like Clinton is just friggin stuck. What lesson gets taught to another generation of young liberal voters if they get NO PAYBACK?
MY POINT, which you should be honest and support, is that IF spending is based solely on revenue, voters will be MUCH LESS likely to support guns over butter. They will HATE war. War will = more taxes or less school and they won’t stand for it.
Dan, thats EXACTLY why! That’s my whole message here at Jon’s blog.
From 1913-1980, Repubs tried to balance budgets (cut taxes, cut services). Dems kicked their asses, they kept buying votes with more services. Then Repubs changed strategies. NOW, they spend all the money PRECISELY so the deficit is so big, Dems can’t buy votes with new shit.
Now it is almost like all your hopes for more government services are pinned to this incredibly compelling guy, but holy shit, he like Clinton is just friggin stuck. What lesson gets taught to another generation of young liberal voters if they get NO PAYBACK?
MY POINT, which you should be honest and support, is that IF spending is based solely on revenue, voters will be MUCH LESS likely to support guns over butter. They will HATE war. War will = more taxes or less school and they won’t stand for it.
Dan, thats EXACTLY why! That’s my whole message here at Jon’s blog.
From 1913-1980, Repubs tried to balance budgets (cut taxes, cut services). Dems kicked their asses, they kept buying votes with more services. Then Repubs changed strategies. NOW, they spend all the money PRECISELY so the deficit is so big, Dems can’t buy votes with new shit.
Now it is almost like all your hopes for more government services are pinned to this incredibly compelling guy, but holy shit, he like Clinton is just friggin stuck. What lesson gets taught to another generation of young liberal voters if they get NO PAYBACK?
MY POINT, which you should be honest and support, is that IF spending is based solely on revenue, voters will be MUCH LESS likely to support guns over butter. They will HATE war. War will = more taxes or less school and they won’t stand for it.
Wow. The GOP had a single, consistent message, nay, a purpose, a higher calling, a sacred duty–for 67 years.
Then liberals finally convinced them to become crooks.
IN CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!!!
Wow. The GOP had a single, consistent message, nay, a purpose, a higher calling, a sacred duty–for 67 years.
Then liberals finally convinced them to become crooks.
IN CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!!!
Wow. The GOP had a single, consistent message, nay, a purpose, a higher calling, a sacred duty–for 67 years.
Then liberals finally convinced them to become crooks.
IN CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!!!
Wow. The GOP had a single, consistent message, nay, a purpose, a higher calling, a sacred duty–for 67 years.
Then liberals finally convinced them to become crooks.
IN CAPITAL LETTERS!!!!!!
Man, this isn’t really an argument your making right?
I mean, basically you get that Repub attitudes towards deficits changed (slightly with Nixon, but really) with Reagan. And as strategy, it has worked well enough for them, that you and I can be sure, they will do it again when given the chance.
I mean, I get not liking that they do it, but you see now that is their trump card… in light of this, I truly believe Dem policies will fare much better by codifying a balanced budget… whats more I think it would truly split the Repub party at its core.
Man, this isn’t really an argument your making right?
I mean, basically you get that Repub attitudes towards deficits changed (slightly with Nixon, but really) with Reagan. And as strategy, it has worked well enough for them, that you and I can be sure, they will do it again when given the chance.
I mean, I get not liking that they do it, but you see now that is their trump card… in light of this, I truly believe Dem policies will fare much better by codifying a balanced budget… whats more I think it would truly split the Repub party at its core.
Man, this isn’t really an argument your making right?
I mean, basically you get that Repub attitudes towards deficits changed (slightly with Nixon, but really) with Reagan. And as strategy, it has worked well enough for them, that you and I can be sure, they will do it again when given the chance.
I mean, I get not liking that they do it, but you see now that is their trump card… in light of this, I truly believe Dem policies will fare much better by codifying a balanced budget… whats more I think it would truly split the Repub party at its core.
I agree. Inflation is more deadly to the economic well being. It reduces the value of the currency such that those who control its value in banking can continually trade up assets as money devalues. Wealth or assets of real value concentrates even more fixedly in fewer hands.
That’s why Reagan smiled as he said, “Let it fall.”
I agree. Inflation is more deadly to the economic well being. It reduces the value of the currency such that those who control its value in banking can continually trade up assets as money devalues. Wealth or assets of real value concentrates even more fixedly in fewer hands.
That’s why Reagan smiled as he said, “Let it fall.”
I agree. Inflation is more deadly to the economic well being. It reduces the value of the currency such that those who control its value in banking can continually trade up assets as money devalues. Wealth or assets of real value concentrates even more fixedly in fewer hands.
That’s why Reagan smiled as he said, “Let it fall.”
len, as a mere postscript I want to add that yours is a very succinct account, as I see it and saw it. Well stated. (David Stockman’s reminiscences are telling on this point, as I expect you know.) So your description of events is probably pretty close to history as it actually happened. I suppose it goes without saying that Reagan’s thought at that time was moreover to spend the feds into the bank, so that the Democratic Congress would have no choice but to throw in the towel for a long time during which the GOP could assert superiority, even as it issued bank overruns for defense, etc. This current scenario strikes me as reactive over against that checkmate of many years ago. The parallelisms, in reverse, are disturbingly simplistic.
len, as a mere postscript I want to add that yours is a very succinct account, as I see it and saw it. Well stated. (David Stockman’s reminiscences are telling on this point, as I expect you know.) So your description of events is probably pretty close to history as it actually happened. I suppose it goes without saying that Reagan’s thought at that time was moreover to spend the feds into the bank, so that the Democratic Congress would have no choice but to throw in the towel for a long time during which the GOP could assert superiority, even as it issued bank overruns for defense, etc. This current scenario strikes me as reactive over against that checkmate of many years ago. The parallelisms, in reverse, are disturbingly simplistic.
len, as a mere postscript I want to add that yours is a very succinct account, as I see it and saw it. Well stated. (David Stockman’s reminiscences are telling on this point, as I expect you know.) So your description of events is probably pretty close to history as it actually happened. I suppose it goes without saying that Reagan’s thought at that time was moreover to spend the feds into the bank, so that the Democratic Congress would have no choice but to throw in the towel for a long time during which the GOP could assert superiority, even as it issued bank overruns for defense, etc. This current scenario strikes me as reactive over against that checkmate of many years ago. The parallelisms, in reverse, are disturbingly simplistic.