What Future?
This is the most frightening economic chart I have seen in the last decade.
Net private investment, which includes spending on everything from machine tools to new houses, minus depreciation, fell to 0.1% of gross domestic product in the second quarter of 2009, according to the latest government data. That’s the lowest level since at least 1947.
Capitalism’s most vulnerable point is the death spiral of overcapacity. In the easy credit boom times we built too many malls, too many car factories, too may fast food joints, too many houses. Now the only way for businesses and consumers to survive is too cut back drastically.
That creates a chicken-and-egg problem at a time when the unemployment rate is already nearly 10%: Without more jobs, U.S. consumers will have a hard time increasing their spending; but without that spending, businesses might see little reason to start hiring
This hits the hardest in the young and Business Week raised the possibility that we are creating a “Lost Generation” of young people without the prospects of decent employment. Look at this chart of youth unemployment.
We can talk all we want about building a better future full of “Green Jobs”, but on the current trajectory, that future will arrive in China long before it reaches our shores. The “chicken and egg” problem described by the Wall Street Journal won’t be solved until the government starts aggressively seeding the Green Tech Business, because alternative energy is the only place where we have undercapacity. And this can be a “bottoms-up” strategy simply by requiring every utility company to buy excess solar and wind capacity from consumers at some sort of fixed rate. Consumers in California could easily afford to shift to solar if they knew they could make a profit from their excess capacity. The second thing the government could do would be to designate certain less scenic parts of the millions of acres of government land as open for solar and wind development in a public private partnership.
The Great Depression required the WPA to act as the investor in public infrastructure to get us out of the death spiral of Zero private investment. We are back at that place (0.1% of GDP). WE need a Green WPA now.
Jon-
You were the one who posted the graph showing an $11 trillion down sizing to $7 trillion a few months ago.
This seems to me to be a manifestation of that – and it is scary – way scary to those of us who are self employed with very little in the way of a safety net.
The over capacity death spiral is one more nail in the coffin of us all because of the DC-WS axis of evil. these guys got all the money and the rest of us have been left to “eat cake”…
Jon-
You were the one who posted the graph showing an $11 trillion down sizing to $7 trillion a few months ago.
This seems to me to be a manifestation of that – and it is scary – way scary to those of us who are self employed with very little in the way of a safety net.
The over capacity death spiral is one more nail in the coffin of us all because of the DC-WS axis of evil. these guys got all the money and the rest of us have been left to “eat cake”…
Jon-
You were the one who posted the graph showing an $11 trillion down sizing to $7 trillion a few months ago.
This seems to me to be a manifestation of that – and it is scary – way scary to those of us who are self employed with very little in the way of a safety net.
The over capacity death spiral is one more nail in the coffin of us all because of the DC-WS axis of evil. these guys got all the money and the rest of us have been left to “eat cake”…
You’ll recall that ever since I started posting here, I’ve called for a WPA renewal, a mandatory public service draft, and a rebuilding of our infrastructure as well as building new projects that might last for the next 50 or 75 years as have the post offices, national park facilities, bridges, dams and more from the last WPA.
God I hate for anyone to say, “I told you so…” because implicit in that is that more damage has been done since we all knew the shit was hitting the fan…
You’ll recall that ever since I started posting here, I’ve called for a WPA renewal, a mandatory public service draft, and a rebuilding of our infrastructure as well as building new projects that might last for the next 50 or 75 years as have the post offices, national park facilities, bridges, dams and more from the last WPA.
God I hate for anyone to say, “I told you so…” because implicit in that is that more damage has been done since we all knew the shit was hitting the fan…
You’ll recall that ever since I started posting here, I’ve called for a WPA renewal, a mandatory public service draft, and a rebuilding of our infrastructure as well as building new projects that might last for the next 50 or 75 years as have the post offices, national park facilities, bridges, dams and more from the last WPA.
God I hate for anyone to say, “I told you so…” because implicit in that is that more damage has been done since we all knew the shit was hitting the fan…
I just have to drop this somewhere, onr more time.
Jon, maybe you have seen this graph already, but here it is again, a Henry Blodgett chart showing job loss and recovery over time, for the post-WWII recessions. It goes very well with the other proofs the recession is over. Over our heads, anyway. I wonder where the inflection point will be on the present curve?
Jobs? We don’ neeed no steeenkin’ jobs! Though other than all those parasites in the “financial sector,” it does appear that at least two categories of employees, teachers and laborers, benefitted from the first round of pre-spent future wealth
(aka “stimulus money”)
Let me add the caveat that there are jobs, and then there jobs, and “creating” more of the wrong kind will feed a few men and their families (like “investment banker and derivative salesman and F-22-35 builders) for a day or a year, while continuing the direction of “the economy” which (my bet) in years to come will be historianized and economistyeyezed as The End of a whole lot of important human stuff.
I just have to drop this somewhere, onr more time.
Jon, maybe you have seen this graph already, but here it is again, a Henry Blodgett chart showing job loss and recovery over time, for the post-WWII recessions. It goes very well with the other proofs the recession is over. Over our heads, anyway. I wonder where the inflection point will be on the present curve?
Jobs? We don’ neeed no steeenkin’ jobs! Though other than all those parasites in the “financial sector,” it does appear that at least two categories of employees, teachers and laborers, benefitted from the first round of pre-spent future wealth
(aka “stimulus money”)
Let me add the caveat that there are jobs, and then there jobs, and “creating” more of the wrong kind will feed a few men and their families (like “investment banker and derivative salesman and F-22-35 builders) for a day or a year, while continuing the direction of “the economy” which (my bet) in years to come will be historianized and economistyeyezed as The End of a whole lot of important human stuff.
I just have to drop this somewhere, onr more time.
Jon, maybe you have seen this graph already, but here it is again, a Henry Blodgett chart showing job loss and recovery over time, for the post-WWII recessions. It goes very well with the other proofs the recession is over. Over our heads, anyway. I wonder where the inflection point will be on the present curve?
Jobs? We don’ neeed no steeenkin’ jobs! Though other than all those parasites in the “financial sector,” it does appear that at least two categories of employees, teachers and laborers, benefitted from the first round of pre-spent future wealth
(aka “stimulus money”)
Let me add the caveat that there are jobs, and then there jobs, and “creating” more of the wrong kind will feed a few men and their families (like “investment banker and derivative salesman and F-22-35 builders) for a day or a year, while continuing the direction of “the economy” which (my bet) in years to come will be historianized and economistyeyezed as The End of a whole lot of important human stuff.
clint, they don’t have all the money yet, but barring a really new kind of New Federalism, they have the power to take what they ain’t got. You know, the Rule of Law. That power, at least in part, derives from an inertia on the part of hopeful and/or resigned citizens, coupled with the momentum of April 15.
By the way, I see that the Supremes have granted certiorari to Jeff Skillings to review his conviction and sentence for fucking Billions out of Millions. Any bets on how that one is going to turn out, now that our minuscule attention spans have been diverted to How Many More Troops To Go To Hell?
clint, they don’t have all the money yet, but barring a really new kind of New Federalism, they have the power to take what they ain’t got. You know, the Rule of Law. That power, at least in part, derives from an inertia on the part of hopeful and/or resigned citizens, coupled with the momentum of April 15.
By the way, I see that the Supremes have granted certiorari to Jeff Skillings to review his conviction and sentence for fucking Billions out of Millions. Any bets on how that one is going to turn out, now that our minuscule attention spans have been diverted to How Many More Troops To Go To Hell?
Great find, Jon.
And to JTMcPhee’s point: While we need more jobs for folks, I would hope (and I’m not hoping much) that we’d think hard about the kind of employment we really want to see in this country.
Seems to me we’ve been riding along by creating service-based positions that feed the fire of more consumerism, rather than perhaps taking a focus on the kind of work that might be more meaningful — and beneficial — to our society.
If you look back to the past, societies have taken opportunities to reorient themselves to a cause/purpose and move forward in extraordinary leaps and bounds. Don’t know that there’s the political — or societal — will to do this now, but I’d at least like to see more meaningful dialogue on the subject and a push in that direction.
Great find, Jon.
And to JTMcPhee’s point: While we need more jobs for folks, I would hope (and I’m not hoping much) that we’d think hard about the kind of employment we really want to see in this country.
Seems to me we’ve been riding along by creating service-based positions that feed the fire of more consumerism, rather than perhaps taking a focus on the kind of work that might be more meaningful — and beneficial — to our society.
If you look back to the past, societies have taken opportunities to reorient themselves to a cause/purpose and move forward in extraordinary leaps and bounds. Don’t know that there’s the political — or societal — will to do this now, but I’d at least like to see more meaningful dialogue on the subject and a push in that direction.
1947… that year again.
1947… that year again.
1947… that year again.
1947… that year again.
“47 – it was a pivotal year. I was born in it.
“47 – it was a pivotal year. I was born in it.
“47 – it was a pivotal year. I was born in it.
Why am I reminded of that god-awful movie, “Twister”? Especially the scene where the tornado bears down on the field of cows placidly chewing their cud, turning grass into price-supported, tax-incentivized, overpriced-at-the-retail-point milk? And then that bit with that same cow flying through the air, stiff-legged and still chewing away…
And another part of the “told you so” Schadenfreude is The Beer Game, which is used to teach Gordon Gekko MBAs about “supply chain management,” at some ridiculous micro level, when it actually illustrates the macro-inevitability, in a greed-and-profit-driven system, of positive-feedback cycling leading to a gigantic bust after a good-for-the-very-few boom. Here’s an even better explication of what it ought to teach, but which most MBA types are too purblind to see. Chaos Rules! Check out Time Magazine’s article this week on 401(k)s, and what “we” should have done and are supposed to do now with what’s left of our could-have-been-defined-benefit-pensions that if they hadn’t been stolen by the Financial Sector’s go-go Merger-and-aquisition-aka-”eat what you kill”-conglomerating and corporate raiding and junk-bonding that’s taken care of our “wealthy retirement investments.”
Why am I reminded of that god-awful movie, “Twister”? Especially the scene where the tornado bears down on the field of cows placidly chewing their cud, turning grass into price-supported, tax-incentivized, overpriced-at-the-retail-point milk? And then that bit with that same cow flying through the air, stiff-legged and still chewing away…
And another part of the “told you so” Schadenfreude is The Beer Game, which is used to teach Gordon Gekko MBAs about “supply chain management,” at some ridiculous micro level, when it actually illustrates the macro-inevitability, in a greed-and-profit-driven system, of positive-feedback cycling leading to a gigantic bust after a good-for-the-very-few boom. Here’s an even better explication of what it ought to teach, but which most MBA types are too purblind to see. Chaos Rules! Check out Time Magazine’s article this week on 401(k)s, and what “we” should have done and are supposed to do now with what’s left of our could-have-been-defined-benefit-pensions that if they hadn’t been stolen by the Financial Sector’s go-go Merger-and-aquisition-aka-”eat what you kill”-conglomerating and corporate raiding and junk-bonding that’s taken care of our “wealthy retirement investments.”
It was. You and Arlo Davy Guthrie.
And the CIA and Roswell. The modern era starts in 1947. Spooky.
It was. You and Arlo Davy Guthrie.
And the CIA and Roswell. The modern era starts in 1947. Spooky.
It was. You and Arlo Davy Guthrie.
And the CIA and Roswell. The modern era starts in 1947. Spooky.
It was. You and Arlo Davy Guthrie.
And the CIA and Roswell. The modern era starts in 1947. Spooky.
“Capitalism’s most vulnerable point is the death spiral of overcapacity. In the easy credit boom times we built too many malls, too many car factories, too may fast food joints, too many houses. Now the only way for businesses and consumers to survive is too cut back drastically.”
Wow, Jon. Are you an Austrian now?
Well, the first line about this being a flaw of capitalism is just pure nonsense. The “easy credit boom times” were created and have been time and again created by government either through Central Bank credit expansion, regulatory policy that coordinates and cartelizes the banking system, or both. This time, it was both and the result was a heaping mountain of mal-investment.
But this isn’t simply “over-capacity”. It’s capacity in the WRONG LINES OF PRODUCTION relative to actual consumer demand. That’s the root of our unemployment, the time it takes for people to recalibrate their skills and in many cases their expectations as they realize their human capital is ill suited for the actual reality absent an artificial credit expansion.
You’re so close, Jon. So very close. Just wake up to the fact that the Fed’s 1% rates are not part of “capitalism” and you’ll be truly on the right track. Until then, your “overcapacity” story will be a malthusian/Keynesian “underconsumption” farce.
If you want sustainable capital development, you need genuine market-driven relative prices. No inflation-distorted phony “booms” and so-called stimulus ponzi schemes.
So very close, my friend.
“Capitalism’s most vulnerable point is the death spiral of overcapacity. In the easy credit boom times we built too many malls, too many car factories, too may fast food joints, too many houses. Now the only way for businesses and consumers to survive is too cut back drastically.”
Wow, Jon. Are you an Austrian now?
Well, the first line about this being a flaw of capitalism is just pure nonsense. The “easy credit boom times” were created and have been time and again created by government either through Central Bank credit expansion, regulatory policy that coordinates and cartelizes the banking system, or both. This time, it was both and the result was a heaping mountain of mal-investment.
But this isn’t simply “over-capacity”. It’s capacity in the WRONG LINES OF PRODUCTION relative to actual consumer demand. That’s the root of our unemployment, the time it takes for people to recalibrate their skills and in many cases their expectations as they realize their human capital is ill suited for the actual reality absent an artificial credit expansion.
You’re so close, Jon. So very close. Just wake up to the fact that the Fed’s 1% rates are not part of “capitalism” and you’ll be truly on the right track. Until then, your “overcapacity” story will be a malthusian/Keynesian “underconsumption” farce.
If you want sustainable capital development, you need genuine market-driven relative prices. No inflation-distorted phony “booms” and so-called stimulus ponzi schemes.
So very close, my friend.
“Capitalism’s most vulnerable point is the death spiral of overcapacity. In the easy credit boom times we built too many malls, too many car factories, too may fast food joints, too many houses. Now the only way for businesses and consumers to survive is too cut back drastically.”
Wow, Jon. Are you an Austrian now?
Well, the first line about this being a flaw of capitalism is just pure nonsense. The “easy credit boom times” were created and have been time and again created by government either through Central Bank credit expansion, regulatory policy that coordinates and cartelizes the banking system, or both. This time, it was both and the result was a heaping mountain of mal-investment.
But this isn’t simply “over-capacity”. It’s capacity in the WRONG LINES OF PRODUCTION relative to actual consumer demand. That’s the root of our unemployment, the time it takes for people to recalibrate their skills and in many cases their expectations as they realize their human capital is ill suited for the actual reality absent an artificial credit expansion.
You’re so close, Jon. So very close. Just wake up to the fact that the Fed’s 1% rates are not part of “capitalism” and you’ll be truly on the right track. Until then, your “overcapacity” story will be a malthusian/Keynesian “underconsumption” farce.
If you want sustainable capital development, you need genuine market-driven relative prices. No inflation-distorted phony “booms” and so-called stimulus ponzi schemes.
So very close, my friend.
Rick:
“You’ll recall that ever since I started posting here, I’ve called for a WPA renewal, a mandatory public service draft, and a rebuilding of our infrastructure as well as building new projects that might last for the next 50 or 75 years as have the post offices, national park facilities, bridges, dams and more from the last WPA.”
Wow. So you’re a long-time believer in slavery. How shockingly and frighteningly illiberal of you.
There is virtually nothing to demonstrate that central planners can direct our national resources. They lack the knowledge and incentives and they’re also human which makes them prone to all the same faults blamed on the market. They can’t even spend the stimulus money they’ve been given.
http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/stimulus-in-the-real-world.html
Mandatory public service draft? That is pure despotic tyranny and I will fight it to the bitter end. Shame on you.
Rick:
“You’ll recall that ever since I started posting here, I’ve called for a WPA renewal, a mandatory public service draft, and a rebuilding of our infrastructure as well as building new projects that might last for the next 50 or 75 years as have the post offices, national park facilities, bridges, dams and more from the last WPA.”
Wow. So you’re a long-time believer in slavery. How shockingly and frighteningly illiberal of you.
There is virtually nothing to demonstrate that central planners can direct our national resources. They lack the knowledge and incentives and they’re also human which makes them prone to all the same faults blamed on the market. They can’t even spend the stimulus money they’ve been given.
http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/stimulus-in-the-real-world.html
Mandatory public service draft? That is pure despotic tyranny and I will fight it to the bitter end. Shame on you.
Rick:
“You’ll recall that ever since I started posting here, I’ve called for a WPA renewal, a mandatory public service draft, and a rebuilding of our infrastructure as well as building new projects that might last for the next 50 or 75 years as have the post offices, national park facilities, bridges, dams and more from the last WPA.”
Wow. So you’re a long-time believer in slavery. How shockingly and frighteningly illiberal of you.
There is virtually nothing to demonstrate that central planners can direct our national resources. They lack the knowledge and incentives and they’re also human which makes them prone to all the same faults blamed on the market. They can’t even spend the stimulus money they’ve been given.
http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/stimulus-in-the-real-world.html
Mandatory public service draft? That is pure despotic tyranny and I will fight it to the bitter end. Shame on you.
Rick:
“You’ll recall that ever since I started posting here, I’ve called for a WPA renewal, a mandatory public service draft, and a rebuilding of our infrastructure as well as building new projects that might last for the next 50 or 75 years as have the post offices, national park facilities, bridges, dams and more from the last WPA.”
Wow. So you’re a long-time believer in slavery. How shockingly and frighteningly illiberal of you.
There is virtually nothing to demonstrate that central planners can direct our national resources. They lack the knowledge and incentives and they’re also human which makes them prone to all the same faults blamed on the market. They can’t even spend the stimulus money they’ve been given.
http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/stimulus-in-the-real-world.html
Mandatory public service draft? That is pure despotic tyranny and I will fight it to the bitter end. Shame on you.
The Depression’s investment death spiral was the direct result of a combination of nightmarish trade wars, the collapse of the banking system under the watch of the Federal Reserve and their “real bills doctrine”, the general regime uncertainty of the Roosevelt administration but specifically the horrifying industrial cartelization and takeover by the NRA.
A large percentage of business people literally believed that FDR was turning America into either a socialist or fascist state.
Meanwhile, the depression of 1920/21, which was MUCH deeper than our current one, bounced right back even as Harding cut taxes, government spending and paid down the debt.
Business investment right now is trapped in a few serious regime uncertainties:
#1. The status of the cap-and-trade boondoggle.
#2. The status of the healthcare so-called “reform”.
#3. The status of “card check” and whatever else these crooks hatch up in DC.
#4. The dollar is being devastated by our insane deficit spending and that’s got unknown consequences for international business (e.i most business).
#5. A malformed zombie banking system that has absorbed most of the new reserves given tot them due to their fundamental insolvency.
You know what is a booming investment business right now? Rent seeking on an epic scale. Why? #1, 2, 3 and 4.
Unwind the zombie banks. Shred the cap-and-trade boondoggle for good (since its built on lies). Kill the healthcare “reform”. Balance the budget. Bring the troops home.
The Depression’s investment death spiral was the direct result of a combination of nightmarish trade wars, the collapse of the banking system under the watch of the Federal Reserve and their “real bills doctrine”, the general regime uncertainty of the Roosevelt administration but specifically the horrifying industrial cartelization and takeover by the NRA.
A large percentage of business people literally believed that FDR was turning America into either a socialist or fascist state.
Meanwhile, the depression of 1920/21, which was MUCH deeper than our current one, bounced right back even as Harding cut taxes, government spending and paid down the debt.
Business investment right now is trapped in a few serious regime uncertainties:
#1. The status of the cap-and-trade boondoggle.
#2. The status of the healthcare so-called “reform”.
#3. The status of “card check” and whatever else these crooks hatch up in DC.
#4. The dollar is being devastated by our insane deficit spending and that’s got unknown consequences for international business (e.i most business).
#5. A malformed zombie banking system that has absorbed most of the new reserves given tot them due to their fundamental insolvency.
You know what is a booming investment business right now? Rent seeking on an epic scale. Why? #1, 2, 3 and 4.
Unwind the zombie banks. Shred the cap-and-trade boondoggle for good (since its built on lies). Kill the healthcare “reform”. Balance the budget. Bring the troops home.
The Depression’s investment death spiral was the direct result of a combination of nightmarish trade wars, the collapse of the banking system under the watch of the Federal Reserve and their “real bills doctrine”, the general regime uncertainty of the Roosevelt administration but specifically the horrifying industrial cartelization and takeover by the NRA.
A large percentage of business people literally believed that FDR was turning America into either a socialist or fascist state.
Meanwhile, the depression of 1920/21, which was MUCH deeper than our current one, bounced right back even as Harding cut taxes, government spending and paid down the debt.
Business investment right now is trapped in a few serious regime uncertainties:
#1. The status of the cap-and-trade boondoggle.
#2. The status of the healthcare so-called “reform”.
#3. The status of “card check” and whatever else these crooks hatch up in DC.
#4. The dollar is being devastated by our insane deficit spending and that’s got unknown consequences for international business (e.i most business).
#5. A malformed zombie banking system that has absorbed most of the new reserves given tot them due to their fundamental insolvency.
You know what is a booming investment business right now? Rent seeking on an epic scale. Why? #1, 2, 3 and 4.
Unwind the zombie banks. Shred the cap-and-trade boondoggle for good (since its built on lies). Kill the healthcare “reform”. Balance the budget. Bring the troops home.
The Depression’s investment death spiral was the direct result of a combination of nightmarish trade wars, the collapse of the banking system under the watch of the Federal Reserve and their “real bills doctrine”, the general regime uncertainty of the Roosevelt administration but specifically the horrifying industrial cartelization and takeover by the NRA.
A large percentage of business people literally believed that FDR was turning America into either a socialist or fascist state.
Meanwhile, the depression of 1920/21, which was MUCH deeper than our current one, bounced right back even as Harding cut taxes, government spending and paid down the debt.
Business investment right now is trapped in a few serious regime uncertainties:
#1. The status of the cap-and-trade boondoggle.
#2. The status of the healthcare so-called “reform”.
#3. The status of “card check” and whatever else these crooks hatch up in DC.
#4. The dollar is being devastated by our insane deficit spending and that’s got unknown consequences for international business (e.i most business).
#5. A malformed zombie banking system that has absorbed most of the new reserves given tot them due to their fundamental insolvency.
You know what is a booming investment business right now? Rent seeking on an epic scale. Why? #1, 2, 3 and 4.
Unwind the zombie banks. Shred the cap-and-trade boondoggle for good (since its built on lies). Kill the healthcare “reform”. Balance the budget. Bring the troops home.
” Kill the healthcare “reform”. ”
As the sign said, “What future?”
Some bits are not about profit, John. They are about investment. Universal health care is a very good investment as any business owner and manager can tell you. A single payer system is the best way to get that done.
It won’t happen but many smart things done by other countries are impossible in the U.S. and we should be confronting that loss of adaptive response directly. Our culture is exhibiting the deterioration of an aging brain and truthfully, it isn’t that old.
” Kill the healthcare “reform”. ”
As the sign said, “What future?”
Some bits are not about profit, John. They are about investment. Universal health care is a very good investment as any business owner and manager can tell you. A single payer system is the best way to get that done.
It won’t happen but many smart things done by other countries are impossible in the U.S. and we should be confronting that loss of adaptive response directly. Our culture is exhibiting the deterioration of an aging brain and truthfully, it isn’t that old.
” Kill the healthcare “reform”. ”
As the sign said, “What future?”
Some bits are not about profit, John. They are about investment. Universal health care is a very good investment as any business owner and manager can tell you. A single payer system is the best way to get that done.
It won’t happen but many smart things done by other countries are impossible in the U.S. and we should be confronting that loss of adaptive response directly. Our culture is exhibiting the deterioration of an aging brain and truthfully, it isn’t that old.
” Kill the healthcare “reform”. ”
As the sign said, “What future?”
Some bits are not about profit, John. They are about investment. Universal health care is a very good investment as any business owner and manager can tell you. A single payer system is the best way to get that done.
It won’t happen but many smart things done by other countries are impossible in the U.S. and we should be confronting that loss of adaptive response directly. Our culture is exhibiting the deterioration of an aging brain and truthfully, it isn’t that old.
Jon, your charts exemplify why this country needs a long-term manufacturing and commerce policy. We must have a DARPA-like plan & financing to encourage new technologies, whether in traditionally known tech or bio-tech or green tech or whatever comes down the road in the future. This country has the greatest innovators world-wide, but we’re rapidly losing our advantage to emerging economies which have created long-term, meaning 5 to 50 year, economic and manufacturing policies to grow their economies.
Most new tech funding comes from government agencies, whether DARPA, the military, NASA, National Health, CDC, or others. Universities use their seed money to develop new technologies and out of those new ideas comes new industries and businesses.
But when new ideas are stifled by a lack of funding, nothing new comes to market. No new jobs.
Right now, we have a Congressional conundrum: they either refuse to look towards the future and recognize that at certain times in certain ways only government has the resources to fund new ideas or they are stuck in Reaganite thinking that free market capitalism should fund itself. This latter notion does not take into account the market disruption and “corporate communism” practiced by Wall St. today, in collusion with
Congress, wherein the only funding is to make outrageous amounts of money for the company (i.e., Goldman Sachs) rather than provide funding for businesses. To say our financial industries have perverted their historic charter is a mild understatement.
The only way the younger generations will see a lifestyle or income equal to or better than their parents is for them to come together as a voting block to demand change…the kind of change they voted for in the ’08 election. They must become politically involved and educated…and require that their legislators change or lose their “prized” positions.
I hate to say it, but this country is in the fight for its life. Global competition means change the way you do business or die. There is no other choice. Congress must accept that maxim…or those members who refuse must be voted out of office. The stakes are no longer “government is bad and taxes must be eliminated” or “government can solve all problems and ills.” The stakes are our entire economy, the preservation of the middle class which is not only the largest percentage of the population but also the largest tax base, and our overall business competitiveness.
If the US does not develop a strategy to increase its competitive base by developing new industries and their concomitant jobs, emerging economies soon will overtake the US in those technologies, leading to fewer jobs and a shrinking of the middle class.
Up to this point the world has depended upon the US consumer. But what happens when the US consumer…even worse than now…cannot supply the capital to keep grow other economies? Will those economies stop, or will they continue to innovate and grow? The answer is simple…but far too many in Congress and in the politico scene ignore the consequences of their ideology. In business, the maxim is compete with innovation and price and quality…or die.
The only way to compete is to get our heads out of the metaphorically capitalistic sand to rebuild American industry, based on new and even yet unknown industries. If that requires federal dollars, such as occurred post-WWII, then so be it.
However, to achieve that “change” also will require a change in tax policy. Tax policy must reward innovators rather than short term capital gains. It must reward innovation, research and development rather than speculators or those who do nothing more than make money. Instead of limiting capital gains, limits should be put on it to insure that the gains are not short term speculation but long term investments.
In my opinion, the entire tax system should be overhauled to a flat tax system in which anyone making under $35K pays no tax and everyone else pays a flat percentage of, say, 13%. The only deductions would be dependents or R&D. Nothing else. It’s far more fair and allows for no games-playing by corporate entities. Essentially, it levels the playing field for all tax paying entities, whether families or businesses. In addition, it may very well spur investment into R&D which is exactly what this country needs to increase investment into new technology.
If American taxpayers do not come together to demand economic and tax policy change, employment will continue to stagnant while Wall St. continues to reap in obscene fortunes in salaries and bonuses as the middle class shrinks and young people seek in vain for jobs that do not exist.
The name of the game is competition. If you don’t devise a game plan to compete to win, you ill lose.
Jon, your charts exemplify why this country needs a long-term manufacturing and commerce policy. We must have a DARPA-like plan & financing to encourage new technologies, whether in traditionally known tech or bio-tech or green tech or whatever comes down the road in the future. This country has the greatest innovators world-wide, but we’re rapidly losing our advantage to emerging economies which have created long-term, meaning 5 to 50 year, economic and manufacturing policies to grow their economies.
Most new tech funding comes from government agencies, whether DARPA, the military, NASA, National Health, CDC, or others. Universities use their seed money to develop new technologies and out of those new ideas comes new industries and businesses.
But when new ideas are stifled by a lack of funding, nothing new comes to market. No new jobs.
Right now, we have a Congressional conundrum: they either refuse to look towards the future and recognize that at certain times in certain ways only government has the resources to fund new ideas or they are stuck in Reaganite thinking that free market capitalism should fund itself. This latter notion does not take into account the market disruption and “corporate communism” practiced by Wall St. today, in collusion with
Congress, wherein the only funding is to make outrageous amounts of money for the company (i.e., Goldman Sachs) rather than provide funding for businesses. To say our financial industries have perverted their historic charter is a mild understatement.
The only way the younger generations will see a lifestyle or income equal to or better than their parents is for them to come together as a voting block to demand change…the kind of change they voted for in the ’08 election. They must become politically involved and educated…and require that their legislators change or lose their “prized” positions.
I hate to say it, but this country is in the fight for its life. Global competition means change the way you do business or die. There is no other choice. Congress must accept that maxim…or those members who refuse must be voted out of office. The stakes are no longer “government is bad and taxes must be eliminated” or “government can solve all problems and ills.” The stakes are our entire economy, the preservation of the middle class which is not only the largest percentage of the population but also the largest tax base, and our overall business competitiveness.
If the US does not develop a strategy to increase its competitive base by developing new industries and their concomitant jobs, emerging economies soon will overtake the US in those technologies, leading to fewer jobs and a shrinking of the middle class.
Up to this point the world has depended upon the US consumer. But what happens when the US consumer…even worse than now…cannot supply the capital to keep grow other economies? Will those economies stop, or will they continue to innovate and grow? The answer is simple…but far too many in Congress and in the politico scene ignore the consequences of their ideology. In business, the maxim is compete with innovation and price and quality…or die.
The only way to compete is to get our heads out of the metaphorically capitalistic sand to rebuild American industry, based on new and even yet unknown industries. If that requires federal dollars, such as occurred post-WWII, then so be it.
However, to achieve that “change” also will require a change in tax policy. Tax policy must reward innovators rather than short term capital gains. It must reward innovation, research and development rather than speculators or those who do nothing more than make money. Instead of limiting capital gains, limits should be put on it to insure that the gains are not short term speculation but long term investments.
In my opinion, the entire tax system should be overhauled to a flat tax system in which anyone making under $35K pays no tax and everyone else pays a flat percentage of, say, 13%. The only deductions would be dependents or R&D. Nothing else. It’s far more fair and allows for no games-playing by corporate entities. Essentially, it levels the playing field for all tax paying entities, whether families or businesses. In addition, it may very well spur investment into R&D which is exactly what this country needs to increase investment into new technology.
If American taxpayers do not come together to demand economic and tax policy change, employment will continue to stagnant while Wall St. continues to reap in obscene fortunes in salaries and bonuses as the middle class shrinks and young people seek in vain for jobs that do not exist.
The name of the game is competition. If you don’t devise a game plan to compete to win, you ill lose.
Who’s talking about profits? The biggest enemy of sustained profits is a competitive market with unrestricted entrance.
I’m talking about risk taking, which is what investment is. And the current environment thanks to policy of the past and present is a nightmare of radical uncertainty.
Single payer is a tyrannical, unsustainable farce. Asserting that it is the best way does not make it so. Socialist calculation problems abound in single payer which leads to avoidable shortages through arbitrary price controls and central planning. The talk of epic savings on “Administrative costs” is a shell game and a lie, particularly as it pertains to fee-for-service Medicare.
Our healthcare system needs real competition. That means an end to the collusion between the government and the insurance industry and the big hospitals and AMA.
But hey, whatever, let’s ignore reality. Let’s just keep borrowing more and more money from foreign governments for ponzi-scheme entitlements. Let’s keep pretending that economic reality doesn’t exist, that you can have fast, cheap and good without cost via a political process that continues to subsidize both oil and ethanol.
If you have faith in that kind of system, more power to you.
Who’s talking about profits? The biggest enemy of sustained profits is a competitive market with unrestricted entrance.
I’m talking about risk taking, which is what investment is. And the current environment thanks to policy of the past and present is a nightmare of radical uncertainty.
Single payer is a tyrannical, unsustainable farce. Asserting that it is the best way does not make it so. Socialist calculation problems abound in single payer which leads to avoidable shortages through arbitrary price controls and central planning. The talk of epic savings on “Administrative costs” is a shell game and a lie, particularly as it pertains to fee-for-service Medicare.
Our healthcare system needs real competition. That means an end to the collusion between the government and the insurance industry and the big hospitals and AMA.
But hey, whatever, let’s ignore reality. Let’s just keep borrowing more and more money from foreign governments for ponzi-scheme entitlements. Let’s keep pretending that economic reality doesn’t exist, that you can have fast, cheap and good without cost via a political process that continues to subsidize both oil and ethanol.
If you have faith in that kind of system, more power to you.
Who’s talking about profits? The biggest enemy of sustained profits is a competitive market with unrestricted entrance.
I’m talking about risk taking, which is what investment is. And the current environment thanks to policy of the past and present is a nightmare of radical uncertainty.
Single payer is a tyrannical, unsustainable farce. Asserting that it is the best way does not make it so. Socialist calculation problems abound in single payer which leads to avoidable shortages through arbitrary price controls and central planning. The talk of epic savings on “Administrative costs” is a shell game and a lie, particularly as it pertains to fee-for-service Medicare.
Our healthcare system needs real competition. That means an end to the collusion between the government and the insurance industry and the big hospitals and AMA.
But hey, whatever, let’s ignore reality. Let’s just keep borrowing more and more money from foreign governments for ponzi-scheme entitlements. Let’s keep pretending that economic reality doesn’t exist, that you can have fast, cheap and good without cost via a political process that continues to subsidize both oil and ethanol.
If you have faith in that kind of system, more power to you.
Please excuse my typos. Typing is not my forte.
Please excuse my typos. Typing is not my forte.
Please excuse my typos. Typing is not my forte.
Valeria, why do you believe that majoritarian political process can do any of the things you are hoping for here.
We’re in a crisis that is the direct result of majoritarian centrally planned housing “investment” policy.
Our energy use since the creation of the EPA has only become dramatically more dependent on foreign sources while hundreds of billions are poured into known boondoggles like ethanol to payoff the farm lobby and powerful voting blocs.
Political allocation of resources results in one things: corruption and cronyism.
If this country is going to remain a place worthy of investment, it needs to redirect the energy of the state toward law enforcement and away from doling out goodies to lobbyists, which is inherent in a political system of capital.
Strong police fighting fraud and crime is the best we can hope for from the State (and they’re generally not even very good at that).
The world is growing up. Europe is moving slowly towards freer markets and industry having already tried and failed the very approaches so many are calling for here.
I just don’t get it. Where are these angels to come from which will wield such power and employ such knowledge?
All I see around me are human beings. And politicians appear to be cut from the worst of the cloth.
Valeria, why do you believe that majoritarian political process can do any of the things you are hoping for here.
We’re in a crisis that is the direct result of majoritarian centrally planned housing “investment” policy.
Our energy use since the creation of the EPA has only become dramatically more dependent on foreign sources while hundreds of billions are poured into known boondoggles like ethanol to payoff the farm lobby and powerful voting blocs.
Political allocation of resources results in one things: corruption and cronyism.
If this country is going to remain a place worthy of investment, it needs to redirect the energy of the state toward law enforcement and away from doling out goodies to lobbyists, which is inherent in a political system of capital.
Strong police fighting fraud and crime is the best we can hope for from the State (and they’re generally not even very good at that).
The world is growing up. Europe is moving slowly towards freer markets and industry having already tried and failed the very approaches so many are calling for here.
I just don’t get it. Where are these angels to come from which will wield such power and employ such knowledge?
All I see around me are human beings. And politicians appear to be cut from the worst of the cloth.
Valeria, why do you believe that majoritarian political process can do any of the things you are hoping for here.
We’re in a crisis that is the direct result of majoritarian centrally planned housing “investment” policy.
Our energy use since the creation of the EPA has only become dramatically more dependent on foreign sources while hundreds of billions are poured into known boondoggles like ethanol to payoff the farm lobby and powerful voting blocs.
Political allocation of resources results in one things: corruption and cronyism.
If this country is going to remain a place worthy of investment, it needs to redirect the energy of the state toward law enforcement and away from doling out goodies to lobbyists, which is inherent in a political system of capital.
Strong police fighting fraud and crime is the best we can hope for from the State (and they’re generally not even very good at that).
The world is growing up. Europe is moving slowly towards freer markets and industry having already tried and failed the very approaches so many are calling for here.
I just don’t get it. Where are these angels to come from which will wield such power and employ such knowledge?
All I see around me are human beings. And politicians appear to be cut from the worst of the cloth.
But at least we have those hard working congressional parasites making sure that Americans need not use the volume or mute controls on their TV sets:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/calm-act-plans-to-put-loud-tv-commercials-to-sleep.ars
Politics is the business of looking good instead of doing good.
But at least we have those hard working congressional parasites making sure that Americans need not use the volume or mute controls on their TV sets:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/calm-act-plans-to-put-loud-tv-commercials-to-sleep.ars
Politics is the business of looking good instead of doing good.
But at least we have those hard working congressional parasites making sure that Americans need not use the volume or mute controls on their TV sets:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/calm-act-plans-to-put-loud-tv-commercials-to-sleep.ars
Politics is the business of looking good instead of doing good.
If Greenspan hadn’t kept interest rates low in 2004, we would have been in the deflationary spiral then. Why do you think I quoted Bernanke’s speech on how to avoid a Japanese stall in 2004, earlier this week? It’s Milton Friedman who convinced Greenspan to use monetary policy instead the Keynesian fiscal policy. Look at where it got us?
If Greenspan hadn’t kept interest rates low in 2004, we would have been in the deflationary spiral then. Why do you think I quoted Bernanke’s speech on how to avoid a Japanese stall in 2004, earlier this week? It’s Milton Friedman who convinced Greenspan to use monetary policy instead the Keynesian fiscal policy. Look at where it got us?
If Greenspan hadn’t kept interest rates low in 2004, we would have been in the deflationary spiral then. Why do you think I quoted Bernanke’s speech on how to avoid a Japanese stall in 2004, earlier this week? It’s Milton Friedman who convinced Greenspan to use monetary policy instead the Keynesian fiscal policy. Look at where it got us?
John, John- Where to begin. The 1920 “recession was a blip, because of the end of war production. The Fed followed your prescription in 1929 and 1930 and put the economy in the toilet for 10 years.
You are just talking out of your hat. Read Schumpeter. Your Austrian. He says that 1920′s capitalism had “vanishing investment opportunities” by which he meant that the enormous growth of productivity, combined with the oligopolistic pricing structures of American capitalism generated a growing surplus which went beyond the capacity of system to absorb it. Thus we got overcapacity which then led to the death spiral of the depression.
John, John- Where to begin. The 1920 “recession was a blip, because of the end of war production. The Fed followed your prescription in 1929 and 1930 and put the economy in the toilet for 10 years.
You are just talking out of your hat. Read Schumpeter. Your Austrian. He says that 1920′s capitalism had “vanishing investment opportunities” by which he meant that the enormous growth of productivity, combined with the oligopolistic pricing structures of American capitalism generated a growing surplus which went beyond the capacity of system to absorb it. Thus we got overcapacity which then led to the death spiral of the depression.
John, John- Where to begin. The 1920 “recession was a blip, because of the end of war production. The Fed followed your prescription in 1929 and 1930 and put the economy in the toilet for 10 years.
You are just talking out of your hat. Read Schumpeter. Your Austrian. He says that 1920′s capitalism had “vanishing investment opportunities” by which he meant that the enormous growth of productivity, combined with the oligopolistic pricing structures of American capitalism generated a growing surplus which went beyond the capacity of system to absorb it. Thus we got overcapacity which then led to the death spiral of the depression.
John, John- Where to begin. The 1920 “recession was a blip, because of the end of war production. The Fed followed your prescription in 1929 and 1930 and put the economy in the toilet for 10 years.
You are just talking out of your hat. Read Schumpeter. Your Austrian. He says that 1920′s capitalism had “vanishing investment opportunities” by which he meant that the enormous growth of productivity, combined with the oligopolistic pricing structures of American capitalism generated a growing surplus which went beyond the capacity of system to absorb it. Thus we got overcapacity which then led to the death spiral of the depression.
Calm down, John, I plea.
Okay, that being said, I am perfectly okay with free market competition…if such competition were to exist. Unfortunately, it does not. The health insurance industry, for example, has been exempt from anti-trust rules since 1945. Other than pro-baseball, it is the only industry exempt from anti-trust. Is that free-market competition or protectionism? In addition, when was the last time that the anti-trust statutes were used? Microsoft was caught in Europe by anti-trust…but not in the US. Prior to that was the breakup of AT&T in the 80s. So, what does the AT&T CEO say now? To paraphrase, “What the country needs is a single telecom company. It’ good for business and its good for the country.”
As an example, since AT&T bought up the last of the baby bells, it’s held a significant advantage in the market place. Is that free market competition? No. AT&T has been protected by in its grasp of control of the market place only because Verison and Sprint exist as competitors. However, smaller telecoms and broadband suppliers, heretofore, have been shut out the market as a result of Congress allowing these large telecoms to write the bills or, at the very least, to financially influence the bills.
That is not free-market competition. If libertarians really believe in competition, they should join with independents and moderates, particularly Democratic moderates, to demand honest competition and change.
What most honest Democrats want is honest market place competition so we have serious price competition. Unfortunately, US citizens do not have that option. The game, in far too many cases, is rigged against the consumer.
Calm down, John, I plea.
Okay, that being said, I am perfectly okay with free market competition…if such competition were to exist. Unfortunately, it does not. The health insurance industry, for example, has been exempt from anti-trust rules since 1945. Other than pro-baseball, it is the only industry exempt from anti-trust. Is that free-market competition or protectionism? In addition, when was the last time that the anti-trust statutes were used? Microsoft was caught in Europe by anti-trust…but not in the US. Prior to that was the breakup of AT&T in the 80s. So, what does the AT&T CEO say now? To paraphrase, “What the country needs is a single telecom company. It’ good for business and its good for the country.”
As an example, since AT&T bought up the last of the baby bells, it’s held a significant advantage in the market place. Is that free market competition? No. AT&T has been protected by in its grasp of control of the market place only because Verison and Sprint exist as competitors. However, smaller telecoms and broadband suppliers, heretofore, have been shut out the market as a result of Congress allowing these large telecoms to write the bills or, at the very least, to financially influence the bills.
That is not free-market competition. If libertarians really believe in competition, they should join with independents and moderates, particularly Democratic moderates, to demand honest competition and change.
What most honest Democrats want is honest market place competition so we have serious price competition. Unfortunately, US citizens do not have that option. The game, in far too many cases, is rigged against the consumer.
Calm down, John, I plea.
Okay, that being said, I am perfectly okay with free market competition…if such competition were to exist. Unfortunately, it does not. The health insurance industry, for example, has been exempt from anti-trust rules since 1945. Other than pro-baseball, it is the only industry exempt from anti-trust. Is that free-market competition or protectionism? In addition, when was the last time that the anti-trust statutes were used? Microsoft was caught in Europe by anti-trust…but not in the US. Prior to that was the breakup of AT&T in the 80s. So, what does the AT&T CEO say now? To paraphrase, “What the country needs is a single telecom company. It’ good for business and its good for the country.”
As an example, since AT&T bought up the last of the baby bells, it’s held a significant advantage in the market place. Is that free market competition? No. AT&T has been protected by in its grasp of control of the market place only because Verison and Sprint exist as competitors. However, smaller telecoms and broadband suppliers, heretofore, have been shut out the market as a result of Congress allowing these large telecoms to write the bills or, at the very least, to financially influence the bills.
That is not free-market competition. If libertarians really believe in competition, they should join with independents and moderates, particularly Democratic moderates, to demand honest competition and change.
What most honest Democrats want is honest market place competition so we have serious price competition. Unfortunately, US citizens do not have that option. The game, in far too many cases, is rigged against the consumer.
Calm down, John, I plea.
Okay, that being said, I am perfectly okay with free market competition…if such competition were to exist. Unfortunately, it does not. The health insurance industry, for example, has been exempt from anti-trust rules since 1945. Other than pro-baseball, it is the only industry exempt from anti-trust. Is that free-market competition or protectionism? In addition, when was the last time that the anti-trust statutes were used? Microsoft was caught in Europe by anti-trust…but not in the US. Prior to that was the breakup of AT&T in the 80s. So, what does the AT&T CEO say now? To paraphrase, “What the country needs is a single telecom company. It’ good for business and its good for the country.”
As an example, since AT&T bought up the last of the baby bells, it’s held a significant advantage in the market place. Is that free market competition? No. AT&T has been protected by in its grasp of control of the market place only because Verison and Sprint exist as competitors. However, smaller telecoms and broadband suppliers, heretofore, have been shut out the market as a result of Congress allowing these large telecoms to write the bills or, at the very least, to financially influence the bills.
That is not free-market competition. If libertarians really believe in competition, they should join with independents and moderates, particularly Democratic moderates, to demand honest competition and change.
What most honest Democrats want is honest market place competition so we have serious price competition. Unfortunately, US citizens do not have that option. The game, in far too many cases, is rigged against the consumer.
John- I assume you’d rather have an “elightened despot” (maybe like Mussolini?) than “Majoritarian rule”.
John- I assume you’d rather have an “elightened despot” (maybe like Mussolini?) than “Majoritarian rule”.
John- I assume you’d rather have an “elightened despot” (maybe like Mussolini?) than “Majoritarian rule”.
John- I assume you’d rather have an “elightened despot” (maybe like Mussolini?) than “Majoritarian rule”.
Deflationary spiral?
That’s the root nonsense that I stand here screaming about. Talk about crack brained ideas, and indeed Milton, Greenspan and Bernanke are all crack-brained on this.
The deflationary pressures were being driven by large booms in productivity. Greenspan said as much in 2003 speeches.
Japan’s deflation was not because of a productivity boom. Japan’s deflation was because of the same force that’s causing our current deflation: a broken, zombie banking system that was sitting on reserves coupled with a massively escalating public sector spending spree that drowned private investment.
Deflation when its driven by productivity is GOOD!!!!!!! It’s the root of the Moore’s law and the amazing advances in technology. Silicon Valley has been a powerhouse of investment in the medium and long term even amid massive productivity-norm deflation in their entire industry.
The price-stability monetarism preached by Friedman is, I believe, nonsense.
Money supply should adapt to money demand, sometime a free banking system would do on its own and has done historically as evidenced by the gentle deflation throughout the rapidly growing gold standard era.
As a second-best solution, the central bank should stabilize nominal GDP. That means holding MV constant. MV = PQ, so with MV constant, and Q (output) expanding with productivity, P (the price level) should fall.
It’s absolutely clear from our crisis as well as the policy of the late 1920s that pursuing price stability amid rapid output growth is a recipe for easy money, bubbles and a business cycle.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n5_v50/ai_20443608/?tag=content;col1
Deflationary spiral?
That’s the root nonsense that I stand here screaming about. Talk about crack brained ideas, and indeed Milton, Greenspan and Bernanke are all crack-brained on this.
The deflationary pressures were being driven by large booms in productivity. Greenspan said as much in 2003 speeches.
Japan’s deflation was not because of a productivity boom. Japan’s deflation was because of the same force that’s causing our current deflation: a broken, zombie banking system that was sitting on reserves coupled with a massively escalating public sector spending spree that drowned private investment.
Deflation when its driven by productivity is GOOD!!!!!!! It’s the root of the Moore’s law and the amazing advances in technology. Silicon Valley has been a powerhouse of investment in the medium and long term even amid massive productivity-norm deflation in their entire industry.
The price-stability monetarism preached by Friedman is, I believe, nonsense.
Money supply should adapt to money demand, sometime a free banking system would do on its own and has done historically as evidenced by the gentle deflation throughout the rapidly growing gold standard era.
As a second-best solution, the central bank should stabilize nominal GDP. That means holding MV constant. MV = PQ, so with MV constant, and Q (output) expanding with productivity, P (the price level) should fall.
It’s absolutely clear from our crisis as well as the policy of the late 1920s that pursuing price stability amid rapid output growth is a recipe for easy money, bubbles and a business cycle.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n5_v50/ai_20443608/?tag=content;col1
Deflationary spiral?
That’s the root nonsense that I stand here screaming about. Talk about crack brained ideas, and indeed Milton, Greenspan and Bernanke are all crack-brained on this.
The deflationary pressures were being driven by large booms in productivity. Greenspan said as much in 2003 speeches.
Japan’s deflation was not because of a productivity boom. Japan’s deflation was because of the same force that’s causing our current deflation: a broken, zombie banking system that was sitting on reserves coupled with a massively escalating public sector spending spree that drowned private investment.
Deflation when its driven by productivity is GOOD!!!!!!! It’s the root of the Moore’s law and the amazing advances in technology. Silicon Valley has been a powerhouse of investment in the medium and long term even amid massive productivity-norm deflation in their entire industry.
The price-stability monetarism preached by Friedman is, I believe, nonsense.
Money supply should adapt to money demand, sometime a free banking system would do on its own and has done historically as evidenced by the gentle deflation throughout the rapidly growing gold standard era.
As a second-best solution, the central bank should stabilize nominal GDP. That means holding MV constant. MV = PQ, so with MV constant, and Q (output) expanding with productivity, P (the price level) should fall.
It’s absolutely clear from our crisis as well as the policy of the late 1920s that pursuing price stability amid rapid output growth is a recipe for easy money, bubbles and a business cycle.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n5_v50/ai_20443608/?tag=content;col1
Deflationary spiral?
That’s the root nonsense that I stand here screaming about. Talk about crack brained ideas, and indeed Milton, Greenspan and Bernanke are all crack-brained on this.
The deflationary pressures were being driven by large booms in productivity. Greenspan said as much in 2003 speeches.
Japan’s deflation was not because of a productivity boom. Japan’s deflation was because of the same force that’s causing our current deflation: a broken, zombie banking system that was sitting on reserves coupled with a massively escalating public sector spending spree that drowned private investment.
Deflation when its driven by productivity is GOOD!!!!!!! It’s the root of the Moore’s law and the amazing advances in technology. Silicon Valley has been a powerhouse of investment in the medium and long term even amid massive productivity-norm deflation in their entire industry.
The price-stability monetarism preached by Friedman is, I believe, nonsense.
Money supply should adapt to money demand, sometime a free banking system would do on its own and has done historically as evidenced by the gentle deflation throughout the rapidly growing gold standard era.
As a second-best solution, the central bank should stabilize nominal GDP. That means holding MV constant. MV = PQ, so with MV constant, and Q (output) expanding with productivity, P (the price level) should fall.
It’s absolutely clear from our crisis as well as the policy of the late 1920s that pursuing price stability amid rapid output growth is a recipe for easy money, bubbles and a business cycle.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n5_v50/ai_20443608/?tag=content;col1
Hell no. I’m against central planners as both immoral and inefficient.
So far, the system seems to be a strong constitutional framework that protects the people from a tyrannical majority by keeping certain things out of the hands of the political arm of government. The founders were damn smart.
That system is dead now. Nothing being talked about is constitutional.
I’d like us to get back to rule of law for the government and the people by unanimous constitutional structure binding the political democracy.
Hell no. I’m against central planners as both immoral and inefficient.
So far, the system seems to be a strong constitutional framework that protects the people from a tyrannical majority by keeping certain things out of the hands of the political arm of government. The founders were damn smart.
That system is dead now. Nothing being talked about is constitutional.
I’d like us to get back to rule of law for the government and the people by unanimous constitutional structure binding the political democracy.
Hell no. I’m against central planners as both immoral and inefficient.
So far, the system seems to be a strong constitutional framework that protects the people from a tyrannical majority by keeping certain things out of the hands of the political arm of government. The founders were damn smart.
That system is dead now. Nothing being talked about is constitutional.
I’d like us to get back to rule of law for the government and the people by unanimous constitutional structure binding the political democracy.
Hell no. I’m against central planners as both immoral and inefficient.
So far, the system seems to be a strong constitutional framework that protects the people from a tyrannical majority by keeping certain things out of the hands of the political arm of government. The founders were damn smart.
That system is dead now. Nothing being talked about is constitutional.
I’d like us to get back to rule of law for the government and the people by unanimous constitutional structure binding the political democracy.
Jon, your facts are wrong.
The 1920/21 depression was over by the end of 1921. The Fed did not begin to inject money into the system until the late twenties.
You are misreading Schumpeter, assuming he’s talking about the Austrian cycle theory.
The reason for diminishing investment returns is because of inflation. Read Lawrence H. White. Producer prices were rising at a very high rate as artificially low interest rates distorted the credit market and drove more and more money into capital goods. Meanwhile, consumption was up too and the various sectors were bidding for diminishing available resources with ever more money.
Then, in 1928, the Fed push rates up from 3.5% to an effective rate of 6%. That drove these unsustainable inflationary-demand fueled businesses into the ground. The production slowdown began before the crash in 1929.
You are mistaking inflation for an inherent flaw in capitalism that is a near marxist read of diminishing returns on capital (I think, I could be wrong, I don’t know Marx that well).
The interest rate should be set by available loanable funds. Those funds come from savings. Savings come from reduced consumption, which causes consumer goods industries to shrink while capital goods industries grow by taking advantage of the lower rates.
That’s the real tradeoff that must occur for sustainable growth.
When the Fed inflates, it pushed down rates despite no new savings. In fact, it discourages savings and encourages people speculating in asset markets to find a better return on their savings, hence the bubbles. But the fact that consumption and investment BOTH go up temporarily is a sign of an inflationary boom that must end. The disappearing profit is being consumed by inflation.
The boom turns to bust as soon as rates rise and the inflation is ended.
The “hair of the dog” keynesian approach of permanent zero interest rates is simply the road to Weimar republic or Zimbabwe.
If there’s one thing I’m pretty sure I understand, it’s the story of the Austrian cycle theory. And we’ve just gone through it.
Jon, your facts are wrong.
The 1920/21 depression was over by the end of 1921. The Fed did not begin to inject money into the system until the late twenties.
You are misreading Schumpeter, assuming he’s talking about the Austrian cycle theory.
The reason for diminishing investment returns is because of inflation. Read Lawrence H. White. Producer prices were rising at a very high rate as artificially low interest rates distorted the credit market and drove more and more money into capital goods. Meanwhile, consumption was up too and the various sectors were bidding for diminishing available resources with ever more money.
Then, in 1928, the Fed push rates up from 3.5% to an effective rate of 6%. That drove these unsustainable inflationary-demand fueled businesses into the ground. The production slowdown began before the crash in 1929.
You are mistaking inflation for an inherent flaw in capitalism that is a near marxist read of diminishing returns on capital (I think, I could be wrong, I don’t know Marx that well).
The interest rate should be set by available loanable funds. Those funds come from savings. Savings come from reduced consumption, which causes consumer goods industries to shrink while capital goods industries grow by taking advantage of the lower rates.
That’s the real tradeoff that must occur for sustainable growth.
When the Fed inflates, it pushed down rates despite no new savings. In fact, it discourages savings and encourages people speculating in asset markets to find a better return on their savings, hence the bubbles. But the fact that consumption and investment BOTH go up temporarily is a sign of an inflationary boom that must end. The disappearing profit is being consumed by inflation.
The boom turns to bust as soon as rates rise and the inflation is ended.
The “hair of the dog” keynesian approach of permanent zero interest rates is simply the road to Weimar republic or Zimbabwe.
If there’s one thing I’m pretty sure I understand, it’s the story of the Austrian cycle theory. And we’ve just gone through it.
Jon, your facts are wrong.
The 1920/21 depression was over by the end of 1921. The Fed did not begin to inject money into the system until the late twenties.
You are misreading Schumpeter, assuming he’s talking about the Austrian cycle theory.
The reason for diminishing investment returns is because of inflation. Read Lawrence H. White. Producer prices were rising at a very high rate as artificially low interest rates distorted the credit market and drove more and more money into capital goods. Meanwhile, consumption was up too and the various sectors were bidding for diminishing available resources with ever more money.
Then, in 1928, the Fed push rates up from 3.5% to an effective rate of 6%. That drove these unsustainable inflationary-demand fueled businesses into the ground. The production slowdown began before the crash in 1929.
You are mistaking inflation for an inherent flaw in capitalism that is a near marxist read of diminishing returns on capital (I think, I could be wrong, I don’t know Marx that well).
The interest rate should be set by available loanable funds. Those funds come from savings. Savings come from reduced consumption, which causes consumer goods industries to shrink while capital goods industries grow by taking advantage of the lower rates.
That’s the real tradeoff that must occur for sustainable growth.
When the Fed inflates, it pushed down rates despite no new savings. In fact, it discourages savings and encourages people speculating in asset markets to find a better return on their savings, hence the bubbles. But the fact that consumption and investment BOTH go up temporarily is a sign of an inflationary boom that must end. The disappearing profit is being consumed by inflation.
The boom turns to bust as soon as rates rise and the inflation is ended.
The “hair of the dog” keynesian approach of permanent zero interest rates is simply the road to Weimar republic or Zimbabwe.
If there’s one thing I’m pretty sure I understand, it’s the story of the Austrian cycle theory. And we’ve just gone through it.
Jon, your facts are wrong.
The 1920/21 depression was over by the end of 1921. The Fed did not begin to inject money into the system until the late twenties.
You are misreading Schumpeter, assuming he’s talking about the Austrian cycle theory.
The reason for diminishing investment returns is because of inflation. Read Lawrence H. White. Producer prices were rising at a very high rate as artificially low interest rates distorted the credit market and drove more and more money into capital goods. Meanwhile, consumption was up too and the various sectors were bidding for diminishing available resources with ever more money.
Then, in 1928, the Fed push rates up from 3.5% to an effective rate of 6%. That drove these unsustainable inflationary-demand fueled businesses into the ground. The production slowdown began before the crash in 1929.
You are mistaking inflation for an inherent flaw in capitalism that is a near marxist read of diminishing returns on capital (I think, I could be wrong, I don’t know Marx that well).
The interest rate should be set by available loanable funds. Those funds come from savings. Savings come from reduced consumption, which causes consumer goods industries to shrink while capital goods industries grow by taking advantage of the lower rates.
That’s the real tradeoff that must occur for sustainable growth.
When the Fed inflates, it pushed down rates despite no new savings. In fact, it discourages savings and encourages people speculating in asset markets to find a better return on their savings, hence the bubbles. But the fact that consumption and investment BOTH go up temporarily is a sign of an inflationary boom that must end. The disappearing profit is being consumed by inflation.
The boom turns to bust as soon as rates rise and the inflation is ended.
The “hair of the dog” keynesian approach of permanent zero interest rates is simply the road to Weimar republic or Zimbabwe.
If there’s one thing I’m pretty sure I understand, it’s the story of the Austrian cycle theory. And we’ve just gone through it.
John, I suspect that we come to the same conclusions but from different angles. I do not want Congress involved in the spending. I want the country as a whole to say we need to figure out to finance new technologies and industries.
Obviously, the banks are not interested in this kind of investment…they can make too much money in speculation and CDOs and other convoluted financial products.
That only leaves VCs and various government agencies to fund new technology. Maybe because I’m an old bird, I’m lucky enough to have seen the many tech advances derived just from DARPA. I can only imagine the advances and jobs that could be created by other such agencies which dole out research grants to promising technologies.
Your goal of the free market supplying the funds to finance R&D is laudable. Unfortunately, that goal by and large does not exist, given the current practices and goals of the financial industry. Even VCs don’t have enough cash to sponsor all promising emergent industries.
BTW, I’ve been in business a very long time. One of the things I’ve learned is that to survive competition, you have to develop a competitive plan: a SWOT analysis and then a plan to decrease your threats and weaknesses while increasing your strengths and opportunities. That is what I want from our government.
However, I am not hopeful that those in Congress will think in such primary business terms.
John, I suspect that we come to the same conclusions but from different angles. I do not want Congress involved in the spending. I want the country as a whole to say we need to figure out to finance new technologies and industries.
Obviously, the banks are not interested in this kind of investment…they can make too much money in speculation and CDOs and other convoluted financial products.
That only leaves VCs and various government agencies to fund new technology. Maybe because I’m an old bird, I’m lucky enough to have seen the many tech advances derived just from DARPA. I can only imagine the advances and jobs that could be created by other such agencies which dole out research grants to promising technologies.
Your goal of the free market supplying the funds to finance R&D is laudable. Unfortunately, that goal by and large does not exist, given the current practices and goals of the financial industry. Even VCs don’t have enough cash to sponsor all promising emergent industries.
BTW, I’ve been in business a very long time. One of the things I’ve learned is that to survive competition, you have to develop a competitive plan: a SWOT analysis and then a plan to decrease your threats and weaknesses while increasing your strengths and opportunities. That is what I want from our government.
However, I am not hopeful that those in Congress will think in such primary business terms.
John, I suspect that we come to the same conclusions but from different angles. I do not want Congress involved in the spending. I want the country as a whole to say we need to figure out to finance new technologies and industries.
Obviously, the banks are not interested in this kind of investment…they can make too much money in speculation and CDOs and other convoluted financial products.
That only leaves VCs and various government agencies to fund new technology. Maybe because I’m an old bird, I’m lucky enough to have seen the many tech advances derived just from DARPA. I can only imagine the advances and jobs that could be created by other such agencies which dole out research grants to promising technologies.
Your goal of the free market supplying the funds to finance R&D is laudable. Unfortunately, that goal by and large does not exist, given the current practices and goals of the financial industry. Even VCs don’t have enough cash to sponsor all promising emergent industries.
BTW, I’ve been in business a very long time. One of the things I’ve learned is that to survive competition, you have to develop a competitive plan: a SWOT analysis and then a plan to decrease your threats and weaknesses while increasing your strengths and opportunities. That is what I want from our government.
However, I am not hopeful that those in Congress will think in such primary business terms.
John, I suspect that we come to the same conclusions but from different angles. I do not want Congress involved in the spending. I want the country as a whole to say we need to figure out to finance new technologies and industries.
Obviously, the banks are not interested in this kind of investment…they can make too much money in speculation and CDOs and other convoluted financial products.
That only leaves VCs and various government agencies to fund new technology. Maybe because I’m an old bird, I’m lucky enough to have seen the many tech advances derived just from DARPA. I can only imagine the advances and jobs that could be created by other such agencies which dole out research grants to promising technologies.
Your goal of the free market supplying the funds to finance R&D is laudable. Unfortunately, that goal by and large does not exist, given the current practices and goals of the financial industry. Even VCs don’t have enough cash to sponsor all promising emergent industries.
BTW, I’ve been in business a very long time. One of the things I’ve learned is that to survive competition, you have to develop a competitive plan: a SWOT analysis and then a plan to decrease your threats and weaknesses while increasing your strengths and opportunities. That is what I want from our government.
However, I am not hopeful that those in Congress will think in such primary business terms.
Yep. Kinda reminds me of all those meaningless resolutions that waste valuable time and do nothing to solve any single national problem.
Yep. Kinda reminds me of all those meaningless resolutions that waste valuable time and do nothing to solve any single national problem.
Yep. Kinda reminds me of all those meaningless resolutions that waste valuable time and do nothing to solve any single national problem.
Yep. Kinda reminds me of all those meaningless resolutions that waste valuable time and do nothing to solve any single national problem.
Jon, bad shot. You can do better.
Jon, bad shot. You can do better.
Jon, bad shot. You can do better.
Private enterprise and the fuck the future, I’ve got to make next quarter look brilliant mentality has run us into the dirt. No long term thinking because it doesn’t get you reelected to the Board of Directors. So the Japanese kicked our asses into the dirt in the automobile business. Consumer electronics? When was anything last made in the USA?
John, like it or not, many of the post offices we use today were built as WPA project with fine artists hired to paint murals. I use one such myself here in Santa Cruz. Bridges, dams (for better or worse), major public works projects that are designed for our use over decades and decades seem to come out of the public sector, not private.
There are a lot of things that the private sector can do well…building for the long term public benefit doesn’t seem to be on that list, though.
Private enterprise and the fuck the future, I’ve got to make next quarter look brilliant mentality has run us into the dirt. No long term thinking because it doesn’t get you reelected to the Board of Directors. So the Japanese kicked our asses into the dirt in the automobile business. Consumer electronics? When was anything last made in the USA?
John, like it or not, many of the post offices we use today were built as WPA project with fine artists hired to paint murals. I use one such myself here in Santa Cruz. Bridges, dams (for better or worse), major public works projects that are designed for our use over decades and decades seem to come out of the public sector, not private.
There are a lot of things that the private sector can do well…building for the long term public benefit doesn’t seem to be on that list, though.
Private enterprise and the fuck the future, I’ve got to make next quarter look brilliant mentality has run us into the dirt. No long term thinking because it doesn’t get you reelected to the Board of Directors. So the Japanese kicked our asses into the dirt in the automobile business. Consumer electronics? When was anything last made in the USA?
John, like it or not, many of the post offices we use today were built as WPA project with fine artists hired to paint murals. I use one such myself here in Santa Cruz. Bridges, dams (for better or worse), major public works projects that are designed for our use over decades and decades seem to come out of the public sector, not private.
There are a lot of things that the private sector can do well…building for the long term public benefit doesn’t seem to be on that list, though.
Private enterprise and the fuck the future, I’ve got to make next quarter look brilliant mentality has run us into the dirt. No long term thinking because it doesn’t get you reelected to the Board of Directors. So the Japanese kicked our asses into the dirt in the automobile business. Consumer electronics? When was anything last made in the USA?
John, like it or not, many of the post offices we use today were built as WPA project with fine artists hired to paint murals. I use one such myself here in Santa Cruz. Bridges, dams (for better or worse), major public works projects that are designed for our use over decades and decades seem to come out of the public sector, not private.
There are a lot of things that the private sector can do well…building for the long term public benefit doesn’t seem to be on that list, though.
John:
“We’re in a crisis that is the direct result of majoritarian centrally planned housing “investment” policy.”
While Congressional as well as Clinton and Bush 2 policies may have spurred the housing bubble, believe me Wall St took it to a wholly unforeseen level. Read last week’s Vanity Fair article on AIG and their preview of Andrew Ross Sorkin’s new book.
They are quite enlightening.
John:
“We’re in a crisis that is the direct result of majoritarian centrally planned housing “investment” policy.”
While Congressional as well as Clinton and Bush 2 policies may have spurred the housing bubble, believe me Wall St took it to a wholly unforeseen level. Read last week’s Vanity Fair article on AIG and their preview of Andrew Ross Sorkin’s new book.
They are quite enlightening.
John:
“We’re in a crisis that is the direct result of majoritarian centrally planned housing “investment” policy.”
While Congressional as well as Clinton and Bush 2 policies may have spurred the housing bubble, believe me Wall St took it to a wholly unforeseen level. Read last week’s Vanity Fair article on AIG and their preview of Andrew Ross Sorkin’s new book.
They are quite enlightening.
Regarding the inefficiencies of government compared to private enterprise, I’d like to see Federal Express get a letter across the country in three days for 46 cents. FEDEX is significantly less efficient than USPS.
USPS Priority Mail 2 days $ 4.95
FEDEX 2 Day $24.03
USPS 3 Day $ .46
FEXED 4 Day $ 7.83
Regarding the inefficiencies of government compared to private enterprise, I’d like to see Federal Express get a letter across the country in three days for 46 cents. FEDEX is significantly less efficient than USPS.
USPS Priority Mail 2 days $ 4.95
FEDEX 2 Day $24.03
USPS 3 Day $ .46
FEXED 4 Day $ 7.83
Regarding the inefficiencies of government compared to private enterprise, I’d like to see Federal Express get a letter across the country in three days for 46 cents. FEDEX is significantly less efficient than USPS.
USPS Priority Mail 2 days $ 4.95
FEDEX 2 Day $24.03
USPS 3 Day $ .46
FEXED 4 Day $ 7.83
Regarding the inefficiencies of government compared to private enterprise, I’d like to see Federal Express get a letter across the country in three days for 46 cents. FEDEX is significantly less efficient than USPS.
USPS Priority Mail 2 days $ 4.95
FEDEX 2 Day $24.03
USPS 3 Day $ .46
FEXED 4 Day $ 7.83
Um… The post office is bankrupt. And it’s service is often lousy and unreliable.
Funny thing. I can go to a grocerie store and get a kiwi from New Zealand for the price the post office charges to mail a postcard across the street.
USPS ia not efficient. Looking at prices alone isn’t a means to determine efficiency.
Oh, and they have a legal monopoly on letter carrying, which is insane. Fedex and UPS exist because of a loophole in the “law”.
Um… The post office is bankrupt. And it’s service is often lousy and unreliable.
Funny thing. I can go to a grocerie store and get a kiwi from New Zealand for the price the post office charges to mail a postcard across the street.
USPS ia not efficient. Looking at prices alone isn’t a means to determine efficiency.
Oh, and they have a legal monopoly on letter carrying, which is insane. Fedex and UPS exist because of a loophole in the “law”.
Um… The post office is bankrupt. And it’s service is often lousy and unreliable.
Funny thing. I can go to a grocerie store and get a kiwi from New Zealand for the price the post office charges to mail a postcard across the street.
USPS ia not efficient. Looking at prices alone isn’t a means to determine efficiency.
Oh, and they have a legal monopoly on letter carrying, which is insane. Fedex and UPS exist because of a loophole in the “law”.
Um… The post office is bankrupt. And it’s service is often lousy and unreliable.
Funny thing. I can go to a grocerie store and get a kiwi from New Zealand for the price the post office charges to mail a postcard across the street.
USPS ia not efficient. Looking at prices alone isn’t a means to determine efficiency.
Oh, and they have a legal monopoly on letter carrying, which is insane. Fedex and UPS exist because of a loophole in the “law”.
I will read that for sure. Wall street is not innocent and I’m not defending them. I’ve listened Galbraith, Delong, Shiller, Krugman and others at length on this “crisis”. I find their “animal spirits” root causes ridiculous.
When the government has a promise to bailout the bondholders and a track record of doing so, you get a malformed institutional problem where the incentives to take on huge risk are all upside and less downside.
The keynesian leftist crowd likes to point out that the head of Bear Stern had company shares worth 1 billion. “if that’s not an incentive to keep your company alive, what is?” they say.
Well, that was paper value trapped in equity he could cash out. And guess what, the guy is still worth 400 million today. Even money obeys the law of diminishing marginal utility.
I want bad firms to fail. We need that. That is the solution. But once again, this crisis has seen trillions flow into domestic and foreign bond holders pockets.
The thing I find most shocking is that leftist economists like Brad Delong actually believe that the only mistake the government made, other than nit spending enough on so-called “stimulus”, is that they let Lehman fail. How is this liberal? How is this just?
It’s not. Justice and equality of rules uber the law matter. They are the foundations of expectations that guide investment. If you expect to be bailed out, as Lehman did after Bear, you act extra stupid because it is in fact rational. Bear was smaller than lehman. So lehman doubled down after Bear was merged. Than reserve prime bought a ton of Lehman paper. Would they have down this if Bear went into chapter 11? I don’t think so.
So that’s the point. The private failures were far less likely to be coordinated in a world where bankruptcy seemed possible.
Now we now have the all the worst lessons learned once again which i. Why Paul Volker is out there objecting to the administrations “reform”. It dubs the big collusive firms as legally “too big to fail” and then imposes nonsense regulations on them as a counter to the priviledge.
What signal does that send? It doesn’t send the “act stupid and you’ll pay the price” signal. It sends the “get big fast and then you’ll live forever” signal.
I’ll take laissez faire over this setup, thank you very much.
I will read that for sure. Wall street is not innocent and I’m not defending them. I’ve listened Galbraith, Delong, Shiller, Krugman and others at length on this “crisis”. I find their “animal spirits” root causes ridiculous.
When the government has a promise to bailout the bondholders and a track record of doing so, you get a malformed institutional problem where the incentives to take on huge risk are all upside and less downside.
The keynesian leftist crowd likes to point out that the head of Bear Stern had company shares worth 1 billion. “if that’s not an incentive to keep your company alive, what is?” they say.
Well, that was paper value trapped in equity he could cash out. And guess what, the guy is still worth 400 million today. Even money obeys the law of diminishing marginal utility.
I want bad firms to fail. We need that. That is the solution. But once again, this crisis has seen trillions flow into domestic and foreign bond holders pockets.
The thing I find most shocking is that leftist economists like Brad Delong actually believe that the only mistake the government made, other than nit spending enough on so-called “stimulus”, is that they let Lehman fail. How is this liberal? How is this just?
It’s not. Justice and equality of rules uber the law matter. They are the foundations of expectations that guide investment. If you expect to be bailed out, as Lehman did after Bear, you act extra stupid because it is in fact rational. Bear was smaller than lehman. So lehman doubled down after Bear was merged. Than reserve prime bought a ton of Lehman paper. Would they have down this if Bear went into chapter 11? I don’t think so.
So that’s the point. The private failures were far less likely to be coordinated in a world where bankruptcy seemed possible.
Now we now have the all the worst lessons learned once again which i. Why Paul Volker is out there objecting to the administrations “reform”. It dubs the big collusive firms as legally “too big to fail” and then imposes nonsense regulations on them as a counter to the priviledge.
What signal does that send? It doesn’t send the “act stupid and you’ll pay the price” signal. It sends the “get big fast and then you’ll live forever” signal.
I’ll take laissez faire over this setup, thank you very much.
I will read that for sure. Wall street is not innocent and I’m not defending them. I’ve listened Galbraith, Delong, Shiller, Krugman and others at length on this “crisis”. I find their “animal spirits” root causes ridiculous.
When the government has a promise to bailout the bondholders and a track record of doing so, you get a malformed institutional problem where the incentives to take on huge risk are all upside and less downside.
The keynesian leftist crowd likes to point out that the head of Bear Stern had company shares worth 1 billion. “if that’s not an incentive to keep your company alive, what is?” they say.
Well, that was paper value trapped in equity he could cash out. And guess what, the guy is still worth 400 million today. Even money obeys the law of diminishing marginal utility.
I want bad firms to fail. We need that. That is the solution. But once again, this crisis has seen trillions flow into domestic and foreign bond holders pockets.
The thing I find most shocking is that leftist economists like Brad Delong actually believe that the only mistake the government made, other than nit spending enough on so-called “stimulus”, is that they let Lehman fail. How is this liberal? How is this just?
It’s not. Justice and equality of rules uber the law matter. They are the foundations of expectations that guide investment. If you expect to be bailed out, as Lehman did after Bear, you act extra stupid because it is in fact rational. Bear was smaller than lehman. So lehman doubled down after Bear was merged. Than reserve prime bought a ton of Lehman paper. Would they have down this if Bear went into chapter 11? I don’t think so.
So that’s the point. The private failures were far less likely to be coordinated in a world where bankruptcy seemed possible.
Now we now have the all the worst lessons learned once again which i. Why Paul Volker is out there objecting to the administrations “reform”. It dubs the big collusive firms as legally “too big to fail” and then imposes nonsense regulations on them as a counter to the priviledge.
What signal does that send? It doesn’t send the “act stupid and you’ll pay the price” signal. It sends the “get big fast and then you’ll live forever” signal.
I’ll take laissez faire over this setup, thank you very much.
Btw, Valerie, you’re pretty awesome. The coming libertarian/liberal alliance will suit you well.
Btw, Valerie, you’re pretty awesome. The coming libertarian/liberal alliance will suit you well.
“long term public benefit”. Hmmm.
It would seem that the public sector builds exclusively for the special interest benefit. They concentrate benefits on the marginal voters that swing their elections and disperse the costs on all of the taxpayers.
Private enterprise can build all kinds of amazing things including public works like subways and bridges and rail. That’s how we got many of those things to begin with. Were there weird land grants and stuff, indeed. But to argue against those and instead say we need a 100% coecerive agent to do the work instead is contradictory.
Just read up on the 500 billion rail plan that’s been talked about in the administration. It’s a total boondoggle, just like Amtrak.
The WPA appears to have been no less politically operated. Politicians and bureacrats operate based on self interest and personal incentives like the rest of us. They just have the legal power to steal.
The battle between Bill Gate and Steve Jobs has sone more “public good” than any of this politically driven WPA nonsense.
Look to the Internet and the emergent order of web standards as the inevitable model going forward. My side of this has economic evolution going for it. The central planning side is the economic equivolent of “intelligent design”.
One last point. Look at the stimulus. Look at how it’s been spent so far (or not spent). What a joke.
“long term public benefit”. Hmmm.
It would seem that the public sector builds exclusively for the special interest benefit. They concentrate benefits on the marginal voters that swing their elections and disperse the costs on all of the taxpayers.
Private enterprise can build all kinds of amazing things including public works like subways and bridges and rail. That’s how we got many of those things to begin with. Were there weird land grants and stuff, indeed. But to argue against those and instead say we need a 100% coecerive agent to do the work instead is contradictory.
Just read up on the 500 billion rail plan that’s been talked about in the administration. It’s a total boondoggle, just like Amtrak.
The WPA appears to have been no less politically operated. Politicians and bureacrats operate based on self interest and personal incentives like the rest of us. They just have the legal power to steal.
The battle between Bill Gate and Steve Jobs has sone more “public good” than any of this politically driven WPA nonsense.
Look to the Internet and the emergent order of web standards as the inevitable model going forward. My side of this has economic evolution going for it. The central planning side is the economic equivolent of “intelligent design”.
One last point. Look at the stimulus. Look at how it’s been spent so far (or not spent). What a joke.
“long term public benefit”. Hmmm.
It would seem that the public sector builds exclusively for the special interest benefit. They concentrate benefits on the marginal voters that swing their elections and disperse the costs on all of the taxpayers.
Private enterprise can build all kinds of amazing things including public works like subways and bridges and rail. That’s how we got many of those things to begin with. Were there weird land grants and stuff, indeed. But to argue against those and instead say we need a 100% coecerive agent to do the work instead is contradictory.
Just read up on the 500 billion rail plan that’s been talked about in the administration. It’s a total boondoggle, just like Amtrak.
The WPA appears to have been no less politically operated. Politicians and bureacrats operate based on self interest and personal incentives like the rest of us. They just have the legal power to steal.
The battle between Bill Gate and Steve Jobs has sone more “public good” than any of this politically driven WPA nonsense.
Look to the Internet and the emergent order of web standards as the inevitable model going forward. My side of this has economic evolution going for it. The central planning side is the economic equivolent of “intelligent design”.
One last point. Look at the stimulus. Look at how it’s been spent so far (or not spent). What a joke.
“long term public benefit”. Hmmm.
It would seem that the public sector builds exclusively for the special interest benefit. They concentrate benefits on the marginal voters that swing their elections and disperse the costs on all of the taxpayers.
Private enterprise can build all kinds of amazing things including public works like subways and bridges and rail. That’s how we got many of those things to begin with. Were there weird land grants and stuff, indeed. But to argue against those and instead say we need a 100% coecerive agent to do the work instead is contradictory.
Just read up on the 500 billion rail plan that’s been talked about in the administration. It’s a total boondoggle, just like Amtrak.
The WPA appears to have been no less politically operated. Politicians and bureacrats operate based on self interest and personal incentives like the rest of us. They just have the legal power to steal.
The battle between Bill Gate and Steve Jobs has sone more “public good” than any of this politically driven WPA nonsense.
Look to the Internet and the emergent order of web standards as the inevitable model going forward. My side of this has economic evolution going for it. The central planning side is the economic equivolent of “intelligent design”.
One last point. Look at the stimulus. Look at how it’s been spent so far (or not spent). What a joke.
JP, you got any respect and affinity for “consumer choice,” or is it all some magic “market” that determines what gets manufactured and shipped and bought, using “wealth” that magically comes from “somewhere?” Sounds to me like you have an unstated and maybe even unrecognized notion of what the permissible range of human behaviors ought to be. One of the several things that boggles about the “System” you speak for is the assumptions you work from about human nature and behavior, and the almost Marxist idea that there are “forces” at work, which if only allowed to “work properly” would assure “genuine market-driven relative prices” that somehow would create some kind of what, consumers’ paradise?
Why do you assume that people who can be induced to buy SUVs and the Need for Invading Iraq and New Improved Deluxe Shampoo that Leaves Your Hair Feeling Like Mink And Sex are going to make good-for-the-species choices for what to do with their, I love this phrase, “disposable income?” (Take a trip to a working landfill to put some meaning and reality into the notion of “disposable income” and “consumer choice.”)
There’s a lot of stuff going on in interactions and exchanges amongst 6.7 billion people, some few of whom are drawn to accumulation of wealth and power and the rest to mostly just living, including participating in the myths of “democracy” and “freedom” and “winning” and “jihad.” And those folks are eminently leadable, in the way a school of fish might get led, and subject to the efforts of a lot of very smart people to “manufacture demand” for consumer stuff from hyperquilted and sweet-scented toilet paper that “doesn’t feel like toilet paper” to AK-47s and F-22s and F-35s and everything in-between.
Do take a look at the Beer Game link: the simulation always plays out the same way, to “overproduction of the wrong product relative to ‘demand’” because humans are the way they are, and in “capitalist” culture, especially in large “consumer” populations, they apparently can’t do any different, especially when the don’t ‘communicate.” As maybe rick pointed out here, some intriguing recent research shows that much more optimum behaviors can come out of social groups than hierarchical structures, from corporations to nation-states. You ain’t gonna get what you yearn for out of the dogma you adhere to, but that’s just my observation, and having been an adherent of other fractional philosophies in the past myself, including a fleeting fling with Ayn Rand as a teen, I know how seductive the jesuitical approach to explaining all things by means as ridiculously complicated as Ptolemy’s crystalline-spheres notion of the True Heavens can be, and how misleading, and how destructive (ask Galileo how that worked.)
If the goal is to create some kind of long-term-sustainable human presence on the planet, it seems to me that the libertarian (whatever of its many guises you want to champion) approach is just one of a bunch of false-lead trails, seductive in its apparent ability to be the “theory of everything” but based on some postulates (and postulants) that come up way short in identifying or even recognizing some fundamental aspects of our species’ behaviors and predilections.
Yes, your gurus identify a number of elements of The Grand Fuckedup-edness, but then like with the people who started trying to figure out cell respiration, the theories wandered off in some pretty strange directions until new science filled in a few more parts of the Krebs-citric acid cycle. And the thing about the citric acid cycle is that it is REALITY, it happens organically out of the nature of things, and all those distortions and phony booms and all are unfortunately part of the economic reality and what I fail to see in anything you offer is any “regulatory mechanism” to redirect any of the Beer Game excursions back into what you would consider ideal channels. Free of the unholy excrescences you despise and disdain under the easy, obscure, “enemy-think” labels like small-k “keynesian” and small-m “malthusian.”
But yes, it would be nice if there were some philosopher kings who could kill the Fed and all the other parasites and toxic side reactions that our body politic is suffering. I don’t think they are likely to be Austrian, or from Chicago either.
JP, you got any respect and affinity for “consumer choice,” or is it all some magic “market” that determines what gets manufactured and shipped and bought, using “wealth” that magically comes from “somewhere?” Sounds to me like you have an unstated and maybe even unrecognized notion of what the permissible range of human behaviors ought to be. One of the several things that boggles about the “System” you speak for is the assumptions you work from about human nature and behavior, and the almost Marxist idea that there are “forces” at work, which if only allowed to “work properly” would assure “genuine market-driven relative prices” that somehow would create some kind of what, consumers’ paradise?
Why do you assume that people who can be induced to buy SUVs and the Need for Invading Iraq and New Improved Deluxe Shampoo that Leaves Your Hair Feeling Like Mink And Sex are going to make good-for-the-species choices for what to do with their, I love this phrase, “disposable income?” (Take a trip to a working landfill to put some meaning and reality into the notion of “disposable income” and “consumer choice.”)
There’s a lot of stuff going on in interactions and exchanges amongst 6.7 billion people, some few of whom are drawn to accumulation of wealth and power and the rest to mostly just living, including participating in the myths of “democracy” and “freedom” and “winning” and “jihad.” And those folks are eminently leadable, in the way a school of fish might get led, and subject to the efforts of a lot of very smart people to “manufacture demand” for consumer stuff from hyperquilted and sweet-scented toilet paper that “doesn’t feel like toilet paper” to AK-47s and F-22s and F-35s and everything in-between.
Do take a look at the Beer Game link: the simulation always plays out the same way, to “overproduction of the wrong product relative to ‘demand’” because humans are the way they are, and in “capitalist” culture, especially in large “consumer” populations, they apparently can’t do any different, especially when the don’t ‘communicate.” As maybe rick pointed out here, some intriguing recent research shows that much more optimum behaviors can come out of social groups than hierarchical structures, from corporations to nation-states. You ain’t gonna get what you yearn for out of the dogma you adhere to, but that’s just my observation, and having been an adherent of other fractional philosophies in the past myself, including a fleeting fling with Ayn Rand as a teen, I know how seductive the jesuitical approach to explaining all things by means as ridiculously complicated as Ptolemy’s crystalline-spheres notion of the True Heavens can be, and how misleading, and how destructive (ask Galileo how that worked.)
If the goal is to create some kind of long-term-sustainable human presence on the planet, it seems to me that the libertarian (whatever of its many guises you want to champion) approach is just one of a bunch of false-lead trails, seductive in its apparent ability to be the “theory of everything” but based on some postulates (and postulants) that come up way short in identifying or even recognizing some fundamental aspects of our species’ behaviors and predilections.
Yes, your gurus identify a number of elements of The Grand Fuckedup-edness, but then like with the people who started trying to figure out cell respiration, the theories wandered off in some pretty strange directions until new science filled in a few more parts of the Krebs-citric acid cycle. And the thing about the citric acid cycle is that it is REALITY, it happens organically out of the nature of things, and all those distortions and phony booms and all are unfortunately part of the economic reality and what I fail to see in anything you offer is any “regulatory mechanism” to redirect any of the Beer Game excursions back into what you would consider ideal channels. Free of the unholy excrescences you despise and disdain under the easy, obscure, “enemy-think” labels like small-k “keynesian” and small-m “malthusian.”
But yes, it would be nice if there were some philosopher kings who could kill the Fed and all the other parasites and toxic side reactions that our body politic is suffering. I don’t think they are likely to be Austrian, or from Chicago either.
JP, you got any respect and affinity for “consumer choice,” or is it all some magic “market” that determines what gets manufactured and shipped and bought, using “wealth” that magically comes from “somewhere?” Sounds to me like you have an unstated and maybe even unrecognized notion of what the permissible range of human behaviors ought to be. One of the several things that boggles about the “System” you speak for is the assumptions you work from about human nature and behavior, and the almost Marxist idea that there are “forces” at work, which if only allowed to “work properly” would assure “genuine market-driven relative prices” that somehow would create some kind of what, consumers’ paradise?
Why do you assume that people who can be induced to buy SUVs and the Need for Invading Iraq and New Improved Deluxe Shampoo that Leaves Your Hair Feeling Like Mink And Sex are going to make good-for-the-species choices for what to do with their, I love this phrase, “disposable income?” (Take a trip to a working landfill to put some meaning and reality into the notion of “disposable income” and “consumer choice.”)
There’s a lot of stuff going on in interactions and exchanges amongst 6.7 billion people, some few of whom are drawn to accumulation of wealth and power and the rest to mostly just living, including participating in the myths of “democracy” and “freedom” and “winning” and “jihad.” And those folks are eminently leadable, in the way a school of fish might get led, and subject to the efforts of a lot of very smart people to “manufacture demand” for consumer stuff from hyperquilted and sweet-scented toilet paper that “doesn’t feel like toilet paper” to AK-47s and F-22s and F-35s and everything in-between.
Do take a look at the Beer Game link: the simulation always plays out the same way, to “overproduction of the wrong product relative to ‘demand’” because humans are the way they are, and in “capitalist” culture, especially in large “consumer” populations, they apparently can’t do any different, especially when the don’t ‘communicate.” As maybe rick pointed out here, some intriguing recent research shows that much more optimum behaviors can come out of social groups than hierarchical structures, from corporations to nation-states. You ain’t gonna get what you yearn for out of the dogma you adhere to, but that’s just my observation, and having been an adherent of other fractional philosophies in the past myself, including a fleeting fling with Ayn Rand as a teen, I know how seductive the jesuitical approach to explaining all things by means as ridiculously complicated as Ptolemy’s crystalline-spheres notion of the True Heavens can be, and how misleading, and how destructive (ask Galileo how that worked.)
If the goal is to create some kind of long-term-sustainable human presence on the planet, it seems to me that the libertarian (whatever of its many guises you want to champion) approach is just one of a bunch of false-lead trails, seductive in its apparent ability to be the “theory of everything” but based on some postulates (and postulants) that come up way short in identifying or even recognizing some fundamental aspects of our species’ behaviors and predilections.
Yes, your gurus identify a number of elements of The Grand Fuckedup-edness, but then like with the people who started trying to figure out cell respiration, the theories wandered off in some pretty strange directions until new science filled in a few more parts of the Krebs-citric acid cycle. And the thing about the citric acid cycle is that it is REALITY, it happens organically out of the nature of things, and all those distortions and phony booms and all are unfortunately part of the economic reality and what I fail to see in anything you offer is any “regulatory mechanism” to redirect any of the Beer Game excursions back into what you would consider ideal channels. Free of the unholy excrescences you despise and disdain under the easy, obscure, “enemy-think” labels like small-k “keynesian” and small-m “malthusian.”
But yes, it would be nice if there were some philosopher kings who could kill the Fed and all the other parasites and toxic side reactions that our body politic is suffering. I don’t think they are likely to be Austrian, or from Chicago either.
Instead of bailing out the past we should finance the future. To go green not only is beneficial but necessary. It will give jobs and what is more important hope in the future. The other aspect is food. There is a lot to be done.
Instead of bailing out the past we should finance the future. To go green not only is beneficial but necessary. It will give jobs and what is more important hope in the future. The other aspect is food. There is a lot to be done.
Instead of bailing out the past we should finance the future. To go green not only is beneficial but necessary. It will give jobs and what is more important hope in the future. The other aspect is food. There is a lot to be done.
Instead of bailing out the past we should finance the future. To go green not only is beneficial but necessary. It will give jobs and what is more important hope in the future. The other aspect is food. There is a lot to be done.
Regulations are needed :
As a result of the contrast between US deregulation and the spreading European model of regulation, the US has become the dumping ground for toxic toys, electronics and cosmetics. We produce and consume the toxic materials, from which other countries around the world are protected.
Regulations are needed :
As a result of the contrast between US deregulation and the spreading European model of regulation, the US has become the dumping ground for toxic toys, electronics and cosmetics. We produce and consume the toxic materials, from which other countries around the world are protected.
Regulations are needed :
As a result of the contrast between US deregulation and the spreading European model of regulation, the US has become the dumping ground for toxic toys, electronics and cosmetics. We produce and consume the toxic materials, from which other countries around the world are protected.
At the end it goes beyond economical theories because ounce you loose the trust in your institutions you loose your economy. Millions of jobs could be created if all this nonsense and false paradigms are abolished. A new way of thinking and doing must emerge from all this free for all chaos. Go green indeed. I hope and I will continue doing so because I know that somehow this society will see the light and finally change for the best . I change we all can believe in must happen.
At the end it goes beyond economical theories because ounce you loose the trust in your institutions you loose your economy. Millions of jobs could be created if all this nonsense and false paradigms are abolished. A new way of thinking and doing must emerge from all this free for all chaos. Go green indeed. I hope and I will continue doing so because I know that somehow this society will see the light and finally change for the best . I change we all can believe in must happen.
Bernard, with all due respect, you’re engaging in epic claim chowder.
“Go Green” is a bumper sticker and its a sham as its been directed by the state. A complete farce.
Spain’s massive state-lead “green jobs” effort has been precisely what you’d expect: the path to debt, inefficiency and reduced employment. The biofuels subsidies are absolute and unequivocal falsification of the political model for energy production, as is the track record of the department of energy against its stated objective.
Green to me means efficiency and conservation. Saving. Everything that the Keynesian corporatist state is not.
The best way we can “go green” is to ensure that the price system is steering resources to where they are the most productive and efficiently used. Capitalism does that really well by and large when you have profit AND LOSS.
Politics doesn’t do that. It directs resources at the marginal voter for the next election or the “regulated” crony capitalist who “comes to the table” so that he can secure his status as a public utility with no potential for failure.
Let’s end today all corporate welfare and energy subsidies and see where the real market prices hash out on energy. I’m betting that the absence of all the state aid will go a long way toward revealing what is truly sustainable and efficient use of capital for energy production.
Bernard, with all due respect, you’re engaging in epic claim chowder.
“Go Green” is a bumper sticker and its a sham as its been directed by the state. A complete farce.
Spain’s massive state-lead “green jobs” effort has been precisely what you’d expect: the path to debt, inefficiency and reduced employment. The biofuels subsidies are absolute and unequivocal falsification of the political model for energy production, as is the track record of the department of energy against its stated objective.
Green to me means efficiency and conservation. Saving. Everything that the Keynesian corporatist state is not.
The best way we can “go green” is to ensure that the price system is steering resources to where they are the most productive and efficiently used. Capitalism does that really well by and large when you have profit AND LOSS.
Politics doesn’t do that. It directs resources at the marginal voter for the next election or the “regulated” crony capitalist who “comes to the table” so that he can secure his status as a public utility with no potential for failure.
Let’s end today all corporate welfare and energy subsidies and see where the real market prices hash out on energy. I’m betting that the absence of all the state aid will go a long way toward revealing what is truly sustainable and efficient use of capital for energy production.
“And it’s service is often lousy and unreliable. ”
The USPS has never lost an item that I’ve mailed.
They have a monopoly on letter-carrying in your own mind. You admit that Fedex and UPS (and DHL and others, as well as countless local and regional courier services) exist then you say that it’s only because of a “loophole.”
A loophole big enough to drive an entire fleet of giant brown trucks through.
“And it’s service is often lousy and unreliable. ”
The USPS has never lost an item that I’ve mailed.
They have a monopoly on letter-carrying in your own mind. You admit that Fedex and UPS (and DHL and others, as well as countless local and regional courier services) exist then you say that it’s only because of a “loophole.”
A loophole big enough to drive an entire fleet of giant brown trucks through.
It would be great if we could stop using words like um. I can’t wait to start buying up some of those post office buildings.
It would be great if we could stop using words like um. I can’t wait to start buying up some of those post office buildings.
John, if you ended corporate welfare today, the recipients would still have enough of a head start to loot their companies before being declared too big to fail.
John, if you ended corporate welfare today, the recipients would still have enough of a head start to loot their companies before being declared too big to fail.
Liz Cheney, hailed by her fans as “a red state rock star,” teamed up this week with Bill Kristol to start a new group called “Keep America Safe.”
We need a new group called “Keep America Quiet.”
Liz Cheney, hailed by her fans as “a red state rock star,” teamed up this week with Bill Kristol to start a new group called “Keep America Safe.”
We need a new group called “Keep America Quiet.”
“The battle between Bill Gate and Steve Jobs has sone more “public good” than any of this politically driven WPA nonsense.
Look to the Internet and the emergent order of web standards as the inevitable model going forward.”
I can see you are not in the computer technology business. As someone who’s name is on some of those standards, I can tell you straight up you are flat wrong. Without a mixture of government and private contracts, you’d be sending snail mail and still flying to expensive conferences. You bought into a mythology.
Government initiatives gave you almost every major infrastructure project on which we rely today, the US interstate system being one example, the Internet another.
Private industry and deregulation got us a airline transportation system that is going south fast, a telephone system with more hidden fees than the New Jersey mafia, and a health care system that can’t even work out a smart system for tracking the effects of new vaccines (see passive data collection).
Get savvy, John, or get pushed out of the way. This is no longer an intellectual game of modeling. We are back to bare knuckles capitalism. We have to start investing dollars in our own health top to bottom or we will all share the decline. The day of praying on Sunday for the wealth of the congregation and gaming the system Monday through Saturday is coming to an end soon or get ready for class warfare on a scale not seen since the Bastille became a rock heap.
“The battle between Bill Gate and Steve Jobs has sone more “public good” than any of this politically driven WPA nonsense.
Look to the Internet and the emergent order of web standards as the inevitable model going forward.”
I can see you are not in the computer technology business. As someone who’s name is on some of those standards, I can tell you straight up you are flat wrong. Without a mixture of government and private contracts, you’d be sending snail mail and still flying to expensive conferences. You bought into a mythology.
Government initiatives gave you almost every major infrastructure project on which we rely today, the US interstate system being one example, the Internet another.
Private industry and deregulation got us a airline transportation system that is going south fast, a telephone system with more hidden fees than the New Jersey mafia, and a health care system that can’t even work out a smart system for tracking the effects of new vaccines (see passive data collection).
Get savvy, John, or get pushed out of the way. This is no longer an intellectual game of modeling. We are back to bare knuckles capitalism. We have to start investing dollars in our own health top to bottom or we will all share the decline. The day of praying on Sunday for the wealth of the congregation and gaming the system Monday through Saturday is coming to an end soon or get ready for class warfare on a scale not seen since the Bastille became a rock heap.
John- Please read Schumpeter’s “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy”. You’ll find I’m right on this,
John- Please read Schumpeter’s “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy”. You’ll find I’m right on this,
If you want to argue for the reliability and punctuality of USPS, be my guest, Dan. The insolvency is certainly indisputable regardless.
If you want to argue for the reliability and punctuality of USPS, be my guest, Dan. The insolvency is certainly indisputable regardless.
Well John keep on believing that the market will solve things by itself. Up to now you haven´t done very well. trillions of dollars in debt, the dollar lost it´s face value and more and more pollution. There must be some way to bring changes that will bring healthy food to your table like in France ( small farms) and innovations to your obsolete industries. Airports and infrastructures that are functional ( the Kennedy airport is a shame ) , trains you can be proud of ( amtrack is ridiculous) and a justice that works for all citizens regardless of the amount of money they have (stolen). Today, USA is not a good example and you need to think about what kind of country you want your kids to inherit. It goes beyond dogmas. I am not a socialist neither a capitalist. I am open for rational ways to have a better quality of life.
I do believe that the US will eventually find a way to get out of the avatar as long as you accept the hard facts and correct the course.
Well John keep on believing that the market will solve things by itself. Up to now you haven´t done very well. trillions of dollars in debt, the dollar lost it´s face value and more and more pollution. There must be some way to bring changes that will bring healthy food to your table like in France ( small farms) and innovations to your obsolete industries. Airports and infrastructures that are functional ( the Kennedy airport is a shame ) , trains you can be proud of ( amtrack is ridiculous) and a justice that works for all citizens regardless of the amount of money they have (stolen). Today, USA is not a good example and you need to think about what kind of country you want your kids to inherit. It goes beyond dogmas. I am not a socialist neither a capitalist. I am open for rational ways to have a better quality of life.
I do believe that the US will eventually find a way to get out of the avatar as long as you accept the hard facts and correct the course.
Well John keep on believing that the market will solve things by itself. Up to now you haven´t done very well. trillions of dollars in debt, the dollar lost it´s face value and more and more pollution. There must be some way to bring changes that will bring healthy food to your table like in France ( small farms) and innovations to your obsolete industries. Airports and infrastructures that are functional ( the Kennedy airport is a shame ) , trains you can be proud of ( amtrack is ridiculous) and a justice that works for all citizens regardless of the amount of money they have (stolen). Today, USA is not a good example and you need to think about what kind of country you want your kids to inherit. It goes beyond dogmas. I am not a socialist neither a capitalist. I am open for rational ways to have a better quality of life.
I do believe that the US will eventually find a way to get out of the avatar as long as you accept the hard facts and correct the course.
The whole country, or system, as I have heard it called, is insolvent.
I once sent by FEDEX the masters to Ralph Stanley singing O Death from Nashville to Los Angeles along with the rest of the O Brother, Where Art Thou? multitrack masters. They were in several large boxes that weighed a few hundred pounds. FEDEX called and said they lost them. I asked what that meant- did it mean they dissappeard? Were they stolen? It took about five weeks of calling them several times a day for them to discover that they were in a warehouse in Memphis.
The whole country, or system, as I have heard it called, is insolvent.
I once sent by FEDEX the masters to Ralph Stanley singing O Death from Nashville to Los Angeles along with the rest of the O Brother, Where Art Thou? multitrack masters. They were in several large boxes that weighed a few hundred pounds. FEDEX called and said they lost them. I asked what that meant- did it mean they dissappeard? Were they stolen? It took about five weeks of calling them several times a day for them to discover that they were in a warehouse in Memphis.
Rick, you begin from the point of assumed too-big-to-fail as an institutional reality. In so doing, you frame the discussion in a very narrow way. In a doomed way, I would argue. A way that is doomed to perpetual crisis.
Ending too-big-to-fail must be the focus of reforming our government’s policies regarding corporatism and finance. If you take that off the table, you have admitted defeat.
Given the clear reality that government is made up of people no different than anyone else, and the recognition that competitive forces are vital to keeping people honest, I believe it is imperative to reform our governance around the prevention of corporatism as much as possible. Regulatory capture will never be gone, but the less we have through restrictions of government power to give out gifts, the more just our system will be and the more efficient our economy will be to the betterment of everyone, especially the working class.
Rick, you begin from the point of assumed too-big-to-fail as an institutional reality. In so doing, you frame the discussion in a very narrow way. In a doomed way, I would argue. A way that is doomed to perpetual crisis.
Ending too-big-to-fail must be the focus of reforming our government’s policies regarding corporatism and finance. If you take that off the table, you have admitted defeat.
Given the clear reality that government is made up of people no different than anyone else, and the recognition that competitive forces are vital to keeping people honest, I believe it is imperative to reform our governance around the prevention of corporatism as much as possible. Regulatory capture will never be gone, but the less we have through restrictions of government power to give out gifts, the more just our system will be and the more efficient our economy will be to the betterment of everyone, especially the working class.
Rick, you begin from the point of assumed too-big-to-fail as an institutional reality. In so doing, you frame the discussion in a very narrow way. In a doomed way, I would argue. A way that is doomed to perpetual crisis.
Ending too-big-to-fail must be the focus of reforming our government’s policies regarding corporatism and finance. If you take that off the table, you have admitted defeat.
Given the clear reality that government is made up of people no different than anyone else, and the recognition that competitive forces are vital to keeping people honest, I believe it is imperative to reform our governance around the prevention of corporatism as much as possible. Regulatory capture will never be gone, but the less we have through restrictions of government power to give out gifts, the more just our system will be and the more efficient our economy will be to the betterment of everyone, especially the working class.
Sounds like neo-con warmongering BS to me.
Sounds like neo-con warmongering BS to me.
Sounds like neo-con warmongering BS to me.
The market is not a thing, bernard. It is simply a term for voluntary action by everyone in exchange.
How can you go from attacking the market to attack government debt and the resulting weak dollar?
With all due respect, you’ve got a very mushed together set of concepts here with too little respect for how much complexity and evolution and knowledge exists out there.
The market is not a thing, bernard. It is simply a term for voluntary action by everyone in exchange.
How can you go from attacking the market to attack government debt and the resulting weak dollar?
With all due respect, you’ve got a very mushed together set of concepts here with too little respect for how much complexity and evolution and knowledge exists out there.
And planes. They have lots of planes.
And planes. They have lots of planes.
And planes. They have lots of planes.
John- If you keep writing, before long, you will have everybody on this board all straightened out. You are an evangelical. Soon they will repent of their sin and foolishness. (And stupidity.)
The blind will see.
(This will be known then as Jon Taplin’s Miracle Blog.)
John- If you keep writing, before long, you will have everybody on this board all straightened out. You are an evangelical. Soon they will repent of their sin and foolishness. (And stupidity.)
The blind will see.
(This will be known then as Jon Taplin’s Miracle Blog.)
John- If you keep writing, before long, you will have everybody on this board all straightened out. You are an evangelical. Soon they will repent of their sin and foolishness. (And stupidity.)
The blind will see.
(This will be known then as Jon Taplin’s Miracle Blog.)
John- If you keep writing, before long, you will have everybody on this board all straightened out. You are an evangelical. Soon they will repent of their sin and foolishness. (And stupidity.)
The blind will see.
(This will be known then as Jon Taplin’s Miracle Blog.)
I don’t particularly care about what Schumpeter said, Jon. He’s not fully in line with the ideas of Mises and Hayek and economists like Sumner and Selgin today who make sense to me.
Schumpeter is a favorite of Krugman to bash, probably because he’s not making quite the same points as Hayek. But he’s not a real Austrian. He studied under a Russian economist, Kondratieff, which you pointed to me, who believed in fundamental capitalist collapse.
But I don’t buy that. Schumpeter was great on entrepreneurship and innovation, but his business cycle theory is no as sound (nor was it as mainstream) as Hayek. Hayek was the main counterbalance to Keynes at that point. Keynes won with the appeal of “doing something” as well as Hayek’s withdrawl from the debate after concluding that Keynes wasn’t likely to even adhere to the General Theory, having ditched his former Treatise on Money. That was unfortunate.
Anyway. It’s not really about what some dead and possibly defunct economist said. It’s about what really happens. What really happens is that inflation pushes up production goods prices (remember copper prices in 2005 or flash developer salaries in 1999?). That inflation squeezes out the profit as the cheap money ends.
And if the cheap money doesn’t end? Hyperinflation.
Keynes was brilliant on inflation, before he sold out to his political buddies:
http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2009/08/keynes-paul-krugman-of-roosevelt.html
I don’t particularly care about what Schumpeter said, Jon. He’s not fully in line with the ideas of Mises and Hayek and economists like Sumner and Selgin today who make sense to me.
Schumpeter is a favorite of Krugman to bash, probably because he’s not making quite the same points as Hayek. But he’s not a real Austrian. He studied under a Russian economist, Kondratieff, which you pointed to me, who believed in fundamental capitalist collapse.
But I don’t buy that. Schumpeter was great on entrepreneurship and innovation, but his business cycle theory is no as sound (nor was it as mainstream) as Hayek. Hayek was the main counterbalance to Keynes at that point. Keynes won with the appeal of “doing something” as well as Hayek’s withdrawl from the debate after concluding that Keynes wasn’t likely to even adhere to the General Theory, having ditched his former Treatise on Money. That was unfortunate.
Anyway. It’s not really about what some dead and possibly defunct economist said. It’s about what really happens. What really happens is that inflation pushes up production goods prices (remember copper prices in 2005 or flash developer salaries in 1999?). That inflation squeezes out the profit as the cheap money ends.
And if the cheap money doesn’t end? Hyperinflation.
Keynes was brilliant on inflation, before he sold out to his political buddies:
http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2009/08/keynes-paul-krugman-of-roosevelt.html
I don’t particularly care about what Schumpeter said, Jon. He’s not fully in line with the ideas of Mises and Hayek and economists like Sumner and Selgin today who make sense to me.
Schumpeter is a favorite of Krugman to bash, probably because he’s not making quite the same points as Hayek. But he’s not a real Austrian. He studied under a Russian economist, Kondratieff, which you pointed to me, who believed in fundamental capitalist collapse.
But I don’t buy that. Schumpeter was great on entrepreneurship and innovation, but his business cycle theory is no as sound (nor was it as mainstream) as Hayek. Hayek was the main counterbalance to Keynes at that point. Keynes won with the appeal of “doing something” as well as Hayek’s withdrawl from the debate after concluding that Keynes wasn’t likely to even adhere to the General Theory, having ditched his former Treatise on Money. That was unfortunate.
Anyway. It’s not really about what some dead and possibly defunct economist said. It’s about what really happens. What really happens is that inflation pushes up production goods prices (remember copper prices in 2005 or flash developer salaries in 1999?). That inflation squeezes out the profit as the cheap money ends.
And if the cheap money doesn’t end? Hyperinflation.
Keynes was brilliant on inflation, before he sold out to his political buddies:
http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2009/08/keynes-paul-krugman-of-roosevelt.html
Maybe you are right the future will tell, the prognosis is not good. I don´t attack the markets I attack the lack quality of the products they produce. I am not an economist and that is why sometimes I have a hard time to explain what I feel is wrong. I think it is wrong for Monsanto for example to mess with the cows in order to produce more milk when it has been proven that its bad for your health. I believe that it is wrong to continue using combustion engines. I believe that the bankers that are guilty of the economic mess you are in should be prosecuted. I believe that the desinformation produced by media moguls like fox should be curtailed because it is not healthy for a society to relay on the information owned by a sole and centralized group that works for the big corporations. I believe that the FDA shouldn´t be at the service of big pharma.
Going green is not an option it is an unavoidable fact. Either you invent news ways of creating the energy you need or we will be in real trouble.
Maybe you are right the future will tell, the prognosis is not good. I don´t attack the markets I attack the lack quality of the products they produce. I am not an economist and that is why sometimes I have a hard time to explain what I feel is wrong. I think it is wrong for Monsanto for example to mess with the cows in order to produce more milk when it has been proven that its bad for your health. I believe that it is wrong to continue using combustion engines. I believe that the bankers that are guilty of the economic mess you are in should be prosecuted. I believe that the desinformation produced by media moguls like fox should be curtailed because it is not healthy for a society to relay on the information owned by a sole and centralized group that works for the big corporations. I believe that the FDA shouldn´t be at the service of big pharma.
Going green is not an option it is an unavoidable fact. Either you invent news ways of creating the energy you need or we will be in real trouble.
I am not against capitalism or freedom of speech I am against malfeasance.
I am not against capitalism or freedom of speech I am against malfeasance.
We are on the same team in that fight, my friend.
We are on the same team in that fight, my friend.
What have you learned so far?
What have you learned so far?
What have you learned so far?
What have you learned so far?
Heh.
I’ve learned that this is a dedicated group. And the following:
#1. They don’t seem to appreciate the role of incentives and rational calculation that relative prices play. Instead the dominant opinion about prices is that they’re just too high for all kinds of things and should be lowered by… well… government in some form.
#2. There is undue trust in a democratic political process to make resource allocation decisions based on some fairly person and arbitrary ideas of the “public good” as if what’s in the “public good” is homogenous and discoverable through politics.
#3. There’s some disturbing beliefs about conscription that I can’t square with any sense of liberalism as I understand it.
#4. There isn’t much talk of institutional structures that can best serve a sustainable society, such as constitutional rule of law. Much more pie-in-the-sky ideas that if we just had the “right” people making the “right” decisions, we’d be better off.
#5. There’s an ongoing talk of market failure amid enormous evidence of government policy failure on the fiscal, monetary and regulatory front.
#6. There is no real sense of Public Choice Theory, and the reality that there’s no difference between the political actors and the wall streeters. They’re both self interested. The politicians just have violence-backed monopoly power and they use it to collude with the banksters in a quid-pro-quo arrangement.
#7. Lots of protectionism, malthusian resource scarcity talk, and anthropomorphism of nations into beings that compete with each other. International trade is treated like a zero sum game when it most clearly is not. We’re not in a race. “China” isn’t going to “win”.
That’s what I’ve gathered so far.
Again, I have lots of respect for this group. Genuinely.
Heh.
I’ve learned that this is a dedicated group. And the following:
#1. They don’t seem to appreciate the role of incentives and rational calculation that relative prices play. Instead the dominant opinion about prices is that they’re just too high for all kinds of things and should be lowered by… well… government in some form.
#2. There is undue trust in a democratic political process to make resource allocation decisions based on some fairly person and arbitrary ideas of the “public good” as if what’s in the “public good” is homogenous and discoverable through politics.
#3. There’s some disturbing beliefs about conscription that I can’t square with any sense of liberalism as I understand it.
#4. There isn’t much talk of institutional structures that can best serve a sustainable society, such as constitutional rule of law. Much more pie-in-the-sky ideas that if we just had the “right” people making the “right” decisions, we’d be better off.
#5. There’s an ongoing talk of market failure amid enormous evidence of government policy failure on the fiscal, monetary and regulatory front.
#6. There is no real sense of Public Choice Theory, and the reality that there’s no difference between the political actors and the wall streeters. They’re both self interested. The politicians just have violence-backed monopoly power and they use it to collude with the banksters in a quid-pro-quo arrangement.
#7. Lots of protectionism, malthusian resource scarcity talk, and anthropomorphism of nations into beings that compete with each other. International trade is treated like a zero sum game when it most clearly is not. We’re not in a race. “China” isn’t going to “win”.
That’s what I’ve gathered so far.
Again, I have lots of respect for this group. Genuinely.
Heh.
I’ve learned that this is a dedicated group. And the following:
#1. They don’t seem to appreciate the role of incentives and rational calculation that relative prices play. Instead the dominant opinion about prices is that they’re just too high for all kinds of things and should be lowered by… well… government in some form.
#2. There is undue trust in a democratic political process to make resource allocation decisions based on some fairly person and arbitrary ideas of the “public good” as if what’s in the “public good” is homogenous and discoverable through politics.
#3. There’s some disturbing beliefs about conscription that I can’t square with any sense of liberalism as I understand it.
#4. There isn’t much talk of institutional structures that can best serve a sustainable society, such as constitutional rule of law. Much more pie-in-the-sky ideas that if we just had the “right” people making the “right” decisions, we’d be better off.
#5. There’s an ongoing talk of market failure amid enormous evidence of government policy failure on the fiscal, monetary and regulatory front.
#6. There is no real sense of Public Choice Theory, and the reality that there’s no difference between the political actors and the wall streeters. They’re both self interested. The politicians just have violence-backed monopoly power and they use it to collude with the banksters in a quid-pro-quo arrangement.
#7. Lots of protectionism, malthusian resource scarcity talk, and anthropomorphism of nations into beings that compete with each other. International trade is treated like a zero sum game when it most clearly is not. We’re not in a race. “China” isn’t going to “win”.
That’s what I’ve gathered so far.
Again, I have lots of respect for this group. Genuinely.
Heh.
I’ve learned that this is a dedicated group. And the following:
#1. They don’t seem to appreciate the role of incentives and rational calculation that relative prices play. Instead the dominant opinion about prices is that they’re just too high for all kinds of things and should be lowered by… well… government in some form.
#2. There is undue trust in a democratic political process to make resource allocation decisions based on some fairly person and arbitrary ideas of the “public good” as if what’s in the “public good” is homogenous and discoverable through politics.
#3. There’s some disturbing beliefs about conscription that I can’t square with any sense of liberalism as I understand it.
#4. There isn’t much talk of institutional structures that can best serve a sustainable society, such as constitutional rule of law. Much more pie-in-the-sky ideas that if we just had the “right” people making the “right” decisions, we’d be better off.
#5. There’s an ongoing talk of market failure amid enormous evidence of government policy failure on the fiscal, monetary and regulatory front.
#6. There is no real sense of Public Choice Theory, and the reality that there’s no difference between the political actors and the wall streeters. They’re both self interested. The politicians just have violence-backed monopoly power and they use it to collude with the banksters in a quid-pro-quo arrangement.
#7. Lots of protectionism, malthusian resource scarcity talk, and anthropomorphism of nations into beings that compete with each other. International trade is treated like a zero sum game when it most clearly is not. We’re not in a race. “China” isn’t going to “win”.
That’s what I’ve gathered so far.
Again, I have lots of respect for this group. Genuinely.
They told us the same thing about our first vinyls. We went to the warehouse and showed them the pallet where they were sitting.
There is no cure for incompetence except initiative.
They told us the same thing about our first vinyls. We went to the warehouse and showed them the pallet where they were sitting.
There is no cure for incompetence except initiative.
They told us the same thing about our first vinyls. We went to the warehouse and showed them the pallet where they were sitting.
There is no cure for incompetence except initiative.
They told us the same thing about our first vinyls. We went to the warehouse and showed them the pallet where they were sitting.
There is no cure for incompetence except initiative.
Well I just want you to now that I too am a libertine. And I have no respect for this group.
I won’t until they make me laugh.
Well I just want you to now that I too am a libertine. And I have no respect for this group.
I won’t until they make me laugh.
Well I just want you to now that I too am a libertine. And I have no respect for this group.
I won’t until they make me laugh.
And please be more specific.
And please be more specific.
And please be more specific.
BTW, because you brought up the myths of Internet emergence and private industry, do give this a read:
http://www.xmltoday.org/content/coming-html-5-train-wreck
There was a chance of getting it right but by 1994, that was lost to the very forces you believe in. It’s kudzu now.
BTW, because you brought up the myths of Internet emergence and private industry, do give this a read:
http://www.xmltoday.org/content/coming-html-5-train-wreck
There was a chance of getting it right but by 1994, that was lost to the very forces you believe in. It’s kudzu now.
BTW, because you brought up the myths of Internet emergence and private industry, do give this a read:
http://www.xmltoday.org/content/coming-html-5-train-wreck
There was a chance of getting it right but by 1994, that was lost to the very forces you believe in. It’s kudzu now.
BTW, because you brought up the myths of Internet emergence and private industry, do give this a read:
http://www.xmltoday.org/content/coming-html-5-train-wreck
There was a chance of getting it right but by 1994, that was lost to the very forces you believe in. It’s kudzu now.
I guess malfeasance must be like pornography, not definable but you know it when you see it.
I guess malfeasance must be like pornography, not definable but you know it when you see it.
I guess malfeasance must be like pornography, not definable but you know it when you see it.
We have courts. They seem to work reasonably well. They took care of Enron pretty well.
When it comes to Wall St and the big labor unions, though, the rule of law goes out the window and the taxpayer ponies up. That’s malfeasance if I’ve ever seen it.
We have courts. They seem to work reasonably well. They took care of Enron pretty well.
When it comes to Wall St and the big labor unions, though, the rule of law goes out the window and the taxpayer ponies up. That’s malfeasance if I’ve ever seen it.
We have courts. They seem to work reasonably well. They took care of Enron pretty well.
When it comes to Wall St and the big labor unions, though, the rule of law goes out the window and the taxpayer ponies up. That’s malfeasance if I’ve ever seen it.
We have courts. They seem to work reasonably well. They took care of Enron pretty well.
When it comes to Wall St and the big labor unions, though, the rule of law goes out the window and the taxpayer ponies up. That’s malfeasance if I’ve ever seen it.
Did the losers of retirement funds in the Enron case get repaid? A refereee cannot unthrow an illegal punch.
I agree that bailing out bad banks is bad business if the same people are running them afterwards and giving themselves bonuses to boot. No consequences; no change in behavior.
Did the losers of retirement funds in the Enron case get repaid? A refereee cannot unthrow an illegal punch.
I agree that bailing out bad banks is bad business if the same people are running them afterwards and giving themselves bonuses to boot. No consequences; no change in behavior.
Did the losers of retirement funds in the Enron case get repaid? A refereee cannot unthrow an illegal punch.
I agree that bailing out bad banks is bad business if the same people are running them afterwards and giving themselves bonuses to boot. No consequences; no change in behavior.
Did the losers of retirement funds in the Enron case get repaid? A refereee cannot unthrow an illegal punch.
I agree that bailing out bad banks is bad business if the same people are running them afterwards and giving themselves bonuses to boot. No consequences; no change in behavior.
So “the courts” dealt with Enron? So let’s see what “the courts” do with Jeff Skilling’s appeal. Your faith in “constitutional rule of law” is touching to this particular cynic, who practiced law inside the government and on the other side for 26 years. And illustrative once again of magical thinking, that if only people would behave the way you say they are supposed to behave, then they would behave correctly and in accordance with their own interests and that this would somehow result in a better world, whatever that means.
Want a nice example of people pursuing their self interest? How about it now appears at least to Interpol that the “Somali pirates” are really sub-franchisees of “The Mob”?
You have your rocking horse, I have mine: When it comes to a nice simple model for what’s screwed up with humanity when we start to “organize” into competing businesses (or states, for that matter) that have no notion of symbiosis or how to achieve stability, you got all that stuff about keynesianism and voluntary exchanges and what ever, I got (once again, and please read this whole link, it’s pretty short) The Beer Game, which sums up how every economic form actually works.
So “the courts” dealt with Enron? So let’s see what “the courts” do with Jeff Skilling’s appeal. Your faith in “constitutional rule of law” is touching to this particular cynic, who practiced law inside the government and on the other side for 26 years. And illustrative once again of magical thinking, that if only people would behave the way you say they are supposed to behave, then they would behave correctly and in accordance with their own interests and that this would somehow result in a better world, whatever that means.
Want a nice example of people pursuing their self interest? How about it now appears at least to Interpol that the “Somali pirates” are really sub-franchisees of “The Mob”?
You have your rocking horse, I have mine: When it comes to a nice simple model for what’s screwed up with humanity when we start to “organize” into competing businesses (or states, for that matter) that have no notion of symbiosis or how to achieve stability, you got all that stuff about keynesianism and voluntary exchanges and what ever, I got (once again, and please read this whole link, it’s pretty short) The Beer Game, which sums up how every economic form actually works.
So “the courts” dealt with Enron? So let’s see what “the courts” do with Jeff Skilling’s appeal. Your faith in “constitutional rule of law” is touching to this particular cynic, who practiced law inside the government and on the other side for 26 years. And illustrative once again of magical thinking, that if only people would behave the way you say they are supposed to behave, then they would behave correctly and in accordance with their own interests and that this would somehow result in a better world, whatever that means.
Want a nice example of people pursuing their self interest? How about it now appears at least to Interpol that the “Somali pirates” are really sub-franchisees of “The Mob”?
You have your rocking horse, I have mine: When it comes to a nice simple model for what’s screwed up with humanity when we start to “organize” into competing businesses (or states, for that matter) that have no notion of symbiosis or how to achieve stability, you got all that stuff about keynesianism and voluntary exchanges and what ever, I got (once again, and please read this whole link, it’s pretty short) The Beer Game, which sums up how every economic form actually works.
So “the courts” dealt with Enron? So let’s see what “the courts” do with Jeff Skilling’s appeal. Your faith in “constitutional rule of law” is touching to this particular cynic, who practiced law inside the government and on the other side for 26 years. And illustrative once again of magical thinking, that if only people would behave the way you say they are supposed to behave, then they would behave correctly and in accordance with their own interests and that this would somehow result in a better world, whatever that means.
Want a nice example of people pursuing their self interest? How about it now appears at least to Interpol that the “Somali pirates” are really sub-franchisees of “The Mob”?
You have your rocking horse, I have mine: When it comes to a nice simple model for what’s screwed up with humanity when we start to “organize” into competing businesses (or states, for that matter) that have no notion of symbiosis or how to achieve stability, you got all that stuff about keynesianism and voluntary exchanges and what ever, I got (once again, and please read this whole link, it’s pretty short) The Beer Game, which sums up how every economic form actually works.
John Papola- You keep talking about the dangers of inflation. When was the last time that inflation was a real worry in our economy? 1983? WTF
John Papola- You keep talking about the dangers of inflation. When was the last time that inflation was a real worry in our economy? 1983? WTF
John Papola- You keep talking about the dangers of inflation. When was the last time that inflation was a real worry in our economy? 1983? WTF
John Papola- You keep talking about the dangers of inflation. When was the last time that inflation was a real worry in our economy? 1983? WTF
“WTF”.
Okay. Jon, have you seen the price of gold? Have you seen the renewed runup on commodity prices?I an nit the only one who beloved inflation is a medium term concern.
Did you know why the Fed is paying banks interest in order to hold onto their reserves? Inflation concerns.
The reason for concern is because the enormous increase in bank reserves have the potential to expand rapidly into a significant inflationary expansion as these firms start to lend again. For now, the combination of a low money multiplier and slower velocity of transactions is leaving the total money impact muted.
If you think we can’t get high inflation with “slack capacity” I invite you to check out the macro stats on Iceland or the history in south america.
The fed failed. Early on, the mistook an insolvency for a liquidity crisis. Then, after coming on tv an freaking everyone out, they stood by and failed to adequately expand for genuine liquidity crisis, leaving rates at 2% and paying interest on reserves as nominal GDP was falling off a cliff.
Scott Summer and George Selgin have the most compelling monetary analysis and I am paraphrasing it here.
I don’t really understand what your analysis is, Jon. It appears to be “we need central planning on green energy and infrastructure aka WPA 2″. But that is nonsensical because of the public choice incentive problems I have laid out repeatedly and the deficit financing.
Our deficits are driving the dollar out of foreigners hands. That is going to put upward pressure on rates even as a weak dollars help exports. Government spendin and massive policy uncertainty is the enemy of recovery right now.
So far, given the failure of stimulus 1 and 2, and the immoral bailouts, my aide has the high ground if not the popular ground.
Thanks for engaging directly. I’d like to hear a bit more detail on your conception of the mechanics of recovery because the posts so far are mostly good links and data with thin and unconvincing ideas (build more solar!!! For example).
“WTF”.
Okay. Jon, have you seen the price of gold? Have you seen the renewed runup on commodity prices?I an nit the only one who beloved inflation is a medium term concern.
Did you know why the Fed is paying banks interest in order to hold onto their reserves? Inflation concerns.
The reason for concern is because the enormous increase in bank reserves have the potential to expand rapidly into a significant inflationary expansion as these firms start to lend again. For now, the combination of a low money multiplier and slower velocity of transactions is leaving the total money impact muted.
If you think we can’t get high inflation with “slack capacity” I invite you to check out the macro stats on Iceland or the history in south america.
The fed failed. Early on, the mistook an insolvency for a liquidity crisis. Then, after coming on tv an freaking everyone out, they stood by and failed to adequately expand for genuine liquidity crisis, leaving rates at 2% and paying interest on reserves as nominal GDP was falling off a cliff.
Scott Summer and George Selgin have the most compelling monetary analysis and I am paraphrasing it here.
I don’t really understand what your analysis is, Jon. It appears to be “we need central planning on green energy and infrastructure aka WPA 2″. But that is nonsensical because of the public choice incentive problems I have laid out repeatedly and the deficit financing.
Our deficits are driving the dollar out of foreigners hands. That is going to put upward pressure on rates even as a weak dollars help exports. Government spendin and massive policy uncertainty is the enemy of recovery right now.
So far, given the failure of stimulus 1 and 2, and the immoral bailouts, my aide has the high ground if not the popular ground.
Thanks for engaging directly. I’d like to hear a bit more detail on your conception of the mechanics of recovery because the posts so far are mostly good links and data with thin and unconvincing ideas (build more solar!!! For example).
“WTF”.
Okay. Jon, have you seen the price of gold? Have you seen the renewed runup on commodity prices?I an nit the only one who beloved inflation is a medium term concern.
Did you know why the Fed is paying banks interest in order to hold onto their reserves? Inflation concerns.
The reason for concern is because the enormous increase in bank reserves have the potential to expand rapidly into a significant inflationary expansion as these firms start to lend again. For now, the combination of a low money multiplier and slower velocity of transactions is leaving the total money impact muted.
If you think we can’t get high inflation with “slack capacity” I invite you to check out the macro stats on Iceland or the history in south america.
The fed failed. Early on, the mistook an insolvency for a liquidity crisis. Then, after coming on tv an freaking everyone out, they stood by and failed to adequately expand for genuine liquidity crisis, leaving rates at 2% and paying interest on reserves as nominal GDP was falling off a cliff.
Scott Summer and George Selgin have the most compelling monetary analysis and I am paraphrasing it here.
I don’t really understand what your analysis is, Jon. It appears to be “we need central planning on green energy and infrastructure aka WPA 2″. But that is nonsensical because of the public choice incentive problems I have laid out repeatedly and the deficit financing.
Our deficits are driving the dollar out of foreigners hands. That is going to put upward pressure on rates even as a weak dollars help exports. Government spendin and massive policy uncertainty is the enemy of recovery right now.
So far, given the failure of stimulus 1 and 2, and the immoral bailouts, my aide has the high ground if not the popular ground.
Thanks for engaging directly. I’d like to hear a bit more detail on your conception of the mechanics of recovery because the posts so far are mostly good links and data with thin and unconvincing ideas (build more solar!!! For example).
“WTF”.
Okay. Jon, have you seen the price of gold? Have you seen the renewed runup on commodity prices?I an nit the only one who beloved inflation is a medium term concern.
Did you know why the Fed is paying banks interest in order to hold onto their reserves? Inflation concerns.
The reason for concern is because the enormous increase in bank reserves have the potential to expand rapidly into a significant inflationary expansion as these firms start to lend again. For now, the combination of a low money multiplier and slower velocity of transactions is leaving the total money impact muted.
If you think we can’t get high inflation with “slack capacity” I invite you to check out the macro stats on Iceland or the history in south america.
The fed failed. Early on, the mistook an insolvency for a liquidity crisis. Then, after coming on tv an freaking everyone out, they stood by and failed to adequately expand for genuine liquidity crisis, leaving rates at 2% and paying interest on reserves as nominal GDP was falling off a cliff.
Scott Summer and George Selgin have the most compelling monetary analysis and I am paraphrasing it here.
I don’t really understand what your analysis is, Jon. It appears to be “we need central planning on green energy and infrastructure aka WPA 2″. But that is nonsensical because of the public choice incentive problems I have laid out repeatedly and the deficit financing.
Our deficits are driving the dollar out of foreigners hands. That is going to put upward pressure on rates even as a weak dollars help exports. Government spendin and massive policy uncertainty is the enemy of recovery right now.
So far, given the failure of stimulus 1 and 2, and the immoral bailouts, my aide has the high ground if not the popular ground.
Thanks for engaging directly. I’d like to hear a bit more detail on your conception of the mechanics of recovery because the posts so far are mostly good links and data with thin and unconvincing ideas (build more solar!!! For example).
Here’s a link to that VF piece, for those who are interested.
It’s great, by the way.
Here’s a link to that VF piece, for those who are interested.
It’s great, by the way.
Here’s a link to that VF piece, for those who are interested.
It’s great, by the way.
Here’s a link to that VF piece, for those who are interested.
It’s great, by the way.
That made me laugh.
That made me laugh.
> They took care of Enron pretty well.
It would be nicer to avoid the losses caused by fraud and pathetic regulation before they occur though.
> They took care of Enron pretty well.
It would be nicer to avoid the losses caused by fraud and pathetic regulation before they occur though.
> They took care of Enron pretty well.
It would be nicer to avoid the losses caused by fraud and pathetic regulation before they occur though.
I understand that the research in new ways of producing energy is well advanced the same way that there are cures for cancer but somehow they have been killed by the big corporation. Why would you want to cure cancer when a patient represent at least 100.000 $. The same goes for energy and engines that work on 80% water and 20% gas. I am sure if we start really inquiring we will find a lot of inventions blocked by industries that cannot afford the changes. That´s the where the real problem is.
We are fighting against status quo.
Obsolete notions repeated ad vomitum. Products that make you sick and banks that steal you blind.
Who do you trust anymore. Your doctor your banker your news. Hey man new voices have to come to surface, enough of that left and right shit.
“mechanics of recovery”
Are we kind of mired in the kind of thinking that apparently posits that all that’s needed now is a roadmap or, in medical parlance, a “treatment plan,” leading to “recovery,” as if there has not been something equivalent to a major stroke here, such that the patient is never going to “recover?”
And what’s the point of ‘recovering,” anyway, if it’s just to grow back into a frantic consumerism void of citizenship, busily eating more of our collective future for a good time in the now? To have another bite at the apple, to prove that libertarian economic theories can somehow influence the behaviors of hundreds of millions, even billions, of people, under the guise of merely allowing expression of the latent real wishes of all those folks that have been frustrated by all the machinations and policies of all those other sef-interest-pursuing, voluntary-exchange folks?
I’m looking for a place in a community where there’s a sense of common purpose and shared values and willingness to actually really work to put real food on the table built to last 100 years (remember, I think Warstler said that tables built to last 100 years were sinful violations of some duty or other to roll-over-consume) and people look each other in the eye, a place devoid of “policy.” My bet is that is where the survival of the species reposes, if anywhere.
Human in the loop (arrogance) and tasty poison (subprime mortgages and credit swaps).
Not exactly a new tale.
ere is an appropriate place to insert a quote from Machiavelli:
“And one should bear in mind that there is nothing more difficult to execute, nor more dubious of success, nor more dangerous to administer than to introduce a new system of things: for he who introduces it has all those who profit from the old system as his enemies, and he has only lukewarm allies in all those who might profit from the new system. This lukewarmness partly stems from fear of their adversaries, who have the law on their side, and partly from the skepticism of men who do not truly believe in new things unless they have actually had personal experience of them.”[26]
Great quote, Bernard. So true.
What I think of here is the fact that there is no “general interest” on the realm of government spending. Only special interests to concentrate benefits while a general taxpayer from which to extract costs.
There is an other one for you :
“The purpose of the international conspiracy is to maintain a workable stability among the nations of the world and for them, in turn, to retain institutional control over their restive populations. Thus, for these governments to admit that there may be…technological capabilities obviously far superior…could, once fully perceived by the average person, erode the foundations of earth’s traditional power structure. Political and legal systems, religious, economic and social institutions could all soon become meaningless in the mind of the public. The national oligarchical establishments, even civilization as we know it, would collapse into anarchy. Such extreme conclusions are not necessarily valid, but they probably accurately reflect the fears of the ‘ruling classes’ of the major nations, whose leaders (particularly in the intelligence business) have always advocated excessive governmental secrecy as being necessary to ‘preserve national security.’ The real reason for the secrecy is, of course, to keep the public uninformed, misinformed, and, therefore malleable.”[28]
no comments :
http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Eugene_Mallove
I’m the farthest thing from an economist, but in view of this scary chart, why does the U.S. not front-load its “stimulus” in R&D?
AMEN Hugo
So-called “stimulus” isn’t a ton of things because it is an intellectually bankrupt, empirically proven failure,which is used entirely for political payoffs to marginal voting blocks.
Every single element of this policy is a complete farce and demonstrable failure.
But don’t worry. Paul Krugman said we needed more like 2 trillion so he has his out and he’s already using it. They always say “we just didn’t go far enough”. Keynesian stimulus will forever be a unicorn last seen during WWII (not really).
Consumerism, debt and war. That’s the Keynesian corporatist state and that’s the root of “stimulus”.
Hugo, we have done that…
R & D actually means Rewards for the Despicable…or Right and Dumb…or Rape and Destroy…
Aww, Rick, come on. Are you serious? Really?
Are you really down on American R&D? You think it’s a bad idea? A waste?
By the way: We have NOT done that. Not by a long shot. If you think otherwise, then show me.
Gee, the quickest way to “spend” all that Funny Stimulus Steal-From-The-Future Munny is to hand it over to DARPA and the military contractors who already have so many ways to compendiously turn green into gore, just waiting for appropriations to turn them loose. and of course we can get a few billion into circulation by resurrecting zombies like the F-22 line and V-22s for short-haul executive transport (What’s that? Wily execs don’t want to use Crash-By-Wire Airlines?)
And gee willikers, “we” could really use some new Autonomous Battle Robots with the self-repair functions already under development, and there’s lots of opportunities for out-of-work US code writers to try to figure out how to keep these things from shooting up Friendly Humans…
JP
“So-called “stimulus” isn’t a ton of things because it is an intellectually bankrupt, empirically proven failure, which is used entirely for political payoffs to marginal voting blocks.”
Spot on. I think the same applies to the “miracle” stock market rally we’ve witnessed since March.
I heard a brief on-the-street interview yesterday; when asked how she felt about the market breaking 10,000, a woman gushed that she was “overjoyed that her stocks were finally up!”
I wonder how she would have responded if she realized the “miracle” was due in large part to political vs. economic constructs. My friend the auto mechanic made this observation while having breakfast this morning. If he’s figured it out, it’s only a matter of time before the bottom falls out of the rally.
Despite the buzz, this will not end well. jobs, Jobs, JOBS and homes, Homes, HOMES will be needed next Nov, not health care reform and 401K returns.
Why would it be DARPA can it be a general fund for all Universities and research labs ? can it go to the higher education budget or something like that, I dont know how it works but there must a way for inventors and researchers at a civilian level to be able to bring forward their finds without falling into the burocracy. Just an idea.
Thanks, John.
As I wrote on my blog (valkayec.wordpress.com), I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
Congress by lobbyists, the thing that makes me most angry is the current inability to listen to each other to resolve our problems.
I do believe that the market could solve many of the financial problems we face today. But the game has been rigged by a few big players. Like you, I’m ready to get rid of “too big to fail” banks. They should be broken up now, but they’re pouring so much money into Congress that not only will they not be broken up, the new rules under discussion in the House permits even more loopholes for the financial industry to slip through.
As for my idea of a health care of a public option, I’ve always thought it should be like the co-ops but larger. Unless the bill has changed, the co-ops can only organize within a single state. I don’t think that will allow a large enough pool of members to offset risk – spread the risk – to be viable financially without having a large influx of federal dollars. If the co-ops could be opened up to a larger geography or nationally, the risk could be spread far enough that prices could be held down. Nevertheless, I am in favor of non-profit, purchaser paid, purchaser run insurance plan which in not funded by or run by the fed. government. Well, maybe a bit of seed money to get it up and running.
I just don’t see these kinds of thoughts occurring on Capital Hill.
Capital Hill is right. I think you have just summarized the thing as concisely as possible.
Oh, pooh. Lost half a sentence.
I meant : Other than the enormous flow of money to influence Congress by lobbyists….
Well said, Valerie Curl, but why the bad language?
I look forward to the day when we build a green, zero-emissions energy infrastructure using technology designed here and built in China. That will allow billionaires to get the lowest possible price, so they can become trillionaires, and it will let China put backdoor links into our networked energy grid so that they can pull the plug any time they want, leaving millions of unemployed Americans in the dark.
That will be awesome!
Dan,
I write in the interest of your eternal soul. Turn your hilarious talents toward The Light before it is too late!
just thought I’d throw in this little link for those placing their bets on the magical unicorn of “green jobs”:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/10/green-jobs.html
Yeah, they’re an impoverishing farce.