? how so ?

For the people who hate him and anything and everything he does maybe. As for me...

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

The bitch the former admin had in charge of the Department of Education tried to fuck me and everyone else who upheld their end of a 10 year contract to teach in inner city schools, with Joe Biden and im proud to say my own state rep

PASSED THROUGH BOTH HOUSES
SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT
NOW IT'S LAW
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s848
Thanks to passing this, now the republican's aren't going to reneg on a 10 year agreement and turn that shit basically into a huge extra debt for me. That's good. Not to mention the recent ruling with predatory lending practices through NAVIENT. I been making double/triple payments on a student loan through them and still not cracked the principle balance for some reason. (the reason is, what they were doing is criminal) (thanks biden!)


PASSED THROUGH BOTH HOUSES
SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT
NOW IT'S LAW
My brother became addicted to opioids after a tendon replacement in his heel. Almost OD'd- Biden signed / passed a bill to combat that https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr4981

Thanks Biden!!!


>PASSED THROUGH BOTH HOUSES
SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT
NOW IT'S LAW
My daughter's rare neurodegenerative disease received funding to continue to study to treat and help prevent it in the future. That's good. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr3537/text

Thanks Biden!!!


>PASSED THROUGH BOTH HOUSES
SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT
NOW IT'S LAW
The American Rescue Plan https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr1319

Thanks Biden!!!


>PASSED THROUGH BOTH HOUSES
SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT
NOW IT'S LAW
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr3684

Thanks Biden!!!




Maybe not a good year if all your friends and fam are dying because they wear red hats instead of masks like fucking dumbasses.

Then we’re back full circle to I'm curious why you think enforcement of existing usury laws (without special rules for those who bribe enough) is the same as new building codes. Removing the special rules for predatory lending companies simplifies the law, it doesn’t complicate it like new, often contradictory building codes (that seem to be being used as an excuse for slow work by his contractor).
I feel like you’re comparing apples to brisket.

I think you mean they wouldn't have to pay you the interest. They would have to pay you back the principal. And that would be under specific cases and usually when no contract is involved, also all depends on where you live.

Also, I don't think either Bill's building codes are "new" vs. the usury laws being "existing". Please cite to support.

The irony is that additional laws to stop predatory lending are, in fact, what red tape is made of, by definition. So I found it amusing that he would look at her situation, say that Nancy and team were trying to solve it for her by passing new laws, then go on to complain about all the red tape surrounding this building. That red tape exists because someone else before him saw a problem or safety issue or concern, and put yet another policy or law in place to solve it. In reality, as your posts prove, her problem was not that a predatory lender got involved in her life, but that her business was in bad shape because she had gone off the deep end and was thus losing customers.

I could easily imagine a bit where he showed a stack of papers four inches thick that he had to sign to get a loan, and complain about the processing time, then showcase an SMS based loan that works in another country and funds in one day.

I agree with everything you just wrote.

The only thing that I would point out is the media is biased as Jon Stewart put it to be lazy, and to generate conflict, but it will spin what is going on in society either conservative or liberal to get out of real reporting, and to be sensational. Anything they can do to get people to consume said media is fair game. That laziness falls on both sides of the political spectrum media wide. And it doesn't help when society tunes out when the story isn't something that elicits an emotional response, or doesn't have a simple lesson or solution. Nuance and complexity is something most Americans abhor.

Case in point, when is the last time you saw something on the news that showed how many IT jobs are given to people with work visas, and compare that to how many people are graduating college with computer science degrees to illustrate that portion of outsourcing? I don't think I've ever seen that presented in the news. That point is very hard to pin as conservative or liberal because solutions to remedy it could come from both parties. And there's no easily identified villian, either. So instead, let's paint the big bad evil corporations for outsourcing in general because that's easy to report on, throw some basic generalized stats up about number of jobs outsourced, show corporate profits increasing, and do people love to consume that kind of story. I see that left and right in IT. I know friends who see it left and right in other sections of the economy like bioengineering, etc. But it never gets reported on. These are the jobs and sectors that will be growing in the modern economy, and we as a nation are doing a poor job preparing the next generations to succeed in them, no question about it.

Or conversely, if you love you some Fox News, let's focus on the fact that there's this agency called Planned Parenthood, that is in part funded by federal tax dollars, and it performs abortions! OMG! This must be this huge problem! Only, if you're a sane individual, you'd normally then want to know how much of this is going on, and you quickly realize the number of abortions that are performed in these facilities is under 100 annually nationwide, and it's dubious at best if federal dollars actually paid for any of those procedures. But finding those statistics is either purposefully omitted to sensationalize and stir up conflict, or done so out of sheer laziness. But conservative Americans eat that stuff up, because it's easy for them to follow, clearly identifiable villians, and fits their ideological narrative of the US crumbling from disregarding "traditional values". The facts of course clearly show this isn't a significant problem.

Back to the housing crisis, etc, the truth is there's blame to go around with the banks, government, and consumers. I also have a friend who took on a mortgage he shouldn't have. Got an 80/20, he's a single income earner, wife is in the process of getting a degree in nursing, they have two kids. In 2006, they got this big massive house in a brand new neighborhood. It's the American dream. Now, it's not like this guy is dumb. He took out $400,000 mortgages (80/20), very high interest, etc. on a single income, knowing full well his wife was going to school, and he didn't have an emergency fund to speak of.

I don't care what he was told by the lenders and real estate agent - he had no one to blame but himself in the end. He had a perfectly good house in a good neighborhood already. He just bought a new car as well. He had credit card debt. He wasn't putting much money away for retirement either. There's nothing anyone can say but "it's your fault" when the economy tanked in 2008, we both worked for the same company, and they cut our salaries to avoid layoffs. I'd have been sympathetic if he were doing the basics right, had a good emergency fund, could put a good 20% down for the mortgage, had no credit card debt, etc., then got caught later despite his best efforts, or lacked the mental capability to know he was walking into a potential economic deathtrap. But he wasn't putting forth anywhere close to a best effort financially speaking. When the same thing happened to me, I cut back on paying my mortgage off early, and sat on a six months emergency fund if the layoff ever came, and increased my retirement contributions when the market tanked to jumpstart it when the market would inevitably rebounded. There was never a sleepless night.

He's in better shape now, we got our salaries put back, and what did he do? Took that several year "postponed" trip to Disneyworld with the wife and kids, put off contributing to the reinstituted 401k, never has started an IRA for him or his wife, no college fund for the kids, only has one month emergency fund, although he has reduced his credit card balances.

I wouldn't pretend to know which is worse in the US - predatory lending and other abuses by businesses against consumers, or a complete lack of personal responsibility. But I know this - there's plenty of both, but you certainly don't hear it's both from pretty much any media outlet.

---
I can only work with proven results, not what others want things to be or theorize is possible. Obamanomics has failed to deliver prosperity, and this may be because increasing prosperity is not what it's designed to do. It could be working beautifully if its goal is to increase dependency on government and curtail American influence worldwide.

REAL American unemployment is currently 18%, not the BS that D.C. is spouting. 2 to 3% more wouldn't even register with the crew in D.C.
---

You cannot 'prove' anything in a social science. What you can do is historically look at past crises and see what worked and what didn't.

Financial crises historically have high levels of unemployment following them. This is because as in this case for the US, consumers have overspent and must spend years rebuilding their savings levels. As they rebuild them, demand is low, the demand for employees is low, and there is relatively higher unemployment.

This is historically accurate for Latin America's debt crisis in 1982, the 1990 asset bubble bust in Japan and so far entirely consistent for the financial crisis in the US.

The way you label fiscal stimulus as Obamanomics leads me to believe you think that his policies are idiosynchractic and unique. They are not. Virtually every country in the world hit by the global financial crisis has enacted the same combination of direct spending, lower taxes and looser monetary policy. You would be well advised to be aware of this.

Also, despite what you may claim, the fact that unemployment is high and has risen under Obama is not evidence that his policies have not worked. In fact again there is historical evidence to suggest the US has fared better than other countries. See the first graph below:

http://www.economist.com/node/17041738

Unemployment is measured by virtually all countries as the number of unemployed out of the proportion actively seeking work. Yes, this is not an accurate measure when previous employees have been discouraged from looking for work and have dropped out, but it is consistent with most measures used internationally.

---
Though the government obviously denies it, the origins of this financial crisis were largely the fault of government policies and meddling.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

----Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury

Keynesian economic theory does not work. It mistakes action for results. Despite enormous spending (which began as Bush was sunsetting) Obamanomics hasn't created any jobs, unless you count the temporary kick of the useless Census.

The American people have the wealth and are indeed holding onto it. There are 2 trillion dollars in assets waiting to rejoin the economy. So why don't people jump in again?

No sane business is going to invest heavily or hire workers with our leftists in power, threatening to tax everything in sight and "punish" profits. This current govt--even with the coming Republicans in January--also offers no stability or confidence, and I don't expect this to change anytime soon.

The current US Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat, and well before they installed the SOB they knew he was a tax cheat. Does it get any more obvious the lack of integrity and disdain for the public harbored by the crew in DC.
---

I agree that the financial crisis has much to do with government meddling. Policymakers in the US have historically encouraged the quintessential notion of homeownership frivolously and irresponsibly. At the other end equally though, predatory lending exacerbated the issue. Left to their own devices, banks knew full well that they could generate huge returns by lending, and then selling off those financial assets to wipe themselves clean of risk. They also knew that if worst came to worst, the government would bail them out as they were too integral to the functioning of the world economy. Both less intervention and more regulation was necessary to prevent what happened.

Either of these 2 factors in and of itself would have led to a crisis sooner than later, would you not agree?

I can't take a quote seriously that skips over text 3 times in 4 lines. For all you know, the original intent has been completely manipulated. For all you know (based on previous experience) this wasn't even SAID by who it's claimed to have been said by.

Besides, there is no evidence there. It is someone's opinion, without any facts, without any figures. Nothing to substantiate what is being said. I genuinely hope you don't rely on people's pure opinions as gospel and factcheck what you read.

Again, you are simply wrong the stimulus has not created jobs. It has created both permanent jobs by giving subsidies to industries, and temporary jobs to prevent skills loss from unemployed workers:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

Read the title of the article above.

Frankly, how is it POSSIBLE that you think it hasn't created any jobs? Where do you think the money goes? Do you think it's laundered into people's bank accounts and shipped overseas? How can you possibly think that a stimulus has not created any jobs? That the only jobs it has created are for the census is a typical right wing talking point from what I hear. Again, I implore you to consult some less idealogical sources without absolutist views.

Not to go on a tangent here, but how often have these sources you rely on information for actually lauded something that Obama has done? Do you really think it is possible that Obama has done nothing good, or let alone nothing that ideologically they would agree on? Take for example the increased drone strikes in Pakistan, relative to even Bush. This seems like a clear cut policy that right wing pundits and blogs would laud. Why is there no one mentioning this?

Or do you think that possibly, just possibly, they have an agenda or an absolutist view with which they perceive the Democrats and the left-wing that blinds them to anything that doesn't conform to their predisposed views that Democrats = bad?

Why would you want to emulate and follow the opinions of someone who cannot look at things at face value?

For your comment on why investors are not investing, they are not investing because of the debt which will worsen if taxes fall - this is historically proven as fact. But let's say for argument that taxes were drastically reduced. Demand is still low in the US though. People are still rebuilding their balance sheets. What will the multinational and wealthy corporations do with this excess revenue?

They will invest it overseas in developing markets with high growth rates. Lower taxes will be paying for growth in foreign countries. Since the money will be invested elsewhere, even less of it will be reaped back in tax revenue. Growth overseas will be rising while the US is falling further and further into debt default.

I am curious where exactly you don't agree with this logic.

I have nothing cogent to say against your notion that Democrats want to punish profits.

It does not make sense.

The buy-up of bank and auto industry stocks is being relinquished. Citibank recently bought back some of these shares, and the government made a profit. The auto industry is making a profit. There is simply no evidence that Obama wants to nationalize anything. There is no public option. The independent review committee to trim Medicare will MINIMIZE government involvement, something the right quite hypocritically, is against.

How is it not obvious that punishing profits would be bad politics? How is it not obvious that doing this would not win votes? Where is your evidence that he intends to do this? The health care plan is deficit neutral. Financial reform will reduce risk.

Will taxes have to rise? Sure, because without that, the budget will never return to neutral. This is fact. Cutting social policies by that much is not feasible. Why do you blame Obama for this and not Bush who allowed this to fester during prolonged periods of economic growth? Would you rather the problem fester while taxes are kept low and imperil the whole economy in the process? There are only those two options.

Also, I think I laid out, what is a pretty simple and logical explaining of fiscal policy, and why it works.

Where do you disagree with it?

---
Well, like you or anyone else, I'm just as likely to vote to stop the other side as promote my own. Where you live, govt is seen as a benevolent force for good. And as you can probably attest, you pay through the nose for the government services provided.

Individual > State = America

State > Individual = everywhere else

If the Republicans don't repeal or de-fund obamacare they are finished.
---

The funny this is, if I were making the same as I am not in the US, I would be paying nearly the same in taxes.

I'm a recent university grad and make 60K/year.

I pay 15% between 6-35k, and 30% between 35-60k. (4350 + 7500 = $11850)

The US income brackets are very similar.

For me they would be, 10% between 0 - $8375, 15% between $8376 - $34,000 and 25% between $34,000 - $60,000. (838 + 3844 + 6500 = 11182)

So let's see. I'm paying roughly $700 more (a bit more actually, say $1000 for argument considering the exchange rate of 0.95, but close enough) for free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidized out of hospital expenses; for generous unemployment benefits if I ever lose my job. For university cost assistance, despite the fact that I could easily pay off my university debt if I lived at home with minimal expenses in one year (It's ~25k from 5 years of study with nothing paid back yet). I hear that in the US for Ivy league schools it can be 20-30K US A YEAR. I mean that last point alone MORE THAN makes up for the difference. Frankly any of those do by themselves. I also have great job prospects being in an economy that never officially went into recession (only one quarter of negative growth) with a private sector one lined up for next year.

To sum up, I'm actually paying only 1.7% more in taxes for a WHOLE HEAP of benefits.

How is that a bad deal?

Incidentally much of our (Australia's) economic success can be attributed to good bank regulation than anything else. If you are curious I can elaborate on this.

yah there are load sof people in the UK that just dont get it ,

they dont reolise that in the end whats required ( as is almost always the case) is a ballence of goverment regulatoin to stop supe rmonoalies and welth migratoin to the super rich. and allow for a open market that is still competative through all levels .

people who think that a "free unregulated " market is the best idea are just compleaty ignorent to the realities that not everyone is on a level playing faild to start with.

its like in motersport saying IT SHOULD BE TOTALY UNREGULATED and what you would get is the team that started with the most money winning all the time. which would result in a lack of competitoin and no real piont in taking part in the race.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
A tea bagger who trades his Joker mask for a Guy Fawkes mask is still a tea bagger.
Sorry to dash your free market fantasies, buddy, but you should know that the banking industry would whole-heartedly agree with your call for less 'state interference'. They made a lot of money through predatory lending due to deregulation and a lack of 'state interference'. The public was much better off when it had more oversight and control over the banking industry. The 'free' market capitalist thinking that has influenced our leaders since Reagan has made things worse, not better.
Downvoted for calling the other protesters fascists. Nazi Germany was a capitalist society.

Yep he's a tea bagger, being British and all.

Brits can't be free market fundies, too?

>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
A tea bagger who trades his Joker mask for a Guy Fawkes mask is still a tea bagger.
Sorry to dash your free market fantasies, buddy, but you should know that the banking industry would whole-heartedly agree with your call for less 'state interference'. They made a lot of money through predatory lending due to deregulation and a lack of 'state interference'. The public was much better off when it had more oversight and control over the banking industry. The 'free' market capitalist thinking that has influenced our leaders since Reagan has made things worse, not better.
Downvoted for calling the other protesters fascists. Nazi Germany was a capitalist society.

Yep he's a tea bagger, being British and all.


Brits can't be free market fundies, too?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

A tea bagger who trades his Joker mask for a Guy Fawkes mask is still a tea bagger.
Sorry to dash your free market fantasies, buddy, but you should know that the banking industry would whole-heartedly agree with your call for less 'state interference'. They made a lot of money through predatory lending due to deregulation and a lack of 'state interference'. The public was much better off when it had more oversight and control over the banking industry. The 'free' market capitalist thinking that has influenced our leaders since Reagan has made things worse, not better.
Downvoted for calling the other protesters fascists. Nazi Germany was a capitalist society.


Yep he's a tea bagger, being British and all.

A tea bagger who trades his Joker mask for a Guy Fawkes mask is still a tea bagger.

Sorry to dash your free market fantasies, buddy, but you should know that the banking industry would whole-heartedly agree with your call for less 'state interference'. They made a lot of money through predatory lending due to deregulation and a lack of 'state interference'. The public was much better off when it had more oversight and control over the banking industry. The 'free' market capitalist thinking that has influenced our leaders since Reagan has made things worse, not better.

Downvoted for calling the other protesters fascists. Nazi Germany was a capitalist society.

that being said,understand that what i say here is in no way an attempt not to change your viewpoint but rather to give historical context.

I am not one who is threatened by hearing other points of view. Have no fears concerning my mental status. I recommend that you yourself also do not have any need to feel threatened when I point out that some of what you call 'historical context' is - in fact - personal opinion and interpretation.

a governments role concerning business should be fraud protection

No argument. That's government's only real role in this matter.

when a corporation can buy legislators to enact laws that benefit their own bottom line in the form of lobbyists we move closer to a plutocracy rather than a people run government.

I will argue again that the real issue here is not 'corporations buying legislators'. The problem is corrupt legislators. Companies can't 'buy' what isn't 'for sale'. Again - your argument when you strip away the rhetoric is not against companies. Your argument is one that calls for greater limits on government.

you state that you are immune to such manipulations and indoctrinations

Specifically, I have claimed that no company controls my life. And they don't.

if this is true then why do you constantly use terms like "lib" or "leftie

To accurately (though informally) describe persons of a specific political philosophy.

it was only 20% "stupid borrowing" while 80% fraudulent,predatory and deceitful lending practices.

Please supply your sourcing for this claim. If 80% of lending was 'fraudulent' as you claim, there would be massive prosecutions going on. There are no such prosecutions, because the lending agencies were (in fact) operating within the law. In harsh reality, many of the so-called 'predatory' lending tactics were encouraged by the federal government for the express purpose of increasing the number of people with homes (see repeal of Glass-Steagal).

when the government and our representatives are in bed with the very same companies that can create/destroy on such a huge scale we should all sit up and take notice

Yes - by changing the political system so that politicians are held accountable for their actions. By not allowing politicians to pass laws without full disclosure, 75% full congressional majority votes, and tons of other restrictions that would prevent them from being able to influence the system. The problem is not companies. The problem is politicians who are never held accountable.

All political offices should have a single term limit, and then the candidate is banned for life from all political activity except voting in congresional & presidential elections. Politicians should not be elected. They shoudl be randomly drawn up for service akin to jury duty. All laws should require a 75% majority vote of the entire congress before passing. Only one law should be allowed per bill - no 'omnibus' bills. If some 'bad event' happens that is tied to the passage of a specific law, then all the politicians who voted for that law should be the ones held responsible. And on and on...

I've literally got a BILLION great ideas along these lines of "How to stop corporations from influencing the political system by imposing limits on politicians."

Yeah, of course that's the real reason, but the overt pretext is a ridiculous exaggeration of #1 and #2.

McCain made up a few more lies to slander ACORN. He blamed ACORN for the subprime mortgage crisis. That couldn't be further from the truth, considering ACORN counseled poor people on how to avoid predatory lending and obtain cheap housing (and THAT operation of ACORN in particular is the one that got federal funding).

Most of those activities you mentioned require the use of force, so they can't be done by private citizens, because the use of force is exclusive to government. Any other activity that doesn't require the use of force shouldn't be done by government because it can be done (and will tend to be done better) by the private sector.

How exactly is force the exclusive domain of the government? What about the polluter that is forcing you to breath lower quality air? I can't do anything about that. I need a government to enforce my property rights over the air. Yes, the government employs force. It's our only recourse against the force employed by concentrated capital.


If anarchy was the end result of libertarian ideals, they would be called anarchists. Corporate oligarchies are much more likely when government regulates the economy, and gets in bed with corporations. You have to realize that any "archy" requires government, force. It can't sprout out of markets where force is not allowed.

Please explain to me the law of nature which prevents corporate oligarchy in the absence of government force. Collusion is the rational selection for a small number of powerful agents. They reap the return, prevent entry into marketplaces, and price gouge when privy to exclusive control over an inelastic market (such as healthcare). You've been reading Ludwig too much... I'd recommend reading more of his brother Richard's work. He actually contributed to knowledge.


Does that overhead in the private sector have anything to do with excessive government regulation of the healthcare insurance market? Maybe it would be less of a burden to compete in a market that is almost 60% provided by government?

Hopefully not. I'm a single-payer kinda guy. Like I stated, healthcare is an inelastic market like police, fire, and water. As such, it should be provided by the government because the status quo of a small number of profit-driven actors in the market leads to price gouging.


Government and the Fed created the moral hazards that led to what you're attributing as the cause. A lot of people acted stupidly, you're saying it's cultural, that people "got greedy", ignoring the incentives and government guarantees that led people to believe there weren't any risks.

I'm not saying people got greedy (though the few did). I'm saying the majority of people got stupid. The laws that were in place to prevent the overextension of consumer credit were withdrawn. That is, they removed government intervention in the marketplace. That allowed unfortunate people to overextend themselves to the benefit of the few. Now, before you go off on some rant about the laws governing entrance into the sub-prime housing market, remember those laws would not have been nearly as dangerous had they not also repealed restrictions on debt securitization, turned a blind eye to insurance market regulation of CDS, and loosened fraction reserve restrictions. Those three de-regulatory events had, imo, far more reaching ramifications in this crisis. They removed the counter-party risk from debt initiators, and instead incentivized predatory lending. It was not government subsidy of the sub-prime market that distorted the incentives. It was the banks writing a junk bond, and slapping a smily face on it.


Ever hear of "cutting your losses"? There's no "sell high" here, the US can't pay back its lenders, not at the rate the US government is spending and willing to spend for the next few years, and not in a recession where government is ruining productivity. China will be part of the recovery effort alright, but they'll much rather do it without the US strapped to its back.
Think about it, if China lent the US more than a trillion dollars, it's better to lose that money than lend us 2 or 3 more trillions just to watch even more money go to waste. They don't need us.

Actually, they do. If our dollar were to suddenly become worthless, they would have no currency reserves. While I agree, they have the upper hand in this, they've already seen what a collapse of consumption on our soil does to their own economic growth. Without that growth, the chinese government doesn't have a political toothpick to stand on. I think you'd be surprised with the swings in currency valuation these days just how much higher the dollar could yet climb back. Our workforce is skilled, and increasingly well educated. In any event, it doesn't make sense to sell all at once. What they'll probably do is wait until the systematic risk has stabilized, and then slowly convert their treasury notes into special drawing rights at a rate which will not drastically undermine valuation of the dollar. I agree however, they will likely discontinue purchasing the debt, forcing us into "quantitative easing" (another winner from the PR team).


The Constitution is a good reference, most things the federal government does that are not expressly authorized in the Constitution are excesses.

So the market for nuclear weapons, particularly when wielded by militiamen, shouldn't be regulated?


NetRunner, is that you? I guess you think hyperinflation is a synonym for "awesome".
If you actually studied Austrian economics and you think it's "non-mathematical" and "BS", yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. You're beyond help.

Net who? No, I'm afraid there can be more than one educated progressive. I didn't say hyperinflation... I said inflation. Between 2 and 4% inflation is a good thing. If you disagree, you are beyond help.

As for the Austrian school, yes, it's BS. It's been discredited repeatedly. The predictions don't hold water, so they say "you can't use mathematics because people are too complicated." Even the Chicago school monetarists (many of whom worked with Von Mises) know it's BS. Once you run out of room with monetary policy what should you do is the only argument left. I think the Keynesians about have that fight won now that they've shown how to explain the late seventies.


Don't worry about that. Keep rules simple, no fraud, enforce contracts, no use of force. Everything else will tend to sort itself out. Also, don't be afraid of technology.

No force, but enforce contracts. Right. You show no regard for the existence of externalities, nor the rampant exploitation of the commons by the private sector. In fact, you explicitly removed that single section from my post indicating either your ignorance of basic economics, or an intentional dodging of the topic.

It's easy not to worry about how the rules are set up so long as they are benefitting you. Once you see that not everybody is getting a fair deal, you realize the moral, and even selfish reasons for entering a broader scoped social contract. In the end, we all benefit from a well educated, healthy society. We just need to put up the VC.

Oh well, I think after the US economy collapses, Obama's popularity will become irrelevant, and ppl will see him for who he is: A politician who started off with extreme popularity and did all the wrong things because he and his administration have no understanding of economics, they don't know how to correctly interpret what is happening in the real world, mostly because Keynes is full of s**t and they're full of Keynes.

Other ppl (including Obama himself) will blame everything else, of course: Bush (yes, he deserves a lot of it, but he's not in charge now), China (predatory lending? lol), Wall Street (even though govt is to blame for bailing them out), capitalism, or some absurd scapegoat only keynesians can provide a convoluted explanation for.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Regarding the points you raise. The companies you mentioned are multinationals, focus on technology and R&D and are in markets that have high costs to entry (being it market capitalization, research or technology). For example Boeing's only other competitor is Airbus and they fulfill demand orders on a international scale. I think overall they constitute a small percentage of US economy because their operations are so spread around the world, problems in the US economy would affect these firms very little.

It's a bit ironic that you picked Boeing as the exemplar. I live (part time) in Huntington Beach, CA, where Boeing has a substantial presence. A couple of weeks ago, they laid off about 50 workers in this city of about 200k. But that also results in the loss of jobs in every single company that serves as a local supplier to them (tens of companies, hundreds more jobs). More to the point, I named a whole bunch of large, easily recognizable companies that make stuff, as opposed to providing services, just to point out that manufacturing is alive and well in the U.S. It's a well propagated myth that the U.S. doesn't do manufacturing anymore, which Jake bought right into. Trust me, I've lived in a half dozen cities across the U.S. over the last decade, and every single one of them had a substantial manufacturing base. It's certainly true that the U.S. economy has been shifting away from making stuff over the last 50 years, but it's still the case that most cities and towns in the U.S. are completely dependent on their local manufacturing base.


Agriculture is a thorny issue

The thorniest. Twenty thousand years ago when humans first started domesticating plants, that's what they fought over. And we still do. The only thing we fight over more now is decayed plants.

since much of it both in the US and EU is sustained via massive subsidization and are controlled by large firms which enjoy massive economies of scale. Their lobbying towards the US government means they have favorable market conditions in the states, they price their products higher then the world market and the US consumer ends up paying for that.

But that doesn't change the fact that hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people in the U.S. are employed in the agricultural business. Again, I was just using it as an example of producing stuff. Perhaps this points out a fundamental flaw of using GDP as a measure of a country's economic strength.

Many of the trade disagreements brought up in the WTO by 1st world nations focus on suppressing 3rd world agricultural markets because the western world cannot compete on price and cost.

Really? I was under the impression it was more the other way around, i.e., the third world nations were begging the west to stop their subsidies and "level the growing field".

It's simply cheaper to produce agriculture in the 3rd world. Globalization must be pushed to happened in this sector strongly as right now it penalizes the consumers, sustains an inefficient producer (when looked globally) and suppresses growth in the third world which wholly depends on Agriculture.

That I just have to disagree with. It is only because of political realities and labor costs, not farming practices or technology (i.e., true efficiencies). There is no way that it is more efficient to grow corn in Zambia than it is in Iowa.


This is why you have all those "Free Trade" products being sold all over the place, like coffee beans for example. I would love to see a globalization effort on behalf of large US manufacturers through foreign direct investment in third world economies.

Woah - now you're scaring me. That sounds like multinationals moving into local areas to exploit local resources - fresh water access, etc. I'm pretty sure I know you well enough to know that's not what you mean. But dig deeper - you are suggesting that profit motivated companies would somehow be interested in the welfare of the residents of the local areas in which they operate. Ultimately, that's how a company should be run, but how many companies do you know of that have that kind of long term vision. (This is really worthy of another conversation on the ethics and ultimate sustainability of commerce. Too much to handle here.)

I totally agree on personal debt problems, there is too much runaway consumerism while the middle class has been diminishing, you have too many falling down in the lower classes and not many coming into the middle class. Now republican usually state that tax cuts would elevate this but I disagree, there is very little financial advice and a general air get rich quick behavior in the US, especially leverage and bombardment of the consumer through what seem like seductive credit card offers that have huge monthly payment penalties and interest rate increases. I mean you can get a credit card from almost anyone now in the US. There is a lot of predatory lending behavior in the credit card industry and not enough good information on the topic. I think some sort regulation and institutions that normalize run away debt is in order.

I disagree with you on some of this, and completely agree otherwise. Rampant consumerism is not the problem. Nor is even ridiculously available credit (at least until recently) the problem. It really is an issue of education. As you say, most people in the U.S. (and I think probably most people around the world) don't understand the first thing about finances. And I'm not just talking about average joe. I wasn't fooling around when I said on Joe's blog that I have been privileged to know some of the smartest people on the planet. I really have - and a few of them could barely balance a checkbook. Seriously. I know that sounds absurd, but it's true. I have twice personally "bailed out" close friends. I doubt it was complete ignorance, but there was certainly a lack of understanding of just how much it would cost to run up large amounts of debt.



But again there are so many layers and layers of complexity with any of these topics and some time your viewpoint really depends on your economic background and beliefs, I am a strong believer in world trade and globalization. I do admit there are lots of growing pains and problems in its implementation. It's easy to say the US economy needs to focus more on services and R&D but its not possible. I remember one woman I debated about agricultural markets got offended when I said that farmers in Canada are inefficient and are holding back agricultural market development in the developing world.

No doubt the layers of complexity are lost many folks. It does almost require someone who is independently wealthy that can spend a lifetime studying these topics to really get a handle on it. But, of course, if you are one of those people, you are instantly labeled an elite, out-of-touch, ivory tower geek. Can't win for losing, eh?

Of course you're right that true and fair globalization (as opposed to exploitation) is the best solution. How much luck have you had convincing your neighbors? I haven't had much.

Thanks Jonny.

Regarding the points you raise. The companies you mentioned are multinationals, focus on technology and R&D and are in markets that have high costs to entry (being it market capitalization, research or technology). For example Boeing's only other competitor is Airbus and they fulfill demand orders on a international scale. I think overall they constitute a small percentage of US economy because their operations are so spread around the world, problems in the US economy would affect these firms very little.

Agriculture is a thorny issue, since much of it both in the US and EU is sustained via massive subsidization and are controlled by large firms which enjoy massive economies of scale. Their lobbying towards the US government means they have favorable market conditions in the states, they price their products higher then the world market and the US consumer ends up paying for that.

Many of the trade disagreements brought up in the WTO by 1st world nations focus on suppressing 3rd world agricultural markets because the western world cannot compete on price and cost. It's simply cheaper to produce agriculture in the 3rd world. Globalization must be pushed to happened in this sector strongly as right now it penalizes the consumers, sustains an inefficient producer (when looked globally) and suppresses growth in the third world which wholly depends on Agriculture. This is why you have all those "Free Trade" products being sold all over the place, like coffee beans for example. I would love to see a globalization effort on behalf of large US manufacturers through foreign direct investment in third world economies.

I totally agree on personal debt problems, there is too much runaway consumerism while the middle class has been diminishing, you have too many falling down in the lower classes and not many coming into the middle class. Now republican usually state that tax cuts would elevate this but I disagree, there is very little financial advice and a general air get rich quick behavior in the US, especially leverage and bombardment of the consumer through what seem like seductive credit card offers that have huge monthly payment penalties and interest rate increases. I mean you can get a credit card from almost anyone now in the US. There is a lot of predatory lending behavior in the credit card industry and not enough good information on the topic. I think some sort regulation and institutions that normalize run away debt is in order.

But again there are so many layers and layers of complexity with any of these topics and some time your viewpoint really depends on your economic background and beliefs, I am a strong believer in world trade and globalization. I do admit there are lots of growing pains and problems in its implementation. It's easy to say the US economy needs to focus more on services and R&D but its not possible. I remember one woman I debated about agricultural markets got offended when I said that farmers in Canada are inefficient and are holding back agricultural market development in the developing world.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
the US economy has become ...

Wow, very nice. I was writing a response to Jake's comment along much the same lines, but it was not nearly as coherent or well informed. Thanks. I'm glad I abandoned my response, but I think there are a couple of things you left out.