Monday Open Thread
One day older, two days dumber. That's what Grandpa used to say (and still does every so often).
What's the news?
Submitted by stinerman on Mon, 2009-02-23 11:11
Tags:
One day older, two days dumber. That's what Grandpa used to say (and still does every so often).
What's the news?
Comments :
Tough Job Market
"George W. Bush stopped by a Dallas hardware store Saturday morning and....inquired about the position [as store greeter].
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Need some frontpage diaries, admins?
I note that there have been no front-page diaries for the past ten days. I don't know about anybody else, but if I had official front-page diary-writing privileges, I might be motivated to write diaries on SwordsCrossed on a more regular basis... 1 or 2 solid diaries a month anyway, perhaps more in some months.
What say you?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
sounds great, thank you very much
I don't think anyone here would have a problem with that. You should be able to FP diaries now.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Thanks man
I'll try to get some good topics going.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Municipal budget belt-tightnening hits skymutt household
The Columbus City bean-counters got me....
I live right in Columbus, except my house and a couple houses on either side of me were never annexed to the city and we are instead in Clinton Township. Nevertheless, when they passed out the big green City refuse cans some years before I moved into this house, all these houses got one somehow. And the city garbage trucks don't check that stuff; if there's a can out by the street they pick it up. So we've all gotten free garbage pickup courtesy of the city for several years.
Well it's all over now-- got a letter from the city that it's "come to their attention" that city refuse containers were placed at our homes in error, and on March 9th, they are gonna empty our garbage cans and take them with them. And after that, we have to make arrangements for garbage pickup at our expense.
*sigh*... no more freeloading off the rest of society for me :-(
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Somebody probablt snitched n/t
.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
I'm thinking that one of my less-bright neighbors...
...had a crack in their can and called the city for a replacement, and the city of course didn't have our address in their database :-(
I'm wondering if we all just keep our cans in our garages that week, this might just blow over. Couple years ago, I got a letter from the city that they needed me to call a number to replace my inside meter. Being lazy, I never called of course-- they really need to replace it, they can call me, right? Nothing ever happened, and I still have running water....
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You're welcome
I live in Columbus proper. However a few blocks down is Minerva Park.
Freeloader!!!!! :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Prison Break! (In Greece)
Greek Prisoners escape..for the 2nd time!
Translation: "Ooohh..I'll get those Duke Boys! *shakes fist*
Lessons learned here:
1- Apparently there aren't any no-fly rules in Greece.
2- Shots were fired from both the helicopter and AT the helicopter, and there were NO injuries somebody can't shoot apparently/ I mean, you can't shoot a guy climbing up a rope? Not even in the leg?
3- If you're an evil Villain, request to be locked up in Greece.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Markets gave Reagan an "F" for his full first year
To the folks like Red Wing who are claiming that the markets have given Obama an F for his first month in office based on the fact that the Dow has fallen, take a look at the chart of the Dow for Reagan's first year in office
.
Dow when Reagan took office: over 950.
Dow one year later: under 850.
By their own standards by which they have begun judging Obama's presidency a failure in one month's time, Reagan should have been judged a failure over his first full 12 months.
So I guess that makes the beginning of Reagan's presidency 12 times as much of a failure as Obama's has been so far, right?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
If I may jump in,
Saying the markets gave Reagan an "F" is a bit silly. And the same goes for Obama for that matter.
First of all, Reagan came in under harsh economic times. Stagflation was still infecting the economy.
But more to the point:
Paul Volcker "induced" a recession that needed to happen by jacking up interest rates and they topped off at around 20%! He did this until inflation came down and then he lowered rates.
It was a bold and unpopular move but it worked. The Dow took a beating and the economy had a quick yet painful recession. It was the right policy. The fact that Reagan was in the White House is irrelevant.
Likewise, Obama came under bad times. Granted, he isn't doing anything to correct the real problems but the conditions of the Dow right now and elsewhere are lingering results of one policy screw after another from Paulson and Bernake....and Greenspan if you want to go back that far.
I totally agree of course
I just wanted to see how Red Wing could stand by his claim that the markets have given Obama an F, while defending Reagan on the same ground. Now that you've defended Reagan on the grounds that Volcker was purposely driving the country into recession during that period, you've given him an easy out and sort of ruined it ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Sorry,
I wasn't privy to the game. ;)
I don't think anyone was...except SM...?
Anyway, I didn't claim anything, I posted an article that claimed that.
But anytime you want me to defend Ronald Reagan, I'm your man.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
When you post an article like that without comment--
-- an opinion piece with a viewpoint that would be consistent with opinions you have expressed repeatedly, then I don't think it's unfair to say that you've associated yourself with the opinions of the author.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The problem, the real
The problem, the real problem, is that the same knee-jerk reaction to Obama that Republicans are developing (or have developed) has been exhibited for years by Democrats in their hatred for all things Reagan. And that blind partisanship is what keeps people from seeing genuinely good policy.
But I think teaching Red_Wing is probably the better thing on which to concentrate.
I certainly hope he grasps the sarcasm in your last line...
;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I got something you can grasp right down here :-p
*
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
What crawled up your a$$ tonight dude?
?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Check out Mr. Passive Aggressive here...
so innocent!
Look, you want to make snide comments to some other poster implying that I'm so thick that I wouldn't recognize an obvious bit of sarcasm, you're going to get what's coming to you.. deal with it!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You know what Skymutt...
...go pound sand!
I hadn't said sh!t to you, not a word, and you come on with this antipathetic; "Oh, I wanted to see if RW can defend Reagan" BS?
John was right when he called you on what it was...a game. So let's see, that makes you a game player, and I'm not interested in playing silly games with you Skymutt, you'll have to stick with all the resident geniuses over at you're beloved D/Kos for that.
Hey, here's one for ya bro - Quit acting like a pretentious jerk.
Why don't you use that as your signature line for the next 6 months you haughty SOB.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I don't think skymutt
was trying to be jerk.
Let's keep things in perspective here.
Yeah, so terrible of me... I responded to one of your posts...
Gee, what an insult :-p Well I won't be making that mistake again anytime soon...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You made the mistake
of pointing out, with a clear and relevant comparison, that the premise of one of Red Wing's posts was faulty.
And since he simply posted someone else's words without comment, then you were 100% correct to assume that Red Wing shares the sentiment of the author of those words.
He has no valid response to your clever use of one of his own heroes to shoot down his faulty argument, so his reaction is instead to lash out at you and call you names.
In basketball terms, you posterized him.
He didn't take it too well.
(I'll probably get the same type of response to this post).
I survived the Bush Administration
This kind of thing would mean
This kind of thing would mean a lot more if it weren't so prevelent from the majority of political junkies, on the internet, but more importantly on SwordsCrossed. It might count as a real win if RW were somehow "the last unicorn" of sorts. But RW isn't. So it's more like Republicans 32352359953.3 to Democrats 53259533883.1...
Cool.... we're winning!
lol.
Just kidding.
I survived the Bush Administration
Relax
A string of personal invectives isn't called for.
Skymutt's "sporting" style is nothing new; he's admitted it's his favorite flavor
of debate here.
I'm vaguely reminded of Inigo Montoya, actually. . . .
...(bows head & kicks dirt with new pair of PF Flyer hightops)..
Okay.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
"Hatred" for Reagan?
From me? Where? Nice strawman...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Not necessarily you, skymutt
But a knee-jerk hatred of Reagan is extremely common in the Democratic Party. Just like a knee-jerk hatred of Clinton is extremely common in the GOP.
Meh
I don't even see how hatred of Reagan is even at issue here. I only posted a part of Reagan's record because 1.) I know that RW likes him, and 2) his record bears some similarity to Obama's with respect to the stock market early in their administrations. And since I already have indicated that I think it's silly to gade a president based on how the stock market performs, I'm not making any value judgment about Reagan at all-- positive, negative, or neutral. So whatever hatred of Reagan exists still today is really not very relevant to the conversation.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
He's not directly the issue
you brought him up to demonstrate the holes in RW's partisan comment about Obama.
That's fine. The point was noted. I then took the non partisan route of explaining what I did about Volcker and the early 80s recession.
Now this tangent has formed about blind partisanship, partisan double standards and partisan hypocrisy....we independent libertarians love this stuff...sorry.
But just keep in mind that your initial point was addressed and dicussed and not lost in the mix before veering off in this tangential direction. You should be glad....some of us aren't lucky enough to get that courtesy from other posters.
I hate false gods (e.g. Reagan)
I know the commies always hated Reagan, but I think most liberals didn't have particularly negative feelings towards him until the GOP started their campaign to deify him.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I never said anything about
I never said anything about you and Reagan. I simply pointed out that trying to put down Red_Wing by using an example of a past president you know Red_Wing likes seems like a tremendous waste of time and feeds into the characatures of partisanship. But these little outbursts are quite telling...
Oh come on...
Where have you been as Red Wing posts several partisan attacks on Obama per day? Nowhere to be found, except sometimes to agree. And then you choose this moment to chime in on something that wasn't an attack on a Republican at all to try to make me out to be a hyperpartisan?
Give me a break!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I don't post because I don't
I don't post because I don't care about the topic being discussed. No amount of begging will change that. I posted this time because you usually keep your standards a bit higher. In this case you slipped quite a bit.
There's nothing wrong with my original post
It responds directly to this post
by Red_Wing. Sure, I was throwing out a little bit of bait to him, a "game" as he is now calling it as if that was something insulting, but nowhere did I personally insult Red_WIng in that post, unless you count attempting to poke holes in his argument as an insult. I only slipped later in the thread, after he threw out an insult. I should have just taken my own advice and walked away.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
What do you think that kind of bellicose post makes you?
A righter of what you perceive are past wrongs?
Look, on the web, it's the caped crusader - SuperMutt!
...oh no it's just skymutt jumping off the roof with a sheet tied around his neck again.
Look bro, this isn't Gotham, and you're not the local savior.
*Just for your information, thats probably the first post I've initiated about Obama for some time.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
In other words....
Red Wing can dish it out...
...but he can't take it.
Got it.
as for this:
are you for real? Most of the posts you've made the past several weeks have been directly or indirectly about Obama.
I survived the Bush Administration
Not.
Actually I have been more interested in other things.
But since you weren't even here the last few weeks, you should know.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Is it this...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Does anyone in your immediate family understand you?
Cause in this format...you might as well be speaking swahili half the time dude.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You said you were more
You said you were more interested in other things, I thought it might be doing something you've been talking about, but instead it just might be spreading petulance.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Why are you so fussy with me B man?
?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Point of clarification, Mags
skymutt is not a hyperpartisan. He's just a partisan.
But a reasonable one....it must be said. He defends the party when he can...but doesn't bother when he can't. He's even been known to criticize them from time to time.
He's also easily the most pro-market of all the Dems and Lefties on SC and one of the most reasonable about about economic issues.
In this case, he was just mirroring RW to show him why his posts about Obama and the Dow's decline are not justified....yet.
Pointing out someone else's flawed reasoning
..by using an example "close to their heart" is a very strong debate technique.
Skymutt won this discussion on points. Red Wing used the stock market as an arbiter of Obama's economic plans, despite only being in office a month.
Pointing out that the VERY SAME arbiter gave Ronald Reagan's first year a similar grade renders the whole argument of RW's previous post moot. It has no standing.
Skymutt 1
Red Wing 0
(though RW will never admit that Skymutt bested him here)
I survived the Bush Administration
Who cares. Also, did I miss
Who cares. Also, did I miss the signing of the smiley accords?
Ignore the small sad man hiding in the back row...
...PM???
Reagan's administration was dealing with not only stagflation as John pointed out, they had insane unemployment, and high interest rates. Yet they took corrective action that eventually led to the longest sustained economic recovery in our nations history!
Obama has lived on the cult of personality, yet now after 350 Billion, and 825 billion put up as persuasion, and every trick in Obama's PR book played, the street is still unimpressed.
His failure to take true corrective action, and instead concentrating on capitalizing on the "crisis" to expand government and pursue the liberal agenda has left a foul taste in the mouth of wall street.
So I have no ambivalence about the contention of the article, from wall streets perspective, as evidenced by the day after day point free fall, he gets a big fat F.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Actually that's false
When Reagan took office, unemployment was 7.4%. The recession started in the fall of 1981.
Let me repeat:
The recession started in fall of 1981.... after Reagan was in office for 8 months. Unemployment didn't reach double-digits until 1982.
Reagan DID take over during a time of stagflation.... but we weren't in a recession yet. Volcker put us in one, on purpose, AFTER Reagan took office.
Lastly, this statement is FALSE:
The longest sustained economic recovery in our history followed the 1991-92 recession. It lasted until the fourth quarter of 2001. 36 quarters.
Reagan's recovery... which followed Reagan's recession of '81-82... lasted 29 quarters... from the first quarter of 1983 until the second quarter of 1991.
Every single quarter of Clinton's presidency had positive growth. Every single one.
And Skymutt's contention is accurate. One year after he took office, Reagan was presiding over a recession (of Volcker's intentional making) and a smaller Dow.
Wall Street, one year after Reagan took office, had a "foul taste" about Reagan.
Every single issue that causing the economy to be in crisis began on Dubya's watch (or even earlier).
To think that the market is a "verdict" on Obama, barely one month into his term and before ANY of his plans have even sprung into action is asinine.
What are you going to say year from now when the Dow is at 9000? Or in 2010 when the recession is over and the Dow is at 10,000?
Will the market STILL be a "verdict" then?
Of course not... your schtick then will be "it would have been even BETTER without Obama!".
Meh.
I survived the Bush Administration
You got skymutts check huh?
How old are you, cause I was around, and I will tell you the carter administration was a horror story!
Within short order Reagan rectified the problem.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I'm 42
And I didn't say anything about Carter's administration.
I corrected some incorrect "facts" you presented in the above post.
To recap:
1. We were NOT in a recession when Reagan took office. The recession started 8 months later.
2. Unemployment was not at it's peak level until nearly 2 years into Reagan's first term. Late in 1982 was when unemployment reached its peak.
3. The recovery that came after the 82-83 recession was a nice long one, you are correct. But it wasn't the longest in our nation's history. The 92-01 recovery was the longest.
Since you didn't dispute my corrections, I'll assume that you agree that your previous post was wrong and misleading.
I survived the Bush Administration
Ok fine, I don't even know why we're talking about Reagan...
But I still stand by my earlier post and that all indications are the market, and investors are dissuaded by all of Obama's big government expansionism masquerading as stimulus.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
it is easy to impress The Street
It's easy to impress the Street, just give each company a billion dollars. That'll make their share prices jump up.
Of course, it would accomplish nothing for the general welfare of the American people.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I never said he was
I never said he was hyperpartisan anyway. But I also agree that the stockmarket should not be the benchmark of a president. I wish the president as well as the Fed (so long as it gasps for the breath of relevance) should ignore the stock market entirely. Those people are crazy.
agreed.
unfortunately, much of the Fed does is done with the fixation of what's most palatable RIGHT NOW. Moreover, the problems of Wall St. hit too close to home for those folks. And that's a problem most people refuse to give its full due consideration.
An interesting article
An interesting article proving
their insanity.
Now I know this doesn't give the people who are blaiming greed for our current problem the kind of warm fuzzy they get after reading something out of the NYT. Because what this article basically states is that they were simply dumb. Which is far more believable, in my opinion, than any one giant colony of greedy people participating in what has somehow now been correlated (see what I did there?) with the free-market. And this all plays nicely into the general principles developed in the early part of the 20th century when the idea that central planning was proven simply impossible. People have no idea, whatsoever, what is beyond their own nose, more often than not, with regard to the behavior and needs of others.
sounds like greed to me
If I'm interpreting this correctly, there was a group of people who overstated their expertise/ability in order to convince others to give them a lot of money.
It sounds like greed to me.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Why, exactly, did you
Why, exactly, did you conclude it was greed and not a lack of intelligence?
There was nothing in the article that indicated the equation was manipulated to provide desireable outputs (greed). The problem that the equation was improperly applied (dumb).
The developer of the equation himself said you have to be careful with it.
Besides, greed implies that the user understands what one deserves. That's a slippery slope. Dumb is quantifiable. :)
blinded by greed
First, most of these people were quite smart, so an appeal to stupidity is going to have a hard time.
More to the point, I am asserting that these people misrepresented their abilities in order get money. Do you agree that fraud is generally indicative of greed?
So the final issue is whether these guys should have known that they were incapable of making good predicitions. According to that article, they were repeatedly warned about the limitations of the models that they were using, but they continued to use those models and make tons of money by selling a defective product. They should have known that their product was defective, but they decided to ignore the warnings.
From this, I conclude that they were willfully ignorant of their shortcomings because to admit to those shortcomings would have interfered with their ability to
earnwin extraordinary incomes.In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Thanks adam
There is so much twisted logic around this issue, I very much appreciate your clarification.
I'm only half stupid
Greed is like Gravity
It's always there.
Explaining economic/business problems as being simply because of greed is like blaming plane crashes on gravity.
Greed and its tendencies toward things like fraud, stupid shortsightedness, willful boneheadedness and theft are ever-present factors in any economy...just as gravity is an ever-present factor in fyling a plane.
In this sense, a well-running economy where darker tendencies of greed are kept in check from compromising the health of the economy is no different than a plane than takes off, flies and lands safely in that the perils of gravity were kept in check.
A crashed plane had a failure somewhere that allowed gravity to wreak havoc. Gravity is always in background ready to assert its presence. Same goes for economic activity.
Nobody defends the negative side of greed just like nobody seriously blames/defends the negative side of gravity. I certainly don't.
In economic activity, greed and its manifestations have too much influence when when rules and incentives structures are perverted and fail to keep things in balance.
It may not seem like a big distinction that I'm making but it is.
productive discussion on greed
Thanks for trying to turn this to a productive discussion.
Your focus on incentive structure actually clarifies why it matters whether greed was involved here.
We should not focus on "the greed explanation" as a way of stoking our self-rightousness. We should examine this hypothesis with the intention of developing an economic culture that provides reasonable incentives to economic actors and integrates fail-safes that minimize the damage caused by predictable human failings (such as greed). It should help us to recognize these failings in ourselves and others, so that we can protect against them.
The lessons to be drawn here include:
1) People often exaggerate the value of things that they are selling.
2) These salesmen often believe their own lies.
3) Consumers should take responsibility for judging the value of products, and not assume that the market has found an accurate price.
4) We should be skeptical of claims to generate wealth out of thin air (or algebra).
We screwed up in part because we were not sensitive to the risk of being blinded by greed (our own greed and the greed of others).
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Greed is constant, and part of basic human nature
Which is why our markets need to be regulated to prevent abuses.
Capitalism and the free market works great.... as long as there's a competent referee.
Christopher Cox (and others...though he was the biggest culprit) decided to pull the referees off the field and then they acted SHOCKED that the players behaved badly.
Bernie Madoff wouldn't have been able to get away with robbing investors of $50 billion if the SEC was on the ball. Cox and his incompetent staff turned the other way.
Greed *IS* good..... to quote Gordon Gecko. ;-)
But there still needs to be a policeman on the corner. The biggest bad decision the Bush administration made was to let the foxes run the henhouse.
There's a special place in hell for guys like Christopher Cox. They allowed this to happen.
Over-regulation is bad. It stifles growth.
Under-regulation is worse. It results in massive bubbles that pop and cause havoc to our economy.
In the late 70s, we WERE over-regulated. Reagan was right to swing the pendulum the other way. But the pendulum didn't stop over the 28 years that followed and it swung too far the other way toward laissez-faire free-for-all.
We need to get that pendulum back in the middle and keep it there. Obama is swinging it back in the right direction. The real question is whether he'll be able to stop it before it goes too far.
I survived the Bush Administration
A couple of small points.
This makes me cringe. Statements like this are an ongoing reminder that the principles and ideas of a free market have been so completely distorted that discussions spend hours on the definition rather than the merit of the idea.
Prices are the referee of the free market. The minute that you manipulate prices (our government does a lot of that, and has for a long time) you loose the "referee" of the free market. Regulation, as applied to the exchange of goods (including financial goods), is simply blinding evidence of the failure of a mixed market.
Again, I disagree. In so far as regulation is control, the Fed's control over the quantity (and therefore price) of money was the cause of the bubble. Addressing the regulation of the banking industry is simply a fix to a simptom rather than the cause.
Good points...
The other referee is the government in the enforcement of property-rights law.
Now anarcho-capitalists feel even this is contestable (that government is needed for this fucntion). Maybe it is but I'm not about to wait for that to happen.
Defending and enforcing property rights is an incredibly powerful and at times cruel means of regulation. Property rights is about responsibility as well as privilege with regard to one's property.
Free market principles involve profit and loss....not just profit.
An often overlooked point.
I see many laws and twisted regulations as ways to soften this free market strictness.
Or...PM...more often than not...
...markets simply need the right regulation to prevent abuses. Often times, a body of regulations work together to create a cluster-fv$k of bad incentives that disrespect market principles...meaning that they remove or pervert the basic forms of obvious self-regulation to facilitate activity that they want that basic free market principles render difficult.
My opinion on this: Fine, go ahead but be careful what incentive structure you're cooking up. Today's myopic "cure" can be the seeds of the tomorrow's next disease.
I agree
- The "Mark to market" rule was put into place following the abuses of Enron. But now that rule is playing havoc with the ledgers of big banks.
- In 1999, the Gramm-Bliley-Leach act was passed in order to allow banks to diversify into multiple types of banking so they could better compete with their European competitors.
But tearing down those walls of separation allowed "supermarket banks" like Citi and BofA to grow too big and have their tentacles in too many places.
Question: How did a bank like Lehman Brothers... who survived the Civil War, the depression of the late 19th century, the first world war, the Great Depression, the second world war, and the cold war... collapse because of a few bad mortgages?
Answer: Because of the 1999 Gramm-Bliley-Leach act that removed the barriers to Lehman getting involved in other types of banking besides investment banking.
Adding a regulation can cause future problems... true.
Removing a regulation, as described above, can cause future problems too.
Prior to Reagan, the regulation/deregulation pendulum was too far to the regulation side... and now we've swung it too far the other way.
A happy balance of the right kind of regulations and ONLY the right kind of regulations is the goal. Obama is swinging the pendulum back the right direction..... but my fear is that he'll swing it too far.
But given a choice between too much regulation (stifled growth... i.e. 1970s) and not enough regulation (economic disasters... i.e. 1929, 2008).... we all do better under the former.
I survived the Bush Administration
um.
Yeah. Because it was totally unproductive before... I made the point long ago that greed as a part of this discussion was misderection. Tlaloc and ML didn't like it one bit. They see greed as the only explanation and I think that's pretty much the view of a majority of people out there.
Good luck with that one. No one has even come close to it in the past. And that's why a constant focus on regulation is nothing but preventing specific past events.
Too true, Magilson
too true. too true.
Yeah. Because it was
Sorry if I jumped the gun, but I was getting the feeling that this was going to turn into some sort of semantic quibble where we just went back and forth saying "it is greed, it isn't greed..."
John's comment put the discussion in perspective, taking the emphasis off of the word greed.
Actually, plenty of people avoided these bad investments, often by just applying some simple prudence to their financial decisions. While the details of this crisis are unique, there are a number of shared aspects with previous crises -- including overleveraging and unfounded optimism.
I hope you recognize that did not call for any centralized regulation-- I was constantly speaking about what individuals could do in the context of their own economic interactions.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Thanks, Adam
I often find the discussion of such matters to wander on...as you say...."self-righteousness" whereby some think there's some "there there" with regard to greed.
Human nature is part of anything involving humans and greed is part of human nature...and therefore is part of economic activity.
Some very anti-market types, however, make far too much this and act as though there's something interesting to see there with regard to the role of greed.
I also see the deflection of blame on greed by more free market types...like me and magilson...being mistaken as the same thing as the embracing or defense of greed itself.
Defending greed and clarifying that greed is not truly a culprit since it is a constant are not the same thing.
A 5th lesson to be drawn is that incentive structures need to be truly, really and I-mean-really understood and respected so as to keep greed balanced as an incentive toward gain....just like proper aerodynamics needs to be respected to avoid the pitfalls of gravity.
The first failed attempts at a flying machine were not blamed on gravity...it was poor design. Same thing. Yes, one could blame gravity but the argument doesn't explain much. Obviously, there's more at play.
Once people understand that this is indeed the proper launch point for these discussions, a lot of self-serving nonsense about greed goes away.
Greed is not good. Greed just is and always be. No point in dwelling on it. Proper market rules simply need to mitigate it. Yes, more often than not, true free market principles tend to do this. And the word "true" in that previous sentence is the key word. And "true" means the opposite of some twisted anti-market caricature of some free-for-all.
greed in government
I guess I don't see why the identification of greed's role in this mess would implicitly validate state intervention in the markets. State agents are just as susceptible (if not moreso) to greed and hubris as anyone else.
But I take your point that some people do connect the existence of greed to the need for oversight.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
A founding pillar of public choice theory
Indeed.
Evolution yeah right like rocks just turned into cats lmao
An accurate depiction of Facebook
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Obama stresses fiscal responsibility.
If only
!
Interesting. Actually, I could quote the whole article, but I think you should really go to MSNBC and at least add to their ad counter because the article has so much awesome the comedy could write itself.
And I think this plays into a conversation between skymutt and john. There is no question as to the kind of spending that Obama will cut and there is no question as to what spending will be favored in it's place. And by the way, that "policy" addresses nothing of defecit reduction.
The single-most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far? Really?
All laughable rhetoric aside, not even the Democrats really believe
what captain change is saying anymore.
Also of note: Adding a bit of "squiggle" to the future portion of a graph of budget predictions makes it credible. I wonder if I could get away with that at work?
Change is dead. This is status quo politics.
Gee, exactly 1 minute ago liberals were flying around this...
...joint like bloodthirsty bats in a barn - one post - followed by the next - in a frenzed feeding of prime liberal fare.
Kind of like fingernails on a chalboard.
It lasted till 8:50, your post was at 8:51, it is 9:30, over half an hour has passed, LOL, and I can't hear a squeak or a flutter! LOL!
It's as if in the darkest of night, the sun suddenly came up!
Bless your heart Mags!
Ppffsssst! Liberals...yoo hoo...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Hint
Most of us are in a different time zone, dude.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I took that into consideration...I was here during that time...
...Dude.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Well, you didn't consider it very well, then
Magilson posted ten minutes before 11pm. That's pretty late by my standards. It's certainly not a time when I want to start any kind of serious discussion, unless it is a particularly fascinating topic or I don't have to work in the morning. But if you really want to believe that everyone was just scared off by the brilliance of magilson's post, then feel free. I'm sure that idea fits in wonderfully with all the other prejudices about liberals populating your brain.
And egad, I hope you didn't take offense at being called dude, for cryin' out loud. Especially considering your own penchant for using diminutive little salutations when addressing others. Dude is hardly an insult.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
All you liberals were chattering away like little girls....
....the moment M posted that...screech______!
Finida la comedia...
You could of heard a pin drop.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Sorry, I can't really respond to this.
It's brilliance has scared me something terrible. I shall go cry in the corner, then maybe call my mommy.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Whatever, you're acting childish enough...
...so it wouldn't surprise me much.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You despise Obama
So what would be the point. Did you want someone to respond so you can have another opportunity for a self gratifying hate infested rant against anyone that thinks Obama is doing a good job? No thanks.
It's pretty difficult to discuss policies or solutions that come via our political system with anyone whose starting point is they essentially don't believe government is a valid arbitrator for solving problems.
I watched the whole of the open forum and the Presidents interaction with various folks from both sides of the aisle. It was freaking awesome.
I'm only half stupid
Sorry, you're unceasingly inept, inconcinne, bu!!sh!t...
...has become so enervated, and worn so thin I can not even stand the thought of reading your post.
But since you addressed me, I will leave you with this;
Both of you are just stepford liberals!
One of the funniest things I've ever seen at SC were the liberals scrambling around here falling all over themselves to justify funding for contraception in what was supposed to be a stimulus bill, it was a F'ing embarrassment, yet you couldn't help yourselves!. LOL!
You two are just little liberal automatons, Barry winds you up, and off you go.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Maybe you should consider
leaving the site and putting your efforts somewhere else where everyone thinks just like you and your efforts will be more constructive.
You have managed to thoroughly piss off more than half of the posters here and not all of them are 'liberals'.
I'm only half stupid
Does that mean you'll
Does that mean you'll actually start to answer direct questions directly? That would be a nice change of pace from you!
It depends
All questions are not created equal.
Joe MacCarthy was just asking questions.
I am not particularly into witch hunts, where folks pound the table and scream are you a communist, because you sure sound like a communist when you say taxes are the state!
*pounds table* answer the question "are you or have you ever been a (_______)! Answer the question now. Answer! I said answer the question.
Yeah and the definition of rationalization, is still a fill in the blank, so let's not pretend that rhetorical flair disguised as some implied yet unknown fact isn't a part of your warchest.
I'm only half stupid
I provided an explanation.
I provided an explanation. Posts get lost in here with the volume so you may have missed it. I also stated, in the original explanation, that it was quick and dirty and so I asked for slack. Definition aside, you still haven't bothered to read about Austrian Economics which is why you keep referencing it improperly. When asked specific questions you provide no explanation at all. At least I tried to answer yours...
Besides, I'd rather give a poor definition of something in an honest attempt of simplification that to avoid something while calling it a witch hunt. It just seems less silly to take my route than yours.
I actually have bothered
to read some of it. I still find it mostly distasteful.
Yes I understand Hayek won a prize. His biggest contribution is that resources are in 'flux' or something.
My totally biggest beef is that if someone of 'the school' is asked a specific question that would then pin them down to a specific conclusion, the answer is always evasive, always. The thinking goes something like, if only you understood you would be a believer.
There's always the hard pressed reality that you admited yourself that the Fed is not going to magically go away, yet this seems to be the keystone on which the whole theory rests. That is what I was trying to say when I was speaking about layering one system over another.
At best it comes across as lassie faire capitalism, at worst creative destruction, nihilism and rationalizing human life as capital.
It's just not my cup of tea.
I mostly agree with this analysis.
http://www.rgemonitor.com/emergingmarkets-monitor/254957/the_austrian_and_chicago_schools
I'm only half stupid
Example?
An example?
I am not going to
go on about this since generally our discussions devolve into non productive exchanges.
One example would be when I specifically asked you if you knew of a place, or a country where the free markets exist you never answered that question, but instead chose to latch onto some meme about "oh you really think you have latched onto something don't you", without ever specifically answering the question.
Another instance would be lack of clarification of the definition of state, when it is more than obvious that there are a myriad of meanings that go with that specific word. Dissertations have been written on the meaning of state. As if asking for clarification on a definition of a word involved in a question, or giving my own perception of the definition of state when answering a question was somehow irrelevant and meaningless or stupid.
I'm only half stupid
I wonder why....hehehehe
And looking at your answer it's not hard to see why.
I asked for an example of when:
You didn't provide any.
And mind you, this was said by you in the context of having read up on Austrian School. So I aksed for an example.
What you have given has nothing to do with Austrian School. You are asking generic political philiosophy questions...(keep that in mind if you decide to answer this post). Not only that, you were given answers to your first question in the past with further explanations as to why it's a bad question to begin with. The second is nonsense because you never asked that question. In fact, the thread related to that idea involved a question that you wouldn't answer.
But anyway, like I said, you didn't ask any questions about Austrian School. My guess is because you have no idea what it really is. Moreover, nobody here on this site is an economist....Austrian or otherwise. I was expecting an example from a debate debate between economists elsewhere.
...
...
I'm only half stupid
You make my point yet again...
Your answer is evasive.
You ignore that you never answered the one question (okay for you but not for me)
New qualifiers are added, as the goal posts move.
You dismiss good faith views from others (they poison the theory)
New rules, you can't dispute my theories even though I am not an economist, because you are not an economist. Fairly arrogant since you refer to the theory time and time again, yet for others this is disallowed, because 'you know' they just don't understand.
Now since I am not an economist and therefore not qualified as you stated to dispute the theory, then I would assume that if you have questions about this analysis by a real economist, then since you aren't an economist then your analysis wouldn't be valid either under your new terms and conditions that the debate must be between economists.
Case dismissed.
source: http://www.rgemonitor.com/emergingmarkets-monitor/254957/the_austrian_and_chicago_schools
I'm only half stupid
How is the answer evasive?
I answered you directly and clearly.
Let's backtrack...
ML:
John:
ML:
John did answer that question in the past but that has nothing to do with Austrian School.
John was actually waiting endlessly for a simple yes or no answer as to whether the state and society were the same thing. This question was actually never asked by MissL.
But no matter because again:
John
Later in the same post:
Now I'm not sure where I am moving the goal posts. Maybe you were referring to this, which came at the end of the same post:
But that's not moving the goal posts. I was simply stating what I thought you meant. Such an example would have carried a little more weight with the goal posts unmoved. But this part doesn't really matter since I was just stating what I THOUGHT you were talking about. It doesn't matter if you weren't because that impression I got is not really needed in this point.
We still have:
Your stating an assertion.
My asking for an example.
Your providing examples that do not affirm the assertion.
My stating that you didn't provide any examples.
Did I miss something?
BTW,
This is really torturing the point:
This actually twisting what I meant above. I thought you were referring to an exchange between economists.. I explained this. Now if you want to force yourself to take what I said to mean something that validates this quote from you, then you totally missed the point.
The reason for that entire point was because you said "of the school"...so I naturally thought you were referring to an actual economist. Nowhwere did I intend for it to mean that we as non-economists cannot have anything to say. I think that's pretty simple to appreciate at this point.
The difference here is that you don't actually say anything about the Austrian School. You say things about generic political and socio-economic philosophy and pretend you are actually discussing Austrian School Economics when you are really not.
And still you don't have any real examples
of the assertion you made above because...little did you know...you weren't really referring to the Austrian School in the first place.
You somehow think that talking about politics political philosophy is the same thing and it is not because you don't have the faintest idea what it is.
And that's fine. You don't have to. But none of this would matter if you didn't act like you knew something about.
As to the article:
The summary provided is incredibly basic and hollow. If the Austrian School actually stopped there, there wouldn't be much to it. Naturally, there's tons upon tons more....only a small fraction of which I've even read about.
Secondly, the author embellishes and oversimplifies at the end on points 6,7 and 8.
But notice, nowhere did the author actually present anything substantial and address it and say what's wrong on a specific hard point. The author didn't even stick his/her toe in the pool but rather simply smelled the chlorine from the neighboring yard through heavy shrubs.
Weak.
Yes, As you say, Hayek won a Nobel...as did James Buchanan. That's two from the school. I'm sure what they contributed to economics was considerably more complex and substantial than that silly Disneyland summary. And it indeed was.
LOL! "I"...piss off the posters here...
...oh my dear?
You know ML, a couple weeks ago, you were reeling from the simple admonishments from a large percentage of SC members, simply asking for you to stay on topic, and either clarify your point, or answer a question, directly. Simple as that.
Well, as we all have become so accustomed to, you failed to do either, and even to this day you are a virtual kaleidoscope of contradiction. But I digress.
You claimed The Austrian School is a secretive sect, and I posted books and links to the places you could find answers, you whined that you might as well leave, I urged you to stay, and reminded you it was answers not an absence of them that was the problem.
That is the reason I am so over trying to get somewhere with you, you just never make and defend your position with anything more than a flurry of ineffectual, amorphous psycho-babble. And the really bothersome part is, despite daily reminders of that very aggravation from literally everyone you interact with, you do not seem to want to do anything about it?
SC members may not like my politics, or the deliberate way I come across sometimes, but we all know what F'ing nut job you are ML.
Suffice it to say, I will remain right here, being who I am, trying to be a better person everyday, and happily so.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You're a fascinating person
You're a fascinating person RW. You go so far as to write a post apologizing for being insulting ( or something like that) and then call people f------ nutballs. I mean really hard can trying to be a better person be?
Just jump right in there JM...
...I am, and I do try to be a good person.
But not at the expense of being honest, or calling it what it is in light of her approach.
Maybe you should just keep teaching everyone else here about religion, let me worry about my own soulfulness, okay!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Call me an old fashioned
Call me an old fashioned moralist, but I think there's ways to be honest without swearing. And I wasn't really even admonishing you. It's just interesting that someone who writes a post on trying to be more civil goes on to be so uncivil. It just doesn't seem to me like it would be that hard to not call someone an f------ nutball. But whatever...
Well, it would be if it was the first, second, maybe third or...
...fourth time you have addressed a thing. But when it is the umpteenth time, and frustration sets in to the point it has, F'ing nutjob is putting it mildly.
My point was to show her that I, and certainly more so John, and PF, and Mags, and well everyone she has engagements with, have tried to provide her with, and accommodate her in answering her questions, whenever they are coherent enough to understand, yet when provided resources and answers to her Q's she refuses to stay on topic long enough for anyone to get anywhere with her.
SC is littered with threads addressing this, long lengthy threads by various members basically pleading with her to be reasonable and follow through with her oratory instead of doing the old dodge perry and weave routine.
So if I am short to the draw, or I should say, if it appears as if I am, in reality it has been at the cost of many attempts to be otherwise.
Neither work though, so in that regard you are right I suppose. I'm trying JM.. ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
My suggestion (generically --
My suggestion (generically -- I'm not weighing in on any particular individuals here) is to just either decline to engage with someone (with or without a comment to that effect) or to point out that the person is repeatedly failing to address the question/argument and decline to to further unless/until he/she does so.
I know that's easier said than done and I don't always practice what I preach, but I think that's a better route than getting very loud, hostile and vulgar on SC.
I understand BR, and agree, but you need look no further...
...than a few inches above this very post for an abnoxious example of what happens when one makes an attempt of that sort.
Poor John's been bending over backwards for weeks, for what, so she can insult him, pretend it is he who is disengenious?
It's like this whole thing with ML since literally day 1 at SC has been an eyebrow raiser, then a forehead wrinkler, then a jaw clincher, a deep breather, take a short walker, try to reasoner, cut it off at the knees'er, turn the other cheeker, be a better personer, try a different tacker, scratch your header, beat the desktoper, drive a stake through it's hearter...you get the drift.
But I do appreciate your reasoning, and am always open to change. Thanks.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
As I said, I haven't been
As I said, I haven't been following the exchanges (even on this thread). I'll say this (again, generically): Although I'm extremely aversive to moderators suspending/banning people (for a number of reasons, some matters of principle, some due to errors and abuses in practice, and some due to the adverse impact on discourse [e.g., commenters treating mods differently than others]) if an individual is persistently, clearly way out of line and very disruptive, I think a combination of coaching and warnings is in order, and if that fails, a suspension is in order, and if that fails, banning.
Again, I'm a generic statement above, not referring to any individuals.
Admittedly I haven't followed
Admittedly I haven't followed much of the exchanges between you guys (RW and ML), but just glancing at them it seems that the tone of your exchanges is really making SC look bad to any visitors (potential new participants), as well as being cringe-worthy for the current participants. I am certainly guilty of my share of snark and insulting tone, but I think you guys take it to another level in terms of both degree and frequency.
I'm not commenting at all on what's causing this or whose fault it is (or is more). But as general guidelines I'd suggest for anybody, I humbly suggest and request the following (some of which I should follow more consistently myself), in the interest of the SC community:
- Stay away from name-calling with really ugly profanity (e.g., the "F" word), even with hyphens and asterisks.
- Try to speak in appropriately measured terms rather than engaging in hyperbole, particularly hyperbole that is provocatively insulting to some group. Also, if you are going to make an extreme or sweeping statement and it is based more on some general sense of yours rather than on an appropriate level and quality of information you've absorbed, say so (e.g., "I haven't really read up on this, but my sense is that..." or at least something like the latter part -- "my sense is" -- rather than stating it more provocatively as "truth")
- Try to address each other's arguments rather than attacking the person. Ask for clarification of the premises and logic of his/her argument. Ask for the basis of some premise or challenge its validity by offering a counterargument, perhaps with relevant information. Ask about or challenge the reasoning (the logic) of the argument.
- Make a good-faith effort to answer questions and respond to arguments -- the actual questions and arguments posed, not straw men -- directly, substantively, relevantly and logically.
- (This one overlaps with all of the above) In general, try to shift more toward asking questions (and not rhetorical ones, real questions) rather than making counterpoints. If someone says "Policy X is immoral", ask about the person's criteria for immorality, how he/she is applying those criteria to the particular case in terms of "facts"/assumptions, what view he/she would have in some other case (real or hypothetical) applying the same criteria, etc.
There are more useful guidelines I'm sure. Please feel free, anyone, to add to this list (or take issue with it or suggest refinements of it).
Sounds fair to me
Maybe somebody could add this to the guidelines in the FAQ.
I'm only half stupid
All good stuff, and you touched on the heart of the matter...
...and that is this;
What has happened is the above has gone on, and on, and on, and nothing, no reasonable effort to follow through in return. So essentially what happens is she flys around the site jumping in, and making long involved postulations, then refuses to rationally defend any of them.
Now look, I am not absolving myself from anything here, I can be as rude and obnoxious as the best of them, and I am on more occasions that I want to be. I have though told her on more than one occasion I would like it if we could be more topical and responsible for the content of our exchanges, but I am either rebuked, or it quickly becomes evident the gesture was in vain.
However, in the spirit of good faith, and a sincere appreciation for SC, I am fully prepared to begin anew, and apply the guidelines you've outlined.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Thanks, and as for how to
Thanks, and as for how to deal with someone who doesn't seem to be playing well, so to speak, my suggestion is at http://swordscrossed.org/story/20090223/monday-open-thread#comment-106093
By the way, just to use myself as an example of something else not to do, in my initial comment on this thread at http://swordscrossed.org/story/20090223/monday-open-thread#comment-106033
I really should have left out the snark. While such snark may feel good to the speaker (me, in that case), it adds nothing substantively and often reduces the likelihood of a high quality exchange. My snark was in response to what I perceived to be snark, but the latter was directed at a public figure, whereas mine was directed at the commenter here on SC, which is quite different in terms of likely detrimental impact on subsequent discourse.
The contraception thing
See, and I thought it was pretty funny that you never came up with a decent argument against it. Just goes to show that we have different points of view, you know?
And, IIRC, I did agree that it didn't belong in a stimulus bill. The argument I was making was that it was a good, money-saving idea.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
It was a money saving idea
If Republicans want to be taken seriously, they need to stop lying.
The keep repeating ridiculous talking points that are not true.
Did you hear the one about the high speed rail from Disneyland to Las Vegas. Ack!
I'm only half stupid
Lt Rt Lt Rt Lt Rt Lt...
Obama said that condoms are good, just use your food stamps to buy all your food;
This is a crisis like we've never seen, expand the Government-why make it lean;
Those Republicans - they spent too damn much, now we must spend more cause there ain't no free lunch;
Print that money as fast just as you can, no need to worry when we got uncle sam;
No we don't got the reseves in the vault, we've convinced ourselves its all Bush's fault!
Lt Rt Lt Rt Lt Rt Lt.....
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Since Red_Wing demands a reply... :)
Pay-as-you-go is important progress towards fiscal responsibility. Just think how much better off we'd be if the previous administration had done this. I'm not really sure why you are pooh-poohing this.
Medicare and Medicaid are pretty huge (and growing) programs, don't you think? What would you say is the most pressing fiscal challenge we face?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
That's an easy one!
The inflation caused by improper Fed policy reaction to it's own monetary understanding shortcomings... All those other problems can be solved easily by slowly pulling back from programs that simply don't work no matter how big you make them or how well you fund them.
Fair enough
Although in the context of talking about the budget, that doesn't really apply. In the context of talking about the budget, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that health care costs are the most pressing fiscal challenge.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Our government just created a
Our government just created a bunch of money from thin air to "fix our economy". It couldn't be any more relevant to a budget discussion.
THAT is our #1 problem...
...or in the very least not the answer!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Acute vs. chronic
That's an acute, possibly somewhat painful problem, as opposed to the chronic, lethal-if-untreated problem of runaway health care costs. I guess I just don't agree with you that a one-time expenditure spread out over a few years is more troublesome than a constant, ever-increasing expenditure. We can leave it at that.
I can't help but think of an analogy in this case. I know you hate them, so feel free to ignore it:
A person, after years of an artery-clogging diet, has a heart attack. CPR revives him, but breaks a rib in the process. What is the most pressing challenge facing this patient - the broken rib or the clogged arteries?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
The Fed
is not going to disappear, or evaporate no matter how much you wish it so.
One of the reasons our economy hasn't completely collapsed (your dream come true?!) is the Feds ability to print money, whether or not you or I disagree with that policy isn't going to change the facts.
I'm only half stupid
And how do you arrive at the
And how do you arrive at the conclusion that this effect of the Fed action contributes more to our long-term fiscal imbalance than does the projected growth and size of Medicare and Medicaid? Do you have some quantitative explanation? Some credible economists who present an argument for that view?
First off,
Your link to Ezra Klein is broken... Of course it doesn't really matter, because to leap from that link to a sweeping statement that "even the Democrats don't believe what captain change is saying anymore" is pretty ridiculous, considering that it's neither a representative view of all Democrats nor indicative on non-belief in Obama.
*edit... the link still doesn't work... the editor screws it up... you can cut and paste this into your browser: www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2009&base_name=how_the_meaning_of_fiscal_resp
Secondly, by saying stuff like this:
There is no question as to the kind of spending that Obama will cut and there is no question as to what spending will be favored in it's place.
...you and John are presuming Obama failures for events that have not happened yet. I agree with you guys that in the past, temporary emergency measures have turned into permanent policy far too often. If Obama shows the discipline to shut off the spigots once the economy stabilizes, that would be a change from the past. To criticize him before he has an opportunity to make that change is just cynicism. I will meet you halfway and not give him credit for things he has not achieved yet.
By the way, health care reform is critical to fiscal responsibility. David Walker, no raging left-winger, has repeatedly brought up the fact that the government's $41 trillion in unfunded obligations-- $34 trillion of that from Medicare-- represent a perhaps a greater challenge than even the current cash deficits. At least it's starting to being talked about now by the highest levels of leadership... after 8 long years of Bush doing nothing.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Eh. You might be right. But
Eh. You might be right. But I doubt it. Also, I promise to stop making generalizations when you do. ;)
And I am fully aware
of the commitments that our government has made that it simply cannot possibly fulfill without further damaging our economy.
You need to appreciate the wrinkle in my ire, skymutt
I am not saying this would constitute an Obama failure. I am saying this would constitute a proven and sad pattern in politics....moreso with Congress if anything. That's all.
Success or failure for Obama is not even the issue for me.
What Bush did
was insert the private sector into medicare under the guise of competition (Medicare Part D) so they could suck up the profits, while still counting on the government guarantee. It just made the entire program more expensive by inserting third parties that drive up the costs even further.
I'm only half stupid
The single-most pressing
Yeah, really (or at the very least quite arguably). Are you familiar at all with the drivers of our long-term fiscal imbalance and the relative magnitudes thereof? What do you think are the largest drivers?
ok, I'll be a guy and answer for you. The big kahuna is Medicare (in terms of eventual portion of the budget and in terms of dollar growth), and although much of the projected growth is driven by demographics, a very large portion -- indeed an even greater factor than demographics -- is "the rising cost of healthcare". I take it from your comment that this is news to you.
Yes thank you.
the projected numbers over time are staggering and unsustainable.
I'm only half stupid
Absolutely.
I couldn't agree more!
The only way I can tolerate
The only way I can tolerate the ignorance of this post is if you didn't bother to read the link I posted an my subsequently short but concise answer. So I suggest you fully engage in this dabate by reading all of what I've said so far. Medicare is a huge part. But you can throw as much money as you want at it and the Democratic party will just keep expanding the scope. It's like Republicans and the defense budget. What's going to attack us next works as well for the Republicans with "enemies of the state" as "helping those in need" does for the Democrats.
It's laughable, at best.
Your subsequent comment (to
Your subsequent comment (to Spiritual Lefty) doesn't change my impression that either you don't really know what you're talking about as far as the relative magnitudes of drivers of our long-term fiscal imbalance.
As for the argument you just presented to me ("you can throw as much money as you want at [Medicare] and the Democratic party will just keep expanding the scope"), it's a combination of (1) the typical, convenient, simplistic, unsubstantiated, ideologically-driven assumption that raising tax revenues can't help reduce our fiscal imbalance because "for every additional dollar in revenues, Congress spends an additional $1.50" and (2) a non sequitur: Even if #1 were true, how does that invalidate the premise that the projected increase and size of Medicare spending (or of Medicare & Medicaid combined) is the largest driver of our long-term fiscal imbalance, and that reducing the rate of this cost growth is difficult, complex, and has long lead times, making this cost growth the "single-most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far"? How does that translate into "throwing as much money as you want at it"?
More of this please
You seem to have a grasp of the numbers and figures and details that I very much appreciate.
It wouldn't be that difficult to have a concerted disciplined effort to cut out the bloat and excess in medicare by streamlining the process to cut costs. There are many of ways to approach the problem.
Another area is the procurement process for defense. The example being a helicopter for the President that has become so ridiculously expensive it costs as much as air force one. McCain mentioned it, as a bit of a jab, but I think it was directed more at Bush/Cheney/ bloat in the defense department.
On the revenue side, tax shelters, and tax cheating loopholes are another obvious solution coupled with eliminating the tax breaks for companies that ship american jobs over seas.
I'm only half stupid
Thing is, hyperpartisans on
Thing is, hyperpartisans on both ends of the political spectrum with regard to fiscal policy (conservatives/libertarians on the right, liberals on the left) are going to have to get real.
Since you are on the left, let me disabuse you of some convenient, but invalid, notions you may have. Even if we eliminate "waste and abuse", "streamline processes" and achieve other efficiency gains, cut Defense substantially, and raised taxes on "the rich" as much as possible without killing (or counterproductively harming the health of) the goose that lays the golden eggs, we still would be left with a larger long-term fiscal imbalance than you would want (i.e., based on "progressive" values and priorities). Put differently, even if we did all of those things, even (well-informed) "progressives", knowledgeable of the trade-offs associated with the policy alternatives, would prefer policy changes that would entail real sacrifice for most Americans (reduced eligibility and benefit levels for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and broad-based tax increases) to allowing higher debt-to-GDP by foregoing such sacrifices.
Put yet differently, it's a big sh*t sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite. Those on the right need to accept that taxation will go up and those on the left need to accept that most Americans (not just "the rich") are going to have to sacrifice to get our fiscal house in order rather than face (and/or let our children face) enormous interest expense, growth-depriving/recession-causing high interest rates, and/or devastating inflation.
Interesting.
And there's nothing typical about your assumption that I don't think raising taxes is appropriate or that it works to reduce a deficit? That gave me a good chuckle. Thanks for that. I have no doubt that additional tax collection or reduced spending on things our Democratic Congress don't like or modification of programs using the money are all ways that a deficit can be reduced. And I never said that Congress automatically spends $1.50 for every $1.00 in taxes that they collect. (But don't get me started on how the collection of that dollar can reduce future tax income because the government cannot create any wealth with it. Most Democrats don't believe that because their veiws about wealth creation are typical, convenient, simplistic, unsubstantiated, and ideologically-driven...)
I'm not trying to invalidate your understanding that Medicare and Medicaid are a "big deal" for the long-term fiscal outlook of our economy. I don't agree that the size and scope of those programs are justified and so, when you call them a problem based on your own valuation of their services, I'm not trying to change your mind. You will never change your mind. I'm just stepping back and saying they're a bad idea, they should be scaled back on a massive scale, and the problem disappears.
Besides, If I'm supposed to believe the multipliers Democrats keep spitting out about defecit spending with absolutely no credible evidence to back them up, whatsoever, then I don't see why we couldn't just keep borrowing money to make money all while doing absolutely nothing to create wealth. So just keep printing money and it will magically give me back 150%, right? So which is it, then? Does defecit spending matter or not? Please be consistant on this. I had to listen to Republicans mumble about this the last 8 years. It's beggining to become apparent the Democrats haven't the slightest clue, either.
And I'll post my link
to give you another opportunity to read about a point I wanted to make. Based on your statements about my apparent gross misunderstanding I can tell you hadn't reviously bothered with it. I get how big the issue really is.
Leaving aside your baseless
Leaving aside your baseless and erroneous presumptions about my views and the supposed rigidity thereof, and in the interest of time, for now at least I'll deal with just one item from your comment.
To my question:
how does that invalidate the premise that the projected increase and size of Medicare spending (or of Medicare & Medicaid combined) is the largest driver of our long-term fiscal imbalance, and that reducing the rate of this cost growth is difficult, complex, and has long lead times, making this cost growth the "single-most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far"?
You reply:
I'm not trying to invalidate your understanding that Medicare and Medicaid are a "big deal" for the long-term fiscal outlook of our economy. I don't agree that the size and scope of those programs are justified and so, when you call them a problem based on your own valuation of their services, I'm not trying to change your mind. You will never change your mind. I'm just stepping back and saying they're a bad idea, they should be scaled back on a massive scale, and the problem disappears.
You seem to implicitly acknowledge (if in a [perhaps deliberately] vague way, exchanging "largest driver" with "big deal" and exchanging "fiscal imbalance" with "fiscal outlook") that projected Medicare and Medicaid spending under current policy is the largest driver of our long-term fiscal imbalance. Yet you argue that changing policy to reduce that projected spending is clearly not our greatest long-term fiscal policy challenge because...(drumroll please)...you think we should change policy to reduce that projected spending. Even if all you mean by that is that you'd just like to see half or two-thirds or 90% of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries simply cut off from those benefits (something I doubt you've thought through in terms of impact on those people and on others, but it sure does sound nice when you just float it out there as "liberty" and "personal responsibility"), as opposed to more moderately reducing eligibility combined with making systematic changes for cost-reduction, considering such a massive scaling back of those programs politically feasible is unrealistic or at the very, very, VERY least an enormous political challenge, as well as requiring other major adjustments by individuals, government, and organizations/businesses in the private sector that have long lead times (e.g., individuals building up more savings for healthcare when they retire). So, in a nutshell, your argument is that massively cutting projected Medicare and Medicaid spending would be our biggest challenge in reducing our long-term fiscal imbalance if it weren't for the fact that we can and should do it. Interesting logic.
Oh, and you didn't answer the "throwing money" question (i.e., you didn't offer an explanation for the apparent non sequitur).
[Anyone know why the quote function isn't working for me? Is it because I just added Firefox and posted my comment initially via Firefox? I tried it again with IE and still no dice, so I just added italics]
Sure. If it makes you feel better about it.
n/t
Whatever that means. Sorry,
Whatever that means. Sorry, I must have mistaken you for the guy who asked me to "fully engage in this debate". Feel free to address my comment. Or not. But a snarky dodge is lame.
Something that can be solved
Something that can be solved quickly and easily is not a problem in my book. It's a nuisance. The thought process and economic understanding that lead to the monetary policies that induced this bubble and the way we've chosen to solve it are root concerns for me. Even if we pay back the debt in a reasonable amount of time (I'll keep it vague because it's not important to define it for the sake of this conversation) it still leaves us open to the exact same problem in the future. Leaving aside the necessity of a program like Medicare and Medicaid, it's just a program. You can choose to fund it or not to fund it or to borrow to fund it, etc. These are all simple and clear choices despite anyone's political leanings. The really difficult thing to change will be our monetary policy. That's why I see it as a bigger problem. I'm sure you understand that I have a few things I'm very clear about wanting to change with regard to monetary policy. But even I won't admit to the kind of clairvoyance it takes to make the determinations about payback multiplyers and which segments of an economy to prop up to contstitute a recovery. I simply er on the side of individual choices over corraling citizenry.
So when you say it's poor logic to say I don't think Medicade and Medicare are effective within their current scope therefore I don't want to waste money on it therefore I acknowledge we are going to have to spend a lot of money on it therefore I am admitting that it's a major problem doesn't really address the point. I think we spend far, far too much on militaristic endevors as well. And even though it's not on the top of your list for future fiscal problems I still think the spending should be reduced. I don't see that my position is inconsistent. These problems are all easily addressed. As ML pointed out elsewhere, I'm probably never going to get my wish that the Fed by abolished. That doesn't mean I don't see it as our biggest threat to future prosperity.
You misrepresented my
You misrepresented my assertions about your reasoning, and you continue to be presumptuous about my views on fiscal policy, but I'm going to resist my urge to deconstruct, correct and explain, and put aside the meta discussion so we can focus on substance.
As I've explained, even if all we consider are the politics of it, a massive scaling back of entitlements is by no means "something that can be solved quickly and easily". Indeed, it's would not be realistic politically even slowly and with great effort. Also as I've explained, changes would need to be phased in over many years to allow planning and adjustment.
We could get into (or continue) a discussion of semantics -- by what criteria something is "the most pressing challenge" related to our long-term fiscal imbalance (projected spending; difficulty in changing course; etc.), but that would probably be tedious and uninteresting for both of us, so, leaving aside definitions of "pressing" and "challenge", I think I understand what you're saying/impling: You think that our current monetary system and general policy approach are more entrenched and tougher to change than Medicare & Medicaid policy, and thus we will probably reduce the latter problem (sooner or later) enough that the larger contributor to our long-term fiscal imbalance will be unwise monetary policy. Did I get your view right? If so, how do you see that happening -- inflation suppressing/reducing real GDP?
As a note (and this may be something of which you're already aware and may have had in mind), the Fed may play a role in a long-term fiscal imbalance disaster scenario, although more as a lesser-of-evils choice than as a cause. Our deficits and debt-to-GDP may grow so large that, rather than the Treasury offering high interest rates on Treasuries (our borrowing), the Fed provides the cash ("prints money"), thus "monetizing the debt", which would bring harmful inflation.
Well, so much for Bobby Jindal for prez in 2012...
From BirdDog's laundry list of Jindal's positive attributes
from a few months ago:
Hmm, I think that we need to make an edit, don't you? Wait, let me get my pencil here... okay, it's a little dull, I've got to run it thru the sharpener, hold on...
[grind grind grind]
There we are. Much better.
And now we will see the Republicans ease Jindal ever so gently to the side after his stunningly awkward performance last night. I think that most Republicans will be able to recognize that if you can't even figure out the proper word to stress in a sentence, it's going to be very difficult to communicate your vision for America and inspire much confidence.
The fact is that the Republicans liked the idea of Jindal-- a non-white conservative Republican-- to give cover for their party's chronic failure to attract non-whites, a constant source of embarrassment for them. But when it was crunch time, the reality of Jindal did not measure up to the hype. They want to take the lazy, top down approach to expanding their appeal, by hoping to hit the lottery with that one popular non-white national figure that they believe will open the floodgates and kick off a tidal wave of freshly minted minorities rushing into the Republican Party. This is a dubious strategy to begin with, but downright laughable if Jindal's the guy, because this guy is flat as a pancake.
You saw Republican Tokenism on display last night. Republicans could have put up any of a number of their bench of white politicians and made a decent rebuttal to Obama's speech. They just can't admit that they have failed to attact talent in any significant amount from minority groups, and in their haste, they rushed this guy Jindal onto the national stage.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Even worse
Didn't he tout the governments response to Katrina as the way forward for the Republican party. !!!
He was obviously 'coached' to talk slow, but he is a natural born fast talker. It made him sound stupid, which he isn't.
I personally hope that the unemployed in Louisiana (they have the time) march on the capital in droves to protest his refusal to take the unemployment piece of the stimulus.
I'm only half stupid
I dunno...
Is he smart? I know he's got a couple of degrees, but if he's smart, it ain't showing...
What has this guy ever done said or done that merited him the pedestal that he was on before last night? What bright ideas does he have that distinguish him from any other Republican?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Yes he is very smart...
He is a Rhodes Scholar, but maybe he should have gone into medicine instead of politics.
He comes at things from the same view as the failed era of Bushonomics.
Jindal attended Brown University
, graduating with honors in biology and public policy.[8] 
Although he had thought of a career in medicine or law and was accepted by Harvard Medical School 
[citation needed 
] and Yale Law School 
[citation needed 
], he chose to pursue a political career. He received a master's degree 
in political science 
from New College, Oxford 
, as a Rhodes Scholar 
.
As far as what he has done, he was a consultant to Fortune 500 companies at McKinsey and Co, or a part of the 'measure your million dollar drapes' paid for by the taxpayers crowd.
I'm only half stupid