This is an amazing article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bryant-welch/why-obama-had-to-have-bee_b_262639.html
20 August 2009
25 June 2009
American Politics
John Ensign. Gov. Sanford. … don't you just wish that American politics could be about something other than marital fidelity/infidelity???
09 May 2009
17 April 2009
My Open Letter to President Obama
Brno, Czech Republic
17 April 2009
Dear Mr President,
I am a lifelong Democrat Liberal and Progressive. I enthusiastically support your presidency and your agenda. But you are wrong about torture. Keith Olberman and Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island are correct.
We Cannot, We Must Not allow the crimes that were committed in the name of the USA to go unpunished. There must be full prosecution, to show the American People, and the rest of the world that we are a Nation where NO ONE is above the law, even if he was a friend of Dubya, even if our president was such a coward that he approved the Cruel and Unusual Punishment expressly forbidden in the US Constitution.
Sincerely,
Brian Lamont Murdock
Connecticut Citizen
17 April 2009
Dear Mr President,
I am a lifelong Democrat Liberal and Progressive. I enthusiastically support your presidency and your agenda. But you are wrong about torture. Keith Olberman and Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island are correct.
We Cannot, We Must Not allow the crimes that were committed in the name of the USA to go unpunished. There must be full prosecution, to show the American People, and the rest of the world that we are a Nation where NO ONE is above the law, even if he was a friend of Dubya, even if our president was such a coward that he approved the Cruel and Unusual Punishment expressly forbidden in the US Constitution.
Sincerely,
Brian Lamont Murdock
Connecticut Citizen
19 March 2009
Barney Frank
This is an excellent piece adding a little perspective:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/is-there-an-antidote-to-t_b_176538.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/is-there-an-antidote-to-t_b_176538.html
18 March 2009
Clown Limbaugh
President Obama has REAL responsibility. Limbaugh is an entertainer, just like Michael Jackon or Sammy Davis Jr.... an Entertainer like Jerry Lewis. If Clown Limbaugh wants to be taken seriously he'll have to run for president himself.
Progressive Patriots
Become a Progressive Patriot, the WackoRight has been wrong about everything from Slavery all the way through to Dubya's Torturing Random Afghans. It is not too late to become a liberal and start loving America. :-)
Kept us safe???
There is NO evidence that Bush prevented any significant terrorist attack on US soil before or after 9/11.
Health care debate
I read this exchange about the coming socialization of health care on a net discussion site. I thought it was funny:
Someone else is going to pay for my health care…that's great, but I would prefer to man-up and pay my own way, thanks.
Yup, mee too. and if my mother or my son needs an operation that cost more than I have in the bank, screw 'em. They'll just have to tough it out. Cus I'm a tough guy. Ain't nobody payin for MY healthcare. Heck my brother didn't have no money for the amputation he needed, so he done died of Gangrene. Left seven orphans too. But hell that's better then being a leach on society.
We here, down where we live... we're real men, why if my house caught fire, I'd be a man and fight it myself instead o having them Govmint socialists spend Taxpayer dollars on firefighters, like a liberal wimp. I don't need on Socialist Govmint tellin me how ta save my kids from no inferno.
Grover Norquist
If you drown your government in the bathtub, don't be surprised when New Orleans goes under too.
17 March 2009
Marijuana Prohibition
Someone else's commentary:
Abraham Lincoln once said two quotes about prohibition, "Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes," and "A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." I believe that he is right for stating that we have rights and they should not be taken for granted. He may have not been thinking of marijuana when he made his speech, but it involves prohibition, meaning prohibition in general and of any kind.
-----------------------------------
My commentary:
The social cost of Marijuana Prohibition is HUGE.... almost as bad as Alcohol Prohibition's cost was. It so far outweighs the benefits that it defies belief. Don't smoke weed. That's dumb. But the massive resources we put into screwing up our society based on goofy "gateway drug" theories which make no sense at all... Let's stop it NOW.
Abraham Lincoln once said two quotes about prohibition, "Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes," and "A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." I believe that he is right for stating that we have rights and they should not be taken for granted. He may have not been thinking of marijuana when he made his speech, but it involves prohibition, meaning prohibition in general and of any kind.
-----------------------------------
My commentary:
The social cost of Marijuana Prohibition is HUGE.... almost as bad as Alcohol Prohibition's cost was. It so far outweighs the benefits that it defies belief. Don't smoke weed. That's dumb. But the massive resources we put into screwing up our society based on goofy "gateway drug" theories which make no sense at all... Let's stop it NOW.
What would Reagan do?
What would Ronald Reagan do?… Here we are quickly falling into the second Great Depression of the last hundred years. Not a bad time to stop and think. What do we do now? 'Publicans, before making major decisions, like to ask “What would Ronald Reagan do?” Surely he would do the exact opposite of what Franklin Roosevelt did, right? He would stick with small government principles (like Herbert Hoover did) and watch unemployment go up from one in twenty Americans to one in four (like Herbert Hoover did). No. Not quite. If you look at reality, and not at right wing delusions, you find that Ronald Reagan greatly admired FDR and voted for him 4 times. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat back then, and he had his reasons. Were Ronnie alive today, he would do EXACTLY what Barack Obama is doing.
They were too smart
There has been a whole lot of idiocy written about the banks going belly up. One of the worst cases is the often repeated „They are idiots“
Let's make an analogy:
Say there's a dude who took a job as a dishwasher in a restaurant. Five years later you find out that he has made about ten times what the previous dishwasher made… and you think “Wow, this guy must have worked hard.” Then you find out that he managed to do it, without washing any dishes. You think “Surely no Christmas bonus for him this year”. But then you find out that not only does he get a bigger bonus than ever before, but he has also broken all the dishes, so that the government has to step in buy new dishes quick so that the restaurant can operate, and the dishwasher pockets another few months of his huge salary.
That dishwasher is certainly not stupid. He got rich by doing basically nothing. He is not going to jail. And he hasn't even been fired. There may be some moral issue with him implicitly agreeing to wash the dishes (which he apparently never intended to do) which were not washed and were more often broken, but the man is NOT an idiot. He operated in his own self-interest, which the extreme free-marketeers will tell you brings the greatest good to all. The current banking crisis is proof positive that Ayn Rand was dead wrong.
Let's make an analogy:
Say there's a dude who took a job as a dishwasher in a restaurant. Five years later you find out that he has made about ten times what the previous dishwasher made… and you think “Wow, this guy must have worked hard.” Then you find out that he managed to do it, without washing any dishes. You think “Surely no Christmas bonus for him this year”. But then you find out that not only does he get a bigger bonus than ever before, but he has also broken all the dishes, so that the government has to step in buy new dishes quick so that the restaurant can operate, and the dishwasher pockets another few months of his huge salary.
That dishwasher is certainly not stupid. He got rich by doing basically nothing. He is not going to jail. And he hasn't even been fired. There may be some moral issue with him implicitly agreeing to wash the dishes (which he apparently never intended to do) which were not washed and were more often broken, but the man is NOT an idiot. He operated in his own self-interest, which the extreme free-marketeers will tell you brings the greatest good to all. The current banking crisis is proof positive that Ayn Rand was dead wrong.
Protect the Taxpayers Act
Forget this one little drop in the bucket. The 150million to AIG traders in bonuses is tiny. The real problem is much much bigger than that.
We need a new ClawBack law. We will call it, Protect the Taxpayer Act of 09. It will say that All employees of All companies that required Federal funds to avoid bankruptcy will return all remuneration, bonuses, stock options etc, received from the Taxpayer funded company in excess of 400,000 dollars per year, retroactively for the past Three years. Any company exec who fails to return the money... will get 5 years in prison.
We need a new ClawBack law. We will call it, Protect the Taxpayer Act of 09. It will say that All employees of All companies that required Federal funds to avoid bankruptcy will return all remuneration, bonuses, stock options etc, received from the Taxpayer funded company in excess of 400,000 dollars per year, retroactively for the past Three years. Any company exec who fails to return the money... will get 5 years in prison.
13 March 2009
10 March 2009
The Price of Freedom
But really let's think for a minute about Japan at the end of WWII... there were three really ugly incidents,,, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Firebombing of Tokio [which killed more people than the two atomic blasts combined]... about a million lives were lost and I don't know how many wounded and maimed for life, but let's say lots...
Democracy, rule of law, stable democratic institutions, principles of justice, one person one vote, etc. were established and allowed to grow after the Japanese defeat.
Was it worth it? If a slaughter like that could create what we call freedom [this is hypothetical I know], would we prefer it? or would we prefer tyrrany? our lives safe but our freedom gone? cowering under the iron fist of a despot? Maybe I would take the slaughter so that the survivors could live free and with dignity.
Bolton, or one of the Neocons who created the current diaster in foreign policy thinks that Obama is not taking the threat seriously and that maybe he will when the terrorists nuke Chicago... the crowd went wild with happiness [I guess they love living in terror]... but to me, if we get hit again, it will be a small price to pay for our civil rights. Civil rights are freedom. Liberty is the right to NOT be spyed on by your own government. If some of us die because we live in freedom and unafraid then that is fine. I will never support turning this country into a police state just because the right wing is chickenshit about the NEXT TERROR ATTACK. I will NOT.
Democracy, rule of law, stable democratic institutions, principles of justice, one person one vote, etc. were established and allowed to grow after the Japanese defeat.
Was it worth it? If a slaughter like that could create what we call freedom [this is hypothetical I know], would we prefer it? or would we prefer tyrrany? our lives safe but our freedom gone? cowering under the iron fist of a despot? Maybe I would take the slaughter so that the survivors could live free and with dignity.
Bolton, or one of the Neocons who created the current diaster in foreign policy thinks that Obama is not taking the threat seriously and that maybe he will when the terrorists nuke Chicago... the crowd went wild with happiness [I guess they love living in terror]... but to me, if we get hit again, it will be a small price to pay for our civil rights. Civil rights are freedom. Liberty is the right to NOT be spyed on by your own government. If some of us die because we live in freedom and unafraid then that is fine. I will never support turning this country into a police state just because the right wing is chickenshit about the NEXT TERROR ATTACK. I will NOT.
28 February 2009
One way to enjoy...
One way to enjoy the impotence of the 'Publicans is to read the DailyKos... Here's a clip from Thereisnospoon:
Remember all those "Chicago Tea Parties" Americans were supposed to participate in, taking out their righteous anger against Obama's anti-American economic plans? It was supposed to the be first wave of Americans taking to the streets against socialism, the birth of the New Minutemen. Michelle Malkin insists there's a growing tax revolt that "the MSM won't cover." It seems there was an army of angry citizens waiting to storm the barricades, holding "Obamination" signs and taking back the Republican Republic for sweet laissez-faire liberty.
LOL
Remember all those "Chicago Tea Parties" Americans were supposed to participate in, taking out their righteous anger against Obama's anti-American economic plans? It was supposed to the be first wave of Americans taking to the streets against socialism, the birth of the New Minutemen. Michelle Malkin insists there's a growing tax revolt that "the MSM won't cover." It seems there was an army of angry citizens waiting to storm the barricades, holding "Obamination" signs and taking back the Republican Republic for sweet laissez-faire liberty.
LOL
Rumsfeld on Iraq
I quote:
What is shown on the photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon has blocked from release? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images, "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe." They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.
A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of "rape and murder." Rumsfeld then commented, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."
What is shown on the photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon has blocked from release? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images, "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe." They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.
A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of "rape and murder." Rumsfeld then commented, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."
26 February 2009
Do proud Americans....?
Not long ago a RightWingWacko on a discussion site accused me and President Obama of leeching off the taxpayers [I guess Obama does draw a salary, but it is the same one Dubya got. and I am a progressive and therefore must be an unemployed welfare queen, I guess.] My response:
Me? Leeching off taxpayers?!? You are delusional. I pay taxes. I don't look for loopholes or tax shelters. I am proud of the fact that I contribute to my society and to the wellbeing of this great nation by paying taxes. The Leeches are the Republican bankers on Wall Street who hate the American worker, have just lost 3 trillion dollars of other people's money, have driven their companies into bankruptcy and are now claiming that they need another trillion dollars in Corporate Welfare. Well Dubya is gone. Corporate Welfare is over. You and Clown Limbaugh are just out of luck. :)
Me? Leeching off taxpayers?!? You are delusional. I pay taxes. I don't look for loopholes or tax shelters. I am proud of the fact that I contribute to my society and to the wellbeing of this great nation by paying taxes. The Leeches are the Republican bankers on Wall Street who hate the American worker, have just lost 3 trillion dollars of other people's money, have driven their companies into bankruptcy and are now claiming that they need another trillion dollars in Corporate Welfare. Well Dubya is gone. Corporate Welfare is over. You and Clown Limbaugh are just out of luck. :)
Three who had Republican Values
Piyush Jindal talked a little about Republican principles last night. Let's look back to a time when Republicans were true to their ideals.
A tiny bit of history:
Harding, Coolidge, Hoover were three Republicans who really believed in small government and deregulation of markets... Under Hoover, with a Republican controlled congress, the stock market crashed, nearly every bank in the country failed, unemployment went from 3 percent to 25 percent. Hoover refused to use government spending to try to fix the problem. The WackoRight would love to change these facts and claim that FDR caused the Great Depression, but the deepest and worst point in the depression was actually 6 months before Franklin Roosvelt actually started doing something about the problem. Unemployment started coming down almost immediatly.
A tiny bit of history:
Harding, Coolidge, Hoover were three Republicans who really believed in small government and deregulation of markets... Under Hoover, with a Republican controlled congress, the stock market crashed, nearly every bank in the country failed, unemployment went from 3 percent to 25 percent. Hoover refused to use government spending to try to fix the problem. The WackoRight would love to change these facts and claim that FDR caused the Great Depression, but the deepest and worst point in the depression was actually 6 months before Franklin Roosvelt actually started doing something about the problem. Unemployment started coming down almost immediatly.
25 February 2009
Healthcare in a jiffy
Let me remind viewers that the Republicans are NOT likely to get on board, and if they don't they ought to offer an alternative. Will they? Well in the 15 years since they killed the last health care plan... they have offered NOTHING. Proposed NO solution. So expect nothing from the WackoRight. This will be a purely Democratic bill and a Democratic solution.
Frat Boys
So it appears that Frat Boy Dubya is from a long line of disgusting Frat Boys. His grandfathter Prescott thought it would be a funny thing to desecrate the grave of a POW and STEAL some body parts. Thief, criminal, all around frat boy scumbag Prescott Bush cannot be prosecuted (he's dead). But those in the dorky and childish "secret society" who are hiding evidence of this crime must produce it now. There is Nothing cool about desecrating graves and I hope [and demand] that the people at Yale University act like adults and deal with this promptly and honestly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/17/AR2009021703371.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/17/AR2009021703371.html
The Pro-life Paradox
Aside from moralistic posturing abortion rarely gets any coverage at all. The whole pragmatic view laid out and documented clearly here. Fight abortion with birth control.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/pro-life-movement-admits_b_169489.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/pro-life-movement-admits_b_169489.html
The Feeling
I haven't seen Obama's joint session speech yet. They tell me it was good. [37 standing ovations? sounds good]... but it is enough... it is fantastic, a feeling so badly missed for 8 long years... The feeling, the knowledge, the security of knowing that the most powerful man in the world is more intelligent than me. Finally. :-)
Why I joined the Kellog's Boycott
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=123760915413
I don't care about Phelps. And I don't smoke marijuana, but the thousands of people imprisoned, the millions of dollars wasted in trying to perpetuate the American schizophrenia about a mostly harmless substance. If we don't legalize, then decriminalize now.
It is a very simple pragmatic equation. The social cost of the prohibition is many time greater than the social cost of letting people smoke weed. I'll get to pragmatism more in my next post.
I don't care about Phelps. And I don't smoke marijuana, but the thousands of people imprisoned, the millions of dollars wasted in trying to perpetuate the American schizophrenia about a mostly harmless substance. If we don't legalize, then decriminalize now.
It is a very simple pragmatic equation. The social cost of the prohibition is many time greater than the social cost of letting people smoke weed. I'll get to pragmatism more in my next post.
24 February 2009
Southern White Conservatives: always wrong
"Southern White Conservatives" fought for slavery. "Southern White Conservatives" fought to keep African Americans from voting...."Southern White Conservatives" fought against the War on Poverty. "Southern White Conservatives" fought against the labour unions. "Southern White Conservatives" have been wrong on every issue ever... including the destruction of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA... "Southern White Conservatives" were wrong about Dubya and wrong about Reagan...
"Southern White Conservatives" Also voted to put 3 million American autoworkers out of work. "Southern White Conservatives" who have been wrong about every issue ever left the Democratic Party around the time I was born and joined the "Rich People and UnregulatedBank Party of Herbert Hoover" to create the dumbest most wrongheaded political coalition in history... The Raygun Revolution which has bankrupted our great nation. Anyone who knows history cannot be a Republican.
"Southern White Conservatives" Also voted to put 3 million American autoworkers out of work. "Southern White Conservatives" who have been wrong about every issue ever left the Democratic Party around the time I was born and joined the "Rich People and UnregulatedBank Party of Herbert Hoover" to create the dumbest most wrongheaded political coalition in history... The Raygun Revolution which has bankrupted our great nation. Anyone who knows history cannot be a Republican.
Idiocy by Kristol
P.S. - I almost forgot the most clueless prediction of them all, courtesy of Bill Kristol during his December 17, 2006 appearance on Fox News Sunday:
I think she's taking some risks in staying on the center, not going to left, which is intelligent. She can still beat the left-wing democratic candidates, I think. And then she's pretty well-positioned for the general election. So this is all good for Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single democratic primary. I'll predict that right now.
I think she's taking some risks in staying on the center, not going to left, which is intelligent. She can still beat the left-wing democratic candidates, I think. And then she's pretty well-positioned for the general election. So this is all good for Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single democratic primary. I'll predict that right now.
Keynes and the current situation
Basic economics like Keynes has never been seriously disputed.
Expansionary and contractionary fiscal economic policy ALWAYS has an impact on the economy. Sometimes bigger sometimes smaller. When Republicans say "Tax cuts will stimulate the economy" that is Keynes.
The nutshell version of Keynes is: When the economy is shrinking [in a recession] the Government can spend more that in takes in and the extra money hitting the economy will make it move faster. [This can be done by reducing taxes or by increasing govt spending]
Of course this counts on the idea that a growing economy will increase tax collection and so while the economy grows the government will run a surplus, in essence saving up cash for the next downturn.
Well, Reagan ran a HUGE deficit during the early eighties, which wasn't such a bad idea because unemployment was rising steadily for the first two years of the Reagan administration. He had all sorts of goofy names for it, but what he really did was massive Keynesian expansionary fiscal policy. The trouble was when the economy started growing again Reagan didn't pull back. He kept spending like a mad man, and kept refusing to make the rich pay anything. His successor proposed cutting capital gains again [the rate was already too low]
In short we have had a succession of Republican administrations cutting taxes and spending massively [expansionary Keynesian fiscal policy] even while the economy is growing.... Wrong!!! That is like taking a little speed to help you wake up in the morning, but then continuing to take it all evening and all night and then all the next day and then... sooner or later you will collapse... and that is what happened.
"Pork"... is the wrong word here. "Pork" is too vague and ill-defined. A bridge to nowhere will certainly create jobs... building bridges takes manpower materials etc. That is a good thing. "Nowhere" may not be the most effective place to build it. Because economically it is better to actually get some benefit from the bridge.
On a different discussion site one angry rightwingwacko wrote "Explain to me how increasing financial aid to college students stimulates the economy"... Well that is easy... 3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs since the beginning of this recession. How many of those wanted to send their kids to college and now cannot, because they are unemployed??? How many will not send their kids to college because they fear losing their jobs in the next year or so??? Bad economic times means fewer college students. Fewer college students means less money for colleges. That means colleges cut back, cut jobs and more jobs are lost, a few of the grounds keepers, a couple of maintenance men, one of the parking lot attendants, now newly unemployed. Helping to keep our young people at a university somewhere is GOOD for the economy.
Nearly all government spending stimulates the economy one way or another, and we need massive stimulus in a hurry.
Tax cuts will not work in the current situation. Why? Well, the 3.6 million newly unemployed won't pay any taxes anyhow and they are the ones who need to get back into the economy most of all. Therefore ANY tax cut will miss the MOST IMPORTANT target.
Rich people like me will just take their tax cut and buy gold. [I know. I hang with lots of rich people] Buy gold and wait out this crisis. It will create NO jobs at all. It will not stimulate the economy at all.
Normal folks, have thousands of dollars in credit card debt and or a mortgage that they likely can't pay... They'll take a tax cut, pay off a small portion of their debt and continue to spend as little as possible until this thing is over.
Very very few people are going to go out and spend their tax cuts. Last year's attempt at "Tax Rebate" clearly showed that this strategy is futile. The theory was great, give people two thousand dollars cash they go out and spend and the economy rises... but it had NO effect at all. Likely because of the credit card debt thing. Times are tough and people are afraid to keep paying 20 or 30 percent interest on credit cards they don't need.
Buy a new car??? Nobody will. In recent years cars were being sold at a rate of 17 million per year. The market is flush with cars. Those who wanted a new car already have one. The number of those who really NEED a new car is tiny. Everybody bought two or three years ago. Those cars will run for another decade.
So, in short we actually need "Pork". We need lots and lots of "Pork". We need government building projects which will give those 3.6 million people a means to support themselves and their families. Let them keep their self-respect, do something productive for society. Give them a chance to make the house payment, stay in their homes, maintain a quality decent neighborhood.
And not all of it needs to be new spending. California is now bankrupt. California will have to lay off state workers soon. Let's try to save the job of the nurse at the psychiatric hospital. It is NOT her fault that the economy is in freefall. If the Federal government cuts taxes the California government will just raise them, and the average citizen will be no better off. [the situation is basically the same in every state. California is only a good example]
If that nurse loses her job she is much more likely to lose her home. So... when they forclose on her home nobody is likely to buy it, because nobody is giving mortgages these days. So the house is likely to remain empty and decay... losing value by the month... millions of homes... slowly becoming rubble, the collective loss of wealth to the USA is staggering... but whatever happens "Government" has no role to play in helping to remedy this situation. NO WAY!
Normally I would never say "Nationalize the banks"... I know the history of nationalized banking systems in France, for example. Normally I would say "Governments are lousy bankers and should stay out of the business". But Normally I would never say "Cut off your left leg"... but this is a disaster that comes along once in a hundred years, if that. This is such a horrible case of gangrene, that the only thing to do, the clear and obvious choice is to cut off that leg as soon as possible... and banking is better than legs, because commercial banks grow back in 5 to 10 years. Legs never do.
One other argument against the Keynesian Expansionary Fiscal Policy [running up the deficit, in this case by spending] is that the government will have to print money to do it, and that is inflationary... Hmmmmmm. Well, right now we are entering a period of Deflation, and Deflation is far worse than inflation. We need inflationary policies right now.
We need them now, just like we needed them in 1929 at the beginning of the first Republican Great Depression. Of course Herbert Hoover did NOTHING about the problem at all ever. Unemployment doubled every year of his presidency, and the only good thing that Republican Herbert Hoover did, was to lose the election of 1932.
Is there a risk that too much inflationary policy will cause the fall of the dollar, and result in the dollar losing it's very valuable status as the world's reserve currency? Yes, there is. Unfortunately we have no choice anymore. We should have [our leaders should have] thought of that back when the economy was good and yet Duyba insisted on cutting taxes at a time of war. When Dubya refused to cut governement "Pork" at a time when unemployment was low. Now it is too late. There really are no good options. Cut out that gangrene, spend like hell, and pray, because the Republican Great Depression II is coming quick to an American State near you.
Expansionary and contractionary fiscal economic policy ALWAYS has an impact on the economy. Sometimes bigger sometimes smaller. When Republicans say "Tax cuts will stimulate the economy" that is Keynes.
The nutshell version of Keynes is: When the economy is shrinking [in a recession] the Government can spend more that in takes in and the extra money hitting the economy will make it move faster. [This can be done by reducing taxes or by increasing govt spending]
Of course this counts on the idea that a growing economy will increase tax collection and so while the economy grows the government will run a surplus, in essence saving up cash for the next downturn.
Well, Reagan ran a HUGE deficit during the early eighties, which wasn't such a bad idea because unemployment was rising steadily for the first two years of the Reagan administration. He had all sorts of goofy names for it, but what he really did was massive Keynesian expansionary fiscal policy. The trouble was when the economy started growing again Reagan didn't pull back. He kept spending like a mad man, and kept refusing to make the rich pay anything. His successor proposed cutting capital gains again [the rate was already too low]
In short we have had a succession of Republican administrations cutting taxes and spending massively [expansionary Keynesian fiscal policy] even while the economy is growing.... Wrong!!! That is like taking a little speed to help you wake up in the morning, but then continuing to take it all evening and all night and then all the next day and then... sooner or later you will collapse... and that is what happened.
"Pork"... is the wrong word here. "Pork" is too vague and ill-defined. A bridge to nowhere will certainly create jobs... building bridges takes manpower materials etc. That is a good thing. "Nowhere" may not be the most effective place to build it. Because economically it is better to actually get some benefit from the bridge.
On a different discussion site one angry rightwingwacko wrote "Explain to me how increasing financial aid to college students stimulates the economy"... Well that is easy... 3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs since the beginning of this recession. How many of those wanted to send their kids to college and now cannot, because they are unemployed??? How many will not send their kids to college because they fear losing their jobs in the next year or so??? Bad economic times means fewer college students. Fewer college students means less money for colleges. That means colleges cut back, cut jobs and more jobs are lost, a few of the grounds keepers, a couple of maintenance men, one of the parking lot attendants, now newly unemployed. Helping to keep our young people at a university somewhere is GOOD for the economy.
Nearly all government spending stimulates the economy one way or another, and we need massive stimulus in a hurry.
Tax cuts will not work in the current situation. Why? Well, the 3.6 million newly unemployed won't pay any taxes anyhow and they are the ones who need to get back into the economy most of all. Therefore ANY tax cut will miss the MOST IMPORTANT target.
Rich people like me will just take their tax cut and buy gold. [I know. I hang with lots of rich people] Buy gold and wait out this crisis. It will create NO jobs at all. It will not stimulate the economy at all.
Normal folks, have thousands of dollars in credit card debt and or a mortgage that they likely can't pay... They'll take a tax cut, pay off a small portion of their debt and continue to spend as little as possible until this thing is over.
Very very few people are going to go out and spend their tax cuts. Last year's attempt at "Tax Rebate" clearly showed that this strategy is futile. The theory was great, give people two thousand dollars cash they go out and spend and the economy rises... but it had NO effect at all. Likely because of the credit card debt thing. Times are tough and people are afraid to keep paying 20 or 30 percent interest on credit cards they don't need.
Buy a new car??? Nobody will. In recent years cars were being sold at a rate of 17 million per year. The market is flush with cars. Those who wanted a new car already have one. The number of those who really NEED a new car is tiny. Everybody bought two or three years ago. Those cars will run for another decade.
So, in short we actually need "Pork". We need lots and lots of "Pork". We need government building projects which will give those 3.6 million people a means to support themselves and their families. Let them keep their self-respect, do something productive for society. Give them a chance to make the house payment, stay in their homes, maintain a quality decent neighborhood.
And not all of it needs to be new spending. California is now bankrupt. California will have to lay off state workers soon. Let's try to save the job of the nurse at the psychiatric hospital. It is NOT her fault that the economy is in freefall. If the Federal government cuts taxes the California government will just raise them, and the average citizen will be no better off. [the situation is basically the same in every state. California is only a good example]
If that nurse loses her job she is much more likely to lose her home. So... when they forclose on her home nobody is likely to buy it, because nobody is giving mortgages these days. So the house is likely to remain empty and decay... losing value by the month... millions of homes... slowly becoming rubble, the collective loss of wealth to the USA is staggering... but whatever happens "Government" has no role to play in helping to remedy this situation. NO WAY!
Normally I would never say "Nationalize the banks"... I know the history of nationalized banking systems in France, for example. Normally I would say "Governments are lousy bankers and should stay out of the business". But Normally I would never say "Cut off your left leg"... but this is a disaster that comes along once in a hundred years, if that. This is such a horrible case of gangrene, that the only thing to do, the clear and obvious choice is to cut off that leg as soon as possible... and banking is better than legs, because commercial banks grow back in 5 to 10 years. Legs never do.
One other argument against the Keynesian Expansionary Fiscal Policy [running up the deficit, in this case by spending] is that the government will have to print money to do it, and that is inflationary... Hmmmmmm. Well, right now we are entering a period of Deflation, and Deflation is far worse than inflation. We need inflationary policies right now.
We need them now, just like we needed them in 1929 at the beginning of the first Republican Great Depression. Of course Herbert Hoover did NOTHING about the problem at all ever. Unemployment doubled every year of his presidency, and the only good thing that Republican Herbert Hoover did, was to lose the election of 1932.
Is there a risk that too much inflationary policy will cause the fall of the dollar, and result in the dollar losing it's very valuable status as the world's reserve currency? Yes, there is. Unfortunately we have no choice anymore. We should have [our leaders should have] thought of that back when the economy was good and yet Duyba insisted on cutting taxes at a time of war. When Dubya refused to cut governement "Pork" at a time when unemployment was low. Now it is too late. There really are no good options. Cut out that gangrene, spend like hell, and pray, because the Republican Great Depression II is coming quick to an American State near you.
Government spending works
I know that Dittoheads like to make up their own facts to suit their delusions but those of us who live in REALITY know that no president in history has ever been more successful at fighting unemployment than FDR. The facts are clear.
And FDR fought unemployment with Government Spending, surprise surprise.
Some Dorks on the Right like to write about how it wasn't government spending but WWII that solved the problem... but wait...
What the hell was WWII??? It was a massive US Government Spending Program... Government spending on.... tanks, trucks, rifles, artillery, bullets, shells, bombs, weapons development, paying soldiers, paying sailors, nurses, doctors, ships, submarines, food for soldiers and sailors, clothing for soldiers and sailors, housing for soldiers and sailors... Government spending got us out of the Republican Great Depression. There is no doubt.
And FDR fought unemployment with Government Spending, surprise surprise.
Some Dorks on the Right like to write about how it wasn't government spending but WWII that solved the problem... but wait...
What the hell was WWII??? It was a massive US Government Spending Program... Government spending on.... tanks, trucks, rifles, artillery, bullets, shells, bombs, weapons development, paying soldiers, paying sailors, nurses, doctors, ships, submarines, food for soldiers and sailors, clothing for soldiers and sailors, housing for soldiers and sailors... Government spending got us out of the Republican Great Depression. There is no doubt.
Greed is NOT the problem
To quote Roubini:
"Again, I don't want to personalize things, but the last decade was one of self-regulation. But in the financial markets, without proper institutional rules, there's the law of the jungle -- because there's greed! There's nothing wrong with greed, per se. It's not that people are more greedy now than they were 20 years ago. But greed has to be tempered, first, by fear of losses. So if you bail people out, there's less fear. And second, by prudential regulation and supervision to avoid certain excesses."
"Again, I don't want to personalize things, but the last decade was one of self-regulation. But in the financial markets, without proper institutional rules, there's the law of the jungle -- because there's greed! There's nothing wrong with greed, per se. It's not that people are more greedy now than they were 20 years ago. But greed has to be tempered, first, by fear of losses. So if you bail people out, there's less fear. And second, by prudential regulation and supervision to avoid certain excesses."
Republican win in 2012???
If Limbaugh is so smart and so popular (millions and millions of listeners AND congressmen dying to get on his show) I say he should run for president. He didn't like ANY of the candidates last time round, let him run himself... the True Conservatives would love that, wouldn't they? Or is he chicken shit?
The cleverest lie of the last ten years
The cleverest lie of the last ten years….
And what a surprise, it came from the mouth of Dubya again and again. And due to a slightly egocentric view it all seemed so clear. “The world changed on 9/11”
And it was the best lie because it is literally true. The world did change. (the world changes every day but a little more than usual on 9/11)… what made it a lie? Well Dubya always said “The world changed on 9/11” with the connotation that the world was very much more dangerous on the 12th of September than it was on the 10th. It certainly appeared to Americans that suddenly Al-Queda had gathered enormous power. The ability to kill thousands and take down famous American landmarks.
But appearances are not reality. In reality the capability that Al-Queda had, they had before 9/11 and not after it. Al-Queda itself was in no way more powerful after 9/11 than before. They had lost 20 dedicated fighters and they had become the most reviled organization in the world. In terms of suddenly being a threat that they had never been before, nothing. Not a grain of truth.
Nearly all Bush Administration policies were based on the falsehood that America faced a new threat. (the threat was there all along. Clinton faced that threat and knew it, and warned Dubya about it.) Because of the new threat we needed a new Megasecurity Agency, Homeland Security. Because of the new threat, we needed biometric IDs. Because of the new threat, we needed spy cameras all over every city. Because of the new threat, old civil rights, laws and traditions protecting Americans' privacy had to be scrapped. Because of the new threat, we had to start torturing our enemies, we had to deny suspects lawyers, deny them any semblance of a fair trial. Because of the new threat we even had to embrace the novel idea of pre-emptive war as justified and necessary. All of the mess of the Bush years was based on the false idea that “The world changed on 9/11” and therefore all of Dubya's critics were out of touch, stuck in old-thinking. “The world changed on 9/11” was a truly believable myth that surely helped an incompetent president win reelection. “The world changed on 9/11” was the myth that clouded the waters and kept us from seeing the simple fact that none of those megacontracts in Homeland Security were really needed. The simple fact is that if the CIA or FBI or Airport Security had been doing their jobs properly 9/11 never could have happened. The main thing that changed on 9/11 was that because of the tragedy, because of the dramatic pictures on TV, the American people became willing to do, say, or believe anything that might prevent it from happening again. Dubya was quick to take advantage of this. Dubya was absolutely willing to sow fear to help his political agenda. Remember “in the form of a mushroom cloud”. The only thing that really changed on 9/11 was the way Americans perceive the world, and unfortunately, the new perception was less rational, less practical and less helpful than the old perception. It is a shame that we fell for the cleverest lie in such huge numbers. Maybe this is a bit of history that we can learn from.
And what a surprise, it came from the mouth of Dubya again and again. And due to a slightly egocentric view it all seemed so clear. “The world changed on 9/11”
And it was the best lie because it is literally true. The world did change. (the world changes every day but a little more than usual on 9/11)… what made it a lie? Well Dubya always said “The world changed on 9/11” with the connotation that the world was very much more dangerous on the 12th of September than it was on the 10th. It certainly appeared to Americans that suddenly Al-Queda had gathered enormous power. The ability to kill thousands and take down famous American landmarks.
But appearances are not reality. In reality the capability that Al-Queda had, they had before 9/11 and not after it. Al-Queda itself was in no way more powerful after 9/11 than before. They had lost 20 dedicated fighters and they had become the most reviled organization in the world. In terms of suddenly being a threat that they had never been before, nothing. Not a grain of truth.
Nearly all Bush Administration policies were based on the falsehood that America faced a new threat. (the threat was there all along. Clinton faced that threat and knew it, and warned Dubya about it.) Because of the new threat we needed a new Megasecurity Agency, Homeland Security. Because of the new threat, we needed biometric IDs. Because of the new threat, we needed spy cameras all over every city. Because of the new threat, old civil rights, laws and traditions protecting Americans' privacy had to be scrapped. Because of the new threat, we had to start torturing our enemies, we had to deny suspects lawyers, deny them any semblance of a fair trial. Because of the new threat we even had to embrace the novel idea of pre-emptive war as justified and necessary. All of the mess of the Bush years was based on the false idea that “The world changed on 9/11” and therefore all of Dubya's critics were out of touch, stuck in old-thinking. “The world changed on 9/11” was a truly believable myth that surely helped an incompetent president win reelection. “The world changed on 9/11” was the myth that clouded the waters and kept us from seeing the simple fact that none of those megacontracts in Homeland Security were really needed. The simple fact is that if the CIA or FBI or Airport Security had been doing their jobs properly 9/11 never could have happened. The main thing that changed on 9/11 was that because of the tragedy, because of the dramatic pictures on TV, the American people became willing to do, say, or believe anything that might prevent it from happening again. Dubya was quick to take advantage of this. Dubya was absolutely willing to sow fear to help his political agenda. Remember “in the form of a mushroom cloud”. The only thing that really changed on 9/11 was the way Americans perceive the world, and unfortunately, the new perception was less rational, less practical and less helpful than the old perception. It is a shame that we fell for the cleverest lie in such huge numbers. Maybe this is a bit of history that we can learn from.
10 February 2009
Unreal Orwellian LovesBigBrother
There are far more important things than Clown O'Reilly right now... but this is just another must see.... in O'Reilly's own words:
Proof of FDR
This graph is not the full story. but almost. For the full story look at the post below and play the Rachel Maddow clip. Thanks.
09 February 2009
07 February 2009
Improvement in Our Senate
Call your Senator and request that he vote to remove Harry Reid as Majority Leader. He has failed in his post.
Some numbers that work:
202 225-3121
1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437
1 (800) 459 - 1887
or go to www.CallCongress.org for a better list.
Do not write a letter. A letter takes months to get through the anthrax filters.
Do not email. Your message will never get through the spam filters.
Call and speak to a person. Be polite. Be brief. It works.
Some numbers that work:
202 225-3121
1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437
1 (800) 459 - 1887
or go to www.CallCongress.org for a better list.
Do not write a letter. A letter takes months to get through the anthrax filters.
Do not email. Your message will never get through the spam filters.
Call and speak to a person. Be polite. Be brief. It works.
04 February 2009
Tear down this myth...
The following is an excerpt from the book: http://www.amazon.com/Tear-Down-This-Myth-Distorted/dp/141659762X/
It was Ronald Reagan himself who, as the spotlight faded on his presidency in 1988, tried to highlight his eight-year record by reviving a quote from John Adams, that "facts are stubborn things." The moment became quite famous because the then-77-year-old president had botched it, and said that "facts are stupid things." The tragedy of American politics was that just two decades later, facts were neither stubborn nor even stupid – but largely irrelevant.
Any information about Iran-Contra or how the 1979-81 hostages were released (Rudy Giuliani had falsely claimed during the 2008 race they were freed when "the Gipper" looked Iranian leaders in the eye) that didn’t fit the new official story line was being metaphorically clipped out of the newspaper and tossed down "memory hole" – the fate of any information that would have undercut Reagan’s image as an all-benevolent Big Brother still guiding the conservative movement from above.
A more factual synopsis of the Reagan presidency might read like this: That Reagan was a transformative figure in American history, but his real revolution was one of public-relations-meets-politics and not one of policy. He combined his small-town heartland upbringing with a skill for story-telling that was honed on the back lots of Hollywood into a personal narrative that resonated with a majority of voters, but only after it tapped into something darker, which was white middle class resentment of 1960s unrest.
His story arc did become more optimistic and peaked at just the right moment, when Americans were tired of the "malaise" of the Jimmy Carter years and wanted someone who promised to make the nation feel good about itself again. But his positive legacy as president today hangs on events that most historians say were to some great measure out of his control: An economic recovery that was inevitable, especially when world oil prices returned to normal levels, and an end to the Cold War that was more driven by internal events in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe than Americans want to acknowledge.
His 1981 tax cut was followed quickly by tax hikes that you rarely hear about, and Reagan’s real lasting achievement on that front was slashing marginal rates for the wealthy – even as rising payroll taxes socked the working class. His promise to shrink government was uttered so many time that many acolytes believe it really happened, but in fact Reagan expanded the federal payroll, added a new cabinet post, and created a huge debt that ultimately tripped up his handpicked successor, George H.W. Bush. What he did shrink was government regulation and oversight -- linked to a series of unfortunate events from the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s to the sub-prime mortgage crisis of the late 2000s.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 papered over some less noble moments in foreign policy, from trading arms for Middle East hostages to an embarrassing retreat from his muddled engagement in Lebanon to unpopular adventurism in Central America. The Iran-contra scandal that stemmed from those policies not only weakened Reagan’s presidency when it happened, but it arguably undermined the respect of future presidents for the Constitution -- because he essentially got away with it. Over the course of eight years, the president that some want to enshrine on Mount Rushmore rated just barely above average for modern presidents in public popularity. He left on a high note – but only after two years of shifting his policy back to the center, seeking peace with the Soviets than confrontation, reaching a balanced new tax deal with Democrats and naming a moderate justice to the Supreme Court. It was not the Reaganism invoked by today’s conservatives.
There has always been a place for mythology in American democracy – the hulking granite edifices of the Capitol Mall in Washington are a powerful testament to that – but this nation has arguably never seen the kind of bold, crudely calculated and ideologically driven legend-manufacturing as has taken place with Ronald Reagan. It is a myth machine that has been spectacularly successful, launched in the mid-1990s when the conservative brand was at low ebb.The docudrama version of the Gipper’s life story, successfully sold to the American public, helped to keep united and refuel a right-wing movement that consolidated power while citing Reaganism – as separate and apart from the flesh-and-blood Reagan – for misguided policies from lowering taxes in the time of war in Iraq to maintaining that unpopular conflict in a time of increasing bloodshed and questionable gains.
It was Ronald Reagan himself who, as the spotlight faded on his presidency in 1988, tried to highlight his eight-year record by reviving a quote from John Adams, that "facts are stubborn things." The moment became quite famous because the then-77-year-old president had botched it, and said that "facts are stupid things." The tragedy of American politics was that just two decades later, facts were neither stubborn nor even stupid – but largely irrelevant.
Any information about Iran-Contra or how the 1979-81 hostages were released (Rudy Giuliani had falsely claimed during the 2008 race they were freed when "the Gipper" looked Iranian leaders in the eye) that didn’t fit the new official story line was being metaphorically clipped out of the newspaper and tossed down "memory hole" – the fate of any information that would have undercut Reagan’s image as an all-benevolent Big Brother still guiding the conservative movement from above.
A more factual synopsis of the Reagan presidency might read like this: That Reagan was a transformative figure in American history, but his real revolution was one of public-relations-meets-politics and not one of policy. He combined his small-town heartland upbringing with a skill for story-telling that was honed on the back lots of Hollywood into a personal narrative that resonated with a majority of voters, but only after it tapped into something darker, which was white middle class resentment of 1960s unrest.
His story arc did become more optimistic and peaked at just the right moment, when Americans were tired of the "malaise" of the Jimmy Carter years and wanted someone who promised to make the nation feel good about itself again. But his positive legacy as president today hangs on events that most historians say were to some great measure out of his control: An economic recovery that was inevitable, especially when world oil prices returned to normal levels, and an end to the Cold War that was more driven by internal events in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe than Americans want to acknowledge.
His 1981 tax cut was followed quickly by tax hikes that you rarely hear about, and Reagan’s real lasting achievement on that front was slashing marginal rates for the wealthy – even as rising payroll taxes socked the working class. His promise to shrink government was uttered so many time that many acolytes believe it really happened, but in fact Reagan expanded the federal payroll, added a new cabinet post, and created a huge debt that ultimately tripped up his handpicked successor, George H.W. Bush. What he did shrink was government regulation and oversight -- linked to a series of unfortunate events from the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s to the sub-prime mortgage crisis of the late 2000s.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 papered over some less noble moments in foreign policy, from trading arms for Middle East hostages to an embarrassing retreat from his muddled engagement in Lebanon to unpopular adventurism in Central America. The Iran-contra scandal that stemmed from those policies not only weakened Reagan’s presidency when it happened, but it arguably undermined the respect of future presidents for the Constitution -- because he essentially got away with it. Over the course of eight years, the president that some want to enshrine on Mount Rushmore rated just barely above average for modern presidents in public popularity. He left on a high note – but only after two years of shifting his policy back to the center, seeking peace with the Soviets than confrontation, reaching a balanced new tax deal with Democrats and naming a moderate justice to the Supreme Court. It was not the Reaganism invoked by today’s conservatives.
There has always been a place for mythology in American democracy – the hulking granite edifices of the Capitol Mall in Washington are a powerful testament to that – but this nation has arguably never seen the kind of bold, crudely calculated and ideologically driven legend-manufacturing as has taken place with Ronald Reagan. It is a myth machine that has been spectacularly successful, launched in the mid-1990s when the conservative brand was at low ebb.The docudrama version of the Gipper’s life story, successfully sold to the American public, helped to keep united and refuel a right-wing movement that consolidated power while citing Reaganism – as separate and apart from the flesh-and-blood Reagan – for misguided policies from lowering taxes in the time of war in Iraq to maintaining that unpopular conflict in a time of increasing bloodshed and questionable gains.
05 January 2009
Krugman is right
Krugman has been right so many times in the past.
And he is right about this one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/05/krugman-obama-relying-too_n_155250.html
And he is right about this one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/05/krugman-obama-relying-too_n_155250.html
03 January 2009
Bush = Enemy Combatant ??
And while we are talking about Justice... and the American Justice System... my friends and legal scholars, please tell me, is there anything at all to prevent President Obama from declaring Dubya an "unlawfull enemy combatant" and wisking him off to a secret prison in Tajikistan on Jan 21st??? Then they could torture confessions out of him, including the hearsay evidence necessary to convict Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice in the "Commisions" that Dubya himself created. And all of this could take place in secret with no access to lawyers or the press or to International Red Cross. These high value detainees could be held in sensory deprivation until they mentally resembled furniture, and at the same time the Obama administration could constantly claim that these terrorists are far to dangerous ever to be released. All that could happen, couldn't it?
02 January 2009
Challenge
Republican Congressman Matt Salmon, who is backing the proposal to put President Reagan on Mount Rushmore, says Mr Reagan should be added because he gave Americans faith in the future.
''He's the president that ended the Cold War. You think about 40 years of a major threat, not only to our country but to the world at large, being ended by one man - that's quite an achievement.''
.... ONE man ended the cold war???? and it was Ronnie???? That is lunacy. If you think there is one bit of truth in the myth that Reagan "won the Cold War", then I challenge you to a debate right here right now. Congressman Salmon? Anyone? Will you dispute my premise that Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union? click "add comment" below and the discussion begins.
Free markets allow bankruptcy
There is one fundamental misconception about the nature of self-correcting systems.
Nature is a self-correcting system. When there is a lot of rain on the savanna more grass grows. More grass means more food for more zebras. The zebra population increases providing more food for lions. The lion population increases and equilibrium returns. As rainfall varies from year to year it is totally normal for one extreme drought to come along every 10 or fifteen years. In these conditions, grass grows very little. Underfed zebras are weak and get killed at an alarming rate by the lions. A 90 percent loss in the zebra population is entirely possible. The self-correcting system then causes a good 90 percent loss in the lion population.
Free markets work in exactly the same way. There are boom and bust cycles, just like heavy rains and droughts in nature. Self-correction often means rampant bankruptcy. Sometimes it means the extinction of certain poorly adapted species. The financial crisis of 2008 in no way proves that markets do not correct themselves. They do. If world governments let all of the banks collapse, a new financial system would arise eventually, undoubtedly spearheaded by the few who made the best economic decisions in the years leading up to the crisis [these are the 10 percent of the best adapted zebras and lions]…
…but in our society, we are not willing to let 90 percent die off. We demand better than nature. We demand more than the self-correction mechanism. We want a system in which 90 percent of our citizens don’t have to go bankrupt, lose their homes, beg for money on the street, or prostitute themselves for pennies. We demand a system where we don’t lose every penny that we put in the bank just because the bank managers take on too much risk.
We like self-correcting systems in nature [in fact anytime that we are not the victims]. It is horribly painful for the zebra who is pinned down having his guts eaten by a lion. If zebras ran the planet they would undoubtedly try to tweak the system to reduce this phenomena to a minimum. Just as humans do whatever they can to prevent bank failures. Unresolved economic crisis leads directly to starvation. So remember that just a few short months ago, proud Republicans were still screaming how even more deregulation is needed. The Reagan Revolution has brought us a long way for sure. Throw a shoe at Dubya.
Nature is a self-correcting system. When there is a lot of rain on the savanna more grass grows. More grass means more food for more zebras. The zebra population increases providing more food for lions. The lion population increases and equilibrium returns. As rainfall varies from year to year it is totally normal for one extreme drought to come along every 10 or fifteen years. In these conditions, grass grows very little. Underfed zebras are weak and get killed at an alarming rate by the lions. A 90 percent loss in the zebra population is entirely possible. The self-correcting system then causes a good 90 percent loss in the lion population.
Free markets work in exactly the same way. There are boom and bust cycles, just like heavy rains and droughts in nature. Self-correction often means rampant bankruptcy. Sometimes it means the extinction of certain poorly adapted species. The financial crisis of 2008 in no way proves that markets do not correct themselves. They do. If world governments let all of the banks collapse, a new financial system would arise eventually, undoubtedly spearheaded by the few who made the best economic decisions in the years leading up to the crisis [these are the 10 percent of the best adapted zebras and lions]…
…but in our society, we are not willing to let 90 percent die off. We demand better than nature. We demand more than the self-correction mechanism. We want a system in which 90 percent of our citizens don’t have to go bankrupt, lose their homes, beg for money on the street, or prostitute themselves for pennies. We demand a system where we don’t lose every penny that we put in the bank just because the bank managers take on too much risk.
We like self-correcting systems in nature [in fact anytime that we are not the victims]. It is horribly painful for the zebra who is pinned down having his guts eaten by a lion. If zebras ran the planet they would undoubtedly try to tweak the system to reduce this phenomena to a minimum. Just as humans do whatever they can to prevent bank failures. Unresolved economic crisis leads directly to starvation. So remember that just a few short months ago, proud Republicans were still screaming how even more deregulation is needed. The Reagan Revolution has brought us a long way for sure. Throw a shoe at Dubya.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)