Things Not All Bad On The Economic Front
A series of disappointing economic reports over the past few months have conservatives strangely excited and hopeful for Mitt Romney. But rumors of the US economic collapse that will doom President Obama in November may be greatly exaggerated.
Several reports came out today and all of them were fairly positive signs for the economy:
- Industrial production increased 0.4 percent in June
- Capacity utilization for total industry moved up 0.2 percentage point in June
- NAHB Builder Confidence increased strongly in July, and is the highest since March 2007
- Housing Inventory declines 19.4% year-over-year in June
- Key Measures showed slowing inflation in June
As the economy enters stall speed once again like it did last year with the threat of recession still on the horizon, positive signs on the housing front in particular may be just what the doctor ordered. Housing has been a key drag on the recovery from the start keeping economic activity from truly rebounding to levels that would put a dent in unemployment.
The economic outlook for the rest of this year and next year could become a lot more positive if this keeps up. It may not be enough to really help Obama come November but whoever takes the oath in January could be presiding over a far different economy than we've had so far this year.
The underlying philosophy of Obama’s administration which is government drives prosperity and job growth is something I can’t agree with. True innovation and as a result job growth comes from the entrepreneur. Without them where would we be?
Posted by: BAZ at July 17, 2012 5:30 PMThe economy will improve faster when we get rid of Obama, but it will improve in general. Recessions end. This one ended three years ago, but the recovery has been slowed by excessive debt and poor policies.
Posted by: C&J at July 17, 2012 5:42 PMBAZ,
Every country in the history of the world has had entrepeneurs. Every country has made innovations to adapt to its environment. Every country has people motivated by money, or greed, or the desire for material goods, or however you want to put it. Until the last century, virtually every civilization concentrated its wealth in a very small part of the population- the proverbial 1%.
What makes the US unique is that prosperity spread from a small number of rich people to the general population. This happened because of progressives. This happened because of government.
Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2012 5:52 PMAnd the real key is that, the more the wealth of the 1% was redistributed back to the 99% that created it through their labor, the wealther the 1% AND the 99% grew.
Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2012 5:54 PMphx8
America has been an exceptional nation. And the West in general has been exceptional in history. All nations have entrepreneurs, but in many other places or times they have turned their talents to politics or be wiped out by the power of the entrenched interests. Hitler, Lenin, Napoleon, Robespierre and others were entrepreneurs in that they turned their world upside down. But instead of producing oil, food or steel, they produced political innovation.
Confucianism holds merchants in contempt. The ancient Romans made it illegal for Patricians to go into business. Medieval Christianity and modern Islam make lending money a sin. America has been more than any other place a triumph of the market, which also means the triumph of the people.
The U.S had spread wealth widely almost from the founding of the country. Compared to today, not so much. Compared to other places and times, amazing. We increased the size of the pie. We did not create equality; we created opportunity. This is our strength. Redistribution through government means has always been lower in the U.S. than in any other large state.
People like Andrew Carnegie or John D Rockefeller came from humble background to great wealth. Many others were able to make their fortunes. Indeed, in America hard work, good planning skills and thrift paid off much better than in other places.
Posted by: C&J at July 17, 2012 6:06 PMC&J: “The economy will improve faster when we get rid of Obama, but it will improve in general.”
Or at least you’ll start to acknowledge faster improvement anyway.
“People like Andrew Carnegie or John D Rockefeller came from humble background to great wealth.”
Don’t forget George Romney. You don’t find too many self-made folks of that caliber anymore. They’ve been replaced by the Mitt Romney’s and George W. Bush’s of the world. Super well educated, everything handed to them on a silver platter, buying their way into politics and power, etc. You almost feel like someone like Romney has to succeed or else there is something terribly wrong with him.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 17, 2012 6:25 PMThe Roman Empire was a triumph of the market.
The British Empire was a triumph of the market.
Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were examples of triumphs of the market through government collaboration or outright control. Usually we’re uncomfortable discussing the Nazis or the Communists unless it’s to denounce them, but in fact, both countries used government as effective tools to grow at fantastic rates and spread wealth throughout their country. It was all the more remarkable that they managed this growth after being devasted by wars fought upon their territory, and without the outside help of any external ally. It’s even more remarkable in the case of Soviet Russia, because before WWI, most of their country consisted of uneducated serfs living in abject poverty. And when it comes to innovation, few countries can match the achievements of pre-WWII Germany. Even the Soviet Union managed to out-innnovate the US for a while. Their MiG jets were the model for American fighters, the metallurgy remained superior right up to the end of the Cold War, and their Space Program was the first to put a satellite and then a man into orbit.
So virtually every successful country had its signature innovations. Every country had its industrial titans. Every country- even the Soviet Union- had some version of its own 1%.
What made the US uniquely successful, and worth emulating, was the redistriubtion spread the wealth throughout the socieety, resulting in a middle class, and a Keynsian cycle of consumption which resulted in greater and greater wealth.
It’s an interesting topic…
Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2012 6:35 PMPhx8
So … you think that communism is the triumph of the market?
The market defined so broadly encompasses everything and so defines nothing.
But let’s just approach the second point. The US has spread the wealth, but it was not generally through the redistribution policies of government. It was the market, defined more as the real thing.
I think the our Federal government is one of the glorious creations of mankind. The reason it is so great is that it limited itself and had constraints built in. It allowed freedom.
The free market is very redistributive of wealth. That is why political elites dislike it. But while it redistributes wealth, it does not create equality. It creates something better than equality. It creates opportunity.
I agree that all countries have their versions of the 1%. Places where the market works poorly have more entrenched elites. In fact, one of the things elites hate about the market is how it disrespects them.
Posted by: C&J at July 17, 2012 7:06 PMphx8,
You can also add modern communist China to your list as a country that has used government control of the economy (state capitalism) to achieve enormous growth and to dramatically increase the standard of living of its citizens in an incredibly short time frame. The transformation of China from the days of Mao Tse-tung to today is almost surreal.
Posted by: Rich at July 17, 2012 7:14 PMBAZ states: The underlying philosophy of Obama’s administration which is government drives prosperity and job growth….
Really???
President Obama in a speech in Elyria, Ohio-2012:
“I’ve never believed the government can or should try to solve every problem we’ve got. I believe that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. I agree that everybody has personal responsibility for their own lives. Everybody’s got to work hard, nothing is ever handed to us. But I also agree with our first Republican president, a guy named Abraham Lincoln, who said that, through government, we should be able to do together what we can’t do as well on our own. There’s some thing we don’t do well on our own.”
Posted by: t at July 17, 2012 7:50 PMRich,
Yes, China is a good example of a country which became very wealthy in a short period of time, with lots of small businesses flourishing under the umbrella of big government.
C&J,
Opportunity? Every empire has enjoyed opportunity- Greek, Roman, British, French, you name it- virtually every country has created great opportunities for its entrepeneurs.
We like to think we are exceptional. The Greeks, Romans, British, and French all thought they were exceptional. Come to think of it, my Mother told me I was exceptional.
But of course, as much as we all like to enjoy inflated self-esteems, we’re all just human beings, and there is nothing exceptional about what piece of dirt we happened to land on when we were born.
What makes us exceptional is what we do. We’re not the only ones to create progressive movements. The French Revolution was certainly innovative, and the German movement of 1848, the Victorian reforms, and so on.
As far as small businesses, what makes them exceptional, as well as our class structure, is mobility. There’s opportunity, there’s room to grow, and there is no plutocracy or aristocracy or totalitarian government to prevent that. At least, there’s not supposed to be. In business terms, there are not supposed to be monopolies or oligopolies in the way of a small businesses’ success.
What ensures that mobility is the government. It creates the proverbial level playing field, for individuals, classes, and businesses.
And that is what makes Citizens United so dangerous.
The Republican Senators filibustered a bill to require donors of more than $10k to political campaigns to reveal their identities.
It’s hard to overstress just how dangerous this is to all of us. A handful of billionaires and large corporations are literally trying to buy the government. The GOP candidate is literally one of the 1% of the 1%, who wants to cut taxes and destroy social programs, and deregulate so that big businesses can crush small ones.
They must be stopped, and it is up to us to vote, and insist all votes be counted.
Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2012 7:56 PMAnd that is what makes Citizens United so dangerous.
Yes, free speech is the enemy of progressive ideals.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 17, 2012 7:58 PMT
I cannot find the quote that president Obama is using from Lincoln. He has paraphrased it too much.
I 100% agree that “we should be able to do together what we can’t do as well on our own. There’s some thing we don’t do well on our own.” MOST things are like this. But we usually do best in voluntary association. When Obama talks about doing things together, I think he is almost always talking about government.
Government is only one kind of cooperative venture and not the one we should reach for first. I think we should have a kind of series.
1. If you can do something yourself, just do it.
2. your family and friends.
3. spontaneous organization, i.e. get together with friends and neighbors
4. a voluntary organization, i.e. NGO, church, firm etc.
5. local government
6. state government
7. Federal government
All but the first are types of cooperative behavior. Federal action should be contemplated only in those instances where the other forms of action won’t work.
We do almost everything with the help of others, but most of what we do does not require the coercive power of government. It should be possible for a law abiding citizen to do most things w/o thinking of government at all.
Posted by: C&J at July 17, 2012 8:04 PMphx8
The Greeks, Romans, British, and French were indeed all exceptional, which is why we remember them and not all those other poor smucks who sunk into the sands of time w/o making much of an impression. And one reason they were better than the others is that they had better organization and offered more opportunities.
America built on the achievements of other and so surpassed them. Our constitution is based on Greek theories and Roman models minus the parts that we saw didn’t work and plus a dose of English experience. It that building on the achievements of others we were talking about.
I agree with you re mobility, but I see that as much more the creation of the market - in tune with our market friendly system.
Pre WWI Germany was the most progressive country in the world. American progressives loved Germany. They pioneered social security, labor laws, health regulations etc. The biggest party in Germany before the war was the SPD (social democrats). We look back at Germany through the lens of subsequent history, which sees it in a bad light, but Germany was the progressive heaven.
America, in contrast, was the wild west.
America was lucky and Americans were self-selecting. Our ancestors left the old country. Others stayed. There was a difference. Beyond that, just moving away from home makes you more likely to change.
We were also lucky to have such a great cast of characters at our country’s founding. Somebody with the restraint of George Washington is almost unknown in world history. And we had Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton & Adams at the same time. Considering British North America had a population of only about 3 million, that was almost unbelievable good luck.
We also had a new land. Think of the failure of the French revolution. One reason was that history and tradition weighed to heavily on them. The poor hated the rich and the rich despised the poor.
I could go on. It is true that there are many exceptional countries. But we are really exceptional.
C & J,
I am not disagreeing with your position. What I disagree with is this constant barrage from the right that says that the president believes that the govt. should control almost everything. Nothing the president has said or done gives me the impression that this is what he believes.
I never listen to any opinion about what political figures say right after they speak. I listen to them speak and then shut off the tv/radio and try to determine where they stand. Call me naive but after listening to many of the president’s speeches there is nothing in them that would make me believe that he does not believe in the free market and capitalism. He seems like someone who would like to see some regulations enforced in the banking system along with corporate America. This does not seem unreasonable to me.
I believe the free market is by far the best system, but does not work well for things that everyone needs.
Lastly, on a side note, a friend of mine was recently talking about PBS and it’s public programming. He made the point that the great shows on PBS would never exist in a completely free market. Much easier to make money with shows like American Idol and The Biggest Loser.
Posted by: t at July 17, 2012 8:57 PMWhat I disagree with is this constant barrage from the right that says that the president believes that the govt. should control almost everything. Nothing the president has said or done gives me the impression that this is what he believes.
So, it shouldn’t be hard to list aspects of our lives that the president feels are ‘off limits’ by government then, right? I’m looking forward to the list…
a friend of mine was recently talking about PBS and it’s public programming. He made the point that the great shows on PBS would never exist in a completely free market. Much easier to make money with shows like American Idol and The Biggest Loser.
BS. If the government didn’t limit who could broadcast there would have been more, if not better, programs on the air for decades. Now that cable has been introduced, many good programs are now available that once were never considered. Internet delivery is making it even better. In addition, production costs, as more and more people could be allowed to produce shows, have decreased thanks to the free market. Sure, there is a lot of crap out there, but there are also some really good stuff out there as well.
If it has to be done through tax dollars, it means there isn’t enough demand for those shows. In other words, you think it is ok that others are forced to pay for those programs that they don’t want to listen to so that you can listen to them. That really sounds kind of selfish to me… I wish I could have done that with Better of Ted or The Good Guys. :/
Oh, and yes, I listen to NPR shows (like Garrison Keillor and Wait Wait, Don’t Tell Me) but I also make sure to support those programs so that they don’t need federal funding to continue broadcasting.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 17, 2012 9:28 PMT
Nobody really wants a totally free market. It has never existed. A free market requires strong rule of law, since a market cannot exist if you cannot enforce property rights and contracts.
The free market works very well to give us common goods too. A free market democracy, such as the U.S., has decent roads and infrastructure compared with most of the alternatives. We idealize other countries w/o giving it enough thought.
For example, Americans visit Europe and praise the passenger rail system. It is good. But it is sustainable mostly because of population density. Freight rail in the U.S. is the best in the world. We don’t see that. Our better freight rail and generally better infrastructure is one reason why almost everything you want to buy is cheaper in the U.S. than it is in Europe.
The other thing we do is cherry pick. We choose the nicest parts of Europe and then compare that to the whole U.S. Think of the whole of Europe and it is not so good. Try driving around in Eastern or Southern Europe. Sometimes you cannot take advantage of the public good because the public employees are so frequently on strike.
And here we are talking Europe, which is the top of the line when it comes to these sorts of things.
Government needs the check of a strong free market, as a market need the check of an efficient government. They make each other better.
We need to regulate, but in a smart way. Mostly we have to recognize that any system is liable to breakdown. This cannot be avoided always. What we can do is make our systems robust enough to adapt. In fact, our system has adapted.
Re Obama and big government - his instinct is to believe in government solutions. It is what he always talks about. How many times has he asked the “rich” to pay their fair share? What does he mean and what does he want the money for?
I really believe that Obama does not understand a market economy. He is an academic with no experience in commerce or business. I don’t think he was even a paper boy or worked at McDonald’s.
Re PBS - PBS could survive w/o government. Parts of it would change. But PBS is also losing its niche. There are all sort of similar offerings on History Channel, Discovery etc. Meanwhile PBS is drifting into popularized programs.
NPR Radio has some better programs. They would also survive. They will never be as popular as the American Idols, but there is sufficient niche audiences.
Reinhold
I truly detest “Wait, Wait”. I would contribute money not to get that. The shows I like are “Talk of the Nation” & “Dianne Rehm”. I dislike Dianne herself, but the guests are good. And I also give money.
Posted by: C&J at July 17, 2012 9:59 PM“Now that cable has been introduced, many good programs are now available that once were never considered.”
Rheinhold,
While your waiting for the “off limit” list of the President, you might provide us with a list of the new enriching programs now available on cable. As far as I can tell, cable is degenerating into a bunch of moronic reality shows. They are cheap to produce and have wide audience appeal. The History channel is now about pawn shops, pickers and ghost hunts. If you can still find some history, please tell me. Ditto for the Discovery channel.
PBS is the only channel still producing quality investigative and science/nature productions, i.e., Frontline, Nova, etc.
Posted by: Rich at July 17, 2012 10:05 PMNat Geo has a ton of great science shows. Smithsonian as well. Science, Investigative Discovery, Velocity, Discovery (I still find many shows on Discovery very good, better than anything on PBS). Then there is Current, Democracy Now, etc for news.
In addition, internet delivery has many many great shows. Geek and Sundry is my current favorite, as well as TWIT.TV. I can provide you a list of great internet shows that are much more specialized (so that they would never make it on one of the big channels) but very very good.
I’m sorry you are having trouble finding good shows, but you should look a little harder or get your cable provider to provide some of the better channels you apparently don’t get. If it weren’t monopolized (though governmental rules) it would be a bit easier, I admit…
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 17, 2012 10:14 PMBTW, you’re telling me you don’t like Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman or Mythbusters? How about Naked Science?
As other channels shed certain viewers to go after ratings, other will take up the mantle because they choose to. It’s a simple reality. The variety of what is out there now, especially on internet delivery, is beyond anything PBS would or could do.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 17, 2012 10:23 PMWow.
Bravo, phx8!!!
Such a string of truly great posts!
Must send out a Dating Game-style virtual snog in your general direction!:
:^x
Of course, it’s Pearls Before (mostly) Swine, tragically. Still, great work nonetheless! Thanks.
Posted by: Adrienne at July 17, 2012 11:17 PMphx8,
I can’t disagree at least in part with your comment that governement played a role in our countries prosperity. But that comment is ambiguous. Many different administrations have come and gone over the years. Just because you hang that government badge in your comments does not mean that this particular administration is doing things the right way. Without entrepreneurs innovation stops. Without a government that supports capitalism the entrepreneurs growth is stifled and even worse suffocated. So yes they both play a part. But Obama is so far off center. His comments kick business owners in the balls over and over and over. He’s going beyond government’s historical role of supporting it’s people and actually believes that government creates jobs directly.I am a business owner and it took several very lean years and true invention and innovation for me to achieve success. The same government that helps us to succeed will also let us fail so lets not give government all the credit here. It was my money invested with no guaranteed return. Not yours or anyone else’s money. It was my sleepless nights and worry if I can pay my rent. Not yours or anyone else’s. I have a right to make more money than some have not taken the same level as risk because even with this great government (so some say) odds are I fail and have nothing left when the business idea never takes off.
Posted by: BAZ at July 17, 2012 11:19 PMI believe in interlocking, interacting systems, rather than any one part of society acting by itself. I neither trust government to force everything into being right, nor trust the market to simply magically making things right through individual choice alone.
As far as PBS goes? I grew up on it. I didn’t have cable or the equivalent for most of the first years of my life. So I learned and was exposed to educational TV chiefly through PBS. So, call me skeptical when somebody doesn’t see the use of PBS. I got a great deal of use out of it.
My sensibility is that Republicans and Libertarians dismiss and cut short far too much based on personal theory rather than real experience or examination of things. They’re convinced of a pure vision of how things should be, and they’re not letting enough of the real world get in the way of their ideology to keep them from sacrificing useful policies that happen to be politically incorrect from their point of view.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2012 11:50 PMStephen, the issue for libertarians (I can’t speak for conservatives, never having been one) is that we understand that government is coercion and force. That is the only thing that makes it different than any other non-governmental organization. So when a solution to an issue is being discussed, we would prefer that solution be one that doesn’t involve governmental coercion. We are smart people, in most cases there are alternatives that don’t rely on force. There are some cases where force must be in place and laws need to be there.
Unfortunately, it makes it appear that progressives aren’t that concerned about that force because they don’t see it, they think it is just ‘all of us agreeing to the rules of society’ and aren’t concerned about the rights of the minority or the individual.
Of course, for the record, conservatives don’t appear to be all that concerned about it either. To both parties, the power is good as long as the ‘right’ people are in control. When the ‘wrong’ people are in control, then hear those teeth gnashing…
It never occurs to them that maybe it is the fact that the power exists at all, not who is controlling it, that is the problem.
It’s like thinking that slavery would be ok as long as the slaveowners were good people and cared about you…
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2012 12:20 AMBAZ,
I wish you well as a small business owner. I disagree that Obama has an unfriendly attitude towards business. Larger corporations obviously don’t think so. The stock markets have seen one of the biggest bull runs in history. The debt markets seem confident enough to maintain very low rates, and American currency remains the unquestioned go-to currency for the rest of the world.
But what about small business owners?
Under the Obama administration, taxes for small businesses have been cut at least 18 times.
I worked in a small business for ten years. I did very well. I made good money, and the owner became a millionaire. I’m fine with that. But I said then, and time proved me right- that I would much rather pay high taxes in a good business environment in order to maintain that environment, rather than pay less taxes in a poor business climate. The Bush tax cuts saved me a few thousand dollars a year. A healthy economy would have meant additional TENS of thousands of dollars per year for my income.
Sadly, the firm eventually went down the tubes for several reasons: partly because of a failure to adapt to change and new technologies, partly because of the changing nature of the work force, and in great part because the economy tanked.
Posted by: phx8 at July 18, 2012 12:28 AMRhinehold-
I’ve got no problem in figuring out how to do things without coercive force, doing things that give people the opportunity to resolve a problem themselves.
But its got to work. If it doesn’t, we should try another approach. We tried letting Wall Street police itself, but not only did it fail, but it looks like they manipulated the market so it couldn’t do anything else but what was pathological.
It’s the naturalistic fallacy versus taking advantage of the nature of the way things are. One approach looks for ways in which already existing market forces can be aided to help keep down both Bureaucracy and bad behavior, but is willing to admit when such an approach doesn’t work. The other simply assumes that the market-based solution will work, and others don’t, and won’t hear differently, even if things do go wrong.
One approach will allow you to influence people towards more libertarian policy on a sustainable basis, because you will be pushing approaches that have been proven to work. The other will serve to convince people that your approach is built more on your politics than a real understanding of the way the market behaves. You may be willing to give your policies pass after pass until they work, but others will want security and certainty.
I don’t care what label you slap on the system that works. A system with much higher taxes and much stronger regulation, was called Free-Market Capitalism, in opposition to the Command Markets of Communism. That Free Market did better, was more stable than the one we have now, worked better than communism and socialism on many levels.
This is what too many critics of the left have been conditioned to ignore: that the vast majority of us have no desire to see the end of economic freedom, merely the stabilizing of the economy, and the knocking down of barriers to the average person prospering and remaining where they’ve done the work to remain. Too many Republicans and Conservatives expect people to counteract economic forces individually that are beyond their ability to deal with as individuals. They expect a person to bargain their wage with a multinational corporation the same way their ancestors may have bargained a wage with the local carpenter or blacksmith in colonial times.
We have to face that the structure of both the law and the practice concerning business have changed, that modern technology and the making of work into an interchangeable commodity have changed the way people have to deal with the system in order to get a fair shake.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2012 8:23 AMBut its got to work. If it doesn’t, we should try another approach. We tried letting Wall Street police itself, but not only did it fail, but it looks like they manipulated the market so it couldn’t do anything else but what was pathological.
Two things you have wrong here.
1) Libertarianism isn’t about ‘letting Wall Street police itself’. A good Free Market has rules that must be followed to ensure that it remain free.
2) What we had in the 2000’s was ANYTHING but a ‘deregulated’ market. The market was manipulated, yes, but by the FED to create a housing bubble that allowed for many bad practices to occur. And when it burst, had more of the bad regulation (mark-to-market rules) not been in place, the impact would have looked more like a pothole and less like a meteor crater.
Sorry, but Libertarianism is about NOT picking sides in the free market, ensuring that either side to any transaction is treated fairly and honestly and otherwise left alone to make their own decision, good or bad. Unfortunately Progressives and Conservatives have this notion that picking a side is better, which has been shown time and time again to be a false dichotomy.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2012 9:34 AMHere is a little known story that will never see the light of day in the liberal MSM:
There is something going on here; when Jews (who have always voted Democrat) are booing the head of the DNC and other democrat hacks for telling outright lies. Do you suppose the American people are waking up???
Posted by: Billinflorida at July 18, 2012 10:49 AMInteresting link BIF; I have moved away from some of the “presidential” polls and have been looking at state polls, opinion polls, and economic reports. There are some really strange things going on, and I believe Adam Ducker is completely off base with the economy getting better. There seems to be nothing going in Obama’s favor.
Posted by: Frank at July 18, 2012 3:31 PMFrank: “There are some really strange things going on…”
Like what?
“…and I believe Adam Ducker is completely off base with the economy getting better.”
It’s certainly a mixed bag out there. For two years we’ve had a slow economy in part because there was no demand for building new houses. The demand has started to return on the housing front but it may be too little too late to prevent another recession. But for now we know the economy was still growing for the most part this past month:
* Housing Starts increased to 760 thousand in June, Highest since October 2008
Posted by: Adam Ducker at July 18, 2012 7:18 PMphx8
Earlier you gave credit to the Soviet Union for their technology.
Soviet technology is western technology. That is very well documented. The west is what kept the Soviet Union from total collapse. We here in the west did do that and the criminal enterprise that the Soviet Union was puting forward was an absolute farce.
Maranatha
Posted by: tom humes at July 18, 2012 11:32 PMtom humes,
You underestimate the Soviets. For example, in metallurgy, the Soviet Union took advantage of its natural resources, its large deposits of titanium, to construct nuclear submarines which could go much deeper than American subs. This was an advantage. The US constructed subs which were quieter, and this eventually became more important.
The Soviet Union understood the effects of EMP- electromagnetic pulse- before the US, and the way EMP could be used to paralyze a country. A starburst pattern of five nuclear airbursts over the continental US would have rendered all communications and electronics useless. For a period of years, the United States was utterly at the mercy of the Soviet Union, and we didn’t even know it.
The Soviets also excelled with their space program and their jet fighters.
They really began to fall behind when computer technology came onto the scene. The Soviets were geographically encircled, and the economies of the Warsaw Pact were dwarfed by western powers. Remember, the US took 3/4 of Germany, the Russians 1/4. The US took Italy, and Japan relatively intact. The Soviet Union could not compete economically, and it could not afford to compete militarily. Computer technology, spurred by government development and military applications, boomed in the west- It eventually passed into the private sector, where we had the freedom to communicate and innovate, and the economy to power it.
Posted by: phx8 at July 19, 2012 1:37 AMphx8
I do not underestimate Soviet technology.
I am looking at the real world. Go back before nuclear subs. Go back to the 30’s, 40’s etc. If you would look at the drawings, specs, etc. of aircraft, of ground assets, and a myriad of other resources, you will find a very striking similarity of those Soviet items to western items.
Later on Lloyd Mallan wrote about space technology. Light refraction from helmets, kinking of umbilical cords, etc. The Soviet movie was released to The Rochester University (I believe it was a university, not sure) and the movie was not even a “B” grade movie.
Ford built a huge truck factory in the Soviet Union. This was when it had value beyond any security breach. It allowed the Soviet military to re-allocate monies to other resources.
Ball bearings made only in NH for the space industry were allowed to import this much needed item.
The list goes on.
Earlier I challenged you to read Antony Sutton’s writings on the Soviet Union and their use of our technology. I suppose you have not done that. Probably because it was 1700 pages long.
It very seldom occured that their technology was superior to ours. It often caused the Soviet Union to use espionage to gain what was wanted. The rest was our government allowing trade to be done that was not in keeping with or national security.
It took more than titanium to allow for the Soviet subs to achieve what they desired.
Isolated snipits must be looked into like a 5k piece picture puzzle. Any one of those snipits shows something, and in the case of the Soviet Union, it shows that their superiority was not what some people thought.
An example. There are some that think that the Mig series of fighter planes were better than anything our fighters planes could put in the sky. The element that makes this arguement void is that our pilots were far superior to the Mig pilots. The Mig pilots could not do what American pilots could do. That made the situation in our favor by a large margin.
There are hundreds of cases of the Soviet Union’s technology not what most people think it is.
Maranatha
Posted by: tom humes at July 19, 2012 11:56 AMtom humes,
Thanks for the suggestion, but I doubt I’ll read it anytime soon. Most of my reading these days is science fiction. I used to give the Soviet Union a lot of thought. In the 80’s I was in the USAF as a B-52 Radar Navigator (bombardier) on nuclear alert. The USSR was a totalitarian state that brutally repressed the rights of individuals. In the balancing act between the rights of individuals vs the rights of society, they went too far to one extreme, and it resulted in great evil. So you can see why I am a lot more sympathetic to the libertarian cause than many; but it is also possible to go too far to the other extreme, in which case individuals and corporate ‘persons’ form an elite/aristocracy/plutocracy/monopoly/oligopoly, and become every bit as exploitative as a totalitarian government. I think we’re far more threatened by the lack of effective government, lack of regulation & oversight, and vulnerability to corruption and bribery…
Because corporations are not people, corporations do not have first amendment rights, and money is NOT free speech, and it is utterly inappropriate, to put it mildly, for a handful of billionaires and corporations to purchase the American government.
Posted by: phx8 at July 19, 2012 3:15 PMADAM
Housing Re-sales are down 5.4% for the same period.
Posted by: George at July 19, 2012 4:15 PMDidn’t the SCOTUS declare corporations to be people???
Posted by: TomT at July 19, 2012 8:20 PMWhat’s out there that can admonition me how to lose weight? No amount what I did, I just could not assume to lose weight and accumulate it off. I didn’t like the way getting ample fabricated me attending or feel. I saw added humans that were thin, but why couldn’t I be like them?What was so altered about me? What was the botheration I had with dieting? Did I accept a apathetic metabolism? Was there something amiss with my throid? Over and over I anticipation what was out there that could admonition me lose weight?
Posted by: To lose weight, what can you do? at July 19, 2012 8:54 PMDidn’t the SCOTUS declare corporations to be people???
No.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 19, 2012 9:40 PMI am no lawyer, but didn’t the 2010 ruling by the SCOTUS on banning corporations of contributing to political campaigns, rule that corporations represent people?
“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of the court’s conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
But we find in Steven’s response:
“The five opinions in Thursday’s decision ran to more than 180 pages, with Justice John Paul Stevens contributing a passionate 90-page dissent. In sometimes halting fashion, he summarized it for some 20 minutes from the bench on Thursday morning.
Joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing, Justice Stevens said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings.”
The idea that corporations are people came from the descenting side of the court.
I am no lawyer, but didn’t the 2010 ruling by the SCOTUS on banning corporations of contributing to political campaigns, rule that corporations represent people?
No, not exactly, it ruled that people who are acting within a group, even if that group is a formalized ‘corporation’, cannot be denied their rights while doing so.
However, that is different than the original quote you made that declared corporations ARE people, they aren’t. Had they ruled that way then they wouldn’t have upheld, in the same decision, that the federal government CAN block corporations from donating directly to candidates. They have never been able to do this and they still are unable to do this. It wouldn’t be able to had they been deemed ‘persons’.
The idea that corporations are people came from the descenting side of the court.
And is irrelevant. Corporations are a legally recognized group of individuals. Corporations like the NAACP, the Sierra Club, the NY Times, etc are just groups of people, not people, other than in regards to limiting liability of the members of the group and signing contracts.
The Supreme Court did not rule that corporations are people and therefore have all the rights of people, it rules that they are groups of people and therefore those people in the group cannot have their rights limited. No matter how much those who are against the notion of corporations want it to be that way.
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 20, 2012 11:17 AMRhinehold, it sounds like spliting hairs to me. So when the descenting side (Stevens) said it was wrong to accept corporate speech as that of individuals, he was just blowing smoke?
Posted by: TomT at July 20, 2012 1:07 PMIt’s not ‘splitting hairs’, it’s two distinctly different things. Either we have free speech or we don’t, when you want to limit it just because you don’t like that a couple of people got together to say what they had to say, then there is no right to free speech anymore.
Stevens was giving his opinion in the descent, but the descent is not part of the ruling of the court and has no legal bearing whatsoever. If a judge wrote in their descent that the moon was made of cheese, it doesn’t make it so and it is not a finding of the court.
Are you telling me that it should be the power of the government to tell a group of people that they can’t use their collective money to make and air a political documentary?
Political documentaries should only be possible by the rich? Without the ability to group, poorer people could not have their voice heard… That’s a great system. :/ Nevermind that the government said that they could ban books as well with this power…
Posted by: Rhinehold at July 20, 2012 1:48 PMTo most females, they love famous designer products, especially designer handbags. They love the unique design, high quality, perfect as well as the craft. But most normal people cannot afford the designer handbags, so the wholesale cheap knock off designer handbags online start to play an important role in the market.
If you have bag sense, you possibly possess a Prada within of your bag collection. That suggests you recognize just how excellent a Prada is. numerous of us are new to Prada, but how about every solo one of us reveal about why Prada is amid possibly probably the most effective bag labels you’ll really buy? Wholesale Prada handbags online profit is fit for just about every solo occasion. It’s really a one-stop store for bags. Pursuing you acquire in to some Prada shop, you’ll obtain a daily bag, your evening clutch, along collectively with your holiday add-ons all in one place. That produces it even very much a whole lot more trendy - which you can possess a distinctive Prada bag for just about every solo occasion.
Nowadays, more and more people start to pay attention on another brand that is Miu Miu, a branch brand of Prada. The design of Miu Miu is much more suitable for young females, and it is very famous among young ladies recently, especially the cheap Miu Miu handbags on sale online.
Coach fashion handbag is produced with some on one of probably the most effective means that give it awesome value. In the complete year, the colors, sizes and types are continually making the style using the individuals through the world. No subject what this brand name of bag that you simply choose, you will most certainly be gratified with their awesome comfort and fashion. Such a bag can broad range in price, but is really affordable using the standard person. You can come about throughout this sort of the handbag for just about any event plus they are good to please.
Posted by: Coach Fashion handbag is Waiting for You at July 24, 2012 4:10 AMCheap Nike NFL Jerseys have always been regarded a well-known outfits product especially these days with more individuals displaying interest and assistance to their preferred groups and gamers. Dressed in these Cheap Nike NFL Green Bay Packers Jersey is a simple way of displaying off your assistance and allegiance for a certain group. People can best display to the world the group they are following by putting on the shades of their preferred Official NFL Jerseys Shop groups.
Nike NFL elite Jerseys On Sale are great presents for individuals of any age, from children to mature. The choices that are available are incredibly stylish and have been regularly modified. Some individuals use these Nike NFL Limited Jerseys Cheap Sale to demonstrate their design and flavor. These Wholesale Nike NFL Game Jerseys stayed to be stylish. In fact, they are also used by superstars who also want to demonstrate their assistance to their most liked group in Green Bay Packers nike football Jerseys.
xiaochenAtmosphere Jordans For sale On-line about some jordans for saleof our website will provide you with you several most recent in addition to famous boots or shoes.Wholesale Air Jordan shoes We live assured which you should contain the favored kinds associated with boots or shoes from our own webs.Retro Jordans for sale Atmosphere Jordan 4 obtain several totally obvious triggering to the Atmosphere Jordan3. Air Jordan shoes.
Posted by: dfds at April 19, 2013 9:32 PMseo , | ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ar,ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ! ! ! seo fuck http://google.com.br | http://google.com.br http://google.com.br ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | , , , , http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php , , - ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, seo fuck ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | , , , , , ,seo fuck ,
seo , | ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ar,ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ! ! ! seo fuck http://google.com.br | http://google.com.br http://google.com.br ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | , , , , http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php , , - ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, seo fuck ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | , , , , , ,seo fuck ,
seo , | ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ar,ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ! ! ! seo fuck http://google.com.br | http://google.com.br http://google.com.br ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | , , , , http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php , , - ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, seo fuck ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | , , , , , ,seo fuck ,
Posted by: seobrazil at April 27, 2013 4:41 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to editor@watchblog.com.
