December 19, 2008
George W. Hoover Bush?
President Bush has approved a 17 billion dollar bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, to tie their operations over until March 31, 2009. Fiscal conservatives like Larry Kudlow are damning the action as Bush giving in to the United Auto Worker’s Union. Other analysts are claiming Pres. Bush made this decision to avoid the moniker of Hooverite, Pres. Hoover having worn the label as the president who oversaw the last great depression commencing with the stock market crash of 1929. No one seems to be saying that Pres. Bush simply did the right thing by the country, except the executives of General Motors and Chrysler, and me.
I will argue that Pres. Bush looked at the options of extending TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds to the auto makers or not, considered the consequences of each, and in a rare moment of competence, decided that the country, economy, and workers would be better off if the automakers did not fall into bankruptcy. Nothing more complicated than that. Others are arguing he is playing to his legacy and is avoiding a Hoover reputation. That may be a consideration, but, who could seriously say this is Bush's first and foremost consideration?
President Bush has all the appearances of a man who wishes the nation and her people well. If wishes were the foundation of reality, our nation would be vastly better off after 8 years of President George W. Bush. It simply does not appear rational as Larry Kudlow suggests that Pres. Bush is knuckling under to the union in a sudden conversion to pro-unionism and giving them what they want. The union is not the foremost concern or factor in anyone's calculation in the White House.
The 1 to 3 million estimated lost jobs as a result of GM and Chrysler entering bankruptcy is the major issue to weighed against tax payers having to shoulder the $17 billion rescue. However, it is absolutely clear that the Treasury was going to issue that remaining $17 Billion dollars to some corporation or another, therefore, the tax payers in fact, are not shouldering any more debt by Pres. Bush having chosen the auto makers as the recipients instead of AIG or Bank of America.
Amazingly, it appears Pres. Bush took this simple scenario, weighed the consequences, and actually arrived at the right decision for America and her people in these troubled times for workers under threat. As a result, it is now the Senate Republicans like Corker and Shelby who must wear the egg on their face. Had the Republican Senators not filibustered the Democratic proposals for a bridge loan, with its strings attached limiting exec compensation, targeting the loans for specific uses, and forcing the union to hold their position at their last concessions as recently as 4 months ago, tax payer dollars would have gotten more bank for the buck insuring the proper usage of their dollars by GM and Chrysler.
Their is a class war going on here with these bailouts, and Pres. Bush has, in his parting days, made a decision to leave the Senate Republican class war against blue collar workers, and simply act in the best interest of the economy, on which he no doubt recognizes his finger prints of deregulation and absence of oversight indelibly imprinted. The fact that Senate and some House Republicans would author 750 billion dollars of tax payer future earnings to bail out white collar shareholders, executives, and Wall Street financial institutions without ANY conditions attached, but balk at a mere $17 billion to save auto workers jobs, and the jobs of up to 2 million other blue collar workers in the parts manufacturing, sales, and servicing industries, simply megaphones political class warfare.
It is hard to imagine how Republicans could possibly muster a majority of national votes in any foreseeable future election while clinging to this sort of political class ideology that has cost mainstream working Americans so dearly, in jobs, 401K savings, and home foreclosures, so many of which are still brought on by overwhelming health care debts. That said, Democrats are not on political easy street. If they fail to put this recession behind us in the next 3 years while convincing the public that deficits are a priority, it is equally difficult to see how they could retain the majority votes they enjoyed in this last election.
But, it is appropriate to give credit where it is due. Pres. Bush appears to have made the right decision, at the right time, with the right motives. That is truly a remarkable accomplishment for this lame duck president who has quacked us up so often with incomprehensible actions and decisions.
Posted by David R. Remer at December 19, 2008 12:18 PMWell, since no one else has commented at this point, I’ll take a swing at it.
I agree he made the right decision, but not that he did it at the right time or with the right motives.
Firstly, you hit the nail on the head with your title and first paragraph. Bush did not make this decision out of the best of intentions but rather to avoid his legacy being tagged with the Hoover moniker. That’s basically all this lamest of lame ducks has been doing for about the last month. Every time you turn around he’s making another speech somewhere telling everyone what a great job he’s done and how bad things would have been it if wasn’t for the great job he’s done.
Just imagine what a serious hit his reputation would have taken if GM and Chrysler had gone down on his watch or soon after. Big business is one of the Republican main constituencies and though it may have been tempting to take this one last chance at crippling organized labor (one of many Republican anti-constituencies), the black eye for letting 2 of the big 3 go down would have destroyed any slight chance that anyone might give him a favorable rating, other than the brainwashed 28%.
Secondly, this was something he could have and should have used what little (if any) of the political capital he might have had left to get his party in line back when the Dems were trying to put something (not all that different from what was announced today) together last month.
As others and I have posted in other threads, though it may well be true that the automakers are beyond saving with any amount of money and/or not worth saving at even the lowest price, it cannot possibly have helped their cause to a) have had to wait a month for a resolution and b) have to be publicly pilloried for something as simple as flying into DC for the hearings. I don’t recall the big banks being called on the carpet for not taking public transport or, for that matter, not having a plan for turning things around. So bottom line is this should have been done long ago.
David >Others are arguing he is playing to his legacy and is avoiding a Hoover reputation. That
David >may be a consideration, but, who could seriously say this is Bush’s first and foremost
David >consideration?
I seriously do say this, because it does in fact fit the pattern of behavior he has exhibited since the election. Otherwise, as I said before, why was it not done last month?
David >President Bush has all the appearances of a man who wishes the nation and her people well.
I wish I could agree with you, but I don’t. This man wishes well of his and his party’s main constituencies which are big business and fundamental Christians. Anyone else has been, is and will continue to be SOL when it comes to concern from him or his party.
David >Their is a class war going on here with these bailouts,
Again, I wish I could agree with you but I do not. Again, look at how the automaker bailout came about and look at how the banks received $700B with practically no strings attached, compared to the automakers receiving 2.4% that amount with all kinds of strings attached. So, yes there’s a class war going on here, but no, Bush has not left it behind.
David >he no doubt recognizes his finger prints of deregulation and absence of oversight
David >indelibly imprinted.
You are giving him WAY WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much credit here. This is a man who does not recognize the severity of the insult given him by a Middle Eastern man attempting to hit him with his shoes. The only thing Bush recognizes it what the smarter people in his cabinet tell him, and I’m sure the smarter people in his cabinet are telling him that they didn’t de-regulate enough, that they didn’t trash the regulatory structures enough, that this whole economic crisis is all in people’s minds, a la Phil Gramm, and if they had just gotten the SEC and the FDIC down to a size they could have drowned in a bathtub, that everything would have been paradise.
David >simply megaphones political class warfare.
Yes! My sentiments exactly. But, it’s not over by a long shot, not even in the ballpark of being slightly close to over.
Just you wait, the Republican/Conservative agenda of innuendo and smears and slander will be back in full swing in a little over a month. I’ll be amazed if Obama makes it over 6 months into his term without some Rep/Con trailer trash slut showing up to swear he did something to her not necessarily illegal mind you, just something salacious that’s going to keep Obama constantly in depositions for the next 3 to 7 years. Just wait, and mark my words. It’s not over.
Posted by: Varsity at December 19, 2008 08:29 PMThe worldwide recession is nothing more than a harsh phase of globalization. Planned to coincide with the end of Bush’s tenure. It’s clear to me that Obama will take up the reins of globalization come Jan. His pick for Dept of Commerce, Hilda Solis for Dept of labor, Ron Kirk for US Trade Rep, is a clear sign of more globalization. Obama has said he will resume SPP talks. You can’t separate domestic issues from globalization. The fact that non-supervisory average wage went up a whole total of $1.60 between 2000 and 2006, that folks are borrowing for a college education, that the GDP began falling in 2006, that 45M are without medical insurance cannot be treated as domestic issues. These issues are being driven directly by globalization. Or, if you will, by a klepto-plutocracy, corporatism, or oligarchy government. Your choice. Had American manufacturing remained in this country and US wages continued to rise faster than inflation we wouldn’t have the situation we have today. Why do the colleges and universities seek to educate so many foreign students. When you visit a hospital do you notice the large number of folks in the medical field who speak with a strong accent? Why would we want to educate large numbers of foreigners and have them remain in this country to compete with aspiring US citizens? Why wouldn’t we want them to return to their country of origin and help out in the developing world? Years back when it was suggested that we had too few medical folks and would need to import some skills people rightfully asked “why not increase the number of available student positions for US citizens”. Answer was, “we don’t want to weaken the medical field or have other than the best and brightest apply.” Continues today. Word is we are short 60,000 nurses. The government intends to solve the problem by bringing in 40,000 Filipino nursing students. Each year our learning institutions are turning away 42,000 or so qualified US applicants for nursing studies. Consider the border issue. Over the last two years over 7000 people have been killed along the Southern border. Over 4000 killed this so far this year. That’s way more than the total killed for Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, not a peep about the border during the primaries or in the national election debates. A slaughter going on and most of the illegal drugs entering this country come across the border. Obama likes to use the phase “if we can put a man on the moon we can … “ Well, if we can put a man on the moon why can’t we construct a fence across territory that belongs to the US? Answer is, the oligarchy wants the NAU to succeed at all costs. Ron Kirk has said he wants “Dallas to become the capital city for the NAFTA highway.” Hilda Solis has said “ all are Americans, whether legal or not.” She pushed hard to give illegals access to drivers license and SS cards. She regularly beats up on my buddy, Lou Dobbs.
So, breaking the back of the auto workers union is just one more step in breaking the back of the middle class and the continuation of globalization.
Otherwise, we have the NAU we deserve.
Roy, your critique implies that there is a choice to be made between globalization of economies and something else. What is that something else?
If one country has natural resources another doesn’t, and the other has processing facilities the natural resource country does not, BINGO! Globalization! I don’t see an alternative.
I do see potential for becoming more self reliant on essentials to our national and financial security, but, our nation was founded on free trade, and it has succeeded around the world just as America hoped it would and worked so hard to make happen with Japan, Germany, S. Korea to start with.
The trick now is to force our free trade agreements to fit a fair trade mold. No easy task, but, doable with sufficient time, effort and due diligence, meaning, not taking one’s eye off the goal. The shrinking of humanity down to a global village is not something that can be undone without catastrophic diminution of human numbers on the planet.
Therefore, new paradigms for human coexistence in mutually beneficial ways across cultural, religious, and national borders must be the end humanity strives for and actively seeks. But, that cannot happen without a dramatic uplifting of educational capacity globally, which holds that humanitarian goal supremely fundamental to the curriculum, regardless of the school’s location or demographic, in general.
We are a very long way from that.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 20, 2008 01:24 PMVarsity, thanks for the feedback and comments. Your and my perspecties are essentially not that different. Our outlook going forward however, appear to be a case of one’s glass half full and the other’s half empty.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 20, 2008 01:25 PM
Right or wrong, I don’t believe it is about the Bush legacy in the since that others have in mind. The Administration with unknowing cooperation from Congress and knowing cooperation by people high up in thefinancial hierarchy have perpetrated possibly the greatest fraud in world history.
In a 2000 presidential debate, Bush said this,” If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world, ah, in nation building missions then where going to have a serious problem coming down the road and I’m going to stop that.”
Bush was right about the possible serious consequences but, if elected, he had every intention of doing what he said he was going to stop.
From day 1, the mission of the Bush Administration was premised on the philosophy that it had the unilaterial right to do whatever it decided to do. To act on this belief, they devised plan.
The mission was to be directed on two fronts, direct military intervention and economic warfare against what the Administration perceived as enemy’s, primarily in the Islamic countries, Western Europe and here at home. Despite the obvious missteps in Iraq and the possibility of economic collapse, the Administration has succeeded remarkably well.
The direct military action against Iraq is well documented. In the first meeting of the National Security Council after the inauguration and eight months before 911, the entire focus was on the removal of Saddam Hussein. The meeting ended on these words from Bush, “Go find me a way to do this.”
Two days later, the focus of the second NCS meeting centered around the plans for a post Saddam Iraq which included peace keeping troops, war crimes tribunals and dividing up Iraq’s oil.
In March, 2001, an operational document was presented titled Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oil Field Contracts. The document included a map showing potential areas for new oil exploration sights in Iraq. The NCS discussion centered around sending a team to potential Iraq oil suitors for the purpose of bring them onboard. There is some evidence to suggest that the man chosen to lead the team was Robert Michael Gates.
All of this was planned well in advance of the 911 terrorists attacks which gave the Bush Administration an excuse to advance with their invasion plans. V.P. Cheney was the point man for the gathering incriminating but nonfactual intelligence against Saddam.
Although I have heard rumors and seen events unfold, I have not seen direct evidence (documentation) to support my claim of deliberate enonomic warfare by a few well placed individuals within the Bush Administration and the financial community but, the current economic situation, IMO, supports the claim.
The combination of deregulation, the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, The War in Iraq, the housing bubble and the huge bailouts involving massive debt have contributed to the economic conditions which the Bush Administration intended.
Politicians in both parties have been duped, rewarded, and in a few cases, directly recruited for this purpose.
The Islamic world has been disrupted. The Saddam regime has been replaced by one of the most corrupt governments our tax dollars could buy. U.S. military might is deployed of both the Eastern and Western fronts of Iran. Although Iran has engaged in a beligerent war of words, they are basically in a duck and cover mode.
The Sociocapitalist governments of Western Europe are under increasing attacks from their citizens and are facing the possibility of collapse. The government of Belgim has already collapsed.
Here in America, the massive bailouts are creating massive debt with little certanity that they will work. If they do fail to cause a recovery, this country and indeed the world would fall into a possibly terrible depression. The social safety net in this country might then be in serious trouble, a situation which, IMO, would be extremely desirable for those involved in perpetrating this economic war.
Posted by: jlw at December 20, 2008 01:51 PM
jlw said: “Despite the obvious missteps in Iraq and the possibility of economic collapse, the Administration has succeeded remarkably well.”
That’s funny. Like the doctor who pronounces the patient died but the operation was a success.
Iraq is one of the most corrupt governments on the planet and as we Americans know from long history and experience, corruption in government is anathema to democracy. Ergo, Iraq has been a monumental failure to date and every step of the way. Some want to claim the Surge was a success. But, that claim can only be rationally made if the purposes of the Surge are redefined after the fact.
Corruption in government leads invariably leads to insurrection and potential revolution. Which means Iraq cannot and will not be a stable government going forward if left to stand on its own two feet.
No, every aspect of the Iraq misadventure has been a resounding failure save for our military’s prowess at defeating Saddam’s defenses in very short order and with an absolute minimum of casualties. The vast majority of our casualties occurred during the stabilization and reconstruction phases in Iraq, and we are still taking casualties today. Rather ironic, those “unintended consequences” the Bush administration will forever be infamous for.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 20, 2008 02:14 PMAnother enormous piece of spin by jlw is in the comment that “The Islamic world has been disrupted.”
Absolute nonsense. Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Kuwait, Egypt, the UAE are all very much intact and not the least bit disrupted save for the falling price of oil of late. So, if taken literally, jlw’s is nonsense. But even if meant figuratively to represent the world fundamentalist Islamic jihadism, his comment remains pure propaganda. According to our own intelligence reports, al-Queda is vastly wider spread in the world today than before 9/11, and the numbers ascribing sympathies with the al-Queda movement, while dropping of late, remain higher than anytime before our invasion of Iraq.
The facts and jlw’s propaganda just don’t coincide. Not surprising from a Bush apologist disguising comments as reborn conservative on the opposite side of the failed Bush they so long supported in comments of the past.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 20, 2008 02:22 PMDRR,
jlw must be referring to the Trilateral Commission…as we have seen, Cheney/Bush are much too inept for that august body to trust with such an undertaking…jlw must then be mistaken.
Posted by: Marysdude at December 20, 2008 05:23 PM
David Remer: Your personal animosity towards me because of my opinions about Obama have cause you to, indirectly or deliberately misrepresent what I said.
What I said was, that no good for nothing S.O.B. Bush and a few of his allies planned it all. Everything they did may not have worked to perfection but, I doubt that Bush and Cheney are dissatisfied by the results.
They may have hoped to keep a military presence in Iraq till the oil is gone to protect the corrupt government that they created and their profits but, that possibility won’t be completely off the table till all our troops are out of Iraq.
When any entity, be it government or business, goes bankrupt, who stands to lose the most? Who is usually called upon to make concessions? Who ends up standing on a soup line?
When much of the wealth is concentrated into the hands of a few, it is not completely out of the realm of posibility that those few will be positioned to control the future path of the economic recovery including the destruction of any ability by the government to regulate capitalism if a depression were to occure. If those few are the ones with the lion’s share of the wealth, it is not inconceivable, especially in light of how much we are enthralled by capitalism, that they could use that wealth to scapegoat the New Deal and other progressive policies if a depression were to occure when the Democrats are in power.
Imo, Bush and his allies would love to destroy social security, medicare, medicaid, and the welfare system. They would love to see the collapse of the social systems in Western Europe.
“Not suprising from a Bush apologist”
That is an absolute lie which can easily be discredited by the briefest of excursions into the WatchBlog archives. And, lying or diliberately misrepresenting someones position should be cause for a severe repremand by the WatchBlog manager which in the case of David Remer, I can only assume will not be forthcoming.
As far as I am concerned you owe me an apology for lying about me. At the very least you should take another look at what I said and see how you misrepresented it.
I’ve been here for nearly four years and until Obama came along we had similar positions on most of the issues discussed here. The only thing that has changed is that I am no longer an apoligist for the Democrats. I have never had much of anything good to say about the Republican party or Republican politicians.
Posted by: jlw at December 20, 2008 07:19 PM
Marysdude, no, I am primarily refering to the supposedly defunct PNAC and their version of Pax Americana.
Marysdude, what I was trying to convey was that I believe that at the higest levels of government and finance at least in the western world, there are two groups.
One group is not adverse to the use of social structures such as the New Deal and many of the ways that Western Europe goes about governing which can be used to improve the quality of life and opportunities for the underclass.
The other group is vehemently opposed to any such social aspects and would love nothing more than to get rid of them.
I believe that the Bush Administration is deeply entrenched in the latter group and that it has deliberately waged a financial war against the other group to achieve what they could not achieve in the political realm.
Am I wrong about that? Quite possibly. After all, I have no direct evidence to support my belief.
I would not put anything beyond the realm of possibility by the Bush Administration and their allies in banking and finance even if they had to bear some pain to achieve their goals.
Posted by: jlw at December 20, 2008 08:16 PMjlw,
Mea Culpa! I apologize. I have said on many occasions that the aim of Cheney/Bush was to destroy Social Security, Medicare and all programs directed toward the relief of citizens, i.e., education, health, welfare, blah blah…I totally misunderstood and misrepresented your actual views…I am sorry.
Posted by: Marysdude at December 20, 2008 09:08 PMDavid, yes I am implying that there is a choice to be made between globalization of economies and something else. That something else is improving the economies of the world while retaining some sense of sanity in your approach. One such approach might have been:
Make it illegal for this country to run a budget deficit two years in sequence. (war clause and all that)
Grow world economies without destroying ours. Currently the world oligarchies have managed to wreck the entire world economy. Not a sad thing for them. They are elated as this is part of their long range globalization goals. Bring the American middle class into line with the wages and economical conditions of the developing world. “we can’t all expect to have air conditioning”, etc.
Use anti-trust law to break up the too big to fail’s. Bust up the mega-corporations such as Tyco Intl and the too big to fail banks. If they want to do a big deal let them share the risk and rewards between two or more entities to get the job done. What about competition? Where is competition when one conglomerate controls every facet a product from natural resources, design, funding, production, marketing, sales, distribution, the world’s cheapest labor, no government interference, etc. You would have to be a fool’s fool to think that GM US could compete with GM China is car production/sales. What is GM’s supposed biggest problem at the moment? Why, it’s that God awful American labor rate. Well then, what must the rate be to compete with Chinese manufactured cars? $6/hr. or less. Makes me want to repost my article on Globalization + forty years again. But I’ll refrain for the moment. Why is their no outcry from government to slow down the grossly obscene wages spewing out of the top of the major corps. to the CEO’s/executives?
If the oligarchy realizes they are at the end of their rope with this fiat/ponzi money scheme then it makes some sense for them to reel in the benefits part of the budget. If it was broached to the people they might agree to cuts in socials, etc IF some cuts were made as well on the corporate side.
Work to bring development to the third world while retaining some modicum of our standard of living. Work to improve the lot of the American worker rather than competing them with the world’s cheapest labor.
Regulate trade to ensure a progressive, sustainable growth rate for developing countries. Example; China should be held to 5-6%. In other words, I see it as a sovereign issue that the US government manage itself so as not to fail. WHATEVER that takes. Why does the government, for the first time I can remember, decide that we need military troops to protect the citizens in our own homes? Where the hell is that coming from? Are they expecting trouble? And don’t give me this Jihad nonsense. Had our government had some kind of laws prior to 9/11 that had some control over foreign people coming into and out of this country instead of giving them drivers licenses, SS cards, etc 9/11 would never have happened. How blazenly STUPID. Well, still exists today with out Southern border. We spent some hundreds of billions to ‘tighten up and reorganize security’ after 9/11 but not a peep about the border. Beyond STUPID. 4000 killed this year along the border. The oligarchy will go to any means necessary to achieve their ‘one world’ goal.
No trade agreement, treaty or world body should be put above US law. Our national sovereignty has to be respected. Every trade treaty/agreement should have a paragraph stating that no trade law will breach US sovereignty.
I could crash your server with ‘another way’ to achieve a developing world order. But I suspect it would only serve to numb my fingers.
Well, let’s spend some time on your post. You said: “ If one country has natural resources another doesn’t, and the other has processing facilities the natural resource country does not, BINGO! Globalization! I don’t see an alternative. “
Use tantalum as an example. The Congo has tantalum, we don’t. We have processing facilities, they don’t. BINGO! A trade agreement is put in place. Fair wages for miners, mine safety rules/inspections, human rights for workers/communitites, fair price for product that supports fair wages and safety, etc. In turn, we agree to endeavor to support development along the lines of agriculture and infrastructure. They buy our products and we provide technical know-how to build schools, churches, highways, various forms of agriculture and food processing facilities, etc. Yearly they sell us $1B of tantalum and they buy roughly $1B of John Deere and Catapillar stuff. We throw in some Peace Corp and Charity/volunteer management etc and it’s a done deal. Good program for internships. That’s globalization. Doesn’t help the capacitor manufacturer become greedily wealthy. Quite unlike the EU sucking up every fish in Africa’s coastal waterway for the price of a few pence to the current dictator. That’s a realistic approach to a globalized economy, in a nutshell.
You said, “I do see potential for becoming more self reliant on essentials to our national and financial security, but, our nation was founded on free trade, and it has succeeded around the world just as America hoped it would and worked so hard to make happen with Japan, Germany, S. Korea to start with.”
Incredulous statement David. Beginning with the Panama Canal (of Robert Pastor ilk) the NAU oligarchy has been hell bent to sell things like sea and air ports, hi-tech security companies, etc to foreign entities. Only because of public outcry has some of it has been slowed. The Chinese have over 3000 front companies sucking up ‘intelligence’. Their military runs the world’s biggest computer hacking networks. The new age fuel tanker is the latest example of selling our security. I’ll digress and gist on some of the text from David Cay Johnson’s “Free Lunch”. As I’ve said before, you don’t sell China airplanes unless you give them the technology to make their own planes, which is what Boeing Aircraft has done. GM’s price to be able to play in China was to sell a sub called Magnequench. This company produced 80% of the special magnets, made from neo-dymium, used in smart bombs. People complained but Clinton approved the sale. Immediately the Chinese company began buying up the remaining 20% of magnet production such as GA Powders, an Idaho firm that had used taxpayer money to develop the powerful new magnets. Once these companies were bought up China began shutting down the US facilities and moving manufacturing to China. Now the US is dependent on China for smart bomb magnetics. Thank you Slick Willie! I hope your wife does better. In 2007 China demonstrated their ability to shoot down a satellite. China is the source for 85% of known stores of neodymium. The Chinese have over 3000 front companies sucking up ‘intelligence’. Their military runs the world’s biggest computer hacking networks. And, we have yet to see GM’s first Chinese built car! But, when we do the US foreign car manufacturers are so much dead meat.
This nation has never, never adopted a fair trade treaty or agreement. Even today, 2008, some 137 countries including the EU, Mexico, Canada and China use the Value Added Tax system. The US does not. Therein, every trade agreement we have, or ever had, is stacked against us from the beginning. Similar to the Marshall Plan, the VAT was started following WWII to help Europe recover from the war. Since then the VAT has grown tentacles and is a major player in trade policy around the world. Is it too much to ask WHY?
You wrote: “The trick now is to force our free trade agreements to fit a fair trade mold. No easy task, but, doable with sufficient time, effort and due diligence, meaning, not taking one’s eye off the goal. ”
LOL with no further comment.
You wrote: “Therefore, new paradigms for human coexistence in mutually beneficial ways across cultural, religious, and national borders must be the end humanity strives for and actively seeks.”
Nothing wrong with that. We are all generally looking for a peaceful world with balanced economies that are beneficial to the respective countries and respectful of their sovereignty and laws. BUT, it ain’t necessary to trash this country and set us back to postwar WWII to achieve those lofty goals! Again, instead of working to break the middle class why not work to bring the developing countries toward our level of development? Why are we allowing China to build X number of coal fired plants each week? Why is the US using a food stock to produce ethanol? Some company just got busted where it was found that half of their employees were illegals and using false social security cards. Why is that? Sixteen coal miners die each day in Chinese mines. What about the Tecaladores (sic) along the border in Mexico where US businesses trashed and polluted the place and split for China as soon as cheaper labor came on the scene? Why does China and the US continue to buy ivory taken from the last remaining elephants in Africa? Why are thousands of sharks being killed and dumped back in the ocean after removing their fins? A county resident was recently busted for selling bear parts from the Shenandoah into the Chinese market. Revise my statement that China should be held to 5-6% growth. Make that 2%. There should be a price to pay for stupidity in those countries wanting to play on the world stage.
For my interest the oligarchy can take their idea of globalization and shove it to where the sun don’t shine.
Otherwise, we have the NAU we deserve.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 20, 2008 10:10 PM
Here is something of interest…I cannot verify the validity, but it presents an insightful look into Cheney/Bush. Here is one snippit:
>“This administration made decisions that allowed the free market to operate as a barroom brawl instead of a prize fight,” said L. William Seidman
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=1&hp
Posted by: Marysdude at December 20, 2008 10:10 PMI posted before Roy, so had not read his post…I’m wondering about the Congo thingee…Roy has a point, until other nations are involved…why would the Congo trade with us under those restrictions, if China wanted the same thing, and would purchase outright, without our restrictions? Merely a question…I mean no harm.
Posted by: Marysdude at December 20, 2008 10:19 PMDR
I would hope that at this point Bush has gained some long overdue humility,but then I am usually optimistic. Certainly there is nothing sinister or belittling about concern for ones legacy.
jlw
Its so seldom I get to do this.
LEVITICUS 33-34
When an alien lives with you in your land,do not mistreat him.The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am The Lord your God.
Note :There is no visa requirment demanded and the Lord God is frequently accepted as an authoritive source. To be treated as native born would entail DLs and SS,would it not?
Point well taken Marysdude. If you lie down with dogs you may indeed get fleas. A race to the bottom if you will, and that’s exactly where globalization has taken us. Not only bringing down this country but the entire world. I haven’t traveled in the last several years but I hear we aren’t so well liked these days. I don’t have an answer for you, but, If I were a congolean I would prefer a John Deere tractor to a Chinese model.
Otherwise, we have the NAU we deserve.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 21, 2008 12:05 AMRoy,
Americans are suckers.
We’ve been sold, and have accepted that “cheaper is better”. Otherwise why would we be buying 6 cheap Chinese widgets when we could buy 1 quality American made widget that lasts longer for the same price as the 6?
We were sold on the fact that the larger gas guzzling American vehicles are “safer” than the smaller, more fuel efficent, Japanese vehicles, but in truth the lager vehicle is only “safer” in an accident with the smaller car.
When I was in the Far East in the late ’90s, Chinese and Korean steel was known as “butter steel”.
It was crap.
When I was in Hong Kong for the “Turnover” in ‘97, the rumor was that China had tried to take “China Steel” public, and nobody would buy it.
BTW, I traveled the world extensively in the ’90s, and Americans weren’t well liked then either.
As you’re sitting at your computer reading this, look around and touch something “made in America”.
My guess is that you can’t.
Personally, I’m not that worried about a Chinese made GM car, I have ridden in a Chinese made car in China, and frankly, I’d rather walk.
Rocky
Rocky, we’ve heard the stories of Chinese steel. Yet, some government contracts have mandated that Chinese steel be used. People will buy the Chinese nails being not at all concerned that they might not be as strong as the US nails they were used to using. However, China’s product integrity is/will come up fast. You won’t be buying a Chinese car per se. You will be buying a GM car made by Chinese workers. Big difference at the moment. Question is, how will the foreign car manufacturers in this country compete with a CM/China car? Answer is, they won’t.
Marysdude, a suggestion to our dilima. Start out trading with a dictator who was the sense to realize his country needs some agriculture and infrastructure. For the President dictator who wants payola rather than infrastructure try to build a hospital or food processing plant right over the border from the pay for play dictator. In fact try to encircle his country with projects that support development. After a few years his subjects might decide they don’t need him anymore. Another approach; talk to all the trading partners that want to purchase tantalum from the Congo. Have an understanding that a fair price is going to be paid for tantalum to support in-country development. If China wants to undercut the price then the trading partners should take it out on China. Now that’s fair trade as opposed to free trade. Wonder who was buying the black market diamonds that led to civil wars in Liberia and surrounding areas? Look at oil rich Nigeria, Angola and others. What has globalization done for them? The works of your oligarchies around the world on display.
There is a better way. Reform can be achieved through third parties with a different political attitude. Parties that set agendas based on We The People. Parties whereby members can vote to reject the membership of politicians and appointee’s if they stray to far from support the parties agenda. Let’s work to develop the world in a sane, sensible way where the benefits accrue to ALL and not just to those at the top.
Otherwise, we have the NAU we deserve.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 21, 2008 10:01 AMjlw, I apologize, sincerely. Your reply casts the comment I responded to in a very different light and interpretation. I also seem to have confused your initials jlw with another commenter whose comments are apologist of the Bush administration. Please accept my apology for responding to you as if you were someone else entirely.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 21, 2008 01:33 PMRocky -
BTW, I traveled the world extensively in the ’90s, and Americans weren’t well liked then either.
Hm. I guess you didn’t go to Canada, Thailand, Philippines, Australia, United Arab Emirates, Kenya, Bahrain, Indonesia, Singapore, Hong Kong (before AND after the 1997 turnover), or Japan.
I felt NO anti-American sentiment in any of those places…but then perhaps it’s because of my attitude. You see, when someone in a foreign country comports himself with sincere courtesy, in a way that respects locals and their customs customs, shows interest in local cultures/history/cuisine, and even attempts to learn a bit of the local language, the locals tend to treat him a LOT more nicely.
BUT if an American overseas acts in a way that reinforces the stereotype of the ‘ugly American’, well, oftentimes that American makes the same kind of observations you did in your post.
Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at December 21, 2008 04:37 PMGlen,
I worked with the regular folks, the folks making $2.00 a day American. I had no problems with these folks because I treated them as I wished to be treated.
I saw China, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, Mexico, Bahamas, Greece, Italy, and Hong Kong between ‘94, and ‘99.
I wasn’t a tourist. I was working in most of these countries for weeks at a time (six months in Korea (yikes!).
Absolutely, most of the people I worked with were kind and open, however you can’t tell me that there aren’t places in Jakarta, for instance, that Americans don’t really want to go. Believe me I have been to some of those neighborhoods on a misbegotten cab ride.
Roy,
Do you truly believe that China will build American cars with other than Chinese steel?
Rocky
Rocky, I would assume GM/China would manufacture cars to meet US specs. Gotta meet crash test requirements and a bunch of manufacturing codes.
To me, it’s a resounding fact that any company that doesn’t have access to the world’s cheapest labor cannot compete with a company that does. Let Pat Choate explain why from his book “Dangerous Business”:
(In no certain order)
China’s price advantage benefits from the following:
Low wages for high quality work.
Piracy and counterfeiting.
Minimal worker health and safety.
Lax environmental regulation and enforcement.
Export subsidies.
Industrial network clustering.
Foreign direct investment.
Undervalued currency.
US businesses have located to China to areas of clustered production. Already, IBM, GE, Microsoft, Cisco Systems and GM have shifted parts of their R&D activities to be close to the locations of manufacturing. The idea that the US can remain a place where R&D and design are done, leaving to contractors in other countries the work of manufacturing, is simplistic and has limited application.
A Dell computer assembled in Texas, for instance, is composed of 4,500 parts produced by hundreds of suppliers, most of which are clustered in China and surrounding countries. Dell maintains a four-day parts supply. If that supply line is interrupted for five days, the company must close its assembly lines. This example, moreover, is neither unique nor extreme.
Rocky, when you stack that up against requirements to produce a car in the US I do believe the Chinese will win hands down.
I’ve suggested that GM wants the bailout to fund the shuttering of their US plants and taking care of their employee’s pensions, health care, etc.
Roy
Leave us not forget,as Gore pointed out in his film, The big 3 went to court to prevent Californias strict emmision standards claimming they were impossible to meet, while China was already producing cars that met the standard.Smells like oil company collusion to me.
Bills, I don’t have any hard evidence at hand but there is little doubt you are right and with good reason. Big oil and the bush administration took us into Iraq solely for the control of oil. Bush had planned to go into Iran but public outcry and foreign dissent backed him down. Admiral Fallon retired after a few months at his new post of US Central Command because he didn’t support Bush’s war plan. Journalist Seymour Hersh revealed those plans in 2006. His sources were leading military and policy makers within the administration who felt going public would head off a war. The plan was to establish dissident groups in Iran and then use the Air Force to bomb and press for an overthrow of government. A high ranking diplomat told Hersh that the real issue for the Bush admin is “who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”
As oil fields are depleted the oil becomes dirtier. All oil companies have lobbied all governments hard to stop the world from taking meaningful action on global warming.
The oil companies like to tout big figures when talking about alternative energy investment. In fact, they are spending token dollars. Frank Sesno, CNN, said to Lord Browne, then CEO of BP: “So, alternatives are still a drop in the bucket?” Lord Browne responded; “at the moment, of course they are.” Some tax reports from 2006: BP invested most in alternatives at 4% of total capital expenditures. However this $688M includes their marketing and trading of liquefied natural gas. Chevron ranked 2nd at 1.8%, Shell ranked 3rd at .8%, followed by Conoco-Phillips at .5%. Marathon spent next to nothing and ExxonMobile appeared to spend virtually nothing at all on green energy alternatives. The oil companies continue to aggressively pursue development of tar sands, drilling deeper, processing dirty oil and hydrocarbon development in general. BP and Shell have been pushed by the British to make a better showing. But, it’s clear big oil is not using its profits from crude, refining, and marketing to make its refineries safer, cleaner, or more efficient, Rather, it is using its profits to manipulate public policy decidions to the companies’ extreme enefit and to the detriment of the larger society.
In 1981 there were 324 refinieries in the US, owned by 189 different companies. Today there are fewer than half, 149, owned by a third as many companies – just 50. Nearly 50,000 gst stations have been shut down in the last twenty-five years taking a huge swipe at independents.
Courts have found all the major US oil companies guilty of price collusion at some point in the last forty years.
They have done everything within their power to control crude and the price of gas at the pump.
In 2006 Rockefeller IV, great-grandson of Standard Oil and three-term US senator from Virginia, wrote to the CEO/ExxonMobil begging him to behave. He expressed his outrage at ExxonMobil’s nearly twenty-year-long multimillion-dollar campaign to debunk the overwhelming scientific consensus on the existence of global warming.
So,Yes. I believe you are well founded in your suggestion that they have influence with the auto-makers as well.
While I see nothing wrong with business trying to protect their product, market share and the like I feel it is the governments responsibility to regulate such actions. This current klepto-plutocracy, a subsidary of private industry if you will, will continue to stay the hand of government as long as big oil keeps carrying the water for the politicians.
That is why we need third parties with a different political attitude. We need a political countervailing force that can reform our dysfunctional government and keep it that way. A party, or parties that provide for citizens’ oversight of elected and appointed officials. It just ain’t your grandpa’s political system anymore.
Otherwise, we have the NAU we deserve.
Roy, pointing out the things that didn’t go well, does NOT negate those that did, and those things that didn’t go as well as hoped do not negate the enormous successes that have occurred as well.
I don’t deny any of your negative outcomes of our foreign trade and international relations. However, the cold war ended, there have been no nuclear exchanges since WWII, democratic elections are at record highs throughout the globe, the free enterprise, entrepreneurial, and capitalist formation paradigms have lifted billions of humans out of poverty and slavery and the pre-20th century to medieval societal structures of basic survival in servitude (not always for the best outcomes of isolated indigenous tribal peoples, sadly.)
With every evolution and paradigm shift in human social development there are and will always be new costs, new challenges, and new losses making way for that evolution and change. In the big picture, the last 100 years have seen vastly more humanitarian change for people on this planet than in any 3 hundred years prior. The elongation of life, higher nutritional base levels, vastly great proliferation of health care professionals even into the poorest of the globe’s neighborhoods, the fantastic outreach of charity private and public to needy peoples everywhere, and the incredible diminution of deaths by war and civil conflict and slavery in all forms, mark the most dramatic positive step forward in human history since the Ancient Greeks and the Renaissance, and outpacing these dramatically in calendar and breadth of humanity affected.
Your comments suffer from the prejudice of instantaneous news and media. Your comments presume that identification of a problem must be followed very swiftly by a solution. That is not how human social evolution works. At best, human social evolution is a two steps forward, one back form of change, spanning generations, even in today’s fast paced world.
I respect your views, and don’t disagree with the most of the points you make. My perspective however, takes a broader context in time and geography and historical perspective than yours, and from that vantage point, I continue to see enormous progress being made, especially at the sociological and psychological levels where values and expectations are changing globally toward higher and better standards.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 22, 2008 12:33 PMA while ago, I was label checking in closets and drawers, I found sweat pants from Alexander City, Alabama, NU sweatshirts from Martinsville, VA or “made in USA”, Prairie Mountain hoody and Russel Athletic sweats “made in usa”.
That was about it, as opposed to Arlington Park items from China, Hanes from Honduras, Fruit of the Loom from Honduras and El Salvador, J Crew from Hong Kong, Abercrombie and Fitch from China, Lands End from Korea, Marshal Field from Taiwan, Dockers from Dominican Republic, Greg Norman from Indonesia, Bugle Boy from China, Trader Bays and Sonomas from Sri Lanka, Sonoma from Guatemala, Talbots from Thailand, Eddie Bauer from Mauritius, Basic Edition from Bangladesh and Nicaragua, Arrow from Taiwan, Banana Republic from Turkey, Puritan from Cambodia, other items from Vietnam, Philippines, Mexiico, Honduras, and China, and some very recent purchases from Bangladesh, and most curiously from the Northern Marianas Islands. My shoes all appear to be made in China.
I looked at the mark on a stainless steel mixing bowl this morning. It was made in Korea.
Jim T, Mississippi dot com is still bragging about their Toyota plant , but it looks like that may not happen.
jlw, welcome to the club.
Posted by: ohrealy at December 22, 2008 01:14 PMMost of the automobile safety features and environmental protections are in place because of regulations here in the states…why in the world would a vehicle made in China incorporate all that into a vehicle made there? Just because GM makes it won’t have much impact on the quality of the products manufactured there and assembled there.
We have relied on agencies that are woefully short handed (budgeting) to inspect for things like lead in toys, melamine in milk products, wheat gluten in pet foods, etc., etc. There must be a reason we think that will change for American cars imported to America from China…
Posted by: Marysdude at December 22, 2008 03:49 PM
Well, let’s see. The cold war ended because the US had the manufacturing ability and access to resources to build a 600 ship Navy at the same time the US was at the pinnacle of technology development such as gate arrays, blistering fast computer chips, and semiconductor technology in general. Also we had a booming economy with ever rising GDP’s. Russia had none of that, no oil, no semiconductor/computer technology and thus no way to compete with our war fighting ability. Not sure it would be that easy today. As I recently posted China controls 100% of the magnetic resources used in our smart bombs. Stupidly awarding war fighting materials contracts to foreign governments and industry serves only to impede our warfighting ability.
Elections are nothing more than a sham put on by the klepto-plutocracy. One year of bland debate and platitudes hosted by a bought and paid for press that never ask the hard questions. Do you not think that discussing the NAU, which violates our sovereignty and transforms the borders of this country, albeit electronically, is not worthy of some debate? Do you think open borders after 9/11 and following the recommendations of the 9/11 commission is not worthy of some debate?
Is such a long time frame necessary to reference change? We were promised and end to illegal immigration with the 86 amnesty deal. Do we need to go back to the Roman days to reference the advances that have been achieved? Why must we be so apologetic for our failures? We should not apologize. We should reform and get on with it. Some things can’t be referenced in 100’s or 1000’s of years. There is genocide all over Africa because of this poverty you seem to think has been defeated. Our stupid government advancing a program that utilizes a major food stock for transportataion fuel is a big part of the genocide. Fish stocks are depleted, especially in the larger species. Scientists tell us global warming is real. I’d rather act now rather than lose hundreds or thousands of animal and plant species to extinction. Why must we grow China at 10% yearly while they are smacking around Tibet, undercutting our currency, voting for continued genocide in the UN to protect their oil rights in Sudan, and on and on and on?
Let’s identify a problem that goes back a ways. Standard Oil was founded in 1870. By the 1880’s 90% of refining was under their control. Standard Oil was renowned for its ruthlessness and the illegality of its business practices. Dozens of court cases were brought and Standard Oil was busted up by three separate state-level-injunctions. After forming Trust companies to defeat the injunctions in 1912 President Woodrow Wilson noted “The trusts are our masters now, but I for one do no care to live in a country called free even under kind masters. I prefer to live under no masters at all…The government has never within my recollection had its suggestions accepted by the trusts. On the contrary, the suggestions of the trusts have been accepted by the government.” With Regan, Milton Friedman, and ‘greed is fashionable” the seven sisters have been bolted back together giving them the wherewithall to take on Iraq and perhaps Iran if they have their way. As we type, our military is being used to perpetuate the tentacles of big oil.
Through you rose colored glasses we might have a third party presence in about 500 years. I like Thomas’s suggestion way better. If we don’t have a revolution every 20 years or so we aren’t doing our job to protect the Constitution, our sovereignty, and our democratic principles of life.
I long for a government of, by and for the people, not of, by and for the corporate elite. I want a government that rejects the moneyed interest and influence. I want a government that supports alternative energy, sends agriculture and food processing equipment to Africa along with condums and AID medicines. I want a balanced and fair trade system. I want a flat (fair) tax system . I want a government that doesn’t project fake figures for inflation, GDP, etc. I want a government that protects its citizens from unsafe/unhealthy food products and medicines. Today more people die from taking medication than from natural death. Why should we wait a few hundred years for change? I want reform of government, not change, and I want it NOW.
A third party with a different political attitude can give me that, easily. A third party with citizens’ oversight for elected and appointed officials. This government will not, cannot reform itself. It’s like expecting a pirate to come clean and recommend his fellow pirates follow suite. Time IS of essence here. We can wait no longer or there won’t be much left to wait for. With this corrupt recession you can see the klepto-plutocracy is willing to drive us into the ground, depression, or whatever. Their greed is out of control meaning our government is out of control.
Fingers getting numb, better quit.
Marysdude, there is a reason. The Chinese plant now under construction a few hundred miles from me just across the Mexican border, is under trade agreement to meet our quality standards in ORDER to export their cars into our country. Their plant should be completed in less than two years. Just in time to provide American consumers with a significantly lower cost vehicle to come out of the Recession in.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 22, 2008 04:06 PMRoy, history makes it its own milestones and sets its own pace to reach them.
Obama was elected to compensate for the absence of diligence in addressing many of the issues you address, and many more newly created in the last 8 years. Not only was he elected, but, a Congress which will be far more amenable to his lead than in the last 16 years was also elected to work with him.
Improvements are already viewable in his selection of cabinet members based on experience, education, and Obama’s own confidence in them as people he can work with. This is a dramatic difference from the Bush and Clinton administrations who put together cabinets only partially based on experience, and largely based on reciprocation for previous support and loyalty. While these criteria are not absent from Obama’s selections, they certainly are not the primary criteria, or Gates wouldn’t remain and the Republican nominee for Transportation would not have been selected.
America is getting on with the tasks at hand and some others coming. Health care reform is not something Americans were open to previously. They are now that it is bankrupting our future.
A very different and far more pragmatic focus on our nation’s needs and priorities is at hand. Stand ready to support it where you can, and be patient. Obama wasn’t elected in a day, and his administration’s accomplishments cannot become evident during a transition period prior to inauguration.
I am all for a third party alternative to the Democratic and Republican Parties whose primary allegiance is to acquiring and maintaining power. But, one does not exist that can keep what works and bring forth what is needed which the other two party’s are unwilling to put on the table.
We work with what we have, while never losing sight of what’s wrong and the reasons it must be changed and reformed.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 22, 2008 04:21 PM
The one thing that Obama is helpless to do anything about is the paridigm that a minority of humans have used throughout history. That paridigm calls for the rape and exploitation of the earth all it’s resources, both living and non-living to create profit, leisure and comfort for what has so far been primarily for the benefit of a minority of humans.
This paridigm has led us to the point where we have started a mass extinction event and we will not stop until humans are included in this event. The survivers will then pick up the pieces and continue the paridigm.
David, sorry, I forgot to mention that I appreciate your apology and accept it most humbly. Now, let the jousting continue.
Or until we can hold politicians, appointees, ambassadors, and the like ACCOUNTABLE for their actions. When We The People can mount a countervailing front against the moneyed interest we can begin to turn things around. We have to fight the same battle that Andrew Jackson fought and several others to a lesser degree. A third party, targeted at reform, and with a different political attitude can achieve reform of government and keep it that way. This coming year I expect such a party will be getting up a head of steam. Chug, Chug!
Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 22, 2008 09:45 PMRoy, perhaps a third party that does not seek the highest offices for power, but only as a tool to deliver its reform education package to the voters. If such a party were to garner 20% or more of the national vote, it would indeed force the duopolies toward reforms in order to halt that movement’s growth.
This is a traditional role for third parties, but, to my knowledge, never the intended purpose for one’s existence. Being able to threaten to win only by the other two parties default negligence of needed reforms, is a very powerful basis for a third party, without trapping it into the monied games and compromises that the duopoly parties believe MUST be participated in.
jlw, I don’t think Obama will be helpless in that arena at all. He has committed to diminishing the power of wealthy special interests to control the legislative agenda. He has the veto power, and that is a significant power, indeed, if used wisely and judiciously. We shall see.
A lot will depend upon his priorities and how to meter out his public approval and power of the office and veto to achieve a few top priorities. Obviously the economy and national security are the top priorities. He has said education will be up there too. It is the priorties in the second tier where we will have to wait and see if political and influence reforms are among the top in that tier.
I frankly haven’t a clue if they will be or not. I suspect Obama doesn’t yet either. Somethings simply cannot be planned too far ahead without the risk of bypassing or ignoring even more pressing issues. That was a hallmark of the Bush administration. We are done with that.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 22, 2008 10:42 PMIt should be clear to all that a third party, in and of itself is not the answer. People understand that a well meaning third party would fare no better against the money influence than the the present duopoly. To attract large numbers of voters a third party will have to offer something new, something different, something whereby people can sense the potential to actually reform government. We can talk about wanting a flat tax or wanting fair trade, etc. for another lifetime and nothing will really change. Corporations have core knowledge extending back to the 1870’s. They have great wealth and sustainability to press their influence. Their tentacles reach into governments around the world. They operate on an international scale. Big oil has been in the Middle East since the 50’s. They know more about foreign relations in that area than the government. Big oil is in perpetuity while administrations are for 4 or 8 years. People are only active for a generation and tend to act as individuals or perhaps in small, weak groups. In any event the average voter has no reason to invest great wealth, even if they had it, to influence government. What reason would I have to spend a large sum of money to try and influence a politician?
The score is corporatism 470823084810923408098 and the people 0. Politicians make no bones about it. Through our history they have told us, “beware of the money influence”. I watched some of Bill Moyer interviewing Ron Corker (R-TN) on cspan yesterday. Bill asked him point blank about the influence of money in politics and Ron studied the question a while and said something like “let me phrase it this way. People need to get their antennas up over this issue.” Some will answer more direct but I understood his answer. David, you say I tend to operate on today’s news while the government moves over a longer reference in time. Why must we keep trying to convince ourselves that we have a corrupt, dysfunctional government and it needs to be reformed? Why do we have to go back and keep dredging up more ammunition? Why can’t we just get on with reform? Time is a wastin! We know that money has unduly influenced the direction our government has moved since the beginning. Hasn’t gotten any better. In fact, it’s gotten way worse. We should not expect government to reform itself. Isn’t it true that if you pull ten people out a church congregation you are apt to have ten people with pretty good integrity? Would it not also be true that if you pull ten people out of the Chicago political machine you can expect to have some people lacking integrity? Let’s assume Obama does some good things. No administration will go beyond 12 years. Then what? Back to the same old party switch thing. After one or two lifetimes of that should we not be a little smarter?
David, if you establish a party or parties that offers reform potential that people can see and want to support then it’s not so costly to participate in the election process. An all volunteer party with few paid workers. Unfortunately, it does take time and there is no way around that.
Well, let’s change the routine. Let’s support third parties with a new wrinkle. Parties that offer a countervailing force to the moneyed interest, can reform government and KEEP IT THAT way. Once they come to power you can ping pong all you want and all you will get is better government.
Otherwise, we have the goverenment we deserve.
Roy asked: “Why must we keep trying to convince ourselves that we have a corrupt, dysfunctional government and it needs to be reformed?”
Because the wealthy special interests spend millions each year in advertising and publicity to convince the public the status quo is just fine. Take for example the commercials running now on TV by the Coal Industry, Natural Gas (Gas to liquid) industry, and the Oil companies advertising their new multi-directional drilling method capable of hitting small pockets of oil not worth a major rig to hit by itself.
Or the Pharmaceutical industry that advertises its wares asking you to ask your doctor for this or that prescription instead of the doctor asking you to try this or that (without kickbacks from the Pharma industry), simply because the doctor’s experience dictates the best course of Rx treatment? Of course the pharma industry would like to prescribe what meds you receive. And they have been buying the permission to do just that through advertising and marketing unregulated and uncontrolled by consumer protection groups whose voices fall of deaf ears and whose pocketbooks are nowhere as deep as the pharma industry when it comes to lobbying and campaign financing.
Roy asked: “Why can’t we just get on with reform?”
Because we haven’t had the leadership to bring the majority population together to act in concert to make the needed reforms. It really is that simple. Now we have Obama, who wants to provide just such leadership. Whether he is successful or not, remains to be seen, but, his intentions are in that direction as he has said on many an occasion, pre and post-election.
Roy asked: “Would it not also be true that if you pull ten people out of the Chicago political machine you can expect to have some people lacking integrity?”
Not necessarily. First it depends on whether their boss has the right directions for policy and whether the boss holds his cabinet accountable to those directions. I see nothing about Obama’s leadership style to justify saying he will turn governance over to his cabinet. Quite the opposite. He will make the decisions, and hold them accountable for carrying them out.
Second, not everyone in politics in Illinois is corrupt. Just as, not everyone sent to prision is guilty, and not everyone coming out of prison is unrepentant and more criminal than when they went in. These are generalizations that will prove untrue for many individual cases. Whether Obama’s choices will all, to the person, remain true and act without corruption remains to be seen. But, one has to be careful of the self-fulfilling prophecy when one presumes the worst in the absence of evidence to justify it.
Roy asked: “Isn’t it true that if you pull ten people out a church congregation you are apt to have ten people with pretty good integrity?”
Depends on if Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Jones are amongst those 10, don’t you think? Again, it is false to presume statistical odds can be applied to an individual case. Very flawed! It can’t, as every statistics and probability 101 book will make abundantly clear early on in the course.
When assessing probability you can only say that a certain number out of a whole number will be or do this or that. But, YOU CAN NEVER say that with this probability that person will be or do this or that. That is illogical and outside useful and verifiable realm of probability and statistics. So, while you can safely say that perhaps 7 out of 10 church goers will never end up in the justice system, you cannot say which 7 nor or 8 or 6, out of 10, due to individual variability and the premises underlying probability science.
Roy said: “David, if you establish a party or parties that offers reform potential that people can see and want to support then it’s not so costly to participate in the election process.”
Right. That is precisely how Obama was able to amass such funding, by going to the grass roots and asking for what what the grass roots could afford to give. Obama was a grass roots candidate by the same methodologies you advocate for your third party, change, reform, and advocate for the people’s will as opposed to wealthy special interests, lobbyists, and insider nuts and bolts people of the duopoly partiy D.C. industry.
I agree. Let’s support third parties with common sense reform agendas having wide appeal who fund their nominees and candidates through grass roots funding as Obama did in a very big way. If you notice by the Pastor Warren selection for the inaugural invocation, the Democratic Party, let alone the GLB community do NOT own Obama or his decision making process.
That kind of independence from the duopoly machinery (Clinton machinery for example) while advocating for the common people’s interests is precisely the kind of third party that could dwarf the Green and Libertarian Parties.
So, why hasn’t such a party come forward? The answer is simple. Every third party attempts to create a wide and diverse policy agenda or is forced by the media to take positions on same, which marginalizes the breadth of their appeal to the majority on common ground.
Any new third party that wishes to have a chance, will have to start small, grow through insistence on sticking to its very small and tightly defined reform agenda. The minute it steps away from that agenda to answer a question about foreign policy, or abortion, or deficits, that third parties future will evaporate amongst the factions that make up our electorate.
Obama’s agenda was short and simple. Out of Iraq, stimulate the economy from the bottom up, and clean up the wealthy special interest corruption involved in federal legislation. Short and sweet, 3 major items, and never deviate from them. It got him elected. Third parties would do well to study the Obama campaign in great detail. He showed the way.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 23, 2008 02:12 PMRoy Ellis wrote: Why must we keep trying to convince ourselves that we have a corrupt, dysfunctional government and it needs to be reformed? Why do we have to go back and keep dredging up more ammunition?Good question.
QUESTION: Why?
ANSWER: There are many reasons (e.g. greed, laziness, lust for power, ignorance, short-sightedness, self-delusion, misplaced loyalties, etc.), but all are human traits and all boil down to selfishness.
Roy Ellis wrote: Why can’t we just get on with reform? Time is a wastin! We know that money has unduly influenced the direction our government has moved since the beginning. Hasn’t gotten any better. In fact, it’s gotten way worse.Another good question.
QUESTION: Why can’t we get reform?
ANSWER: We can sometimes, but too much selfishness makes progress very slow (i.e. 2 steps forward, and 1.99 steps backward).
Humans are determined to re-learn the same painful lessons repeatedly, as history demonstrates.
It appears very much like a cycle; perhaps about an 80 year cycle?
- ,-(1) Corruption, oppression, totalitarianism, pain and misery,
- | (2) courage, Responsibility, rebellion,
- | (3) liberty, growth, abundance,
- | (4) selfishness, complacency, fiscal irresponsibility,
- | (5) apathy, dependency, fiscal & moral bankruptcy,
- ` - - return to step (1)
QUESTION: When is it finally possible to reduce corruption and finally acheive some progress?
ANSWER: Usually, only when going backwards finally becomes too painful (again and again).
It is good that a built-in self-correction mechanism exists (i.e. pain and misery).
However, we may not always have the luxury of learning and re-learning so slowly.
Especially today, when humans now have the ability to make themsevles extinct.
Things could be so much better, but isn’t likely any time soon, until enough humans LEARN that their selfishness is irrational and actually leads to more pain and misery, by repeatedly ignoring long-term gains and progress for short-term, short-sighted, and selfish gains.
- Responsibility = Power + Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability
- Corruption = Power - Virtue - Education - Transparency - Accountability
- Virtue = the source of moral and ethical judgment; a sense of right and wrong; a sense of caring. A good conscience and Virtue is not merely knowing what is right or wrong, but caring enough to do what is right, and provides the motivation to seek the balance of Education, Transparency, Accountability, and Power required for any successful society, government, or organization;
- Education = an understanding of the importance of: Education, Transparency, Accountability, Power, Responsibility, Corruption, and the fundamental human desire to seek security and prosperity with the least effort and pain, and that some will resort to dishonest, unethical, or illegal methods to obtain it;
- Transparency = visibility and simplification of cleverly over-complicated processes to reveal and identify abusers, create outrage, reduce opportunities for abuse, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
- Accountability = consequences needed to encourage law enforcement, encourage ethical behavior, and discourage abuse and dishonesty;
- Power = force required to enforce the laws, discontinue abuse, ensure consequences, punish abusers, and discourage abuse and dishonesty; but unchecked Power without sufficient Education, Transparency, and Accountability breeds Corruption.
It’s our choice. We can LEARN the smart way, or the hard and painful way (again and again).
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
David, your latest post makes good sense to me. Set an agenda that targets government reform and void of hot button social issues. Stick to it. Try to attract some folks who will hold the party in good stead. However, there is no way you can keep from addressing issues like the deficit, foreign policy or abortion. Yes, the media will push you to discuss the hot buttons. I believe the duopoly alienated lots of folks by not at least paying lip service to getting out or Iraq and illegal immigration. I think the better approach is to address all issues that are broached but always end with “however, that is not an initial goal for this party. Our primary goal is to reform government based on the agenda we have put forth.. Reform is vitally important to the country at this time. Therefore, some domestic and social issues will have to be subordinate to reform for the near future.…, etc.
David, you CAN be agreeable when you want to!
Well, that’s where I’m headed with a new 3rd party. In the meantime I will continue to dredge for more ammunition and keep stirring the pot. For instance, in today’s Wash Post I note that 50% of modified loans are back in arrears. Home prices expected to deflate another 10% in 09. Calif. will belly up in February and will be down $42B within 18 months. The $300M requested by cities across the country for infrastructure funding pales in comparison. I would think the States are sharpening their pencils, getting ready. And, wouldn’t you know? The commercial real estate industry is seeking a bailout. Their $6T industry of hotels, office buildings and shopping malls faces a record amount of debt coming due in the next few months. I see where one of Madoff’s investors committed suicide this week. To some folks just having a Merry Xmas is enough to secure one’s stake in life. A fellow at the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) allowed IndyMac Bank to exaggerate its financial standing in a May 07 filing allowing the bank to avoid regulatory restrictions before it’s collapse. OTS allowed Thrifts to lend heavily while reserves dwindled. The regulator, Daniel Dochow, was removed from his position yesterday as director of OTS’ west division which supervised Wash Mututal, Countrywide, IndyMac and Downey Savings and Loan, among others that have been seized or sold this year. Second time Dochow has been removed from a position as a senior thrift regulator. He was demoted in the early 1990’s after the regulators found he had impeded regulation of Charles Keating’s failed Lincoln Savings and Loan. He has been reassigned to ‘special projects’ in Washington. During the failed S&L’s period then-Rep Charles E Schumer (D-N.Y.) saved Dochow’s bacon by saying that Dochow was just carrying out the orders of his superiors. Otherwise, the debacle cost the taxpayers billions of dollars. Shoot, the klepto-plutocracy knows a good man when they see one. I suspect, unless Dochow retires, etc, we will read about him in a new regulatory roll in about ten years. Do you think Obama might get down to Dochow’s level to have a talk with him? There must be 500 levels of beauracracy between them. Speaking of Obama: when Biden gave his spiel on the high integrity of the transition team relating to discussing Obama’s old senate seat with Blogamoff (sic) it was quite interesting. The team was spread around a conference table and you could have heard a pin drop all the way out here to middle Virginia. As the worm turns.
Dan, your post is pin point accurate as to why reform can’t go forward. I tend to sum up the problem with our government in one word - accountability. But, it takes a lot more words than one to paint the whole picture. You do a stupendously good job with lotsa words. Thank You!
Otherwise, we have the government we deserve
Here’s a bit of good news from a source one would never expect. I’ll consider this revelation as an unexpected Christmas present.
Mark Lynas: the green heretic persecuted for his nuclear conversion
The climate change expert Mark Lynas has been scorned by eco-colleagues for daring to speak up for atomic power
“I know I should be furious. The EDF takeover of British Energy means that four nuclear power stations could now be built around the UK, the first nuclear new build in a generation. As a long-standing Green party member, one who chops his own wood, grows his own leeks, keeps chickens and puts the kids in washable nappies, antinuclear indignation should spring easily to my lips.
After all, energy is something I care about. The last time I checked my carbon budget, I came in at a fifth of the national average. I rarely fly, even when booked to address faraway audiences about my personal obsession, climate change – a subject I’ve covered in three books. Whenever the word “nuclear” comes up at my talks, a shudder runs through the room. Because everyone knows that real environmentalists loathe nuclear power. It is just evil. Full stop.
Except, well, I don’t believe that any more. Just a month ago I had a Damascene conversion: the Green case against nuclear power is based largely on myth and dogma. My tipping point came when I discovered just how much nuclear power has changed since I first set my mind against it. Prescription for the Planet, a new book by the American writer Tom Blees, opened my eyes to fourth-generation “fast-breeder” reactors, which use fuel much more efficiently than the old-style reactors, produce shorter-lived waste and can also be designed to be “walk-away safe”.
Full story; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4836556.ece
Posted by: Jim M at December 23, 2008 07:43 PMJim M, his last book didn’t sell. His conversion insures his next one will.
Proponents of nuclear power STILL refuse to compute the cost of waste handling into the comparative cost with other sources, and continue to ignore the waste stockpiling issue and what that means for terrorists and proliferation, as an opportunity cost of nuclear power.
Until pro-nuke folks address these issues with verifiable data and sound solutions, the eco-folks will continue to have a cause worth demonstrating and civil disobedience.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 23, 2008 09:55 PMRoy, yep, Obama wasn’t fudging when he said it was going to get worse before it gets better. But, it will get better. The markets are already beginning to find data to rally on. Credit is freeing up. The Libor rate is improving modestly. Existing home sales have bottomed and sales are flattening instead of falling in rate.
But, it will get worse before it gets better due to the domino effects and time it takes for fiscal and monetary offsetting measures to reach full beneficial impact on the economy. Even after the economy begins growing again, we are not out of the woods, as inflation and deficits and service costs on the debt rise to the top priority spots.
Congress will, if the past is carried forward, insist on ever more wasteful pork and special interest spending to help them bribe voters toward their reelection. Even if the economy improves, there will be much for a new third party to challenge the political establishment on.
The way around being pigeon holed on a wide array of issues is simple. Point to the fact that those challenges by and large will go unmet without the needed political, lobbyist, and special interest reforms first being made. History demonstrates this if it demonstrates anything about the Republican and Democratic Parties.
Obama may be the exception, but, I still fail to fathom how the DNC and Democratic Congress can break out of their mold and follow his lead on these reform issues. So, the turf will remain fertile for a challenging reform party.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 23, 2008 10:10 PMJim M
As soon as congress repeals Murphy’s law nuks will make sense.
DR
The exception you speak of will the head of the Dem party for probably 8 years.If you really want to make a difference now is the time to get in it. Find or start a caucus with the same concerns as you. Work to build it. Push your agenda.The door is open. Not easy. Not fast. But not as predictably futile as 3rd party building. Reinventing the wheel might be a fun hobby but do not pretend it has any political use except to devert concerned people from real power.
Congress just gave itself its 10th raise in 12 years (between 1999 and 2009).
Must be nice.
Posted by: d.a.n at December 24, 2008 11:09 AMbills writes; “As soon as congress repeals Murphy’s law nuks will make sense.” in response to the London Times article I posted outlining new advancements in nuclear reactors.
Way to go bills, don’t let any good news upset your negative thinking. Would your comment apply to all these new energy schemes being promoted? It certainly applies to the God-awful liberal schemes promoting ethanol. What a failure that is with many unintended negative consequences.
“As soon as congress repeals Murphy’s law internal combustion engines, radio, television and the internet will make sense.”
Posted by: Jim M at December 24, 2008 01:32 PMJim M said: “It certainly applies to the God-awful liberal schemes promoting ethanol.”
Finally, something we agree on 90%. That was a bi-partisan boondoggle if you look at the Congressional votes, but, Democrats and Liberals in Congress did themselves no favors championing it along with their conservative brethren from the Mid-West.
Ethanol was actually an intelligent idea as a short term fix to rising oil costs. The ridiculous came into play with the Corn Lobby pushing food stocks as the source for ethanol. And Congress, the dimwits they are, bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 24, 2008 01:48 PMbills, can’t do that. That would mean putting faith and confidence in the Democratic Party, and I find nothing in its history since the 1970’s to warrant such faith and confidence. I have put my faith and confidence in Obama with some good reason. We will see if he does the very best he can. If he does, he won’t be acting as a Democratic President but as an American president, and the difference will show in the fierce battles between Democrat Congresspersons and Obama’s White House.
You see, much of Democrat’s ideology is just as flawed as Republican’s. And Congress folks are big on ideology. Obama is a pragmatist and has no fondness for ideology that doesn’t make concrete solution oriented sense in particular and specifically defined circumstances. I will stick with Obama and support him as an Independent. You can keep the DNC if you wish.
We independents now determine election races anyway, not Dem’s or Rep’s. No reason to leave this important, largely centrist, moderate, pragmatic voting group, to support either ideology of the duopoly Party. We want net gain results. Not ideological approaches which when applied are fraught with unintended consequences.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 24, 2008 01:57 PMObama should veto Congress’ raise.
If CEO’s are going to be asked to produce a profit or forego compensation, why not ask Congress to balance our budget before they can receive a raise in compensation?
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 24, 2008 01:59 PMRemer writes; “Jim M said: “It certainly applies to the God-awful liberal schemes promoting ethanol.”
Finally, something we agree on 90%. That was a bi-partisan boondoggle if you look at the Congressional votes.”
You’re right Remer, I should not have used the word “liberal” in that sentence as all the “hogs” were at that congressional feast.
In addition to the good news about the possibility of nuclear reactors that thrive on spent fuel among other beneficial features, here’s some good news on MMGW.
“More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008.” The scientists, not environmental activists, include Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics, who said, “I am a skeptic … Global warming has become a new religion.” Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an environmental physical chemist, said warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming,” said Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member. Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, said, “Many (scientists) are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.”
The fact of the matter is an increasing amount of climate research suggests a possibility of global cooling. Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University says, “Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.” Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in Sweden asks, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?”
Link: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/12/24/global_warming_rope-a-dope
Posted by: Jim M at December 24, 2008 02:25 PMDR,
“Obama should veto Congress’ raise.”
Technically D.A.N. is incorrect.
In 1989 Congress passed an ammendment that gives them a raise automatically unless they specifically vote against getting one.
Rocky
Jim M, every scientist who HAS NOT DIRECTLY studied and measured the evidence MUST, in accordance with scientific methodology, be skeptical of the hypotheses that human activity either caused, or is exacerbating, global climate change and or warming.
Now, when you take a consensus of environmental scientists who have directly measured and evaluated the data as part of their own personal profession, you find a very high consensus among them that human activity IS exacerbating global climate change and warming.
There is, and never has been, a consensus amongst any group of scientists that humans are responsible for having kick started global warming or change. So, any reference to such is a straw man argument.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 24, 2008 04:15 PMd.a.n.,
Congress did not just give itself a raise…they did that several years ago (‘89 or 90?) when they made the annual increase automatic unless it was moved and approved to skip a year.
But, you’re right…must be nice…not to have to bring it up every year and hear all that pesky yowling from the tax payers.
>At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Recognize that?
Rocky Marks wrote: Technically D.A.N. is incorrect. In 1989 Congress passed an ammendment that gives them a raise automatically unless they specifically vote against getting one.That’s right.
Congress just received its automatic 10th pay-raise in 12 years (between 1999 and 2009).
Congress automatically gets a pay raise each year, and has to actually introduce a BILL to prevent the increase! ? !
The BILL H.R. 5087 was introduced, but only 34 of 535 in Congress co-sponsored it.
Therefore, Congress essentially gave itself a raise (the 10th in 12 years).
Those automatic annual pay-raises for Congress epitomizes their arrogance, greed, and gall.
- 1998: $136,673 per annum; $151,813 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders;
- 2000: $141,300 per annum; $156,900 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $181,400 per annum for Speaker;
- 2002: $150,000 per annum; $161,200 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $186,300 per annum for Speaker;
- 2003: $154,700 per annum; $166,700 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $192,600 per annum for Speaker;
- 2004: $158,100 per annum; $175,700 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $203,000 per annum for Speaker;
- 2005: $162,100 per annum; $180,100 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $208,100 per annum for Speaker;
- 2006: $165,200 per annum; $183,500 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $212,100 per annum for Speaker;
- 2007: $168,000 per annum; $186,600 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $215,700 per annum for Speaker;
- 2009: $174,000 per annum; $190,700 per annum for Majority/Minority Leaders; $220,400 per annum for Speaker;
Those salaries are in the top 6% of the highest household incomes in the U.S.
But why shouldn’t do-nothing Congress get a raise, since it’s been doing such a good job. Voters obviously don’t care, since voters rewarded 86.9% of Congress with re-election on 7-NOV-2008, despite voters’ dismal 9%-to-18% approval ratings for Congress.
Voters have a chance to do something about it every two years, and what do the majority of voters do? They repeatedly reward Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates. Cha-Ching!
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Obama and Biden have sworn they will veto any/every/all ear marks that come with the peoples bailout package. That should be a good test to see how the administration and the legislators get along. I can’t see John Murtha taking a back seat to the administration.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 24, 2008 05:29 PMRoy wrote; “Obama and Biden have sworn they will veto any/every/all ear marks that come with the peoples bailout package.”
Now that would be change that even I could believe in. But then, we may disagree in our description of “pork”.
Posted by: Jim M at December 24, 2008 05:48 PMWith trillions in stimulus on the way, there’s bound to be a lot of piggies (lobbyists and FOR-SALE Congress persons) pushin’ and shovin’ their way up to the trough to get their share of pork-barrel.
Is it realistic to believe pork-barrel is goin’ away, when the federal government has been deficit spending and pork-barrel spending for 52 consecutive years?
But pork-barrel is only a small percentage of irresponsible and wastefull spending.
The most wealthy 20% of all Americans spend the most money in our 70% consumer driven economy. Thus, the majority of Americans are going to be very unhappy when they discover that their stimulus is a tiny fraction of the trillions of new dollars borrowed and created out of thin air.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
d.a.n.,
You are becoming way too positive about our future…Happy Holidays to you too!
Posted by: Marysdude at December 24, 2008 07:53 PMHo! Ho! It’s Chris Mus! Ho! Ho! It’s Chris Mus!
Merry Christmas to all particpates, bloggers, etc at Watchblog! May your stockings be filled with joy!
Posted by: R0y Ellis at December 24, 2008 08:20 PM>May your stockings be filled with joy!
Posted by: R0y Ellis at December 24, 2008 08:20 PM
ROy,
Yours too…but, I’m mostly happy that my stockings are still filled with FEET! :)
A very Merry Christmas to all and may you all be disgustingly happy and healthy in 2009.
Posted by: Jim M at December 25, 2008 12:28 PMRoy and Jim M, the following comment is FALSE!
Roy wrote; “Obama and Biden have sworn they will veto any/every/all ear marks that come with the peoples bailout package.”
First they haven’t sworn to this task. Second they did not claim to veto any, every, all ear marks. They are far too intelligent to make such a blanket statement which would give Congress the other hand on the issue. What was promised was, that they would look at every spending item for pork and wasteful spending and work to remove such items from the budget.
That is a far cry from the false statement quoted by Roy above, creating a straw man of Obama to burn later when Obama signs a budget. A realistic budget in which much pork and waste was negotiated out of the budget (not all, not every), and which contains priority items Obama and the American people want passed.
Obama is pragmatic. Vowing to remove all pork and waste would give Congress the ability to cast Obama as the Do Nothing President by virtue of his perpetual vetoes of budgets, bringing the American government to a grinding halt. You may not be politically clever enough to see this pitfall, but, I assure you, Obama is. Obama never swore to veto any, every, and all pork and wasteful spending. Besides, as we all know, the definitions of pork and wasteful are relative, and one person’s pork is another person’s livlihood.
Enough with the straw man setups. Prejudice and bias can largely be avoided by seeking facts and quotes. This assumes of course, one wishes to discard their prejudices and bias in assessing this or that.
Here are Obama’s exact words on or around Dec. 8:
What we need to do is examine: What are the projects where we’re going to get the most bang for the buck? How are we going to make sure taxpayers are protected?Posted by: David R. Remer at December 25, 2008 01:06 PM
“You know, the days of just pork coming out of Congress as a strategy, those days are over.”
“We are not going to simply write a bunch of checks and let them be spent without some very clear criteria as to how this money is going to benefit the overall economy and put people back to work. We’re not going to be making decisions on projects simply based on politics and - and lobbying.”
David, I am not that naive…should PEBO sign bills with just a “pork shoulder”, a little “bacon” or a “ham” included, rather than the whole oinker, he will receive my approval in that action.
In the current nightmare of Santa-Washington hand-out dreams, it will be interesting to watch congress squabble, haggle, and obfuscate in an attempt to continue to pander for votes with unlimited pork. It will be very difficult for politicians to wean themselves from the trough given the recent hysterical proclivity to give away the people’s money.
Posted by: Jim M at December 25, 2008 01:58 PM
Jim M,
Again we find something to agree on. My fervent hope is that Obama, while being pragmatic and politicly astute, can still rein in as much as fifty percent of the waste. That would improve, by about ninty percent the curtailment by any other administration in the last four or five decades.
Posted by: Marysdude at December 25, 2008 03:33 PMHere is an excerpt from the wash post.
Sen. Barack Obama sought more than $3.4 million in congressional earmarks for clients of the lobbyist son of his Democratic running mate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, records show. Obama succeeded in getting $192,000 for one of the clients, St. Xavier University in suburban Chicago.
Obama’s campaign has taken a hard stance against the world of lobbying in the nation’s capital. Obama said he limits his own efforts to get money for pet projects — a process known as earmarking — to those that benefit the public. He has posted his earmark requests on his presidential campaign Web site to encourage transparency.
Since Obama announced his selection of Biden on Saturday, attention has focused on Biden’s lobbying connections as well as his son’s lobbying activities. R. Hunter Biden is one of many relatives of members of Congress who work as lobbyists.
The younger Biden started his career as a lobbyist in 2001 and has registered to represent about 21 clients that have brought in $3.5 million to his Washington firm, according to lobbying disclosure forms.
Sen. Biden has collected more than $6.9 million in campaign contributions from lobbyists and lawyers since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Jim M, I agree entirely, which is why for months now, I have been saying that if Obama is elected there will be a war, of sorts, between him and Congress including Democrats. Obama will have to very deft with his usage and threat of veto. Too much, and he alienates Congress and reforms grind to a halt. Too little, reforms become tokens.
We shall have to wait to see how these hands are played.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 25, 2008 03:57 PMRoy, past is not prologue, and when you change jobs, you change objectives and goals.
When Obama was up and coming he was performing as a state Representative for the state’s and his constituents goals and objectives. He is president now, and has the goal and objective of saving this nation from economic ruin. Different job description, different mission, different time.
It is false logic to argue that a banker who changes jobs to be a hedge fund manager will continue to act the role of banker.
He has said what his goals and mission are in his NEW job as president. I would suggest that since he fulfilled his campaign representations as a Senator to his constitutents, that it is relatively safe to assume he will fulfill his campaign representations made in his bid to be president. He has kept to his word in the past for the most part, give him the benefit of the doubt in the present as well.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 25, 2008 04:04 PMDr
You can’t agree with the Dems since the 70’s? To actually accept that one must believe that the country and world would not be in better shape if Gore had prevailed in 2000 or even Kerry in 2004. Thats a stretch. You also have to convince yourself that caucuses within the Dem Party have no influence, an even bigger stretch. Are you saying the Union caucus has no influnce,or the Hispanic caucus, or the disabled caucus,or the Gay caucus,Womens caucus? That, my friend ,is absurd.Recall the dramatic change in the 60’s when the Democratic Party was transfored from the war party to the peace party. The fact remains that ,especially at this junture in history, the most effective and timely road political reform and healing of the nation lies witin the Democratic Party and the impetus for progress will only be blunted by the deversion of hope and activism from yet one more attempt at a progressive 3rd political party. Had we a parliamentary system it would be valuable. We don’t. Third party efforts have invariably ended in futility. The most successful have turned into personality cults,Nader,Pirot,Debs,T.Roosevelt,Ventura. Those efforts have also invariably failed to achieve their political potential.
I appreciate your support and confidence of Obama. I have noticed ,after years of reading your post, that you often fall into the trap of letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. BHO is Democrat through and through. What is going to happen to your opinion of his performance when he makes decisions that you do not support for” real politic” reasons? Will you attack him out of disapointment?Condemn all his intiatives? A more effective course is to become relevantly involved in changing the “real politic”. Frankly, it saddens me that that the drive and energy of third party advocates will be deverted from influence,largely through vanity and disregard of political reality. The country needs that energy, now perhaps more than ever.
Regards and merry Xmas,Happy Winter Solstice or whatever.
Bill S
Bills, logic dictates that there is NO WAY of knowing whether the nation would have been better if GORE had won. That kind of second guessing on past events which never occurred is illogical. The interconnectedness of human events is so infinitely variable as to make such hindsight prognostications meaningless.
At best, one can only say that they think Gore’s management style and priority set would have been different than Bush’s and therefore, the consequences of a Gore administration would have been different. One CANNOT argue the outcome would have been better on net. Gore’s election may have lead to nuclear war and devastation of the human species and planet. There is just no way of knowing.
The opportunity for political reform is before the Democratic Party. Whether the Democratic Party truly makes substantial reforms instead of window dressing the status quo remains to be seen.
Blagojevich does not speak to the enormous elevation of Democratic Party ethics, nor does the unseating of Wm. Jefferson of La. by a Republican challenger. If you have hopes and expectations in this regard, that is fine, and I share them. But, hopes and expectations are not guarantees by a long shot.
BillS said: “BHO is Democrat through and through.”
In your opinion. I don’t see him so narrowly defined and proscribed and limited as you do. Time will tell.
Bills, Third Party advocates are a part of the registered independent voters for the most part. Therefore, they are putting enormous political pressure on the Democratic Party and Obama for political and economic reforms that will improve our future. Independent voters, after all, control the election outcomes of 2010 and 2012. What they care about should matter greatly to those who will seek election or reelection in coming years.
I simply cannot agree with your very partisan view of all this. But, that’s fine. As long as we are both pressing for the needed discipline, accountability, transparency, and reforms to restore the strength of America, we have more in common than differences.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 26, 2008 02:52 PMRoy, past is not prologue, and when you change jobs, you change objectives and goals.I certainly hope so.
Still, it probably won’t matter much.
It’s not like do-nothing Congress is so easily controlled.
Especially when 86.9% of Congress was re-elected.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at December 26, 2008 08:08 PMDR
I appreciate your response,s tone. Of course I must disagree with your conclusions. BHO is and has always been a Democrat. At this point he is the leader of the Democratic Party. To claim he is not a Democrat is akin to saying he is not black. No substance in the face of overwhelmming evidence to the contrary.Too point to some bad eggs to condemn an entire large political party is to rely on anecotal arguement. What you do not see from the Dems is the party rising up to defend those dirtbags or trying to give them slap on the wrist forgivness as we have watched the Reps do these last 8 years.
You are correct that historical speculation is specious but clearly Gore’s long held knowlege of climate change would have avoided the Bush legacy. Pulling out of Koyoto. The Bush regime would not even admit a problem for four years,believing “global warming” was a liberal plot.
There are many other might have beens,like just maybe Gore would have bothered to read and react the report saying that Bin Laden plans to use jetplanes to attack buildings,perhaps.He probably would not have fired Clifford,Clintons top terrorist advisor, because he did not like him. Gore according to him,anyway, would not have invaded Iraq and he certainly would not have spent years building a false case to justify the invasion.
Also, regarding the $14-to-$34 Billion bail-outs for GM, Chrysler, and Ford - some new estimates state that it will take much more money, such as $125 Billion.
For example, GM already has $45.16 Billion of TOTAL existing debt (MRQ=as of Most Recent Quarter).
Ford already has $156.79 Billion of total existing debt (MRQ).
Chrysler has at least $42 Billion of total debt.
Cerberus said it would take about $62 billion to recapitalize Chrysler and refinance its debt.
That’s at total of $244-to-264 Billion.
Chrysler has already reported that it needs $11 Billion, and the $4 Billion from TARP funds won’t be enough to prevent Chrysler’s collapse.
GM’s and Ford’s combined market value is only $10 Billion (source: theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2008/12/debt-rattle-december-6-2008-markets-and.html).
So, if GM, Ford, and Chrysler must be saved, get ready for many more bail-outs; possibly hundreds of more billions of dollars (since all 3 have over $244-to-$264 Billion of current debt, and still growing, and likely to grow much larger with more bail-outs/loans).
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Thanks for the info d.a.n. I felt the fingertips of the big 3 in my back pocket and now, since we have committed $14 billion to the bailout, it won’t be long before the entire hand is in our pockets.
Add in the numerous state governments that will be beating a path to Washington as soon as PEBO is sworn in wanting their share and it won’t be long before they want our pants as well as what was in the pockets.
Just as with government entitlement programs, no amount of money will ever satisfy the beast once it is loosed from its pit.
Posted by: Jim M at December 27, 2008 05:08 PMJim M,
I suspected this bail-out mania would get out of control.
It appears those suspicions were justified.
Have you ever know anyone or any nation, that is already very deep in debt, to successfully create enough new money or spend their way to prosperity?
It appears increasingly likely that the U.S. (bail-out nation) is determined to visit total fiscal and moral bankruptcy, and a complete economic meltdown.
Some people say these infusions of $3.2 Trillion (with up to $8.5 Trillion allocated) have saved us from a financial disaster.
Is that really true?
Seems to me, it has only delayed the inevitable, while making the massive debt problem much worse?
Somehow, more borrowing and creating new money out of thin air is supposed to magically create prosperity again?
This fiat funny-money system is a farce, and for every new dollar created out of thin air, it devalues all dollars already in existence.
QUESTION: How can we have a shortage of money supply (i.e. credit crunch), when there is so much U.S. money in existence?
ANSWER: Because 95% of all U.S. money in existence is debt (i.e. new money is created as debt at a high ratio of debt-to-reserves; e.g. 9-to-1 or higher).
With so much debt, and so little reserves, it is no wonder that the debt-pyramid is close to collapse.
It will collapse when too few people can borrow enough money to delay the inevitable debt-pyramid from collapse, and/or when inflation significantly or totally debauches the currency.
After all, no one has yet explained where the money will come from to only the Interest alone will come from to service $54-to-$67 Trillion of current (not future debt) nation-wide debt, much less stop the Principal debt from growing beyond the current levels of nightmare proportions.
GDP is falling ($13.86 Trillion in 2007).
GDP has actually been falling (in inflation adjusted dollars) since late 2006 or early 2007 (despite claims that the recession started in DEC-2007).
Unemployment is has risen to 6.7% as of Nov-2008 (up from 5.0% in Apr-2008).
Tax revenues are falling.
There were 259,085 foreclosures in November-2008 (total foreclosure filings, default notices, auction sale notices, and bank repossessions).
Average personal savings have been negative for 4 years (never worse since the Great Depression).
Home equities have never been lower since 1945.
The wealth disparity has never been larger since year 1930.
Total $54-to-$67 Trillion nation-wide debt is up from 100% of GDP in 1956 to 390%-to-483% of GDP for year 2007 (i.e. $13.86 Trillion).
The Federal Reserve and federal government have perpetuated positive inflation and deficit spending for 52 consecutive years.
The National Debt is supposedly $10.7 Trillion, but probably much worse since $12.8 Trillion was borrowed and spent from Social Security (i.e. there really is no Social Security surplus).
Total personal household debt ($13.88 Trillion) is larger than the total GDP of year 2007 ($13.86 Trillion).
Perhaps it is an 80 year cycle?
Based on the real current levels of debt of GM, Ford, and Chrysler ($45.16 Billion, $156.79 Billion, $42-to-$62 Billion respectively), totalling $244-to-$264 Billion, they already too much debt, and it is unlikely they will be able survive even if they were given 3 times the $14-to-$34 Billion bail-outs already provided thus far.
Somehow, we are supposed to believe that more borrowing and creating new money out of thin air is supposed to magically create prosperity again?
If true, and we are somehow able to borrow enough, create enough new money, and spend our way to prosperity, I will take every word of it back, and become a true believer in magic.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Posted by: d.a.n at December 28, 2008 10:14 AMd.a.n replied to: “Some people say these infusions of $3.2 Trillion (with up to $8.5 Trillion allocated) have saved us from a financial disaster.”
with the following:
“Is that really true?
Seems to me, it has only delayed the inevitable, while making the massive debt problem much worse?”
d.a.n, ask me if I would rather die today or 3 years from now? Or, ask me it I would like to be tortured today, or year after next?
You may be proved right that we are delaying the inevitable. But, most people would agree that delaying the inevitably in the case of physical or economic death is a laudable and worthy effort.
BillS, he ran as a Democrat. Democrats are up in arms over some of his actions already, and he hasn’t even steppped into office yet.
He was elected as a Democrat. But, I can nearly guarantee you he will be at odds with his Democratic Party on a host of policy issues and legislation. He has assured the American people in subtle and indirect ways, that this will be the case. I don’t care what you want to label him. His governance will not, on a host of issues, follow the Democratic pattern of Clinton or Carter. Mark my words.
He has told you and the rest of us this. Which creates a conundrum for you. Is he lying and if so, can you still support him as a Democrat. Or, is he telling the truth, and are you simply engaged in renaming the Zebra a Donkey to keep your views consistent and cognitive dissonance down to low hum instead of roar?
Past Democrats have never put the viability of the economy above the welfare of the working middle class. Yet, Obama just this week declared that in about 2 years, after the economy has begun growth again, fiscal discipline to address the massive deficits and debt will be among his highest priorities. That is not traditional Democratic rhetoric, BillS.
Bringing in and retaining Republicans in the cabinet, and bringing an anti-gay conservative minister to the inaugural for invocation, and asking the middle class to sacrifice in order to address fiscal responsibility issues, none of these are traditional Democrat actions. Call Obama an Ass if you wish, but, his policy approaches remain those of a Zebra, a hybrid of liberal and conservative and pragmatic.
By their actions you shall know the true character of a person. Not by their label. A true traditional Democrat would not have won the presidency in this last election. The independent voters wouldn’t have supported one. The polls provided ample evidence that this was true.
But, if you choose to continue to wishfully see him as a true Democrat of the old mold, go right ahead. Doesn’t change a single thing about the reality of the situation, or future of his presidency.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 28, 2008 02:16 PMd.a.n.,
If I might presume to expand on David just wrote;
Nothing is inevitable, change is constant, hope springs eternal.
As David said you “may” be proved right, on the other hand, maybe not.
History is rife with tipping points, this just may be one of those points.
Optimism is not a vice.
We all could come to our collective senses.
Or maybe not.
Rocky
David R. Remer wrote: You may be proved right that we are delaying the inevitable. But, most people would agree that delaying the inevitably in the case of physical or economic death is a laudable and worthy effort.Would you prefer to weather:
- a (a) deep recession,
- or (b) a long and deep depression?
No one has yet answered one simple question:
- Where will the money come from to only pay the Interest on the current $54-to-$67 Trillion of Principal nation-wide debt , much less the money to stop the current Principal from growing beyond already nightmare proportions, when that money does not already exist?
How is $14-to-$34 Billion going to save the Big-3 auto-makers, when they already have $244-to-$264 Billion of current debt (GM:$45.16 Billion, Ford:$156.79 Billion, Chrysler:$42-to-$62 Billion)?
How will the $3.2 Trillion already spent (or lent) of the $8.5 Trillion allocated put a dent in the $54-to-$67 Trillion of current Principal nation-wide debt?
The Interest alone at only 4% Interest on $54-to-%67 Trillion of current Principal nation-wide debt is $2.16-to-$2.68 Trillion per year?
Where will the money come from, when 95% of all U.S. money in existence is debt?
Where are we going to realize that this Ponzi-scheme is merely bringing us closer to the point where we can’t borrow enough, create enough new money, and/or spend enough to stop the collapse?
All of this new debt and new money being created out of thin air could easily turn a deep recession into another Great Depression, because the amount of money required to put a dent in such a huge debt problem would almost certainly create hyperinflation.
Many nations have already tried creating massive amounts of new money out of thin air, and they have already proven that it does not work.
No nation has ever borrowed money and/or created massive amounts of new money, and used it to spend their way to prosperity.
But on second thought, perhaps hyperinflation and debauching the currency would be best?
After all, it is often said that things can get better until they first get much worse?
Afterward, perhaps a new banking system could be created that isn’t a giant Ponzi-scheme, like the one we have today, which is sort of like playing Monopoly with one difference in which banks can create all the money they want out of thin air (at a steep ratio of 9-to-1 for debt-to-reserves), and everyone else is eventually broke or deep in debt to the banks. Cha-Ching!
Rocky wrote: Nothing is inevitable, change is constant, hope springs eternal.Not true. Many things in the universe are inevitable (e.g. death, uranium decays into lead, stars are inevitably distinguished, and pyramid-schemes always collapse unless interrupted).
Creating money as debt at a steep 9-to-1 ratio, with incessant inflation and federal deficit spending for 52 consecutive years is a sure way to shorten the cycle of the debt-pyramid-scheme.
Rocky wrote: Optimism is not a vice.It is, if it is too unrealistic.
HMMMmmmmmmmm … where did we hear the phrase: “irrational exuberance” ?
It’s not mere pessimism, unless someone can provide credible arguments as to how this bail-out mania and giving away trillions of dollars is going to save us.
I’m not alone in providing considerable reasons, data, and logic as to why this bail-out mania, and growing the debt-pyramid larger is a very bad idea, since it will most likely debauch the currency, which has already been sliding for a decade against most major international currencies: One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm
The math is very disturbing, and it’s not enough to make rosy predictions without explaining how the following can be sufficiently mitigated or dealt with in time to avoid the collapse of the debt-pyramid:
- The current total Principal nation-wide debt is $54-to-$67 Trillion: One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#TotalDebt, which has never been larger ever in magnitude and as a percentage of GDP;
- The $54-to-$67 Trillion nation-wide debt has grown from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to 390%-to-483% of the GDP for year 2007 (i.e. $13.86 Trillion);
- GDP is falling, and in inflation adjusted 2005 and 1950 dollars, GDP has been falling since JAN-2007;
- Federal tax revenues are falling as unemployment rises, personal savings have been negative since year 2005, and foreclosures are still at record levels (10,000 per day in AUG-2008), there’s about $900 Billion of credit card debt (about $8000 per household), and GDP has decreased by a historic amount since JAN-2007, when measured in 2005 or 1950 inflation adjusted dollars: One-Simple-Idea.com/Recession2008.htm
- Total federal government debt ($23.0 Trillion) has never been larger, both in size and as a percentage (over 166%) of the $13.86 Trillion GDP (year 2007), when including the $10.7 Trillion National Debt and the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with the beginning of a 77 million baby-boomer bubble;
- Total personal household debt nation-wide ($13.88 Trillion) has never been larger, both in size and as a percentage (over 100%) of the $13.86 Trillion GDP;
- This much debt is not tenable, when the Interest alone is alread untenable, and the debt problem is not only $10.7 Trillion federal debt, but $43.3 Trillion of massive non-federal debt, and $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security ($67 Trillion combined; a average of $219,672 per person for all 305 Million Americans);
- For the total CURRENT federal National Debt is $10.7 Trillion National Debt, the Interest on it (at only a 4.0% Interest rate) is over $430 Billion ($429.98 Billion for year 2007), which would take 117 years to pay down the $10.7 Trillion if we paid at least $36 Billion per month ($432 Billion per year) to stop the Principal $10.7 Trillion National Debt from growing ever larger.
- Interest alone on the $10.7 Trillion federal National Debt was $430 Trillion in year 2007: One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#TotalDebt
- Medicare costs over $432 Billion per year, and other Health and Human Services cost another $268 Billion per year (for a total of $700 Billion per year).
- The future obligations for the next few decades, according to I.O.U.S.A - The movie (with David Walker, former GAO Comptroller: www.iousathemovie.com), is another $53 Trillion for ONLY the federal obligations. That also does not mean the obligations end or that the debt is gone after a few decades.
- Look carefully at the total nation-wide debt. The future obligations for total the $54 Trillion nation-wide debt is estimated to be (MWHodges.home.att.net/debt-summary-table.htm) $170.2 Trillion ($558,032 per person for 305 Million U.S. population). But that $170.2 Trillion is a VERY conservative estimate, because even at a mere 1.0% Interest, it would take 220 years of $50 Billion monthly payments ($600 Billion per year) and $84 Trillion in Interest alone to pay off $54 Trillion of nation-wide debt (for a combined future cost of $138 Trillion dollars over 220 years).
- Even if Social Security ($660 Billion) and Medicare ($432) were totally eliminated, it means the government would have still have to borrow or create new money new to meet 2008 spending of over $3.5+ Trillion (with a $1 Trillion deficit for 2008, and tax revenues are falling sharply in 2008 and probaby will also fall in year 2009, and perhaps longer).
- The “future” federal government debt is relevant; especially when $1.79 Trillion is already used for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, other Human and Health Services, and Interest on the $10.7 Trillion debt (which is 72% of all $2.5 Trillion federal tax revenues, only leaving $710 Billion for everything else), and cuts in spending won’t be easy or painless (if even possible, in view of 52 consecutive years of deficit spending).
- No one has explained how deficit spending can continue (e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008), with total federal tax revenues of about $2.5 Trillion (or less with rising unemployment of about 6.7% as of Nov-2008), and the total nation’s GDP (which GDP was $13.86 Trillion for year 2007, but is falling), and demonstrate in any credible way how we can (a)borrow and/or (b)create enough new money to stop the massive debt-bubble from growing ever.
- Incessant inflation for 52 consecutive years: One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#Inflation0
- Deficit spending for 52 consecutive years;
- There are no Social Security surpluses (only I.O.U.s that are most likely worthless);
- $12.8 Trillion was borrowed (and spent) from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching;
- Foreclosures are at record levels (2008: 3 Million , 2007: 2 Million, 2006: 1.2 Million, 2005: 846,000, etc.);
- The tax system is regressive: One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#Taxes
- 95% of all U.S. in existence is debt, which is due to rampant borrowing and a monetary system and Federal Reserve system that is a Ponzi-scheme, which creates new money at a steep debt-to-reserves ratio of 9-to-1. Where will the money come from to pay the Interest, when 95% of all U.S. money in existence is debt?
- The wealth disparity gap has never been larger since year 1930. The gap started growing larger, and has not stopped growing larger since year 1976;
- Home equities have never been lower (below 50%) since year 1945. ;
- Global competition has never been stronger, and trade deficits are at record levels;
- Real median household incomes have fallen since year 1999, and have actually never been lower since year 1978 when also including the fact that (a) there are now more workers per household; (b) we have more regressive taxation (voters should ask to see the tax curve on gross income; before a myriad of tax loop holes are applied); (c) and the 40-hour work week is disappearing; (d) urban sprawl and high fuel costs are hammering the middle-income and lower-income levels;
- Average personal savings rates are negative (since year 2005), and have never been worse since 1933;
- Federal government bloat has never been worse, and continues to grow to nightmare proportions. There are now more jobs in government than all manufacturing nation-wide;
- Most consumers are tapped out and broke: 40% of Americans (on average) have ZERO net worth. The wealth disparity gap has been growing worse since year 1976. In an economy that is 70% consumer driven, most consumers being broke is an obvious problem;
- Incessant out-sourcing and selling-out Americans helped create this problem; we can’t all wash each others laundry;
- Wars: Huge ongoing costs in Iraq and Afghanistan; costs as of 19-JUL-2008 estimated between $557 Billion and $2+ Trillion);
- Home ownership has fallen since year 2006 for low-income and middle-income groups. A study shows that only 59.6% of working class families owned their homes in 2003, lower than the 62.5% in year 1978;
- An estimated $70-to-$327 Billion per year in net losses due to illegal immigration: One-Simple-Idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Burdens
- Declinging quality and rising cost of education;
- Skyrocketing costs of healthcare that is increasingly dangerous too (i.e. since 1999, that is over 1.5 million people killed by preventable medical mistakes. That is more than all the American soldiers killed in the American Revolution (4,435), the War of 1812 (2,260), the Indian Wars (1,000), the Mexican War (1,733), the Civil War (462,000), the Spanish American War (385), WWI (53,402), WWII (291,557), Vietnam War (58,209), Korean War (36,574), the Iraq Gulf War (529), and the current Iraq war Mar-2003-present (3,963), combined!);
- Too much corruption and the lack of fiscal discipline in Congress alone should be a major source of concern;
- Unavoidable hyperinflation followed by deflation and another depression is highly probable, unless there is also wide-spread cuts of ALL unnecessary federal spending, and steps are not taken that create fair taxation, leave Iraq, leave Afghanistan, and produce productive and efficient jobs that produce real value, cost benefits, and stop the deficit spending now, which is costing $430 Billion per year in interest alone. The massive bail-outs thus far only bought a short reprieve.
- No one and no nation so deep in debt has ever spent or borrowed their way to prosperity, but many have tried it and totally crashed their economies, and thus far, it very much appears that we are going to do it too.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful. Posted by: d.a.n at December 28, 2008 06:51 PM
That is, it could be called a perfect storm.
With so much nation-wide debt ($54-to-$67 Trillion), and 95% of all U.S. money in existence is debt, where will the Trillions of dollars come from to merely pay the Interest, much less the money to stop the Principal from growing larger, when that money does not yet exist.?
Creating enough money to even put a dent in the debt-bubble will debauch the currency.
And perhaps that is best?
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful.
d.a.n, a recession still allows the country to function, government to operate, and most people to hold jobs.
A depression cripples the country, the government, and vastly larger numbers of workers are unemployed, which means death, suffering, and traumatic losses, not to mention a crime wave that grows and grows throughout the depression.
Give me a recession any day over a depression. But, hey, that’s just me. I think people matter, not abstract numbers on paper.
Where will the money come from? From work, d.a.n, where it has always come from. Money is nothing but an IOU for products and services of value to others. Therefore, the answer to your question regarding where the money will come from is simple. It will come from maximizing employment and productivity for marketable (in demand) services and goods for sale domestically and abroad.
Will it take a very long time to make any headway on the debt? Yes. Will it be made even longer by the interest on the debt? Yes. Will it mean losses of opportunities while paying down the debt? Yes. But, a failed economy offers NO HOPE WHATSOEVER. 90% of America’s workforce is working, or 80% depending on how one calculates it.
Demand for goods and services and exertise in India, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, and other economies like Brazil and South Africa, Dubai and the UAE, are going to continue to grow. Part of the key as to where America will get the money to manage its debts is in those countries, IF America positions herself to innovate the technologies and services those nations and their people’s will be willing to purchase in coming years from us.
Hence the need for America to make education one of its top priorities, and America will do this because America no longer has the luxury of enduring failed schools due to debates over Genesis vs. evolution. America will move on, and up to a point, the more minority factions resisting the better. It would take a majority of Americans to stop America from achieving what it needs to achieve and prosper again.
We have structural problems for sure. But, the vast majority of them are now known, and addressing them is forthcoming. Up to a point, one can say, divided we can accomplish much. We can thank the Libertarians and Republicans and Constitution Party for providing the divisiveness and factionalization needed to prevent any majority block from impeding the austerity steps and federalization steps required to address our challenges going forward.
One of my philosophy prof’s used to say, just because I can’t conceive a solution does not mean a solution does not exist. The reason America overcame its obstacles and challenges in the past was because someone in leadership did conceive a solution when few others could and were crying the end is near. Just because Americans could not conceive the horrible moral hazards of prohibition, mutually assured destruction, or the failures of Jim Crow, did not mean a path to overcoming these threats and challenges did not exist. Nor did that mean the solutions would not be forthcoming. They did, we overcame, even though most of us could not see how that could be done, at the time the paths were charted.
It is not an act of faith to chart the possibilities and potential of the future from the history of the past. While past may not be prologue to the future, history has a way of repeating itself in both positive and negative ways. Folks tend to forget the positive, and become myopically focused on the negative, during trying times.
Dark skies do not mean the sky is about to collapse on our heads. America has options. America has choices. America only needs the leadership to recognize those and pursue them in a fashion that brings the majority of us along with increasing understanding of the potential of those choices and options.
So, far, Obama has demonstrated the characteristics of such a leader. And for better or worse in the long run, previous and current presidents have posited enormous power into the office that Obama is about to be take. The right thinking, awareness, and approaches to our challenges combined with the power to enact such solutions, could well be the way out of the growing crises our previous governments and private sector entities have gotten our nation into.
A year ago, I was preparing my daughter for life in another country. Today, I give 60% odds she can still have a great life here in America.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 29, 2008 04:42 PMRocky, quite right. I am reminded of the story of Hannibal reaching the French Alps, where his following became defeatist and incredibly depressed at the prospect of crossing the Alps with Elephants in November. Hannibal addressed them. While his words were not recorded, the fact that he raised he their hopes, and prospects of success in the crossing was recorded. And less than a week later they were in Italy on the other side of the Alps. 50% of his army had been lost up to that point, but, the remaining 50,000 were so emboldened by the success of the crossing that taking all of Italy save the city of Rome, and defeating the Roman Army against all odds on its own turf in 3 major battles, was a piece of cake compared to the threat of crossing the Alps.
But, for a faulty decision of timing by Hannibal, Rome too could have been theirs, and world history would not resemble anything like what we learn today.
One simply cannot know the future. At best one can apply probability to it. Hence, it is never logical to approach the future with a defeatist mindset. There is great power in the self-fulfilling prophecy when employed to meet otherwise daunting challenges.
In the movie The Edge, (Bart the Bear, Anthony Hopkins, and Alec Baldwin in Alaska), the question is asked, “Why do people die in the woods?” The answer is, “They die of shame.” Meaning they die lamenting their mistakes and missed opportunities instead of thinking their way through to success, one challenge at at time as they are presented. That wisdom is applicable to American leadership coming into power next month.
If they prioritize, implement, and adjust their implementations as empirical feedback warrants, our challenges can be overcome one, or a few, at a time as they are presented. Persistence and wasting no time or energy on failures or missteps save in compensation going forward, is the way forward affording the greatest probability of success.
David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, a recession still allows the country to function, government to operate, and most people to hold jobs. A depression cripples the country, the government, and vastly larger numbers of workers are unemployed, which means death, suffering, and traumatic losses, not to mention a crime wave that grows and grows throughout the depression.That’s why we shouldn’t be trying to solve a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, money-printing, inflation, and irresponsible spending.
David R. Remer wrote: Give me a recession any day over a depression. But, hey, that’s just me.Agreed. But the bail-out mania and trying to solve a massive debt-bubble with more debt will most likely bring about the depression you fear.
David R. Remer wrote: I think people matter, not abstract numbers on paper.Ignoring the numbers is what can cause harm to people.
So if people matter, Americans had better start paying closer attention to the numbers.
A closer examination of the numbers should be a priority.
Debauch the currency and try to solve a massive debt-bubble with more debt, rampant money-printing, and rampant spending, and it will most likely bring about a very deep and long depression.
David R. Remer wrote: Where will the money come from? From work, d.a.n, where it has always come from. Money is nothing but an IOU for products and services of value to others.Nope.
Work alone will not be enough?
Structural banking reforms are needed too.
After all, Americans have already been working hard?
How much more productivity do you think we can get out of working Americans?
Sorry, but work alone ain’t going to solve this massive debt-bubble problem.
Especially not by giving trillions to the banks and letting the Federal Reserve create tens of trillions out of thin air with little (if any) accountability.
Especially with falling median household incomes, rising unemployment, regressive taxation, declining GDP, declining manufacturing base, corrupt government, and incessant inflation?
Especially with a monetary system that is a Ponzi-scheme that grows the debt-bubble ever larger?
How are we going to stop the $54-to-$67 Trillion of current Principal nation-wide debt from growing ever larger when we can’t even afford the Interest alone on the total Principal debt?
Where will the money come from when it does not yet exist?
Where will the money come from when 95% of all U.S. money in existence is current debt.
How can we produce significantly more when we have exported and out-sourced most of our manufacturing, and there are now more jobs in government than all manufacturing jobs in the U.S.?
Where will the money come from when we have a 70% consumer-driven economy?
David R. Remer wrote: Money is nothing but an IOU for products and services of value to others.And every new I.O.U. (i.e. money created out of thin air) devalues existing money.
Printing more money does not create more value.
No nation so deep in debt has ever borrowed, money-printed, and/or spent its way to prosperity.
The U.S. Dollar has already fallen significantly since year 2000, and the amount of money required to prop up the debt-bubble will almost certainly crash the currency.
David R. Remer wrote: Therefore, the answer to your question regarding where the money will come from is simple. It will come from maximizing employment and productivity for marketable (in demand) services and goods for sale domestically and abroad.Simple? ! ?
No. Not simple.
Do you know how long it would take to pay down only a quarter of the nation-wide debt at only 4.0% Interest?
It would take $2.68 Trillion per year to ONLY pay the Interest alone (at only 4.0% Interest).
That’s $17,956 for every working person in the U.S. for ONLY the Interest alone (at only 4.0% Interest).
That’s 37% of the pre-tax median income (about $48K in 2007) for ONLY the Interest alone (at only 4.0% Interest).
That’s not enough.
We can not all wash each others’ laundry.
That still doesn’t deal with the current debt-bubble and the root cause of that debt-bubble.
It still does not address the dishonest, usurious, inflationary Federal Reserve and the fiscally and morally bankrupt federal government.
Unless the debt-bubble, and the root cause (banks and creating money as debt at a ratio of 9-to-1 of debt-to-reserves) of the debt-bubble it is addressed, it will continue to grow and continue to suffocate the economy … until the debt-bubble finally bursts, and then we will have another Great Depression (or worse).
Growing that debt bubble larger is most certainly not the solution, because the debt is already untenable.
David R. Remer wrote: Will it take a very long time to make any headway on the debt? Yes. Will it be made even longer by the interest on the debt? Yes. Will it mean losses of opportunities while paying down the debt? Yes. But, a failed economy offers NO HOPE WHATSOEVER. 90% of America’s workforce is working, or 80% depending on how one calculates it.Hard work is fine, and we need more of it, more efficiency, more innovation.
A much more simple and fair tax system would help a lot too.
But Americans have already worked hard and will continue to work hard.
So that’s not the problem.
The problem is a debt-bubble that is no longer tenable, and will continue to grow as certainly as the sun rises in the east, unless the Federal Reserve’s Ponzi-scheme is stopped, and the federal government’s fiscal irresponsibility is stopped.
We are borrowing and creating money out of thin air to merely pay the Interest on the Principal debt, which continues to grow ever larger (and accelerating).
We are going to have a “failed economy” until the sinister root cause of the debt-bubble is finally addressed.
The federal government should NOT be borrowing money with Interest from a quasi-government-controlled/privatedly-owned bank (i.e. the Federal Reserve), and bilking hundreds of billions per year ($430 Billion in year 2007) from tax payers for Interest alone.
How did this nation go from a creditor nation to a debtor-bail-out nation?
How did nation-wide debt go from 100% of GDP in 1956 to over 483% of GDP in 2008?
Just try playing a game of Monopoly, in which one player (the bank) can create all of the money they want out of thin air.
Soon, the bank owns everything, and everyone else is broke or deep in debt.
One of the biggest causes is 52 consecutive years of incessant deficit spending by the federal government and the Federal Reserve’s inflationary Ponzi-scheme, leaving the nation deep in debt to the banks. And when the debt-bubble approaches collapse, the banks are then allowed to create tens of trillions of new money out of thin air to prop-up the debt-pyramid for a while longer? ! ? But it won’t work, because all pyramid schemes eventually collapse. It’s a mathematical certainty. Especially when the growth of the debt-bubble has accellerated and grown to the nightmare proportions we have today.
The following was written in year 1966 in reference to the Great Depression and 1920s America:
When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction … the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. The “Fed” succeeded; … but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market - triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in breaking the boom. But it was too late: … the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. - “Gold and Economic Freedom, The Objectivist” by Alan Greenspan (1966).
Greenspan’s words apply today as much as they did in the 1920s.
Yet, Greenspan acted MORE irresponsibly, by creating new money, incessant inflation, stock market bubbles, housing bubbles, and consumer spending bubbles of unprecedented proportions.
And worse yet, Ben Bernanke is continuing to perpetuate the Ponzi-scheme which is akin to the game of Monopoly described above, in which one player (the bank) can create all of the money they want out of thin air.
And when the debt-bubble finally bursts, we may foolishly restart the same Ponzi-scheme and the ever-growing debt-bubble, as we did after the Great Depression (creating money as debt at a steep deveraged ratio of 9-to-1 of debt-to-reserves).
Tough times are ahead for the U.S., which is strongly corroborated by the simple fact that no one can tell us EXACTLY where the money will come from to merely pay the Interest, much less the money to stop the Principal from growing ever larger, when that money does not yet exist.
Of course, we know what no one wants to admit.
That money will be borrowed and/or created out of thin air, and the debt-bubble (already of nightmare proportions) will grow bigger, and bigger, and bigger … until it can’t grow any more, until most Americans are broke and/or deep in debt, unemployed, homeless, jobless, and hungry.
Most economists agree that the “economic crisis” is very far from over, and all of the bail-out mania, borrowing, and new money created from thin air will come with a huge price later … most likely making things much worse later.
The popular myth that we can somehow borrow, create new money, and/or spend our way to prosperity is about to be tested (and painfully disproven).
And throwing a few tens of billions at the Big-3 auto-makers, with 25 times more current debt ($244-to$264 Billion), won’t stop the collapse.
If Congress wants to save the Big-3 automakers (if that is even possible), it had better decide if it is prepared to give them hundreds of billion$ more.
A few months ago, I went to buy a 12 passenger van, and I first asked my bank for a loan.
My bank, where I’ve banked for 14 years, turned me down, even though I had more than the price of the van in a money-market account in that same bank, and have no mortgages or any other debt.
Many banks are not loaning money to people that are more than qualified.
So, I paid cash for the van with the money in the money-market account in their bank.
That is a very stupid bank.
That bank now has $23,000 less in deposits, and is also earning no interest on a loan.
But the irony is that it is probably best to pay cash anyway, in order to get something of value for that money (i.e. a van), before the money is rendered more worthless by incessant inflation (4.0% on average for year 2008; up from 1.59% in year 2002).
David R. Remer wrote: Demand for goods and services and ex[p]ertise in India, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, and other economies like Brazil and South Africa, Dubai and the UAE, are going to continue to grow. Part of the key as to where America will get the money to manage its debts is in those countries, IF America positions herself to innovate the technologies and services those nations and their people’s will be willing to purchase in coming years from us.Now only should do that too, we must do that.
But that’s a big “IF”, and it still won’t be enough.
The current size of the nation-wide debt is still untenable ($177K to $219K per person).
David R. Remer wrote: Hence the need for America to make education one of its top priorities, and America will do this because America no longer has the luxury of enduring failed schools due to debates over Genesis vs. evolution. America will move on, and up to a point, the more minority factions resisting the better. It would take a majority of Americans to stop America from achieving what it needs to achieve and prosper again.Now only should do that too, we must do that.
But that still won’t be enough.
Not as long as our own government and wealthy owners of corporations continue to sell us out.
And we can’t all work for the federal government.
And the current size of the nation-wide debt is still untenable.
David R. Remer wrote: We have structural problems for sure. But, the vast majority of them are now known, and addressing them is forthcoming. Up to a point, one can say, divided we can accomplish much. We can thank the Libertarians and Republicans and Constitution Party for providing the divisiveness and factionalization needed to prevent any majority block from impeding the austerity steps and federalization steps required to address our challenges going forward.We have one structural problem that must be addressed sooner or later.
Later will be more painful, when the debt-bubble caused by rampant spending and highly leveraged debt (i.e. money created as debt at a 9-to-1 ratio of debt-to-reserves) finally collapses.
The debt-bubble can’t grow much larger.
The nation-wide debt is already untenable.
David R. Remer wrote: We can thank the Libertarians and Republicans and Constitution Party for providing the divisiveness and factionalization needed to prevent any majority block from impeding the austerity steps and federalization steps required to address our challenges going forward.We can thank most (if not all) ALL in Congress, and ourselves for repeatedly rewarding them with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
After all, which party has had the majority in Congress all but 14 of the last 78 years (1931-to-2009)?
Which party had the majority during the Vietnam War (1961-1975)?
Which party had the majority during the Korean War (1950-to-1953)?
Which party had the majority during the majority of the Great Depression (1931-to-1941)?
Which party had the majority during the double-digit inflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s?
Which party had a HUGE majority from 1955 to 1995 (40 years)?
Which party votes for the most pork-barrel (see CAGW.ORG)?
70% of Congress (43% of Democrats) voted YES for authorization to invade Iraq.
84% of Congress voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (introduced by Phil Gramm), but passed by huge support in both the Senate (90=90%=Yay, 8=Nay, 1=NoVote) and House (362=83%=Yay, 57=Nay, 15=NoVote), and signed by Bill Clinton (who also signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act).
I’m not defending politicians in either party, since I don’t think many (if any) deserve their 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
But fueling the circular and powerfully distracting partisan-warfare will only entrench partisan loyalites, so it’s futile to argue which party is worse, when most (if not all) incumbent in both parties are pathetic.
David R. Remer wrote: One of my philosophy prof’s used to say, just because I can’t conceive a solution does not mean a solution does not exist. The reason America overcame its obstacles and challenges in the past was because someone in leadership did conceive a solution when few others could and were crying the end is near. Just because Americans could not conceive the horrible moral hazards of prohibition, mutually assured destruction, or the failures of Jim Crow, did not mean a path to overcoming these threats and challenges did not exist. Nor did that mean the solutions would not be forthcoming. They did, we overcame, even though most of us could not see how that could be done, at the time the paths were charted.There is a path out of this mess.
But the solution to this huge debt-bubble is not by creating more debt, new money from thin air, and more rampant spending.
And the sinister root cause of this debt-bubble, a dishonest, usurious, inflationary Ponzi-scheme that already collapsed once before in the Great Depression, must be stopped.
David R. Remer wrote: It is not an act of faith to chart the possibilities and potential of the future from the history of the past. While past may not be prologue to the future, history has a way of repeating itself in both positive and negative ways. Folks tend to forget the positive, and become myopically focused on the negative, during trying times.Perhaps.
However, if people are better at remembering the negative of the past, you would think they’d be more careful about not repeating it?
David R. Remer wrote: Dark skies do not mean the sky is about to collapse on our heads. America has options. America has choices. America only needs the leadership to recognize those and pursue them in a fashion that brings the majority of us along with increasing understanding of the potential of those choices and options.Agreed.
However, I seriously doubt that the next administration is going to address the sinister root cause of the debt bubble, which is a dishonest, usurious, inflationary Ponzi-scheme.
Instead, based on what has transpired thus far, and a comment by Obama about not “second guessing the Federal Reserve”, it’s not very encouraging.
David R. Remer wrote: So, far, Obama has demonstrated the characteristics of such a leader. And for better or worse in the long run, previous and current presidents have posited enormous power into the office that Obama is about to be take. The right thinking, awareness, and approaches to our challenges combined with the power to enact such solutions, could well be the way out of the growing crises our previous governments and private sector entities have gotten our nation into.Obama is only one person, but if Obama can find a way to deal with the debt-bubble (and the Federal Reserve); stop the debt-bubble from collapsing without growing ever larger; stop (or limit) usury (such as 35% interest on credit cards); and stop these abuses, then Obama might avert another Great Depression.
But if Obama beleives as Helicopter Ben Bernanke does, that we can somehow borrow, create new money, and spend our way to prosperity, and if Obama follows his previous statement of not “second guessing the Federal Reserve”, then we’re most likely doomed to a collapse, another restart of the same Ponzi-scheme, and another Great Depression (or worse).
If the Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air, why should the U.S. government have to pay interest on that money? ! ?
David R. Remer wrote: A year ago, I was preparing my daughter for life in another country. Today, I give 60% odds she can still have a great life here in America.I certainly hope you are right.
However, I think it’s still 50%/50% , since there seems to be no stomach for confronting the Federal Reserve and its role and culpability for causing bubble-after-bubble.
Yes, the federal government is culpable too, but that doesn’t mean the Federal Reserve should get a “Get Out of Jail” pass.
I don’t like being the so-called “Voice-of-Doom” or the “List Keeper”, but the fact is, there aren’t many people that have a stomach for it, and that may be partly why history repeats itself so often (e.g. 2.00 steps forward and 1.99 steps backward).
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
d.a.n said: “That’s why we shouldn’t be trying to solve a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, money-printing, inflation, and irresponsible spending.”
We are NOT trying to solve a debt bubble. We are trying to prevent a recession from becoming a depression. The joke in Wa. D.C. is that Bush was elected as a social conservative and is leaving office a conservative socialist. It’s funny, because it’s partially true. Bush said he is a believer in free markets, but, when he was faced with the prospect of a depression many times worse than that of the 1930’s, the free market had to take a back seat. The irony is, it was his laissez faire free market years that brought on, in large part, his need to suddenly prophylactically as a conservative socialist.
Obama too, has in my and the majority of America’s opinion, the right priorities. Prevent the recession from worsening and get the economy growing jobs again, first. Then deal with the debt afterward when the economy is growing again. To deal with the debt bubble NOW would be to invite the greatest depression in our history. Made greater by the vastly increased population and their vastly greater dependence upon purchased goods and services.
You are recommending sending the car crash victim in dire need of artificial rescusitation, first to a defensive driving course. The damage to our debt and economy are done and worsening. We can only deal with one at a time, the debt, or the economy. It is impossible to address both at the present time in a positive way. They are at this time, mutually opposing goals, in terms of salvaging.
The total cost of 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Katrina amount to about 2 to 2.5 trillion dollars. Bush and the Congress spent twice that amount in deficits in the last 8 years. The time to deal with the debt was 2001 to thru Fall of 2007. That window of opportunity closed in Sept. of 2007 when the run on the money market funds took place. Now, the only priority is to get the economy back on its feet and government revenues growing again, so that the we the people and those responsible in government can insist and demand that we then cut spending and dedicate increased revenues eliminating deficit spending and eventually paying down this astronomical debt.
Will that happen? My crystal ball don’t work. I give it a probability of about 60-40 now with Obama taking office and if he keeps to these priorities through his reelection in 2012. Obviously we need to change a great deal in order to address our future debt, structural, and political inadequacies. Those changes are what Obama has said he will dedicate himself to. Nearly 3/4 of Americans say they believe this is the right course to take. Let’s give change a chance, shall we?
There was a time when the people said: “Let’s give peace a chance”, nearly 40 years ago. Until 9/11, peace was given a chance and relative peace-time for America was enjoyed, though there were humanitarian military efforts abroad.
d.a.n said: “Ignoring the numbers is what can cause harm to people. “
Ignoring the people can destroy democracy. Take your poison, d.a.n. Do you really want an authoritarian to take over and dictate a depression in order to resolve the debt, regardless of the suffering by the people? Sure sounds like it. Because that is the ONLY way that scenario could play out. In a democracy, the people obviously suffering is not a viable political option. And make no mistake, there is no separating an economy from a democratic elected government. Not without a coup d’ tat, revolution, civil war, or collapsed economy.
FDR was able to take authoritarian dictator like actions precisely because we were in an economic depression, wherein the people would support a dictator if it meant an end to their suffering. You want to run that risk again by making debt the first and foremost priority, now? If so, I think the lesson of history of the last great depression is missed, in political terms.
d.a.n said: “Work alone will not be enough?”
Says you, d.a.n. The fact remains, money is nothing more than an IOU for work. Work is how one pays off one’s debts.
“Structural banking reforms are needed too.”
Again, says you. The structure of our banking system is a human system. It can never be a perfect system in which timely and effective measures are always taken at the most opportune moment. Many reforms are necessary to prevent this current scenario from being revisited, but, banking reforms are no substitute for work to pay off the IOU’s. And a perfected banking system DOES NOT EXIST ON THE FACE OF EARTH, AND NEVER WILL. That is a simple fact of economics. There is a reason economics is a social science.
d.a.n said: “After all, Americans have already been working hard?”
Well, I know of a half million being put out of work every month these days. They aren’t hard at work, though they wish they were. They aren’t contributing tax revenues, instead they are receiving government spending benefits. The key is to get them back to work. Obama intends to do just that starting with 3 million going back to work on infrastructure and maintenance jobs. It is a very good start.
And yes, it will require increasing the debt. But, at the same time, because it is infrastructure investment, those are dollars that WON’T have to spent in the future, and which will pay returns of revenues in increased economic activity down the road.
d.a.n. said: “How much more productivity do you think we can get out of working Americans?”
You misinterpreted my word. I did not use the word “productivity”. I used the word “work”. Americans are productive in their work, WHEN THEY ARE WORKING. The problem is not productivity, it is the growing numbers of unemployed.
d.a.n said: “Sorry, but work alone ain’t going to solve this massive debt-bubble problem.”
That depends. If the holders of the IOU’s insist on payment in full tomorrow, you will be right, d.a.n. However, if the economy hits a bottom in mid-2009, and begins to recover in 2010, and our creditors are patient and willing to extend the terms of our debt, we could have decades to pay off that debt. As anyone with a modicum of consumer financial information knows, a fixed salary can support the pay off of far greater debt if the term of repayment is extended and interest rates kept reasonable.
America’s creditors have a vested personal and national interest in giving America the time and interest rates it needs to pay off its debts. There are practical limits to how long and how low, but, they lose huge if America defaults. Therefore, America’s debt carrying capacity will be determined more from the limits of the opportunity costs for Americans in paying taxes and foregoing government spending down the road, than from creditors carrying the current 11 trillion dollars loan extension.
If Americans can be put back to work, the interest on the government debt can be paid. That buys time with creditors. If the economy grows, that buys more time and increases government revenues. Making the option of paying down the debt a realistic option. There is no paying off debt when one is unemployed, or when one’s economy is slipping into depression. Getting the economy back on its feet in terms of employment is the first and foremost priority, in pure creditor debt terminology.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 30, 2008 03:55 AMd.a.n, I am drawn more to critique of Alan Greenspan’s capitulation to Bush’s ownership society than to structural defect of the Federal Reserve System. Alan Greenspan and the Board of Governor’s screwed up when they held interest rates at 1% for so very long in a recovered and growing economy. They screwed up in turning a blind eye to the mortgage financial changes taking place under their watch in the name of Bush’s ownership society. They screwed up. And the screwed up for what amounts to political motivations.
The Federal Reserve can be a political entity or it can be an independent entity. When it tries to be both, it will screw up, again. If it becomes a political entity it will screw up ROYALLY. It is an imperfect system, but, like democracy with all its failings and shortcomings, it remains the best system of all other options.
That is not to say that it cannot be improved, and it cannot be forced to be more accountable and transparent in its dealings. But, it remains the best system for moderating the fluctuations which diminish predictability and stability of financial markets, their royal screw-up this last year not withstanding.
The single greatest beneficial goal going forward for the Federal Reserve will have to be a political one originating from the White House; namely simplifying its operations and those of the financial industry, to the extent that transparency and accountability can and will be restored. Obama has every intention of insuring that reform will be forthcoming, from what I hear from him. And Obama will, on Jan. 21, have the power to push that reform of the Federal Reserve without going through Congress, by virtue of his appointment authority as terms of the governors expire.
d.a.n said: “I don’t like being the so-called “Voice-of-Doom” or the “List Keeper”, but the fact is, there aren’t many people that have a stomach for it, and that may be partly why history repeats itself so often (e.g. 2.00 steps forward and 1.99 steps backward).”
I hear you, d.a.n. And I agree with you entirely that the severity and depth of the nation’s problems should be understood by the American electorate. But, even if they don’t have the command of the figures and numbers and graphs as you do, they do know their financial futures and those of their children are in jeopardy. They knew this in the 2006 elections when declining real wages and wealth disparity were hot campaign topics.
They knew this even more starkly for the November elections of this year. They get it, d.a.n., that we are in serious trouble here, and in increasing numbers, they are getting the fact that the debt will pose the next grave economic crisis to be dealt with after the recession is dealt with. Obama can be counted on to insure those not paying attention to that debt crisis coming, will.
Just as president’s without command authority in the military have risen to the need to become successful war presidents, and just as presidents without an education in economics have risen to the economic challenges of their day through quick and hard study of the situation, Obama has the intellect and educable acumen to rise to the challenges facing our nation at this grave turning point in our history.
The only real question is whether Congress has the same acumen, and will be willing to put politics aside from time to time, in order to act as the challenges call for. Congress is aware of the problems, like much of the public.
Congress however, I think we will discover, will be deeply divided on the solutions. That is where the expansion of the power of the president by Obama’s predecessors may be the saving factor for a reluctant Congress. (Though the liability of such expansion of power in the hands of another GW Bush, cannot be ignored or dismissed.)
There is a battle being prepared in the Congress as I type, in which the Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans will become aligned to derail, at times, Obama’s initiatives. If Obama fails to appropriately utilize the bully pulpit in convincing the American people to pressure Congress to follow his lead, then I will join you in reducing the odds of the future for my daughter from 60-40 to 50-50 or less. So far, from what I have seen, Obama has demonstrated that ability and his intent to use it appropriately and wisely.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 30, 2008 04:29 AMDavid R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, I am drawn more to critique of Alan Greenspan’s capitulation to Bush’s ownership society than to structural defect of the Federal Reserve System. Alan Greenspan and the Board of Governor’s screwed up when they held interest rates at 1% for so very long in a recovered and growing economy.And Ben Bernanke has been doing the same thing since year 2006.
The “Fed” rate is now a mere 0.25% (as of 12/16/2008).
Of course, since September-2008, it doesn’t matter much, because most Americans are already tapped out and deep in debt.
Difficult times lay ahead, and they will be if we don’t somehow solve the massive debt-bubble problem.
David R. Remer wrote: They screwed up in turning a blind eye to the mortgage financial changes taking place under their watch in the name of Bush’s ownership society. They screwed up.True. Big time. And many before them helped. It started really getting out of control around year 1976, with double-digit inflation and skyrocketing debt.
David R. Remer wrote: And the[y] screwed up for what amounts to political motivations.True.
But there is also a HUGE conflict of interest too, since the Federal Reserve receives interest from money created out of thin air at a ratio of 9-to-1 of debt-to-reserves.
David R. Remer wrote: The Federal Reserve can be a political entity or it can be an independent entity. When it tries to be both, it will screw up, again. If it becomes a political entity it will screw up ROYALLY. It is an imperfect system, but, like democracy with all its failings and shortcomings, it remains the best system of all other options.Yes, both are not only imperfect, but corrupt and broken.
The federal government, Federal Reserve, and banks have obvious reasons for wanting to create new money from thin air:
- (1) The Federal Reserve receives interest from money created from thin air;
- (2) The federal government wants to spend money to buy votes;
- (3) When a debtor defaults, the banks confiscate property, which essentially converts new money created from thin air into real assets and property;
- (4) Those that get the new money first always reap the greatest benefit from it, because as the new money works through the system, it cheats everyone else;
- (5) The incessant inflation encourages people to give their money to investors, and many Americans have lost Trillions in risky investments in bubble-after-bubble;
- (6) The incessant inflation fuels the incessant playing with money to make money, and many Americans dream of retiring early and living off the money made from their money;
- (7) Usury; some banks charge 35% (or more) on some credit cards, and have a myriad of techniques and schemes to take advantage of the poor, young, uneducated, and minorities; all of which amount to legal plunder;
- (8) Inflation is economically destabilizing (by design) in a way that slowly but surely extracts wealth from people that work and produce (most Americans), and funnels it to the banks, politicians, and their wealthy constituents, as evidenced by 52 consecutive years of positive inflation, federal deficit spending, nation-wide debt-bubble that has quadrupled the size of GDP, and a growing weatlh disparity gap since year 1976;
That, nor these other abuses came about by mere coincidence.
David R. Remer wrote: That is not to say that it cannot be improved, and it cannot be forced to be more accountable and transparent in its dealings. But, it remains the best system for moderating the fluctuations which diminish predictability and stability of financial markets, their royal screw-up this last year not withstanding.That monetary system could work, but it needs reforms to:
David R. Remer wrote: The single greatest beneficial goal going forward for the Federal Reserve will have to be a political one originating from the White House; namely simplifying its operations and those of the financial industry, to the extent that transparency and accountability can and will be restored. Obama has every intention of insuring that reform will be forthcoming, from what I hear from him.Hopefully, Obama’s statement, that he was “not going to second guess the Federal Reserve”, doesn’t mean he’s ruling out badly-needed reforms.
Some serious reforms are needed that question the way the Federal Reserve operates.
David R. Remer wrote: And Obama will, on Jan. 21, have the power to push that reform of the Federal Reserve without going through Congress, by virtue of his appointment authority as terms of the governors expire.Do you think Obama will replace Ben Bernanke, who continued as Greenspan with the confidence that we can grow the debt-bubble and money-supply indefinitely?
What worries me is that Obama and most Congress persons have some pent-up spending cravings, which will occur without also cutting all unnecessary spending, bloat, and waste.
Especially if it transpires similar to the $700 Billion bail-out for the banks and Wall Street.
David R. Remer wrote: They [the electorate] get it, d.a.n., that we are in serious trouble here, and in increasing numbers, they are getting the fact that the debt will pose the next grave economic crisis to be dealt with after the recession is dealt with.They know something is wrong, and the Federal Reserve is starting to receive more scrutiny (e.g. a recent protest at the Dallas Fed Bank), but it appears many have been conditioned to believe that 3%-to-5% inflation is OK. Also, I have a hard time believing that inflation for Nov-2008 is only 1.07% .
But it isn’t surprising that the electorate is so misinformed, because the economic statistics put out by the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve are propaganda, issued by government agencies, interpreted by puppets who carry the water for their financial puppeteers, reported by the Main Stream Media (MSM), all manipulated and designed to mold a public viewpoint that is favorable to the agenda of those in power.
And since foreign investors get the same tainted information and lies, they continue to throw good money after bad. They will be sorry. Many already are, such as a Norwegian teachers’ pension in Norway that is broke because it invested in AAA mortgage back securities that are now worthless.
And guess what will happen when those foreign investors finally wake-up and discover that the U.S. can’t pay the Interest, much less repay the Principal?
They will stop investing in our debt.
And since we have lost our manufacturing base, have no savings, and we can’t all wash each others’ laundry, the federal government and Federal Reserve are pressured to create new money out of thin air.
But that can’t last either.
Yet, most Americans are oblivious to all of this, because they are not gettting the facts (even if they had the desire to get the facts).
Most of the data and spin from Wall Street and the MSM are self-serving.
How many times have you heard the MSM report that core inflation is moderate and under control.
Ha! Nonsense!
The reality is that core inflation excludes food and energy items, and the inflation calculations have been fudged twice in 1983 and 1998 so that CPI items falling in price are weighted more heavily than items rising in price, resulting in a lower inflation number.
Another recent dishonest trick was to fudge the CPI weighting for used cars prices and car rentals, in a way to reduce the inflation numbers.
Another trick was the fudging of the CPI weighting for housing unit rentals, and new homes, in a way to reduce the inflation numbers.
As a result of all this clever fudging, core CPI is essentially inflation excluding all of the stuff that increased in price.
Another farce is the claims of deflation.
How can there be deflation when we have had positive inflation for 52 consecutive years (even by the government’s own fudged CPI numbers)?
These threats of deflation are used to pave the way for more inflation.
The Federal Reserve designed that myth to distract from the real problem, which is inflation, which the Federal Reserve can’t effectively control today, because consumers are already too close to the edge of their capacity to afford the debt they already have.
And I won’t even bother to go into the way GDP numbers are distorted.
If GDP numbers are inflated (e.g. $13.86 Trillion for 2007), then nation-wide debt ($54-to-$67 Trillion) is actually more than 390%-to-483% of GDP!
And how lucky we are to have Helicopter Ben who thinks like Alan Greenspan.
Bernanke said we could drop cash from a helicopter to illustrate how easily the economy could be fixed by creating massive amounts of new money.
The danger about all of this misinformation about inflation is that by the time inflation is recognized as a problem, hyperinflation will already be upon us, and it will be too late to counter act. Especially when 95% of all U.S. money in existence is debt.
David R. Remer wrote: Obama can be counted on to insure those not paying attention to that debt crisis coming, will.I hope so, because there are obviously some in Congress (based on their apparent surprise (including Obama and McCain) when Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson came begging for $700 Billion for bail-outs) that didn’t (and still don’t) have an understanding of the economy or the monetary system.
This recession is different than before in one very important way.
The nation-wide debt-to-GDP has grown from 100% of GDP in 1956 to 390%-to-483% of the $13.86 Trillion GDP of year 2007.
In the past, we had the capacity to carry more debt.
However, the debt is so large now, it is near (if not already) untenable.
A proper understanding of the true state of the economy is vital. For the U.S. to achieve real sustainability, it must first understand how we got so far off course.
Nations are not served by citizens or politicians who fail to face the truth, and the dangers of hyperinflation are real, because more new money created as debt increases the pressure to create more new money to merely pay the Interest alone, which creates more debt, which increases the pressure to create more new money, and so on, and so on, … , until that becomes too painful, resulting in massive nation-wide foreclosures and bankruptcies.
These arguements are not expected to be popular.
However, for those that are looking at things realisitically, it wasn’t hard to see the 1999 stock-market bubble and its collapse.
And it wasn’t hard to see the 2008 real-estate bubble and its collapse.
And it isn’t hard to see the current $54-to-$67 Trillion nation-wide debt bubble, and it’s collapse, and the Interest alone on so much debt is crushing us.
Still, such warnings of those collapses are ignored by most.
However, of late, there does seem to be some decline in the enthusiasm to trivialize the current debt-bubble.
Based on several amortization calculations at very low Interest rates (even as low as ZERO) and under the most optimistic conditions, it would take decades-to-centuries to reduce so much debt to any significant degree, and it would take enormous amounts of money to merely pay the Interest alone, much less stop the current Principal debt from growing ever larger.
Remember how you described what needed to take place was akin to “threading a needle”?
When I look at Congress’ track-record of the past 30 years, 52 consecutive years of deficit spending and incessant inflation, and other fiscal irresponsibility, it’s difficult to believe that this Congress (86.9% of which was re-elected on 4-NOV-2008) will have the extraordinary discipline required to deal with this problem, and Obama can’t do it all by himself.
It is looking more and more likely that massive foreclosures and bankruptcies will continue for several years, which will be exacerbated by rising unemployment (6.7%), deteriorated manufactoring base, a 70% consumer driven economy, falling federal tax revenues, more inflation, and 95% of all U.S. money in existence is debt.
Over $11 Trillion of U.S. financial assets are foreign owned.
47% of all U.S. Treasuries are foreign owned.
David R. Remer wrote: Just as president’s without command authority in the military have risen to the need to become successful war presidents, and just as presidents without an education in economics have risen to the economic challenges of their day through quick and hard study of the situation, Obama has the intellect and educable acumen to rise to the challenges facing our nation at this grave turning point in our history.Again, I certainly hope so, but the real problem will then most likely be Congress …
David R. Remer wrote: The only real question is whether Congress has the same acumen, and will be willing to put politics aside from time to time, in order to act as the challenges call for. Congress is aware of the problems, like much of the public. Congress however, I think we will discover, will be deeply divided on the solutions. That is where the expansion of the power of the president by Obama’s predecessors may be the saving factor for a reluctant Congress. (Though the liability of such expansion of power in the hands of another GW Bush, cannot be ignored or dismissed.)… and the Federal Reserve turning the U.S. into the “Inflation Nation”.
David R. Remer wrote: There is a battle being prepared in the Congress as I type, in which the Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans will become aligned to derail, at times, Obama’s initiatives. If Obama fails to appropriately utilize the bully pulpit in convincing the American people to pressure Congress to follow his lead, then I will join you in reducing the odds of the future for my daughter from 60-40 to 50-50 or less. So far, from what I have seen, Obama has demonstrated that ability and his intent to use it appropriately and wisely.Again, I truly hope so, but Congress (of which 86.9% were re-elected) doesn’t create much confidence, and no one in Congress seems to have seen any of this approaching.
However, the math doesn’t look good at all, and even if Obama and Congress do most of what needs to be done, it still may not prevent the collapse of the debt-bubble, and unlike past recessions, growing the debt-bubble any larger will most likely make the collapse worse.
It may not result in hyperinflation, but a combination of inflation and deflation, and wide-spread foreclosures and bankruptcies (several tens of millions).
Anyway, I think Obama is right about one thing.
Things will get worse before they get better.
At least he’s not trying to feed us more rosy nonsense like we got from the previous administration and Wall Street.
Still, you might want to think about how you are going to spend your savings before it becomes totally worthless (i.e. land, gold, houses, seeds for crops, etc.).
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
d.a.n. thanks for your contribution. It’s scary indeed. As for your statement; “Still, you might want to think about how you are going to spend your savings before it becomes totally worthless (i.e. land, gold, houses, seeds for crops, etc.).”
My wife and I are doing a lot of traveling all over the world and amassing great memories. I believe it shall be some time before congress finds a way to tax those.
Posted by: Jim M at December 30, 2008 06:54 PMOne could say we are all fiddlin before Rome burns.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at December 30, 2008 10:11 PMYes…Roy…one could say! As a citizen I have done all I can to help my country by working hard, following the rules, knowledgeable voting, serving in the Army, etc.
While my work is not done, I am becoming more doubtful that we can fix all the myriad problems we have wrought ourselves. Being 68 years old I don’t fear for myself but for my sons and all those under age 50 who will face a great upheaval in their future. It’s not too late but the window of opportunity to change the future is closing fast.
Posted by: Jim M at December 31, 2008 12:22 PMDavid R. Remer wrote:The debt-bubble is the problem, and it has been ignored too long already.d.a.n said: “That’s why we shouldn’t be trying to solve a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, money-printing, inflation, and irresponsible spending.” We are NOT trying to solve a debt bubble. We are trying to prevent a recession from becoming a depression.
The debt-bubble is the root cause of this recession, economic instability, and possibly another depression if the debt-bubble is allowed to become untenable and finally burst.
David R. Remer wrote: The joke in Wa. D.C. is that Bush was elected as a social conservative and is leaving office a conservative socialist. It’s funny, because it’s partially true. Bush said he is a believer in free markets, but, when he was faced with the prospect of a depression many times worse than that of the 1930’s, the free market had to take a back seat. The irony is, it was his laissez faire free market years that brought on, in large part, his need to suddenly prophylactically as a conservative socialist.No argument there. It is a joke, even though it is no laughing matter.
David R. Remer wrote: Obama too, has in my and the majority of America’s opinion, the right priorities. Prevent the recession from worsening and get the economy growing jobs again, first.That’s where we disagree, because you believe the debt-bubble can grow larger, and I do not.
I think (most likely):
- the debt-bubble is already near (if not already totally) untenable.
- the debt-bubble will create enormous pressure for the federal government and the Federal Reserve to create new money from thin air, and eventually trigger hyperinflation, and/or massive nation-wide foreclosures and bankruptcies.
- the federal reserve and banks will continue their usurious and predatory practices (e.g. 35% interest rates, jacked-up Adjustable Mortgage Rates, etc.).
- the federal government won’t cut all unnecessary bloat, waste, and spending needed to be shifted to create more productive jobs;
- the do-nothing Congress will continue to give itself annual raises for their corruption, incompetence, and greed (as it has for many decades);
- foreigners will stop investing in the U.S. debt;
- foreigners holding Trillions of U.S. dollars (falling in value) will try to unload them by spending them.
- foreigners will revesre the current trend, and stop sending us cheap goods, and start buying our goods (what little we still manufacture here in the U.S.); all of these U.S. dollars will come flooding back to the U.S., increasing the Money Supply and inflation drastically; all of the inflation of the past 52 consecutive years which foreigners have hoarded will come rushing back to the U.S.;
- there’s also a lot of cash on the sidelines due to stock-market volatility, which will also increase inflation when finally spent or reinvested;
- the Federal Reserve will try to reduce the Money Supply, but there’s is so much nation-wide debt already, restricting the Money Supply leads to more foreclosures, bankruptcies, unemployment, etc.
- the Federal Reserve will be trapped between a recession and inflation, and it will be too late to stop either;
- anyone holding U.S. dollars had better be thinking about what they want to spend their savings on before they become worthless;
David R. Remer wrote: Then deal with the debt afterward when the economy is growing again.We need to simulataneously stop growing the debt larger, while eliminating all unnecessary spending, eliminate numerous abuses, and spend the $2.5 Trillion of federal tax revenues much more wisely.
If the debt bubble is grown much larger, it may be the last straw.
Fiscal responsibility and fiscal sanity is needed as soon as possible.
We got into this problem with excessive borrowing, consumption, playing with money to make money, and a deteriorating manufacturing base.
Growing the debt-bubble any larger will most likely stress it to finally bursting.
The federal government has about $2.5 Trillion per year which it needs to start spending MUCH more carefully.
The chances of that happening are not very good, based on Congress’ habit of deficit spending for the last 52 consecutive years and 52 consecutive years of positive inflation.
David R. Remer wrote: To deal with the debt bubble NOW would be to invite the greatest depression in our history.Again, we disagree on the solution, because you believe the debt-bubble can grow larger, and I do not (both federal and non-federal debt).
I think the federal government needs major shifts in the way it spends its current $2.5 Trillion in total federal tax revenues, without growing the debt larger.
The federal government is already borrowing the money to merely pay the $430 Billion in annual Interest on the $10.7 Trillion National Debt, and that’s really not the total federal debt either.
Massive liabilities also exist that are going to have to be trimmed back drastically.
If you also believed as I do that the debt-bubble is already near (if not entirely) untenable, what would you suggest we do?
Have you considered what will happen when hyperinflation occurs?
It will make everything MUCH worse.
It could turn a medium depression into a worse depression.
Hyperinflation may be unavoidable anyway, since such a huge amount of U.S. Dollars are foreign-owned (not debt; cash and bonds that they may start being spent before they become worthless).
David R. Remer wrote: [the greatest depression in our history] Made greater by the vastly increased population and their vastly greater dependence upon purchased goods and services.True.
AHHHhhhhhhhh … the wonderful advantages of over-population; another topic I’ve futiley debated.
And the goods you speak of are many goods that we no longer build ourselves in the U.S., since the wealthy corporate owners and their puppets in Congress have sold most Americans out, and the electorate repeatedly rewarded them for it with 85%-to-90% re-election rates. And when foreigners don’t want our eroding U.S. dollars anymore, they won’t send us any more of their cheap goods either.
David R. Remer wrote: You are recommending sending the car crash victim in dire need of artificial rescusitation, first to a defensive driving course.Not true.
I’m recommending fiscal sanity and many simultaneous steps necessary to keep the debt-bubble from growing and finally exploding, which will is akin to preventing a massive heart attack.
Again, deficit spending might have worked in the past, but not anymore, because the total debt is near (if not already) untenable.
David R. Remer wrote: The damage to our debt and economy are done and worsening. We can only deal with one at a time, the debt, or the economy. It is impossible to address both at the present time in a positive way. They are at this time, mutually opposing goals, in terms of salvaging.Not true.
They must be dealt with simultaneously.
That requires the federal government to eliminate all unproductive, unnecessary bloat, waste, and spending, and shift spending immediately to productive jobs.
It requires all deficit spending to be stopped to prevent the debt-bubble and the Interest on the Principal debt-bubble from growing any larger.
It requires that we rebuild our manufacturing base, become more energy efficient, and productive.
It requires monetary reforms that don’t leverage debt-to-reserves at such huge ratios (e.g. 9-to-1).
And it requires that these numerous abuses (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm) also be stopped.
And we can save a lot of money with a national non-profit health insurance system; eliminating the $70-to-$327 Billion in annual net losses due to illegal immigration; fairer and more simple taxation; laws to prohibit usury by the banks; etc., etc., etc.
David R. Remer wrote: The total cost of 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Katrina amount to about 2 to 2.5 trillion dollars. Bush and the Congress spent twice that amount in deficits in the last 8 years. The time to deal with the debt was 2001 to thru Fall of 2007. That window of opportunity closed in Sept. of 2007 when the run on the money market funds took place. Now, the only priority is to get the economy back on its feet and government revenues growing again, so that the we the people and those responsible in government can insist and demand that we then cut spending and dedicate increased revenues eliminating deficit spending and eventually paying down this astronomical debt. Will that happen? My crystal ball don’t work.Are you saying the debt problem is already untenable?
Because if you are, you know what will follow: hyperinflation as massive amounts of new money are created to continue deficit spending, and all foreign owned U.S. dollars come rushing back to a nation with a deteriorated manufacturing base, in which foreigners will be buying up everything that isn’t nailed down, before their U.S. dollars become totally worthless.
That’s why I assert that more deficit spending might have worked in the past, but not this time, because the total debt is near (if not already) untenable.
David R. Remer wrote: I give it a probability of about 60-40 now with Obama taking office and if he keeps to these priorities through his reelection in 2012.I give it 50%/50% at best (and probably less), since it appears the solution will be more deficit spending, create more new money out of thin air, and more debt.
David R. Remer wrote: Obviously we need to change a great deal in order to address our future debt, structural, and political inadequacies. Those changes are what Obama has said he will dedicate himself to. Nearly 3/4 of Americans say they believe this is the right course to take.Well, that 3/4 doesn’t mean much, since most Americans don’t really know how real and how likely the danger of hyperinflation is.
In fact, the talking heads and so-called experts from Wall Street are now repeatedly telling us hyperinflation isn’t likely is exactly when I think it is very likely.
In fact, there are numerous factors that are now all aligning like a perfect storm to create hyperinflation.
This problem is like a balloon, and when you squeeze on end, the other end bulges, and when you squeeze the other end, the middle bulges, and no matter where you squeeze the balloon, a bubble bulges some where else, until the balloon finally becomes so stressed and explodes.
Drastic measures are needed to cut all waste, bloat, unnecessary spending; eliminate numerous abuses; and stop the bubble from bursting.
That’s not likely to happen, but it isn’t impossible.
David R. Remer wrote: Let’s give change a chance, shall we? … There was a time when the people said: “Let’s give peace a chance”, nearly 40 years ago. Until 9/11, peace was given a chance and relative peace-time for America was enjoyed, though there were humanitarian military efforts abroad.They’ll do what they want, regardless of what I think.
However, I not only do not think more deficit spending will work, but will be the last straw, by bursting the debt-bubble.
Trillions of foreign owned U.S. dollars are about to all come rushing back, creating hyperinflation, unless the U.S. finally demonstrates some fiscal sanity now.
David R. Remer wrote:True. Especially when voters repeatedly reward THEIR politiciains for it with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.d.a.n said: “Ignoring the numbers is what can cause harm to people. “ Ignoring the people can destroy democracy.
David R. Remer wrote: Take your poison, d.a.n. Do you really want an authoritarian to take over and dictate a depression in order to resolve the debt, regardless of the suffering by the people? Sure sounds like it… . Because that is the ONLY way that scenario could play out.Authoritarian?
Of course not. I don’t suggest doing anything to violate the Constitution, or give rise to a dictator.
We do not need to violate rights to solve this massive debt-bubble problem, fueled by many abuses, fiscal irresponsibility, a Ponzi-scheme monetary system, and violations of existing laws.
What we need to do is get some fiscal sanity, enforce existing laws, stop several abuses, and stop several current (One-Simple-Idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm) Constitutional Violations.
David R. Remer wrote: In a democracy, the people obviously suffering is not a viable political option. And make no mistake, there is no separating an economy from a democratic elected government. Not without a coup d’ tat, revolution, civil war, or collapsed economy.Like this ? (which sounds a bit looney-tunes).
David R. Remer wrote: FDR was able to take authoritarian dictator like actions precisely because we were in an economic depression, wherein the people would support a dictator if it meant an end to their suffering.While FDR did some questionable things (while serving 3 terms), we’re damn lucky FDR wasn’t a power-hungry dictator.
David R. Remer wrote: You want to run that risk again by making debt the first and foremost priority, now?Yes, since the debt-bubble, if it bursts, will result in hyperinflation, and make everything MUCH worse.
David R. Remer wrote: If so, I think the lesson of history of the last great depression is missed, in political terms.Not true.
While there are parallels, this time is much different than the Great Depression in several important ways.
We did not enter the Great Depression without the capacity for more deficit spending, and trillions of foreign owned dollars.
This is possibly WORSE than the Great Depression, with far more factors and deteriorating economic conditions than leading up to the Great Depression.
In the Great Depression, we still had a manufacturing base, exports, and less federal debt.
Also, the total federal debt today (about $10.7-to-$23 Trillion) is actually larger as a percentage of GDP than after World War II, due to the $12.8 Trillion pilfered from Social Security.
There are other numerous factors that have never been worse ever, and/or since the Great Depression: One-Simple-Idea.com/NeverWorse.htm
Also, globalism has contributed to transnational corporations cherry-picking cheap labor wherever possible, like locusts moving from one field to another, using up all the resources, and then leaving and moving to the next location where labor is cheaper; insuring that they always have someplace to go to where the labor is cheaper.
David R. Remer wrote:Yes, but that I.O.U. doesn’t mean much when you need a wheelbarrow full of I.O.U.s to buy a mere loaf of bread.d.a.n said: “Work alone will not be enough?” Says you, d.a.n. The fact remains, money is nothing more than an IOU for work. Work is how one pays off one’s debts.
David R. Remer wrote:So, you’re OK with a Ponzi-scheme that requires only 10% reserves, and new money is being created at a ratio of 9-to-1 of debt-to-reserves, resulting in 95% of all U.S. in existence in the U.S. is debt? … like playing the game of Monopoly except one person (the bank) can print all the money they like such that the bank eventually owns everything while everyone else becomes broke or deep in debt? Watch this video (43 minutes): video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279d.a.n said: “Structural banking reforms are needed too.” Again, says you. The structure of our banking system is a human system.
David R. Remer wrote: It can never be a perfect system in which timely and effective measures are always taken at the most opportune moment.HMMMmmmmm … when people start telling others that nothing is perfect, it’s often because they want others to accept things as they are, and accept mediocrity, because it conflicts with their line of reasoning.
While few things (if anything) are perfect, there are obvious things that can be done to make things better.
And many of those things aren’t new things to do, as much as they are abuses that should be stopped: One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm
David R. Remer wrote: Many reforms are necessary to prevent this current scenario from being revisited, but, banking reforms are no substitute for work to pay off the IOU’s.Of course not. No one is suggesting we not work. I’m merely suggesting banking reforms and other abuses be stopped (simultaneously).
You once acknowledged in a previous disccussion that the Federal Reserve is a Ponzi-scheme (i.e. creating new money at a 9-to-1 ratio of debt-to-reserves, and receiving interest on that new money).
That steep leveraging and other usurious and predatory practices by banks is a major cause of this nation’s (and other nation’s too) problems.
Why is wanting to stop those abuses so bad?
David R. Remer wrote: And a perfected banking system DOES NOT EXIST ON THE FACE OF EARTH, AND NEVER WILL. That is a simple fact of economics. There is a reason economics is a social science.Well, the many abuses we have today hardly come anywhere close to perfection.
The biggest problem with monetary policy is greed, which is at the root of 52 consecutive years of inflation and deficit spending, which is now catching up to us.
That is, we can do MUCH better, by eliminating obvious abuses.
The Federal Reserve, banks, and Wall Street have demonstrated what happens when their many manifestations of greed are allowed to run unchecked.
Why is wanting to stop those abuses so bad?
I’m not talking about a few minor tweaks here and there.
I’m talking about stopping obvious and destructive usury, steep leveraging of debt-to-reserves, multi-layered derivatives to reduce transparency, and outright fraud and huge Ponzi-schemes.
David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n said: “After all, Americans have already been working hard?” Well, I know of a half million being put out of work every month these days. They aren’t hard at work, though they wish they were. They aren’t contributing tax revenues, instead they are receiving government spending benefits. The key is to get them back to work. Obama intends to do just that starting with 3 million going back to work on infrastructure and maintenance jobs. It is a very good start.That’s a very good point.
However, it should not be done by deficit spending.
It should be done by shifting the $2.5 Trillion in current total federal tax revenues to create jobs that are more productive and strategic to the nation’s future and security.
If instead, the federal government is allowed to grow more bloated, wasteful, costly, and corrupt; and if the debt-bubble is pushed to bursting, hyperinflation will set in, and none of it will matter much. The currency will be debauched, and a wheelbarrow full of U.S. Dollars (I.O.U.s) won’t buy a loaf of bread, pensions, savings, entitlements, and wages will become worthless, and we’ll be doubly worse off for many years (or decades).
David R. Remer wrote: And yes, it will require increasing the debt. But, at the same time, because it is infrastructure investment, those are dollars that WON’T have to spent in the future, and which will pay returns of revenues in increased economic activity down the road.How wise is that if the debt is near (or already) untenable?
Again, this is not like the Great Depression, because we did not enter the Great Depression without the capacity for deficit spending.
David R. Remer wrote:OK. Yes, “work” and “productivity” are not the same.d.a.n. said: “How much more productivity do you think we can get out of working Americans?” You misinterpreted my word. I did not use the word “productivity”. I used the word “work”. Americans are productive in their work, WHEN THEY ARE WORKING. The problem is not productivity, it is the growing numbers of unemployed.
My point was working smarter.
Federal and state governments are full of dead-weight.
A lot of fat, bloat, waste, and unnecessary spending must be eliminated to free up money to pay for jobs that produce real benefits, savings, and value.
Yes, the growing unemployment (currently 6.7%) is a serious problem, and it is likely to reach double-digits, and that is all the more reason why all waste must be eliminated.
David R. Remer wrote:I’m not so worried about Americans holding those I.O.U.s.d.a.n said: “Sorry, but work alone ain’t going to solve this massive debt-bubble problem.” That depends. If the holders of the IOU’s insist on payment in full tomorrow, you will be right, d.a.n.
I’m worried about the trillions of foreign owned U.S. Dollars.
If debt increases due to continued deficit spending, it will create more pressure to create more new money, which will create more inflation, which will cause trillions of foreign owned U.S. dollars to come rushing back to the U.S. (from China, Japan, Germany, etc.).
Therefore, more deficit spending and more inflation is a very bad idea, and will most likely trigger hyperinflation, which will turn a bad recession into a very bad depression.
Unless the needle is threaded just right, the debt-bubble will burst, and growing the debt-bubble bigger makes no sense at all.
More deficit spending a debt and debt is insanity when the level of debt is already near (if not already) untenable.
David R. Remer wrote: However, if the economy hits a bottom in mid-2009, and begins to recover in 2010, and our creditors are patient and willing to extend the terms of our debt, we could have decades to pay off that debt. As anyone with a modicum of consumer financial information knows, a fixed salary can support the pay off of far greater debt if the term of repayment is extended and interest rates kept reasonable.There will be no long-term recovery if the debt-bubble is grown any larger.
More deficit spending will risk bursting the debt-bubble, undermine confidence in the U.S. Dollar, and trigger a run on the dollar from trillions of foreign-owned dollars.
David R. Remer wrote: America’s creditors have a vested personal and national interest in giving America the time and interest rates it needs to pay off its debts.Not for much longer, if inflation and debt is allowed to grow larger, in which case foreign-owned dollars will start being spent, and the Federal Reserve will be helpless in stopping it.
We can’t have more spending without more inflation.
We have to stop numerous abuses, and start spending less and spending it much more wisely, because the debt-bubble is near (if not already) untenable.
We are already struggling to merely pay the interest ($430 Billion) on the $10.7 Trillion National Debt and the interest ($2.2-to-$2.7 Trillion) $54-to-$67 Trillon nation-wide debt (per year).
The crux of our disagreement is whether the current level of federal and non-federal debt is untenable or not.
I think it is near being untenable now, and growing it any larger with more deficit spending is more dangerous than ending all deficit spending, and eliminating all unnecessary spending.
That is, at which point does the debt become so large that not even the Interest on the Debt can be paid?
If that happens (can’t even pay the Interest), it will trigger a loss of confidence (and rightfully so) in the currency, which will lead to a run on the currency, which will make everything much worse.
We may still have a depression (50%/50% chance), but there are degrees of everything, and it may boil down to a choice between a medium depression, and a very bad, painful, and long-lasting depression.
David R. Remer wrote: There are practical limits to how long and how low, but, they lose huge if America defaults.True. All the more reason not to risk default, with so much current debt, crushing Interest, and so much foreign owned U.S. money.
David R. Remer wrote: Therefore, America’s debt carrying capacity will be determined more from the limits of the opportunity costs for Americans in paying taxes and foregoing government spending down the road, than from creditors carrying the current 11 trillion dollars loan extension.True. All the more reason to not risk giving them more doubts by more non-stop deficit spending and creating more new money from thin air.
David R. Remer wrote: If Americans can be put back to work, the interest on the government debt can be paid. That buys time with creditors. If the economy grows, that buys more time and increases government revenues. Making the option of paying down the debt a realistic option. There is no paying off debt when one is unemployed, or when one’s economy is slipping into depression. Getting the economy back on its feet in terms of employment is the first and foremost priority, in pure creditor debt terminology.Those things must be done simultaneously.
Numerous abuses must also be done simultaneously.
There’s no time to do these things serially.
We need to learn to dribble and chew gum at the same time.
Not only can we, but we must stop growing the debt while simultaneously creating more jobs, by stopping numerous abuses, by eliminating all unnecessary spending, and by spending much more wisely.
Jim M wrote: d.a.n. thanks for your contribution. It’s scary indeed. As for your statement; “Still, you might want to think about how you are going to spend your savings before it becomes totally worthless (i.e. land, gold, houses, seeds for crops, etc.).” My wife and I are doing a lot of traveling all over the world and amassing great memories. I believe it shall be some time before congress finds a way to tax those.Thanks! I think there is a path to mitigate the pain and misery and possibly avoid a great depression, but I’m not sure the federal government and Federal Reserve will find that path, because they seem determined to continue deficit spending and growing the debt ever larger as they have been for the last 52 consecutive years.
Roy Ellis wrote: One could say we are all fiddlin before Rome burns.Yep. That’s a pretty good description of the federal government, Federal Resererve, and the voters that repeatedly reward them for all of it with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
Jim M wrote: Yes…Roy…one could say! As a citizen I have done all I can to help my country by working hard, following the rules, knowledgeable voting, serving in the Army, etc. While my work is not done, I am becoming more doubtful that we can fix all the myriad problems we have wrought ourselves. Being 68 years old I don’t fear for myself but for my sons and all those under age 50 who will face a great upheaval in their future. It’s not too late but the window of opportunity to change the future is closing fast.A lot of families and relatives will probably be moving-in together and living under the same roof again (as occurred in the Great Depression).
Banks could refinance many loans (espeically many high Adjustable Rate Mortgages interest rates), and prevent foreclosures, but didn’t, and are still slow to do so.
As a result …
- Year 2008: 3.0+ million foreclosures (10,000 per say in Aug-2008)
- Year 2007: 2.0 million foreclosures
- Year 2006: 1.2 million foreclosures
- Year 2005: 846,000 foreclosures ; 2 million bankruptcies
3 Million bankruptcies are predicted for year 2009.
U.S. homes lost $2 Trillion in value in year 2008 (many of which were severely over-priced).
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).
Jim M, I’m 68 as well and you might say we’ve seem em come and seem em go. Bugs me plenty that this country is only a coupla hundred years old and it looks like we are turning a page that portends, for the first generation, to be leading to a lesser quality of lifestyle for the larger population. Kind of analogous to the gasoline engine. Finally got it perfected and now it’s time to move on to something else. I think the 50’s and 60’s represented the best for us. My dad was making in the mid $30’s while my mother worked as a housewife. We had the mule and 40 acres, bought a new car every four years. Healthcare and education didn’t seem to be a problem. But, I must counter that with the fact that at that time the US was the primo manufacturing and production place for goods and materials for much of the world. Now, we are being thrust headlong into a globalized world economy with few or no rules to be play by other than then those contrived by the world’s corporations, i.e. the WTO. Cheap labor with few humanitarian rules now sets the benchmark for each country’s economical survival or failure. Forcing population growth and when that wasn’t enough, offering citizenship to all comers while ignoring federal law. Clearly, government must take responsibility for the larger works of this. Our leaders could have managed globalization. The process could have been slowed, giving countries time to respond to economical twist and turns. Rules could have been put in place, or not ignored that serve to protect our economy and the middle class. Requiring a balanced trade deficit would have solved many a problem. Instead, our government has chosen ‘free trade’ and a ‘let the strongest survive’ mode of operation. Smaller things, like a usury law would have been beneficial. I think the federal usury law is determined as twice the rate set by any individual state. Making easy money available to the populace is a lot like setting up super-cheap drinks on the bar. Some headaches are certain to en sue. Putting international trade law above the reproach of the Supreme Court is unnerving.
One could easily blame government officials for corruption and malfeasance of duty. That is part of it. But, a lot of it can be blame on the instant communications we enjoy today. That, and improved education of the people instigates a more focused approach to capitalism. To the extent that we are more governed by corporations, through their lobbyist, than by We The People. Joe the plumber has no real need that he can relate to his elected officials. He can’t use his plane to fly them to his hometown for a little talk. He is not likely to be a big campaign donor. And, he is far remote from Wash. DC. While the lobbyist are right there, 24/7, ready with money, jets, junkets, perhaps exciting problems to solve, etc.
In that sense our government is broken, for sale, complicit if not corrupt. And, neither political party has any hope or the will to reform themselves. For them the system is working wonderfully well. For a junior politician to raise their voice against the status quo would likely cost them their head.
Therefore, if something is to be done it is left up to folks like us Jim M. Government cannot, will not reform itself. The only alternative is a new third party, or party’s, with a different political attitude. A party that provides for citizens’ oversight for elected and appointed officials. A party that targets real reform of government, and once achieved, can keep it that way.
A long hard battle to be sure but, I know of no other way. I do think the times brings promise to the rise of a viable 3rd party with a different political attitude. I fully agree with Dan’s facts and figures. We are about to get a real whoopin!
Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.
Roy wrote; “I fully agree with Dan’s facts and figures. We are about to get a real whoopin!”
Yep…a first-class spanking that we deserve. Roy, us old guys remember when America was loved by nearly all its citizens, patriotism was at its peak, our economy was humming and folks were coming up in the world. We saw our parents and neighbors working hard, going to church, helping their neighbors, and looking for ways to make life better for everyone who was willing to pitch in with the effort.
Things sure have changed…and in my opinion…not for the better. Really hard times are going to be difficult especially for the under 40 crowd who grew up with an increasing appetite for entitleitis and politicians anxious to promise ever more freebies. Us senior citizens remember hard times and dealt with it and kept on working and loving, knowing we were making things better.
Well, all that will end with the collapse of our countries financial system and perhaps that is exactly the medicine we need. From the ashes perhaps we can rebuild a government more responsive to its citizens and restore some of what I think of as virtues of good government. I think we can and will come back even better and stronger…I just don’t know when.
Perhaps then, American’s will again hear and act upon the words of Jack Kennedy when he said; “Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather…what you can do for your country.” And, I’ll add my own comment that I don’t think Jack was talking about being patriotic by paying more taxes or seeking more social programs.
Posted by: Jim M at December 31, 2008 05:05 PMJim M, it is an empirical and demonstrable fact that memories are highly selective and biased toward the positive.
Back in the 1950’s, here are some other recollections from one who has worked to mitigate that selective memory function.
Gang fights in the parking lot behind the drug store, with knives, chains, and baseball bats.
Illegal and highly dangerous drag races on city urban streets and highways, with horrific traffic accidents which were routine.
I remember racism in my grade school, in my high school. I remember race riots in Detroit, martial law, and dead lying out on freeway overpass viewable from the rooftop of the Hotel where I had been detained under protective custody and curfew.
I remember the hush conversations amongst the adults about the botched abortions in the abandoned house down the street a block of so from where we lived, conducted with coat hanger wire.
I remember money was GOD to most of the adults around me in their circles, primarily because they never had very much.
I remember air raid drills in school where we ducked under our desks and put our hands over our heads, or, were removed to the basement corridors to sit against the walls like huddled rats hiding from the potential nuclear white light.
I remember pictures of lynchings, and videos of national guard shooting at students, a few of which were hurling bricks or bottles. I remember police beating black civilians and hosing them for peaceful assembly and demonstration. I remember 3 students bodies found in an earth berm in Alabama, murdered for volunteering to help their fellow Americans. I remember their murderers proclaiming their patriotism, and my father siding with them.
I remember the SDS, the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, and robberies of corner grocery stores as routine.
I also remember the love ins, my time on a farm commune in Oregon, and building an A-Frame cabin on Mt. Hope. I remember coffee houses and folk songs of the Arlo Guthrie variety that talked of America good and bad, with the ideals and hopes of our Declaration of Independence ever present as the backdrop to those lyrics and acoustic guitar riffs.
There were good times and bad. Good people and bad. There were problems solved, and challenges yet to be met. In all, not very much different than today, actually when viewed overall and without selective memory bias, to which the human brain is predisposed as pleasant memories of the past are easier to carry in the present, and into the future.
But, the objective, problem solving mind never forgets, and ever seeks to find the relationships between history and the present, good and bad, as a measure of distance covered and accomplishments made, as instructions and guide to what works and what doesn’t, as well as keeping alive the all important ideals yet unfulfilled.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 2, 2009 12:44 PMJack Kennedy was making a point about that particular time in which the nation needed much from its people going forward. But, it is a false interpretation to take Kennedy’s words to mean that the people should expect little to nothing of their nation. The Declaration of Independence lays out what the people have a right to expect from their nation as that nation matures and accepts the responsibilities for what is hard to accomplish. “We ask these things not because they are easy, but, because they are hard”. Or words close to these, JFK.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 2, 2009 12:47 PMMr. Remer, I appreciate your walk down memory lane and respect your viewpoint. Sadly, you experienced more hatred and deprivation that I ever did. And, as you noted, we remember the good times more than the bad times. That is certainly true of my time in the Army and not true of living with my first wife.
The question; Are we better off today than yesterday is always subjective. I am certain that you could find many of your peers living in your locality, who experienced a different life than you.
Can the happiness of a nation ever be reduced to a formula or statistics on a sheet of paper? By what and whose yardstick do we measure?
I can not endow you with my historical life perspective, nor can you do the same for me. We’re at a juncture where we must agree that we’re different people in many ways, both being shaped by different paths walked.
Posted by: Jim M at January 4, 2009 04:06 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.
