This comes pretty close to conspiracy theory which we ordinarily don't do here at the Burg.
A conspiracy stratagem was openly presented by Maurice Strong, a godfather of the global environmental movement, and a former senior advisor to Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General. In 1972 Strong was a Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and he has played a critical role in its globalization. In 1992 Strong was the Secretary-General of the "World Summit" conference in Rio de Janeiro, where on his instigation the foundations for the Kyoto Protocol were laid.
In an interview Strong disclosed his mindset: "What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is "no." The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse." (Wood,1990)
#1
It is pretty easy to imagine utterly loony conspiracies emanating from the UN. UNESCO has declared 47 parts of the US to be international property, enforced by the US Dept of Interior, as "biosphere preserves", with no US citizens, other than authorized environmentalists, allowed to enter. They have also made it clear that these areas are intended to be enlarged.
To make matters worse, some years ago, some UN twit prepared a map showing most of the interior of the US depopulated, the population moved to the coasts and just a few interior cities, so that the vast majority of the US could "environmentally recover" from humans living there.
Hopefully, if there is an economic catastrophe, control and jurisdiction of most of the western US will be returned to the States it was stolen from.
#2
Isn't this anti-Global Warming stuff played out? Nowadays President Bush, John Howard of Australia, Rupert Murdoch and almost every former sceptic of any significance in the political arena has come on board with the reality of climate change, the real debate is over what should be done to combat it, and how far to go.
#4
You, and the individuals you named, are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own reality.
No REAL scientists who don't have a socialist act to grind or who don't receive government grants to study the "problem" are on board with AGW, little man, for the simple reason that there is not sufficient evidence to prove it.
Now go back to your humanities and social "science" world and leave real science to the grownups.
It's played out alright - and your side lost.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/23/2008 5:35 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Previous comment for CT, not you, Excalibur.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/23/2008 5:50 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Excalibur, I realise that, which is why I didn't refer to John Howard as Prime Minister.
However both Kevin Rudd (PM and leader of the Labour Party) and Malcolm Turnbull (Current leader of Howard's Liberal Party) hold the same opinions on climate change.
As do both Barack Obama and John McCain for that matter.
The point I was making was that there is almost universal agreement amongst the political leadership of both the left and right (including former high profile sceptics), throughout the developed world on this issue, so it would seem that arguing climate change is just a conspiracy is pointless, as the 'facts on the ground' in terms of political debate have already reached consensus and moved on.
So it would appear more likely that "your side" has lost.
#8
You're wrong, CT. Kyoto is dead as is most of the rest of that GW crap. If you truly believe in AGW, you're too deeply into the leftie Kool-Aid for reality to reach you. If you've still any sliver of an open mind on the issue, I suggest you google Steven Den Beste on the matter. You'll learn a lot.
#9
I don't buy the conspiracy theory -- the lefties have never been that good at working together or at keeping secrets. I do believe that way too many of our mostly-scientifically-ignorant politicians have either fallen for the idiocy or simply decided that giving it lip service gets some votes. Example: McCain. I don't know who advises him, but he needs some knew advisers. He has also fallen for the autism-vaccination nonsense that has been disproved in study after study. It's a shame.
#10
Let me ask C&T how many of the scientists on the UN's panel on global warming/climate change are either climate scientists, astrophysicists (sun), hydrologists or meteorologists? Now compare that total to the overall total of so-called scientists on the report. In other words, if, lets say Avian bird flu was a real threat to the world, would you believe that if all the scientists proclaiming that were mostly chemists instead of veterinarians or cellular microbiologists?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/23/2008 8:31 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It doesn't matter. Scientific facts are what they are, no matter who is polled.
#12
And the martian polar ice cap? Is it still shrinking? Would that be related to solar output, or MMGW?
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/23/2008 10:26 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I don't believe it is a coincidence that Global Warming became a religion not long after Communism failed. Most western Communists didn't truly love communism, they loathed capitalism, so global warming gave them a life-raft to keep up the fight with "pure" motives.
#14
Almost every person who is an avid believer of MMGW that I have talked to is totally deficient in even basic high school science. I have never met or talked to a single educated person with a science background that threw in with it. Not a single one.
There are changes going on in our climate patterns, but there always have been and always will be. The question is are WE doing it? If so I say we drastically scale back CO2 emissions. But lets wait till the data is in before we start shutting down the power plants and capping off the oil wells. It is at best contradictory and at worse showing a great deal of cooling in our future. We may be at a pivot point between cooling and warming right now.
#15
The point I was making was that there is almost universal agreement amongst the political leadership of both the left and right...
Posted by Cherelet and Tenille1095
And which of them are scientists? Zero, none, nadda, zilch, zippo.
Man made climate change has been debunked in the scientific community, follow the link in my sig for more info.
The basic question, aside from the other planets in our solar system having the same issue, is how does mankind's contribution of less than 1/3 of 1% of the so-called "greenhouse gasses" can possibly have any meaningful effect on our mean global temperature?
The next problem with this "global warming" hypothesis is that CO2 is a nutrient, not a polutant.
And the list of scientific evidence against this folly continues.
Politicians, unfortunately, have to cater to the uninformed as well as the informed. And they are human, so when they are given enough disinformation they may start to believe it.
Let me close with these two quotes.
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Vladimir Lenin
"Where all think alike, no one thinks very much." - Walter Lippmann
#16
CT: Why are the advocates of Global Warming changing the buzzwords to Climate Change? And now some are changing to Climate Crisis. Because the facts on the ground are starting to point to global cooling.
South Africa just recorded the coldest temps in it's recorded history, New Zealand lost a great deal of their wine crop last summer to cold weather. Last winter China recorded the coldest temps in 50 years, frost in the upper Midwest in August, etc. etc.
Think Sun Spots. Their are much larger forces at work than man. The world has warmed and cooled long before the invention of the automobile.
As an aside, man should strive to clean up his act in an orderly fashion, without subcoming to the GW hysteria.
#17
I'm sorry but I don't know how anyone could deny the global climate is changing because of human behavior. To totally discredit it without trying to know more seems to be the pattern. The same thing with evolution-deniers.
At least most scientist continue to test and experiment while these deniers just do everything they can to not find out anymore.
Climate change is more accurate term.
So the earth get's a little cooler here and there, that doesn't mean the earth is not warming up! It means the melting ice is pushing cold air down to warmer regions, but the poles are a lot warmer now and this the change in balance of earth's climate. Hurricaines, stronger winds, and droughts.
Just assume the worst and have an open mind to fixing the problem, just like cancer. We can't wish it doesn't exist! If we really find there is no problem, good!
#18
The problem with your approach is that you want to begin the cancer surgery before there's a conclusive diagnosis of where the cancer is located if it exists at all. And you are willing to eviscerate the United States and ignore any potential cancer in China and India.
#19
I disagree, there is no "surgury" taking place, no proposal to fix the problem only reduce the effects of emissions which directly threaten profits of many businessmen, thus the conflict of interest.
Lowering emissions is more like making sure you have a healthy diet by eating the proper foods and reduce smoking.
There is no excuse with China or India either but if even in America we can't agree it's real then nothing can be done to put pressure on those nations anyway.
America has to lead by example. If the problem really is we are worried about up and coming countries not adhering to emission standards, then let's declare that the issue and face it instead of going cheap by denying there is any climate change.
Evolution is science open to scientific debate, Creationism is religion not open to debate.
Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Crisis has become a religion.
Global Warming brought Earth out of the Maunder Minimum (Little Ice Age). There was a brief period of relapse in the Dalton Minimum (cost Napoleon an Army in Russia), but then the earth continued to warm up until the early 2000s.
The Global Climate has always changed. No more glaciers in Yosemite or covering Long Island.
Follow the Sun Spots on the graph and their relationship to the Earth's temperature. Currently they have dropped to zero.
Just for the record melting ice does not push cold air. Air moving over vast frozen areas with little sunshine generates cold air. There is a difference between melting and sublimation.
#21
"America has to lead by example." Glinetle McGurque6029
I suggest you look at the carbon numbers for the US compared to Europe in the last decade. Despite failing to sign Kyoto the US did better if I remember correctly.
What most Global Warming advocates want is not just restrictions but a real hobbling of the US economy. That is why the US is targetted and India and China ignored.
#23
It doesn't matter who believes it. Because the earth is cooling, the entire global warming panic is a stack of wet cow poop. And, the 'science' behind GW is taken out of context. It's a slice of data relative to nothing but stupidity.
Afghanistan's defense minister proposed Monday creating a joint Afghan-Pakistani-coalition force to operate against insurgents on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border.
Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak said the idea was broached about a month and a half ago at a meeting of senior US, Afghan and Pakistani officials.
The Pakistanis "said they are looking at it," Wardak told reporters during a visit to the Pentagon.
"A terrorist does not recognize any boundaries," Wardak said.
"So to fight them we have to eventually come up with some arrangement together with our neighbor Pakistan that we should have a combined and joint task force of coalition Afghan and Pakistani forces to be able to operate on both sides of the border."
Pentagon officials said the idea of forming a joint force with the Afghan military was not a new one, but in the past had been rebuffed by the Pakistanis because of concerns for their sovereignty.
#1
Pakistan doesn't have any sovereignty in their western terroritory anyway. Nothing to lose, so why not go for it? They would lose little and gain a lot of safety.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/23/2008 1:24 Comments ||
Top||
The West has a notoriously bad habit of betraying countries which defend freedom. During President Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, he sentenced the people of Eastern Europe to communist rule following World War II when he connived with "Uncle Joe" Stalin at the Yalta Conference.
When Serbia--an ally of the United States in both World War I and World War II--sought to expel the Islamic invaders who settled in its territory of Kosovo, the United States and NATO launched a military operation to defend the Islamists from the native inhabitants of the Balkans. When Kosovo eventually seceded, the West sanctioned the secession by recognizing Kosovo as a sovereign state. If Charles Martel lived today and tried to expel the Islamic invaders from Europe, it would not be surprising if the so-called leader of the free-world--the president of the United States--held a press conference at which he announced the intention of the West to bring "war criminal" Charles Martel to justice. Excellent article. Balance at the link.
#1
When Soviet-sympathizer and terrorist Nelson Mandela desired to take South Africa away from the Afrikaners...
How great was white-controlled Rhodesia compared to black Marxist-controlled Zimbabwe?
Sorry but millions of black africans weren't going to be ruled by white europeans a fraction their number circa 2008 regardless of what the West did or didn't do during the Cold War.
They didn't have to be "ruled" by whites. They could have been partners in governance and economics.
They could have abandoned their defective (no other word will do) culture and economic system and joined the government as enlightened equals to the whites living there. Had they done so thirty years ago Rhodesia would be a strong, wealth-generating, vibrant country with ecnonomic opportunity for people of all skin color.
But instead they took the worst concepts the West has contrived - collectivism and hyperregulatory central planning and cultural Marxism - and combined it with the worst Africa contrived - tribalism and thuggish autocracy - and everyone in the country is worse off.
In the end, it wasn't "rule by whites" that rankled them, it was participation in democracy and capitalism that was too daunting for the native African leaders and their sympathizers amongst leftists living in the West - people who wanted some form of communism to flourish somewhere, so they consigned third world countries throughout the world to live like that as though they were science projects designed to find a way, some way, for communism to work.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/23/2008 6:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
They didn't have to be "ruled" by whites. They could have been partners in governance and economics.
You do realise that the entire political system of post-colonial Rhodesia was based on resistance to Majority Rule, wherein 95% of the population of Rhodesia were effectively disenfranchised?
#4
One thing cannot be argued: both whites and blacks were better off under the white-run Rhodesian Government than they have been under a black-run Zimbabwean Government.
This isn't surprising, as most of Africa was safer and more productive under colonialism than it has been since. Africa had more of a presence in the world economic system in 1960 than it has today, largely due to the abysmal decline in the quality of governance from colonial rule to independence. Hell, even the Italians were orders of magnitude better for Somalia than Somali governments have been.
That said, J.S. Mill said history is replete with examples where people have decided it's better to be ruled badly by themselves than well by others. Africa is the poster child for that statement. Maybe the coming imposition of Chinese colonial rule will straighten Africa up. It couldn't get much worse.
#5
The West has a notoriously bad habit of betraying countries which defend freedom. During President Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, he sentenced the people of Eastern Europe to communist rule following World War II when he connived with "Uncle Joe" Stalin at the Yalta Conference.
Oh stuff it. The friggin Red Army was sitting on the damn terrain. The Western allies were struggling in Italy and elsewhere just to make headway when Yalta occurred without anyone having any real idea of where their forces would be by VE day, if there was going to be one. Normandy was so iffy, that Ike wrote a prepared statement in case of failure. By the time the armies met along the Elbe it was pretty much set by physical presence who'd end up occupying what afterward. Short of going to war directly with the Soviets, no one was going to dislodge them from the land they sat on. And in 1945 the boys at the newly built Pentagon were busy trying to move the Army in Europe to the Pacific for the forthcoming assault upon the home islands of Japan. Only a few knew of the bombs or even knew what the ultimate effect would be. War with the Soviets wasn't on the planning table either then or after Japan, rather it was demobilization.
When Serbia--an ally of the United States in both World War I and World War II..
The Serbs were a major player in starting WWI in 1914 [giving us the world we'd live and die in great numbers for next 80 years]. The US joined the French and British in 1917 because of German submarine warfare and the Zimmerman telegram, not for Serbia. And Serbia didn't exist in WWII, it was Yugoslavia. And all players in Yugoslavia worked both sides of the conflict for their own interests.
#7
One problem was throughout the cold war we only seemed to have two options. Capitalism and Communism. If the Capitalists were in charge the Soviets pumped money in favor of rebellion and vice-versa.
What we needed was a third way. Some good old Swedish Socialism coming in. Who cares if they have a nanny state that makes them economically unviable as long as they are peaceful and free from European dominance.
#8
Sorry but millions of black africans weren't going to be ruled by white europeans a fraction their number circa 2008 regardless of what the West did or didn't do during the Cold War.
Ya know, the whole 'minority rule' thing doesn't seem to have stopped Mugabe.
#9
What we needed was a third way. Some good old Swedish Socialism coming in. Who cares if they have a nanny state that makes them economically unviable as long as they are peaceful and free from European dominance.
Back when Chavez was just another candidate running for office in Venezuela (after the government had given him whatever sort of amnesty for the coup attempts he had made) he said he wanted to find a third way.
So yah, the capitalists and westerners are always convenient suckers for that. It works for the communists every time.
#10
A third way that is just redressed Communism is not a third way. I'm talking more about the third way from Labor in the UK. I wouldn't want to live under it myself, but it's better than Communism and more acceptable after European imperialism seems to have soured many Africans on Capitalism.
The third way truly should have come from a neutral non-European like India, but they happily sidled up to the Soviets when we didn't give them enough attention.
#11
It is also possible a third way could have come from the US if things had gone differently during the Suez crisis and the French and British hadn't given up, voted labor in and closed shop.
#12
Swedish Socialism requires a wealthy and orderly society to support the expenses. Nowhere in Africa is or has been that kind of society, ancient Egypt included. (The Egyptians worked or starved except for the tiny aristocracy, almost all of which worked as hard as the peasants. The pharaoh and his chief wife were as much active heads of the priesthood as the pharaoh was ruler of the country, from what I can gather.)
#14
I agree, blacks werent going to accept white minority rule. The nominal policy of giving the franchise to a small minority of wealthy blacks (while any poor illiterate white could vote) wasnt going to change that. And no, being ruled by a minority political party or military isnt the same, cause it doesnt mean you are excluded by the very conditions of your birth, in ways that constantly humiliate you.
and Zimbabwe isnt condemned to communism (even if you want to call what exists there now communism, though IIUC there is still private property there in sectors other than agriculture) There is political change happening there right now.
Odd too that teh above is a sympathiser with Slobo, who WAS a communist. BTW, there was no invasion, albanians had lived in europe since Roman times. They CONVERTED to Islam. Well mostly. Many didnt. The ones who were still Christians ALSO opposed Serb rule, and ALSO were subject to ethnic cleansing.
and most the ones who were muslim were not Islamists.
#15
Mugabe had lots of choices of how to rule after gaining power. He chose poorly, nay almost perversely.
He either killed or ran off most of those who had the expertise to actually produce wealth in the country (black and white). He has been eating the seed stock ever since.
This did not have to be a black-white thing. Mugabe, however, chose to base his governance on that ethnic tension, thus making him no better and for the average man on the street far worse than the leaders of Rhodesia.
#16
As a minor academic point, one of ZANU-PF's predecessors was backed by China.
And no, being ruled by a minority political party or military isnt the same, cause it doesnt mean you are excluded by the very conditions of your birth, in ways that constantly humiliate you.
The Zimbawean regime (ZANU-PF) is controlled by the Shona. Not a minority, but it does mean exclusion by conditions of birth.
It was all over the press last week. At a time when the conflict in the Caucasus reached an alarming level, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan called Foreign Minister Ali Babacan. Come Ali we are going to Moscow, he said. They both got on the plane. At the end of a brainstorming that lasted during the three hour flight they landed in Moscow with the Caucasus cooperation and stability platform. And the Foreign Ministry's bureaucracy learned about it from the press.
Although those who are fond of conspiracy theories won't like to hear it, sometimes, there are simple explanations to specific state behaviors. Criticized by the press at the at the early days of the conflict for being on vacation and doing nothing to defuse the tension it appears that the members of government came up with this Caucasus platform in order to calm down the press by giving the impression that they are doing something concrete. Thank God (or in fact tanks to Washington) the Georgians started to drag their feet which will hopefully provide the opportunity for the government to think more (than three hours) about whether the platform which covers Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia and Armenia is a good idea.
Turkey's policy under scrutiny
Recently Turkey's Caucasus policy came under scrutiny at a security conference in Istanbul organized by the Arı Group. Most of the panelists argued that Russia's invasion of Georgia was intended actually to strike a blow to the east west energy corridor. Richard Giragosyan, an American Armenian who has been living in Yerevan for the past two years said with its new initiative Turkey took the frozen problems of the region from the US agenda, and put it to the Russian agenda. No wonder how the Russians have jumped on the idea whereas the Americans tried to kill it through Tbilisi.
What is so obvious to a group of experts is not so obvious to the Turkish government.
It appears that no one thought about the implications of giving leverage to the Russians on both Turkish Armenian rapprochement and the problem or Nagorno Karabagh through the Caucasus platform. Obviously it will be unthinkable for Russia which is deeply engaged in Armenia not to play a role in the diplomatic processes involving Armenians. But this is the gist of the problem. In a regional platform Russia will undoubtedly make all the others play to its tune, and it will be impossible for Turkey to counterbalance Moscow.
If Turkey wants a solution to Nagorno Karabagh and improve its relations with Yerevan it will need the backing of the United States as well as the European Union which has leverage over Armenia. Only these two power centers can counterbalance the influence of the Russians in Armenia.
The argument behind the Turkish proposal that regional problems should be solved by the regional players not outside powers, can only be valid if your regional interlocutors have good will and a spirit of cooperation, a mentality which seems absent in today's Russia. In contrast to the Turkish foreign policy which seeks stability in the Caucasus, Russia derives its strength and influence in the region from the existence of instability. It is thanks to that policy that today it offers the Azerbaijani government a solution on Nagorno Karabagh in exchange for its energy sources.
I had heard previously an Azerbaijani official talking about this proposal but was unable to confirm it. Last week a Russian newspaper ran a report on the offer made to Azerbaijan on similar lines. Considering the current Russian mentality, this should not come as a surprise.
Speaking at the Arı conference Sergei Markov, an advisor to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was very clear about the Russian position. If the energy pipelines passes from our territory we support it. If it does not we don't support it, he said with a tone in his voice as if asking what's wrong with that. One can hardly call this a spirit of cooperation based on mutual interest.
Unfortunately the brain storming of Erdoğan and Babacan on a three hour flight to Moscow seems to have ended with the naive belief that Turkey can handle that kind of mentality alone.
#1
See WAFF.com > RUSSIAN-GEORGIAN CONFLICT/WAR > THE KREMLIN'S STRAIGHT FACE + RUSSIA'S MILITARY FORCES ADVANCING BLINDLY. RUSSIA'S MILITARY FORCES ARE TOO WEAK TO FIGHT THE US-NATO BUT CAN STILL INTIMIDATE/THREATEN NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES.
ALso, KOMMERSANT > US SAYS RUSSIA TOO WEAK TO FIGHT ANOTHER COLD WAR; + TOPIX > RUSSIA'S SECRET PRO-NATO AGENDA IN GEORGIA + RUSSIA USING "GANGLAND" APPROACH IN GEORGIA.
#3
You know I was thinking the other day that the reason he wrote his two books was that if he hadn't then the press would have to look not for his last years at Columbia but also the years between 1961 and now. I think he is so empty and so full of it that he reminds me of that other poor soul that Oprah empathized with and later found out he had made up his life story. This guy is looking more and more like a plant out of John LeCarre novel.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/23/2008 16:06 Comments ||
Top||
During his Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly, Sen. Barack Obama responded to one question where the statistics contradicted his position by saying that "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." He then went on to say that 95 percent of Americans would get a tax break under his economic plan. That's ironic, because his comment on "damned lies and statistics" is the perfect commentary on his own plan. Taken with Sen. Joe Biden's novel definition of patriotism, Team Obama is making an argument that Americans have never bought.
The statistics speak for themselves. Only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama's 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more.
That is pure income redistribution. Some pundits argue that this is Keynesian demand-side economics. It is not. Having the government take money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it to those who pay no federal income taxes is not Keynesian. It's Marxist.
American voters don't buy Team Obama's arguments. A recent Gallup poll shows that 53 percent of Americans believe that Mr. Obama would raise their taxes. A recent Zogby poll shows a majority of Americans understand that raising taxes will hurt the economy.
Energy prices have pounded the U.S. economy. The recent woes on Wall Street have further shaken our weakened economy. Certain pillars of our economy, such as productivity gains and American ingenuity, continue to be powerful economic assets. But the current debt situation, spending trends, the cost of combating global terrorism, along with the energy crisis, leaves our economy in a truly precarious position.
Most credible economists warn that raising taxes during an economic downturn only makes the situation worse. Given our current economic situation, Mr. Obama's tax plan is the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a fire.
Then we come to the Team Obama fantasy that the Obama plan would cut taxes for most Americans. Yes, Mr. Obama says he will cut rates for lower-income Americans, but will more than offset that by raising taxes on dividends, capital gains, higher incomes, corporations, estates, and payrolls. But most Americans own stock, either directly or through their IRA, 401k or union pensions. Dividend and capital gains taxes will take money from all those. Those Americans on Main Street who own a house or have other investments will be punished by a capital gains tax increase.
Businesses and corporations do not pay taxes; we do. Businesses don't have huge piles of money sitting in the closet that they simply turn over to government when taxes increase. For every dollar that you increase taxes on a business, they simply increase their prices by a dollar. Who then pays the tax? We do. We do, when the product that we bought last week for $20 suddenly costs $21.
Mr. Obama's plan for universal health care and increased spending on just about everything costs hundreds of billions of dollars. To keep his promises to provide those things while eliminating the deficit and giving checks to lower-income families, he will have to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. But if lower-income Americans receive a check for $1,000 under the Obama plan yet have to pay $2,000 more when buying food and clothes, they are worse off.
Affluent Americans have not had a tax holiday during the Bush administration. Most analysts agree that the affluent pay more under Mr. Bush. In 2000, the top 1 percent of earners paid less than one-third of all income tax; now they pay 40 percent. The affluent already carry more of the burden.
The ancient Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder once said, "In wine there is truth." It means that people tell you what they really think once they have a couple of drinks.
I don't think Mr. Biden was drinking on the campaign trail last week, but it was a rare moment of complete candor when he told ABC News that people who are well-off have a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes. That perfectly states the liberal Democratic philosophy that those who do the right things in their personal life to make more money have an obligation not only to pay more taxes (which they do even under a flat tax because 17 percent of higher-income is more than 17 percent of lower-income), but that they should pay an ever-higher additional percentage on top of that. Liberal Democrats consider it patriotic to pay more taxes, and have a consistent record of voting to help nurture our patriotism for us.
That reveals what is really going on here. The statistics don't lie. Team Obama's plan is not economically prudent, and it's not a patriotic tonic for what ails our economy.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/23/2008 06:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Posted for my friend, Edd, an occasional lurker.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/23/2008 6:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
giving checks to lower-income families, he will have to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. But if lower-income Americans receive a check for $1,000 under the Obama plan yet have to pay $2,000 more when buying food and clothes, they are worse off.
More imperialist dogma. Comrade Obama will provide food, clothes, government mandated forgiveness from Discover Card and Amex debt. Free housing will also be provided seperately. The periodic $1000 cash payments will be provided for Escalade lease payments and gas.
#3
Both candidate's economic plans will be rendered moot by January 20th due to the current unfolding crisis. Obama's plans are already irrelevant & getting more so daily.
#4
Just because you are lowering taxes does not mean that you increase the amount of money returned. In Obama's plan it probably does, but it doesn't necessarily mean so.
#5
I'm waiting for a politician to say, okay, IRS is gone. Flat tax has worked wonders in Chile and the Baltic States so we'll start at 15% (or whatever the economists decide). We believe this will unclutter the economy and a year from now (or two) we'll further fine-tune. Also we're planning an across the board budget cut. Everything gets cut 10% except the military. Other programs are just gonna have to go because we can't pay off Social Security the way we're going and those cute little old people, well we promised them long before we promised the piss-Christ artist he'd get cash.
#6
Word RJ. I want to see Congress actually have some balls. No way it is going to happen, at least on the Dem side. But it would be nice to see the Republicans actually step up and put forth a plan that would introduce fundamental change. Of course some groups would be pissed off. So what. They are going to be a whole lot more pissed off if the economy goes deep into the tank due to Obama/the dems mismanagement.
If Obama does win, you know he is going to screw things up so badly that there won't be another democrat elected president for a generation. But that screw up is going to cost us all dearly.
#7
I want to see Congress actually have some balls.
Ain't going to happen. At least not the way you're hoping, Remoteman.
The key problem here is that we have lawyers making our laws. They have a vested interest in creating complex, weasle worded wonders that they or their ilk can bypass at will. Until we fix that, we're not going to have law for the common man, and the legal profession will continue to screw us into the ground.
#10
Every once in awhile in the US a third party replaces one of the existing parties. I think that time is overdue. If Obama loses it's likely the Greens will gain in strength. If Obama wins the Libertarians (or the Libertarian wing of the Republicans) will gain strength.
I just think too many people are pissed off right now. I mean Bush's numbers are low. Congress is even lower. Both candidates are trying to campaign as outsiders and reformers. Everyone knows the system is screwed but the boys and girls in Congress just can't control themselves long enough anymore.
#11
When you allow kids in the candy store they're bound to make a mess.
Congress on both sides of the aisle is exactly that and has been for a long time.
There are programs in this country that I think are vital (the military, NASA, maybe the Dept of Energy which funds a LOT of long-term research which has direct benefits, maybe a few others). A 10% across-the-board budget cut would kill NASA and lot of DOE programs, but you could easily eliminate a few dozen other government departments and programs - the IRS, the Dept of Education, HUD, and others just to start. Getting rid of the nearly 2-dozen government police agencies and forcing the FBI to do its job would be another. Restructuring the Dept of State and the CIA would also be a start.
Inevitably, you're going to have to force the tes of thousands of government workers and lawyers out of their comfy do-nothing government jobs out into a labor force where a lot of them will have the skills only to dig ditches (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).
One can dream, but as long as it's kids minding the candy store there's going to be a mess.
#12
We can save a ton of money just by getting rid of HUD and Education - there's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes them at the federal level anyway.
Not that that stops the politicians....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/23/2008 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Don't leave out the CDC: they're the medical DEW line for the entire planet. We give them way too little money for what they do.
As an aside, I trade stocks just for my own benefit, I'm not out to make a killing, just a bit of extra cash, and I've done well the last couple of weeks, Trading Ford Only, I've managed to turn $7,000 into $7,800 and change. we'll see what the next couple of weeks brings.
(Simple rules, buy around 4.60- sell around 5.00, 1000 shares brings a hundred bucks per Dime's change, average sale 20 to 30 cents above buy price, don't try for more at once. a bunch of small trades works much beter than trying for a huge killing that never comes.)
(and no it wasn't all profit, a couple of times I lost a few hundred, but overall I'm doing OK.)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
09/23/2008 19:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Again, 2008-2012 [2016] POST-DUBYA POTUS PERIOD > SOCIALISM-GOVTISM IN AMERIKA [overt].
The best time for RADICAL ISLAMISM [Iran + Militants-Terr Groups] TO FORMALLY GO NUU-KUU-LAAR - "WHITNEY HUSTON" FAN OSAMA BIN LADEN NOR ANY ISLAMIST HIDDEN IMAM-MAHDI/"SALADIN, etc INCARNATE" CAN'T ASK FOR BETTER LOCAL-WORLD CONDITIONS OR TIME TO MAKE AN APPEARANCE AND KICK INFIDEL, JUDEO-CHRISTIAN OR NON-ISLAMIC, HINIES.
Washington The Club for Growth condemned the massive government bailout proposed by the Treasury and the Bush administration as unnecessary, unfair to taxpayers, and fraught with serious costs to the American economy.
Eighteen months into the credit crunch, many largely capitalized financial services firms are experiencing serious difficulties but the overall economy continues to grow. GDP growth over the past 12 months was 2.25 percent and 3.5 percent when excluding the drag imposed by the housing sector. Even within the financial sector, many banks are doing well. Regional bank indices had risen significantly since the lows of last Julyprior to the bailout announcementand thousands of community banks are thriving. It is extraordinary that a massive government intervention in the economy is considered inevitable when the economy is not even in a recession.
At the same time, socializing economic risks come at a great cost to the American economy by misallocating capital, inviting political manipulation, and putting taxpayers on the hook for possibly a trillion dollars. Such a large takeover by the government will surely be accompanied by adverse, unintended consequences. Already, other companies and industries are lining up at governments door asking for their own bailout. And if the government incurs $700 billion in debt to finance the purchase of bad bank assets, the danger that it will eventually monetize that debt and trigger dramatic inflation is very worrisome
The Treasurys bailout proposal will likely cause more harm than good, said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. Instead of launching the largest government bailout since the Great Depression, the government should be implementing policies to stimulate the economy. These include, at a minimum, cutting the tax on capital gains, cutting corporate taxes, reviewing and considering repeal of FAS 57 which requires banks to mark-to-market most securities, and emphasizing the need for a strong dollar.
Finally, many politicians are using the current struggle to make free-market capitalism the scapegoat for the economys troubles, when in fact, government played a major role in getting us into this mess in the first place. Free-market capitalism is alive and well, and we should be embracing its tenets, not rejecting them.
It sounds like the rabid rantings of some poor demented shlub posting at the Democratic Underground. Instead, it is Al Gore's former fashion adviser, Naomi Wolf, indulging in sanity-challenged fantasies on her Huffington Post blog. The target of Wolf's derangement is Sarah Palin and it is so over the top that one might suspect Wolf is an agent provocateur working for conservatives in order to discredit the left. Think I'm kidding? Check out this sampling of Wolf's plunge off the political deep end (emphasis mine):
Please understand what you are looking at when you look at Sarah "Evita" Palin. You are looking at the designated muse of the coming American police state.
You have to understand how things work in a closing society in order to understand "Palin Power." A gang or cabal seizes power, usually with an affable, weak figurehead at the fore. Then they will hold elections -- but they will make sure that the election will be corrupted and that the next affable, weak figurehead is entirely in their control.
Um, thanks for letting us "understand" how things work, Naomi. And from here, she regales us with a strong dose of melodrama:
I realized early on with horror what I was seeing in Governor Palin: the continuation of the Rove-Cheney cabal, but this time without restraints. I heard her echo Bush 2000 soundbites ("the heart of America is on display") and realized Bush's speechwriters were writing her -- not McCain's -- speeches. I heard her tell George Bush's lies -- not McCain's -- to the American people, linking 9/11 to Iraq. I heard her make fun of Barack Obama for wanting to prevent the torture of prisoners -- this is Rove-Cheney's enthusiastic S and M, not McCain's, who, though he shamefully colluded in the 2006 Military Tribunals Act, is also a former prisoner of war and wrote an eloquent Newsweek piece in 2005 opposing torture. I saw that she was even styled by the same skillful stylist (neutral lipstick, matte makeup, dark colors) who turned Katharine Harris from a mall rat into a stateswoman and who styles all the women in the Bush orbit --but who does not bother to style Cindy McCain. . . .
You probably think Wolf's rantings could not get any more bizarre but it does. It does:
Under the coming Palin-Rove police state, you will witness the plans now underway to bring Iraqi troops to patrol the streets of our nation.
Under the Palin-Rove police state, there will be no further true elections. Mark Crispin Miller has done sensational and under-reported investigating t o establish that -- as I warned -- indeed the GOP staffers on the US Senate Judiciary Committee have been .
Under the Palin-Rove police state, citizens will be targeted with state cyberterrorism. Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda, a former Reagan official, warned me three years ago that the Bush team went after a Republican who had crossed them through cyberstalking: they messed with his email, messed with his phones and I believe messed with his bank account -- he became a cyber-pariah, unemployable and haunted.
Am I trying to scare you? I am. I am trying to scare you to death and ask you to scare your Republican and independent friends most of all. How do you know when it is war on citizens? When there are mass arrests, journalists are jailed, the opposition is infiltrated, rights are stripped and leaders start to ignore the rule of law.
Okay, enough with the regular political fantasies. Let us now watch Wolf's hard core paranoia:
Almost everyone I work with on projects related to this campaign for liberty has been experiencing computer harassment: emails are stripped, messages disappear. That's not all: people's bank accounts are being tampered with: wire transfers to banks vanish in midair. I personally keep opening bank accounts that are quickly corrupted by fraud. Money vanishes. Coworkers of mine have to keep opening new email accounts as old ones become infected. And most disturbingly to me personally is the mail tampering I have both heard of and experienced firsthand. My tax returns vanished from my mailbox. All my larger envelopes arrive ripped straight open apparently by hand. When I show the postman, he says "That's impossible." Horrifyingly to me is the impact on my family. My childrens' report cards are returned again and again though perfectly addressed; their invitations are turned back; and my daughters many letters from camp? Vanished. All of them. Not one arrived. Try explaining that to a smart thirteen year old. Try explaining it in a way that still makes her feel secure and comfortable.
Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers...
Oops! Wolf's diatribe caused your humble correspondent to channel Captain Queeg. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
09/23/2008 09:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
She's comparing Sarah Palin to Evita????
Ok....well...she was a sports reporter, so I guess that's kinda/sorta close to being a radio actress, but exactly what rank did Todd Palin hold in the military again?
She's stuck in that "a woman can't attain power unless she marries into it or is born to it" BS. Stick to picking out earth tones for alpha males, sweetie. It's what you're best at.
#3
Recently, on Drudge, I think, was a report that vegetables shrunk your brain. Need we more evidence than this?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/23/2008 9:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Al Gore's former fashion adviser
Strange profession ... I never put the word "fashion" and "Al Gore" together in a sentence before. Its not something obvious...
#8
Wolf was born in San Francisco, California in 1962
In 2006, the Sunday Herald carried an interview in which Wolf claimed to have taken on the spirit of a 13-year-old boy and saw Jesus Christ.[2] The paper called her comments "more than a little disturbing," and Salon magazine called the confession "truly outlandish."
Camille Paglia derided Wolf as unable to perform "historical analysis," and called her education "completely removed from reality."
Likewise, Christina Hoff Sommers criticized Wolf for publishing the claim that 150,000 women were dying every year from anorexia.
Caryn James lambasted the book as a "sloppily researched polemic as dismissible as a hackneyed adventure film...Even by the standards of pop-cultural feminist studies, "The Beauty Myth" is a mess." After rejecting her thesis, the review leveled even harsher appraisal of her methodology and statistics, writing, "Ms. Wolf doesn't begin to prove her claims because her logic is so lame, her evidence so easily knocked down...Her statistics are shamefully secondhand and outdated."
The New York Times published a stinging review that characterized Wolf as a "frustratingly inept messenger: a sloppy thinker and incompetent writer. She tries in vain to pass off tired observations as radical apercus, subjective musings as generational truths, sappy suggestions as useful ideas."
The Library Journal excoriated the work, writing, "Overgeneralization abounds as she attempts to apply the microcosmic events of this mostly white, middle-class, liberal milieu to a whole generation....There is a desperate defensiveness in the tone of this book which diminishes the force of her argument."
Slate Magazine wrote, "Both her evidence and her reasoning are deeply flawed...Her gaps and imprecision give fodder to skeptics who think sexual harassment charges are often just a form of hysteria."
The Wall Street Journal wrote, "One is left with the unpleasant suspicion that Ms. Wolf wanted to get back into the spotlight and went rummaging in her basket of anecdotes until she found a juicy one to squeeze for publicity."[28] The Washington Post called for an end to "exaggerated victimhood as embodied by Wolf."[29] Author Camille Paglia described herself as "shocked" at the allegations and told the Guardian, "It really smacks of the Salem witch-hunts and all the accompanying hysteria. It really grates on me that Naomi Wolf for her entire life has been batting her eyes and bobbing her boobs in the face of men and made a profession out of courting male attention."
Wolf has spoken favorably about the dress required of women living in Muslim countries. She observed
The West interprets veiling as repression of women and suppression of their sexuality. But when I travelled in Muslim countries and was invited to join a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes, I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women's appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one's husband. It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling - toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home.
According to a report by Michael Duffy in Time, Wolf was paid a monthly salary of $15,000 "in exchange for advice on everything from how to win the womens vote to shirt-and-tie combinations."
I read her Wikipedia page so you don't have to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf
#9
Naomi did have one brief moment of sanity, when she wrote "Fire with Fire" - wherein she pointed out that strict doctrinaire feminism was getting women nowhere... and if women were going to play seriously in the political world, we would have to let go of the man-bashing, the various 'loyalty tests' that the hard-line feminists were apt to apply to other women... and tolerate divergent views among us.
Seriously, I wonder what happened to 'that' Naomi Wolf. It's as if the woman who wrote an eminently sane and realistic book about women and serious political power had been kidnapped, heavily medicated and sent to a reeducation camp, where she was made to produce this kind of insane dribble.
#12
Her unhinged state was made very apparent during W's first term. She had a complete midlife crisis meltdown and wrote an article claiming that young women's preference for trimming of their nether regions represented some sort of repressive setback for the women's movement and that it was wrong that the sight of any naked female body in any state (read, her own) didn't excite modern young men into mad lust, followed by an embarrasing onscreen groping of a horrified David Horowitz on MSNBC a few weeks later.
She seemed to disappear for a while after that, I assumed she was in counseling. I see that I assumed wrong.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/23/2008 15:06 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Parebellum, are you a glutton for inanity or what?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/23/2008 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
What lies behind such fantasies? We suspect the answer is that for malcontented citizens of a free society, imagining that one is being persecuted is a means of self-affirmation, of styling oneself a hero. Like a nut in search of a squirrel, Wolf seeks validation in being preyed upon. She flatters herself that she is important enough for anyone to be interested in reading her mail. She even invokes the name of erstwhile Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky (though she misspells it).
Posted by: Mike ||
09/23/2008 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Compare wid FOXNEWS AM > AHMADINEJAD - THE AMERICAN EMPIRE IS NEARING COLLAPSE.
Moud is prob doing the "PRO-BUSH BUT MODERATE POTUS MCCAIN + JIMMY CARTER II POTUS OBAMA + ANGRY RUSSIA-CHINA, etc = NUCLEAR IRAN/ISLAMISM = OWG CALIPHATE" Post-Jan 2009 Math???
What would be the dollar cost of not bailing out Wall Street?
Try a number north of $30 trillion.
What would be the dollar cost of not bailing out Wall Street? Try a number north of $30 trillion. (The awful math is detailed below.) That's why Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke were so scared last week. And, yes, I think "scared" isn't too strong a word. You don't think they convened an emergency nighttime meeting of congressional leaders and then walked out with something close to a blank check for a trillion bucks because they thought we were headed for an outright recession, even a fairly nasty one?
Nope, I think they believed, and got Congress to believe, that the economy was on the verge of something far worse than the worst downturn in a generation. And that is why they went with the so-called nuclear option: the biggest financial bailout in history. In the words of JPMorgan Chase economist James Glassman, "Thankfully, we and our friends around the world who are watching the economic lights come on will never know where events would have led, if the clock had not stopped [last] Thursday afternoon.... Last week's events made the 1987 stock market crash look like child's play."
As plumbers say about pricey repairs, "Sure, it costs money. It costs money because it saves you money." And plumber in chief Paulson had a pretty big pipe, loaded with toxic debt, to unclog.
OK, let's run the numbers. Paulson is asking for $700 billion. But that massive amount doesn't include previous government actions to cure the credit crisis (like propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), nor does it take into account money the government may get back from selling the bad assets it will be purchasing. So let's say those situations cancel each other out, and we are really talking about $700 billion. Now that money is being borrowed. So you take $700 billion borrowed for 30 years at prevailing interest rates, and you are talking about $2.5 trillion. But as Paulson said last week, "I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative: a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion."
Now let's do the math on the "alternatives." What would doing nothing cost?
1) Scenario 1: Great Depression "Lite." This is supposed to be the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. So let's assume that the total freezing up of American and global credit markets caused something half as bad as the Great Depression. From 1930 through 1933, the U.S. economy shrank by about 25 percent. Now let's say that by doing nothing and letting Mr. Market do his worst, the $12 trillion U.S. economy shrinks by half that amount (12.5 percent), or around $1.5 trillion over four years. (Also, figure a near doubling in unemployment.) But there's also the opportunity cost of not returning to growth, even at a so-so 2.0 percent a year. Doing nothing costs $1.1 trillion more in lost growth. So now we are down $2.6 trillion.
But wait: There's more. Let's assume the stock market drops an additional 25 percent or so. That's $3 trillion more in lost market capitalization. Plus, we are forgoing the opportunity to gain back what we have lost in the market, about $3 trillion. So, add the $6 million in lost market capitalization to the lost economic output, and we are at $8.6 trillion.
Then there is housing, already down $5 trillion, or roughly 20 percent. Let's conservatively say that we lose another $5 trillion by doing nothing. Plus, we forgo a partial rebound, say, $2.5 trillion. Adding together further housing losses (plus the lost opportunity to recoup some losses), and we are talking about a total cost of doing nothing of $15 trillion in four years for the whole megillah. But it could be worse.
2) Scenario 2: Great Depression 2.0. The economy shrinks by 25 percent over four years, or $3.2 trillion, plus $1.1 trillion in lost opportunity growth. Economic cost: $4.3 trillion. The market falls two thirds from its peak, losing $7 trillion in value from its current level, plus $3 trillion from not getting a rebound. Stock market cost: $10 trillion. Housing falls an additional $10 trillion from current levels, plus the lost opportunity of $2.5 trillion from a rebound. Housing cost: $12.5 trillion. Total four-year financial and economic cost of doing nothing: $26.8 trillion.
Now this is all a very rough guesstimate and doesn't include the costs of all sorts of other ramifications. Here is a fun one: the dissolution of China. Its economy is built for hypergrowth. A dramatically rising standard of living is both keeping the Communist Party in power and keeping the country together. Neither might survive a global economic meltdown. What is the economic impact of that? I don't know. My guesstimator just blew up.
Bottom line: Lots of folks have problems with the bailout. Liberals don't like a government bailout of Wall Street (instead of more homeowner help). Conservatives don't like a government bailout of Wall Street (vs. letting the market have its way). In a commentary on the National Review website, Newt Gingrich shows great skepticism toward the Mother of All Bailouts, advising that Congress "had better ask a lot of questions before it shifts this much burden to the taxpayer and shifts this much power to a Washington bureaucracy." He also presents several other actions government could take: 1) suspend the mark-to-market accounting rule; 2) repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley law; 3) eliminate the capital-gains tax; 4) undertake an "all of the above" energy plan to keep at home $500 billion of the $700 billion we currently send overseas for imported energy.
Count me as "all of the above" for Gingrich's ideas. (Toss in a corporate tax cut while you're at it.) But what would have been a smart, free-market plan in August 2007 or March of this year isn't enough for right now. Just as government created the environment for the credit crisis, it failed to enact quick solutions. The situation has gone critical. It's time for shock and awe.
#1
There are so many assumptions in this estimate that I got lost in them after the 4th or 5th one. If I trusted my assumptions that much, I'd be playing the stock market now rather than reading Rantburg. One thing I'm sure of: housing prices will have to fall to levels matching historical ones, with respect to incomes of creditworthy would-be house buyers -- and there is a very long way to go before that happens, and a lot of pain on the way to that point. No politician can say that without getting lynched -- this is the third rail of this election year. The US will have to get into a line of work different from that of selling real estate to ourselves at ever increasing prices.
#2
This garbage just proves one thing. Having shit for brains gets one nowhere. I don't know how this mess gets resolved, but it is becoming quite clear that a majority of ordinary citizens oppose this bailout. I hope they all rail at their Senators and Representatives. Yesterday I sent some "very hot" emails to mine. Today, when I have time, I'm calling them and I'm even more upset today than I was yesterday.
#3
This is such a garbage article, I simply do not know where to begin. His whole premise is that people who borrow too much money to bet the wrong way should be bailed out, or there will be dire consequences.
The reality is that overleveraged corporations that make wrong-way bets ought to be allowed to fail, as they have been in the past. There will always be other pools of capital available to pick up the pieces. I trust owner investors like Warren Buffett and T. Boone Pickens to run these places, post-liquidation, a lot more than I trust the hedge fund manager-wannabes who currently run them. Note that big chunks of bankrupt Lehman will continue to operate, having already been bought up by other companies. And all this without any cost to the taxpayer. Doing Japan-style bailouts will not only not stop stock market declines, it will ensure Japanese-style multi-decade economic stagnation.
#4
Once again, let me bring in the concept of "real" versus "imaginary" multi-leveraged money. The "core economy" of the US is based in real money industries, and must be protected at all costs. The imaginary money economy is one of speculation and unregulated excess.
Unfortunately, like drug lords, the imaginary economy speculators try very hard to launder their speculation through core industries.
And even though it is not a core industry, the best example of this was when AOL merged with Time-Warner. An "imaginary" company merging with a "real" company.
Knowing better, as soon as the merger was done, the AOL executives dumped every share they had in the combined enterprise, massively looting Time-Warner.
The way to defend against this, as I have recently suggested, is very high-denomination "protected" currency controlled by the US government. Core companies would be issued bills that would be fully backed, from $100k to $10M, but could only be redeemed or transferred with permission from *that company to another authorized company*, not individuals.
Right now, many companies are hoarding cash, and only loaning it at high premium rates. But a company with protected bills could get guaranteed loans up to say 95% of their paper, again with government permission. This would give them the loans they needed to continue to function.
It would in turn provide "safe credit" that could be used for business operations but NOT for leverage or speculation.
Importantly, only a required base amount of protected money would have to be kept by a core industry, so it could still have open play with imaginary money, which while it can be abused is still a very important part of a stable economy.
In turn, this would not immediately kill unprotected industries, yet permit the rather brutal correction they most likely still have to face. The bottom line being to create insulation between them and the core industries.
#8
The guy makes a fundamental mistake: he's computing the lost opportunity costs using numbers based on the pseueo-growth created by the problem he is purportedly solving.
I think his numbers for shrinkage of the economy are correct, so the bail-out is a plus, just not as big a bargain as he thinks.
I think Anonymoose is right and that we should let private enterprise bail us out of this one.
#9
Gee, and I thought the "smartest guys in the room" were at Enron.
You mean they are now in Washington and Wall St.? When were they paroled?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/23/2008 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"There is a very long way to go before that happens, and a lot of pain on the way to that point. No politician can say that without getting lynched -- this is the third rail of this election year."
Right on AH. And this is just the most recent example of the cowardice of our political class in dealing the truth to the electorate.
The most egregious example is that we've only begun the correction of the public's expectation of lifestyle for a given amount of work as a result of globalizing the workforce - a correction that has been overdue since the 1970's. No politician would address that issue for fear of being run out of office, although most knew dealing with it was inevitable and tried to mitigate it (the wrong way) by turning a blind eye to illegal immigration, instead of being honest with the American public and working through the changes.
In a similar way, it has been evident for a shorter but not insignificant time that the public's expectation of housing was way out of line with what could be realistically sustained. Ditto for the "value" of people's house. And the politicians have been just as cowardly on this issue as they were dealing with the implications of global labor markets, until the bomb was exploding in everyone's face.
Perhaps there is no politician with the stones to tell the American people the truth about issues such as these. Yes, if there were, he'd probably get booted from office, but he'd plant the seed into the public's consciousness, and when they eventually got it, everyone would look back and he'd be heralded as a hero (that legacy thing politicians are supposed to care about so much?). Maybe there aren't any politicians for whom that will offset the money and graft they can get merely by staying in office.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/23/2008 15:41 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Maybe Ron Paul was right and we should return to a medieval barter economy. Keep some sheep in the yard in case you need to go buy a case of beer. Could work.
#14
No bailout necessary. The houses with bad mortgages are still standing, therefore, they wait and sell them for less, which will make the dollar stronger. For the democrats part, they need to get this out of the news before all Americans find who is to blame. Democrats all.
#16
Bright Pebbles is a very good accountant. He even figured out where money was moving in the UK's bloated government system for one of their "Taxpayer Unions".
Keep that in context with his statements.
I have been chatting with him about this very storm brewing for years.
#19
As a citizen I would be much more comfortable with any bailout IF ....
If a requirement is that TAX HAVENS like the Caymen's and Isle of Man open up their books to the US people, government and the FBI...
Like WHO had stashed WHAT MONEY there.
by Jed Babbin of Human Events, link found thanks to Red State.
This is an outrage. If the bailout is going to be used to stifle the energy plan and as a Christmas tree for earmarks, let it fail and let Wall Street explain it to the Democrats.
House Democrats are bypassing renewal of the offshore oil drilling ban by including the entire Pelosi "drill nothing" energy bill in a draft of a Continuing Resolution. HUMAN EVENTS obtained a copy of the most recent House draft CR this morning.
The Pelosi bill, HR 6899, fails to open more than a miniscule part of the available offshore drilling areas and -- even worse -- it establishes permanent bans on development of most other domestic energy sources (natural gas, oil shale, etc.) and does nothing to develop nuclear power. It passed the House earlier this month and is now languishing in the Senate as a separate measure.
As one member of Congress said last week, it's got more incentives for bicycle riding than for nuclear power.
...Senate sources tell HUMAN EVENTS this draft is dead on arrival.
However, there is every reason to believe that this maneuver will be repeated later this week, and that the House and Senate Democrats will make it a part of any deal with the President on his financial bailout package.
Stay tuned. This is getting uglier by the moment. Welcome to the vise, do you want a heart attack or cancer today?
#2
Take your sweet time. Mercy, if it was not for you democrats, I would feel safe at the bank. I am so happy you paid both the security guard and the thief at the same time in my interest.
#3
Anybody who can post at Rantburg can compose a brief letter to your Congresscritters and President Bush here. I, myself, copied some of the text from the article, to save time.
Just type in your zip code, select 'Federal Officials', compose your message, fill in your name and address (you can un-select the 'send me stuff' box), and you're on your way!
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/23/2008 6:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Interesting. I get an electronic version of a railroad trade press magazine, and it included an article about HR 6899:
Congress is preparing to adjourn for the year but has a few things left on its agenda. This week, congressional leaders are expected to give final consideration to legislation that would address the high cost of energy and stimulate the economy and public transit agencies could benefit.
The House recently passed The Comprehensive American Security and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 6899), which contains the Saving Energy through Public Transportation Act legislation that passed the House as a stand-alone measure earlier this year.
The bill would authorize $1.7 billion for public transportation agencies in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Agencies could use the funds to cover operating and capital costs to reduce fares, expand existing service, avoid service cuts or fare hikes caused by high fuel prices, acquire facilities or equipment to support the use of clean fuel or alternative fuel vehicles, and establish or expand rideshare or commuter match programs that provide alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) has introduced a similar bill in the Senate.
The House and Senate also are developing an economic stimulus package that would appropriate immediate capital funds for "ready-to-go" infrastructure projects, including public transportation initiatives. Senate leaders are advancing a proposal that would provide up to $1.3 billion in capital funds for public transit infrastructure. The bill also would authorize an additional $400 million during the next two years for public transit agencies to invest in green facilities and vehicles.
Although the House and Senate are developing separate energy and economic stimulus bills, the two items may be combined into a single legislative package that would include elements of both proposals.
So San Fran Nan certainly knows how to play the transit crowd. The bill's title - Comprehensive American Security and Consumer Protection Act - how could anyone not support that?
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/23/2008 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
You have to understand how things work in a closing society in order to understand "Palin Power." A gang or cabal seizes power, usually with an affable, weak figurehead at the fore. Then they will hold elections -- but they will make sure that the election will be corrupted and that the next affable, weak figurehead is entirely in their control.
