16 March 2009
Libs and Cons Special Blog Series: When Smart People Fuel Stupid Economic Misconceptions
MISCONCEPTION: SOCIALISM VS. CAPITALISM IS OUR BATTLE
This battle is a non issue; you're not with one or against the other. If this paramount battle between right and wrong touted routinely by the Republican indeed has no basis in reality, then it was necessarily created exclusively to divideto divide people and therein becomes an illustration of the polemics that run so deep in the Republican party.
REALITY: THERE IS NO BATTLE. LEADERS USE TOOLS BASED ON IDEOLOGY TO MANAGE THE ECONOMY.
Economic theories are neutral. Economic policy is only as good as the people executing it. An economy is a phenomenon of the people, services, and resources that make it up; tools based on free market or social economic theories contribute to the ongoing success. Sometimes you need a hammer, sometimes you need a screwdriver. If you refuse to use a hammer because it’s a hammer, you’re screwed when you discover that you accidentally got nails. I guess it’s a good enough excuse when you have people begging to let them do your work anyway.
Class Wars at Bank of America: The Overdraft Fee
Me and Mr. Overdraft are very well acquainted after two rounds fraudulent activity within six months that left my bank account off by $800. And try to make a customer phone specialist or automated telling mechanism understand how hard it is to manage your bank account (let alone look for a job) when you're out of work and your bank account is saddled with late fees that aren't your fault.
For what its worth, two months and five hundred dollars in the red later, the charges were reversed and idea that I was right after all did not leave me feeling good about my outburst at the local Branch Manager who robotically repeated to me policies and tools bank of America implements to help me make sure these situations do not arise in the future. Fortunately the idignity this schmuck felt when I threw the forty billion dollar bailout package in his face gave put my bank account in the red that day and didn't quite render my direct deposit obselete.
These are policies implemented by distinguished men like Chair-CEO-Pres Ken Lewis for whom $800 is a lunch. To his failed executive buddies at Merril Lynch, however, Ken is the reluctant philanthropist who helps his friends in their hour of "need," because some people need food and some people need filet, some people need shelter, and others need penthouses, and still some need shoes But don't tell them that the 4 billion dollars that that 4 billion dollar parachute was Ken's to give.
After my old boss passed in November, I struggled with some depression and failed to get the afidivit back to Bank of America by the deadline. So when I snapped out of it and found the source of my fraudulent activity, I acted quickly to make it right, but it was hard.
All I wanted was a provisional $171 credit added back to my account while the investigator conducted his investigation into my claim of fraudulent activity. While some told me parts of the process, nobody knew the process and nobody bothered to ask aroudn.And for all their posturing that they understand my situation... for all the action they told me to take that I took... it took months for them to pay attnention. My account would never have gone below $224 if not for the fraudulant activity.
I may share some blame with the supershoppers whose sprees caused my account to go over the limit. And Bank of America may have my best interest when they prioritize debits from my account biggest to smallest so that those mortgage payments that I won't be thinking about anytime soon have a better chance of clearing.
What I don't get is why the fee doesn't account for the size of the overdraft. So many of my overdrafts were like $2 or $3, and each was hit with a $35. In some cases it was merely a combination of timing and overdrafts that caused my account to go into the red instead of linger dangerously close to it.
And why does the bank charge not account for the size of the overdraft? Shouldn't the bank charge percentage ovedraft fees to make the punishment fit the crime?
There are some people who naturally don't have to worry about such things. But some do; in fact, more do every day. For some, like Ken Lewis, these battles concern amounts that wouldn't cover lunch. For some, these battles concern amounts that save their home.
But the embarrasment of being poor has lead to people everywhere being held unfairly accountable for small mistakes. Simultaneously, those at the top of the financial ladder fell no need to apologize for the failures that effect those toward the bottom. You might think that that with so many invaluable men who make millions of dollars individually each year to make lending decisions would be accountable for lending bad lending decisions.
And as for those who overdraw: I agree that consequences should follow actions; I just think that the consequences should mirror those actions.
For what its worth, two months and five hundred dollars in the red later, the charges were reversed and idea that I was right after all did not leave me feeling good about my outburst at the local Branch Manager who robotically repeated to me policies and tools bank of America implements to help me make sure these situations do not arise in the future. Fortunately the idignity this schmuck felt when I threw the forty billion dollar bailout package in his face gave put my bank account in the red that day and didn't quite render my direct deposit obselete.
These are policies implemented by distinguished men like Chair-CEO-Pres Ken Lewis for whom $800 is a lunch. To his failed executive buddies at Merril Lynch, however, Ken is the reluctant philanthropist who helps his friends in their hour of "need," because some people need food and some people need filet, some people need shelter, and others need penthouses, and still some need shoes But don't tell them that the 4 billion dollars that that 4 billion dollar parachute was Ken's to give.
After my old boss passed in November, I struggled with some depression and failed to get the afidivit back to Bank of America by the deadline. So when I snapped out of it and found the source of my fraudulent activity, I acted quickly to make it right, but it was hard.
All I wanted was a provisional $171 credit added back to my account while the investigator conducted his investigation into my claim of fraudulent activity. While some told me parts of the process, nobody knew the process and nobody bothered to ask aroudn.And for all their posturing that they understand my situation... for all the action they told me to take that I took... it took months for them to pay attnention. My account would never have gone below $224 if not for the fraudulant activity.
I may share some blame with the supershoppers whose sprees caused my account to go over the limit. And Bank of America may have my best interest when they prioritize debits from my account biggest to smallest so that those mortgage payments that I won't be thinking about anytime soon have a better chance of clearing.
What I don't get is why the fee doesn't account for the size of the overdraft. So many of my overdrafts were like $2 or $3, and each was hit with a $35. In some cases it was merely a combination of timing and overdrafts that caused my account to go into the red instead of linger dangerously close to it.
And why does the bank charge not account for the size of the overdraft? Shouldn't the bank charge percentage ovedraft fees to make the punishment fit the crime?
There are some people who naturally don't have to worry about such things. But some do; in fact, more do every day. For some, like Ken Lewis, these battles concern amounts that wouldn't cover lunch. For some, these battles concern amounts that save their home.
But the embarrasment of being poor has lead to people everywhere being held unfairly accountable for small mistakes. Simultaneously, those at the top of the financial ladder fell no need to apologize for the failures that effect those toward the bottom. You might think that that with so many invaluable men who make millions of dollars individually each year to make lending decisions would be accountable for lending bad lending decisions.
And as for those who overdraw: I agree that consequences should follow actions; I just think that the consequences should mirror those actions.
15 March 2009
Madoff Shouldn’t Go To Jail!
Much has been made of Bernie Madoff’s decision to plead guilty to his ponzii scheme. But will he go to rich person jail or back home to his posh penthouse in Manhattan to learn his lesson.
America needs to get smarter with its corporate punishments. Madoff isn’t a danger to society anymore; he did his damage. But there is something fundamentally not satisfying about sending this Wall Street Wacko to jail.
If I were the judge, I would make sure that Madoff became an example and that he learned his lesson in the limelight that he loves. ‘Bernie’s Redemption Journey’ would follow Bernie Madoff as he lives a life of forced philanthropy that will take him to all the poorest places in America where he would do 8 hours of volunteer work a day in exchange for three hot meals, a shower, and a place to sleep.
Madoff would do be forced to do the tough jobs that real people do and rarely receive recognition or compensation for. Every 6 months his mission would change and he’d have to adapt to the new set of conditions and hope that Americans far removed from yachts and diamonds would welcome a fraud.
After five years, Madoff would be subjected to a live parole hearing online conducted and decided by a random lottery of citizens across America.
THE RULES OF THE PUNISHMENT
--The production crew will not interact with Madoff. They’re the not-so-secret camera. Likewise Bernie will never be given the opportunity to address the camera. His interaction will simply the people approved as part of his current six month mission.
--Everything he needs, he must pay for in his service to others. He shall have no access to cash, credit, or a banking account.
--The costs of Madof'f’s sentence would be paid by advertisers instead of taxpayers. The cable or network home of the show will also be responsible for the upstart costs America’s economic education initiative and interactive classroom after the show achieves a minimum rating to-be-decided.
--If Madoff is granted parole, he would be moved to a court approved apartment in an undisclosed location where he will be given a certain monthly allowance that will meet his living expenses and a health insurance policy from a fund established using profits from his show.
--He will be forbidden to interact with any sort of financial sector business for the rest of his life. If efforts to do so are revealed he will be exiled to China.
So this may be a little ridiculous. But its economically sound. Who wouldn’t want to watch the old man serve someone other than himself the next few years.?
I would let his current wife (if there is one) keep her clothes and shoes and give her the option of ‘til death. Mr. Madoff would be permitted would be seized and liquidated. Some of this would go into an emergency mutual fund to assist those experience real effects as a result of Madoff’s scheme (retirees, for example).
I let Mr. Madoff pack one suitcase that would consist only of clothing and put him on a plane
12 March 2009
It's the Economy, Stupid! So What's Up With All the Stupidity?
It’s the Economy, Stupid! But What’s With All the Stupidity.
In retrospect, the speeches in that file of commencement encapsulated defining moments in recent history. Reading the points of view from those who paved my way revealed distinct shifts in tone, substance, and outlook every decade or so. Most striking was the high minded sense of duty apparent in speeches written during the ‘50’s and ‘60’s. High school students actually spoke of civics, diplomacy, ethics, and economy not only like they knew what they were talking about. They spoke of these subjects as if they mattered.
I won’t be winning any Nobel prizes anytime soon for groundbreaking economic theory. But economics isn’t that hard; and I don’t get why otherwise smart talking heads can’t shut up long enough to get their heads around the idea. If people actually paid mild attention to the economy and understood the inverse relationship between supply and demand enough to apply it, the economic meltdown would have been predictable.
Instead of a pre-emptive stimulus to the economy, the silly debate regarding a solution rages on. That debate exists at all is a scary sign that our elected officials fail to get the economy. Spending is not debatable; is where and how much to spend that you might find room for scrutiny. The efficiency and reach of the stimulus relates directly to how much capital flows back into a system low on cash and high on demand. To those who question spending in these times I can only recommend some good old fashioned economic study time. If they truly understand economics, then they are simply sabotaging America which is absolutely unacceptable.
Making matters worse, talking heads MSNBC remain unsure of the solution themselves, but nonetheless they have opinions. Thankfully Rachel Maddow got it. She just needs to say it often and say it loud so that the voice of reason can rise up among widespread misinformed banter. It’s great to know that Keynes had an economic theory that ran counter to Friedman’s economic theory; in the end, just learn the study the theories and go online and find some fun economic game site and play supply demand. Most people overthink economics, I think; so keep the idea that economics is easy in mind.
But since learning economics sounds more Herculean than it is, I’ve created a cheat sheet for all those talking heads out there to jump to at least sound like they know what their talking about. The Republican strategy to overcome the meltdown may well be hopeless, but they stay on point and the sound as if the know what their talking about.
To get talking heads started down the path of talking about the economy simply and accurately, I’ve created a little cheat sheet. It’s dedicated to the fine cheaters who bankrupt America, rewarded themselves, and blamed everyone else.
Economics is a measure of societal welfare, or happiness. Measures of the strength of an economy come in various forms like job growth and the stock market. Sound economic policy inherently is its own check and balance and system and measure. Economist peal various systems down to their fundamental cores to try and create tools that those engaged in economy can use to make it strong. Some tools have their core in capitalism and others use socialism. To take either one off the table leaves the economy exposed to failure. But theories do not fail on their own; what unites fundamentally capitalist tools and fundamentally socialist tools are they they are only as effective as the people who use them. Taking tools of socialism off the table because they are "socialist," is a lot like throwing out your hammer because screwdrivers are American and hammers aren't is stupid; if you get nails instead of screws, you're screwed and its not the screwdriver's fault that it can not hammer a nail. It is the toolman's fault for being stupid. Likewise, the economy has failed because... Well, I don't think we're quite ready for accountability yet.
If this is a shock to you, please check back daily for my Take Back the Economics Series to Take Back Economcis!
In retrospect, the speeches in that file of commencement encapsulated defining moments in recent history. Reading the points of view from those who paved my way revealed distinct shifts in tone, substance, and outlook every decade or so. Most striking was the high minded sense of duty apparent in speeches written during the ‘50’s and ‘60’s. High school students actually spoke of civics, diplomacy, ethics, and economy not only like they knew what they were talking about. They spoke of these subjects as if they mattered.
I won’t be winning any Nobel prizes anytime soon for groundbreaking economic theory. But economics isn’t that hard; and I don’t get why otherwise smart talking heads can’t shut up long enough to get their heads around the idea. If people actually paid mild attention to the economy and understood the inverse relationship between supply and demand enough to apply it, the economic meltdown would have been predictable.
Instead of a pre-emptive stimulus to the economy, the silly debate regarding a solution rages on. That debate exists at all is a scary sign that our elected officials fail to get the economy. Spending is not debatable; is where and how much to spend that you might find room for scrutiny. The efficiency and reach of the stimulus relates directly to how much capital flows back into a system low on cash and high on demand. To those who question spending in these times I can only recommend some good old fashioned economic study time. If they truly understand economics, then they are simply sabotaging America which is absolutely unacceptable.
Making matters worse, talking heads MSNBC remain unsure of the solution themselves, but nonetheless they have opinions. Thankfully Rachel Maddow got it. She just needs to say it often and say it loud so that the voice of reason can rise up among widespread misinformed banter. It’s great to know that Keynes had an economic theory that ran counter to Friedman’s economic theory; in the end, just learn the study the theories and go online and find some fun economic game site and play supply demand. Most people overthink economics, I think; so keep the idea that economics is easy in mind.
But since learning economics sounds more Herculean than it is, I’ve created a cheat sheet for all those talking heads out there to jump to at least sound like they know what their talking about. The Republican strategy to overcome the meltdown may well be hopeless, but they stay on point and the sound as if the know what their talking about.
To get talking heads started down the path of talking about the economy simply and accurately, I’ve created a little cheat sheet. It’s dedicated to the fine cheaters who bankrupt America, rewarded themselves, and blamed everyone else.
Economics is a measure of societal welfare, or happiness. Measures of the strength of an economy come in various forms like job growth and the stock market. Sound economic policy inherently is its own check and balance and system and measure. Economist peal various systems down to their fundamental cores to try and create tools that those engaged in economy can use to make it strong. Some tools have their core in capitalism and others use socialism. To take either one off the table leaves the economy exposed to failure. But theories do not fail on their own; what unites fundamentally capitalist tools and fundamentally socialist tools are they they are only as effective as the people who use them. Taking tools of socialism off the table because they are "socialist," is a lot like throwing out your hammer because screwdrivers are American and hammers aren't is stupid; if you get nails instead of screws, you're screwed and its not the screwdriver's fault that it can not hammer a nail. It is the toolman's fault for being stupid. Likewise, the economy has failed because... Well, I don't think we're quite ready for accountability yet.
If this is a shock to you, please check back daily for my Take Back the Economics Series to Take Back Economcis!
14 February 2009
When The Polemics Ruined America: The Divided States of Our Country
The Republican Party is headed down the wrong path.
Conman Karl Rove and Conman Dick Cheney carry flames fueled by Presidential Conman George Bush, Conman Sean Hannity, Conman Ann Coulter, Conman Bill O'Reilly, and Conman Rush Limbagh. Their flames light an all too familiar path for America; if we continue to follow these flames the morning sun will reveal a sad reality of regression to a pre-civil war America. Fortunately for the real patriots of our nation - liberals and conservatives alike who work hard to better themselves, their children, and their country - the fuel of white supremacy is running low.
White supremacy is a phenomenon of entitlement; it occurs when subsequent generations of wealth and power assume positions of wealth and power by virtue of "birthright" rather than "performance." An inability to perform combined with a desire to do better drives subsequent generations of wealth and power to undertake increasingly unethical and unlawful actions to acquire more wealth and more power. It follows that two generations removed from Lincoln's Gettysburg address, you do not have to be white to be a white supremacist, and you do not have to be black to be a slave to it.
After eight years of domestic and foreign policy spearheaded by the Republican party, our country is left in shambles - economically empty, socially backwards, and far more vulnerable to terrorism than we were prior 9/11. The marketing and PR spin machine of the Republican Party is working overdrive to diffuse and transfer blame to the left and sabotage the policy undertaken by the Obama administartion to stimulate our economy and unite our country. Karl Rove designed this machine and keeps it well oiled despite the ever increasing opportunity cost to America. The price of living divided in the United Sates of America continues to rise.
To look at the big Republican party picture, you may note one consistent trend: Opposition. In the recent Presidential election, for example, we saw two campaigns for "change;" only the strategy of the Republican party, when scrutinized, ran almost exclusively on oppostion to the Democratic party. Besides cutting taxes and remaining at war, we heard far too little Republican party policy and far too much Democratic apocolyptic mumbo jumbo. If you listend only to Republican Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, you might think that the Senator Osama Terror Hussein of Illinois were running on the Democratic ticket. As President Obama has quickly revealed himself to be the President of the people far more than Presidential Conman George W. Bush, the Republican party has been careful to sabotage the policy and stand by the man.
What the Republican party lacks, above all, is a cogent policy argument that comprehensively stands up to scrutiny and succeeds in practice. Even under President Reagan himself, Reaganomics - the cornerstone of all Republican policy - fails in practice. Reagan's economic policies inflated the national deficit from 700 billion to 3 trillion; Reagan himself called this new debt the "greatest dissappointment" of his presidency.
The failure of the thin platform of the Republican party in practice reduces their criticism to polemics. According to Wikipedia.com, "polemics is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosphical or political matters. It is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach. The word is derived from the greek word polemikos which means 'warlike,' 'hostile.'" Perhaps betting on widespread American stupidity, Ann Coulter is a self-described "polemicists." I guess polemics necessarily run deep in a party for Government that runs on a position, in the end, determined to destroy Government.
Since you can't legitimately run for an office that you're bent on destroying, you must make people think you stand for something different. Enter Karl Rove, and his blasphemous marketing machine. The machine is conceptually simple, designed to channel packages of misinformation, wrapped in themes of patriotism, freedom, and morality, to the public for consumption. Inherently the packaging often touches a nerve among a cross section of our country where indvididuals work ever harder for ever less; politicians generically call this part of the country "middle America."
So pretty is the packaging that we feel too often ungrateful (perhaps even unpatriotic) to question what's inside. Those who open the package often find nothing. There is a void in "middle America"; I know this void well because I grew up in it. The void is as much a part of me as my desire is to fill it with something that is real and meaningful. This void should not be confused with stupidity, a hypothesis occasionally pushed by glib and untimately small minded liberals. The void occurs in the absence of opportunity. The Rovian marketing and pr machine pumps this void full of empty packages devoid of meaning and often full of hostitility. It gives people stuck in the void many things to fight against (terrorism, homosexuality, abortion, gun control) but little to fight for (opportunity).
For far too long, Republican hopefuls campaign not to govern but to win. These campaigns are won by pitting one party necessarily against another on issues that in the end are of little consequence for those that fight against it. This is polemics in practice. And when our city falls from its great hill, we should not blame polemics, we should blame the polemicists behind these polemics.
We've been fighting for eight years, and what we've been fighting for has become all to obvious:
--We fought to make the rich richer, despite their performance. And then we rewarded them for driving our economy into the ground.
--We fought for Halliburton oil contracts in Iraq, while new terrorist cells rose up in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
--We fought for insurance and drug company profits, while our collective health deteriorated.
If we continue to fight blindly for empty packages of patriotism, freedom and morality, the morning sun may well reveal the shackles of a new reality in America that's as old as time।
Conman Karl Rove and Conman Dick Cheney carry flames fueled by Presidential Conman George Bush, Conman Sean Hannity, Conman Ann Coulter, Conman Bill O'Reilly, and Conman Rush Limbagh. Their flames light an all too familiar path for America; if we continue to follow these flames the morning sun will reveal a sad reality of regression to a pre-civil war America. Fortunately for the real patriots of our nation - liberals and conservatives alike who work hard to better themselves, their children, and their country - the fuel of white supremacy is running low.
White supremacy is a phenomenon of entitlement; it occurs when subsequent generations of wealth and power assume positions of wealth and power by virtue of "birthright" rather than "performance." An inability to perform combined with a desire to do better drives subsequent generations of wealth and power to undertake increasingly unethical and unlawful actions to acquire more wealth and more power. It follows that two generations removed from Lincoln's Gettysburg address, you do not have to be white to be a white supremacist, and you do not have to be black to be a slave to it.
After eight years of domestic and foreign policy spearheaded by the Republican party, our country is left in shambles - economically empty, socially backwards, and far more vulnerable to terrorism than we were prior 9/11. The marketing and PR spin machine of the Republican Party is working overdrive to diffuse and transfer blame to the left and sabotage the policy undertaken by the Obama administartion to stimulate our economy and unite our country. Karl Rove designed this machine and keeps it well oiled despite the ever increasing opportunity cost to America. The price of living divided in the United Sates of America continues to rise.
To look at the big Republican party picture, you may note one consistent trend: Opposition. In the recent Presidential election, for example, we saw two campaigns for "change;" only the strategy of the Republican party, when scrutinized, ran almost exclusively on oppostion to the Democratic party. Besides cutting taxes and remaining at war, we heard far too little Republican party policy and far too much Democratic apocolyptic mumbo jumbo. If you listend only to Republican Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, you might think that the Senator Osama Terror Hussein of Illinois were running on the Democratic ticket. As President Obama has quickly revealed himself to be the President of the people far more than Presidential Conman George W. Bush, the Republican party has been careful to sabotage the policy and stand by the man.
What the Republican party lacks, above all, is a cogent policy argument that comprehensively stands up to scrutiny and succeeds in practice. Even under President Reagan himself, Reaganomics - the cornerstone of all Republican policy - fails in practice. Reagan's economic policies inflated the national deficit from 700 billion to 3 trillion; Reagan himself called this new debt the "greatest dissappointment" of his presidency.
The failure of the thin platform of the Republican party in practice reduces their criticism to polemics. According to Wikipedia.com, "polemics is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosphical or political matters. It is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach. The word is derived from the greek word polemikos which means 'warlike,' 'hostile.'" Perhaps betting on widespread American stupidity, Ann Coulter is a self-described "polemicists." I guess polemics necessarily run deep in a party for Government that runs on a position, in the end, determined to destroy Government.
Since you can't legitimately run for an office that you're bent on destroying, you must make people think you stand for something different. Enter Karl Rove, and his blasphemous marketing machine. The machine is conceptually simple, designed to channel packages of misinformation, wrapped in themes of patriotism, freedom, and morality, to the public for consumption. Inherently the packaging often touches a nerve among a cross section of our country where indvididuals work ever harder for ever less; politicians generically call this part of the country "middle America."
So pretty is the packaging that we feel too often ungrateful (perhaps even unpatriotic) to question what's inside. Those who open the package often find nothing. There is a void in "middle America"; I know this void well because I grew up in it. The void is as much a part of me as my desire is to fill it with something that is real and meaningful. This void should not be confused with stupidity, a hypothesis occasionally pushed by glib and untimately small minded liberals. The void occurs in the absence of opportunity. The Rovian marketing and pr machine pumps this void full of empty packages devoid of meaning and often full of hostitility. It gives people stuck in the void many things to fight against (terrorism, homosexuality, abortion, gun control) but little to fight for (opportunity).
For far too long, Republican hopefuls campaign not to govern but to win. These campaigns are won by pitting one party necessarily against another on issues that in the end are of little consequence for those that fight against it. This is polemics in practice. And when our city falls from its great hill, we should not blame polemics, we should blame the polemicists behind these polemics.
We've been fighting for eight years, and what we've been fighting for has become all to obvious:
--We fought to make the rich richer, despite their performance. And then we rewarded them for driving our economy into the ground.
--We fought for Halliburton oil contracts in Iraq, while new terrorist cells rose up in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
--We fought for insurance and drug company profits, while our collective health deteriorated.
If we continue to fight blindly for empty packages of patriotism, freedom and morality, the morning sun may well reveal the shackles of a new reality in America that's as old as time।
11 January 2009
The Real Deal: Miton Friedman's Reagonomics
It's Keynes over Friedman as Democrats successfuly push the largest economic stimulus package in US History against the failure of the "free" market to manage executive pay.
But Friedman wasn't always so Reagon-o-miacal.
Milton Friedman's views changed radically, from New Deal proponent of taxes and government oversight to Reagonomic opponent of taxes and government regulation. His work is predicated on the economically simple notion that inflation is a phenomenon driven by money supply; in other words the more dollars we have, the less we value each individual dollar. This is clearly is one of the fundamental drivers of inflation, but it is far from the sole driver of inflation. Globalization seems to ever minimize the significance money supply plays in infliation as long as the increase in money supply remains steady. But this money supply fundamental seemed to lay the groundwork for Friedman's increasingly emphatic support of market deregulation. Government regulation become something of a scapegoat for inconsistences between Friedman's hypothesis and the phenomenon in practice. The global economy, however, seems far too complex for Friedman's work to shape fiscal policy rather than simply inform fiscal policy. This is a reason why Reagonomics, as shaped by Friedman's work, is doomed to fail in practice.
The truth is that the market is probably a far better manager of the economy than a partisan Government spread thin. If a free market is simply defined as a market in which citizens and companies do what they do best and "trade," however, the idea of a "free market" - a market free of regulation -fails in practice.
This failure has two clear determinites First, the free market does not exist. Period. In the global economy, a free market is borderless. It lacks tarrifs and other protectionist policies that benefits, for example, one country's workforce over another. Second, it relies on the notion of people doing what they do "best." Doing the best hinges on CEO's making business decisions that are in the best interest of the company and all its stakeholders (shareholders, stakeholders, etc.). Equally harmful are the common practices of nepotism, favoritism, indivudal greed, conflicts of interest, etc. I think possibly the stock market itself (or at least the blind focus on shareholder value) and likely derivatives markets hinder company's from achieving "the best."
There is a reason that most economic teachers teach "laissez faire" economics with apples and oranges. It's clear and it works. Unfortunately the global economy is far more than apples and oranges. In the absence of transparency, the execution of a successful deregulated economy requires far more hands than our Government as it stands has to offer.
FREE MARKET (minus) TRANSPARENCY = EXECUTIVE FREE FOR ALL.
But Friedman wasn't always so Reagon-o-miacal.
Milton Friedman's views changed radically, from New Deal proponent of taxes and government oversight to Reagonomic opponent of taxes and government regulation. His work is predicated on the economically simple notion that inflation is a phenomenon driven by money supply; in other words the more dollars we have, the less we value each individual dollar. This is clearly is one of the fundamental drivers of inflation, but it is far from the sole driver of inflation. Globalization seems to ever minimize the significance money supply plays in infliation as long as the increase in money supply remains steady. But this money supply fundamental seemed to lay the groundwork for Friedman's increasingly emphatic support of market deregulation. Government regulation become something of a scapegoat for inconsistences between Friedman's hypothesis and the phenomenon in practice. The global economy, however, seems far too complex for Friedman's work to shape fiscal policy rather than simply inform fiscal policy. This is a reason why Reagonomics, as shaped by Friedman's work, is doomed to fail in practice.
The truth is that the market is probably a far better manager of the economy than a partisan Government spread thin. If a free market is simply defined as a market in which citizens and companies do what they do best and "trade," however, the idea of a "free market" - a market free of regulation -fails in practice.
This failure has two clear determinites First, the free market does not exist. Period. In the global economy, a free market is borderless. It lacks tarrifs and other protectionist policies that benefits, for example, one country's workforce over another. Second, it relies on the notion of people doing what they do "best." Doing the best hinges on CEO's making business decisions that are in the best interest of the company and all its stakeholders (shareholders, stakeholders, etc.). Equally harmful are the common practices of nepotism, favoritism, indivudal greed, conflicts of interest, etc. I think possibly the stock market itself (or at least the blind focus on shareholder value) and likely derivatives markets hinder company's from achieving "the best."
There is a reason that most economic teachers teach "laissez faire" economics with apples and oranges. It's clear and it works. Unfortunately the global economy is far more than apples and oranges. In the absence of transparency, the execution of a successful deregulated economy requires far more hands than our Government as it stands has to offer.
FREE MARKET (minus) TRANSPARENCY = EXECUTIVE FREE FOR ALL.
13 December 2008
I'm Going With Ben Stein, Even If It Ain't His Money
Ben Stein is conservative. Sure he's not all ideological neo Bush-like conservative. But he's actually an economist, so he gets that ideology doesn't work. But he's conservative alright. Watch some episodes of Larry King from during the election. You'll hear what I'm saying.
To hear Ben Stein talk about the bailouts. To hear him contextualize it within the framework of a possible depression. To hear him vociferously support pumping money into our ailing economy. That's enough for me. I'm going with Ben Stein.
I don't know what I think about the bailouts really. I'm torn. But the stakes are so high, that the points to make and the ideologies to spout should all sound a bit petty at this point.
I'm trying to forget that the bank bailout seems to be a blooper of old boys club proportions. To hell with transparency. F*** ethics.
So on to the car bailout. Far less money. Far more transparency, or at least attention. Unfortunately, way too political. Now to save the business UAW needs to make concessions. But they are, aren't they? Still the southern Republicans point their fingers. And worse, they have seen the light: exploit the dire situation the ideological end. Unions, be thee gone!
Aren't we in enough of a mess becauase of Republicans? Let's say it out loud. Point fingers where you might, but this mess has Republican written all over it. This, friends, is why Republicans win elections. They have no shame.
And even though they need to shut up, some of what they have to say isn't so ridiculous.
I especially like the whole insuring private investment logic... But still, forteen billion is a pennies. Let's choose the battle, guys, and save some jobs.
I think...
To hear Ben Stein talk about the bailouts. To hear him contextualize it within the framework of a possible depression. To hear him vociferously support pumping money into our ailing economy. That's enough for me. I'm going with Ben Stein.
I don't know what I think about the bailouts really. I'm torn. But the stakes are so high, that the points to make and the ideologies to spout should all sound a bit petty at this point.
I'm trying to forget that the bank bailout seems to be a blooper of old boys club proportions. To hell with transparency. F*** ethics.
So on to the car bailout. Far less money. Far more transparency, or at least attention. Unfortunately, way too political. Now to save the business UAW needs to make concessions. But they are, aren't they? Still the southern Republicans point their fingers. And worse, they have seen the light: exploit the dire situation the ideological end. Unions, be thee gone!
Aren't we in enough of a mess becauase of Republicans? Let's say it out loud. Point fingers where you might, but this mess has Republican written all over it. This, friends, is why Republicans win elections. They have no shame.
And even though they need to shut up, some of what they have to say isn't so ridiculous.
I especially like the whole insuring private investment logic... But still, forteen billion is a pennies. Let's choose the battle, guys, and save some jobs.
I think...
11 December 2008
Joe the Plumber: Not Just Your Average American Skinhead
In an interview on December 10th with Glenn Beck, "Joe the Plumber" aka Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, went all Machiavelli on McCain and asserted the following:
--John McCain: "dirty" and "appalling"
--Sarah Palin: "the real deal"
--Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State: appointment "unconstitutional." (sited Sean Hannity as his source following Glenn Beck's correction)
--Barack Obama: Links Obama with Adolph Hitler via socialism viz a viz gun control.
Is Joe the Plumber really a key player in the future Republican party? Will PALIN & THE PLUMBER be the next stroke of Rovian campaign madness/genius? Will Obama's economic policy be sound enough to return our country to a point of complacency wherein voters elect gimmicks over Governers?
For a transcript of Joe the Plumber's interview, go to: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/19055/
For Your Consideration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber
Joe the Plumber's Political Ambitions, Courtesy of Wikipedia:
Draft campaign for Ohio's 9th congressional district
Since his meeting with Barack Obama, a campaign to draft Wurzelbacher to run for the United States House of Representatives in the 2010 election started with the website joewurzelbacher2010.com.[39] The Washington Times and the Boston Herald have reported that this campaign's goal is to draft Wurzelbacher to run against Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio's 9th congressional district.[40][41] The website was created by Trevor Lair (presently the chairman of the Massachusetts College Republicans),[42] Derek Khanna,[43] and The Massachusetts Alliance of College Republicans.[44] The website encourages visitors to sign an online petition that supports Wurzelbacher’s run for office.[45][42] Laura Ingraham asked Wurzelbacher, on October 24, 2008, if he would run against Rep. Marcy Kaptur. Wurzelbacher responded that he had considered the run and would be "up for it".[46]
Opinions on taxation and welfare
In an October interview, Wurzelbacher said, "You know a lot of the stuff that our government is doing right now is all about taxation without representation and you know the last time that happened a couple guys got together and threw the Brits out."[47]
Wurzelbacher opposes the existing American Social Security program. He told CNN, "Social Security is a joke. I have parents; I don't need another set of parents called the government. You know, let me take my money and invest it how I please. Social Security I've never believed in, don't like it. I hate that it's forced on me."[48]
ABC News reported on October 16 that there is a judgment lien against Wurzelbacher for non-payment of $1,182 in Ohio state income taxes dating to January 2007, but "no action has been taken against him outside of filing the lien." Barb Losie, deputy clerk of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, said that "there is a 99 percent chance [Wurzelbacher] doesn't know about the lien, unless he did a credit report or was ready to pay his taxes."[49] While on Hannity & Colmes, Wurzelbacher stated that he was unaware of the tax lien prior to it being reported in the press, and felt he was being attacked because of his question of Obama.[50]
Wurzelbacher has also acknowledged that his parents were on welfare twice while he was growing up. Asked by Alan Colmes whether that constituted "taking somebody else's money and giving it to you", Wurzelbacher responded that he had "paid into welfare. It's something to be used, not abused, as it often is, Alan."[51]
--John McCain: "dirty" and "appalling"
--Sarah Palin: "the real deal"
--Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State: appointment "unconstitutional." (sited Sean Hannity as his source following Glenn Beck's correction)
--Barack Obama: Links Obama with Adolph Hitler via socialism viz a viz gun control.
Is Joe the Plumber really a key player in the future Republican party? Will PALIN & THE PLUMBER be the next stroke of Rovian campaign madness/genius? Will Obama's economic policy be sound enough to return our country to a point of complacency wherein voters elect gimmicks over Governers?
For a transcript of Joe the Plumber's interview, go to: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/19055/
For Your Consideration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber
Joe the Plumber's Political Ambitions, Courtesy of Wikipedia:
Draft campaign for Ohio's 9th congressional district
Since his meeting with Barack Obama, a campaign to draft Wurzelbacher to run for the United States House of Representatives in the 2010 election started with the website joewurzelbacher2010.com.[39] The Washington Times and the Boston Herald have reported that this campaign's goal is to draft Wurzelbacher to run against Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio's 9th congressional district.[40][41] The website was created by Trevor Lair (presently the chairman of the Massachusetts College Republicans),[42] Derek Khanna,[43] and The Massachusetts Alliance of College Republicans.[44] The website encourages visitors to sign an online petition that supports Wurzelbacher’s run for office.[45][42] Laura Ingraham asked Wurzelbacher, on October 24, 2008, if he would run against Rep. Marcy Kaptur. Wurzelbacher responded that he had considered the run and would be "up for it".[46]
Opinions on taxation and welfare
In an October interview, Wurzelbacher said, "You know a lot of the stuff that our government is doing right now is all about taxation without representation and you know the last time that happened a couple guys got together and threw the Brits out."[47]
Wurzelbacher opposes the existing American Social Security program. He told CNN, "Social Security is a joke. I have parents; I don't need another set of parents called the government. You know, let me take my money and invest it how I please. Social Security I've never believed in, don't like it. I hate that it's forced on me."[48]
ABC News reported on October 16 that there is a judgment lien against Wurzelbacher for non-payment of $1,182 in Ohio state income taxes dating to January 2007, but "no action has been taken against him outside of filing the lien." Barb Losie, deputy clerk of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, said that "there is a 99 percent chance [Wurzelbacher] doesn't know about the lien, unless he did a credit report or was ready to pay his taxes."[49] While on Hannity & Colmes, Wurzelbacher stated that he was unaware of the tax lien prior to it being reported in the press, and felt he was being attacked because of his question of Obama.[50]
Wurzelbacher has also acknowledged that his parents were on welfare twice while he was growing up. Asked by Alan Colmes whether that constituted "taking somebody else's money and giving it to you", Wurzelbacher responded that he had "paid into welfare. It's something to be used, not abused, as it often is, Alan."[51]
09 December 2008
Is the Bailout a Bust?
It may well be too early to call the bailout a best. But it sure does reek of the same "hoard the wealth" policies perpetuated as "free market" by the most despicable administration I hope I'll ever see.
The bailout packages for each recipient should be transparent. They are not. Rumors of million dollar packages and bonuses for failed CEO's run rampant.
I've overheard more than a few times frustrated everyday Americans deliberate out loud: What if I don't pay my taxes. Tax money that rewards failure may give creedance to this notion.
In order to make sure that this bailout doesn't just bail out failed executives, the Government should require the following and make it public domain. The public, after all, just became shareholders in lots of failed businesses.
TRANSPARENCY IS NECESSARY! All shareholder documents, detailed executive compensation packages, and accounting for each penny of each bailout package should be public domain and available online.
The bailout packages for each recipient should be transparent. They are not. Rumors of million dollar packages and bonuses for failed CEO's run rampant.
I've overheard more than a few times frustrated everyday Americans deliberate out loud: What if I don't pay my taxes. Tax money that rewards failure may give creedance to this notion.
In order to make sure that this bailout doesn't just bail out failed executives, the Government should require the following and make it public domain. The public, after all, just became shareholders in lots of failed businesses.
TRANSPARENCY IS NECESSARY! All shareholder documents, detailed executive compensation packages, and accounting for each penny of each bailout package should be public domain and available online.
10 November 2008
The Fires of Prop 8 Rage On to Warm Rove's Fuzzy
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
If you're Karl Rove, you're cringing. In his Neo-Nazi-Conservative Jerry Lawler Christian America, the hippie notion of equality about as credulous as a free market in practice. If Rove could revise this part of history, he might link Jefferson with marijuana and promote a new philosophy: "All Men Are Created Equal. Unless They Aren't."
This election year was momentous for two reasons. First, Barack Obama became the first biracial man to become President of the United States of America. Second, the most expensive proposition campaign in California history - Prop 8 to ban gay marriage - was voted into law. This action reinforces that all men are not created equal, nor are all women, nor are all persons.
A sad side note seems to be that socially conservative black men may have pushed this vote from fringe proposition into law. These are the men for whom Civil Rights is a central issue in America. These are the men, for whom a racist, President Harry S. Truman, overcame the faulty fundamentals of his upbringing to champion a Civil Rights agenda.
Truman's fundamental wrong was, for him, self-evident: How do we lead the world and champion democracy and freedom, when we reward our black heroes who fought to win WWII are with the promise of inequality and secregation. The details in the struggles of blacks, or gays, or Jews, or Muslims may well be different. The fundamentally wrong intentions and motives of those powerful few who initiate such un-American legislation remains the same. These, my friends, are the politics of white supremacy. They remain alive and well.
Instead of white sheets, the Roves and Coulters and Limbaughs mask themselves with a false sense of patriotism and a contrivance of religion. Instead of torches, they use their words.
They appeal to and exploit precisely those ideals that Americans hold so dear: a distinctly American love of country and the hope that there is a reward for this struggle called life.
If you're with them, you are a patriot with a sweet place in Heaven. If you aren't, you're a terrorist going to hell.
This quartet of lynchpins and their respective Armies in politics, the media, and Big Business might be rendered irrational if they weren't getting so rich. To the misfortune of so many, greed is rational. But it benefits so few.
The few it benfits, however, are strong. YES ON PROPOSITION 8 is the fuel that may stoke the fire of Karl Rove's war. Shortly after John McCain conceded, Karl Rove went on Fox News to analyze the failed campaign that he ran. He quickly diverted the discourse to the battles that were won on the gay marriage front. In four years, as Obama's sharp decisions leave Americans content, gay marriage just may be contentious enough for a Rove campaign of slander and divisiveness. It is one of those issues, like gun control, abortion, and stem cell research, that has been made an issue to draw yourself from the core functions of our government: security, economy, health care, and education.
The passage of Proposotion 8 is unconstitutional, un-American, and wrong. The personal nature for those on one side of the issue has intensified the battle. This likely shocks those who were disaffected on the other. Outcry from leaders and angry civilian demonstrations are, perhaps, foregone conclusions. And Rove's diabolical madness may well look like genius again in four years.
How do we do our part to divert the disaster of the Presidential Bride of Rovenstein? For most the answer is simply keep the faith. The war on white supremacy, like the war on terror, should be fought free from the public eye. Demonstrations are cathartic; but they also exacerbate the problem and strengthen Karl Rove's long running polemic Republican strategy.
Remember, all men are still created equal. According to Jefferson, this idea is self evident. If those for NO ON PROPOSITION 8 can stand back from the fire, we can contain it for those who will work hard to uphold a clear constitutional right. Perhaps, in Obama's America of Change and Unity, everyone can see past the disagreements and move forward on the common grounds of our struggles.
And if there's one thing that is plenty available in this failed economy it's cheap common grounds on which to struggle.
Check out the following websites:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Harry_Truman_civil_rights.htm
Saboteurs of Marriage
Ann Coulter: Have you ever noticed that whenever Democrats lose presidential elections, they always blame it on the personal qualities of their candidate? Kerry was a dork, Gore was a stiff, Dukakis was a bloodless android, Mondale was a sad sack.
This blame-the-messenger thesis allows Democrats to conclude that their message was fine -- nothing should be changed! The American people are clamoring for higher taxes, big government, a defeatist foreign policy, gay marriage, the whole magilla. It was just this particular candidate's personality.
Bill O'Reilly: Traditionally, Americans have rejected that kind of nanny state, but make no mistake, that is what the far left sees as "economic justice."And then there are "San Francisco values."
That is the George Soros vision of legalized narcotics and prostitution, unfettered abortion rights, legalized euthanasia, and gay marriage, to name just a few social issues. Soros, a big time contributor to MoveOn, believes America should be a libertine society where moral judgments about social behavior are unacceptable.
So, where will Barack Obama be on those issues? He says he personally opposes gay marriage, but I can't imagine him working against it. He's also fine with abortion in cases where the health of the mother is an issue. Of course, the health of the mother could be a panic attack or a headache. Based upon his voting record in the past, I expect Obama to be extremely liberal when social legislation is presented to him. I also expect Ruth Bader Ginsburg to have a new best friend if a Supreme Court opening occurs.
If you're Karl Rove, you're cringing. In his Neo-Nazi-Conservative Jerry Lawler Christian America, the hippie notion of equality about as credulous as a free market in practice. If Rove could revise this part of history, he might link Jefferson with marijuana and promote a new philosophy: "All Men Are Created Equal. Unless They Aren't."
This election year was momentous for two reasons. First, Barack Obama became the first biracial man to become President of the United States of America. Second, the most expensive proposition campaign in California history - Prop 8 to ban gay marriage - was voted into law. This action reinforces that all men are not created equal, nor are all women, nor are all persons.
A sad side note seems to be that socially conservative black men may have pushed this vote from fringe proposition into law. These are the men for whom Civil Rights is a central issue in America. These are the men, for whom a racist, President Harry S. Truman, overcame the faulty fundamentals of his upbringing to champion a Civil Rights agenda.
Truman's fundamental wrong was, for him, self-evident: How do we lead the world and champion democracy and freedom, when we reward our black heroes who fought to win WWII are with the promise of inequality and secregation. The details in the struggles of blacks, or gays, or Jews, or Muslims may well be different. The fundamentally wrong intentions and motives of those powerful few who initiate such un-American legislation remains the same. These, my friends, are the politics of white supremacy. They remain alive and well.
Instead of white sheets, the Roves and Coulters and Limbaughs mask themselves with a false sense of patriotism and a contrivance of religion. Instead of torches, they use their words.
They appeal to and exploit precisely those ideals that Americans hold so dear: a distinctly American love of country and the hope that there is a reward for this struggle called life.
If you're with them, you are a patriot with a sweet place in Heaven. If you aren't, you're a terrorist going to hell.
This quartet of lynchpins and their respective Armies in politics, the media, and Big Business might be rendered irrational if they weren't getting so rich. To the misfortune of so many, greed is rational. But it benefits so few.
The few it benfits, however, are strong. YES ON PROPOSITION 8 is the fuel that may stoke the fire of Karl Rove's war. Shortly after John McCain conceded, Karl Rove went on Fox News to analyze the failed campaign that he ran. He quickly diverted the discourse to the battles that were won on the gay marriage front. In four years, as Obama's sharp decisions leave Americans content, gay marriage just may be contentious enough for a Rove campaign of slander and divisiveness. It is one of those issues, like gun control, abortion, and stem cell research, that has been made an issue to draw yourself from the core functions of our government: security, economy, health care, and education.
The passage of Proposotion 8 is unconstitutional, un-American, and wrong. The personal nature for those on one side of the issue has intensified the battle. This likely shocks those who were disaffected on the other. Outcry from leaders and angry civilian demonstrations are, perhaps, foregone conclusions. And Rove's diabolical madness may well look like genius again in four years.
How do we do our part to divert the disaster of the Presidential Bride of Rovenstein? For most the answer is simply keep the faith. The war on white supremacy, like the war on terror, should be fought free from the public eye. Demonstrations are cathartic; but they also exacerbate the problem and strengthen Karl Rove's long running polemic Republican strategy.
Remember, all men are still created equal. According to Jefferson, this idea is self evident. If those for NO ON PROPOSITION 8 can stand back from the fire, we can contain it for those who will work hard to uphold a clear constitutional right. Perhaps, in Obama's America of Change and Unity, everyone can see past the disagreements and move forward on the common grounds of our struggles.
And if there's one thing that is plenty available in this failed economy it's cheap common grounds on which to struggle.
Check out the following websites:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Harry_Truman_civil_rights.htm
Saboteurs of Marriage
Ann Coulter: Have you ever noticed that whenever Democrats lose presidential elections, they always blame it on the personal qualities of their candidate? Kerry was a dork, Gore was a stiff, Dukakis was a bloodless android, Mondale was a sad sack.
This blame-the-messenger thesis allows Democrats to conclude that their message was fine -- nothing should be changed! The American people are clamoring for higher taxes, big government, a defeatist foreign policy, gay marriage, the whole magilla. It was just this particular candidate's personality.
Bill O'Reilly: Traditionally, Americans have rejected that kind of nanny state, but make no mistake, that is what the far left sees as "economic justice."And then there are "San Francisco values."
That is the George Soros vision of legalized narcotics and prostitution, unfettered abortion rights, legalized euthanasia, and gay marriage, to name just a few social issues. Soros, a big time contributor to MoveOn, believes America should be a libertine society where moral judgments about social behavior are unacceptable.
So, where will Barack Obama be on those issues? He says he personally opposes gay marriage, but I can't imagine him working against it. He's also fine with abortion in cases where the health of the mother is an issue. Of course, the health of the mother could be a panic attack or a headache. Based upon his voting record in the past, I expect Obama to be extremely liberal when social legislation is presented to him. I also expect Ruth Bader Ginsburg to have a new best friend if a Supreme Court opening occurs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)