Thoughtforfood said:
Those are conclusions arrived at by Peter Schiff. I thought there was some agreement on this forum that he actually had a brain. Perhaps I was mistaken.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
- Status
Those are conclusions arrived at by Peter Schiff. I thought there was some agreement on this forum that he actually had a brain. Perhaps I was mistaken.
Scott SoCal said:
Yet its beginning in the form of the Pure Food and Drug Act paved the way for a century of unparalleled prosperity, yet somehow business cannot work within the governmental framework of regulation? Again, you might know your pet philosophy pretty well, but you don't know history...or are willfully ignoring reality.
Scott SoCal said:
Yea, I am not one of those people who championed him. I know precisely who he is, and heard conservative pundits rail against him regarding his predictions of the housing market. Funny that your guys were so wrong then, but now you trot him out like a show pony when it fits your argument. Also interesting that you cannot debate this on anything but a basis of fear.
fatandfast said:
For the record, show me a country that used any other method than a government infusion of cash to create jobs...oh wait, you can't. Again, your THEORY is nice and all, but it has never passed the smell test. It amazes me that you all claim to know more than the collective knowledge and experience of every industrialized nation on the planet and have no concrete example of its efficacy. Telling actually.
Thoughtforfood said:
Again, Schiffs conclusions.
I highlighted some of your words above. We are fearful (your words), you are fearful, we are uninformed, you are again fearful, we are 'fundamentalists' and the 'real terror'... oh, and we are whiners.
Remember, I'm just quoting Schiff... that's it.
Thoughtforfood said:
You are right no examples of any country using this technique. The last time there was to be a European Union we had a world war. How the German's got hooked on to the Greek's boat is something everybody is probably asking themselves. If you think there is some page(or 2) of world history that shows commerce having this type of global interconnection I would love to read it. What will the world think when Los Angles goes belly up and the markets react to that.
Scott SoCal said:
Fundamentalists are your core constituents, and they are philosophically brothers of fundamentalists everywhere, up to and including the Taliban. Yea, that scares me because that is the kind of crazy that gets people killed in the name of god. The most frightening and un-Godly philosophies on the planet are those promoted by some of the people on your side of the isle. Keep pushing people like Palin, Bachmann, Santorum, and the like.
fatandfast said:
I am sorry, I missed your list of major industrialized nations that used the cutting of taxes and spending during the world wide depression of the 1930's. I am actually waiting for any of you to provide that list.
And while you are at it, explain why, if any socialist ideas are a cancer, that China holds the note on our debt. I am pretty sure...yea, last time I checked, they allowed a level of free enterprise well below ours, and take a much bigger piece of the pie than does our government, yet they thrive? Strange. It seems that your philosophy is that it cannot work, yet it worked pretty well for them. And no, I don't want that kind of government, but your position seems to exclude the possibility that a mixed economy will work, especially one heavily weighted towards socialism...hmm......
Scott SoCal said:
Schiff predicted the housing market bubble because interest rates were too low. And he was right. Puts him a notch higher than pure ideologues like Sowell.
But since he advocates Austrian School nonsense he is obviously still an ideologue. Even though he is actually smart, ideology tends to trump reason. But occasionally, just occasionally, they still manage to say something smart.
Economists like to claim their field is a science, i.e. it has predictive power. The Austrian School of economics tends not to allow economists to predict quantitative changes of certain policies, and so is more like "Creation Science" than actual science. You could probably take an Austrian School Economists writings, replace markets with God, and Govt with devil, or homosexuals and produce a sermon for ones local fundie church.
fatandfast said:
Oh, and LA facing bankruptcy is not unprecedented. NY city faced it down in times similar to these. Seems we made it through that too. Again, if your history extends back only to the Reagan administration, then I see why you are not aware that we have been through this all before, and will make it through again as long as we do not fracture ourselves to the point of having an unworkable government...something the Republican leadership seems h3ll bent on.
Oh yea, and the process for raising taxes in California has NOTHING to do with your budget problems...wait, who pushed the 2/3rds thing anyway? Here, it makes for sweet reading: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...75514.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_PoliticsNCampaign_4
Thoughtforfood said:
Not mine! A mixed economy is the only kind that will work. I wish and I am sure lots of blue haired folks wish today world had something to do with the 1930's. The people at the table were far fewer and the credit and banking strategies would look like high school econ compared to today landscape.Debt that is spread so wide that a loan default in Denver may cause a kid to go hungry in China. I am scanning my history books to find when the last time China financed the US to make weapons to defend against...China. Today the White House said that@ one third of the stimulus has been spent. I was never for it,but now that it's in motion we will both wait to see the end result. I am no Obama fan but he is steering the boat so it's best not to distract the Capt.
Thoughtforfood said:
China had 9% growth in 2009, while all the economies with this magical "economic freedom" were in recession. Clearly the Chinese know what they're doing. Their stimulus to the financial crisis was swift and large. Yet we're supposed to believe those that tell us the stimulus plans don't work.
ihavenolimbs said:
Why don't you be so kind and show us what the size of the Chinese stimulus was (swift and large) and while you are at it go ahead and let us know how much (national) debt the Chinese are in.
Thoughtforfood said:
If you think that's sweet reading regarding California then read this;
http://reason.org/files/a2ec7caccc5d660e870c4a21526ef5f8.pdf
"Since former Gov. George Deukmejian's final budget in Fiscal Year 1990-91, California's spending has skyrocketed 181 percent. Spending nearly tripled from $51.4 billion in FY 1990-91 to $144.5 billion in FY 2008-09. Are California's taxpayers getting higher quality services than they did in the 90s? They should be. In FY 1990-91 the state spent $1,350 per capita. Today, the government spends $2,644 per person.
Politicians often blame falling revenues for California's budget woes, but state revenues jumped 167 percent between 1990 and 2008. In FY 1990-91, the state took in over $38 billion in General Fund revenues. By FY 2008-09 revenues were $102 billion. If California had simply limited its spending increases to the 4.38 percent average increase in the state's consumer price index and population growth each year since FY 1990-91, the state would be sitting on a $15 billion surplus right now."
"The California Performance Review showed there are literally thousands of ways to eliminate waste in state government and improve its cost-effectiveness," said George Passantino, senior fellow at Reason Foundation and a former director on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's California Performance Review. "From public-private partnerships to eliminating needless boards and commissions to selling state-owned beach houses and golf courses, the blueprint for meaningful reform exists. Now we need leaders with the willpower to end the state's spending addiction and chart a new, healthy course."
http://reason.org/news/show/1007039.html
And this;
"From 2006 to 2008 the state of California added about 40,000 new employees, or one for every 1000 citizens--a stunning rate of growth in its own right, but downright astonishing when you consider the state budget crises we suffered during those years. See this Reason Foundation study for more gory details on state spending and hiring trends in recent years--it ain't pretty."
They say 'as California goes so does the Country'. How exciting.
Scott SoCal said:
Initial estimates were nearly $600 billion, which is a lot for an economy 1/4 the size of the US. This was probably scaled back a little since it was so successful. Spending to reduce an output gap is pretty safe. Overspending can lead to problems with inflation though.
The Chinese were luckier than the US in one respect, the national savings rate is very high. Their stimulus didn't have the same credit problems as the US.
I guess that's an advantage with a dictatorship, the rulers can just do what needs to be done, ignoring the ideologues. The Chinese clearly seem to be preferring an economy that is large instead of "free". Money has a pacifying effect. Why overthrow the dictatorship if it will make you poorer?
That's what my earlier comment about Indonesia was about too. Suharto favored "economic freedom" instead of economic growth. Look how well that turned out.
i have said to my friends, do not underestimate the Chinese. a very old and very savvy culture. we here in the states are no less talented. the myths about capitalism/communism are being punctured every day.ihavenolimbs said:
Scott SoCal said:
Hey Scott, you are smart enough to flesh that one out. What appreciated at an exponential rate in California during that time? What is now worth only a percentage of its high? The fact is that Republicans hamstrung your state with the 2/3rds vote for tax increases because now, you need to increase (and cut spending) but you cannot because of a short sighted, single issue mentality.
There is something that is just striking to me in reading the political statements and positions of Republicans, and it is not the content; it is the content left out.
Thoughtforfood said:
Lessee... I can only assume you are talking about property values and taxes generated from real estate. One problem, property tax revenue is paid to county govt not state so it don't apply in the calculation of state revenue.
You are a smart guy yet you just gloss over the facts (in favor of insults);
Since former Gov. George Deukmejian's final budget in Fiscal Year 1990-91, California's spending has skyrocketed 181 percent. Spending nearly tripled from $51.4 billion in FY 1990-91 to $144.5 billion in FY 2008-09.
Politicians often blame falling revenues for California's budget woes, but state revenues jumped 167 percent between 1990 and 2008.
If California had simply limited its spending increases to the 4.38 percent average increase in the state's consumer price index and population growth each year since FY 1990-91, the state would be sitting on a $15 billion surplus right now."
And for the best/smartest move;
"From 2006 to 2008 the state of California added about 40,000 new employees..."
Brilliant move.
Thank God for Prop 13 and the super majority requirement for the budget. If not for those two things California would be a ghost town right now. Even with them this State is in horrendous trouble and GUESS WHAT?? It's not from a lack of revenue (sound familiar??).
Hey man, Raise Taxes To The Moon. It's clearly the only solution because God know the govt can't do with one penny less.
I'm not too up on California, not being from there, though wouldn't logic dictate that rising health care costs, and lower wages from a loss of manufacturing jobs be half the problem? The other (bigger?) half has to be corruption and collusion has ****sed most of it away, and that such corruption runs in all political directions?
Regarding Schiff, I believe I'm the one who brought him into the equation, as I do agree with much of what he says, not all of it, but much of it. We can pick and choose bits and pieces of what he says to praise or criticize, but it can also be like looking at a bombed out city and seeing a building still standing okay, and say it's worthless because some of the windows are broken and the paint is smudged.
Talk on Keynes and energy later (I hope).
Regarding Schiff, I believe I'm the one who brought him into the equation, as I do agree with much of what he says, not all of it, but much of it. We can pick and choose bits and pieces of what he says to praise or criticize, but it can also be like looking at a bombed out city and seeing a building still standing okay, and say it's worthless because some of the windows are broken and the paint is smudged.
Talk on Keynes and energy later (I hope).
Schiff gave a talk where he was telling stories about people he met, taking out loans they could not afford in the belief that the property they bought would double every three years. He would ask them why they thought that, since rents were only increasing at the rate of inflation, and they would say daft things like "it's the market, duh."
But when he got to the end of his talk, he was like, "the problem is the govt" (paraphrasing). I was like, WTF? These were individuals doing daft things yet it was somehow the govt's fault.
The problem with any ideology is that it places a ceiling on objectivity. He could see the craziness going on, but his ideology prevented him seeing it as a market failure, it must be the govt (yes, some factors can be attributed to govt, but it was individuals and private organisations that inflated the bubble). This is clearly limiting the value of any insight he has.
Ideally no person would align themselves with schools of thought, just evaluate theories based on available evidence. Dreams are free...
But when he got to the end of his talk, he was like, "the problem is the govt" (paraphrasing). I was like, WTF? These were individuals doing daft things yet it was somehow the govt's fault.
The problem with any ideology is that it places a ceiling on objectivity. He could see the craziness going on, but his ideology prevented him seeing it as a market failure, it must be the govt (yes, some factors can be attributed to govt, but it was individuals and private organisations that inflated the bubble). This is clearly limiting the value of any insight he has.
Ideally no person would align themselves with schools of thought, just evaluate theories based on available evidence. Dreams are free...
Alpe d'Huez said:
One more time:
California Revenue up 167%
California Spending up 181%
Over the same perod of time.
Alpe d'Huez said:
My biggest issue with nuclear (fission) power is that there isn't very much uranium kicking around. There are more efficient (in terms of fissionable material usage) reactor designs, breeders, but these are far more expensive.
Aren't the planned new reactors light-water reactors? If so, this is short-sighted since if these are rapidly installed world-wide, then there simply won't be enough uranium. There are thorium reactor designs too, but I don't know much about this except that they are probably more expensive and require some uranium to achieve criticality.
Those Europeans are funding fusion reactor research too, hopefully they can get it energy-positive.
Luckily NZ has ample potential to increase renewable sources of electricity.
Nuclear power (fission) is only a mid-term solution (20-50 years) due to some of those limitations. Good call on liquid and breeder reactors, and on fusion. A study well worth research funding, along with superconductivity.
I bring up this topic because it shows a good example of why I'm not really a "conservative", though I do favor balancing budgets and many other things the GOP supports. The laisse-faire thinking would say that the market killed nuclear power, and that the government should stay completely out of it, and let the market take care of itself in the future. There is a prevailing agreement with this principle across the country. Often by people who don't realize the government has it's hands in almost everything, if not directly through tax and regulation manipulation. And in a sense, they are correct, the market eventually would take care of itself - just as Keynes agreed. But this runs some big risks. Such as huge spikes in energy prices due to supply manipulation; this is especially true as much of our oil comes very a very volatile part of the world where many people would like to see us get wiped off the face of the earth. The primary supplier(s) OPEC has many members who are tenuous traders at best, with Saudi Arabia being a dictatorship as a country; a convenient little fact we like to ignore. There is also the risk of oil shortages, and even peak oil (though I think it's a very, very slow slope after the peak, not a cliff). So to accept this as being the market that will take care of itself, is fraught with pitfalls. It's also very expensive for us to maintain a presence in the Middle East (something conservatives conveniently forget when budgeting, and neocons seem to embrace and keep hush). Witness the cost of the wars. What is it now, $1.4 trillion? So it makes no sense to wait until there's so many problems that it becomes extremely difficult to change energy supplies, when we can plan for those on our own, and control our own destiny. The second problem is coal, as it's a pollutant with mercury being the big problem (GW or not). However, by slowly increasing our electricity creation, using nuclear, wind and solar energy, eventually to a great amount, in this country we can:
• Put people to work at well paying construction jobs, who are otherwise on unemployment, or just broke.
• Create some long-term jobs in energy, maintaining equipment.
• Get off our oil addiction, out of the Middle East, and produce most of our own energy. They can have their sand and oil and do with it what they want.
• We actually produce a lot of our own oil, we just need to drive less gasoline burning cars and it will be enough for us.
• If we can get Detroit to start making electric hybrid cars (battery around town up to 100 miles, gas after that), and get most people to buy them, we can cause this to happen. And with nuclear power more plentiful, and wind and solar picking up, they'll be reasonably cheap to drive. A nice benefit about electric cars is that they would mostly be charged at night, when the power grid is least used, meaning we wouldn't have to build tons of new power plants to charge these cars.
• We get a cleaner environment out of it.
What would it take to make this happen? Stop the thinking that the only path to the future is the get out of the way and make no plans at all and let the market dictate things. You would also have to pay some $20-$100 a year more in taxes, and maybe more than that in energy rates for a few years. Or have that cut from your Medicare, etc. The numbers are hard to pin down, but it wouldn't be thousands of dollars per person.
Thoughts anyone?
I bring up this topic because it shows a good example of why I'm not really a "conservative", though I do favor balancing budgets and many other things the GOP supports. The laisse-faire thinking would say that the market killed nuclear power, and that the government should stay completely out of it, and let the market take care of itself in the future. There is a prevailing agreement with this principle across the country. Often by people who don't realize the government has it's hands in almost everything, if not directly through tax and regulation manipulation. And in a sense, they are correct, the market eventually would take care of itself - just as Keynes agreed. But this runs some big risks. Such as huge spikes in energy prices due to supply manipulation; this is especially true as much of our oil comes very a very volatile part of the world where many people would like to see us get wiped off the face of the earth. The primary supplier(s) OPEC has many members who are tenuous traders at best, with Saudi Arabia being a dictatorship as a country; a convenient little fact we like to ignore. There is also the risk of oil shortages, and even peak oil (though I think it's a very, very slow slope after the peak, not a cliff). So to accept this as being the market that will take care of itself, is fraught with pitfalls. It's also very expensive for us to maintain a presence in the Middle East (something conservatives conveniently forget when budgeting, and neocons seem to embrace and keep hush). Witness the cost of the wars. What is it now, $1.4 trillion? So it makes no sense to wait until there's so many problems that it becomes extremely difficult to change energy supplies, when we can plan for those on our own, and control our own destiny. The second problem is coal, as it's a pollutant with mercury being the big problem (GW or not). However, by slowly increasing our electricity creation, using nuclear, wind and solar energy, eventually to a great amount, in this country we can:
• Put people to work at well paying construction jobs, who are otherwise on unemployment, or just broke.
• Create some long-term jobs in energy, maintaining equipment.
• Get off our oil addiction, out of the Middle East, and produce most of our own energy. They can have their sand and oil and do with it what they want.
• We actually produce a lot of our own oil, we just need to drive less gasoline burning cars and it will be enough for us.
• If we can get Detroit to start making electric hybrid cars (battery around town up to 100 miles, gas after that), and get most people to buy them, we can cause this to happen. And with nuclear power more plentiful, and wind and solar picking up, they'll be reasonably cheap to drive. A nice benefit about electric cars is that they would mostly be charged at night, when the power grid is least used, meaning we wouldn't have to build tons of new power plants to charge these cars.
• We get a cleaner environment out of it.
What would it take to make this happen? Stop the thinking that the only path to the future is the get out of the way and make no plans at all and let the market dictate things. You would also have to pay some $20-$100 a year more in taxes, and maybe more than that in energy rates for a few years. Or have that cut from your Medicare, etc. The numbers are hard to pin down, but it wouldn't be thousands of dollars per person.
Thoughts anyone?
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Latest posts
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Latest: Ilmaestro99
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram