The dollar is poised for its longest stretch of gains since Lyndon Johnson was in the White House after the Federal Reserve signaled an end to unprecedented monetary stimulus measures next year.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-19/dollar-set-for-six-week-gain-versus-yen-on-fed-bets-pound-rises.html
Where are the doomsayers who were predicting that the dollar would be devalued and we were headed for "Weimar Republic inflation"? They have been predicting that for more than 5 years now.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit Mick that the central banks around the world have managed keep all currencies in reasonable proximity of each other but the race to the bottom is not over. China has reserve currency status in its sights and unless something happens to derail their economy the many bilateral currency agreements that are in place will eventually cost the dollar greatly. Should it happen, I find it difficult to understand how the fed can absorb a large amount of repatriated dollars given the hideous balance sheet it how carries.
ReplyDeleteScott.
ReplyDeleteAs a long time student of this subject, I agree totally with your observations. In particular you’re final sentence and the analysis of the Chinese ambition. Nixon had no option but the world is now paying for the French actions in forcing your country off the pseudo gold standard. As a child in England I was given a dollar note by an American serviceman just before he left for the Normandy landing. A bloke called Uncle Sam would give me its value in Gold said my new friend and this was my first lesson in economics and world finance!
Cheers from Aussie
I have to admit, looking at this chart http://www.barchart.com/chart.php?sym=%24DXY&style=technical&template=&p=MO&d=M&sd=&ed=&size=M&log=0&t=BAR&v=0&g=1&evnt=1&late=1&o1=&o2=&o3=&sh=100&indicators=&addindicator=&submitted=1&fpage=&txtDate=#jump which is a ten year monthly chart of the dollar index, it's an interesting picture. If you draw a trend line connecting the high of 2009 and 2010, we don't quite have a breakout yet. if you increase the range to 15 years, you see that we clearly have devalued our currency and have a long, long way to go to get back.
ReplyDeleteMy twisted views as follows
1) We don't have Weimar Republic inflation because the vast majority of money being printed isn't going into the hands of people who spend it. No wage growth = no extra money to spend. Wage earners are more more productive but make less money.
2) I don't believe we will have a sharp rally in the dollar because it will cause asset prices to fall. IE stocks, housing, and so on. IMO, stocks in particular are at all time highs because money is cheap. Technically, it should not matter to someone who has many assets if the price of their asset falls, but they can buy more goods with the money generated from selling those assets. On the other hand, suppose you have only money, but no hard assets. A rise in the value of your dollar will suddenly change your standing and dare I say, give you power you didn't previously have. This is not going to happen.
3) TS, until I see China protecting intellectual property rights, human rights and contributing their share to efforts aimed at keeping the flow of oil going, they will be nothing more than the whore that they are who is willing to do anything for money. Don't get me wrong, China can cause a lot of grief if they dump dollars or US treasuries, but they would also hurt themselves. I could see the Euro becoming the reserve a lot quicker than I can the Yuan
Max, I am not totally sure I follow your logic. The dollars printed thus far have, at least domestically, inflated or re-inflated asset values only although there has been a multiyear inflation in food costs done quite quietly by resizing packaging.. You are correct that the money itself is not in increased circulation in the US but it is around the world and is causing a considerable amount of inflation in countries that do not align themselves to the central bank cable. So the money is at work... it has bought China large inventories of commodities. As King will attest, these actions have directly buoyed Australia’s economy.
DeleteMuch of the grotesque rise of the Stock market, while rising the value of peoples 401k’s domestically has been injected by foreign investors. This is real money that has to come home at some time.
I puzzle over this statement... “Technically, it should not matter to someone who has many assets if the price of their asset falls, but they can buy more goods with the money generated from selling those assets.”
While it is true that the value of an asset held for use and not investment should be of little concern to the owner... like a home, either you are in cash when asset prices decline and therefore have more purchasing power or you are in assets which decrease your paper wealth. The second part of that presumes a drop in asset prices with a steady or rising currency value.... when we talk about Weimar, we are talking about a considerably reduced purchasing power .
As far as China goes.... who knows their motives? If they are a win at all costs kind of place, it currently serves them well not to protect intellectual property... at least external patents. They have built their technology base on stolen intellectual plans and reverse engineer most anything they can get their hands on. While it is the ‘worlds’ intellectual property they can afford to provide lip service to violations but when they start producing their own, they have laid the seeds for enforcement, at least internally. When I worked in China not long after Tiananmen Square, Windows 3 and the first issues of Office were everywhere and was installed on every cloned IBM desktop. When they build a home grown OS, then they will work to protect these property rights. Human rights... they have been under the thumb of someone for a very long time and right now they are seeing phenomenal growth in their wages, courtesy of the wealth of the west and greater mobility than ever before. If you are used to living on .25 cents a day and suddenly you get a 100% raise, the world, oppressed or not, looks considerably better. China is smart. Notice that they just hosted the first all electric formula 1 race and they are working on developing thorium technology for electric generation. A technology that the US has had but not developed for decades but cause it doesn’t produce one particular by product.... plutonium.
Despite not quite following my logic, you basically reiterated every point I made. Is your need to perpetually disagree with anyone not politically aligned with you so strong that you need to write three paragraphs telling me you don't understand while you make the same point?
DeleteFirst para- you agree with me that the printed money HAS inflated our stock market and that the printed money hasn't reached the little guy. Instead, it has gone around the world, to people who have plowed it right back into buying assets. Please explain how what you are saying here is so vastly different from my comment that has you scratching your head.
Third para, you are puzzled by my second point, but go on to say, like I did, that when a currency gets stronger, those with primarily assets lose value while those with money gain power. By accounts I've read, during the Weimar inflation, people were taking their currency to banks and the banks were simply stamping a higher value on that money. To me, this is the same as dropping money from helicoptors. In other words, the money DID get into the hands of the people, hence, runaway inflation. You do, however, make an excellent point about food inflation. It doesn't lessen me to agree.
As for China, I really didn't see anything in there that really refuted what I was saying or supported a scenario that would lend to making the Yuan a reserve currency. But, we don't see eye to eye politically, so I guess that you have schooled me.
thanks for sharing
I’m sorry if I misunderstood your comments. Mine weren’t meant to be argumentative and were made because I genuinely didn’t not understand your points. On review, some were my error and some were because of the wording you used. I will try to explain.
ReplyDeleteIn the first paragraph you used the words “We don't have Weimar Republic inflation because...” . I took that, rightly or wrongly to mean the internal state of the USA. I agreed with you but I also wanted to be clear that the money is in the hands of others all around the world and is causing inflation in many other places and just because it isn’t happening in the US, doesn’t mean that other countries aren’t being affected by US Fed policy
The second paragraph was part my error and a genuinely confused understanding of something you said. In hind sight I realize now that #2 does not relate to #1 but is instead a separate thought about inflation and deflation... my mistake.
The confusion to me lies in this sentence:
“Technically, it should not matter to someone who has many assets if the price of their asset falls, but they can buy more goods with the money generated from selling those assets.”
While I can agree with you that value of assets purchased for use rather than investment should be of little concern, I don’t understand the back half of the sentence as, all things being equal, the sale of an asset at a readily accepted price will yield no greater buying power unless the ‘readily accepted’ pricing for that particular commodity changes and that generally only happens over time. Even in stating my confusion I am not sure I made my point clear.
With regards to China and reserve currency status... While reserve currency status was an agreed upon result of Bretton Woods, the title is in fact a fluid function of acceptance and the ‘Full Faith’ of people who choose to use a given currency in transactions. China has signed bilateral currency swap agreements with almost 2 dozen countries to include most of Southeast Asia and Australia, Japan, India, Brazil, Korea and the ECB. The more the dollar is circumvented in trading, the more dollars that are sold (back to the US) to purchase Yuan. People who trade in commodities and have, at least at present, little interest in intellectual property have already accepted China and its currency as an alternative to the US Dollar.
Again Max, I did not mean to be argumentative. As a matter of fact I don't seek to be argumentative when expressing my thoughts but seldom are the underlying realities of any given problem given much if any attention. The issues are always framed by the political specter of who should be in charge and not by what the actual problems are and there best solutions.
Regards
"The issues are always framed by the political specter of who should be in charge and not by what the actual problems are and there best solutions. "
DeleteThis quote sums up everything in America today. We've both stated the same economic truth, namely that when you print money, inflation will follow that money. The money we have printed here has NOT gone into the hands of the many inside of the US. Even at that, there still has been inflation, particularly in food as you mentioned. But it's relative. Printed money has gone to the banking system and those who are connected to the banking system, which is the wealthy within this country and the multinationals who have invested that money in building production around the world. Through more production, more people in cheap labor countries have more money than they did before and hence, inflation. I don't think we have a differing view here.
But again, the main point for me is that printing of money by the FED and the giveaways by Bush and Ombama have undeniably benefited a very small segment of America while, IMO, directly punishing the middle class. A strengthening of the dollar would clearly start to reverse the accumulated power that the wealth in this country have accumulated. The wealthy own shit but they DON'T spend money. Even S&P acknowledged that we have created a pile of dead money. If the dollar were to strengthen, this would be very detrimental to those who currenlty benefit enormously and this, IMO, is why any and all rallies in the dollar will be capped.
What is best right now is very subjective. Since we no longer have moderates, we are forced to choose between right of center (Obama, Hillary) or way right of center. As such, there is no push whatsoever to change things.
Time for work
Morning All
DeleteMax writes "What is best right now is very subjective. Since we no longer have moderates, we are forced to choose between right of center (Obama, Hillary) or way right of center. As such, there is no push whatsoever to change things. “The final Para of his last post above. Both the Scot and Max now appear to agree on the fundamentals and I agree with Max in his quote I also agree that the Chinese economic growth has been good for the Australian economy. The down side is that the economic growth has resulted in a pool of dollars/Yuan being available for China to increase influence both political and economic within our region. China is now a heavy financial investor in Australia having bought up real estate, farms and mines from owners who had insufficient capital to develop or run the enterprise successfully. I note by the way that neither Max nor the Scott have touched on the subject of quantitative easing by your Fed, surely the root cause of the situation in which you currently find yourselves.
Max is so far to the left that Obama resides on his right flank.
DeleteObama and Hillary right of center,,,yuck yuck,,,
Sorry King if QE appears to have been omitted from the subject... It is the subject... well along with the tangled web of myth that surrounds the subject of fiat currency and the belief that the government can never run out of money.
ReplyDeleteWell Max... that last line was, was suppose to be an example of that trolling stuff you were talking about right?
No, I was literally typing that before work. Finally a day off today so I can do school work.
DeleteKing, I didn't directly mention QE, but it was implied. I worked in the bond market from 94-04 and that entire period was one giant QE that continues to this day. One thing I am pretty certain of is that TS, Lou, Myself and William (when he's taking his meds and isn't fixated on Benghazi) can all agree that Greenspan was pretty much the Nero of our financial system who fiddled while it burned. Whether we are talking about Helicopter Ben's QE or Easy Allen's "frothy" asset prices, it's all the same thing.
King, out of curiosity I must ask. From Max’s quote:
ReplyDelete"What is best right now is very subjective. Since we no longer have moderates, we are forced to choose between right of center (Obama, Hillary) or way right of center. As such, there is no push whatsoever to change things. “
Which part do you find yourself in agreement with? The part that identifies what might be the appropriate answer to questions of the day as subjective or the part that redefines anyone left of Obama as a moderate?
You are of course right Max, the plans and implementations that we use to solve certain problems, because if there nature, are indeed subjective. Without any guidance most any reasonably rational approach is worth a try but when we have good objective data that says certain approaches don’t work, observations of other countries where these ideas aren’t working particularly well and history scattered with failed countries who tried the same things... the definition of insanity comes to mind... or perhaps ideological blindness.
The Scott
DeleteThanks for the enquiry. I agree with Max in his analysis of the spectrum with Clinton and Obama being right of centre and the rest as the alternative. It certainly does appear that you have fewer moderates than previously and even fewer on either side who are prepared to compromise on the aisle of either house. The emphasis now seems to be swinging to the long game with focus on raising money and positioning a candidate for the next election or even the one after that. In the meantime we see William and Rick at opposite ends of the chain with each having equal power to pull in only one direction. In such a situation we find both making political points which the other immediately counters with an equally powerless argument.
On the Benghazi thread yesterday William made an outlandish rebuttal of my post. William claims that ex Pres Clinton and HRC are collectively unfit to hold the jock strap of Rep Trey Gowdy. I have looked up Trey Goldy ad although he has been in the house only for a short time he appears to like the sound of his own voice and his politics appear to be as far right of centre as are Williams. How I wonder can William expect to be taken seriously when he makes such pointless comparisons? William then goes on to claim that Woodrow Wilson,FDR,Truman,LBJ dragged you into conflict. These claims do not deserve a response but they do require a question, William who was in the White House when America decided to invade Iraq in 1991?
What is of concern Scott, I seem to spend so much of my time knocking down Conservative supporters I have little time to support the Republican cause myself!
Cheers from Aussie
In 1991 Bush 1 obtained a joint resolution from the United Nations prior to removing Saddam from Kuwait (where he was performing an Eco catastrophe). Following decimating Iraq's vaunted guard the decision was made to not invade Bagdad.
DeleteComparing Kuwait to Lincoln's war of aggression, Wilson's WW1, Roosevelt's WW2, Truman's Korea, or Kennedy/LBJ's Vietnam is lunacy.
Not to mention slick WillIe's impeachment following his sexual harassment of a young white house intern. And the fact that HRC enabled him, and stayed with him (for political reasons? do you think?), and set feminism back 50 years here.
DeleteKing, I suggest you do a bit of study on the Clinton's shortcomings in Haiti, the Vince Foster incident, Clinton's refusal to short circuit OBL, Arkansas state troopers and Billy's "sexual addition," the body count of former Clinton associates, Hillary and White water gate, Hillary's Bengazi document scandal,,,,
After all "what difference does it make?" king? What difference does it make that these reprobates have held power for over twenty years?
Part 1 of two parts
DeleteWilliam,
You offer no explanation or reason for your assertion concerning the unfitness of the Clintons to hold the jock strap of your champion Trey Gowdy. That one has been a two term President and the other an US.SEC.State appears to be less than a qualification required by your yardstick. In order to establish my beliefs, let me refer you to a previous blog here when I stated that Clinton would have been guilty in an impeachment trial and deserved to be so found. The same applied to Nixon.
Now to your accusations concerning the Presidents who led your countries into war. Here a little history is required and I trust I shall not bore you by stating the bleeding obvious
Woodrow Wilson and WW1. As you may be aware, US was a debitor nation before entering WW1. She supplied both of the protagonists for a period of four years and as a consequence made huge profits and exited the war as a creditor nation. (Ref Hacker and Kendrick) Wilson proclaimed American neutrality on August 4th 1914 with a nationalistic speech. Even Teddy Roosevelt praised the decision!
The US was unhappy with both sides in the war, Britain for ignoring US marine claims and blockading her ships and with Germany for proclaiming unrestricted submarine warfare. The unratified Declaration of London of 1909 was also an item of contention.
So, the war drags on and the US citizens get a little concerned as they begin to see their own vulnerability. President Wilson considered the war could be settled by negotiation and in fact made three attempts in 1916/17 The first was a private entreaty and the second two were public. There was a tendency to gravitate towards the Brits and this was placed in order by the US who used the sinking of the Sussex in 1916 and then the Germans announced the restart of unrestricted Submarine warfare with the subsequent sinking of US ships. Wilson had done all he could, in fact it is still felt by the British he had waited too long. On April 6th, following the passing of a bill by both houses war was declared.
So William, what was your President to do? He had troubles in Mexico, potential troubles from Russia and could have seen the end of the war from the sidelines with friends in neither camp and surrounded by potential enemies. I suggest that Party Politics had little to do with the decision; it was a pragmatic approach with Wilson and his Cabinet and Congress eventually acting in the best interest of your country.
Part 2 of two parts
DeleteNow for FDR and the Second World War. Again US declared for neutrality and in fact during the inter war years there existed a degree of intense pacifism seldom seen before or since other then within certain religious sects. The New Deal of FRD had made faltering steps but at the same time had preserved the identity of the workers and in some small way had encouraged innovative practices in manufacturing and mass production. There was in fact an economy waiting to spring into life, just waiting for the spark.
FDR was of a mind to assist the allies and was hampered by the isolationists in congress with Lind burg in particular a thorn in the side of Roosevelt; he was also hampered by the public sentiment close to the up coming election. Japan had signed a non aggression treaty with Germany and the US placed a blockade on oil supplies to Japan as a result. Pearl Harbour was the inevitable result and then of course America was not led into the war as you state, she was propelled in with no option but to fight.
Truman and Korea. With the end of WW2 and the immediate rise of the USSR, the Berlin Blockade and the wall America became the guardian of the world against the spread of communism, we saw the lengths to which your country was prepared to go in the era of McCarthyism. Of course Korea had to be defended against the Communist regime in China and their supporters in Moscow.
I am unable to mount a challenge against the US involvement; I am also not able to support US action in Vietnam. Perhaps because the US suffered a defeat of considerable proportions, public sentiment had turned sour. Australia was involved in all the conflicts mentioned and even here, Vietnam is a bit like the forgotten war, a pity because the cause was just and the conflict caused so many losses for reasons history is telling us will never amount to anything.LBJ had willing allies and the phrase “all the way with LBJ “was coined here by a Conservative government.
In this very short essay, I have deliberately omitted to identify the politics of the Presidents involved; the causes in all cases were just and I believe the men concerned carried out their sworn duty to the best of their ability.
Please give this some consideration before reacting like a small child who has suddenly learnt a new cuss word.
Cheers from Aussie
King, it is quite predictable that you would regurgitate the establishment party line condensed form of text book history. Each and every one of the men you mentioned above shares a common thread based on their progressive mentalities. Each and every one were weak, were perceived to be weak by adversaries, and ended up leading us into the untold horrors of major war and death.
DeleteWilson, Roosevelt, and Kennedy were weak leaders. This enabled first the Germans, then the Japanese, and eventually the Russian and Chinese communists to take their shots. LBJ was just flat out a stupid blowhard bastard.
I grew up believing the macro homogenized historical pap that you share with us on a continuing basis. But I learned. Childish you say? Perhaps you should reexamine your text book mentality and dig into the true source materials that founded our great nation if you are truly interested as you claim to be. The founders King laid it out for us. We were never meant to enter into the treaties and back room deals that our European fathers were so good at concocting. We were meant to follow a revolutionary concept of defending ourselves, not venturing over and over again into foreign sectarian war lord shit fights. Mr. Obama is following the identical course today, mostly as always for political hard ball power reasons.
Your comments regarding your agreement with Max that Obama and the Clinton's being to the right of our political center make me almost pee my pants King. You have to stop chasing the kangaroo and get your head out of your butt. I have recently posted Ms. Clinton's formative relations to one Saul Alinski. Obama's tutelage under murderer/anarchist/communists such as Billy Ayers and others stands for itself.
As for my comment that the Clinton's could not hold Trey Gowdy's jock strap I was referring in a moral sense as to the complexities of the overwhelming depth of the Clinton's compromises with the truth. From "it depends on what the meaning of is is," to "what difference does it make?" we have been witness to the these reprobates for far to long.
Bill Clinton was an OBL enabler King, Hillary's term as Sec of State set the stage for the world being on fire today. How anyone can stand up and shout from across the wide Pacific how these two are paragons based solely on their having held these offices leaves one to think that time has passed you by.
Pshaw.
Were it not for the people you carry water for, you would not have a clue who Saul Alinski was. Maybe someday you will have enough courage to read him and see the future of your tea party movement. Trey Alinski is doing a great job of living up to Saul with his Benghazi crap.
DeleteHere's some help for you William. Maybe then you can understand your own party
DeleteFreedomWorks is a conservative and libertarian lobbying group based in Washington D.C., United States. FreedomWorks trains volunteers, assists in campaigns, and encourages them to mobilize, interacting with both fellow citizens and their political representatives. It is widely associated with the Tea Party movement and has been described as the movement's ideological "brain".
In 2009, FreedomWorks responded to the growing number of Tea party protests across the United States, and became one of several groups active in the "Tea Party" tax protests. Among other activities, FreedomWorks runs boot camps for supporters of Republican candidates. FreedomWorks spent over $10 million on the 2010 elections on campaign paraphernalia alone. The required reading list for new employees includes Saul Alinsky, Frédéric Bastiat and Ayn Rand Rolling Stone and Talking Points Memo allege that FreedomWorks helps run the Tea Party Patriots. Tea Party Patriots denies this claim. According to a 2010 article in the New York Times, FreedomWorks "has done more than any other organization to build the Tea Party movement."
Shaping Tea Party Passion Into Campaign Force
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: August 25, 2010
WASHINGTON — On a Saturday in August when most of the political class has escaped this city’s swelter, 50 Tea Party leaders have flown in from across the country to jam into a conference room in an office building on Pennsylvania Avenue, apparently unconcerned that the fancy address does not guarantee air-conditioning on weekends. They have come to learn how to take over the country, voter by voter.
Look for houses with flags, they are instructed; their residents tend to be patriotic conservatives. Marine flags or religious symbols, ditto. Take doggie treats with you as you canvass neighborhoods — “Now they are your best friend; it’s dog person to dog person.” Don’t just hand out yard signs and bumper stickers for your candidate — offer to plant them on the lawn or paste them on the bumper (front driver’s side works best.) Follow up with thank you notes, the handwritten kind. Be polite, and don’t take rejection personally: “Remember, it’s for freedom!”
This is a three-day “boot camp” at FreedomWorks, the Washington advocacy group that has done more than any other organization to build the Tea Party movement. For 18 months, the group’s young staff has been conducting training sessions like this one across the country, in hotel conference rooms or basements of bars, shaping the inchoate anger of the Tea Party with its libertarian ideology and leftist organizing tactics.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe Tea Party Movement: Who's In Charge?
DeleteChris Good
Apr 13 2009, 6:07 PM ET
Here is the organizational landscape of the April 15 tea party movement, in a nutshell: three national-level conservative groups, all with slightly different agendas, are guiding it. All are quick to tell you that the movement is a bottom-up affair and that its grassroots cred is real.
They are: FreedomWorks, the conservative action group led by Dick Armey; dontGO, a tech savvy free-market action group that sprung out of last August's oil-drilling debate in the House of Representatives; and Americans for Prosperity, an issue advocacy/activist group based on free market principles. Conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, and other media figures have attached themselves to the movement in peripheral capacities. Armey will appear at a major rally in Atlanta, FreedomWorks said.
All three groups vehemently deny that the movement is a product of AstroTurfing--fake grassroots activism organized from the top down--as some on the left have claimed. They will tell you that citizens-turned-activists, upset with President Obama's economic agenda and the financial bailout, have been calling them, asking for help and how they can organize protests on Wednesday. The movement, they say, is entirely organic: they are mostly providing help and resources to this new class of outraged conservative free-market populists, some of whom are their own members and some of whom are outsiders to politics with whom they've never communicated before--not even on an e-mail list.
FreedomWorks and dontGO seem to have taken ownership of the bulk of this coordination. The homepage of FreedomWorks' website now offers visitors a Google map of protests taking place across the country. They say they know of 600 Tax Day protests for which they are providing resources. The group has used its e-mail list to augment the work of dontGO, which created the website www.taxdayteaparty.com in February. dontGO, which was formed as an online rapid response team during the House of Representatives oil drilling debate last year, says it is "tracking" 700 events under its aegis. Americans for Prosperity says it has 24 state chapters that are organizing events. Overlap between all those numbers is quite likely: FreedomWorks told me a lot of its activity has been clueing its members to other protests in the area, so protesters can cooperate and conglomerate their events.
The movement is not tied to the Republican Party, group spokesmen said, despite a report that at least 10 House Republicans will be speaking at events across the country. Eric Odom, founder of dontGO, has infamously turned down a request from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele to speak at the group's Chicago event.
Spokesmen for all three groups said they are not aware of any contact (other than the Steele incident) between their groups and federal-level Republican politicians, at the national level at least; Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), however, will speak at an Americans for Prosperity-organized event in Wisconsin, a spokesman for that group said. His appearance was organized by the group's Wisconsin chapter, Policy Director Phil Kerpen told me.
The three groups each want something different out of the protests.
FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon sees them as an opportunity for the right to catch up to the left in terms of grassroots activity, incorporating the activist-network model used most effectively by MoveOn.org.
Delete"Activists in general have learned a lot from the last election," Brandon told me. "You'd see 50 MoveOn.org people standing outside a gas station. We feel just as strong about our issues."
Progressive groups have employed that strategy in support of the same economic agenda the tea party protests seek to overturn: groups like ACORN and Americans United for Change have utilized their e-mail lists of supporters to organize field events across the country in support of the stimulus.
And in copying the left's model, Brandon says, FreedomWorks is no more guilty of AstroTurfing than MoveOn is.
"If you look at MoveOn's model...if you consider that AstroTurfing, I'd probably have to say that we're AstroTurfing," Brandon told me. But if critics assume the organization is top-down, he said, "they're gonna underestimate us."
FreedomWorks will place volunteers at some of the events to collect e-mail addresses and try to grow the group's network of activists. In the same way the Iraq war helped liberals recruit new activists, Brandon hopes Obama's economic agenda will fill conservative e-mail lists and coffers with new support.
dontGO founder Odom, on the other hand, does not see a parallel between his group and liberal ones like MoveOn. His vision for the movement is much more libertarian and revolutionary
"Their agenda was to get these individuals elected. Our agenda is to declare war on incumbency and long term power," Odom told me.
Hence the rejection of Steele's request. The goal is "not to promote Republicans at all," Odom said. "I voted for Bob Barr."
"I think April 15th is going to provide an environment in which a completely new movement comes out of that [conservative response to Obama's economic agenda]...new networks, new groups...the birth of a completely new base," Odom said.
As far as Fox News's promotion of the tea parties, promising coverage on Tax Day (and Glenn Beck's encouragement of viewers to attend), Odom said: "I love it. I think it's a very wise business plan. It's about ratings, that's what's going on now. Many people are looking for coverage."
(Indeed, the tea party protests have generated an epistemological problem for observers: most of the coverage has happened on conservative blogs, and it's always hard to tell whether the accounts are accurate, given that the bloggers back the protests, and there's a seed of doubt, sometimes, as to the authenticity of photos. Of course, now the same is true of Fox News, but at least they will have video cameras spread out across the country.)
Americans for Prosperity says it mostly wants to call attention to Obama's economic policies; ostensibly, at least, it does not have broader designs for the conservative movement or the size of its own e-mail list.
"We just think it's a great opportunity for average Americans to show up and make our voices heard," spokesman Erik Telford told me.
All three groups acknowledge that the reported energy behind the tea party movement doesn't have a particularly narrow focus. They're protesting the stimulus, the budget, the financial bailout (signed by President Bush), and more, they say. They also acknowledge that some will show up not out of economic rage, but out of pure opposition to Obama.
When Fox News's cameras start rolling on Wednesday, we will finally find out what the movement consists of. The only problem is the Heisenberg effect of Fox's cameras.
Saul Alinsky : Rules for Radicals
DeleteRule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
* Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
* Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
* Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. "You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
* Rule 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
* Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. "If your people aren't having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic."
* Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
* Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage."
* Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.
* Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, "Okay, what would you do?"
* Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don't try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
DeleteSaul Alinsky pours for the Tea Party
by Roger Ebert
June 12, 2011
I had heard a great deal about Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals, but had never read them. The Right has demonized Alinsky, linking him to Obama. Curious to know more, I went to Wikipedia and found the Rules themselves.
As I read them, it occurred to me that these Rules are strategic, not ideological. Alinsky was of the Left, but the Rules have no party.
As I look around America in 2010, it occurs to me that the group currently using these Rules most effectively is the Tea Party.
So what's your point ric?
DeleteWilliam,
DeleteI honestly do not know how to deal with you. I try to condense and relate history to disprove your generalised effort to demonize various presidents. You make no effort to refute my argument, instead you resort to personal abuse and what is worse you disown history as related in text books. In the very next Para you relate how the founders laid out your nation. Surely this is a contradiction in terms, to be aware of the founder’s plans and ideals you must have read or been taught that which was written down at the time and which now represents your text book history!
You cannot have it both ways William and at some point you will have to admit that there are other voices on the same side as you with equally valid viewpoints. I do believe your scholarship will be enhanced if you try to use reasoned argument rather than personal abuse.
Cheers from Aussie
King, We've had this discussion before. I express no embarrassment for conveying to you what is happening down on street level, and have no expectation of achieving what today is taken for "scholarship."
DeleteOur universities are full to the brim with leftest spawned from the 60's generation. They call themselves moderates, the media calls them moderates, you call them moderates,,,let me tell you a secret, the man here on the street knows that these charlatans are not moderates!
Hell, you agree with Max that Obama is right of center. Where the heck does that come from considering Obama has ushered in the most communistic (and detrimental) program in the history of our country, the ACA.
As for text books, I read them, I believed them, I even stood behind that so called knowledge for years,,,,but I learned,,,I studied,,,I went to the source materials,,,I no longer take at face value the homogenized glossy photo ops, and rounded edges of years gone by.
King, we believe in limiting government. We believe that we should take care of ourselves. We believe that others should take of themselves. We don't think someone thousands of miles away in some ivy tower, or some hallowed hall should be telling us how to live, what to eat, what to think,,,,
Google "average income by State" King. See what State comes up with the highest level. Consider that that State has no appreciable natural resources, no particular industrial base, no history of coming up with inventions to help mankind,,,no,,,what that State has is an over abundance of people who work for the government leviathan.
Our movement King will sustain our message for generations. We realize this will not be easy. We realize that people who believe in text book history will think us odd. We realize we may appear out of context, out of flow with current societal norms. We will not send our children and grandchildren to places of learning that will cause their brains to turn to leftest mush. We will home school if that is the only alternative. We will do all of these things and more because we know that if we lose what the founders laid out so plain for us thousands of years may pass before people again may enjoy the levels of freedom we have so sorely taken for granted.
1773-2009
William
DeleteI have been troubled that you could not understand my belief that Clinton and the Pres are to the right of centre. So bothered in fact that I re-read all posts between us on this subject. I have just found the following from your post of September 23. QuoteYour comments regarding your agreement with Max that Obama and the Clinton's being to the right of our political center make me almost pee my pants King Unquote. Here is the problem, one word OUR. I had read Max as making the claim in a general sense and I agree with his statement in this context.
I maintain in a global measure, Your Dems are to the right of centre or at the very least on the centre line. It is the Repubs who have shifted the right margin and I guess the Teas are somewhere out there with Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun.
I regret that you have been laboring under this misapprehension; I tend to look at the politics of the world whereas Americans tend to be more concentrated on domestic affairs and US foreign policy as it affects your domestic economy.
The subject has not yet received much of an airing here, but I believe the current problems with ISEL in Iraq and Syria is likely to bring our two countries together in a partnership once more. In situations such as that which is brewing now, I think the distinction between right and left is of little import.
Cheers from Aussie
I do agree king that our progressive/democrat/socialists do align themselves with their Europeon Marxist comrades. If Marxism establishes a global center base line for you then you are correct.
DeleteIf Stalin and Mao and Castro establish a center line for you then I submit the world is in much greater trouble than any of us can imagine.
"I tend to look at the politics of the world whereas Americans tend to be more concentrated on domestic affairs and US foreign policy as it affects your domestic economy. "
DeleteThis sums up much of our political debate in this country King. I would tend to think that most tea types would embrace this statement and say that this is exactly what the founding fathers intended. Which of course of great for the world as it presented itself to them. In today's world, this has morphed into a truly ridiculous extreme and belief that we can do whatever we want in the world and suffer no consequence for it. Moreover, it's what God intended.
I will give the Teas credit in that I don't put them in the Genghis Khan realm. I don't think they want to conquer territory and occupy it. They are, however, at full blown war with the belief that we get to evolve and decide for ourselves if we want to use government for something other than warmongering. In essence, they are at war with any new idea that has occurred since the late 1700's. Ironically, the more I listen to Williams extremist bomb throwing, the more I hear the sound made by groups like ISIS. Their is a militancy in their speech, a threatening tone that judgement is coming for the non believers, and finally, a grandiose promise to fight for thousands of years until the rightness comes which is proclaimed in Williams last para above your last comment.
Just a brief comment if I may. Firstly this forums' name is not international politics but concentrates on the American variety.
DeleteSecondly, as long as we have sovereign nations, which is the antithisis of some peoples imposed global homogeneity(incorporating their views exclusively), national interests are important. National identity and direction owes little allegiance to how others choose to live their lives and interaction between a nation and a world of other sovereigns is by mutual agreement not by UN decree... at least not today and not with my concurrence.
TS, for what it's worth here's my thoughts on this question you asked "Which part do you find yourself in agreement with? The part that identifies what might be the appropriate answer to questions of the day as subjective or the part that redefines anyone left of Obama as a moderate?"
ReplyDeleteFor the more conservative leaning on this board, it's probably not worth discussing who resides where on a political spectrum. To me, I see little between what Obama has done and what Bush has done in totality. But, many on the right see Bush as a lefty, so it's moot. Moreover, it's not that important to me because there is one thing that is most important to me, and that is having a stable middle class. Openly, I refute any argument that says we will have a strong middle class if we remove all regulations and become a mythically pure capitalist society that simply does not exist anywhere today. China comes close I guess, but they are still a communist government. Conversely, I refute any argument that we can simply tax our way to prosperity and redistribute income through food stamps. First of all, it's bullshit to claim that this is what liberals want, but second, it's just a stupid idea.
I've said before, Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth essay describes much of my outlook. IMO, we cannot have a strong middle class under pure capitalism now can we under socialism. From time to time, however, we need to favor one or the other. After going a bit too far rewarding unskilled labor through unions that became apparent in the late 70's (note, it worked just fine after WW II until then), I believe we have gone completely 180 degrees the other way and have taken Reagan's revolution to a ridiculous extreme. I expect that the more conservative posters here will get their tits in an uproar over that, but I think the numbers are pretty clear, the literal explosion of income at the very top has sucked enormous money out of the economy. Don't like my presentation? Read S&P who just recently said the exact same thing. Of course, Gil Scott Heron also made this case quite colorfully some time ago in his song "B Movie"
So what's best? IMO, nothing is best that is rigidly tied to ideology. What was best in Reagan's day is not best today and if we actually find some solutions today that strengthen the middle class, we will inevitably create new problems that will require a different solution. Most on the left and right in this country seem willing to go down with the ship so long as it never wavers. I'm not in that group. At present, we have used a host of interventions from fed printing to food stamps to deregulation that has created a dangerous imbalance of wealth at the very top of our country. Most likely, I will be okay regardless of what happens once I complete my degree. But I also feel it's in my best interest at this time to make a little less money and provide a pathway out of poverty for those stuck in it. This probably clarifies nothing other than decisively saying I don't agree with far right philosophy these days. I can guarantee you though, when it shifts the other way, maybe 30 years from now, I will not be saying what I am saying today
Well Max I find your alignment with Carnige to be a serious stretch. Other than his advocacy of a progressive estate tax, I see very little socialist attitude in his beliefs or in anything I have ever read by the man. While you may wish to equate the forced redistribution of a person’s earnings with voluntary charity and community stewardship that is a long reach at best. Interestingly part of his advocacy was for corporate philanthropy in the communities in which they existed... Stock holders however were less than pleased about these comments because money invested should come back to the investor for distribution as they see fit. The outward appearance of corporate greed is part and parcel of investors who expect reward in relation to risk.
Delete“I also feel it's in my best interest at this time to make a little less money and provide a pathway out of poverty for those stuck in it.”
You distinguish this position as a personal choice by using ‘my’. A decision that each and every person makes when they donate to a charity, foundation or cause of their choice.... choice being the operative word... Charity works IMHO better than direct government handouts because it is 1) personal and local and 2) doesn’t have the ability or desire to carry free loaders.
It is like most comments about Theodore Roosevelt and his progressiveness. His social assistance stopped at giving a hand to the injured, incapable of work, and those who through no fault of their own were removed from gainful employment by giving them a hand up... all others needed to man-up.
Just a quick note on your comment regarding unions. Government invited the issuance of catastrophic major medical insurance into business negotiation because of inept wage controls, unions took that third party payment device and made it so universal that insurance now controls and distorts the price of everything down to an aspirin and don’t tell me that unions are now powerless when teachers unions advocate for job for life tenure for a second grade teacher and block children receiving the best education for no other reason than it puts at risk the jobs of under-performing teachers .
With respect to socialism guarding the middle class, could you expand your thoughts? As far as I am concerned the only social states that I believe are actually working are Sweden and Denmark and I can assure you that their idea of socialism, while it is redistributive, has absolutely no resemblance to the top down abomination that Communist International advocates. As a matter of fact, I would say that, once understood, these two countries are more classically liberal and economically free than typical central authoritarian types could stomach and certainly more so than in America today. Regulated (licensed) professions in Sweden center on the medical and legal professions with some incursion in engineering and electrical... not beauticians, taxi drivers, private investigators, tour guides or thousands of other professions we force people to license... They still believe that the cream rises to the top and ‘buyer beware’ has significant merit.
Continued >>>
Sweden’s top national income tax rate is 20-25% while Denmark’s national average is a staggering 3.75%, with a top rate of 15%. In both nations corporate taxes are lower than income tax. The majority of the taxes there are consumption taxes and are collected and spent locally.... Local government, now there’s a thought. But even with its system which uses taxes to exact extreme equity, the system is showing signs of cracking... Immigration both legal and illegal is straining the system because any state that overly distributes to people who seek these support systems will always be overwhelmed. Your tendency is to believe that those who seek vs those who need are in the minority.... they aren’t. Just as greed is a human tendency with respect to survival, so too is following the path of least resistance.
Delete"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years." Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747–1813)
One last point. Again when you talk about regulation, you make it an all or nothing proposition. Of course surgeons should be licensed and building construction should have codes but dog groomers, drivers/haulers for hire, bar tenders, Christmas tree vendors and florists? I don’t know why we don’t have a license for public office...
You like to talk about the wealth at the top and I agree that it is a problem. I find it difficult to understand why, when you know that it is in fact the crony association between government and business that creates the aiding, abetting, granting of monopoly status and giving short shrift to laws that create much of this imbalance, you continually insist that more, not less, government is required. I find progressive thinking convoluted at best. If corruption was divided between individual state interests before the 17th amendment.. what makes concentrating that corruption in Washington better? If politicians are corrupt by nature, why give them the power to manipulated business in such a way that becomes personally beneficial particularly when most of them know $hit about business in the first place?
Sigh, TS, respectfully, you just don't get where I am coming from. Take your first para and repeated insistence that I long for socialism with all of it's dogmatic, central government dominated, largesse. I don't support this. You go on to say that investors were none too pleased with Carnegie's belief in corporate philanthropy. So when Carnegie talks about it, it's corporate philanthropy, when I talk about it's socialistic redistributions that defies the rightness of capitalism. So, for the bazillionth time, here goes.
DeleteIn my interpretation of what Carnegie is saying, I believe he is stating clearly that money needs to recirculate in the economy and rather than just be given away, it should be put into things that do the community some good, such as libraries. That said, he clearly, in the most concrete terms possible, states that the money the wealthy earn belongs to the community it comes from and that the wealthy should regard it such and treat it with stewardship. Again TS, HIS words, not mine.
I guess, my belief that we should punish excess is what makes me a socialist. Carnegie seems content to let the wealthy hoard the wealth until they die, and then redistribute it after death. My difference with him is that I don't believe we should wait until that time. In my fantasy, a road to education should exist without having to pay a crapload of money to get it. The modern view that is going round in this country is that greed is good and if you wealthy, it doesnt matter how you got the money because the fact you got wealthy means you are smarter than everyone else and you "deserve" it and you also deserve to not have to give care about how stable the community is around you.
Your final para, meh, this is the same absolutist stuff that conservatives always bring up, but i'm the one who's all or nothing. A failing of pure capitalist thought, IMO, is that it never addresses the reality that it is human nature to game ANY system that exists. Take away all regulation, and business will do the absolute least possible that is needed to produce their product and make a profit. I don't see a particular problem with the licenses, but i suppose this unfairly prevents a poor person from buying a shitty car and competing with other cab drivers so that the "invisible hand" can drop wealth on everyone. To me, Glass/Steagall was a good regulation. Letting Walmart become the monster it is, on the other hand, has not been a good thing for us.
I guess I'm done with this. No matter what I say, you will refute me with ten paragraphs, label me a socialist and for good measure, quote the constitution to let me know just how wrong I am. Even when you agree, you still find a way to say you don't get what I'm saying while describing what I am saying.
Good day.
It’s not my intention to be obtuse and in all fairness, I am not the only one who apparently pulls the wrong inference from your posts.
DeleteYou spend considerable time justifying government intrusion, manipulation and restriction of the freedoms of people in this country. As I said, many more times than once, the words small government get converted to no government and less regulation gets played back as no regulation. And as in my last paragraph previous, you confuse regulation with crony association while accusing me of all or nothing comments. While you can justify Glass Steagall as good regulation that separates investment capital with depositor holdings you seem to miss that fact that much of big business corruption is as a direct result of government favouritism, exemption or monopoly protection.
I read from you, a belief in the intellect of the general population to be so small that they must be guided and protected from themselves at every turn. They can’t, on the basis of seeing a shabbily kept cab with a hideous sounding engine and an unkempt driver, decline the service...that they are so incapable of negotiating for themselves that the government and unions must preset their worth and protect them from termination when the employer finds them to be of far less value than advertised.
Recently in a conversation with King, you note the global nature of the world to the point of minimizing national sovereignty to a seat at the UN and rendering US states as mere administrative districts to Washington. On more than one occasion, you have called people racists and bigots that believe certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act are harmful to not only blacks but all citizens and local government. Those contentious provisions deal specifically with the right of association and states’ rights.... not equal or civil rights.
In light of your words: “...repeated insistence that I long for socialism with all of it's dogmatic, central government dominated, largesse. I don't support this. “...All things being equal, can you confirm then that you would support a candidate who advocates for state and local solutions over the ‘one size fit all’ federal variety? Or a statutory provision that would force state legislatures to install 2 senators from their states thus rendering the need for the 17th amendment obsolete?
You seem to like stretching the comparisons of things such as corporate charity/ philanthropy and that of the forced state redistribution. To the extent that corporations create products and do good works, each and every buyer of, employee to, or investor in said corporation is a 100% voluntary participant. You can’t pick and choose with the state; particularly in an all encompassing federal state intent on control rather than encouragement of the population.
I say something about passing out condoms in school to 10 year olds or shutting down a child’s lemonade stand because it didn’t have the proper license and back comes ‘roads and police’ comments. People rant about not enough money for education when Obama has spirited legislation to aid Indonesian students in pursuit of master’s degrees to the tune of some 20milion tax payer dollars ... Or another bailout to Fannie Mae to the tune of 4-5 billion while we blame the banks exclusively for subprime loans.
You talk about the cost of, presumably, higher education, yet fail to see the economic connection between those high prices and the US government’s loan program stupidity. As a matter of fact you fail to see or at least refuse to talk about, the distorted results of just about everything government touches. The only failing that the government programs have ever had is that they just weren’t grandiose enough.
Continued >>>>
You hail free enterprise as a cure then say that shitty wages are not free enterprise, yet, except for the child’s lemonade stand, before the regulations used to shut it down, you probably can’t show me an example of free enterprise undistorted by government. On the same token, it is government, through its own actions that is pricing housing, education and medicine out of the reach of more and more people with stupid, ill conceived loan programs, crony laws, currency manipulation and disregard for the rule of law. You talk about a middle class and raise people out of poverty but even a lady with fabulous skills doing designer fingernails must have the funds to negotiate the state registry, licensing and regulatory hoops before she can even by the products necessary to make a sale.
DeleteThis post is no doubt to long for your liking but this barely scratches the surface of comment s you have either made or aligned yourself with on this forum.... comments that have led people to believe that you are will to the left in most of your thoughts and give strong support to a central government, statist view of the world... Feel free to correct me/us if I am wrong.
Scott
Interesting exchange, gentlemen, with both of you making very good points from different perspectives.
ReplyDeleteMax's point seems to center around the market distorting itself because the big players can use their money & reach to write laws/regulations or shitcan ones that favor them at the expense of the "Little Guy" - "The Chicken"
TS's point seems to focus on the distortion of the market as being caused by the corrupt government and it's oppressive regulations - "The Egg"
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Actually - and I may be wrong here - you both seem to be making similar, if not the same, arguments while just focusing on different causes.
Let me throw this out here - I bring this up a lot going back to the MW days, and if I were a single-issue voter, this would be it: 100% percent public funding for our elections.
If our legislators could spend all of their time legislating and representing their constituents rather than spending the majority of their time being whoreish fundraisers, I think it would address most, if not all of the issues both of you bring up.
Ok, I'm done ...
Pro-Democracy Protests Shake Hong Kong
Deletehttp://online.wsj.com/articles/hong-kongs-pro-democracy-protesters-face-off-against-police-1411876944
" Police fired rounds of tear gas into the late-night hours to try to contain the crowds."
"The protesters are demanding that the government rescind a plan for elections for Hong Kong's chief executive, which will allow residents to vote but only for candidates approved by a committee of 1,200 largely pro-Beijing members. The committee currently selects Hong Kong's top official without a popular vote."
"Beijing has taken a hard line over the brewing dispute over democracy in Hong Kong, issuing warnings to protest organizers and pushing business leaders to support its stance, allowing universal suffrage but only allowing people to vote for preapproved candidates."
Pre-approved candidates. Hand selected and propped up with money (PUBLIC FUNDING) from the central committee. Uhuh.
"Activists have a good record of pushing back against Beijing, including two years ago when student protesters defeated a plan to use a Beijing approved "patriotic curriculum" in schools."
Patriotic curriculum. Perhaps the tern COMMON CORE comes to mind?
""The central government firmly opposes any illegal activities that damage the rule of law and social tranquility," the unnamed spokesman said in remarks carried by the government's Xinhua News Agency. "
DeleteFrom Brave New World:
"the warm, the richly coloured, the infinitely friendly world of soma-holiday. How kind, how good-looking, how delightfully amusing every one was! "
"I don't understand anything," she said with decision, determined to preserve her incomprehension intact. "Nothing. Least of all," she continued in another tone "why you don't take soma when you have these dreadful ideas of yours. You'd forget all about them. And instead of feeling miserable, you'd be jolly. So jolly,"
"The policemen pushed him out of the way and got on with their work. Three men with spraying machines buckled to their shoulders pumped thick clouds of soma vapour into the air."
DeleteMy point is that the government is and has for a long time exceeded its authority in the production of rules and regulations that ‘guide’ business and for that matter the ability to freely enter into contracts with whomever a citizen chooses. The concept of interstate regulation insuring a level playing field between the states has been changed from adjudicator of disputes between the states to creating legislation that controls all aspects of a business’s operation and transformed the idea of a private business to a public entity. You stop government’s ability to micromanage business and you kill the reason many of our current political types go to Washington.
DeletePfunky, I think it matters little who pays for the election when 1) it is the major political parties that pre-vet your choice of candidate and for that matter who gets attention in debates set up by them (if you could call them debates) 2) once elected, the tools to distort the market are still available and if that tool can be used to secure future influence or money, greed being what it is, they will still use it. Even with election funds coming strictly from public funds, you can’t stop a Mark Zuckerberg from creating campaign support through comments on Facebook or in media interviews. Have a Zuckerberg or a Job ... or a Hollywood or a union in your pocket and your public funds become much larger than your opponents. Does it need some attention? Yes, but as Max said, if there are rules, people will find a way to subvert them to their advantage. However nothing material will change if the functions of government create the conditions where a representative’s focus is distracted from doing the peoples work. Even with term limits a person has powerful incentive to build alliances with business that will pay off after they leave Washington. Might I also add that the 17th amendment changed the Senate from being a state level representative of people’s interests into a second lower house placing further importance on national election machines.
Democrats, with ruffles and flourishes, create programs that ‘help’ people and the ‘something for nothing’ concept sells votes... I get that. No one, but a very narrow minded person can object to the proposed reason. The solution, execution and results of these programs is the problem but anyone objecting to the flawed process gets crucified as if they had condemned the original thought. Take student loans. The concept is to get education into the hands of people who would struggle to afford it. In theory it is a noble idea... in practice this money can go to any degree, viable or not. Barring very strong parent guidance of the student, the vast majority of students want to go for the party and an easy degree because the difficulty of life seldom shows itself before you leave school. The loan process is not decided on merit of the applicant or a career path or prospects for that career in the future. It is decided on the bases that the loan is 1) government guaranteed 2) cannot be discharged through bankruptcy. What more does a loan provider need to approve the loan than an iron clad guarantee that they will not lose money? Easy money always raised prices... it is the rule of inflation. So now our government loan has created a person with a degree that is useless, a tax hole that will no doubt never be repaid, government yokes around the necks of tens of thousands of young citizens and for people who can’t access the loan process, perhaps the inability to attend at all because of distorted costs. The cynic in me would say that it is more important to get kids through any kind of liberal school than it is to educate them on how to be self sufficient..... Democrats will say that the fix is, of course, more money (never enough money) and because students are to dumb to pick a good career path, just as citizens have no intellectual capacity to discern a safe taxi... the government will pick it for them... problem solved.
I'm curious, TS, and please don't take this as a personal attack, I genuinely want to hear your take:
DeleteWhy do you consider the abuses of our corrupt government horrible & intolerable while you dismiss the abuses of the powerful & corrupt in whichever market we're discussing as S.O.P.?
I get this not only from this exchange but from all your posts I've read over the years. Why is government interference in the marketplace an assault on our freedom, but corporate malfeasance in pursuit of profit ok, even proper?
Now, let me clarify - I understand the amoral nature of business. I ask you this more as a philosophical question. If ABC Chemical can add $50 million a year by dumping its cancer-causing waste into the river, it has an obligation to its shareholders to do so. But if the EPA steps in and says, "Hey ABC, you can't dump your toxic sludge into the river anymore. People are having babies with 3 eyes," why is that destroying freedom and a communist takeover of the chemical industry?
Take your student loan example. 50 years ago, the vast majority of financial aid for college kids came in the form of grants & scholarships - the GI Bill, NHS, NMS, Rhodes, etc. There wasn't nearly as much in the way of student debt.
In today's job market, a college degree has basically become just as much a requirement as a high school diploma in most fields, so the government responded by guaranteeing all student loans so banks would underwrite them. A solution, for sure, rife with unintended consequences - "Bad Government - Bad!"
But what about the banks? What's their part? Where's their culpability? "What? You want us to underwrite loans where we get 100% of the profit & 0% of the risk?!?! Woo hoo, fuckin'-A!!! We're gonna abuse the shit out of that"
They're granting virtually unlimited loans willy-nilly to the most uncreditworthy segment of our population - 18 year-olds living in their parents' basement. Certainly the government's at fault here, but there's zero culpability for the banks?
cont'd below ...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletecont'd ...
DeleteAnd what about the colleges/universities? Tuition, like healthcare, has skyrocketed many times that of the rate of inflation over the past 30 years. What's their part in this mess?
Earlier this year an 18yo freshman girl at Duke University was outed by her classmates as a porn star, remember that? As I read the story, I was expecting the typical stuff - broken home, abusive dad, maybe a drug habit, sex-slave for the Russian mob, etc. Nope. Turns out she was a bright, well-adjusted 18yo from a solid family in middle-class suburbia. Turns out that a 4-year degree with room & board at Duke costs $61k per year. She was blowing dudes on film for tuition cuz she didn't want to put herself or her folks in debtor's prison.
Now I know that you'll say that it was her choice and she didn't have to attend Duke, and I'll totally grant you that. But as I've mentioned before, bachelor degrees have replaced high school diplomas in terms of significance in today's job market. Surely a degree from Duke will serve her better career-wise than a degree from Podunk County Community College competing in a sea of applicants waving their degrees around.
$61k per year for a B.A. - WTF? In 1984, it was $10k per year.
Again, I know you'll say it's the government's fault, that they distorted the market so that colleges can charge whatever they want, and again, I don't necessarily disagree, but where's Duke's culpability in this whole mess? Don't they own a piece of the problem? And it isn't just Duke. It's the entire college market.
I guess I'm saying that just because something can be done doesn't mean it that should be done. That it's still wrong, even if it's not illegal.
It's not illegal for me to surf pornographic websites on my laptop in a classroom full of schoolchildren, but it's definitely wrong and I shouldn't do it.
Well it's not illegal for banks to underwrite loans to homeless teenagers, but should they do it? It's not illegal for universities to gouge their customers, but should they do it?
I'll acknowledge the government's part here but I won't excuse the greed and abuse of the big market players here either.
In your view, TS, don't they deserve some scorn for their contribution to the problem, or is it all dismissed as par for the course, justifiable in their endless pursuit of profit because it's the free market, fallout be damned?
Again, why do you consider the abuses of our corrupt government horrible & intolerable while you dismiss the abuses of the powerful & corrupt in whichever market we're discussing as S.O.P.?
Thoughts?
Thanks for the questions; the answers have spawned many a book and will test my less than stellar ability for literary succinctness. I don’t at all take your comments personally. You appear to me to think about problems without a lot of presupposition and I like that because you don’t see it around here much. I admit that I am jaded at times but I always have, what I feel is a clear reason for my opinions.
DeleteSupposedly we are a nation of laws. Guided by a constitution based in a Judeo Christian morality, at least in principle, and THE well-spring from which all other laws emanate. We, through the constitution, gave ourselves some ‘natural’ rights... the pursuit of happiness being one of them. That right contains a couple of responsibilities 1) Your right ends where mine begins and 2) You except the consequences for that pursuit. Barring the dumbed down, ignorant state of the populous today (which I believe can be laid, with some exception, at the feet of overzealous governing), selling someone a legal product, that they want, without coercion or deceit is neither illegal nor immoral. While I do not believe that 99% of abortions done in America today have any equivalence to morality, I cannot be the conscience of the woman having it. Do I have the right to impose my morality on your decision? I and a large percentage of women would say that I, without hesitation, do not.
To your point about chemical companies dumping waste in the river.... was it against the law to dump dangerous materials in US waterways endangering health of human, plant and animal life prior to the EPA? Yes, of course it was, but they weren’t enforced. Would a regular policeman seeing a person dumping battery acid in a public drainage system reasonably believe that the dumper was in the wrong before the EPA? Ever growing layers of government do not necessarily solve problems and pre-emptive regulations about theoretical problems should not be part of the government’s relationship with its citizens.
I ask you to re-examine your logic in blaming lenders for the results of the government backed loans. It is, unfortunately, the same logic used to divert attention away from government responsibility in the subprime problem and is being used by the Obama administration to add yet more control over education and private lending. Have some private lenders broken the law? Yes they did and I will get to that in a moment but they did not create the problem you are referring too.
Private lenders have been making student, home, car and vacation loans for a very, very, long time. They set up loan making criteria and collateral requirements that were lax enough to create a viable market yet strong enough to ensure that, at a minimum, they wouldn’t lose money. The presumption you are making, is that lenders were somehow suppose to use the 100% guarantee yet continue writing loans using the same criteria they did before the government guarantee? If that were the case, no new loans would have been written. If you are approached by an applicant who had a terrible work history, no credit but an iron clad guarantee of repayment, would you loan them the money regardless of where the guarantee came from?
Continued >>>>
Of course the government wanted criteria to be relaxed just as the CRA pushed lenders to underwrite home loans to people lenders ordinarily would have passed up. To believe otherwise is to not look at the problem and objectives clearly. While I am a long way from that industry or its customers, I do know that criteria set down by the government allow for some loans to be made without a cosigner and presumably no collateral and in the case of the Stafford loans, credit checks aren’t even a requirement. The presumption of ability was that the student would pay the loan off in the future with riches derived from the degree. It was government who used this as a presumption, certainly no lender would lend on an assumption like that and yet the government never established which degrees were eligible or viable. Your contention that they are writing loans that do not follow federal guidelines would leave them open to either personal liability or criminal charges.. I haven’t, as a rule, heard of many who have charged.
DeleteWithin that context business will sell to anyone who wants its product, is legally able to purchase and pay for it, (in fact we are compelled by law not to impose our moral values on who we can and will do business with) and is not going to use that product in an unlawful manner. A gun dealer is culpable if he knowingly sells a gun to someone who states “I’m gonna kill my wife with the gun you sell me!” A gun dealer however is generally not culpable if someone uses a product in an unlawful manner any more than a kitchen knife manufacture is.
This same perspective continues with for profit schools. If they have 30 seats and 31 applicants, the price will go up. The price will go up if the school has to hire a new teacher or add new facilities and if you flood the education market with students, you should expect nothing less. The results of this student loan program, IMO, were just as predictable as healthcare cost by government interference in business, pharmaceuticals, cost shifting and a whole host of other ill considered intrusions.
I don’t give industry a pass pfunky, I don’t know if you read any of my posts on MW but I was up to my eyeballs in issues with the banking industry from fraud, to money laundering, the creation of MERS to circumvent county records filing (and fees), fraud upon the court, deceptive trade practice and on and on. The point here is that they violated clear, black letter law and no one was criminally punished. Laws were set up in the aftermath of the Enron and Worldcom trials which held CEO’s and CFO’s materially responsible for the conduct of their companies. Why did no one go to jail? Could it be that the government has too many skeletons in its own closet? To many revolving door relationships that would not exist if the government had no jurisdiction over 95% of commerce in the US?
I hope I answered the questions you had. If not... ask again... sometimes things go over my head.
Scott
Don't know if you will or respond to the above but I ran across this video that covers a lot of what I am talking about when we talk about governments involvement with and manipulation of business
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5-4jW5dLSI
I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree. My biggest criticism of Libs is their seemingly willful blindness for unintended consequences. My question was more that even if the government sets up a flawed system/program that can be abused, why do we let abusers off the hook when expressing our outrage?
DeleteIt's like if I park my $180k BMW in a bad neighborhood, leave the doors unlocked, and leave the keys in the ignition, I leave for ten minutes and come back to find my car stolen.
Did my poor judgement contribute to my car being stolen? Absolutely. In fact, most here would probably say, "way to go, bimbo," probably say that I deserved it and would blame me, completely dismissing the fundamental moral fact that stealing cars is wrong, whether the owner is stupid or not. It was more a philosophical question, I just wanted to hear your take.
I like George Will, but he's wrong. He sites half-assed campaign finance reform attempts made in the past. I'm outta time now, maybe I can revisit later ...
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, TS.
:-)
Moral compass is of course a difficult subject. We have morphed into a world of relative values. If you don’t have a ‘list’... a definitive guide from which a society, on the whole, agrees to operate then every moral question becomes subjective and the farther you move away from adherence to that list, the broader the spectrum of interpretation of its rules. Like stealing a car... or stealing a writing pad from work... or ‘borrowing’ something with only half hearted intention of returning it or replacing it in kind.
DeleteFrom my perspective both liberals and the Christian right have created a moral dilemma in this country. The right by attempting to codify their religious moral imperatives, however relevant to a wholesome society, into secular law in direct contravention to tenets of the constitution and liberty which give them the freedom to practice their beliefs in the first place and the left, not for denying a supernatural existence but disavowing the viability and goodness of the moral values attributed to it and setting up barriers where individuals can choose the behaviours that they will and will not interact with.(Political correctness and laws that tear down the right of free association)
What screws up your premise of a morally pure society is that there have always been bad people and they will operate with or without your consent... supposedly, that is what our government is for... to intercede on your behalf against someone using force, coercion or fraud against you. Regardless of your desire for a perfectly moral world (what ever that is in our world of moral relativity) you as an individual MUST account for the bad actor. When you put your car and keys in the hands of a bad actor that you MUST, with high probability, know exists in that bad neighbourhood you leave yourself open to the consternation of ... ‘You asked for it.’
Perhaps you could help me out and explain why, as a general rule, women expect that the world can operate to such a high and universal moral standard. While I agree that the bad actor is abhorrent, nature will always present people and behaviours that are antisocial, anti mans law, anti anything good.
It is like the woman’s perspective on dress. A woman will say that they should, be able to wear whatever she chooses, regardless of how revealing or sexually alluring it is, without reservation and without fear of being sexually harassed. Rapists, sexual predators and serial killers care not about your moral indignation and many don’t even care about the law that gives you the latitude to dress as you please. In furtherance of that thought we must also acknowledge that sexual allure is a very natural, genetically wired attraction that makes the world go around and the reason for (if we are absolutely honest with ourselves) dressing provocatively in the first place. As much as the left would like to, you cannot legislate natural law out of existence... It’s like saying abstinence only will solve the youth pregnancy problem. It may well mitigate it in families that have a good value base but hormones and teen rebellion will never allow it to be a universal remedy.
Business is, unfortunately a reflection of the society they exist in and with government many times being a facilitator of its behaviour and law that is subjectively applied rather than being an impartial mediator, business... and society will continue, like a teenager, to test the bounds of morality and social order.
On the lines of this topic and as it relates to the Rice incident, I have a question for you if you want to continue this discussion.... If not or if you are too busy, I understand.
Scott
I did attempt to post a very long clarification on the Rice thread but I lost it, got pissed, and gave up.
DeleteYou don't need permission to ask a question, TS. Go ahead, shoot.