Al Gore is a phony and an idiot

[OCinBuffalo]

Gore's Retrenchment

 

Nothing like taking a real problem, and attaching a non-problem to it, and then claiming that the solution to all was what you had in mind all along. Gore knows he's lost, and this is the last ditch, phony effort to save his sorry ass. Talking in terms of capitalism, after trying to impose socialism, and trying to set up a new "carbon" commodity market that would basically be a f'ing private tax on...capital? Phony.

 

Yes, there is too much short-term investing going on. Day trading is culprit, and so it all the automation. I don't know enough to say exactly how to fix it, but I am sure I could figure something out if engaged. The bottom line is If you make day trading less profitable, you will see a reduction in volatility.

 

But, what does that have to do with the environment? Nothing. Companies will only have to deal with meeting ridiculous metrics...if those metrics are allowed to persist, morons. Yes, amazingly, the companies that do green things will perform better in an environment you create that measures performance based on doing green things. Nice circular reasoning there.

 

My entire current existence has been predicated on securing venture capital. I have never, ever, been asked about "sustainability" by any VC. "Investors care about sustainability"? Where? In Al Gore's capital management firm? Who else? I want a list of names. Investment bankers and VC don't give 2 schits about anything other than:

1. Your burn rate

2. The number of months until you reach break even....because that means you will reach profitability, and that means their exit is now viable

 

A "stranded asset" only becomes such if we allow Gore's stupidity to go unchecked. Gore: "Look, I can create a problem, then I can solve it!. Excelsior!" Thanks assclown. I don't need new problems, and I don't need you taking perfectly good assets off my books.

 

Until there are policies requiring the establishment of a fair price on widely understood externalities,

Great, so not only are we solving problems we don't have, you want us to predicate their solutions on f'ing price controls, there, Jimmy Carter?

 

That's it. I'm done with this. I could go on but I've proven the point.

[GG]

A complete crock of crap.

[OCinBuffalo]

A complete crock of crap.

 

1. Do you agree with the short-termism premise?

2. Do you agree that it's due to volatility caused by short term trading?

3. How do we fix it? Is there something IT might do?

[GG]

1. Do you agree with the short-termism premise?

2. Do you agree that it's due to volatility caused by short term trading?

3. How do we fix it? Is there something IT might do?

 

What's happening now is the classic game of blaming the messengers and market speculators for fundamental flaws in capital markets. The most basic premise of finance is that you never fund long term assets with short term financing. But because short term rates are nearly always lower than long term rates, there is the natural incentive for people to roll the dice to increase the returns. That's where your risk limits should come into play. Obviously, they didn't. This is an oversimplification of a complex intertwined financial system, but it's as close to the root as you will get.

 

Short termism is always prevalent, because long termism is a sequential series of short term events. So it is very hard to gauge long term success without looking at the short term stages. That's what managers, investors and traders do, and react to the short term news as they prgnosticate the probability of long term success. Vilifying short termism on its own, misses the full picture. The reason that short termism failed was because, there was limited downside to being wrong.

 

Volatility of short term trading would have lesser impact if the traders were properly charged for their true cost of capital.

 

It's slowly being fixed with Basel III and possibly the Volcker rules. I don't see how IT specifically can fix it, as the street already spends billions on IT. The biggest fix is to further insulate risk management from the floors and put in serious penalties for exceeding the limits. Hopefully people will put the MF Global lessons to good practice.

 

But tying the above to "sustainable capitalism" is a crock because capitalism is by design sustainable.

[B-Man]

At the risk of following the intelligent posts of the previous two replies, I was amused that this article was authored by Blood and Gore.........somewhat ironic.

 

 

 

 

perhaps I should add more, here is a video from NRO;

 

It’s Not That Economically Savvy, Bein’ Green

 

 

“…what is completely missing from this whole mass hysteria outbreak is a sense of proportion, of cost

benefit analysis.”

 

 

.

[OCinBuffalo]

At the risk of following the intelligent posts of the previous two replies, I was amused that this article was authored by Blood and Gore.........somewhat ironic.

 

 

 

 

perhaps I should add more, here is a video from NRO;

 

It's Not That Economically Savvy, Bein' Green

 

I have done plenty of cost benefit analysis in my time.

 

 

The problem here is: how the F are we supposed to quantify the the benefit? We can throw cost around all day. Cost is the easy part.

 

But, if we can't know the actual benefits, and what attaining them mean to our business, the only thing we can analyze is the marketing mileage out of saying "we are sustainable". Somehow I don't think we can use Al Gore's definition of benefit. How can I make money off these benefits? That is their value. If you can't answer that question, with real numbers, then these benefits don't exist.

 

For companies like Starbucks, whose entire business is marketing, this is fine. But there is 0 marketing benefit for a software/technology company.

 

What's happening now is the classic game of blaming the messengers and market speculators for fundamental flaws in capital markets. The most basic premise of finance is that you never fund long term assets with short term financing. But because short term rates are nearly always lower than long term rates, there is the natural incentive for people to roll the dice to increase the returns. That's where your risk limits should come into play. Obviously, they didn't. This is an oversimplification of a complex intertwined financial system, but it's as close to the root as you will get.

 

Short termism is always prevalent, because long termism is a sequential series of short term events. So it is very hard to gauge long term success without looking at the short term stages. That's what managers, investors and traders do, and react to the short term news as they prgnosticate the probability of long term success. Vilifying short termism on its own, misses the full picture. The reason that short termism failed was because, there was limited downside to being wrong.

 

Volatility of short term trading would have lesser impact if the traders were properly charged for their true cost of capital.

 

It's slowly being fixed with Basel III and possibly the Volcker rules. I don't see how IT specifically can fix it, as the street already spends billions on IT. The biggest fix is to further insulate risk management from the floors and put in serious penalties for exceeding the limits. Hopefully people will put the MF Global lessons to good practice.

 

But tying the above to "sustainable capitalism" is a crock because capitalism is by design sustainable.

Thanks.

 

That true cost of capital idea is interesting. I don't know F all about Basel III, etc. so I guess I have homework to do. Reason I ask is we some interest from the industry. It's just talk right now, and I'm trying to figure out our angles....long way off.

[TPS]

What's happening now is the classic game of blaming the messengers and market speculators for fundamental flaws in capital markets. The most basic premise of finance is that you never fund long term assets with short term financing. But because short term rates are nearly always lower than long term rates, there is the natural incentive for people to roll the dice to increase the returns. That's where your risk limits should come into play. Obviously, they didn't. This is an oversimplification of a complex intertwined financial system, but it's as close to the root as you will get.

 

Short termism is always prevalent, because long termism is a sequential series of short term events. So it is very hard to gauge long term success without looking at the short term stages. That's what managers, investors and traders do, and react to the short term news as they prgnosticate the probability of long term success. Vilifying short termism on its own, misses the full picture. The reason that short termism failed was because, there was limited downside to being wrong.

 

Volatility of short term trading would have lesser impact if the traders were properly charged for their true cost of capital.It's slowly being fixed with Basel III and possibly the Volcker rules. I don't see how IT specifically can fix it, as the street already spends billions on IT. The biggest fix is to further insulate risk management from the floors and put in serious penalties for exceeding the limits. Hopefully people will put the MF Global lessons to good practice.

 

But tying the above to "sustainable capitalism" is a crock because capitalism is by design sustainable.

Christ! You sound like an academic..."true cost of capital" sheesh! I suppose you're going to go Austrian on me and say there's a "natural rate of interest"?

 

And, "Capitalism is by design sustainable"? Yeah, if left alone it would create the "best of all possible worlds" Mr. Candide...Nice fairy tale.

[meazza]

And, "Capitalism is by design sustainable"? Yeah, if left alone it would create the "best of all possible worlds" Mr. Candide...Nice fairy tale.

 

I don't think he's advocated unregulated capitalism so I fail to see your point.

[DC Tom]

What a complete load of ****. The rediscovered good management and finance practices, and slapped the label "sustainable" on them? And "Sustainable" is used so many times in so many different contexts that it loses all meaning - they may as well have said "sustainable is the new green!"

 

But my favorite part was:

 

Mr. Serafeim and his colleague Robert G. Eccles have shown that sustainable companies outperform their unsustainable peers in the long term.

 

And in other research, they have shown that tautological statements are tautological.

Edited December 14, 2011 by DC Tom

[TPS]

I don't think he's advocated unregulated capitalism so I fail to see your point.

It's presumptuous to state that "capitalism is by design sustainable," as if it's some natural, God-given system. Hell, Joseph Schumpeter, as pro-capitalist as anyone, said he did not think capitalism would survive. I look forward to the interpretation...

[GG]

Christ! You sound like an academic..."true cost of capital" sheesh! I suppose you're going to go Austrian on me and say there's a "natural rate of interest"?

 

And, "Capitalism is by design sustainable"? Yeah, if left alone it would create the "best of all possible worlds" Mr. Candide...Nice fairy tale.

 

Yes, capitalism by design is sustainable. It's as perfect of a natural ecosystem as you can get, with constant generation, destruction & regeneration.

 

Where people get confused is when external forces, be it market participants, regulators, or politicians distrort the market. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't. The academic view that capitalism is unsustainable is a bunch of bull. What they really mean is that booms are unsustainable, and volatile business cycles are inevitable, and companies and markets will fail, and a lot of people will get hurt and suffer.

 

But, just like a forest that sprouts back up after a devastating fire, in its purest form capitalism ensures that new businesses will rebound from the ashes of a prior bust. The distinction is that in the real world, that rebirth may take a very long time, and in that period a serious recession or depression may rule until the old crap is washed through the system, so it's natural to supercede market forces to dull the downside pain. The net effect of that is that by preventing the market from hitting its natural trough, you delay the recovery.

 

But to say that capitalism is not sustainable is crap.

[TPS]

Yes, capitalism by design is sustainable. It's as perfect of a natural ecosystem as you can get, with constant generation, destruction & regeneration.

 

Where people get confused is when external forces, be it market participants, regulators, or politicians distrort the market. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't. The academic view that capitalism is unsustainable is a bunch of bull. What they really mean is that booms are unsustainable, and volatile business cycles are inevitable, and companies and markets will fail, and a lot of people will get hurt and suffer.

 

But, just like a forest that sprouts back up after a devastating fire, in its purest form capitalism ensures that new businesses will rebound from the ashes of a prior bust. The distinction is that in the real world, that rebirth may take a very long time, and in that period a serious recession or depression may rule until the old crap is washed through the system, so it's natural to supercede market forces to dull the downside pain. The net effect of that is that by preventing the market from hitting its natural trough, you delay the recovery.

 

But to say that capitalism is not sustainable is crap.

And on the 8th day God created capitalism...Amen brother!

 

There is no natual design of capitalism. Capitalism as an ideal was a system of small, entreprenuerial individual owners--it started individualistic. The growth and evolution of capitalism created forces which will cause its demise. The tendency is for large, capital-intensive enterprise to dominate markets; enterprise is no longer managed by entrepreneurs, but professional managers and owned by absentee shareholders. The concept of the entreprenuer owner-innovator is overtaken by the corporate R&D shop.

 

Bigger capitalism generates greater inequality and bigger crises. Eventually that pain and suffering from the "natural" crises of capitalism question the foundation of "private ownership" and large gains for the absentee few.

 

The survival of capitalism has required government intervention to prevent a violent ending--keep the 99% pacified. There were a lot of violent riots in the 1930s that were quelled by force. Some countries turned to fascism. FDR, who came from the ruling elite, took them on and helped bring about a more humane, managed capitalism. European capitalism went in this same direction, and over time has done a better job of distributing the surplus to pacify/satisfy a greater proportion of the population, and meet basic needs.

 

American capitalism, starting in 1980, tried to go back to the 1920s--market fundamentalism rules the day, but that market fundamentalism in an era of big capitalism generated another big crisis, one that would've been bigger than the great one without the interventions of a lifetime--and we're still not out of it.

 

Your fanatical religious belief in capitalism would say "let it work itself out." Good idea. Let's just let the thing play out, and jolly old capitalism will endure, errr, sustain us. I'll be knocking Dwight Drane's door if you want to try that experiment...

 

What are the options? We're at a crossroad. From my vantage point, it looks like we're moving closer to fascism--or maybe we need a different name now that corporations are people too? Eisenhower tried to warn us. The two parties need to be taken down. You guys trash OWS, but behind the "hippies" camping out there is a hell of a lot of frustration with the system. Something is about to give. DD, send me a map, I'll bring the beer...

[meazza]

There is no natual design of capitalism. Capitalism as an ideal was a system of small, entreprenuerial individual owners--it started individualistic. The growth and evolution of capitalism created forces which will cause its demise. The tendency is for large, capital-intensive enterprise to dominate markets; enterprise is no longer managed by entrepreneurs, but professional managers and owned by absentee shareholders. The concept of the entreprenuer owner-innovator is overtaken by the corporate R&D shop.

 

And how would you distribute scarce resources? As far as I could tell, Capitalism seems to be the next logical step after an attempt at command economies. Just ask China & Russia.

 

Bigger capitalism generates greater inequality and bigger crises. Eventually that pain and suffering from the "natural" crises of capitalism question the foundation of "private ownership" and large gains for the absentee few.

 

And this didn't happen in non-capitalist economies? Are you telling me there is less income inequality in other countries?

 

Bigger capitalism generates greater inequality and bigger crises. Eventually that pain and suffering from the "natural" crises of capitalism question the foundation of "private ownership" and large gains for the absentee few.

 

Which is why there are much more communist/leftist and fascist parties in European nations in contrast to American?? They don't sound pacified. Try starting a new life in countries except for Germany and the UK and go see where the opportunities really are. Just ask my parents.

 

Your fanatical religious belief in capitalism would say "let it work itself out." Good idea. Let's just let the thing play out, and jolly old capitalism will endure, errr, sustain us. I'll be knocking Dwight Drane's door if you want to try that experiment...

 

As far as I know he, as do I want government regulation. The issue is the regulators are usually ten steps behind.

 

What are the options? We're at a crossroad. From my vantage point, it looks like we're moving closer to fascism--or maybe we need a different name now that corporations are people too? Eisenhower tried to warn us. The two parties need to be taken down. You guys trash OWS, but behind the "hippies" camping out there is a hell of a lot of frustration with the system. Something is about to give. DD, send me a map, I'll bring the beer..

 

Closer to fascism? Are you !@#$ing stupid? With all its !@#$ing problems, 9% is the highest unemployment the US has seen and Canada's is not very high as well. Contrast that with the Eurocrats and go see where the real problems lie. The grass is always greener on the other side but there is much more opportunity for growth and to get yourself out of a rut here than in any other nation that isn't an emerging market (which is just !@#$ing natural since it's an emerging market).

[OCinBuffalo]

And in other research, they have shown that tautological statements are tautological.

This is perfect.

It's presumptuous to state that "capitalism is by design sustainable," as if it's some natural, God-given system. Hell, Joseph Schumpeter, as pro-capitalist as anyone, said he did not think capitalism would survive. I look forward to the interpretation...

Joseph Schumpter: Capitalist::Dan Rather: Non-partisan, Positive(not Normative, there's that word again) Journalist

 

The man wrote a book predicting the inevitable end of capitalism, and describing socialism as the inevitable solution....

 

....and you cite him, here, in this context?

Edited December 15, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[GG]

This is where the business world laughs at economists, and explains why there's no Chief Economic Officer in industry, other than academia & Wall Street. Your understanding of capitalism is an infantile charicature.

 

If capitalism is doomed to failure, why has it lasted two centuries and outlived other forms of enlightened economics? Why have countries that finally adopt capitalism show growth rates and standard of living increases in a decade that eclipse the rates of a previous half century?

 

Please, stop with the quaint notion that smallness is a virtue in business. Sure, at its genesis capitalism may have been the province of individual entrepreneurs. Just like two guys starting a little telephone hacking venture in a garage that in time turned into a global powerhouse. So tell me, in which economics model can those two guys, working out of a garage be able to manfuacture, distributre and sell millions of products each day across the entire world? Scale is a major force of capitalism, because scale benefits bring higher returns to the shareholders. And yes, those shareholders, whether "absent" or not are the main thing that matters. It is the early entrepreneur who decides what to do with that venture and how to grow that business. Evidence is also very conclusive that very few entrepreneurs are successful managers. Just compare Gates to Allen and Jobs to Wozniak. There are far less Gates & Jobs in this world, which is why most early stage entrepreneurs sell their companies, or watch them go bankrupt. And there is no difference in how an organization should respond to its owners, whether it's the two start-up guys in the garage or millions of public shareholders across the world.

 

Which brings us to today. This crisis is the worst in 80 years, which says a lot in a world of 8-10 business cycles. So, while OWS cries about the situation, it's like realizing that Dick Jauron is a crappy coach 3 years into his tenure. If they're upset with the system, why weren't they complaining 4 years ago during the boom?

 

Of course cycle bottoms suck. Never said that they don't and why I support temporary measures to dampen the shocks. But to move to a managed, feel-good model of capitalism where the government picks winners & losers is not the way to go, because there's no way any bureaucrat sitting in DC, a state capitol, or university knows the landscape of the land better than your salesperson or engineer. That's why I laugh at Obama's taking credit for "saving" GM. Utter bull. GM was going nowhere. He just short circuited the US legal code (speaking of fascism) to speed up a process which would have played itself out in the bankriptcy courts which may have actually been better for GM over a long term. That's the destruction that Schumpeter talked about. Individual companies and fortunes get destroyed in capitalism, but the system regenerates itself, because you didn't eliminate demand for cars simply because GM ran itself into the ground with bad managerial and financial decisions.

[TPS]

And how would you distribute scarce resources? As far as I could tell, Capitalism seems to be the next logical step after an attempt at command economies. Just ask China & Russia.

I lean toward John Stewart Mill's suggestion that worker ownership would probably be the best way to organize large-scale production. That doesn't mean there is no room for traditional small business--classic American entrepreurialism. China uses what I'd call state capitalism. The Communist Party is still in charge there if you didn't know...

 

And this didn't happen in non-capitalist economies? Are you telling me there is less income inequality in other countries?

Of the advanced countries, the US has the highest level of inequality. The most common measure is the Gini ratio, and Germany is half of the US (higher is worse). You can find the list from the CIA FActbook.

 

Which is why there are much more communist/leftist and fascist parties in European nations in contrast to American?? They don't sound pacified. Try starting a new life in countries except for Germany and the UK and go see where the opportunities really are. Just ask my parents.

Europe is truly more democratic in that way then--people are more free to associate with radical alternatives, and the communist party is one of many alternative parties across Europe. Do they wield power? Not really. If they have marginal influence, so what.

 

As far as I know he, as do I want government regulation. The issue is the regulators are usually ten steps behind.

Believe me, after some 15 years (?) arguing with GG, I do know most of his ideas on economics, and we do agree some things. However, I think this statement of capitalism as some natural order smacks of religious fundamentalism.

 

 

Closer to fascism? Are you !@#$ing stupid? With all its !@#$ing problems, 9% is the highest unemployment the US has seen and Canada's is not very high as well. Contrast that with the Eurocrats and go see where the real problems lie. The grass is always greener on the other side but there is much more opportunity for growth and to get yourself out of a rut here than in any other nation that isn't an emerging market (which is just !@#$ing natural since it's an emerging market).

Most laws related to economics favor the large corporations over small business, because they pay for the influence. Most American politicians somehow end up significantly richer when they leave office than when they started. Maybe fascism isn't the word, as I mentioned; maybe corporatism is a better word, but there is no doubt that government has become less responsive to the now cliched 99%. That seems pretty clear to a majority of the American people now.

 

Btw, front page article in the Buffalo News today with headline: "Nearly half of America qualifies as low-income." That's a recipe for civil disintegration as Plato argued...

 

This is perfect.

 

Joseph Schumpter: Capitalist::Dan Rather: Non-partisan, Positive(not Normative, there's that word again) Journalist

 

The man wrote a book predicting the inevitable end of capitalism, and describing socialism as the inevitable solution....

 

....and you cite him, here, in this context?

He didn't say it was the inevitable solution, he said it was the inevitable outcome. There's a difference. Maybe you should try reading his work.

[OCinBuffalo]

He didn't say it was the inevitable solution, he said it was the inevitable outcome. There's a difference. Maybe you should try reading his work.

Yes, he didn't conclude that democracy and socialism are so good together, that they will inevitably become the standard.

 

Maybe you should try remembering which board you are on.

Edited December 15, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[TPS]

This is where the business world laughs at economists, and explains why there's no Chief Economic Officer in industry, other than academia & Wall Street. Your understanding of capitalism is an infantile charicature.

 

If capitalism is doomed to failure, why has it lasted two centuries and outlived other forms of enlightened economics? Why have countries that finally adopt capitalism show growth rates and standard of living increases in a decade that eclipse the rates of a previous half century?

 

Please, stop with the quaint notion that smallness is a virtue in business. Sure, at its genesis capitalism may have been the province of individual entrepreneurs. Just like two guys starting a little telephone hacking venture in a garage that in time turned into a global powerhouse. So tell me, in which economics model can those two guys, working out of a garage be able to manfuacture, distributre and sell millions of products each day across the entire world? Scale is a major force of capitalism, because scale benefits bring higher returns to the shareholders. And yes, those shareholders, whether "absent" or not are the main thing that matters. It is the early entrepreneur who decides what to do with that venture and how to grow that business. Evidence is also very conclusive that very few entrepreneurs are successful managers. Just compare Gates to Allen and Jobs to Wozniak. There are far less Gates & Jobs in this world, which is why most early stage entrepreneurs sell their companies, or watch them go bankrupt. And there is no difference in how an organization should respond to its owners, whether it's the two start-up guys in the garage or millions of public shareholders across the world.

 

Which brings us to today. This crisis is the worst in 80 years, which says a lot in a world of 8-10 business cycles. So, while OWS cries about the situation, it's like realizing that Dick Jauron is a crappy coach 3 years into his tenure. If they're upset with the system, why weren't they complaining 4 years ago during the boom?

 

Of course cycle bottoms suck. Never said that they don't and why I support temporary measures to dampen the shocks. But to move to a managed, feel-good model of capitalism where the government picks winners & losers is not the way to go, because there's no way any bureaucrat sitting in DC, a state capitol, or university knows the landscape of the land better than your salesperson or engineer. That's why I laugh at Obama's taking credit for "saving" GM. Utter bull. GM was going nowhere. He just short circuited the US legal code (speaking of fascism) to speed up a process which would have played itself out in the bankriptcy courts which may have actually been better for GM over a long term. That's the destruction that Schumpeter talked about. Individual companies and fortunes get destroyed in capitalism, but the system regenerates itself, because you didn't eliminate demand for cars simply because GM ran itself into the ground with bad managerial and financial decisions.

Schumpeter said in the preface to his book something like, don't mistake analysis for preference. He was trying to answer a morer philosophical question--would capitalism end? He answered yes. In fact, you would get a kick out of his explanation, so take a quick look at the wiki description.

 

Schumpeter comes from the more interesting line of economists who try to look into the future based on the forces they see. Keynes was pro-market as well, but he realized the necessity of having to manage capitalism as it got bigger in order to restrain those tendencies for crisis--and yes, crises were less severe after the 1930s precisely because big government stabilizes capitalism by generating counter-cyclical deficits (at least until supply-siders came along and decided to run perpetual deficits).

 

Capitalism replaced feudalism which lasted a hell of a lot longer, so a few hundred years of capitalism is not long in the context of historical time. Most people (like Schumpeter) who try to analyze the future are not being critical of capitalism, they are just wise enough to see it creates the foundation for an alternative--as Marx said, capitalism will deliver the goods to make socialism possible--one of the reasons Russia failed is because it didn't let capitalism do its job--deliver the goods).

 

I personally don't think socialism/central planning can work. I described what I think may be the better outcome (as opposed to the "road to serfdom" we seem to be on) in my response to meazza, ESOPs for large-scale enterprise.

 

In my view, a form of capitalism can survive, but it requires a broad overarching structure to prevent the problems of high unemployment and extrem inequality from creating its destruction. The problem I see is the broad structure that's currently in place is not responsive to the majority. It's a difficult problem to solve. How can you create an overarching structure to manage capitalism without the managers being corrupted? By a broad structure, I don't mean your words "picking winners and losers"--that comes from influence. I'll try to simplify it into 3 areas:

1. Maintain macro stability, as government does currently via counter-cyclical deficits to maintain aggregate demand.

2. Restrain finance and credit creation--we don't.

3. Provide a social compact more like European capitalism.

 

The problem: who will manage it? Right now we're more like a plutocracy/corpocracy. A more democratically-managed capitalism in the US would probably demand greater "fairness" and we'd see more movement toward #3. All reports show the top has recieved almost all of the growth in income over the past 30 years because of this movement back to market fundamentalism. Capitalism and democracy won't survive if it continues. Just my opinion man.

[KD in CA]

3. Provide a social compact more like European capitalism.

 

That's twice you've mentioned the European model as a better alternative. How's that working out over there anyway? All that 'fairness' making them solid and sustainable?

 

 

The biggest difference between Europe and the US is the expectation of the standard of living.

[meazza]

 

3. Provide a social compact more like European capitalism.

 

 

Do you know anyone that lives in Europe? Do you know why they all came here? How many people do you know who migrate to Europe to look for new opportunities???

 

I have a cousin who's doing an accounting degree in Southern Italy. She said her work prospects look bleak over there. My answer was to move out of Europe.