Al Gore is a phony and an idiot

[GG]

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.

 

I think it describes Europe & OWS to a T. What do you mean I can't get a decent paying job with my masters degree in extinct languages? The majority of the US however still believes in the ethos of working to advance. But I agree that the moronic movement to make us more like Europe is the biggest threat to American exceptionalism since the Communists landed on the boats a century ago. Hence another perfect parallel between 19th century Russian anarchists and OWS babble.

 

 

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.

 

Plutocracy has always existed in the system, because that's where the optimal returns head, until you reach the level of diminishing returns and the firm self destructs or gets knocked off by competitors or new technology. There's nothing central planning can fix to change that. Your three points still get to a central planning authority, which will utterly fail and leave people worse off. Unemployment is high now, because you are at a trough. Let's bet $10,000 that when GDP growth rates return to more normalized levels when the Demagogue in Chief is out of office, unemployment will start to drop and will return to the 5%-6% levels.

 

Also, focusing on income inequality harkens back the Marxist politics of envy. Who cares how much the CEO makes? A more important measure is whether your income or standard of living is rising. Plus, you know as well as anyone that any statistic can be manipulated. What is the main reason for rising inequality? Did it have more to do with more people joining the poverty rolls at the bottom quintile, or was it swayed by rising stock prices & option grants at the upper quintile (ps isn't more stock compensation a good thing according to you?) Plus, what is the composition of that lower quintile, and what's the income mobility among the quintiles? Is the data influenced by immigrants, who tend to enter below poverty and rise up over a generation? Of the poor, how many are permanently poor, and of those how much of the problem is attributed to them vs the system not giving them the opportunity to succeed?

[TPS]

I think it describes Europe & OWS to a T. What do you mean I can't get a decent paying job with my masters degree in extinct languages? The majority of the US however still believes in the ethos of working to advance. But I agree that the moronic movement to make us more like Europe is the biggest threat to American exceptionalism since the Communists landed on the boats a century ago. Hence another perfect parallel between 19th century Russian anarchists and OWS babble.

 

Plutocracy has always existed in the system, because that's where the optimal returns head, until you reach the level of diminishing returns and the firm self destructs or gets knocked off by competitors or new technology. There's nothing central planning can fix to change that. Your three points still get to a central planning authority, which will utterly fail and leave people worse off. Unemployment is high now, because you are at a trough. Let's bet $10,000 that when GDP growth rates return to more normalized levels when the Demagogue in Chief is out of office, unemployment will start to drop and will return to the 5%-6% levels.

 

Also, focusing on income inequality harkens back the Marxist politics of envy. Who cares how much the CEO makes? A more important measure is whether your income or standard of living is rising. Plus, you know as well as anyone that any statistic can be manipulated. What is the main reason for rising inequality? Did it have more to do with more people joining the poverty rolls at the bottom quintile, or was it swayed by rising stock prices & option grants at the upper quintile (ps isn't more stock compensation a good thing according to you?) Plus, what is the composition of that lower quintile, and what's the income mobility among the quintiles? Is the data influenced by immigrants, who tend to enter below poverty and rise up over a generation? Of the poor, how many are permanently poor, and of those how much of the problem is attributed to them vs the system not giving them the opportunity to succeed?

-unemployment fell last month, so it's already declining as the economy picks up slightly.

 

The argument: capitalism, dominated by big industrial firms, requires managing. The attempt to harken back to the good old days of unregulated markets created the conditions for another depression. The system as it's currently rigged is set up to reward those at the top even when they !@#$ up.

 

My prediction: Either the system will become more fair and democratic or it will become more controlled by the top which will probably require a security state (We pretend to be democratic; at least there's no pretending in China and Russia where the structure is controlled at the top by the communists and mafia oligarchs respectively).

 

Here's another prediction: Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination because he represents an attack against the entrenched interests. As he gains momentum, he will be attacked by all of those vested interests he threatens.

 

 

As for the European model, the core countries have significant inmigration--millions of Turks, Poles, et al have immigrated to Germany for example. Yes, Euroland is currently having difficulty keeping the weak states from destroying the union. Greece was week before the euro too. They'd be better off defaulting and going back to the drachma.

However, my point is that a country like Germany keeps inequality in check and provides a social safety net for the majority. In my not so humble opinion, that's a recipe for long term economic/political stability under a form of managed capitalism.

[OCinBuffalo]

Here's another prediction: Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination because he represents an attack against the entrenched interests. As he gains momentum, he will be attacked by all of those vested interests he threatens.

 

As for the European model, the core countries have significant inmigration--millions of Turks, Poles, et al have immigrated to Germany for example. Yes, Euroland is currently having difficulty keeping the weak states from destroying the union. Greece was week before the euro too. They'd be better off defaulting and going back to the drachma.

However, my point is that a country like Germany keeps inequality in check and provides a social safety net for the majority. In my not so humble opinion, that's a recipe for long term economic/political stability under a form of managed capitalism.

Now that the Democrats have seen Romney and Gingrich under fire, and see their ability to weather the constant media attacks on both.....

....they are wishing for Paul to get the nod.

 

Why? Because they know their guy has no chance against either Romney or Gingrich.

 

 

For the last time: What if Germany had to pay for it's own defense? What if we didn't pay for it and provide for free? Holding up Germany as an example is ridiculous. Europe can't even meet it's obligations with us taking care of their defense for them.

[TPS]

Now that the Democrats have seen Romney and Gingrich under fire, and see their ability to weather the constant media attacks on both.....

....they are wishing for Paul to get the nod.

 

Why? Because they know their guy has no chance against either Romney or Gingrich.

 

 

For the last time: What if Germany had to pay for it's own defense? What if we didn't pay for it and provide for free? Holding up Germany as an example is ridiculous. Europe can't even meet it's obligations with us taking care of their defense for them.

What democrats want Paul?

 

Who does Germany need defending against?

[DC Tom]

Who does Germany need defending against?

 

The French.

[GG]

-unemployment fell last month, so it's already declining as the economy picks up slightly.

 

The argument: capitalism, dominated by big industrial firms, requires managing. The attempt to harken back to the good old days of unregulated markets created the conditions for another depression. The system as it's currently rigged is set up to reward those at the top even when they !@#$ up.

 

My prediction: Either the system will become more fair and democratic or it will become more controlled by the top which will probably require a security state (We pretend to be democratic; at least there's no pretending in China and Russia where the structure is controlled at the top by the communists and mafia oligarchs respectively).

 

Here's another prediction: Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination because he represents an attack against the entrenched interests. As he gains momentum, he will be attacked by all of those vested interests he threatens.

 

 

As for the European model, the core countries have significant inmigration--millions of Turks, Poles, et al have immigrated to Germany for example. Yes, Euroland is currently having difficulty keeping the weak states from destroying the union. Greece was week before the euro too. They'd be better off defaulting and going back to the drachma.

However, my point is that a country like Germany keeps inequality in check and provides a social safety net for the majority. In my not so humble opinion, that's a recipe for long term economic/political stability under a form of managed capitalism.

 

So deregulation of the US financial industry has caused another depression, yet the government mandates that created the easy credit for real estate investing had nothing to do with it? Got it.

 

Of course large enterprises require professional managing. And it's conclusive that the private sector is much more adept in managing it than the public sector. How's this for a litle research project - run a time series analysis of global Fortune 500, S&P 500 and Dow Industrials over the past 50 years and see whether they change more than the composition of the political parties (let alone the last names of people running for office)

 

 

Also, what do you economists say at cocktail parties when the US is still the birthplace of innovation and revolutionary technologies? Why do world's immigrants still clamor for a US visa as opposed to a European one? Who will produce the innovation when US mirrors the sclerotic states living of previous inventions?

 

Comparing Europe's managed capitalism to the US is a red herring, because Europeans accept a lower standard of living and do not do a very good job of integrating the foreigners. Germany & other Northern Europeans have taken in a bunch of Turks, but let's see how that story plays out in a generation. Do you think it's a coincidence that violent Islam got fertilized in Germany?

 

Yes, electing Ron Paul to break down entrenched interests will fix things for the better ...

[OCinBuffalo]

What democrats want Paul?

 

Who does Germany need defending against?

New York Times just did a puff piece on Paul, of all people. Now, in what time, other than the Republican primary, would the NYT be extolling Paul's virtues? Please.

 

Oh, I don't know, Russia perhaps?

 

It's hysterical that liberals, who did everything they could to prevent us from winning the Cold War, on the premise that it would tempt the Russian Juggernaut into WW3, now insist that Russia is no big deal. The hypocrisy of this is staggering. Liberals can't seem to get their history straight, and they refuse to see things as they truly are. Ask the Polish people if they think Russia is no big deal. Hell, ask the Germans. Why do you think the Polish are so pissed at Obama over the missile defense shield debacle?

 

Russia is $10k and a case of vodka away from attacking Europe(the cost of the bribe), and has been since Peter the Great. Well, maybe it's $100k now. The ONLY thing stopping them? Their fear of the US. IF that fear goes away, there's nothing to stop them but the ocean.

 

And you think France, never mind Germany, has nothing to defend against? Almost all of Russia's current economy is based on 2 things: raw materials and war production. They have a bigger aging population problem than anyone, and are therefore staring national poverty in the face....and you think there's nothing to worry about? Hmm. Poverty, and a schitload of weapons, tanks, with gas for all of it...what could go wrong? Meanwhile, they are forging alliances with China, who is about to have 50 million poor men running around with no chance of getting laid, or doing anything other than being a peasant.

 

Yeah, no problems there. No chance for war at all. And ALL of this, all of it, is a direct result of socialist policies.

 

IF you can't understand this, then you are an unmitigated moron. But yeah, go ahead and call me a war monger for simply telling you the truth.

Edited December 15, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[IDBillzFan]

-unemployment fell last month, so it's already declining as the economy picks up slightly.

All we need is another million people to stop looking for work and we should be able to get that unemployment rate all the down to about 7.5%.

 

Summer of Recovery...here at last.

[TPS]

New York Times just did a puff piece on Paul, of all people. Now, in what time, other than the Republican primary, would the NYT be extolling Paul's virtues? Please.

 

Oh, I don't know, Russia perhaps?

 

It's hysterical that liberals, who did everything they could to prevent us from winning the Cold War, on the premise that it would tempt the Russian Juggernaut into WW3, now insist that Russia is no big deal. The hypocrisy of this is staggering. Liberals can't seem to get their history straight, and they refuse to see things as they truly are. Ask the Polish people if they think Russia is no big deal. Hell, ask the Germans. Why do you think the Polish are so pissed at Obama over the missile defense shield debacle?

 

Russia is $10k and a case of vodka away from attacking Europe(the cost of the bribe), and has been since Peter the Great. Well, maybe it's $100k now. The ONLY thing stopping them? Their fear of the US. IF that fear goes away, there's nothing to stop them but the ocean.

 

And you think France, never mind Germany, has nothing to defend against? Almost all of Russia's current economy is based on 2 things: raw materials and war production. They have a bigger aging population problem than anyone, and are therefore staring national poverty in the face....and you think there's nothing to worry about? Hmm. Poverty, and a schitload of weapons, tanks, with gas for all of it...what could go wrong? Meanwhile, they are forging alliances with China, who is about to have 50 million poor men running around with no chance of getting laid, or doing anything other than being a peasant.

 

Yeah, no problems there. No chance for war at all. And ALL of this, all of it, is a direct result of socialist policies.

 

IF you can't understand this, then you are an unmitigated moron. But yeah, go ahead and call me a war monger for simply telling you the truth.

No, not a war monger, just a shill. Please, Russia is going to attack! Oh, we're all doomed. What an anus. What exactly do you sell? It ain't the truth.

Really, what is your job?

[DC Tom]

No, not a war monger, just a shill. Please, Russia is going to attack! Oh, we're all doomed. What an anus. What exactly do you sell? It ain't the truth.

Really, what is your job?

 

Let's list all the times Russia has attacked Germany...

 

• 
   
  

 

That's about it.

Edited December 16, 2011 by DC Tom

[Alaska Darin]

3. Provide a social compact more like European capitalism.

 

You're a friggin' idiot.

[OCinBuffalo]

No, not a war monger, just a shill. Please, Russia is going to attack! Oh, we're all doomed. What an anus. What exactly do you sell? It ain't the truth.

Really, what is your job?

Unmitigated moron. If we pulled out of Europe tomorrow, they'd have to convert 75% of their social spending to defense the next day, and that's the end of European socialism, or, they'd just go sign a new Neville Chamberlain "you better not" agreement, and get rolled....just like last time they ignored a leader with major popular support, an entire economy based on war with the major difference: enough raw materials to fight indefinitely. But, in all likelihood, Europe is too old, too dumb, and too limp-wristed to do even that much about this. In fact, it's possible they would much rather get rolled over than admit they are completely wrong politically.

 

We know this. We are well aware and decide to protect these absolute hypocrites(easy to be anti-war when somebody else fights your battles for you), anyway. Europe represents a huge market for us, so we tolerate these mouthy Fs and protect them anyway.

 

But, that's what it is: toleration of bad/idiot behavior. We create the conditions for them to live in their phony world, but that doesn't mean we should live in it too. They've been living it for so long, "we spend responsibly on our people and negotiate with our enemies, so we only have to spend a little on defense" may sound like the truth, and most of Europe is dumb enough to believe it, but it's a massive lie.

 

And, for the Ron Paul idiots: what is the #1 reason Europe has been a free market since 1945? Hint: our "militarist war mongering".

Let's list all the times Russia has attacked Germany...

 

That's about it.

You are an even bigger unmitigated moron, because you know better.

 

The only real use for understanding history is the ability to understand what is the same, but more importantly, what is different, between last time and this time.

 

Tell us how this Maginot line argument you are building works....

[DC Tom]

You are an even bigger unmitigated moron, because you know better.

 

The only real use for understanding history is the ability to understand what is the same, but more importantly, what is different, between last time and this time.

 

Tell us how this Maginot line argument you are building works....

 

 

Maginot Line argument? You're the one arguing that the long history of Russian aggression against Germany requires a US military presence to DEFEND central Europe.

[Alaska Darin]

Unmitigated moron. If we pulled out of Europe tomorrow, they'd have to convert 75% of their social spending to defense the next day, and that's the end of European socialism, or, they'd just go sign a new Neville Chamberlain "you better not" agreement, and get rolled

"If" we pulled out of Europe? Troop "strength" in EUCOM is about one-sixth what it was in the 1980s.

[OCinBuffalo]

Maginot Line argument? You're the one arguing that the long history of Russian aggression against Germany requires a US military presence to DEFEND central Europe.

No, actually, I am arguing the exact opposite.

 

I am arguing that we have a series of firsts wrt to Russia that, combined, create a situation that has been seen before, in other countries, and has created conditions where war is an inevitability. We are now seeing the same realities in Russia, many for the first time.

 

What's the difference between Russia of the 1910s and today? Now they have exponentially more access to their own raw materials.

......of the 1930s and today? Now they are far superior in weapons, both in terms of numbers and effectiveness.

The list goes on.

 

You are trying to tell me that these firsts don't exist, and that Russia is still living in the 1930s, and will continue to act like it, just like they always have = Maginot line.

 

Pretending that these realities don't exist, or, somehow don't point directly to war, is ludicrous. Interestingly enough this war could hinge on Iran's nuclear program, but, in all cases:

Europe would schit themselves if we completely pulled out tomorrow. You know it, I know it, and that's the point here: they don't pay for their own defense.

 

They expect us to pay for it, and then talk schit about us being materialistic, and even Imperialistic Coming from Europe?

 

"If" we pulled out of Europe? Troop "strength" in EUCOM is about one-sixth what it was in the 1980s.

We have been doing the same jobs with less and less men and more and more training and technology since the 1980s, everywhere. Europe is no different. The fact is that this fact is not very relevant. We are still spending boatloads on air, and air defense. And ADA is not a function of troop strength.

 

So, whatever. This has nothing to do with whether we pay for Europe's defense. Or, how much their budgets, and therefore, their overall social spending policies, would have to drastically change if they had to hold their own ground for 2 weeks, never mind successfully defend their country on their own.

Edited December 22, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[....lybob]

No, actually, I am arguing the exact opposite.

 

I am arguing that we have a series of firsts wrt to Russia that, combined, create a situation that has been seen before, in other countries, and has created conditions where war is an inevitability. We are now seeing the same realities in Russia, many for the first time.

 

What's the difference between Russia of the 1910s and today? Now they have exponentially more access to their own raw materials.

......of the 1930s and today? Now they are far superior in weapons, both in terms of numbers and effectiveness.

The list goes on.

 

You are trying to tell me that these firsts don't exist, and that Russia is still living in the 1930s, and will continue to act like it, just like they always have = Maginot line.

 

Pretending that these realities don't exist, or, somehow don't point directly to war, is ludicrous. Interestingly enough this war could hinge on Iran's nuclear program, but, in all cases:

Europe would schit themselves if we completely pulled out tomorrow. You know it, I know it, and that's the point here: they don't pay for their own defense.

 

They expect us to pay for it, and then talk schit about us being materialistic, and even Imperialistic Coming from Europe?

 

 

We have been doing the same jobs with less and less men and more and more training and technology since the 1980s, everywhere. Europe is no different. The fact is that this fact is not very relevant. We are still spending boatloads on air, and air defense. And ADA is not a function of troop strength.

 

So, whatever. This has nothing to do with whether we pay for Europe's defense. Or, how much their budgets, and therefore, their overall social spending policies, would have to drastically change if they had to hold their own ground for 2 weeks, never mind successfully defend their country on their own.

Russia is a huge energy exporter, they have a huge land mass and a relatively small and shrinking population, they are now full members of the WTO, they are going to benefit from global warming both in agriculture and in arctic sea lanes- why the !@#$ would they invade anyone? If they get pissed enough about anything all they'd have to do is cut off Europe from their gas supplies.

[OCinBuffalo]

Russia is a huge energy exporter, they have a huge land mass and a relatively small and shrinking population, they are now full members of the WTO, they are going to benefit from global warming both in agriculture and in arctic sea lanes- why the !@#$ would they invade anyone? If they get pissed enough about anything all they'd have to do is cut off Europe from their gas supplies.

They are already doing that for the specific purpose of gaining the power they lost, ask Georgia and Ukraine. Thank you for making my point for me. You are the best ...lybob. Nobody hands me the game faster/better. IF Russia had only isolationist designs, the very last thing they would do is cut off what they are able to export. So why do it?

 

Why are they out forging alliances and trying to create a new Eastern Bloc? The fact is that Russia wants things to go back to the old days, when liberals like you(edit: not all liberals) were afraid of them, and told us that we had to appease them, in the interest of peace. When Reagan came along and made you look...like what you are, and treated them like...what they are, coupled with the fact that they had done NOTHING to improve their standard of living for 80 years....that was the end of Communist side of things. But that doesn't change their overall mindset = dominating Europe, as Putin himself has openly stated on many occasions.

 

 

Now, you are telling me that the people we had to appease, who are 100% about gaining power, both then and now, are no threat? Why exactly? Because they don't call themselves communists anymore?

Edited December 23, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[whateverdude]

So does "sustainable long-term thinking" mean 60 days or 1 year?

Edited December 23, 2011 by whateverdude

[whateverdude]

So does "sustainable long-term thinking" mean 60 days or 1 year?

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this? You have incompetent, dysfunctional government types telling businesses how to be competent and functional!

[DC Tom]

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this? You have incompetent, dysfunctional government types telling businesses how to be competent and functional!

 

The government's sustainable, though.