Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
CNBC started this insanity with their attack questions. Seems the networks were more about touting themselves and their moderators than the candidates.
Donald is busting Fox chops in a battle royal with conservative talk radio - who hate him because he's not as pure a tea party crazy as Cruz.
What if this is precedent to avoid any debates with the democratic nominee should Donald get nominated? Let's face it, so far, he hasn't actually detailed any of his 'platform' with other than catch slogans. I have little doubt that Hillary or Bernie would kick his ass in a debate.
That said, it's all great fun. Right now I'm undecided between Bernie and Donald - not because I agree with that much either has to say but that they're the only two running that are true to their roots.
If I was going to fix this crap, I'd abolish elections and appoint all offices like they do jury duty. Extend the terms and only permit one term per person. Hell, the staff can take care of the OJT and frankly, I trust anyone that's a regular voter over anyone that runs for office (present company excluded, TYVM!). Match or exceed their current salary and guarantee their jobs back after their service. This way you eliminate lobbying and campaign finance issues. Cripes, elected offices were never intended to become careers. You were supposed to go to Washington or Lansing, for a term or two and then return to your regular occupation.
Oh, and BTW I am an elected official in Michigan - Township Trustee as a REAL republican not one of these religinazi creeps (i.e. fiscal conservative - balance the books and pay the bills and avoid legacy costs; socially tolerant like Jesus and all good civil libertarians (if no one gets hurt and I don't have to watch, I don't care what you do - it's none of my business) and lastly, I'm a tree hugger just like Teddy Roosevelt.
@Maurice@Old_Joe This grammar debate is much more entertaining than the snoozefest presidential debates...especially the Dem one with Hillary, Bernie and that other guy
"especially the Dem one with Hillary, Bernie and that other guy"
There's another guy?
Add: Oh, yeah, that's right. Our stable consists of one retread, one dreamer, and some other guy. Got to admit that the competing stable is a whole lot more interesting.
When I first heard that Trump was nixing the debate, I thought what a great set up to doing a walkon halfway through. The news has been talking about little else since last night. He may be considered an artful tactitian by some, I consider him dangerous. As I recall, there was a similar "tactitian" in the 30s that became a world leader. No one knew what hit them when his real agenda became reality.
This would be the perfect election for a 3rd (or 4th) party candidate. As a conservative, I would much rather have any of the governors over Trump or Cruz. And if I were a prog, I would definitely prefer Bernie over Hillary...at least he doesn't seem to be a liar. Unfortunately, it looks like it will be Trump or Cruz vs. Hillary. Too many angry candidates! Makes me nostalgic for Romney/Obama. I may just vote for Senate, House, etc., this time.
The Presidential Debates have become too predictable. I spend zero time watching, anymore. Get my info. elsewhere. It's all ("kabuki?") theater. Which has been referred to already, above.
Is there anyone else here who has a valid reason, as with myself; for not watching the "show" tonight?
Oh, my reason.........well, okay..........I'm watching the movie, "The Hunger Games" again to determine how the format of the story line to determine a winner from a given district might be integrated into a decision making format to determine the "leader of the U.S.".
Hunger Games (first movie) synopsis:
In what was once North America, the Capitol of Panem maintains its hold on its 12 districts by forcing them each to select a boy and a girl, called Tributes, to compete in a nationally televised event called the Hunger Games. Every citizen must watch as the youths fight to the death until only one remains. District 12 Tribute Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) has little to rely on, other than her hunting skills and sharp instincts, in an arena where she must weigh survival against love.
Past this, I may review a few investment holdings, as we are having our positive returns kicked in the arse. On the other hand, perhaps I can skip the holdings and review my personal self, for some answers.
I think that the debates started to devolve into winning with slogans and gotcha questions, was when the conventions became less important and the primaries became more important. It's a crazy system. Maybe the advent of cable had something to do with it too. With more choices, network news started to become more commercial, as competition increased.
Sometimes I think that we'd be better off switching to a system of parliamentary rule, and having presidential elections within 6 weeks of the government "breaking up". If nothing else, we could shorten the presidential election cycle from 2 years to 6 weeks. It sure would mean that people would have to find something else to do for all that time.
Oh, and no monarchy. The French got that one right.
Agree completely with Maurice. I sometimes think the same things.
Umm ... my kid gloves predictive phrases were drawn up before I realized the *** was televising his own counter-debate program at the same time. Could get ugly. This is just too too bizarre - but great Reality TV if that's what you want.
Tonight is jazz organ at the SF Jazz Center. Actually, haven't watched any "debate" yet, on either side.
Absolutely. Anything would be better than this media circus. (even bad jazz) I'll watch first 30 minutes because curious how they dispose of the Kelly/Trump issue. Than ... thank God for Kindle.
There is not going to be a viable third party candidate unless there is a significant differentiation from the current parties, not just disgruntled/angry ex left or right wingers.
Something like what @rono describes himself as. It is unforunate that in the US, social conservatism and fiscal conservatism go together in all-or-nothing package. At least, in my area, there would be significant support for a fiscally conservative and socially liberal candidate/party especially amongst the wealthy. Arnold Schwarzenegger was the last experiment in this area but he wasn't a good one. This combination exists in most of Europe and it is unusual to see the conservative parties there be conservative both socially and economically. It is just a quirk of geopolitics in American history with the north and south divisions I think that created this.
Without that choice, many in this part of the woods seem to lean left with higher belief in the possibility of making the left more fiscally responsible than in the belief of possibility of making the right more socially liberal.
I've been hearing about this wack 'social liberal / fiscal conservative' goal all my life and have never got it or heard it explained. What and who pay for progressivism? It ain't as if it's free.
Socially liberal isn't just about spending or welfare or primarily about that. It isn't socialism either which is what people in the US immediately picture. The problem here is precisely what you are pointing that there isn't a good model that has ever come out in this country to follow because it has never been viable to have a winnable demographics without mixing the two conservative factions. And people aren't very informed of what happens in rest of the world beyond talking points.
One model would be what @rono phrases as libertarian in social issues. It doesn't require spending/taxing to leave abortion alone, to not get caught up in definitions of marriage or in other words not to enforce one's preference on someone else. Unfortunately, libertarianism that supports this in the US is mixed up with isolationism which is impractical in this globalized world.
One can get an inkling of this reading the Economist over time. They are as fiscally conservative as you can get but also socially liberal in a libertarian way without getting into isolationism, recognizing the need for social nets without making it into a lifestyle. Germany's Angela Merkel or UK's David Cameron are examples of a socially liberal but fiscally conservative approach.
Socially liberal but fiscally conservative tend to prioritize taxation and spending a little differently than the conservatives here even if the fiscal conservatism requires disciplined spending so it does not become a welfare state as the conservatives fear most. Here being fiscally conservative just means don't spend on the items I don't like or don't benefit from but spend a lot on what I like or benefit from. It is the usuall hypocrisy. That isn't really being fiscally conservative which is why both parties tend to run up deficits. The alternative of kill/starve the govt is an angry rhetoric but not a viable policy.
But one has to be careful in not trying to define any party in exactly how they stand precisely in each issue. It is always a spectrum. They differ in how they prioritize in competing issues rather than be defined by a rigid checkbox as it happens here on either side.
. To my surprise and appreciation, it was the most level-headed exploration of Mr. Trump that I've seen, pointing out his many historical inconsistencies, and asking some very pertinent questions. A good read if you have access to the WSJ.
And if he was 'constant' he would have been labeled closed minded and small minded. When a democrat does it, it is a good thing - they listened to others and grown.
Always with the social nets as lifestyle thing. As if that is a major expense. How do healthcare and infrastructure repair and public education and assistance get paid for in Germany and the UK? Fiscal conservatism? Not really.
What does fiscal conservativism mean to you? Perhaps we are getting constrained by the definitions because of the rigid polarizing views here.
The things you mentioned are all paid for by taxes, of course. And social nets can be expensive depending on what you include in them, not just food stamps. Minimum education, health, etc can all be considered social nets. You are probably going to say but that is what progressives/liberals want. Of course, by being socially liberal, they have that in common with liberals. On the other hand, if fiscal conservatism is defined as in this country by the govt not wanting to pay for any of those things, then by definition, it isn't fiscal conservatism. But that isn't the narrow definition I am using. It is about spending priorities within what you can tax and not look at taxing as an ATM. Not getting into huge deficits for ideological reasons or progressive ideas.
@rono put it simply in his post of what fiscally responsible is. It is a matter of degrees than uniquely different. And for people who think that is a good combination, it is obvious when they see it and others will disagree.
So I cannot and will not give a manifesto of this combination here, and it is not something everyone is going to be convinced about, it isn't so even in countries where this combination exists which is why they have elections too.
My point was about having that choice to vote on if one identified with that kind of a combination because there is part of the population that identifies with mixing fiscal responsibility with social liberal policies that the left here is unable to do (except perhaps in the most recent incarnation of Jerry Brown in California when he forced that fiscal discipline without throwing social nets under the bus entirely as a right wing candidate may have done) and the social "investment" (minus spending as a stimulus) that the right is unable to do (because they have different spending habits not because they do not want to spend).
I also suspect that succeeding generations will be increasingly socially liberal than the previous (millenials already are compared to baby boomers) so it may come about naturally within one or the other of the existing parties as well but that organic evolution will take too much time.
It takes more than a few posts in a forum to get into the nuances of this. I am not trying to proselytize here because there is no one right solution, just that some people see a distinct alternative to the two polarized parties here. And in a Democracy, it only becomes viable only if enough people see it that way based on their own life experiences.
If you are curious about this, the best way is to really read something like the Economist for a while and even if you do not necessarily agree with all of their views (I don't), you may see a different combination of outlooks that sync with liberals here (which is why they can endorse Democratic presidential candidates) in social issues and sync with conservatives here especially when it comes to economic policies (which is not just spending policies).
That is all I have time/inclination for to say here I am afraid.
@vkt: "One can get an inkling of this reading the Economist over time." Absolutely. One of the last decent "newspapers", as they prefer to call themselves.
"even if you do not necessarily agree with all of their views (I don't)" Same here. But there is also plenty that I do agree with.
Donald Trump is refusing to debate seven of his fellow presidential candidates on stage that night, which is near unprecedented.
This should read “nearly unprecedented”. Unprecedented is an adjective which must be modified by an adverb. How is it possible that a major news organization can issue a statement with such a fifth grade mistake?
I'm as likely to cringe at bad grammar as anyone, but every once in awhile you've got to Think Different.
Gosh, my writing that is dang near unprecedented (exceedingly close to the state of never having occurred before).
There is a give away aspect to the more socially liberal wing of the democratic party that I can't support. Much of the Obama $1T Capital spending program went down this drain. To brutalize the saying - 'If I feed a man, he will come back tomorrow for another meal. If I teach him to fish, he can take care of himself.' That's one reason we need a massive infrastructure spending program - jobs. Not only is the infrastructure in dire need, but this is a perfect example of 'demand side economics'.
Supply economics resulted in the most hideous concentration of wealth I believe the world has seen in a long time. What we need now is a huge dose of demand side economics. Remember the Bush Jr.'s tax cut program? I said at the time that most of it was great but there was too little at the bottom. The bottom of the income ladder is where the Marginal Propensity to Consume is 1.00. That means every additional dollar is spent buying stuff unlike the upper end where folks tend to save and invest windfall dollars. By Bush not giving more back at the bottom, folks didn't consume and therefore, stuff didn't need to be made and jobs were not created. The biggest bang for our gov't buck is at the bottom of the food chain where they spend it . . . but good grief make them earn it buy rebuilding this country.
Raise the minimum wage to $15 over a couple of years. Yeah, our Big Macs will cost a bit more but damn, no gov't taxes raised . . . just tax revenue received. Will a few jobs be lost because of cheap labor business models. Yeah. So what. The aggregate demand will be increased sufficiently to far outweigh this cost because every marginal dollar above what it is now the minimum wage will be spent buying stuff. Stuff that has to be made.
Not that I'm a Libertarian, but I don't know that Libertarianism has to be isolationist. We don't have to have soldiers on the ground in over 100 countries to be engaged internationally. We can be engaged in commerce and education. Starting wars over oil like some acid laced game of Risk is insanity the neocons have gotten us into. And that's the reason for Isis and every other rational being in a country we're occupying to hate us and want us dead. Cripes, how would you feel if Russia had troops here? Or Germany or Japan? We're being the very worst type of imperialistic ugly American we could possibly be. No wonder so many peoples detest us. Why not bring all the troops back to CONUS and defend the shores like it calls for in the constitution and not go to war unless attacked. We could save $200B a year while improving the quality, technology and training of our military.
This experiment with fighting clean wars (Korea forward) has not only failed to work, but it's cost us lots of money and the lives of American men and women. War is the ugliest endeavor mankind has created. You cannot sugar coat it and make it OK. That's BS. War means if it moves you kill it and that includes women and children and cows and sheep and cats and dogs. It if doesn't move you blow it up. And you keep doing these things until your enemy rolls over on his back and surrenders. And if you're not willing to go to this degree, you had better invite your enemy and his family over for dinner and see if you can hook up the kids.
There is a give away aspect to the more socially liberal wing of the democratic party that I can't support. Much of the Obama $1T Capital spending program went down this drain. To brutalize the saying - 'If I feed a man, he will come back tomorrow for another meal. If I teach him to fish, he can take care of himself.' That's one reason we need a massive infrastructure spending program - jobs. Not only is the infrastructure in dire need, but this is a perfect example of 'demand side economics'.
While this sounds like something new; it is nothing but a term of Keynesian economics. Repairing of infrastructure is a good idea. Building of infrastructure as an solution to an economic problem is not a good idea.
When infrastructure was being built in the '30s it was a labor intensive project in a closed economic (non free trade, non international) system. That is not the case today at all. Before the stimulus package was voted upon, some one had the bold ideas to make it a requirement that the $ had to go to US companies - China and other countries shot that down.
While the 1930s might have been a time for dictators - Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, FDR - it wasn't a great time for economic theories such as Keynes. It didn't work then, and it hasn't worked since.
Re: This should read “nearly unprecedented”. Unprecedented is an adjective which must be modified by an adverb. How is it possible that a major news organization can issue a statement with such a fifth grade mistake?
Not so fast! According to Merriam-Webster "near" may serve as several different parts of speech depending on use in a sentence - including as an adverb. Example Webster uses: "The weather was near perfect." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/near
Dex wrote: "While this sounds like something new; it is nothing but a term of Keynesian economics. Repairing of infrastructure is a good idea. Building of infrastructure as an solution to an economic problem is not a good idea."
And? Seriously, I'm hardly suggesting that a massive infrastructure rebuilding program would be the solution to our economic problems. However, it sure wouldn't hurt. Geez, this is what we've been doing under the guise of various and sundry ongoing wars. What? $19 TRILLION is the 'Keynesian' debt that we run up. Cripes, I'd rather rebuild the infrastructure. Rebuilding infrastructure is also investing in the future and if we're going to deficit spend . . .
What they have been doing is funneling all the QE to the high end of the income chain where it sits today. Trickle down economics?!? Oh really.
My point is and remains that we need to seriously focus on some demand side economics .
Thank you for your time with this most complex area of our social structure; and your common sense expressions and considerations regarding various circumstances. Too many conflicting fingers in the money pie as the money attempts to do good in the right places for the right reasons. Example: I'm just waiting for the tv news flash when we see that another interstate highway bridge has crumbled apart and fallen; but this time, taking some high level government folks for the deadly ride. Stuff that needs fixing will start to get fixed then, eh? Our dear central government has become too large for its own good. 'Course, as you well know too; that too many things do not become properly resolved at the small local levels either. All and all, quite frustrating more often than should be the case. Take care of you and yours,
Comments
Geez, a bit of an election and all y'all go nuts.
CNBC started this insanity with their attack questions. Seems the networks were more about touting themselves and their moderators than the candidates.
Donald is busting Fox chops in a battle royal with conservative talk radio - who hate him because he's not as pure a tea party crazy as Cruz.
What if this is precedent to avoid any debates with the democratic nominee should Donald get nominated? Let's face it, so far, he hasn't actually detailed any of his 'platform' with other than catch slogans. I have little doubt that Hillary or Bernie would kick his ass in a debate.
That said, it's all great fun. Right now I'm undecided between Bernie and Donald - not because I agree with that much either has to say but that they're the only two running that are true to their roots.
If I was going to fix this crap, I'd abolish elections and appoint all offices like they do jury duty. Extend the terms and only permit one term per person. Hell, the staff can take care of the OJT and frankly, I trust anyone that's a regular voter over anyone that runs for office (present company excluded, TYVM!). Match or exceed their current salary and guarantee their jobs back after their service. This way you eliminate lobbying and campaign finance issues. Cripes, elected offices were never intended to become careers. You were supposed to go to Washington or Lansing, for a term or two and then return to your regular occupation.
Oh, and BTW I am an elected official in Michigan - Township Trustee as a REAL republican not one of these religinazi creeps (i.e. fiscal conservative - balance the books and pay the bills and avoid legacy costs; socially tolerant like Jesus and all good civil libertarians (if no one gets hurt and I don't have to watch, I don't care what you do - it's none of my business) and lastly, I'm a tree hugger just like Teddy Roosevelt.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
There's another guy?
Add: Oh, yeah, that's right. Our stable consists of one retread, one dreamer, and some other guy. Got to admit that the competing stable is a whole lot more interesting.
Yep, for sure we don't know his "real agenda".
Oh, my reason.........well, okay..........I'm watching the movie, "The Hunger Games" again to determine how the format of the story line to determine a winner from a given district might be integrated into a decision making format to determine the "leader of the U.S.".
Hunger Games (first movie) synopsis:
In what was once North America, the Capitol of Panem maintains its hold on its 12 districts by forcing them each to select a boy and a girl, called Tributes, to compete in a nationally televised event called the Hunger Games. Every citizen must watch as the youths fight to the death until only one remains. District 12 Tribute Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) has little to rely on, other than her hunting skills and sharp instincts, in an arena where she must weigh survival against love.
Past this, I may review a few investment holdings, as we are having our positive returns kicked in the arse. On the other hand, perhaps I can skip the holdings and review my personal self, for some answers.
Take care,
Catch
Umm ... my kid gloves predictive phrases were drawn up before I realized the *** was televising his own counter-debate program at the same time. Could get ugly. This is just too too bizarre - but great Reality TV if that's what you want.
I'll watch first 30 minutes because curious how they dispose of the Kelly/Trump issue.
Than ... thank God for Kindle.
Something like what @rono describes himself as. It is unforunate that in the US, social conservatism and fiscal conservatism go together in all-or-nothing package. At least, in my area, there would be significant support for a fiscally conservative and socially liberal candidate/party especially amongst the wealthy. Arnold Schwarzenegger was the last experiment in this area but he wasn't a good one. This combination exists in most of Europe and it is unusual to see the conservative parties there be conservative both socially and economically. It is just a quirk of geopolitics in American history with the north and south divisions I think that created this.
Without that choice, many in this part of the woods seem to lean left with higher belief in the possibility of making the left more fiscally responsible than in the belief of possibility of making the right more socially liberal.
One model would be what @rono phrases as libertarian in social issues. It doesn't require spending/taxing to leave abortion alone, to not get caught up in definitions of marriage or in other words not to enforce one's preference on someone else. Unfortunately, libertarianism that supports this in the US is mixed up with isolationism which is impractical in this globalized world.
One can get an inkling of this reading the Economist over time. They are as fiscally conservative as you can get but also socially liberal in a libertarian way without getting into isolationism, recognizing the need for social nets without making it into a lifestyle. Germany's Angela Merkel or UK's David Cameron are examples of a socially liberal but fiscally conservative approach.
Socially liberal but fiscally conservative tend to prioritize taxation and spending a little differently than the conservatives here even if the fiscal conservatism requires disciplined spending so it does not become a welfare state as the conservatives fear most. Here being fiscally conservative just means don't spend on the items I don't like or don't benefit from but spend a lot on what I like or benefit from. It is the usuall hypocrisy. That isn't really being fiscally conservative which is why both parties tend to run up deficits. The alternative of kill/starve the govt is an angry rhetoric but not a viable policy.
But one has to be careful in not trying to define any party in exactly how they stand precisely in each issue. It is always a spectrum. They differ in how they prioritize in competing issues rather than be defined by a rigid checkbox as it happens here on either side.
The things you mentioned are all paid for by taxes, of course. And social nets can be expensive depending on what you include in them, not just food stamps. Minimum education, health, etc can all be considered social nets. You are probably going to say but that is what progressives/liberals want. Of course, by being socially liberal, they have that in common with liberals. On the other hand, if fiscal conservatism is defined as in this country by the govt not wanting to pay for any of those things, then by definition, it isn't fiscal conservatism. But that isn't the narrow definition I am using. It is about spending priorities within what you can tax and not look at taxing as an ATM. Not getting into huge deficits for ideological reasons or progressive ideas.
@rono put it simply in his post of what fiscally responsible is. It is a matter of degrees than uniquely different. And for people who think that is a good combination, it is obvious when they see it and others will disagree.
So I cannot and will not give a manifesto of this combination here, and it is not something everyone is going to be convinced about, it isn't so even in countries where this combination exists which is why they have elections too.
My point was about having that choice to vote on if one identified with that kind of a combination because there is part of the population that identifies with mixing fiscal responsibility with social liberal policies that the left here is unable to do (except perhaps in the most recent incarnation of Jerry Brown in California when he forced that fiscal discipline without throwing social nets under the bus entirely as a right wing candidate may have done) and the social "investment" (minus spending as a stimulus) that the right is unable to do (because they have different spending habits not because they do not want to spend).
I also suspect that succeeding generations will be increasingly socially liberal than the previous (millenials already are compared to baby boomers) so it may come about naturally within one or the other of the existing parties as well but that organic evolution will take too much time.
It takes more than a few posts in a forum to get into the nuances of this. I am not trying to proselytize here because there is no one right solution, just that some people see a distinct alternative to the two polarized parties here. And in a Democracy, it only becomes viable only if enough people see it that way based on their own life experiences.
If you are curious about this, the best way is to really read something like the Economist for a while and even if you do not necessarily agree with all of their views (I don't), you may see a different combination of outlooks that sync with liberals here (which is why they can endorse Democratic presidential candidates) in social issues and sync with conservatives here especially when it comes to economic policies (which is not just spending policies).
That is all I have time/inclination for to say here I am afraid.
"even if you do not necessarily agree with all of their views (I don't)" Same here. But there is also plenty that I do agree with.
Nice discussion.
There is a give away aspect to the more socially liberal wing of the democratic party that I can't support. Much of the Obama $1T Capital spending program went down this drain. To brutalize the saying - 'If I feed a man, he will come back tomorrow for another meal. If I teach him to fish, he can take care of himself.' That's one reason we need a massive infrastructure spending program - jobs. Not only is the infrastructure in dire need, but this is a perfect example of 'demand side economics'.
Supply economics resulted in the most hideous concentration of wealth I believe the world has seen in a long time. What we need now is a huge dose of demand side economics. Remember the Bush Jr.'s tax cut program? I said at the time that most of it was great but there was too little at the bottom. The bottom of the income ladder is where the Marginal Propensity to Consume is 1.00. That means every additional dollar is spent buying stuff unlike the upper end where folks tend to save and invest windfall dollars. By Bush not giving more back at the bottom, folks didn't consume and therefore, stuff didn't need to be made and jobs were not created. The biggest bang for our gov't buck is at the bottom of the food chain where they spend it . . . but good grief make them earn it buy rebuilding this country.
Raise the minimum wage to $15 over a couple of years. Yeah, our Big Macs will cost a bit more but damn, no gov't taxes raised . . . just tax revenue received. Will a few jobs be lost because of cheap labor business models. Yeah. So what. The aggregate demand will be increased sufficiently to far outweigh this cost because every marginal dollar above what it is now the minimum wage will be spent buying stuff. Stuff that has to be made.
Not that I'm a Libertarian, but I don't know that Libertarianism has to be isolationist. We don't have to have soldiers on the ground in over 100 countries to be engaged internationally. We can be engaged in commerce and education. Starting wars over oil like some acid laced game of Risk is insanity the neocons have gotten us into. And that's the reason for Isis and every other rational being in a country we're occupying to hate us and want us dead. Cripes, how would you feel if Russia had troops here? Or Germany or Japan? We're being the very worst type of imperialistic ugly American we could possibly be. No wonder so many peoples detest us. Why not bring all the troops back to CONUS and defend the shores like it calls for in the constitution and not go to war unless attacked. We could save $200B a year while improving the quality, technology and training of our military.
This experiment with fighting clean wars (Korea forward) has not only failed to work, but it's cost us lots of money and the lives of American men and women. War is the ugliest endeavor mankind has created. You cannot sugar coat it and make it OK. That's BS. War means if it moves you kill it and that includes women and children and cows and sheep and cats and dogs. It if doesn't move you blow it up. And you keep doing these things until your enemy rolls over on his back and surrenders. And if you're not willing to go to this degree, you had better invite your enemy and his family over for dinner and see if you can hook up the kids.
'nuf venting,
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
When infrastructure was being built in the '30s it was a labor intensive project in a closed economic (non free trade, non international) system. That is not the case today at all. Before the stimulus package was voted upon, some one had the bold ideas to make it a requirement that the $ had to go to US companies - China and other countries shot that down.
While the 1930s might have been a time for dictators - Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, FDR - it wasn't a great time for economic theories such as Keynes. It didn't work then, and it hasn't worked since.
Not so fast! According to Merriam-Webster "near" may serve as several different parts of speech depending on use in a sentence - including as an adverb. Example Webster uses: "The weather was near perfect." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/near
Picky. Picky
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-10-30/why-john-maynard-keyness-theories-can-fix-the-world-economy
Dex wrote:
"While this sounds like something new; it is nothing but a term of Keynesian economics. Repairing of infrastructure is a good idea. Building of infrastructure as an solution to an economic problem is not a good idea."
And? Seriously, I'm hardly suggesting that a massive infrastructure rebuilding program would be the solution to our economic problems. However, it sure wouldn't hurt. Geez, this is what we've been doing under the guise of various and sundry ongoing wars. What? $19 TRILLION is the 'Keynesian' debt that we run up. Cripes, I'd rather rebuild the infrastructure. Rebuilding infrastructure is also investing in the future and if we're going to deficit spend . . .
What they have been doing is funneling all the QE to the high end of the income chain where it sits today. Trickle down economics?!? Oh really.
My point is and remains that we need to seriously focus on some demand side economics .
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
Hi Ron,
Thank you for your time with this most complex area of our social structure; and your common sense expressions and considerations regarding various circumstances.
Too many conflicting fingers in the money pie as the money attempts to do good in the right places for the right reasons.
Example: I'm just waiting for the tv news flash when we see that another interstate highway bridge has crumbled apart and fallen; but this time, taking some high level government folks for the deadly ride. Stuff that needs fixing will start to get fixed then, eh?
Our dear central government has become too large for its own good.
'Course, as you well know too; that too many things do not become properly resolved at the small local levels either.
All and all, quite frustrating more often than should be the case.
Take care of you and yours,
Catch