Ten Minute Cup - Latest Comments

Re: “pensioners: 17 cents on the $; BoA, UBS 75 cents on the $”

ERhoades — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 12:22:05 -0000

Run,
I am not inclined to see Detroit as the victim here. Inept decisions by those running Detroit and the actions of the banks could both be in response to the struggles of Detroit to adjust to it's downsizing. Detroit's population has dropped by 63% since 1950 and 26% since 2000. This requires an enormous adjustment in terms of tax revenues and infrastructure. It is also an adjustment most city planners would be loath to deal with. It is difficult to sell ones city but trumping how much smaller it has become. This doesn't mean that Detroit is a dying city, it is actually showing a lot of signs of life, but one would expect that there would be a lag between the size of government and infrastructure and the size of the population. It is very difficult to say that one is just shutting down parts of the city, even though that is what is in effect happening. As of 2013 40% of the streetlights in Detroit don't work and 78,000 structures are abandoned. There simply isn't the tax base to support the commitments the city is in line for.
Of course as far as pensioners are concerned there is always the issue of the how the pension funds were invested. Pension managers are merely human, when returns were good they would have been foolish to think that they wouldn't continue, not only that but the people putting money into those funds would have mutinied had they been informed that they would have to make a much higher contribution rate than they were to maintain the solvency of the funds. While not knowing the specifics of Detroit's pension funds I find it hard to believe that they could have avoided a funding crisis when many far wealthier cities and states are looking at equally dire predictions for their solvency.
A city can support a lot of non-productive people. That goes hand in hand with large urban centers, but it can only support so many, Detroit exceeded that when employment opportunities dried up. People fled and the city went broke, not a terribly difficult equation.

Re: The People Lie Helpless, by Felix Santana Garcia

ERhoades — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:14:00 -0000

Thanks for sharing that. To compare it to anything here demeans the tragedy but I can't help but be reminded of something that has been occurring to me lately. How many people do we know who are terribly in debt and how many of them got that way simply buying life's necessities? These problems are, of course, global in nature. The greed inherent in the way the world works is making few richer and richer while depriving the many from living lives of decency, meanwhile it blames those victims for their own plight. This isn't news. This isn't acceptable.

Re: “Per qualche dollaro in più” or For A Few Dollars More . . .

old_athlete — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 03:19:38 -0000

My son of my old age has finished his high school freshman year and he wants to become an engineer. The game plan to achieve that degree is to live at home, work a job, and use that pay to pay for credit hours and books. Take 6-7 years to earn a four year degree, but do not run up a student loan debt. Hopefully there's a path to keep going and get a masters degree; he is not yet 16 years old but he already sees the need to secure a masters level degree just to compete for a job in the America he is growing up in. His older brother is in his mid-thirties and earns somewhere around $90,000 per year but has yet to finish paying off student loans that were only needed (on top of scholarships) for 3 years of college... that's how expensive it is to be a full time student living on campus at a major university like University of Illinois at Champaign. I have my eye on an associates level achieved at the college of DuPage followed by a bachelors level completed at UIC downtown. Who cares if it takes seven years to get a bachelors? That just gives the student more time to experience the market need and the type of work expected in the field. Too many kids are racking up $100,000 debts only to discover that the degree isn't resulting in a job they enjoy or a job, period. Student loans are famous for reporting on credit bureaus as 90 day lates even when they are not truly 30 days late. You can work out arrangements and pay those schemes only to have them destroy your credit despite your paying on time... building huge consolidation loans is sure to backfire when there's a gap in incomes and there's nothing so wonderful as a new 30 year term beginning in your late 20's on a huge consolidation loan. That's enslavement to a sputtering market... a lifetime of servitude. Its a slippery slope, one that I hope to avoid with my youngest.

Meanwhile, I'm past ten years out of my bankruptcy and about six years into defaulting on a 2nd round of credit cards... so you figure a scofflaw such as myself is the ultimate credit risk. and yet, because I'm faithful to my cable and cell phone contracts, and because everyone feels the need to report on us, these days, lo and behold, my credit score is in the mid 700's. Compare an old guy like myself, washed up in my two careers, first in contractors supply and second in mortgage banking, surviving hand to mouth mostly unemployed, pulling down pennies driving a cab part time to buy toilet paper; why should my credit score outshine my stepson with his ten years of success in his degreed position? There are so many people carrying the burden of homes underwater... and their credit scores reflect the long term debt with no equity; all thanks to a housing bubble that was no doing of their own. I've got an older brother that carried on the family business; this guy owns a small corporation, was successful in his field, and used his money to invest in housing, now he's in his mid 50's, has a fresh bankruptcy and foreclosure, had to move back in with my parents (dying of old age in their 80's) all because his real estate investments blew up in his face, so much for the American dream, eh?

Remember 10 years ago when I preached gold in moneybox? What happened to those guys who took my advice? Even after the slump, gold is still triple what it was back when I recommended that path over housing. If some one invested $50,000 into gold ten years ago, it is worth $150,000 today. If they instead, dabbled in real estate and bought 3-4 houses on loans @ 10% down during the bubble years; the same $50,000 investment has saddled them with a couple million in 30 year loans on houses that total hundreds of thousands underwater. If they jumped into the stock market ten years ago, they don't have the debt, but they lost half of their money. If they jumped into the NASDAQ 20 years ago and rode the 2000 dotcom crash down, that index lost 84% from crest to trough in 18 months time... how many people racked up huge student loans, managed to tag decent jobs in their chosen field, only to get burned by the stock and housing markets? How many people achieved the American dream only to end up bankrupted, foreclosed, and homeless? How many lawyers are trying to collect from those folks because they can't find honest work, meanwhile their own situations are so bad, they are suing the universities for their own student loans? At least it gives them work, eh?

Re: What Is The Out of Pocket Maximum You Will Pay Under the PPACA?

HammeredStammer — Sun, 05 May 2013 09:14:56 -0000

This whole thing is starting to turn into the best argument for a single payer system. There is a good chance it will turn into a political albatross for Democrats also. Normally programs like this are initially unpopular but become entrenched when enough people come to depend upon their benefits, I tend to think though that in an age of high unemployment the jobs effect is likely to get a lot more traction than the people helped who had pre-existing conditions. In that light one of the things this is highlighting is the amount of what have to be termed low standard jobs that people hold, how many people their are out there without employer supplied health care. One of the most troubling trends I have heard of is the move to change people to part-time to avoid the requirement of supplying health coverage based on payrolls, this is driving people low on the employment ladder further down.

How I wish we had a functioning government rather than one that creates these half assed patchwork programs, laws, and regulations. Life could be so much better for just a little honest effort.

Re: Japanenomics Is The World’s Future.

old_athlete — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:23:48 -0000

I tend to think that the only grace we get is from that ineptitude. Otherwise, they have this planet locked up tight. Consider how beautiful their design is... the group on Wall Street have their own little non-regulated market where they print up money by the trillions, which they own all of it, and yet it never makes its way to main street so the value remains the same as if none of it ever existed. Meanwhile, the dollar goes on running the planet. Its incredible design and wizardry. Sputtering economies are not ineptitude, they are by design. Stagnant world economy maintains currency values; if you only care about the money and not about the people who need it to live; you couldn't do a better job than these bankers. Just remember, all that Yen getting printed up in Japan is not going to the Japanese people any more than the American dollar is going to Americans.

Re: A Misplaced Responsibility.

old_athlete — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:02:20 -0000

The jobs we need can only be created by capital investment in Main Street infrastructure; aka, the private sector. But when we look at what is happening there, the numbers do not add up for small business start up or ramp up. My hoist is a perfect example. I've already given the design to the nation's largest manufacturer of custom window washing equipment and the perfect potential global partner, but what was their answer? As soon as we build a prototype, China will copy it and market it for 1/4th the price. How will raising asset prices solve that dilemma? That's why we can't compete in the global market, the entire nation has been starved of cash; all those trillions in OTC derivatives are held by the monsters on Wall Street, the bigger market of American trade is not flush with cash, it is cash and credit starved, which is keeping the international dollar high, and the people poor. Hence, the rich become very rich and the rest of us can't even build a hoist that has international market demand and no competition. Would my hoist result in more American jobs? Sure it would. Not enough to affect the national numbers but if the problem lies in the currency then it is the same problem for every manufacturer in America... there's no opportunity for American manufacturing in this global market, even when we have the only hoist that can wash the tallest skyscrapers on the planet... the exchange rate has made it impossible for us to build that hoist. How many more products face that same dilemma? ALL of them face it, because it is the international exchange rate. The only customer that we can market our goods to is the Wall Street gang, they hold all the American money, they are the only possible customer that can buy a product built entirely with American dollars... now, if we could get those bastards to distribute that money to the rest of America, maybe we could sell hoists to American cities,still not enough market for any sizeable amount of business, but at least we could build the hoist. I can not see my words in the post, I'm typing blind...

Re: Japanenomics Is The World’s Future.

HammeredStammer — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:48:02 -0000

While saying that Japan is printing money to service their debt may be simplistic, given their expansive monetary policy it amounts to the same thing. I could have easily said that they are printing money to fuel economic activity, or to keep the yen weak, but their debt structure couldn't exist without this kind of expansive policy, and that sort of policy is more and more where the global economy is heading.

It's hard to argue that politicians aren't puppets, or that the financial community doesn't have them in its pockets, but this sort of causes one to envision a cabal, and I think there is a lot of dynamism or competition within that group, especially given the rise of China. I also think there is a lot of ineptitude, which is almost scarier than a shadow group running things that knows what it is doing.

You can click the chart below to enlarge it..

Re: Japanenomics Is The World’s Future.

old_athlete — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:45:20 -0000

Nobody is printing money to supply their debt machines. What they are doing is printing debt...

http://www.bloomberg.com/ne...

(selling bonds)

Printing money is what I have screamed for the past decade, the nations should be doing; because it would counter the distribution model that is presently dominating the globe... which you explained rather precisely in this post.

If Italy would print euros, instead of selling bonds, would the rest of Europe declare war on them? It boggles the mind to contemplate how strongly attached the politician puppets are to their banking master's purse strings. But I firmly believe that these "leaders" of the nations are 100% absolute puppets to their banking masters... and that's why no one will dare attempt to print their own money; they don't even view it as their own money; money belongs to the central bankers, if you want money, you have to borrow it from them; that's the concrete mindset of the modern puppet politician.

Re: Living In The Bubble Economy.

Diogene — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:34:32 -0000

Go back to that ABC panel discussion I linked and watch Krugman again. He is most sardonic when he rhetorically asks Stockman if he REALLY thinks that interest rates should be raised in a weak economy. He is on the verge of calling Stockman an ignoramus. Now this is exactly what a typical Republican would say if you substitute taxes for interest rates--e.g., "Do you really think we should be raising taxes in a weak economy"? Corporate Republicans have in fact used this exact same argument frequently during the past five years. Of course they are against raising taxes when times are good, as well, so we know they are opportunistically using this argument--probably to line their pockets or the pockets of their patrons. Anyway, it seems that Krugman has drunk Bernanke's interest rate Kool-Aid (and lately even Japan's central bank Kool-Aid), and this well illustrates your 'second rate thinking'. What economists like Krugman do is focus laser-like on one concept to the exclusion of many others, and in the real world this can be very dangerous because an economy is comprised of hundreds of different things besides interest rates. Now high interest rates COULD indeed strangle an economy, as we saw from 1979 to 1983, but that is NOT what we have had during the past five years. Interest rates have been too LOW, and this has led to malinvestments and renewed bubbles favoring the top 1%-- not to those things we most need: production and restoring the American middle class incomes. Bernanke's ZIRP has got seniors and savers (these two are often synonymous) so scared, they are cutting back even more and are afraid to spend. Bernanke has been trying to force them into risky investments, and this atrocious public policy has been well named:'financial repression'. Stockman is right to characterize Bernanke as an unelected economic czar and the Fed a 'politburo'.

Not realizing that interest rates can be too low is indeed evidence of second rate thinking, and this has me wondering if economics truly deserves to be called a science, or is just another form of special interest politics, a rationalization of selfishness.

No reputable doctor would deny that blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, and dozens of other factors could be both too high and too low--that there is a range which is healthy and extremes which are not. But medicine is more of a science than economics--the so-called 'dismal science'. That's why it's often wise to take a skeptical attitude towards economists, and why truly good ones are rare: they usually have axes to grind, and the modern ones are usually bought off..

Re: Living In The Bubble Economy.

HammeredStammer — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:23:51 -0000

I just wanted to thank you for your long and thoughtful reply. It takes time to do that. The only thing I would like to add would concern the power & greed thing. I just finished Predator Nation by Charles Ferguson so some of my hyperbole is undoubtedly fueled by the tone of that book, but I have come across a few instances of warnings which were given concerning over the housing/financial crisis, one at a high level conference attended by Lawrence Summers, (now he certainly fits the bill of power & greed), and Ben Bernanke. So what you come down to is having to say that people like Bernanke simply engage in second rate thinking. That isn't so hard to accept I guess, I know a lot of educated people who engage in second rate thinking, but I would prefer to say that they are corrupted as opposed to unimaginative, the idea that we wound up where we are because of mediocrity of thought is sadder somehow.

Re: Living In The Bubble Economy.

Diogene — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 00:56:08 -0000

I don't know if you're right that Bernanke (and Greenspan before him) was drunk on power and greed, whether he was simply serving his masters on Wall Street or even the politicians, or was blind as only a Princeton economist can be. I do know that Obama reappointed him, and so therefore must have approved of his snake oil medicine. I think the tragedy of modern day America is that the majority of Americans probably approve of the Fed's E-Z money policy because the alternative is too frightful for it to contemplate. Here again the nation has sold out because it has been promised a pain-free alternative, which has never worked and cannot work in the long run. But we are all Faustians now, all prepared to sell ourselves to the devil for a price--not knowledge or ability, as with the original Faust, but simply our 'non-negotiable American way of life', as per Dick Cheney, and this way of life includes unlimited debt (now at near zero interest rates indefinitely), an empire the likes of which the world has never seen, no losses for the big boys or their bondholders, but losses transferred to future taxpayers, and bread and circuses (foodstamps and TV), but of course no guarantees of free medical care or affordable housing, or even healthful, if spartan food. The American people are expected to remain rugged individualists when it comes to their healthcare, their housing, their tertiary education, etc. but the well connected big shots, especially the banks do get the guarantees. The people who need the welfare don't get it, and those who don't need it, because they're already quite wealthy, do get it, because they make most of the political contributions. It's really that simple.

You say that both Krugman and Stockman are dogmatic opposites (Krugman pro-government and Stockman anti-government), but I don't think it's quite that simple. I would never have supported Stockman or agreed with his statements had he been a typical anti-government Republican. Go back and relisten to the ABC segment, or better yet, watch Bill Moyers interviewing Stockman last summer, and you will learn that Stockman blames his own party for its anti-tax dogma and for destroying the nation with its Reaganomics--of which Stockman was a rather reluctant participant at the time. You may be a little too young to recall Stockman's 'Pigs at the trough' comment (20 years before Arianna Huffington) which was reported in William Greider's Atlantic article* or the scolding Don Regan gave him for not being a team-player. I've always respected Stockman's independence. Anyway, Stockman says that taxes must be raised (something I've been saying ever since I first posted at Slate back in 2004) and that spending--particularly defense spending--must be slashed. I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find 10-20% of his program to oppose, but the fact is I agree with 80-90% of it, and so I think do you. I no longer agree with Krugman because he supports the Bernanke snake oil. Whatever happened to the old-style Democrat who opposed deficits, the critic of Reaganomics and voodoo economics? That Democrat has sold out Krugman and Obama-style, and has nothing to say when Stockman observes that since 2008 Bernanke's snake oil has mostly benefited the top 1% and has done little for the bottom 90%. His silence is deafening and says it all. Surely Krugman is smart enough to realize what has been going on? Why does it take a Republican--Stockman, or even George Frigging Will, for christsakes, to point out the obvious? That's shameful. Today's Democratic Party is AWOL, and has abandoned the workers, the people at the bottom, and now favors the TBTF banks and the top 1%. It colludes with the Republicans in congress to give it more tax cuts and starts bargaining with them by offering to cut Social Security payments to the needy. That I term a wolf in sheep's clothing, and is exactly what I told Revrick I felt was wrong with Obama. No wonder politicians are generally despised and distrusted.

But I agree with you about accountants; I used to be one, and find David Stockman to be a much better accountant than Krugman. Of course Leroy, if he were still here, would remind us of the accounting identity which says that a deficit in one place must be balanced by a surplus elsewhere, that it is impossible for govt. to cut its deficit at the same time that families are cutting theirs. Well, there are two ways govt. could cut its deficit: first by raising taxes, and second by cutting spending. Congressional Republicans are dead set against raising taxes, and have been pretty much since Reagan. This Republican intransigence is largely responsible for the horrible fiscal condition we find ourselves in today. Stockman has the sense to oppose this lunacy. As for raising spending (Krugman's position), that so far hasn't worked very well, because the root problems of debt and inequality haven't been addressed. The feds used to spend about 16% of GDP and lately have been spending around 22%, sometimes as high as 25%, but what have they gotten for all the extra spending? Of course defense spending is a large part of this, but we shouldn't ignore our crazy healthcare system (18% of GDP, nearly 5% going to the unproductive insurance sector). And America simply consumes too much, as we saw with the housing bubble and Bernanke's efforts to reinflate that bubble. We need to start producing again and stop buying so much from China...if it isn't already too late. Where is Krugman on this, and what does he have to say about all of the outsourcing that has decimated the American working class over the past 20 years? He's supposed to be some expert on exports and trade policy.

I just don't see Krugman as a reliable ally of the working class, and while clearly millions of American workers have voted against their own economic interests ("What's the Matter With Kansas") there is a reason, and that is that the Democrats and so-called liberals have not offered an alternative. They have instead offered 'let them eat cake'. It kills me to admit that I now find somebody like Will and certainly Stockman to be more credible and more helpful...than Krugman. Is this because the Republicans are currently out of power?

You make good points about the history of Democratic sellouts, and if one looks hard enough and goes back long enough in history, it is apparent that the last 'good' president we had was Eisenhower, a Republican. Both Kennedy and Johnson were flawed, but Johnson did have some contributions that were historic (Medicare, Voting Rights Act, integration, etc.). Even Clinton's sellouts weren't that apparent to me at the time, and I did credit him for being a great improvement on Reagan and Bush. The economy was so good that we could ignore the Mexican 'Tequila' crisis, the Russian crisis, the Long Term Capital Management bailout, and the dismantling of Glass-Steagall. In retrospect Clinton was not a very good president, but was still a damn sight better than his Republican opposition (Gingrich) or what we have now (Obama).

About a year ago I gave Obama a grade of C-minus along with Bush senior, Reagan, and Nixon. I gave Clinton a B (and Dubya an F). I still mostly stand by that. Leroy gave Clinton a B+, while today I'd probably give him a C+, mainly because of all of his deregulation and the fact that Rubin and his proteges have been a disaster for America--every bit as bad as Reaganomics. But I think history will judge Barack Obama to be no better than Ronald Reagan, and this also kills me. I hated every day that Reagan was president, and couldn't believe the country had been so stupid and greedy to elect and re-elect the grade 'B' actor. Make your own inferences.

* A couple quotes from The Atlantic article ("The Education of David Stockman") from 1983:

"Kemp-Roth was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate." -- Stockman

"Do you realize the greed that came to the forefront?" Stockman asked with wonder. "The hogs were really feeding. The greed level, the level of opportunism, just got out of control..."

Clearly, David Stockman was not a very good team player on the Reagan team, because he was too damn honest and was willing to characterize the rich and corporations as the greedy pigs they were. I think he still is. Who would have thought 30 years ago that a Reagan budget director would be one of the handful of public policy makers to not sell out three decades later, while almost all the Democrats long ago would?

But all things considered, I'm not yet prepared to vote for Stockman for president, were he to run, or somebody like him, because the nation needs both honesty and fairness. Stockman is honest and fair when he says that big banks should play by the same rules as everybody else. But given America's vast inequality and unlevel playing field, I think the poor and working class need extra help. I think some seniors need a Social Security increase, not a cut, I think some young people need help getting jobs, perhaps direct hiring by the federal government, and I don't think Stockman particularly cares about their plight. I merely think he is better than the current Democratic Party standard bearers.

Re: The CBO Wants to Discuss Healthcare and the Deficit?

run75441 — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:53:05 -0000

Eric:

After being shown on Naked Capitalism and Angry Bear, there has been much to hide. I do not know many who will screw with the Federal Government either. Its ok though.

Bill

Re: The CBO Wants to Discuss Healthcare and the Deficit?

HammeredStammer — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:10:15 -0000

Interesting. Thanks so much for sharing that, Run. I have to admit that I did take the liberty of removing Brianne's phone number though, I know I certainly wouldn't want mine popping up on blogs. Hope you don't mind. Eric

Re: Living In The Bubble Economy.

HammeredStammer — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:00:12 -0000

They are and it shouldn't be surprising, Bernanke after all was denying problems with the housing bubble right up until the thing imploded. It wasn't that Bernanke, Summers, et al, were stupid, they had been warned and there was tons of data to support what was coming down if anyone bothered to look, it was that they were drunk on power and greed. Your first paragraph is spot on.

I find Stockman's anti-government arguments to be as much dogma as Krugman's pro government arguments. I think it is time we got rid of the economists and turned to accountants. By that I don't mean the find me a tax shelter type of accountant I mean the accounts must balance type of accountant. A little less ideology of all stripes and a little more elbow grease would much very welcome at this point. I can see the attraction to certain conservative arguments, they do come across as ultimately being more honest than liberal ones, rather that is true or not, the idea that the wealthy and powerful will benefit as a side effect of otherwise sound policy is pretty straightforward.

I personally feel that what we are seeing is the stripped down economy, the economy free of bubble effects. Everyone wants to return to the employment levels and growth we had while we were in bubbles of some kind without the bubbles. It won't happen. We need to recognize that and structure a system to deal with that, unfortunately we must also do that with a government that is flat broke.

A major problem here also is that people forget that the parameters for an economy to function are very narrow. It's not like you have this wide variance in workable options. Right now wealth and income disparities match what we had prior to The Great Depression. That is very troubling because it probably points to a limit in what an economy can bear before it collapses, but hey why not push it?

It would be interesting to have a behind the scenes telling of the fall of the Democratic party. I think the advent of big money into politics is probably what drove it, but who exactly engineered the strategy? Clinton was the first all out sell out, Carter I am not sure about, he was hard too read being as weak as he was, but his cabinet was stacked with people out of the trilateral commission. I tend to think that when Kennedy got shot it wasn't just the president who died it was the Democratic party. Johnson had good credentials but he never would have been president if he hadn't served with Kennedy.

Re: Stabilization Without Change.

HammeredStammer — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:31:16 -0000

I will listen to the piece, although I am a bit short of time at the moment. I have to say prior to hearing it though that I don't really view the potential of meltdown as an urban myth simply because I think what we had was pretty much a meltdown, anything worse would have been crippling, I find the idea that we avoided one to be funny. The only way I can see it as not being a meltdown is by what measures you are gauging the effects. If you want to say that over leverage and fraud simply needed to be cleaned out of the system, then no it wasn't a meltdown, it was the hard medicine that was needed. However if you want to gauge the vitality of the system as it exists then it was one, growth, incomes, housing, and access to credit have all been disastrously affected. The only thing that helps is that what is headline news, the potential tanking of Citigroup let's say, is so tied up in areas of finance that are removed from the lives of people on the street that it could tank without it being the end of the world. The problem then becomes that there has been no imagination as to what life may be without these institutions, not that is impossible, but that no one cares to lay out a roadmap as to where you go after that.

Of course I remember Revrick, and despite my problems with some of his characterizations I miss him.

I don't believe it is possible to say that FDR was "timid", especially when you consider that we had two major financial crises in the 19th century, on the heels on those he was completely rewriting the playbook, here is an excerpt from a webpage about his first 100 days.

"FDR quickly won congressional passage for a series of social, economic, and job-creating bills that greatly increased the authority of the federal government—the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, which supplied states and localities with federal money to help the jobless; the Civil Works Administration to create jobs during the first winter of his administration; and the Works Progress Administration, which replaced FERA, pumped money into circulation, and concentrated on longer-term projects. The Public Works Administration focused on creating jobs through heavy construction in such areas as water systems, power plants, and hospitals. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. protected bank accounts. The Civilian Conservation Corps provided jobs for unemployed young men. The Tennessee Valley Authority boosted regional development. Also approved were the Emergency Banking Act, the Farm Credit Act, and the National Industrial Recovery Act."

"In all, Roosevelt got 15 major bills through Congress in his first 100 days. "Congress doesn't pass legislation anymore—they just wave at the bills as they go by," said humorist Will Rogers."
I am doubtful also. Things like the dollar a pack cigarette tax to fund universal preschool are blatant overtures to the left that have no chance of passing. So he hands these out like candy while crumbling on the negotiations over what will really happen. It is shameful.

Re: Stabilization Without Change.

Diogene — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:07:02 -0000

If you have a free hour, listen to this podcast of Chris Martenson and David Stockman:

http://www.peakprosperity.c...

who happens to be the celebrity of the hour. Stockman maintains that there was little danger in 2008 of a complete meltdown of the economy, and that the idea that ATM's would have run dry had Bernanke and Paulson not come to the aid of the TBTF banks an urban myth. Of course it's always difficult to prove a negative, but surely we had better models than Japan for how to deal with errant banks--namely, Sweden, who nationalized her banks for a brief period. Bernanke may be an expert on the Great Depression, but he's also a carpenter who always uses a hammer because all he sees are nails. He has no subtlety or nuance, and is a Johnny-one-note of a Fed Chairman. So it is today that with stocks at a record high he's still persisting with his QE and ZIRP four years after the last recession officially ended...and with zero evidence the QE and ZIRP have affected his ostensible target (unemployment).

Other than repeating the myth of the great meltdown (and Bernanke's and Paulson's alleged saves thereof) you pretty much have your facts right. We got the same shit, but a new boss. Meet the new boss--same as the old boss. Of course Obama's more humble demeanor and vastly improved rhetoric have fooled the majority, and still do.

Incidentally, Revrick (remember him?) would take issue with your characterization of FDR as a visionary and populist leader, and I think he's right: FDR started out rather timid. At least he had the sense to pick good advisers, and had an open mind. Obama picked bad ones because Obama, besides being timid, is an opportunist, and knew he'd have to service the likes of Goldman Sachs and the rest of the folks who donated so much to his campaign. We'll see if Obama manages to stick his neck out now that he won't have to run fr re-election. I'm doubtful.

Re: Living In The Bubble Economy.

Diogene — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 00:20:26 -0000

Bernanke promising to hold interest rates at zero percent until employment improves is sort of like saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves"; it puts the cart before the horse. As I've been saying for years, and as you seem to be echoing, the Bernanke ZIRP was the wrong medicine because interest rates were not the limiting factor in the economy: debt and inequality are and have been. Thus, the ZIRP and QE programs have simply boosted stock and junk bond values and prevented home prices from cratering in nominal dollars, while the dollar itself has been debased. This seems to be Bernanke's and Yellen's tradeoff. My problem with it is that even if it succeeds, it will have failed the majority of Americans. Even if all of the Fed's saves ultimately restart the economy (and I don't see this happening yet), there would be a bad outcome: inflation would rear its ugly head and the track record of the Fed would again be one of bailing out and rewarding gamblers while screwing the most cautious among us--the very meek that ought to have inherited the reborn economy because it was not overexposed and over-leveraged. It is a terrible allegory the Fed is teaching: that to succeed one must gamble and leverage to the hilt, and that the Plunge Protection Team will always be there if stocks drop 10%. We get a totally rigged system sustained at public (taxpayer) expense.

After reading Whitney's article:

http://www.counterpunch.org...

I watched the Krugman-Stockman "debate",

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisW...

and aside from mainly favoring Stockman's arguments, I was astounded that I actually listened with sympathy to George Will's as well! I thought I hated George Will. Well, apparently I loathe today's Democrats even more--those like Krugman who are apologists for Obama and the Bernanke Fed. Like Whitney, I found Krugman glib and arrogant. This is indeed the problem with Nobel (read: specialized) economists: they think only

they know the truth. Well, Krugman's and Bernanke's arguments are wearing a little thin by now.

I wonder if this is your reaction?

Re: Raising the Price of Pizza 10 to 14 cents. . .

HammeredStammer — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 22:05:56 -0000

I suppose what I would wonder in Papa John's case is why a company that has 66 million dollars in net income, (I looked up their corporate reporting), would need to raise prices at all, especially considering that these costs are probably tax deductible. I would think that 8 million dollars is perfectly affordable. I have every respect for hard working entrepreneurs, I have no respect for greedheads. For that matter I think they should lower the price of their pizzas, they are making way too much money, or at the very least start paying some healthy dividends.
The obscene thing is that there are businesses out there that probably have a legitimate beef over having to incur extra expenses, some people hanging on by a thread in a crappy economy, and having some money grubber as a poster child for complaining about these expenses does nothing to further the argument.

Re: Tentative hello to all

run75441 — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 20:47:11 -0000

Hello Scott:
I hope all is well by you.

Re: Tentative hello to all

HammeredStammer — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:51:37 -0000

Hi Scott. Thanks for dropping by, I hope all is well with you and yours. Of course you are welcome to comment or post here as you wish. I have to say, however, that as of now your "tentative hello" is echoing in a rather empty hall, hopefully that situation will change but right now the stats for viewings here are pretty thin. Thanks also for your kind comment on the ideas presented here so far. Hope to hear from you again sometime, E.

Re: Why Debt Cycles Are Inevitable.

HammeredStammer — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 07:23:03 -0000

Exactly, that is why this debt which accumulates must be flushed out on a regular basis. Now this is always going on to some degree, businesses go under, people go bankrupt, but you have the lesser events and the more major ones. Sort of like chaos theory in which the lesser events that don't come to pass create a network of weakness in the system which must find release in a larger event.
If you play by the book you manufacture it there and then sell it here, there is no reason you can't make profit off something made somewhere else. But whether you make it there or here the system is rigged against the success of smaller businesses, not that it doesn't happen of course, but it is far easier for a large business to survive and expand than it is for a small business to make it. You can always just sell the patent too.
What is a U.S. manufacturer to do? Well some do survive, and prosper, so what they do should be looked to as examples first off. But in a larger picture kind of way one needs to remember that as far as China is concerned their economy is incredibly dependent on infrastructure investment. The idea that they can run an economy with that many people based on the levels of manufacturing they are doing now without huge public spending projects is a fantasy. China's day will come.

Re: Deficit Reduction Via Blackmail.

old_athlete — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:25:12 -0000

I don't think it is about size of government, either. I think it is one big political pig wrestling match in the mud. The Dems won the presidency so the GOP wants the economy to tank, so they can take back the White House. To that end, they make any excuse they can for destroying the economy. We the people count for nothing.

Re: Why Debt Cycles Are Inevitable.

old_athlete — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:33:48 -0000

Until the great equalizer from the heavens steps down and destroys everything... which seems to be the program for ending debt cycles, btw, ... we live in a constant flux between a million market forces that no one can track. macro is really hard to simplify... if you do simplify it, you didn't cover it. I always found it frustrating because I could never figure out how much was the right amount to take on in a single post. It's like looking for a corner in a box of circles.

Right now, the single biggest behavior affecting American manufacturing is this colonizing of the eastern Pacific Rim nations. When they broke the yuan and then pegged it to the dollar so low there's no way to compete... it makes it impossible to build new ventures. Like my scaffold drum hoist. If I build it and it is needed, China is going to copy it before anyone buys a single hoist from an American maker. Nothing I can do about it. price, price, price and price is killing my seed before it can grow. I have a big ticket item, and it is easily copied. If I don't build it, it will never exist. If I do build it, no one will buy it from me, they will wait for the same thing @ 1/2 or even 1/4th the price. This is all about currency exchange rates.

What's an American manufacturer to do? Our only option: become Chinese. (build it in China)

Re: What’s New?

HammeredStammer — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 09:17:20 -0000

Days,
Oh by the way I never did answer your question about re-registering. I checked and your old registration did survive the destruction/resurrection of the site so you don't need to re-register unless you want to have old_athlete be the same name you use on posts. That is the pain of all this you need to login separately to post or to comment, but people post much less than they comment so I don't think that should be the end of the world. If you do want it to be the same I can change that for you, just let me know here, or drop me an email.

Re: What’s New?

old_athlete — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:36:03 -0000

I downloaded the picture for its beauty, but I kept wondering what the strange bug was. Finally it dawned on me how huge that melt water stream is. The bug is a human!

There is definitely a strong correlation between debt and morality. After all, minus morality, why bother paying debt? The first thing you learn to chuck as a banker is all your morality. Money, debt, and credit are all stocks of the trade, there is no morality. That's why bankers are not evil, its just business, nothing personal. At the same time, that's why bankers are so cold and indifferent to the human suffering that comes with debt; again its just business, nothing personal. Car sales plays on passion, but a car salesman himself has no passion for the car, its just rubber, steel and glass. But the sales guy needs others to be passionate about the cars or he could never sell cars. Its the same for bankers: They have no feeling whatsoever for debt, but they need the borrower to feel guilt, or at least care for their credit rating, otherwise they could never collect the debt.

You know what happens when a collector tries to collect from another collector? The guy who owes the money makes the collector hurt real bad, because a collector knows how vulnerable the collector is. I remember reasoning with Harris Bank over the phone about my upcoming voluntary repo (of my car, Harris held the note) ... I pointed at the fact that Harris was coming out of this completely whole, they will not only be getting their whole principle back, they look to be getting the full interest in the note. The gal says, But you still will owe us for the lawyer fees (also known as junk fees) ... and I'm like, "yeah, right, good luck collecting that". They didn't make much of an effort.

As far as anthropology is concerned, I'm of the opinion that a higher evolved civilization existed than the current one and was wiped out by a natural disaster, but what men did survive it were actually further advanced than we are today. I think mankind slowly receded in all areas of civilization and then started back up again. my two cents.