Milliscent-

I wish I could agree with you, but I cannot.

I just don't see Bush as being as bad for our nation as you do. And besides, people routinely judge each President in absolute terms, failing to recall the other choice.

Kerry and Gore would have been much, much worse for us.

As for the rookie, Goddess help us that this empty suit, unaccomplished man does not destroy our country before someone capable can replace him.

-saratoga

saratoga,

I appreciate your views, but I must hold my own in this case. Bush has been, in my view, an unmitigated disaster.

That said, I actually agree with a couple of your points. In Governor Bush's run I judged him the better man, and you would have seen a Bush sign in my yard had you visited. In his second run, I felt much the same, but I voted third party.

So, in my view, better than the other guys would have been? Yes. But still a disaster.

As for Obama. I agree, he has zero effective experience. There is no possible way to know if he will make a good President, a bad President, or a middling President. I however am the eternal optimist.

I also believe that the chances are better than excellent that he will improve things for our nation. Not only if he is a great President, but simply because he is a different President. People can not tolerate any more time under the present administration.

Lastly, just because I think things will improve under a President Obama does not mean that I will not be begging here on the blog two years from now for a Republican takeover of Congresss.

M

Ms Milliscent

Wish i had your enthusiasim for whats coming. But reading mr obama's record on the second amendment, and land use issues has me very scared.
Have you noticed the cabinet appointees he has been making ??
Sigh.

Whether it was Obama or McCain in my opinion didn't matter a whole lot providing either of them took action to fix the economy. Although one has to admit that Obama is likely to be a refreshing change.

If there was one thing that fixed the economy after the great depression it was making stuff.

Of course, it took a war to create a situation where you could make stuff on a grand scale. But this time it doesn't have to be war. Swords into ploughshares should be the lesson.

Gear up loads of new factories (or retool old ones) to make wind turbines, solar panels, the new tide and ocean power snakes, that are already in use in Europe. Go into production and deployment on a scale not seen since the second world war.

Invest in research and development on new cars to use the electricity generated by the above.

Be brave and do it on a massive scale, never mind the cost, and the jobs and boom created will lift the economy. At this stage in an economy the only solution is to helicopter in the money on a massive scale, so it may as well be deployed usefully.

By the way, congratulations America on making a decision that could inspire the world, now you just need to do the follow up in a way that will inspire other economies to follow suit.

If you turn some of your swords into ploughshares, then perhaps Iran and China will follow suit and that may help fix the planet as well as the economy.

Regards,
David.

Dear Ms. Milliscent,

I don't even know where to begin regarding my disdain for George Bush.

He eclipses Harding, Grant, Reagan (a much overrated horrible president), and even Nixon.

George and his evil twin were not only arrogant and incompetent but also corrupt. In addition, I think they are war criminals and should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

I'm sure we differ a bit here. But it's a democracy and we have aright to voice our opinions. I hope that my views are welcomed here.

In response to Saratoga...What planet do you live on? Obama ran a brilliant campaign starting from nothing. This "empty suit" has more credibility than a rich product of upper class entitlement ever had or will have. George Bush wouldn't qualify for a job at McDonald's on the merit of his own abilities.

Sorry to vent here Ms. Milliscent. I mean no disrespect to you or Saratoga. I tend to avoid political confrontations but maybe not voicing deeper held feelings is what has allowed our country to drift dangerously close to dissolution over the last generation.

I strongly believe that the voter turnout in this election demonstrates that Nixon's "Silent Majority" finally felt compelled to make their voices heard.

Frankly, I hope the new president is able to make fundamental changes in how things get done in this country. That is, of course, not all that likely. But if he can wrest government out of the grip of corporate influence, maybe the common good can be served rather than the good of Halliburton, et. al.

Respectfully,

scott
Mrs. Kelley's Playhouse

PS-Really sorry, Ms. Milliscent... Some things demand a response.

s-colt,

Like you, I think that our Second Amendment rights are extremely important, and I always consider them when voting or supporting a candidate.

That said, I think that our Second Amendment rights are secure. The current Supreme Court has shown a willingness to protect these rights, and the fundamental composition of that court is unlikely to change over the next two years. If President Obama does very unpopular things like push new gun controls through Congress the Republicans will retake Congress at that two year point.

Mr. Clinton learned that lesson the hard way, I have to assume that Mr. Obama has learned from that very recent history.

I can not expect to be thrilled about any appointments the new President will make, as I am not thrilled with the new President himself. As I said in my post, he was not my choice, and in fact was well down on my list.

That said, as I've said before, I am the eternal optimist.

M

S-Colt,

I'm afraid that I'll have to reply twice as I forgot your land use point.

I guess that when it comes to land use, I just can't trust the Republicans any more than I can trust the Democrats.

Here in Washington we are saddled with the 'Growth Management Act.' A monstrosity that places unelected 'Growth Management Hearings Boards' in charge of virtually all local land use planning.

Decisions made that effect real people each and every day, by unelected, unaccountable government types.

This horrible affront to property rights passed a Republican controlled State Senate in the early '90s and I do not recall any serious effort being made to repeal it when the 'Republican Revolution' gave our side large majorities in both houses of the state legislature.

I do fear that both parties are quite willing to sell our property rights down the tank.

M

David,

Yes, I think that the 'refreshing change' is what our nation needs, and I believe that it will help build the confidence so important to a healthy economy.

Beyond that though, I'm afraid that I must disagree. To my mind when government tries to fix the business cycle it makes it only worse.

Bad companies should go broke. Bad businessmen, crooked businessmen should loose everything. New, better, smarter companies will quickly take their place. That is the way of capitalism.

It was actually Mr. McCain's decision to support the bailout of Wall Street that completely soured me on him.

A week or so before he had promised in a debate that if he were President he would veto any pork laden bill. He then campaigned for, and voted for one of the most pork laden bills of all time. Proving himself dishonest about his principals.

I firmly believe that the very best thing the Federal Government can do to help our economy is get the hell out of the way.

Let the good, fast, smart businessmen do what they do best, create wealth for us all.

Let the bad businessmen do what they are destined to do, go broke.

M

scott,

It is a political post, on a blog that does not shy away from politics. Your views are of course welcome here.

We shall have to disagree on President Reagan. In some areas I will agree that he was not successful. In the most important areas however he achieved truly remarkable things.

President Bush has done things that are in my view contrary to how civilized nations, how nations of laws act. Those things, which I did mention in my post (torture, imprisonment outside of the judicial system) are truly a shame upon our nation, and big steps on the road to tyranny. That said, I must point out that such horrible acts by our leaders are unfortunately not unique as the Japanese people locked in concentration camps right here in the USA by the Roosevelt administration during WWII can attest. We must I think, as a people act when such tyranny is practiced by our nation, I think that we did so last Tuesday.

Like you, I have hope for the new administration, hope for the future.

The fact that we can even have this discussion is proof positive of just how far this world has come in the last 250 years.

M

Hi again Ms. Milliscent,

I knew I was making a political statement and I was confident that you would respect them even if you didn't agree.

Thanks,

scott
Mrs. Kelly's Playhouse

scott,

I find that most people don't agree with me when it comes to politics.

I see the good and the bad in both parties despite being a partisan. I fear that many folks are unable or unwilling to do the same, to see the mistakes their chosen parties make.

I also see individual liberty as the highest political aim. I fear that in doing so I am in a very small minority.

M

Hello Ms Milliscent,

you wrote:

>the 'refreshing change' is what our nation needs, and I believe
>that it will help build the confidence so important to a
>healthy economy.

Yes, I agree that the confidence will help. But it's not enough
on it's own. Some stuff has to be done to fix the mess created.
It's possible we could have struggled on until a change in
presidency as the whole world (of economists) was secretly
hoping before the necessary medicine was administered.

However, when W quite deliberately declared that we had a house
of cards about to collapse, he brought about the day of collapse
the world was trying to postpone.

(The why of that deliberate action is so many layered that it's
quite beyond me to be sure of all the reasons but there is
little doubt that it was a wider policy issue linked to powerful
economic forces).

But whatever the reason, now the cat is out of the bag, let us
try and make sure it's not too wild a cat. Or even a dog of war.

>Beyond that though, I'm afraid that I must disagree. To my
>mind when government tries to fix the business cycle it makes
>it only worse.

Like Ron Paul you are probably of the "Austrian School"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

And that is a position I understand and respect, especially the
"Austrian Business Cycle Theory" in an environment of
excessively low interest rates. See:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Business_Cycle_Theory

Trouble is the "day of reckoning" outlined in the link above
has arrived, hastened by W before Obama got into office?

>Bad companies should go broke.

Yep.

>Bad businessmen, crooked businessmen should lose everything.

Yes, providing of course it doesn't precipitate everybody
everywhere losing everything. No point cutting off our noses to
spite our faces.

>New, better, smarter companies will quickly take their place.
>That is the way of capitalism.

All that is true, but we all, including America, haven't been
doing capitalism in it's pure 19th century sense for at least 75
years. We've been doing regulated forms based mostly on
Keynesian economic theory for most of my life.

The dollar has not been based upon Austrian principles at least
since the the Bretton Woods system collapsed in 1971

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

>It was actually Mr. McCain's decision to support the bailout
>of Wall Street that completely soured me on him.

Like most of the world McCain was probably caught off guard by
W's team.

Obama either had the inside track or more likely he simply knew
better how to play poker.

>A week or so before he had promised in a debate that if he
>were President he would veto any pork laden bill. He then
>campaigned for, and voted for one of the most pork laden bills
>of all time. Proving himself dishonest about his principals.

All politicians have to be dishonest when fighting to become the
leader of their country, why should that be any different when
trying to become the president of the USA?

>I firmly believe that the very best thing the Federal
>Government can do to help our economy is get the hell out of
>the way.

As a general principle with regard to government, I agree.

But even an Austrian would have to accept the value of certain
public works in giving the economy a shove in the right
direction. Wouldn't she? The Hoover Dam for example?

>Let the good, fast, smart businessmen do what they do best,
>create wealth for us all.

Yes. But the government has a role in national security. Energy
policy is a national security issue. Defending the world economy
from hostile economic forces is also a matter of national and
world security.

Even if security is not a consideration there is the Liquidity
trap which has to be resolved at some point:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap

Open quote:-

"The term helicopter money is meant to portray the image of a
central banker dropping money on people from a helicopter.
Political considerations make it difficult for a monetary
authority to grant the money gift, because individuals and firms
not receiving free money will exert political pressure. The
monetary authority must act covertly to give gift money to
specific individuals or firms without appearing to give money
away"

End quote.

What I was suggesting in my last post was that a better or even
an additional means of helicoptering in the money would be to do
something productive with it. This is why I said...

Gear up loads of new factories (or retool old ones) to make wind
turbines, solar panels, the new tide and ocean power snakes,
that are already in use in Europe. Go into production and
deployment on a scale not seen since the second world war.

Invest in research and development on new cars to use the
electricity generated by the above.

Be brave and do it on a massive scale, never mind the cost, and
the jobs and boom created will lift the economy. At this stage
in an economy the only solution is to helicopter in the money on
a massive scale, so it may as well be deployed usefully.

warmest regards,
David

David,

I must disagree with your view that confidence is not enough. I view such downturns as simply a crisis of confidence. I believe that if people believe that the economy will be strong, it will be strong. I believe this because that confidence drives investment, it drives spending; it drives the very inputs into the economy that you argue are so valuable. I do not disagree with you as to the value of such inputs. I simply disagree in the best way to ensure that such inputs come about.

In every election the economy suffers. The fellows running for office, whomever they may be, talk the economy down. They talk it down so that it seems worse than it is; they talk it down to destroy confidence. That is how they convince voters to support them, by manufacturing problems.

Yes, I am familiar with, and generally believe that the Austrian School of Economics offers sound economic theory. The Chicago School as well, one must not forget ones own nations achievements in scholarship.

You say:
“Yes, providing of course it doesn't precipitate everybody everywhere losing everything. No point cutting off our noses to spite our faces.”

You don’t define ‘everybody’ or ‘everywhere’ but I take it to mean a large numbers of people. Given that, I am not sure that I can agree with you. I’ll offer an example: Washington Mutual. A massive bank, based right here where I live. One of the largest, if not the largest bank failure in our nations history. I must presume that millions of people lost a great deal of money when their Washington Mutual stock went to the dogs. I say tough. Shareholders own companies. Shareholders have responsibilities. I was advised, by more people than you can imagine through the years to buy Washington Mutual stock. I never did. I knew it was a looser. All one had to do was walk into any Washington Mutual branch to see that. 20 somethings everywhere, not an experienced person in sight. Even their TV commercials made fun of the fact that bankers in other banks wore suits to work. A bunch of 20 somethings, making fun of people who wear suits to work, running one of the worlds largest banks. Shareholders couldn’t figure out that maybe it was a looser? Shareholders had a responsibility to exercise their votes, to ensure good management within the bank. They did not. They lost their investments in the bank. That is capitalism.

A giant bank falls. Another smaller, smarter, faster bank will rise to take its place. I own a great deal of stock in such a bank. The people who work there wear suits. It does not have major financial problems, as it held no mortgages when the problems hit. It will grow now. Some people lost money in Washington Mutual; others will make loads of money in my little bank. That is capitalism.

You say:
“All politicians have to be dishonest when fighting to become the leader of their country, why should that be any different when trying to become the president of the USA?”

Again, I must disagree. The voters respond well to candidates who tell it like it is. Politician’s irrational fears prevent more of them from doing so.

I do not support the idea of massive government public works projects because I do not believe that they work, nor that they are moral. The moral point is to me my most important objection. It is not moral to take by force (all taxes are ultimately collected by force) from some people to give to other people. That is theft. Theft is wrong.

I did understand your previous post, and I honor the solutions mentioned within it. I cannot agree with them though. As I read it, I thought ‘European.’ Even if I did not personally know where you live, I would have though ‘European.’ Europe is I think a wonderful place, with a tremendous culture. It is not though America. I think that our forefathers fought and died to move us away from European ideas, from ideas of the society ahead of the individual, from ideas of the state as supreme. I think that we in America must honor our own traditions, our own liberties. I think we do ourselves a disservice if we follow Europe.

I hope you understand that this post is not meant to be a dig at you personally, or your philosophy, or your nation. It is however trying to point out a difference between the new world and the old, a core difference in belief, a defense of American values, even when those values diverge from those of our friends in the old world.

M

Hello Ms Milliscent,

you wrote:

>I view such downturns as simply a crisis of confidence. I
>believe that if people believe that the economy will be
>strong, it will be strong. I believe this because that
>confidence drives investment, it drives spending; it drives the
>very inputs into the economy that you argue are so valuable.

For the sake of discussion let us assume you are correct that
it's just a "downturn". And that if people believe everything is
going to be fine, it will be. That would be a triumph of hope
over adversity which I would be the first to welcome.

The trouble is, the reverse would also be true. If people are
convinced we are on a big downturn they will take the very
actions that make the downturn worse. They stop spending. More
jobs are lost, the economy gets even worse. Everybody tries not
to say the depression word, but enough of them believe it is
happening to make it happen.

The people in most of the world are now already very hard to
convince it is not a serious recession. The economic news is
spewing out of the rolling news channels 24 hours a day. The
effect of that news is to cause the reverse of your triumph of
hope over adversity.

In order to convince the people of America, or indeed of the
world, that things are going to change substantially for the
better. The measures taken have to be convincing and on a grand
scale. Almost none of the people believe that another tax rebate
check in the mail will be enough this time.

Obama has been great at talking the talk, I'm of the opinion
that he will be dissuaded from taking the kind of bold action
necessary.

>I do not disagree with you as to the value of such inputs. I
>simply disagree in the best way to ensure that such inputs
>come about.

The politicians will tell you they have tools in their boxes of
tricks to deal with things. They will talk of tax cuts, tax
incentives, bailing out businesses. It's all much too minor and
marginal.

Bailing out the car industry, for example, will not work if folk
can't be dragged down to the show-room to buy a new car because
they are convinced they need to hoard their cash against the bad
days coming. So the bail out would be sending good money after
bad.

Whereas, if those people saw new jobs being created making
something different. something they know is going to be put to
good use, those people might start to believe. The workers would
have a pay check and could afford to sign up for a new car.
Their compatriots would have something to believe in.

So, what stuff to make?

No point making stuff you need people to buy personally until
you can get them spending. Even if you could convince them to
start spending, enough of that stuff is being churned out by the
Chinese anyway. You can't put up trade barriers because of the
symbiotic relationship you now have with China and because that
road leads to the great depression.

You need to make something that is going to be used by the
governments of the world. Last time it was tanks, planes, ships,
et cetera. We've used our arms industries many times to provide
jobs, and sold the arms around the world. China and Russia are
still doing it. We all still do it. But it's not enough.

All I'm saying is we don't need to make armaments on a WWII
scale this time. This time there is already something the world
needs and is crying out for. There is something America needs. A
plentiful source of green energy. So gear up production lines on
a WWII scale and make the things that produce energy.

>In every election the economy suffers. The fellows running for
>office, whomever they may be, talk the economy down. They talk
>it down so that it seems worse than it is; they talk it down to
>destroy confidence. That is how they convince voters to support
>them, by manufacturing problems.

Unless you are convinced that Bush was involved in a grand
conspiracy to create a crisis to help Obama get elected, that
explanation doesn't fly this time. Not for me anyway.

>The Chicago School as well, one must not forget ones own
>nations achievements in scholarship.

Yes, I'm familiar with it. I perhaps incorrectly assumed you
were Austrian in your bias because it's known that Ron Paul is,
and you suggested you favoured his policies in the recent
election.

There is a description of the Chicago School at:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_(economics)

where it says "The Chicago school is associated with
neoclassical price theory and libertarianism, and with the view
that regulation and other government intervention is always
inefficient compared to a free market. "

The above would seem to be in line with your own thinking Ms
Milliscent.

I personally would agree with the sentiment. But efficiency is
not the only criteria that matters when trying to avoid a
depression and I'm certain many in "the school" would agree.

It also says on the page.... "The school rejected Keynesianism
in favor of monetarism until the 1980s, when it turned to
rational expectations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_expectations

I'm not an economist but the description of "Rational
expectations" you can read in the above link sounds an awful lot
like our discussion about whether the "triumph of hope over
adversity" is likely to work. The criticisms section I think
sums things up quite well:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_expectations#Criticisms

>You don't define 'everybody' or 'everywhere' but I take it to
>mean a large numbers of people.

Yes I meant a return to soup kitchens across the world unless
bold action is taken now.

Some of the greatest minds that America and it's partners can
bring to bear are at this minute wrestling with how to stop the
current "credit crunch" turning into the kind of stagnation that
Japan has suffered for over a decade, or worse from slipping
into world-wide depression.

>Shareholders had a responsibility to exercise their votes, to
>ensure good management within the bank. They did not. They
>lost their investments in the bank. That is capitalism.

I'm not advocating bailing out shareholders or companies. The
stock market sadly has become a casino. I regret that there
seems no easy way back to a market with sensible long term
investors as the primary or only participants.

The dealers make too much money shuffling the gambling chips
around to have any interest in returning to a world where we all
held shares for years.

>Some people lost money in Washington Mutual; others will make
>loads of money in my little bank. That is capitalism.

True, but it will not solve the problem. Because no little
company is going to spring up and make things on a WWII scale.
So unless you can find a source of private investment to make
stuff in America on a very grand scale, there will not be the
jobs necessary to make the "Rational expectations" produce the
confidence that drives investment, that drives the spending that
we both agree is needed.

>The voters respond well to candidates who tell it like it is.
>Politician's irrational fears prevent more of them from doing
>so.

Even if you are correct the "Politician's irrational fears" will
produce the lies and deceptions they feel they need to get
elected. So now is the moment for action while you still have a
two year respite in the electoral cycle in America.

Sadly the same is not true for the situation in the UK where
Gordon Brown's policies may be modified by the need to get
elected in the next year or so, at least once, to the office he
inherited from Blair.

>I do not support the idea of massive government public works
>projects because I do not believe that they work, nor that they
>are moral.

I'm not arguing for them generally. We may have to agree to
disagree if you can't accept that on this occasion, it could be
the exception to prove the rule..

It's demonstrable that public works and investment in
infrastructure has worked on many occasions.

WWII demonstrated that making tanks planes et cetera fixed your
own economy. Winning the second world war was a moral thing to
do.

I think saving the planet is a moral thing to do. It's a war
worth fighting. I think removing our dependency on oil is a
moral thing to do. I know that large scale job creation to
achieve both those objectives would help to fix the economy in a
way that produces real productive and worthwhile jobs that will
bring benefit to the American economy in so many ways.

>The moral point is to me my most important objection. It is
>not moral to take by force (all taxes are ultimately collected
>by force) from some people to give to other people. That is
>theft. Theft is wrong.

I'm not keen on paying taxes. But whether we like it or not they
are going to be raised and spent by all our governments in
pursuit of fixing the world economy. The question is not whether
they will do it, but what they will spend our money on. I'd
rather see it go on doing something moral and worthwhile than
bailing out less worthy companies.

Unemployment reduces tax revenues.

The economics of this is that job creation produces new tax
revenue from folk who would otherwise be out of a job. You can't
tell me that the unemployed Joe or Jane will appreciate being
told that it's morally better that she/he stay unemployed and
not pay taxes.

>I think that our forefathers fought and died to move us away
>from European ideas, from ideas of the society ahead of the
>individual, from ideas of the state as supreme.

I am a republican, a liberal and a democrat. I don't support big
state or big government. I vote tactically to try and limit the
size and power of government, which is somewhat difficult to do
in some countries I've lived in.

I think you have mistaken my motivation completely. It has
nothing to do with the country I now live in, nor the country I
was born in. The policy I advocated is based on sound economic
theories which I think many from the Chicago school of economics
would agree with and that I know that many American economists
do agree with.

None that I know of are yet publicly advocating anything on the
scale necessary. I sincerely hope that some are doing so
privately.

>I think we do ourselves a disservice if we follow Europe.

Europe is unlikely to be doing anything on the scale I'm
discussing unless America leads the way. I'm advocating that you
give a lead to Europe not follow it.

>I hope you understand that this post is not meant to be a dig
>at you personally, or your philosophy,

Of course. I know from long experience that you respect
divergent opinions and welcome them here.

>or your nation.

I'm not sure I have a nation. I was born in the UK, yet I've
lived much more of my life in other countries than the time I've
spent in the UK. I've lived longer in Portugal than anywhere, so
if I have a nation I suppose that is it.

Yet nothing I've written here feels to me to be inherently
Portuguese.

>It is however trying to point out a difference between the new
>world and the old

I think what I'm advocating has a lot more in common with
American values and global values than "old world" values,
whatever they are. I don't know anybody living in an "old world".

warmest regards,
David.

I don't generally comment on politics...I agree about 90% of the time with your views on politics...I do not share your view on Obama. I really believe he is a Marxist....plain and simple...I define wealth as what I have..Money (very little of that) real property....the bank owns most of it....etc....to redistribute or share the wealth is sharing what I have...Having read Karl Marx, I must say, that sounds Marxist....I worry about our 2nd Amendment. I worry about this "Civillian Security Force." I thought we had lots of police agencies

I do not worry about wire tapping someone overseas. We listen in on our enemies all the time I hope. I worry about loss of opposing views vis a vis the " Fairness Doctrine" which is anything but fair.....I worry about loss of Religious Freedom and I havent been in a Church in 15 years.....but if you want to go I support it....

GW gave us a lot of Federal Spending and lot of that was on more socialized medicine....a lot on the war and I agree it is one we dont seem willing to win.....but I think saying Obama is going to be better than Bush is like saying Herpes is better than syphillis....sorry but that's how I feel....I surely hope you are right and I am wrong.....

Milliscent-

Reading the comments to you on this post simply boggles the mind. So much ignorance of history and bad logic.

For example, David is grossly mistaken in his understanding of FDR and his actions. Amity Schlaes' recent book explodes the myth that FDR led us out of the depression. In fact, his actions scared off private capital for a decade. I read a quote of Andrew Mellon's (FDR's Treasury Secy) just this week in which he admitted that the administration had failed in 8 years to fix anything with all its spending.

The critics of the time were correct- only a war brought the US economy out of its depression.

So much for 'swords into plowshares,' David. Try again.

As to others, it is amazing to me how often liberals simply seem to shy away from individual initiative and achievement.

In my experience over a lifetime of observing political leanings, lifelong liberals seem to fall into two groups: those who simply want others to pay for their life, and guilty minorities or formerly poor people who, having succeeded through their own initiative and skills, feel compelled to cling to the party of their early years, clans and families.

Especially on what used to be 'Wall Street,' for that matter.

Milliscent, I know you and I disagree on the current situation and Presidential situation. But at least both you and I are long-term conservatives who probably agree on the necessary direction our nation must take over time, and the values it needs to preserve.

A final thought, for which I will likely be excoriated. It is deplorable that in this last election, racism was allowed to flourish.

Ask the Hillary backers. Anyone who identified Obama's total inexperience was branded a racist. As Gerry Ferraro said, and was hounded for speaking such truth, if the Illinois rookie had not been black, none of this would have happened.

No woman or caucasian candidate with such a lack of real world experience accomplishing anything of note in his entire life, other than writing autobiographies, would have even made it past the Iowa caucases.

-saratoga

Milliscent-

A final thought.

Contrary to your hopes, the Illinois freshman has already turned on his own promises within a week of his electoral victory.

His senseless call for another Federal stimulus bill, coupled with the UAW-preserving gift of a promised bailout to GM, constitute what the candidate called 'four more years of failed economic policies.'

Hardly "change you can believe in," is it?

No, just partisan politics as usual.

I'm sorry, Milliscent, but even before his inauguration, the newly-elected President has failed, as measured by his own suspect rhetoric.

-saratoga

David,

I agree with your point that my ‘triumph of hope’ can be reversed. Certainly if people believe the economy is bad, and will get worse, their own actions will serve to make it so.

That is I think my entire reason for hope at this time. In my state 57.5 percent of the people believe that Mr. Obama will improve the economy. In my county 58.5 percent of the people believe that he will improve the economy. To my mind that is a lot of people with a lot of hope. People who will make their decisions based upon that hope, make decisions that will serve to help our economy. That is the entire motivation behind this post.

From that agreement though, I’m afraid that I must begin disagreeing with your comment.

I do not believe that the majority, or even a large minority of American’s believe that any ‘grand scale’ action that our federal government might take to ‘fix’ the economy would work. In fact, I believe that a huge majority would think such action would result in more harm than good. Hence bringing about your first point.

I do not disagree with your point about corporate bailout schemes. They will not work, and in fact they do more harm than good. By a large margin.

I furthermore agree with you that barriers to trade are bad for an economy. Free trade is the best basis for any economy, and should be retained and expanded as much as possible.

I am also, of course, not opposed to green energy. The government however is not the institution that should, or even could create green energy solutions that actually work for regular people. My MacBook was built by the private sector. My Subaru was built by the private sector. My cellular phone was built by the private sector. Yes, government types worked on early computer development, but it took the private sector to create computers that were actually useful. The government helps design military vehicles, but it takes the private sector to design cars that people would actually want to drive. Cellular phone development runs along the exact same lines. I ask you, how many products do you use every day that were developed by a government? I believe that you will find very few examples. I then ask you how many products do you use every day that were developed by private industry? A comparison of those numbers will prove my point for me.

Do I believe that President Bush is involved in a conspiracy to elect President-elect Obama? No. I believe that President Bush made some extremely poor choices and decisions.

Yes. I do believe that the American people should have elected Ron Paul as President this year.

I believe that your statement:

“no little company is going to spring up and make things on a WWII scale.”

Is defeatist, and certainly incorrect. Microsoft. Apple. Dell. HP, Subaru, the entire state of Washington wine industry. Massive companies are built all the time. Massive companies fail all the time. It is the way of capitalism. To believe that a company can not grow to massive scale without government is to ignore our own continuing history.

Did the making of war material ‘fix’ our economy during and after WWII, or did our tremendous success in that war give us the confidence in our nation and ourselves that was necessary for individuals to fix the economy? I would argue that it was the second.

It is of course correct that those who are unemployed will pay less taxes than those who are employed. It is not however correct that the spending proposal you make will create armies of new workers. Where I wonder will these workers come from? Employment is down a bit, but we do not have huge numbers of unemployed people out there. Employment is down, but it is still very good.

Old world, new world aside, I must stand by my main point that tax and spend policies will never ‘fix’ an American economy, rather they will cripple the very businesses and individuals who can fix our economy.

M

bdenied,

Don’t read too much into the niece things I say about the President-elect. I am still a strong Republican with a Libertarian bent. I’m simply trying to express hope that things might improve under his administration, not going all hippy, freak, commie, pinko on you.

I agree with you that the new President is at very best a socialist. I also however believe that the current President is a socialist. He spoke of ‘compassionate conservatism’ but all that amounted to was a desire to spend even more than his Democratic predecessor. The socialist who talks like a capitalist is still a socialist in my opinion. The difference, perhaps, is that the current President Bush did not seek to increase income taxes to pay for his bloated government. He borrowed, and he printed loads of dollars. Doing so however is nothing but an indirect tax on the one hand, and a future tax liability on the other.

I think what we need is a true capitalist President. The only one running this time was Mr. Paul.

I do not worry about our Second Amendment under the new President. One thing Mr. Bush did extremely well was pick his Supreme Court nominees. They will not allow intrusion in that area. Secondly, I firmly believe that if Mr. Obama goes too far left, as Mr. Clinton did in his first two years, the country will respond by giving him a nice Republican Congress to deal with.

I do worry about the civilian homeland security force Mr. Obama has mentioned. I hope that Congress restrains his homeland security ideas a lot more forcefully than they did those of Mr. Bush.

Again, I don’t think that our good and conservative Supreme Court will allow a new ‘fairness doctrine’ to control our airwaves, nor do I believe that any attempt would be allowed to infringe upon religious liberty.

Your statement:

“saying Obama is going to be better than Bush is like saying Herpes is better than syphilis”

In addition to getting a laugh out of me today, is actually fairly close to my view. I don’t think that Obama will be great, but I do think that he will be better. With a tiny kicker: He might be great. There is just no way to know what he truly believes, or what he truly will do because he has zero practical experience for the job. We can’t know if he will be good, bad, or indifferent, because we have nothing to draw upon.

M

Saratoga,

I also found the comments upon this post to be strange. I did not write it as an Obama supporter, or as an attempt to show a turning away from my own conservative views. I did write it as an attempt to express hope, in a bipartisan manner, for the new administration. Obviously feelings are running quite hot still however, for the response has been enormous.

I agree with your views on FDR. I view him as one of our nations worst Presidents, and I am deeply troubled by the way he got the people of my grandparents generation to follow him blindly. The concentration camps Americans of Japanese descent were forced into is enough evidence to prove his evil.

Yes, I believe that while you and I may disagree about Mr. Bush, I believe that we share a similar political philosophy. That of Republicans with strong libertarian leanings. I believe that this nations success in the world depends upon it’s embrace of capitalism and individual liberty in all spheres of life.

M

Saratoga,

I never believe any politicians promises. I’m too old to fall for any of that nonsense.

That is one of the reasons that I’m holding out hope for the new President-elect.

We can not know what he will do, how he will react.

We can not know because he has no practical experience, no extensive record we can examine.

He could be a great President, and awful President, or anywhere in between.

Other Presidents in my lifetime had records which could be examined for clues as to how they would perform once in office. This next President does not. Therefore we cannot know.

We certainly can’t trust anything they might promise, so we shall be forced to wait and see.

The eternally optimistic dominatrix has decided that she will hope against hope for a great President Obama.

M

Hello,

saratoga wrote to Ms Milliscent:

>Reading the comments to you on this post simply boggles the
>mind

Clearly that's true, as your mind became so boggled you have
attributed things to me (David) that I just did not say. I'm
always amazed when people seem to read a point of view they wish
to disagree with rather than read the actual words written.

>So much ignorance of history and bad logic.

I hope that this insulting remark is not about me. Go back and
read my posts on this blog. Nowhere have I said anything to lead
you to conclude the following...

>For example, David is grossly mistaken in his understanding of
>FDR and his actions.

I didn't even mention FDR at all. What I said was:-

"If there was one thing that fixed the economy after the great
depression it was making stuff. Of course, it took a war to
create a situation where you could make stuff on a grand scale."

Even you go on to agree with this statement later on in your own
post, after you've attributed a point of view to me which I
didn't express, and which you must have wanted to hear so that
you could disagree with it.

I can talk about FDR in much greater detail if you like.
Opinions differ widely, but those differences are irrelevant as
I'm advocating doing one right bit of the WWII economic policy and
leaving out the wrong bits, not FDR policy per se.

Meantime you wrote:

>only a war brought the US economy out of its depression.

Yes. And that is precisely what I said.

>So much for 'swords into plowshares,' David. Try again.

Read what I said, twice, as Ms Milliscent permitted me to repeat
it in again my second post.

1st post:-

http://tinyurl.com/576n73#comment-5594

and 2nd post:-

http://tinyurl.com/576n73#comment-5608

I'll paraphrase it for you this time so as not to be too
repetitive.

What I said was that this time around if you use the same
policies of massive production as you did in WWII (but without
having a war) then you can achieve the same effect on the
economy.

You'll find it hard to find many economists to disagree with the
accuracy of the fundamental principle. Although many will
disagree about the policy and advocate other courses of action
for their own reasons.

My swords into ploughshares remark was flippant but was in
reference to making the right stuff. Wind turbines, solar
panels, the new tide and ocean power snakes to produce
electricity to fix the energy gap.

This is simply advocating policy that both candidates in your
election espoused. But I am advocating this is done on a much
more grand scale than I think either would have been bold enough
to do. (I hope I'm wrong with regard to Obama!)

My reasons for the grand scale are because not doing the stuff
they are now planning on doing will result in lost (inefficient)
jobs on a large scale, and something will need to be done to replace
them with jobs that are good for the US economy.

You do have one oil and gas billionaire in the USA who advocates
something on a fairly big scale and who is spending $58 million
on a media campaign to promote the idea which he'll no doubt
make a lot of money out of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Boone_Pickens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickens_Plan

I personally think his plan is better than doing nothing, and as
he says "I'm worth $4 billion. I have plenty of money. I think it
shows leadership that I'm putting my money into the wind
business, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is."

I'd go a lot further than T. Boone Pickens myself if I could,
but I don't have $4 billion. (I'm making a more humble investment
in solar where I live which will give me a 15% return.) He of
course emphasises the gas elements of his plan, and as he's an
oil and gas man that's not surprising.

As to FDR, it's possible that my reference to the Hoover Dam
made you see red. (pun intended) Roosevelt took office on March
4, 1933 which is about half way through construction but long
after the project was originally planned in 1922.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam

As you can read in the link above it was in fact a project
"named after Herbert Hoover, who played an instrumental role in
its construction, first as the Secretary of Commerce and then
later as the President of the United States. Construction began
in 1931 and was completed in 1935" and "in 1932, Herbert Hoover
lost his bid for reelection to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I don't suffer from ignorance of history or bad logic.
Disagree with my opinions, but there is no need to be insulting
about my faculties.

regards,
David.

Boys,

Robust political discussion is I think healthy, and wholly of the good.

Luckily it can be fun as well.

I hope that we can keep it on that level.

We have everyone here obviously, economic liberals, social liberals, economic conservatives, traditional conservatives, classical liberals.

I guess about the only type of person we don't have here are social conservatives.

Debate is bound to become heated, and that is of the good. Let's also try to keep it fun though.

M

Hello Ms Milliscent,

I agree with much of your recent posts in regard to economic
matters. Where I think we've differed is more to do with
misunderstanding what the other has been saying.

In some ways one of us as been talking apples and the other
oranges. For example, it comes across to me that you think I was
proposing the government start making the very stuff that I
proposed needs to be made in the USA on a grand scale. Perhaps I
was unclear in my proposals.

I was suggesting that you (the USA) need to start making the
stuff in "loads of new factories (or retooled old ones) to make
wind turbines, solar panels, the new tide and ocean power
snakes, and go into production and deployment on a scale not
seen since the second world war."

By "you", I meant the nation, not the government. I doubt that
everything you made in WWII was made by the government. Correct
me if I'm wrong because unusually for me I have not gone and
checked this, but my guess based on a little knowledge of some
of the corporations involved is that private industry was given
the contracts to make most of the stuff.

So now, even if not then, my feeling is that the government
involvement in these new projects would primarily be in fast
tracking regulations, license agreements with any foreign owners
of technology etc., ensuring finance is made available by
backing whatever bond issues or loans are necessary, and making
sure the infrastructure is provided to use the new equipment
when it starts rolling off the production lines.

If the government puts it's back and shoulder into it, then
industry can be encouraged to go in the right direction, and
fast. It needs to be fast because as the old industries start
letting workers go, then the new industries need to take up the
slack. The old industries are likely as this "downturn" deepens,
to shed jobs in the millions. If a depression is to be avoided
then government needs to act.

you agreed that:

>if people believe the economy is bad, and will get worse,
>their own actions will serve to make it so

and you wrote that the reasons for hope were:

>In my state 57.5 percent of the people believe that Mr. Obama
>will improve the economy. In my county 58.5 percent of the
>people believe that he will improve the economy. To my mind
>that is a lot of people with a lot of hope. People who will
>make their decisions based upon that hope, make decisions that
>will serve to help our economy

All of which I agree with.

I certainly hope that the progress of the downturn doesn't
continue in the direction that all the respected forecasters
suggest that it will.

The "hope" will not last if the car industry continues to shut
down at the current rate with a concomitant loss of 3 million
jobs in those and the supplying industries. The knock on into
the wider economy could dramatically increase those numbers.

It's because I believe that the hope will not last that I
believe something has to done now, and fast, to replace those
jobs.

It's because I believe the old industries should not be
supported in their inefficiency that I think those jobs should
be lost and should be replaced.

>I do not believe that the majority, or even a large minority of
>American's believe that any "grand scale" action that our
>federal government might take to "fix" the economy would work.
>In fact, I believe that a huge majority would think such
>action would result in more harm than good.

Then I have to hope that Obama believes he can change their
minds. And that he is correct in such a belief. Because without
"grand scale" action as I've outlined, I believe that many are
headed for the soup kitchens.

Low interest rates are not the solution, nor is tax cuts. Low
interest rates will just build another asset bubble, not a
production boom. Tax cuts will just be saved and not invested. A
direction of travel needs to be promoted and supported.

>I am also, of course, not opposed to green energy. The
>government however is not the institution that should, or even
>could create green energy solutions that actually work for
>regular people.

I agree. Many of the solutions have already been created, and
could be deployed. But they do need a more favourable framework.

>My MacBook was built by the private sector. My Subaru was
>built >by the private sector. My cellular phone was built by
>the >private sector. Yes, government types worked on early
>computer >development, but it took the private sector to
>create computers >that were actually useful. The government
>helps design military >vehicles, but it takes the private
>sector to design cars that >people would actually want to
>drive. Cellular phone >development runs along the exact same
>lines.

This is where I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not
suggesting the private sector should not develop and deploy the
solutions. I just don't think it's going to happen fast enough
without the government making the environment much more
favourable.

>I ask you, how many products do you use every day that were
>developed by a government?

The internet is a classic example. The military invented it and
created the backbone. Government encouraged the military to
donate that backbone and thus spur further private investment
into it.

>how many products do you use every day that were developed by
>private industry? A comparison of those numbers will prove my
>point for me.

Your point didn't need proving to me. I'd be the first to oppose
state-run industry as a recipe for commercial success. I grew up
in a country where many such industries were stagnant dinosaurs.

Although there some industries that perform better for the
consumer when there is government involvement in the framework,
regulation and infrastructure. Water for example.

>I believe that your statement: "no little company is going to
>spring up and make things on a WWII scale." Is defeatist, and
>certainly incorrect.

I hope you are right. I remain convinced that it will not happen
fast enough without some serious pushing of the process by those
in power.

>To believe that a company can not grow to massive scale without
>government is to ignore our own continuing history.

Of course. I never said big can't happen privately. By
"springing up" I meant fast. I just don't think that the
possible requirement of 5 to 10 million new jobs that a
depression would likely open up are going to happen in the
current business climate without some serious encouragement.

>Did the making of war material "fix" our economy during and
>after WWII

I think so, as do most economists, although it is much argued.
There is no way for either of us to prove it one way or the
other. It has to be the most studied depression. Here is a quote
from Wikipedia (url may wrap):-

World_War_II_and_the_end_of_the_Great_Depression

"The Depression continued with decreasing effect until the U.S.
entered the Second World War. Under the special circumstances of
war mobilization, massive war spending doubled the Gross
National Product. Civilian unemployment was reduced from 14% in
1940 to less than 2% in 1943 as the labor force grew by ten
million."

>or did our tremendous success in that war give us the
>confidence in our nation and ourselves that was necessary for
>individuals to fix the economy?

Well, clearly the post war policies and attitude helped continue
the success. I'd argue that this helps to make the case for
investing more heavily in the economy now. After the depression
is thus avoided the growth would then continue to rescue and pay
down the debt after the current crisis has passed.

There is a lot of argument about those war years. This quote
from the same page may find favour with you?

"Some libertarian economists suggest that neither the war nor
New Deal policies ended the Great Depression. Rather, a return
to normality after the war, as the government relaxed wage
controls, price controls, capital controls, reduced tariffs and
other trade barriers, and eliminated the rationing of goods and
the relaxing of Federal control over American industries, ended
it"

However. While the page is in general highly critical of much
stupidity and bad policy in "The New Deal" a reading of much of
the statistics given there demonstrates that real growth in GDP
occurred. The highest growth rate in the history of any
industrial country, although many believe that conservative
fiscal policies during the depression restrained the growth and
that it could have been higher still.

Many have speculated on what would have happened had Keynes
convinced FDR of the need to increase deficit spending.

>It is of course correct that those who are unemployed will pay
>less taxes than those who are employed. It is not however
>correct that the spending proposal you make will create armies
>of new workers. Where I wonder will these workers come from?
>Employment is down a bit, but we do not have huge numbers of
>unemployed people out there. Employment is down, but it is
>still very good.

A million jobs have already been lost. But again I think you
misunderstood me. I'm talking about getting ahead of the curve.
Acting rather than reacting, which is the mark of a successful
government. Creating new jobs to replace those that will be
further lost.

I'm talking about avoiding a great depression by anticipating
the downturn and acting to avoid it being too steep. Thus the
new jobs will be created to employ those who would otherwise be
a further drain on the economy. Instead of losing tax-payers and
thus making the deficit worse, you would be keeping tax-payers.

>I must stand by my main point that tax and spend policies will
>never "fix" an American economy

I stand by my point that it's been done repeatedly in all major
economies, including yours. Although the taxes come from the
workers who would otherwise be unemployed.

>rather they will cripple the very businesses and individuals
>who can fix our economy.

The trick is to implement the policies in a way that does the
opposite to what you suggest by inspiring and encouraging those
businesses and individuals.

warmest regards,
David.

David,

I do agree that the government should fast track regulations, indeed remove regulations. American Business is overregulated and over taxed. Where we continue to disagree however is in your view that the government should assure financing for new or even existing ventures. Capital exists, and is available for businesses that deserve such capital. Government would end up financing only those enterprises that could not raise capital on their own. Of course it must be remembered that if an enterprise can not raise capital it is precisely because the business does not have a high enough chance of making a profit in either the long or short run.

I do not agree with your view that ‘old industries’ will shed jobs by the millions, and ‘new industries’ will not create new jobs to replace them. I believe that you are viewing things in a zero sum thing. Jobs are shed by ‘old industries’ and old companies by the millions all the time. Jobs are created by ‘new industries’ and new companies all the time. It is not a zero sum game. Needs change, workers need to change as well.

Forecasters are rarely correct in determining change. They are generally very successful in pointing out trends as they exist. Take my TV weather man for example. It seems that every year he doesn’t manage to predict our first snow storm. Every darn day after that though he predicts snow. Economic forecasters are much the same. They predict rosy sky’s until a worsening economy takes them by surprise, then they will predict a worsening economy until an improving economy takes them by surprise.

If economic forecasters could truly time the markets and the economy, if they could truly spot the tops and the bottoms, they would be billionaires. They would not be on the TV hawking their views for a few bucks.

You say:

“Tax cuts will just be saved and not invested.”

This is a false negative. It is true that money spent is good for the economy. It is also however true that money saved is good for the economy. When I spend a few bucks at a merchant it is good for that merchant, plus everyone who supplies him with labor and goods. When I save a few bucks in the bank, it is good for the merchant whom the bank lends those few bucks too. When I save a few bucks in the market, it is good for everyone else who is invested within that market.

Saving money is not bad for the economy. Hiding money under ones mattress is bad for the economy.

M

Hello Ms Milliscent,

You wrote:

>Where we continue to disagree however is in your view that the
>government should assure financing for new or even existing
>ventures

I don't think I advocated financing for existing ventures. I
think I was clear that some existing ventures with bad business
models should be allowed to sink or swim on their own.

New ventures that directly stimulate the economy, and redirect
it towards removing foreign fuel dependency are a different
matter. Killing a couple of birds with the same stone. Bringing
forward existing planned capital infrastructure projects, and
advancing their schedule is an efficient way of stimulating an
economy.

>Capital exists, and is available for businesses that deserve
>such capital

In an ideal world that is true.

The capital markets are still not working properly. In large
part this is due to problems with both the CDO (Collateralized
debt obligation) and CDS (Credit default swap) markets. This is
why we (the world) have a credit crunch that is at serious risk
of becoming deflation in all major economies next year, is
already responsible for contraction, and may yet become
depression.

No point sitting around pointing fingers at who made a mess. The
best bet is to plan a strategy out for the mess. That's not
"defeatist", it's about planning a campaign to win.

>if an enterprise can not raise capital it is precisely because
>the business does not have a high enough chance of making a
>profit in either the long or short run.

Even good businesses model can fail to raise capital if a
capital market has failed and is not fixed. As yet those markets
are not fixed.

>I do not agree with your view that "old industries" will shed
>jobs by the millions, and "new industries" will not create new
>jobs to replace them

You have characterized my opinions wrongly. I don't think I said
they would not emerge. My emphasis was on the timeliness of the
process in my use of the phrase "springing up"..

Speed is the thing. You can wait for a depression to happen, to
work itself out and the new industries to eventually emerge from
the ashes, or you can try to avoid the recession deepening into
a depression in the first place.

>Forecasters are rarely correct in determining change

The examples of correct forecasting and incorrect forecasting
are numerous. It's logical that if two opposite forecasts are
made that at least one of them is likely to be wrong. Suggesting
that because one was wrong all forecasts will be wrong is
illogical and ignores the correct forecasts. The trick is in
picking the correct forecasting model. There are now lots of
successful models to work from.

>If economic forecasters could truly time the markets and the
>economy, if they could truly spot the tops and the bottoms,
>they would be billionaires

Some who use forecasts well are billionaires.

One pertinent example, Warren Buffet predicted the credit
default swap problem, and suggested they were massive time
bombs.He ordered his businesses to get out of them years ago,
and was subsequently proved correct. He is one the world's
wealthiest men.

I said:-

>Tax cuts will just be saved and not invested

And this was said in the context of suggesting that if a
government was deciding how best to spend the money it was going
to use to stimulate a recovery, it would be wise to consider how
the money it directs for that purpose will be used.

>Saving money is not bad for the economy

I didn't say it was.

However, when you are a government you have to consider the
effects of the "Paradox of thrift".

The link above may be boring for some, but in laymans terms this
is about human nature responding to adversity by tightening it's
collective belt, when what the economy needs is the stimulus of
spending, ideally on home produced goods. The former deepens the
recession. The latter springs us out of it and avoids it getting
too deep.

>Hiding money under ones mattress is bad for the economy

Yes. Very bad.

The problem is that if we (the governments) drop money on an
economy we can't be sure how the people who pick it up will use
it. It is therefore more wise to guide the way such government
deployment is used. Think of it as a guided missile versus
blanket bombing. One is more efficient and cost effective than
the other. When resources are scarce and deficits are big, the
guided missile is a better bet.

Of course you could use both carpet bombs and guided missiles.
So, if you have the resources, you could use both tax cuts and
efficiently guided deficit spending.

warmest regards,
David.

wow what a lot to respond to. I hope that you are still there to read this.

Bush was an unmitigated disaster for the us. I say that as an outsider (uk). After 9/11 the whole world was behind America. Even most of the Muslim world. Americans forget that those 'enemies' all want ray bans,computers,cars DVDs etc. I know my family have roots there (although Christian ones). They are very 'american' in so many ways. The world was behind the us in a way that hasn't ever happened before, and within a couple of short years bush turned everyone, even natural friends like the British against America. What an opportunity squandered. War agaist terror? Hah, war begets terror and terrorists. That good will should have been use to address the root causes of terror while the will and compassion was there.

Financially since the 70s inequality of income and opportunity in the us and uk has been declining. I don't advocate tax and redistribute, I am naturally conservative. But I recognize that when the richest 1% are getting richer while the middle classes and the poor get squeezed there is something wrong. When you add to that lowered opportunity, reduced social mobility, lowered education for the less than rich. The American dream has been fading for two decades. The American people haven't properly woken to this fact. Bush's tax cuts a case in point. Aimed at the rich, supported by the poor. I debated with an American woman who worked two jobs to make ends meet and barely kept things together. She's a republican and supported the tax cuts with vehemance. Never once noticed that her life would not be proved by them. Never questioned why someone as hard working as herself did not deserve a larger portion of the pie. Not freebies, not rebates, just a better salary. Trickle down economics failed.

The oil crash. It's coming, maybe in ten years maybe more but sooner or later. At some point we want more and there is less, at that point it's price rises and that rise speeds in inexorably. The countries that will best weather that storm are those that spent todays cheap oil building tomorrows expensive infrastructure. What's more they will sell that tech knowhow to the latecomers, a double benefit. You guys can do it. Or the world can wait until energy costs so much and time is so short that it kills us to make the switch. I don't want my kids harmed because I ate drank and made merry until almost all resources were used up and the winter was upon us. David suggested a huge spend to escape this recession. I say that the energy resources thus created, and the technologies perfected, will give our countries and our children an much easier time of it, and maybe even help them pay off that huge debt we are leaving behind a bit quicker.

Have governments created big structures successfully. Yes of course. Roads, much of the energy infrastructure, some rail, many buildings, atomic power (early days), the space race, the military. They can't run companies well, they are inefficient. But they can do large scale long term things that sometimes companies in hock to shareholders would not dare do. Some of these things are valuable. The space race gave us technology, jobs, but maybe best of all hope dreams and pride. Today we have nothing to stir the soul. Let's build those energy sources and give ourselves a head start on the energy crises, a leg up out of the recession, new technology to sell, and a goal to unite people and give them hope and pride in something beyond their own possessions.

Rant over:)
Mykey

david,

If a new venture has a reasonable chance of satisfying whatever market it seeks to satisfy, making a profit thereby, it will find adequate financing through the private sector. I firmly believe that to be the truth, and I can see no circumstance by which a government should provide financing to private enterprises. Should in effect, steal tax money from some people to fuel the private business dreams of others.

As for government infrastructure projects, I must point out that the United States Federal Government is in the red. Horribly in the red. Congress, and the Administration must if we are to have long term economic success stop spending money that is not there. Federal spending must be brought under control, the federal budget must be moved into the black. As long as our government is based upon debt we will lack an important force of economic security.

I do not believe that a ‘credit crisis’ exists. I believe that people and ventures that are currently in trouble are unable to borrow at this time. That is good. That prevents the same mistakes that are currently of concern in our economy from happening again, from being magnified. I do not believe that people and ventures that are currently sound are currently unable to borrow at this time. I am at this moment able to borrow what I consider to be large sums of money. Both personally, and in the name of my business. In my view this alone proves that the United States is not facing a situation in which qualified borrowers are unable to borrow.

There is always a case to be made for ‘sitting around pointing fingers at who made a mess.’ By doing so we help to keep ourselves from making the same mistakes we made in the past.

I also can not believe that, and I must repeat myself, saving money is bad. It is not bad for individuals, businesses, or the economy as a whole. Saving money is good. For individuals and businesses it ensures protection against financial disaster, for the wider economy it ensures that funds are available to the enterprises that need them. I am putting my money where my mouth is. I am investing each and every week in the American economy, I’ve been doing so for years, and certainly have not stopped doing so because of any temporary downturn in the US economy. Had there been more saving, and less borrowing in these past years we would not now be needing to have this discussion.

I will not argue with your ‘guided missile’ analogy. I will however state my view that it’s premise is false. Government should not be ‘dropping money on an economy’ guided or not, the dropping is wrong in the first place.

M

Mykey,

You are never too late, I’m always here to read. I’m not sure that anyone but myself and my friend David remain though.

I will not disagree with your statements about Mr. Bush’s foreign policy. I agree wholeheartedly, it was and is a disaster.

I believe you are correct in stating that our tax system has helped lead to an increased divide between rich and poor. I don’t believe that that it is the only factor, but I believe that it has contributed to it. I believe that a tax system needs to be fair to everyone, and that it needs to have a minimalist impact upon the economy as a whole. Our current tax system, with all its complexity is not fair, nor does it have a minimalist impact. Unfortunately, I also do not see any politician who is willing to stick his neck out to fix it.

I do not agree with views that we will face disaster due to running out of oil. I firmly believe that the western world will develop the technology we need to maintain and improve our standard of living, without oil, before we could ever run out of that oil. I believe in ourselves, our society, overcoming such obstacles. We have always done so in the past, we will continue to do so in the future. I do not believe that government spending is necessary to make this change.

M

'I do not agree with views that we will face disaster due to running out of oil.'

I cant say I agree. You are probably right that it wont be disaster, but I think we will leave it late enough that it will be an austere period of history. I would prefer to be proactive and leave a more comfortable future to my children. I agree that industry and technology do a lot for us, but they do it within a framework in which they try to maximise profits. That framework (which is partly set up by our Governments) is currently geared up to maximise GDP rather than maximising anything else.

On a lighter note finally linked to your blog.

M

MyKey,

I do think that the very profit motive of which you write is exactly what will keep us from 'running out of oil.' I am confident that we will no longer need it long before it ever runs out. The promise of great wealth is a tremendous motivator for inventors and their investors.

Thank you for the link! That is greatly appreciated.

M