Thinking the Unthinkable
Scott Erb
got through. If it makes it through later as sometimes happens,
I apologize in advance for the duplication).
The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
sixteen years. Taiwan's index is its low since 1993, Hong Kong
is down 18% for the year, and the Asian economic duldrums
continue. European growth has stagnated, and many believe that
revised GDP figures could put the US into negative Q1 growth
down the line, and we could be entering into a real recession.
Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
process of global capitalism in much the same light as scholars
like Karl Marx did back in the 19th century. The difference is
that Friedman and current proponents see it as a path to
prosperity and peace, with Marx and modern thinkers on the Left
see a danger of capitalist crisis. How will the public and
various states deal with a deep slow down, if it happens? This
could be a test of whether the optimistic view of liberal
capitalism is accurate, or if the dangers of capitalism as
espoused by leftists are more on the mark. We live in
interesting times.
Martin McPhillips
>
> (Again, I posted something like this earlier today, but it never
> got through. If it makes it through later as sometimes happens,
> I apologize in advance for the duplication).
>
> The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
> lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
> sixteen years. Taiwan's index is its low since 1993, Hong Kong
> is down 18% for the year, and the Asian economic duldrums
> continue. European growth has stagnated, and many believe that
> revised GDP figures could put the US into negative Q1 growth
> down the line, and we could be entering into a real recession.
>
> Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
> especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
> optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
Cue apologetics for Marx:
> in much the same light as scholars
> like Karl Marx did back in the 19th century.
Adolph Hitler was about as accurate in his predictions
as was Karl Marx. Does that make Adolph Hiter a "scholar"
in your mind, Scott? (Of course, you consider Kurt Lochner
a "scholar," so...)
> The difference is
> that Friedman and current proponents see it as a path to
> prosperity and peace,...
Cue second instance of Marx apologetics:
> with Marx and modern thinkers on the Left
> see a danger of capitalist crisis.
Marx was a modern thinker? That's a very low standard
for modern thinking.
> How will the public and
> various states deal with a deep slow down, if it happens? This
> could be a test of whether the optimistic view of liberal
> capitalism is accurate, or if the dangers of capitalism as
> espoused by leftists are more on the mark. We live in
> interesting times.
You sound intoxicated by the prospect of world economic
collapse, Scott. Do you think that Marxism will rise again
and you'll be able to let yourself out of the closet?
Gandalf Grey
Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3B5C8D2E...@verizon.net...
Don't worry, Scott. If the worse imaginings of the anarcho-capitalist
shiites come true, they'll just lay it off on rampant Clintonian socialist
sabotage. With the paranoid imagination that the righties have, they can't
ever be wrong.
Omnes Ignatum Pro Magnifico Est
Scott Erb
BlackWater wrote:
>
> Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> >entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> >Depression ...
>
> Yea, that bastard Clinton really left us with
> a hell of a mess.
I thought Republicans said Reagan was the cause for the economy
to be as it was in 2000....aahhh, I get it. To the GOP all good
economic news is credited to the policies of a current or former
GOP President, while all bad economic news is blamed on the
policies of a past Democratic President.
How convenient.
Alas, the possible crisis is so widespread and global that it
really is outside the control of any American leader.
Gandalf Grey
BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:25NcO4VsNh8p8F=Cd0=Oijv...@4ax.com...
> Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> >entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
>
> Yea, that bastard Clinton really left us with
> a hell of a mess.
Sorry, chuckles. The minute the Bushbaby signed that tax bill he became
officially responsible for the economy.
>
Martin McPhillips
Scott, economic downturns are a natural, necessary, and healthy
part of the business cycle. Hoping, as you are, that it will turn
into a world economic *crisis* just demonstrates how unhappy you
are with prosperity. You're anxious to see it sacrificed for
your fantasies about "what might come."
Scott Erb
Practically, it's really outside anyone's control, though a
President can screw it up or help it out in the short term.
Bush has set himself up to, rightly or wrongly, take the fall if
the economy isn't heating back up in 2002 or even 2004. That's
reality. As I said last November, this might be a good election
for the Democrats to lose.
Gandalf Grey
Regardless, a journalist recently made a telling point. The moment Bush
signed that tax bill, he became officially responsible for the economy.
Never mind the fact that the Reptilicans have been harping on the ploy that
"if it happens during Bill's watch, it's Bill's fault" for something like
nine years.
No, no. This is Smir's baby.
"Crappy Days Are Here Again."
Gandalf Grey
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3B5C9678...@nyc.rr.com...
Woah! Martin's doing his mind reading trick again. I wonder why it is that
right wing hacks like Martin can never win an argument without using facts
not in evidence.
Could it be.....?
Scott Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> Woah! Martin's doing his mind reading trick again. I wonder why it is that
> right wing hacks like Martin can never win an argument without using facts
> not in evidence.
>
> Could it be.....?
I've stopped reading Martin's posts. I thought at one point he
was simply a conservative with strong opinions but who could put
together interesting arguments. But he's simply trying to
provoke and play games -- not worth the time, in my opinion.
Martin McPhillips
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> I've stopped reading Martin's posts. I thought at one point he
> was simply a conservative with strong opinions but who could put
> together interesting arguments. But he's simply trying to
> provoke and play games -- not worth the time, in my opinion.
I'm perfectly happy that you've stopped reading my posts, Scott.
This way I can just correct your muddled reasoning and your
constant errors without having it turn into a long winding
episode of your evasions, where you eventually find a way to
take my positions in the argument (you're very good at taking
all positions in a discussion) and then insisting it's what
you were saying all along.
This way is much simpler. You just make the mistakes. I note
them. And move onto your next example of faulty reasoning and
factual errors. And I don't have to waste any more time than
that.
Gandalf Grey
You're very right. Martin is really just an extremely long-winded flamer.
He's never "discussed" an issue with anyone. His goal is to attack and
attack personally. His invitations to discussion are just requests for
personal ammunition.
Gandalf Grey
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > I've stopped reading Martin's posts. I thought at one point he
> > was simply a conservative with strong opinions but who could put
> > together interesting arguments. But he's simply trying to
> > provoke and play games -- not worth the time, in my opinion.
>
> I'm perfectly happy that you've stopped reading my posts, Scott.
[sniff, sob]
>
> This way I can just correct your muddled reasoning and your
> constant errors without having it turn into a long winding
> episode of your evasions.
Translation: That way I can ridicule you without an argument, and since
ridiculing you is my only real goal, I can flame away without obstacle.
That's our Martin: Ever hopeful that every thinking American will killfile
him.
LOL!
Jack Dawes
Scott Erb wrote:
OF course it was, you idiot. All elections are good for the Democrats
to lose.
Jack
Kurt Nicklas
news:9ji64u$jbu$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3B5C9A9F...@verizon.net...
>>
>>
>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>> >
>> > Woah! Martin's doing his mind reading trick again. I wonder why it
>> > is that right wing hacks like Martin can never win an argument
>> > without using facts not in evidence.
>> >
>> > Could it be.....?
>>
>> I've stopped reading Martin's posts.
Just a rough estimate, but I'd say Scotti-Marti has said this and similar
things about 5000 times.
What a hoot!
--
Kurt Nicklas
-----------------------
'Oderint dum metuant'
Scott Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> > I've stopped reading Martin's posts. I thought at one point he
> > was simply a conservative with strong opinions but who could put
> > together interesting arguments. But he's simply trying to
> > provoke and play games -- not worth the time, in my opinion.
>
> You're very right. Martin is really just an extremely long-winded flamer.
> He's never "discussed" an issue with anyone. His goal is to attack and
> attack personally. His invitations to discussion are just requests for
> personal ammunition.
Yeah, you get all kinds on the internet.
Well, I've been online for over four hours, downloading and
printing documents from German parties and press sources, and
then now and then as a break zipping over here to see how the
"debates" are going. Now, however, I'm off for an evening golf
game. Have fun!
Martin McPhillips
>
> Yeah, you get all kinds on the internet.
Well, dissembling college perfessers who don't know
their own field is certainly one of those kinds.
> Well, I've been online for over four hours, downloading and
> printing documents from German parties and press sources,
You're so *very* special, Scott.
> and
> then now and then as a break zipping over here to see how the
> "debates" are going. Now, however, I'm off for an evening golf
> game. Have fun!
Yes, these discussions are so meaningless to you that you devote
hours to them, sometimes rattling on for hundreds of words with
nothing to say.
Gandalf Grey
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, you get all kinds on the internet.
>
> Well, dissembling college perfessers who don't know
> their own field is certainly one of those kinds.
>
> > Well, I've been online for over four hours, downloading and
> > printing documents from German parties and press sources,
>
> You're so *very* special, Scott.
So are you, Martin. The scientists at the genetic anomolies center all said
so!
Garrett
> The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
> lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
> sixteen years. Taiwan's index is its low since 1993, Hong Kong
> is down 18% for the year, and the Asian economic duldrums
> continue. European growth has stagnated, and many believe that
> revised GDP figures could put the US into negative Q2 growth
> down the line, and we could be entering into a real recession.
Today several major companies are already giving earnings warning
for the second half of the year.
> Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
> especially if energy prices go back up.
I saw a very small article last week that leading members of
OPEC were planning on another cut in production in the
next meeting.
> How will the public and
> various states deal with a deep slow down, if it happens? This
> could be a test of whether the optimistic view of liberal
> capitalism is accurate, or if the dangers of capitalism as
> espoused by leftists are more on the mark. We live in
> interesting times.
What I find more interesting is how the international
movements of money is effecting the gloabl economy.
For instance, you didn't mention Argentina's coming debt
default and how that has a tendency to spread (Brazil is
already suffering because of it).
Another example would be how American's have managed
to accumulate $6.7 trillion in outstanding consumer debt,
corporate debt of a much larger magnitude, while the nation
as a whole is running a current account balence of 4% of GDP.
It makes me wonder just how much the interest
rate cuts are really going to effect things.
Garrett
> Scott Erb wrote:
> > Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> > entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> > Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
> > especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
> > optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
> > process of global capitalism...
>
> Cue apologetics for Marx:
>
> > in much the same light as scholars
> > like Karl Marx did back in the 19th century.
>
> Adolph Hitler was about as accurate in his predictions
> as was Karl Marx. Does that make Adolph Hiter a "scholar"
> in your mind, Scott? (Of course, you consider Kurt Lochner
> a "scholar," so...)
Actually Hitler was brilliant. Evil brilliant, but brilliant
nonetheless.
You are a making a big mistake confusing intelligence with
your own version of political correctness.
Just because you don't agree with someone, or more to
the point, don't like someone, doesn't mean they aren't
very smart and don't have things worthy of hearing.
For instance, Hitler was a genius when it came to
swaying public opinion. It may have been for evil purposes,
but it was nonetheless brilliantly executed. As for Marx,
he failed to foresee things like common ownership of
companies through stocks (something that hardly
existed at the time), to give an example, so his view of
economics became obsolete rather quickly. However, he
was also the first to explain what is now commonly
accepted concepts like the business cycle, which is
just one example.
The fact is that if you only listen to one side of the issue
you will always get caught by surprise when things blow up.
If you only listen to people that are pro-capitalist then you
will never see the failings of it (hint: nothing created by man
is perfect. There will always be flaws).
> > How will the public and
> > various states deal with a deep slow down, if it happens? This
> > could be a test of whether the optimistic view of liberal
> > capitalism is accurate, or if the dangers of capitalism as
> > espoused by leftists are more on the mark. We live in
> > interesting times.
>
> You sound intoxicated by the prospect of world economic
> collapse, Scott.
Some people are interested when history reaches turning
points. Some people don't want to see it. You are the
latter.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
I think it was David Ignatius, a surprisingly good writer on business
at the W Post, who recently wondered whether we are setting up as in
The Perfect Storm.
But then I suppose such comments are appropriate pretty frequently.
And pan out pretty infrequently.
Just as in weather.
Bill Bonde
Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > (Again, I posted something like this earlier today, but it never
> > got through. If it makes it through later as sometimes happens,
> > I apologize in advance for the duplication).
> >
> > The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
> > lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
> > sixteen years. Taiwan's index is its low since 1993, Hong Kong
> > is down 18% for the year, and the Asian economic duldrums
> > continue. European growth has stagnated, and many believe that
> > revised GDP figures could put the US into negative Q1 growth
> > down the line, and we could be entering into a real recession.
> >
> > Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> > entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> > Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
> > especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
> > optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
> > process of global capitalism...
>
> Cue apologetics for Marx:
>
Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
Furthermore, they know that high oil prices encourage the US and other
countries to find alternatives. This cuts into their bottom line.
And even if they did want to raise prices on oil too high, they couldn't
because the global slowdown would decrease the amount of oil needed and
lower prices.
> > in much the same light as scholars
> > like Karl Marx did back in the 19th century.
>
> Adolph Hitler was about as accurate in his predictions
> as was Karl Marx. Does that make Adolph Hiter a "scholar"
> in your mind, Scott? (Of course, you consider Kurt Lochner
> a "scholar," so...)
>
And Lochner thinks that GDY is a scholar so it goes downhill.
Garrett
> Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> >entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> >Depression ...
>
> Yea, that bastard Clinton really left us with
> a hell of a mess.
So the guy that Republicans have been telling is that
had nothing to do with the economy over the last 5
years, not only managed to mess up America, but the
entire world?
You just don't get it, do you?
Garrett
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3B5C9AC5...@nyc.rr.com...
> > I'm perfectly happy that you've stopped reading my posts, Scott.
> [sniff, sob]
> > This way I can just correct your muddled reasoning and your
> > constant errors without having it turn into a long winding
> > episode of your evasions.
>
> Translation: That way I can ridicule you without an argument, and since
> ridiculing you is my only real goal, I can flame away without obstacle.
> That's our Martin: Ever hopeful that every thinking American will killfile
> him.
He may be right. He certainly hasn't added anything to this thread
worth reading.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Gandalf Grey
Garrett <midt...@deja.com> wrote in message
news:3B5CAF25...@deja.com...
The right wing has always needed to have it both ways. Since the Gingrich
congress was a flop and resulted in nothing but continued GOP losses in
Congress since 1994, they've never been able to point to a success,
Clinton's success HAD to be downplayed...hence, Clinton has nothing to do
with a strong economy.
Now that Bush is officially in charge of the economy and it looks more bleak
daily, Clinton HAS to be responsible for the economy.
That's the right wing....a never ending excuse factory.
Garrett
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > Scott Erb wrote:
> > > Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> > > entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> > > Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
> > > especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
> > > optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
> > > process of global capitalism...
> >
> > Cue apologetics for Marx:
> >
> Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
> financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
Erb never said they would or wanted to.
> Furthermore, they know that high oil prices encourage the US and other
> countries to find alternatives. This cuts into their bottom line.
No country has yet found an alternative.
> And even if they did want to raise prices on oil too high, they couldn't
> because the global slowdown would decrease the amount of oil needed and
> lower prices.
You've made the assumption that they will only cut production once.
They've already cut it once in response to a global slowdown and now
they are about to cut it again because the slowdown was more than
they (anyone) expected.
Bill Bonde
Garrett wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > > Scott Erb wrote:
> > > > Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> > > > entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> > > > Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
> > > > especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
> > > > optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
> > > > process of global capitalism...
> > >
> > > Cue apologetics for Marx:
> > >
> > Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
> > financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
>
> Erb never said they would or wanted to.
>
He didn't have to. He said something about it being worse if oil prices
continue to go up. Why do oil prices go up? Constrained supply, usually
on the world market this is intentional. OPEC is usually involved. But
how do they cut back into a depression? They'd have to cut their exports
massively. And why do that anyway?
> > Furthermore, they know that high oil prices encourage the US and other
> > countries to find alternatives. This cuts into their bottom line.
>
> No country has yet found an alternative.
>
If oil prices were ten bucks higher than they were at their recent
highest and they stayed that way, we'd be doing more wind generators
(these have a fixed cost that doesn't change with the price of fossil
fuels and therefore can make their owners great profits in high cost
energy times)
> > And even if they did want to raise prices on oil too high, they couldn't
> > because the global slowdown would decrease the amount of oil needed and
> > lower prices.
>
> You've made the assumption that they will only cut production once.
> They've already cut it once in response to a global slowdown and now
> they are about to cut it again because the slowdown was more than
> they (anyone) expected.
>
They are trying to keep the price in a band. They don't want it way up
there.
Eagle Eye
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Scott Erb wrote:
>> Yeah, you get all kinds on the internet.
>Well, dissembling college perfessers who don't know
>their own field is certainly one of those kinds.
"Insults carry no sting on the internet..."
>> Well, I've been online for over four hours, downloading and
>> printing documents from German parties and press sources,
>You're so *very* special, Scott.
>
>> and then now and then as a break zipping over here to see how
>> the "debates" are going. Now, however, I'm off for an evening
>> golf game. Have fun!
>Yes, these discussions are so meaningless to you that you devote
>hours to them, sometimes rattling on for hundreds of words with
>nothing to say.
That's how he got the moniker of "Disingenuous Fraud." His
actions and his words are, once again, at odds.
=====
EE
Take from no man what he hasn't agreed to give you.
Rob Robertson
Nah, you're just a gutless coward, Erb. Martin exposes you as
the stumbling clown you are every time you run your Marxist
apologetics routine, and now you're trying to pretend that his
arguments don't exist as long as you don't read them.
I think someone has his ideological blinders screwed on right
down to the bone, Scotti (and if you're really interested in when
the economic downturn got its push, look back to Clinton's
last year in office when Greenspan was raising rates, instead
of cutting them as he is now).
_
RR
Gandalf Grey
Rob Robertson <rob...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0j777.11639$Xn.13...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3B5C9A9F...@verizon.net...
> >
> > Gandalf Grey wrote:
> > >
> > > Woah! Martin's doing his mind reading trick again. I wonder why it
is that
> > > right wing hacks like Martin can never win an argument without using
facts
> > > not in evidence.
> > >
> > > Could it be.....?
> >
> > I've stopped reading Martin's posts. I thought at one point he
> > was simply a conservative with strong opinions but who could put
> > together interesting arguments. But he's simply trying to
> > provoke and play games -- not worth the time, in my opinion.
>
> Nah, you're just a gutless coward, Erb. Martin exposes you as
> the stumbling clown you are
Nah, he's just a discriminating reader. The only thing Martin has ever
exposed is his own stupidity and malice.
Garrett
> Garrett wrote:
> > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
> > > financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
> >
> > Erb never said they would or wanted to.
> >
> He didn't have to. He said something about it being worse if oil prices
> continue to go up. Why do oil prices go up? Constrained supply, usually
> on the world market this is intentional. OPEC is usually involved. But
> how do they cut back into a depression? They'd have to cut their exports
> massively. And why do that anyway?
To keep prices higher. That's why OPEC made their last cutback in
production and that's why they are getting ready to make yet
another cutback in production.
It's the same reasoning that the energy companies in the
west cut back on production.
> > > Furthermore, they know that high oil prices encourage the US and other
> > > countries to find alternatives. This cuts into their bottom line.
> >
> > No country has yet found an alternative.
> >
> If oil prices were ten bucks higher than they were at their recent
> highest and they stayed that way, we'd be doing more wind generators
> (these have a fixed cost that doesn't change with the price of fossil
> fuels and therefore can make their owners great profits in high cost
> energy times)
It's nice to see you becoming such an optimistic environmentalist, Bill. ;-)
However, doubling or even tripling of energy prices isn't
going to cause that (as proof from Europe), and that is
more likely the outcome.
> > You've made the assumption that they will only cut production once.
> > They've already cut it once in response to a global slowdown and now
> > they are about to cut it again because the slowdown was more than
> > they (anyone) expected.
> >
> They are trying to keep the price in a band. They don't want it way up
> there.
That depends on what you mean by "way up".
Ten times the price? No. Doubling the price? Yes.
--
"No one lies so much as the indignant man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Bill Bonde
Garrett wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > Garrett wrote:
> > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > > Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
> > > > financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
> > >
> > > Erb never said they would or wanted to.
> > >
> > He didn't have to. He said something about it being worse if oil prices
> > continue to go up. Why do oil prices go up? Constrained supply, usually
> > on the world market this is intentional. OPEC is usually involved. But
> > how do they cut back into a depression? They'd have to cut their exports
> > massively. And why do that anyway?
>
> To keep prices higher.
>
Volume mattes too. A global depression is not in the best interest of
OPEC.
> That's why OPEC made their last cutback in
> production and that's why they are getting ready to make yet
> another cutback in production.
> It's the same reasoning that the energy companies in the
> west cut back on production.
>
Yawn, you are a moron. A brain transplant is impossible so, sadly, there
is no hope.
> > > > Furthermore, they know that high oil prices encourage the US and other
> > > > countries to find alternatives. This cuts into their bottom line.
> > >
> > > No country has yet found an alternative.
> > >
> > If oil prices were ten bucks higher than they were at their recent
> > highest and they stayed that way, we'd be doing more wind generators
> > (these have a fixed cost that doesn't change with the price of fossil
> > fuels and therefore can make their owners great profits in high cost
> > energy times)
>
> It's nice to see you becoming such an optimistic environmentalist, Bill. ;-)
>
I've always cared deeply about the environment, you loon.
> However, doubling or even tripling of energy prices isn't
> going to cause that (as proof from Europe), and that is
> more likely the outcome.
>
Wrong. People in Europe and the UK have reacted with higher efficiency
vehicles and trains. Higher prices for fuel do discourage energy
consumption.
> > > You've made the assumption that they will only cut production once.
> > > They've already cut it once in response to a global slowdown and now
> > > they are about to cut it again because the slowdown was more than
> > > they (anyone) expected.
> > >
> > They are trying to keep the price in a band. They don't want it way up
> > there.
>
> That depends on what you mean by "way up".
> Ten times the price? No. Doubling the price? Yes.
>
They have a band which you would know about if you paid attention to the
news. They want to stay within it because going outside it either causes
them to lose money or angers their cash cows.
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
> Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
> financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
Not on purpose. If you've ever studied the economics of oil it's a tricky
balance -- keep the price as high as possible without damaging the economies
of your client states and without creating a backlash desire for alternative
energy resources. At the same time, you need to figure out how long
supplies will last and maximize profit over time. The threat comes less
from any kind of Arab desire to raise oil prices dramatically, but from some
kind of crisis like another war, a terrorist strike, etc.
> Furthermore, they know that high oil prices encourage the US and other
> countries to find alternatives. This cuts into their bottom line.
>
> And even if they did want to raise prices on oil too high, they couldn't
> because the global slowdown would decrease the amount of oil needed and
> lower prices.
But note: I only said that higher energy prices could make the problem
worse. I see this as a time where two major theories will be tested: a)
capitalism leads to universal prosperity and peace as it spreads, slowly but
surely vs. b) capitalism is prone to major crisis and potential collapse.
The depression gave evidence for 'b', the long boom of the last fifty years
for 'a'. Those on the side of hypothesis "a" have had the most evidence in
their favor, but the current downturn and structural problems in the system
suggest that those arguing "b" still may be right. We don't know, we can
only watch now as things unfold.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
> > financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
>
> Not on purpose. If you've ever studied the economics of oil it's a tricky
> balance -- keep the price as high as possible without damaging the economies
> of your client states and without creating a backlash desire for alternative
> energy resources. At the same time, you need to figure out how long
> supplies will last and maximize profit over time. The threat comes less
> from any kind of Arab desire to raise oil prices dramatically, but from some
> kind of crisis like another war, a terrorist strike, etc.
Well, Scott, you certainly can hope that things go really bad, but
that's a strange reaction. Are you hoping that history is ready now?
coolpapa
>
> The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
> lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
> sixteen years.
In Yen/gold (i.e., *real*) terms, the Nikkei is up 7% this year. This is in
now way, shape, or form a "capitalist crisis". The problem is deflation
which is a direct result of government mismanagement of monetary policy.
The illiquidity trap that the world economy is in right now stems from the
Fed arbitrarily *raising* interest rates in the late '90's.
Come on, Erb. Sing us that favorite tune of yours, "Government Sorta Like
Facilitated All This Unprecedented Growth in the Last Fifty Years".
Scott D. Erb
coolpapa wrote:
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3B5C8D2E...@verizon.net...
> >
> > The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
> > lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
> > sixteen years.
>
> In Yen/gold (i.e., *real*) terms, the Nikkei is up 7% this year.
Gold is a commodity which is exchanged like other commodities, and it hasn't
done all that well. Real terms refers to inflation as measured by the cost of
living index, not commodity prices. Anyone who denies that Japan is in a long
term economic crisis or that the Nikkei has been stagnant for well over a decade
is very out of touch with reality.
> This is in
> now way, shape, or form a "capitalist crisis". The problem is deflation
> which is a direct result of government mismanagement of monetary policy.
> The illiquidity trap that the world economy is in right now stems from the
> Fed arbitrarily *raising* interest rates in the late '90's.
That dog won't hunt. It's funny how the hard core capitalist apologists will
try to find anything upon which to blame structural problems, including a few
short lived interest rate increases! But if the economy does go into crisis,
you will see the Bush Administration bearing the brunt of the blame if their
reaction doesn't fix things, and a resurgence of the Left. You have to deal
with reality, as much as you don't like it.
Garrett
> Garrett wrote:
> > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > Garrett wrote:
> > > He didn't have to. He said something about it being worse if oil prices
> > > continue to go up. Why do oil prices go up? Constrained supply, usually
> > > on the world market this is intentional. OPEC is usually involved. But
> > > how do they cut back into a depression? They'd have to cut their exports
> > > massively. And why do that anyway?
> >
> > To keep prices higher.
> >
> Volume mattes too. A global depression is not in the best interest of
> OPEC.
No, but a moderate global recession wouldn't cause them a whole lot
of grief.
More importantly, you are making the basic misconception that
they know what they are doing.
> > That's why OPEC made their last cutback in
> > production and that's why they are getting ready to make yet
> > another cutback in production.
> > It's the same reasoning that the energy companies in the
> > west cut back on production.
> >
> Yawn, you are a moron. A brain transplant is impossible so, sadly, there
> is no hope.
Wow! Impressive Bill. I made a reasoned response based on available
data and you come back with nothing but insults.
Based on past usenet debates that means you don't have anything
left to contribute.
> > > If oil prices were ten bucks higher than they were at their recent
> > > highest and they stayed that way, we'd be doing more wind generators
> > > (these have a fixed cost that doesn't change with the price of fossil
> > > fuels and therefore can make their owners great profits in high cost
> > > energy times)
> >
> > It's nice to see you becoming such an optimistic environmentalist, Bill. ;-)
> >
> I've always cared deeply about the environment, you loon.
You just don't show it. The strong silent type, right?
I'm sure you care a great deal about the environment, just like
the oil companies commercials say they care about the environment too.
> > However, doubling or even tripling of energy prices isn't
> > going to cause that (as proof from Europe), and that is
> > more likely the outcome.
> >
> Wrong. People in Europe and the UK have reacted with higher efficiency
> vehicles and trains. Higher prices for fuel do discourage energy
> consumption.
Which in no way discounts my point: no one has found an alternative yet.
Yes, they've gotten more efficient, but that is a world different from
finding an alternative.
> > > They are trying to keep the price in a band. They don't want it way up
> > > there.
> >
> > That depends on what you mean by "way up".
> > Ten times the price? No. Doubling the price? Yes.
> >
> They have a band which you would know about if you paid attention to the
> news.
And guess what? I have paid attention. I happen to know that
oil prices are on the very low end of that band right now (about $.50
a barrel over the bottom end of the band), which is
why OPEC is about to cut production yet again.
--
"No one lies so much as the indignant man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bill Bonde
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> That dog won't hunt. It's funny how the hard core capitalist apologists will
> try to find anything upon which to blame structural problems, including a few
> short lived interest rate increases! But if the economy does go into crisis,
> you will see the Bush Administration bearing the brunt of the blame if their
> reaction doesn't fix things, and a resurgence of the Left. You have to deal
> with reality, as much as you don't like it.
>
You are hoping and praying for a resurgence of the Left.
Martin McPhillips
In other words, Scott, you're cheerleading for economic collapse because
it will bring a resurgence of the Left. Do you think history is ready, Scott,
for the *real* Marxist revolution? And would you come out of the closet
and support it if a global recession hits?
What would you do if, for instance, the response to such a recession was
to simply wait it out and not have the government intervene? Will you
call for more socialist control of the world economy? You know, the stuff
you lie awake at night dreaming about.
Bill Bonde
Garrett wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > Garrett wrote:
> > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > > Garrett wrote:
> > > > He didn't have to. He said something about it being worse if oil prices
> > > > continue to go up. Why do oil prices go up? Constrained supply, usually
> > > > on the world market this is intentional. OPEC is usually involved. But
> > > > how do they cut back into a depression? They'd have to cut their exports
> > > > massively. And why do that anyway?
> > >
> > > To keep prices higher.
> > >
> > Volume mattes too. A global depression is not in the best interest of
> > OPEC.
>
> No, but a moderate global recession wouldn't cause them a whole lot
> of grief.
>
It would further lower prices and lower volume. That is the makings of
grief.
> More importantly, you are making the basic misconception that
> they know what they are doing.
>
Are you calling Arabs stupid and ignorant?
> > > That's why OPEC made their last cutback in
> > > production and that's why they are getting ready to make yet
> > > another cutback in production.
> > > It's the same reasoning that the energy companies in the
> > > west cut back on production.
> > >
> > Yawn, you are a moron. A brain transplant is impossible so, sadly, there
> > is no hope.
>
> Wow! Impressive Bill. I made a reasoned response based on available
> data and you come back with nothing but insults.
> Based on past usenet debates that means you don't have anything
> left to contribute.
>
No, based on previous usenet debates, I'm tired of you not adding
anything valid.
> > > > If oil prices were ten bucks higher than they were at their recent
> > > > highest and they stayed that way, we'd be doing more wind generators
> > > > (these have a fixed cost that doesn't change with the price of fossil
> > > > fuels and therefore can make their owners great profits in high cost
> > > > energy times)
> > >
> > > It's nice to see you becoming such an optimistic environmentalist, Bill. ;-)
> > >
> > I've always cared deeply about the environment, you loon.
>
> You just don't show it. The strong silent type, right?
>
What am I supposed to do to show I care about the environment?
> I'm sure you care a great deal about the environment, just like
> the oil companies commercials say they care about the environment too.
>
What do I have to do to actually care about the environment?
> > > However, doubling or even tripling of energy prices isn't
> > > going to cause that (as proof from Europe), and that is
> > > more likely the outcome.
> > >
> > Wrong. People in Europe and the UK have reacted with higher efficiency
> > vehicles and trains. Higher prices for fuel do discourage energy
> > consumption.
>
> Which in no way discounts my point: no one has found an alternative yet.
>
There are plenty of alternatives. They just cost more than the price of
oil.
> Yes, they've gotten more efficient, but that is a world different from
> finding an alternative.
>
If we chose to, we could gasify biomass. We used to gasify coal before
natural gas was plentiful.
> > > > They are trying to keep the price in a band. They don't want it way up
> > > > there.
> > >
> > > That depends on what you mean by "way up".
> > > Ten times the price? No. Doubling the price? Yes.
> > >
> > They have a band which you would know about if you paid attention to the
> > news.
>
> And guess what? I have paid attention.
>
I wouldn't've guessed that.
> I happen to know that
> oil prices are on the very low end of that band right now (about $.50
> a barrel over the bottom end of the band), which is
> why OPEC is about to cut production yet again.
>
Is there a point here? OPEC can't keep cutting production or it will
piss of its members and they will cheat. This happened for years.
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
> Garrett wrote:
> >
> > > Volume mattes too. A global depression is not in the best interest of
> > > OPEC.
> >
> > No, but a moderate global recession wouldn't cause them a whole lot
> > of grief.
> >
> It would further lower prices and lower volume. That is the makings of
> grief.
They want to keep prices stable at about $25 a barrell. The thing about the mideast is
that it can be hit by shocks due to wars and other disruptions. I doubt we'll get
super high oil prices due to OPEC decisions, but economic problems in the world economy
exist regardless of OPEC policy.
The thing about this current "downturn" is that so far it's painless. Oh yeah, the
dotcomers got bit, and a few people silly enough to invest heavily in tech stocks got
burned, but these are people who tend to have money anyway and are doing OK.
Unemployment at 4.5% is still really low, and consumers still have money. If that
changes, if we get a downturn that actually causes some pain, the economic and
political environment might shift dramatically.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > grief.
>
> They want to keep prices stable at about $25 a barrell. The thing about the mideast is
> that it can be hit by shocks due to wars and other disruptions. I doubt we'll get
> super high oil prices due to OPEC decisions, but economic problems in the world economy
> exist regardless of OPEC policy.
That's a tune change for you, isn't it Scott?
> The thing about this current "downturn" is that so far it's painless. Oh yeah, the
> dotcomers got bit, and a few people silly enough to invest heavily in tech stocks got
> burned, but these are people who tend to have money anyway and are doing OK.
> Unemployment at 4.5% is still really low, and consumers still have money. If that
> changes, if we get a downturn that actually causes some pain, the economic and
> political environment might shift dramatically.
You're positively salivating over the prospect of global recession, Scott,
because you think it would help your politics.
Suppose the exact opposite occurs? Suppose a dramatic global slowdown led
to freer markets, less regulation, far less environmental controls?
You'd be even more upset than you are now, wouldn't you?
Bill Bonde
To what? You think that Americans would suddenly decide they want rabid
socialism?
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
No, though I think it would give the Democrats a huge opening in the 2002 and 2004
elections. Clearly socialist planned economies failed, no one I know of wants to go that
route, save a few hard core old communists. But capitalism, already discredited in any pure
form (all we have are mixed economies) may yet be prone to crisis which suggests that the
role of politics is to try to determine how to deal with the problems caused by economic
crisis. The future may lie in something like the third way or "new middle" ideas coming from
Europe. Or maybe the economy will start growing again super fast. Whatever happens, these
are interesting times, and the next ten years or so will be really important in helping us
understand how the globalized world economy is going to impact politics.
cheers, scott
Martin McPhillips
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > >
> > > > Garrett wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Volume mattes too. A global depression is not in the best interest of
> > > > > > OPEC.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, but a moderate global recession wouldn't cause them a whole lot
> > > > > of grief.
> > > > >
> > > > It would further lower prices and lower volume. That is the makings of
> > > > grief.
> > >
> > > They want to keep prices stable at about $25 a barrell. The thing about the mideast is
> > > that it can be hit by shocks due to wars and other disruptions. I doubt we'll get
> > > super high oil prices due to OPEC decisions, but economic problems in the world economy
> > > exist regardless of OPEC policy.
> > >
> > > The thing about this current "downturn" is that so far it's painless. Oh yeah, the
> > > dotcomers got bit, and a few people silly enough to invest heavily in tech stocks got
> > > burned, but these are people who tend to have money anyway and are doing OK.
> > > Unemployment at 4.5% is still really low, and consumers still have money. If that
> > > changes, if we get a downturn that actually causes some pain, the economic and
> > > political environment might shift dramatically.
> > >
> > To what? You think that Americans would suddenly decide they want rabid
> > socialism?
First the denial...
> No, though I think it would give the Democrats a huge opening in the 2002 and 2004
> elections. Clearly socialist planned economies failed, no one I know of wants to go that
> route, save a few hard core old communists.
Then the instant reassertion of the Marxist critique...
> But capitalism, already discredited in any pure
> form (all we have are mixed economies) may yet be prone to crisis which suggests that the
> role of politics is to try to determine how to deal with the problems caused by economic
> crisis.
Then the tout for "new socialism"...
> The future may lie in something like the third way or "new middle" ideas coming from
> Europe.
(As if Europe wasn't floundering.)
Then the cover-all-bets hedge...
> Or maybe the economy will start growing again super fast.
Then the "I'm-just-an-interested observer" routine...
> Whatever happens, these
> are interesting times, and the next ten years or so will be really important in helping us
> understand how the globalized world economy is going to impact politics.
> cheers, scott
Scott Erb: Marxist apologist, forever socialist, enthusiastically anti-American,
and now hoping for a global economic crisis to help out his politics.
Whatta guy!
Martin McPhillips
Scott still thinks that history will perform according to Marxist
theory, slightly updated for 150 years of failure, and murder, of course.
He thinks that a global government would solve this terrible problem
of the United States.
Garrett
> Scott Erb: Marxist apologist, forever socialist, enthusiastically anti-American,
> and now hoping for a global economic crisis to help out his politics.
>
> Whatta guy!
One thing is for certain: you have absolutely nothing to contribute
in this thread. So why all the posts?
Garrett
> Garrett wrote:
> > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > Garrett wrote:
> > > > To keep prices higher.
> > > >
> > > Volume mattes too. A global depression is not in the best interest of
> > > OPEC.
> >
> > No, but a moderate global recession wouldn't cause them a whole lot
> > of grief.
> >
> It would further lower prices and lower volume. That is the makings of
> grief.
Then they just cut production again, which is exactly what they
intend to do.
> > More importantly, you are making the basic misconception that
> > they know what they are doing.
> >
> Are you calling Arabs stupid and ignorant?
No more than I am calling white men stupid and ignorant.
I'm an equal opportunity racist. I think the human race is
stupid and ignorant.
The more I learn about macro-economics the more I
realize that the people leading us in this field are just
guessing.
> > > > It's nice to see you becoming such an optimistic environmentalist, Bill. ;-)
> > > >
> > > I've always cared deeply about the environment, you loon.
> >
> > You just don't show it. The strong silent type, right?
> >
> What am I supposed to do to show I care about the environment?
Stop fighting all environmental regulation.
> > > Wrong. People in Europe and the UK have reacted with higher efficiency
> > > vehicles and trains. Higher prices for fuel do discourage energy
> > > consumption.
> >
> > Which in no way discounts my point: no one has found an alternative yet.
> >
> There are plenty of alternatives.
Yes, there is walking or riding a bicycle. There is also
public transit.
But the simple fact of the matter is that OPEC is in no
danger of anyone finding another alternative to fossil fuels.
> > Yes, they've gotten more efficient, but that is a world different from
> > finding an alternative.
> >
> If we chose to, we could gasify biomass. We used to gasify coal before
> natural gas was plentiful.
I wish we would. But I just don't see it any time soon.
> > > They have a band which you would know about if you paid attention to the
> > > news.
> >
> > And guess what? I have paid attention.
> >
> I wouldn't've guessed that.
All you had to do was ask.
> > I happen to know that
> > oil prices are on the very low end of that band right now (about $.50
> > a barrel over the bottom end of the band), which is
> > why OPEC is about to cut production yet again.
> >
> Is there a point here?
A rather obvious one. The price of oil isn't going to come down
no matter how deep the global recession.
> OPEC can't keep cutting production or it will
> piss of its members and they will cheat. This happened for years.
They've also learned that if they stick together they all get rich.
Garrett
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> > The thing about this current "downturn" is that so far it's painless. Oh yeah, the
> > dotcomers got bit, and a few people silly enough to invest heavily in tech stocks got
> > burned, but these are people who tend to have money anyway and are doing OK.
> > Unemployment at 4.5% is still really low, and consumers still have money. If that
> > changes, if we get a downturn that actually causes some pain, the economic and
> > political environment might shift dramatically.
> >
> To what? You think that Americans would suddenly decide they want rabid
> socialism?
I know the question was aimed at Scott, but I would say that Americans
are spoiled and that if we really got hit with pain, like a 1930's
Depression, this country would turn fascist. Not socialist.
I think a serious depression is inevitable, just a very long ways off.
I think a decade of low-to-stagnant growth (ala Japan) would
happen first.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> > Scott Erb: Marxist apologist, forever socialist, enthusiastically anti-American,
> > and now hoping for a global economic crisis to help out his politics.
> >
> > Whatta guy!
>
> One thing is for certain: you have absolutely nothing to contribute
> in this thread. So why all the posts?
You need to take your head out of your ass, but it's never going
to happen.
STFU
Martin McPhillips
So, you're both excited about the prospects of a serious depression,
and you misunderstand the economic problems of Japan.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > Garrett wrote:
> > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > > Garrett wrote:
> > > > > To keep prices higher.
> > > > >
> > > > Volume mattes too. A global depression is not in the best interest of
> > > > OPEC.
> > >
> > > No, but a moderate global recession wouldn't cause them a whole lot
> > > of grief.
> > >
> > It would further lower prices and lower volume. That is the makings of
> > grief.
>
> Then they just cut production again, which is exactly what they
> intend to do.
>
> > > More importantly, you are making the basic misconception that
> > > they know what they are doing.
> > >
> > Are you calling Arabs stupid and ignorant?
>
> No more than I am calling white men stupid and ignorant.
> I'm an equal opportunity racist. I think the human race is
> stupid and ignorant.
Using yourself as an example, it's easy to see why you
would hold that belief.
Bill Bonde
Those 'new middle' ways you describe are heavy taxes and tons of
government programs. Europe only recently got on board and got some
growth going. The Euro is still in the toilet and US interest rates are
way down. The French finally got below 10% unemployment.
According to Newsnight out of the UK, the Brits are exactly in the
middle in spending and don't spend enough to have the cradle to grave
social programs that Europe has, but spend too much to leave their
people with enough money to do things on their own the American way.
So you are suggesting that America will move how far to the left? Past
the United Kingdom?
Bill Bonde
Garrett wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> > > The thing about this current "downturn" is that so far it's painless. Oh yeah, the
> > > dotcomers got bit, and a few people silly enough to invest heavily in tech stocks got
> > > burned, but these are people who tend to have money anyway and are doing OK.
> > > Unemployment at 4.5% is still really low, and consumers still have money. If that
> > > changes, if we get a downturn that actually causes some pain, the economic and
> > > political environment might shift dramatically.
> > >
> > To what? You think that Americans would suddenly decide they want rabid
> > socialism?
>
> I know the question was aimed at Scott, but I would say that Americans
> are spoiled and that if we really got hit with pain, like a 1930's
> Depression, this country would turn fascist. Not socialist.
>
We didn't turn fascist in the 1930s. And why would we turn fascist? What
do you even mean by fascist? You think we are going to demand a ruthless
crazy dictator so we can get Amtrak to be on time?
> I think a serious depression is inevitable, just a very long ways off.
>
Why? There is nothing economic that is unavoidable if it is a long ways
off.
> I think a decade of low-to-stagnant growth (ala Japan) would
> happen first.
>
There are a ton of things that we could do that would create jobs. We've
burned through the Internet. Maybe it's time to look at Space or
learning to farm and living on the oceans.
Bill Bonde
Garrett wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > Garrett wrote:
> > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > > Garrett wrote:
> > > > > To keep prices higher.
> > > > >
> > > > Volume mattes too. A global depression is not in the best interest of
> > > > OPEC.
> > >
> > > No, but a moderate global recession wouldn't cause them a whole lot
> > > of grief.
> > >
> > It would further lower prices and lower volume. That is the makings of
> > grief.
>
> Then they just cut production again, which is exactly what they
> intend to do.
>
You do realize that cutting production reduces their income and they
don't like that. This provokes many to cheat.
Here's a URL listing what each member state has done in the past. It's
worth looking at:
http://www.platts.com/opec/glance.shtml
> > > More importantly, you are making the basic misconception that
> > > they know what they are doing.
> > >
> > Are you calling Arabs stupid and ignorant?
>
> No more than I am calling white men stupid and ignorant.
> I'm an equal opportunity racist. I think the human race is
> stupid and ignorant.
>
That makes you a speciest.
> The more I learn about macro-economics the more I
> realize that the people leading us in this field are just
> guessing.
>
It's the dismal science.
> > > > > It's nice to see you becoming such an optimistic environmentalist, Bill. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > I've always cared deeply about the environment, you loon.
> > >
> > > You just don't show it. The strong silent type, right?
> > >
> > What am I supposed to do to show I care about the environment?
>
> Stop fighting all environmental regulation.
>
I didn't fight all environmental regulation. I fought environmentalist
wacko regulation.
> > > > Wrong. People in Europe and the UK have reacted with higher efficiency
> > > > vehicles and trains. Higher prices for fuel do discourage energy
> > > > consumption.
> > >
> > > Which in no way discounts my point: no one has found an alternative yet.
> > >
> > There are plenty of alternatives.
>
> Yes, there is walking or riding a bicycle. There is also
> public transit.
> But the simple fact of the matter is that OPEC is in no
> danger of anyone finding another alternative to fossil fuels.
>
Wind, nuclear, biomass.
> > > Yes, they've gotten more efficient, but that is a world different from
> > > finding an alternative.
> > >
> > If we chose to, we could gasify biomass. We used to gasify coal before
> > natural gas was plentiful.
>
> I wish we would. But I just don't see it any time soon.
>
Most cities had gasification plants, gas works, back before natural gas
was plentiful. We can do it again.
> > > > They have a band which you would know about if you paid attention to the
> > > > news.
> > >
> > > And guess what? I have paid attention.
> > >
> > I wouldn't've guessed that.
>
> All you had to do was ask.
>
> > > I happen to know that
> > > oil prices are on the very low end of that band right now (about $.50
> > > a barrel over the bottom end of the band), which is
> > > why OPEC is about to cut production yet again.
> > >
> > Is there a point here?
>
> A rather obvious one. The price of oil isn't going to come down
> no matter how deep the global recession.
>
It's already at the bottom of the band. How far down do you think down
is?
> > OPEC can't keep cutting production or it will
> > piss of its members and they will cheat. This happened for years.
>
> They've also learned that if they stick together they all get rich.
>
But can they stick together with ever decreasing volume quotas?
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
> Those 'new middle' ways you describe are heavy taxes and tons of
> government programs. Europe only recently got on board and got some
> growth going. The Euro is still in the toilet and US interest rates are
> way down. The French finally got below 10% unemployment.
Actually, Schroeder has made reforms that reduced taxes, something that the conservative Kohl
Administration had been unable to do. They reduced them by more than Kohl's most ambitious plan.
They have also passed pension reform, and are working on a health care reform that will also cut
costs. Blair has brought successful policies to Great Britain. I suspect that in a few years
they'll be a model for the US.
> According to Newsnight out of the UK, the Brits are exactly in the
> middle in spending and don't spend enough to have the cradle to grave
> social programs that Europe has, but spend too much to leave their
> people with enough money to do things on their own the American way.
The US is very "unsocial" in its programs. I think that will change in time.
> So you are suggesting that America will move how far to the left? Past
> the United Kingdom?
The US will develop its own path. I'd prefer to see a decentralized move to the Left, the country
is too big to have a German-style centralized system. If the economy tanks, the move will come
sooner. If not, I except gradual moves towards health care guarantees and other more socially just
programs.
silverback
wrote:
>(Again, I posted something like this earlier today, but it never
>got through. If it makes it through later as sometimes happens,
>I apologize in advance for the duplication).
>
>The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
>lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
>sixteen years. Taiwan's index is its low since 1993, Hong Kong
>is down 18% for the year, and the Asian economic duldrums
>continue. European growth has stagnated, and many believe that
>revised GDP figures could put the US into negative Q1 growth
>down the line, and we could be entering into a real recession.
>
>Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
>entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
>Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
>especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
>optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
>process of global capitalism in much the same light as scholars
>like Karl Marx did back in the 19th century. The difference is
>that Friedman and current proponents see it as a path to
>prosperity and peace, with Marx and modern thinkers on the Left
>see a danger of capitalist crisis. How will the public and
>various states deal with a deep slow down, if it happens? This
Watch it come back and bite the damn republiCONs on the ass. If the
Texas blowmonkey lets us slide into another recession its going to be
a race to the bottom. For one thing there is no longer a safety net
that can cope with the present numbers of poor. As soon as
unemployment runs out for the newly laid off its going to be a
downward spiral with no bottom.
Most states simply don't have the reserves or means to plug the
hole.
>could be a test of whether the optimistic view of liberal
>capitalism is accurate, or if the dangers of capitalism as
>espoused by leftists are more on the mark. We live in
>interesting times.
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
silverback
<jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Scott Erb wrote:
>>
>> BlackWater wrote:
>> >
>> > Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
>> > >entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
>> > >Depression ...
>> >
>> > Yea, that bastard Clinton really left us with
>> > a hell of a mess.
>>
>> I thought Republicans said Reagan was the cause for the economy
>> to be as it was in 2000....aahhh, I get it. To the GOP all good
>> economic news is credited to the policies of a current or former
>> GOP President, while all bad economic news is blamed on the
>> policies of a past Democratic President.
>>
>> How convenient.
>>
>> Alas, the possible crisis is so widespread and global that it
>> really is outside the control of any American leader.
>
>Scott, economic downturns are a natural, necessary, and healthy
>part of the business cycle. Hoping, as you are, that it will turn
except this time we have a Texas blowmonkey bad mouthing the economy
like some raped ape. And to top that off he stole the election, the
people will be looking for leadership in times of crisis not a drunken
coke snorting frat boy with no brains.
>into a world economic *crisis* just demonstrates how unhappy you
>are with prosperity. You're anxious to see it sacrificed for
>your fantasies about "what might come."
silverback
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>In article <3B5CA0B0...@nyc.rr.com>
>Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>Scott Erb wrote:
>>> Yeah, you get all kinds on the internet.
>>Well, dissembling college perfessers who don't know
>>their own field is certainly one of those kinds.
>
>"Insults carry no sting on the internet..."
didcha just figure that out plucked chicken. Considering how you like
to insult people I find the above statement ironic. Go ahead and try
to deny it and I'll kick yer damn fool ass until yer nose bleeds.
>
>>> Well, I've been online for over four hours, downloading and
>>> printing documents from German parties and press sources,
>>You're so *very* special, Scott.
>>
>>> and then now and then as a break zipping over here to see how
>>> the "debates" are going. Now, however, I'm off for an evening
>>> golf game. Have fun!
>>Yes, these discussions are so meaningless to you that you devote
>>hours to them, sometimes rattling on for hundreds of words with
>>nothing to say.
>
>That's how he got the moniker of "Disingenuous Fraud." His
>actions and his words are, once again, at odds.
>
> =====
> EE
>
> Take from no man what he hasn't agreed to give you.
Bill Bonde
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > Those 'new middle' ways you describe are heavy taxes and tons of
> > government programs. Europe only recently got on board and got some
> > growth going. The Euro is still in the toilet and US interest rates are
> > way down. The French finally got below 10% unemployment.
>
> Actually, Schroeder has made reforms that reduced taxes, something that the conservative Kohl
> Administration had been unable to do. They reduced them by more than Kohl's most ambitious plan.
> They have also passed pension reform, and are working on a health care reform that will also cut
> costs. Blair has brought successful policies to Great Britain. I suspect that in a few years
> they'll be a model for the US.
>
If anything they are modelling themselves after us. Their taxes are far
higher than those of the United States.
> > According to Newsnight out of the UK, the Brits are exactly in the
> > middle in spending and don't spend enough to have the cradle to grave
> > social programs that Europe has, but spend too much to leave their
> > people with enough money to do things on their own the American way.
>
> The US is very "unsocial" in its programs. I think that will change in time.
>
We have way too many social programs and our taxes are also too high.
Hopefully that will change.
> > So you are suggesting that America will move how far to the left? Past
> > the United Kingdom?
>
> The US will develop its own path. I'd prefer to see a decentralized move to the Left, the country
> is too big to have a German-style centralized system. If the economy tanks, the move will come
> sooner. If not, I except gradual moves towards health care guarantees and other more socially just
> programs.
>
This stuff doesn't work in the UK. They have a health care system that
is getting 3rd worldish. To have quality health care for 'free', you
have to have taxes far higher than in the UK. The US is not going to
leapfrog over the UK and go for europe style confiscatory tax rates.
Garrett
No.
> and you misunderstand the economic problems of Japan.
No. I never said we had the same problems as Japan.
Our economic problems are very different, but they are no
less serious.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
"The charm of knowledge wouls be small if so much
shame did not have to be overcome on the road to it."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Garrett
> Garrett wrote:
> > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > To what? You think that Americans would suddenly decide they want rabid
> > > socialism?
> >
> > I know the question was aimed at Scott, but I would say that Americans
> > are spoiled and that if we really got hit with pain, like a 1930's
> > Depression, this country would turn fascist. Not socialist.
> >
> We didn't turn fascist in the 1930s.
No, but Americans had a very different make-up back then.
> And why would we turn fascist? What
> do you even mean by fascist?
The classic definition of fascism.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
"A system of government that excercises
a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically
through the merging of state and business
leadership, together with beligerant nationalism."
From Webster's Encyclopedia:
"Fascism protected the existing social order
by forcible suppression of the working-class movement
and by providing scapegoats for popular anger: jews,
foreigners, or blacks."
We already look towards businessmen to lead out
government as it is. Plus the merging of government and
business has been going on for decades (the private prison
system is the best, and most disturbing, example).
As for popular scapegoats, foreigners have always
been popular in this country.
> You think we are going to demand a ruthless
> crazy dictator so we can get Amtrak to be on time?
I think that when people get hungry they will turn to anyone
that will promise to feed them. That isn't so much of a leap
as you may think.
I suggest a novel that I read and enjoyed "It can't happen here"
by Sinclair Lewis.
> > I think a serious depression is inevitable, just a very long ways off.
> >
> Why? There is nothing economic that is unavoidable if it is a long ways
> off.
Remember this was the same nation that was suprised when
the Soviet Union collapsed. This is the same nation that is
presently adding features to Medicare eventhough it will go
bankrupt in a decade.
I don't have faith in our leadership.
> > I think a decade of low-to-stagnant growth (ala Japan) would
> > happen first.
> >
> There are a ton of things that we could do that would create jobs.
Of course. That's what they thought in 1932 as well.
> We've
> burned through the Internet.
That is actually a very poor example.
> Maybe it's time to look at Space or
> learning to farm and living on the oceans.
That would be great. I hope that things actually do
work out. It's just that history has shown a return to
the well-tred path is the most likely outcome.
--
"The charm of knowledge would be small if so much
Garrett
> Garrett wrote:
> > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > Garrett wrote:
> > > It would further lower prices and lower volume. That is the makings of
> > > grief.
> >
> > Then they just cut production again, which is exactly what they
> > intend to do.
> >
> You do realize that cutting production reduces their income and they
> don't like that. This provokes many to cheat.
> Here's a URL listing what each member state has done in the past. It's
> worth looking at:
> http://www.platts.com/opec/glance.shtml
While informative, I don't see how it helps your point.
Here's the a related article to what I've been reading:
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3KOUWZJPC&live=true
Opec, which accounts for about a third of world oil
output, is talking of reducing its formal quota total
of 24.2m barrels a day by another 1 to 1.5m b/d. Earlier
this spring it sliced a total of 2.5m b/d off its quotas. Its
aim is to reverse the recent slide in prices that
has dragged the value of its Opec basket of crude
oils close to the $22-a-barrel price floor
that the cartel has set itself.
"What we want to avoid is pushing oil back to
$30 again," says Ali al-Naimi, oil minister of Saudi
Arabia, Opec's dominant producer. But that has
not stopped a chorus of commentators warning
him and Opec of the risk of overshooting. Even
if the price of the Opec basket of crude oils rose
no further than $28 - the ceiling of Opec's target
range - this would still imply prices of $30 or
more for the better quality Brent and West Texas
Intermediate traded on the London and New York
futures markets.
"Opec risks cutting output too much too soon,
pushing up prices sharply and putting the global
economy under even more stress", says Adam
Sieminski of Deutsche Bank Alex Brown in the
US. "Opec sees weak oil demand as the disease
to be fixed with production cuts rather than the
symptom of a vulnerable economy." The London-
based Centre for Global Energy Studies says this
"pursuit of higher prices may very well work in
the short term but in the longer term the
organisation will pay the price of lower growth
in demand for oil and higher non-Opec production".
> > The more I learn about macro-economics the more I
> > realize that the people leading us in this field are just
> > guessing.
> >
> It's the dismal science.
We agree on something.
> > > What am I supposed to do to show I care about the environment?
> >
> > Stop fighting all environmental regulation.
> >
> I didn't fight all environmental regulation. I fought environmentalist
> wacko regulation.
So far it seems we simply haven't discussed environmental
regulation that you support. I'd be interested in finding out
what that is.
> > > There are plenty of alternatives.
> >
> > Yes, there is walking or riding a bicycle. There is also
> > public transit.
> > But the simple fact of the matter is that OPEC is in no
> > danger of anyone finding another alternative to fossil fuels.
> >
> Wind, nuclear, biomass.
As far as I can tell, none of them make a car go.
I would love to see wind and biomass make a significant
impact, but even during the energy crises of the 70's
the federal government never took an active role
in finding alternatives to fossil fuels. With George Dubya
in charge there is even less of that chance now.
> > A rather obvious one. The price of oil isn't going to come down
> > no matter how deep the global recession.
> >
> It's already at the bottom of the band. How far down do you think down
> is?
My mistake. It WAS at the bottom of the band a few weeks
ago. Now it seems it is back in the middle. But OPEC still
wants to cut production.
> > They've also learned that if they stick together they all get rich.
> >
> But can they stick together with ever decreasing volume quotas?
A question that can't be answered until after the fact.
Bill Bonde
Garrett wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > Garrett wrote:
> > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > > To what? You think that Americans would suddenly decide they want rabid
> > > > socialism?
> > >
> > > I know the question was aimed at Scott, but I would say that Americans
> > > are spoiled and that if we really got hit with pain, like a 1930's
> > > Depression, this country would turn fascist. Not socialist.
> > >
> > We didn't turn fascist in the 1930s.
>
> No, but Americans had a very different make-up back then.
>
You must mean there are must sissy-ass Liberal wacko nutcases around
now'days. I agree.
> > And why would we turn fascist? What
> > do you even mean by fascist?
>
> The classic definition of fascism.
> From the American Heritage Dictionary:
> "A system of government that excercises
> a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically
> through the merging of state and business
> leadership, together with beligerant nationalism."
>
So why would Americans support such a goofy thing? Remember that Germany
had a different system of government than we do. They were unable to get
a major coalition going and tried numerous elections without doing so.
Finally only because of the hubris of one man did Hitler get his toehold
and then everything.
Do you have some scenario where the US would embrace dictatorship
against an over 200 year history of democracy?
> From Webster's Encyclopedia:
> "Fascism protected the existing social order
> by forcible suppression of the working-class movement
> and by providing scapegoats for popular anger: jews,
> foreigners, or blacks."
>
Fascism, at least in Hitler's case, didn't protect the existing social
order. It was bad for everyone. They were just too stupid to see it
right away. And while one person likely could've stopped it, EVERY
political group helped it along. This includes the communists.
> We already look towards businessmen to lead out
> government as it is.
>
Business isn't fascism.
> Plus the merging of government and
> business has been going on for decades (the private prison
> system is the best, and most disturbing, example).
>
How is this fascism? The communists wanted to nationalize all
businesses. Isn't that merging too?
> As for popular scapegoats, foreigners have always
> been popular in this country.
>
They are popular everywhere.
> > You think we are going to demand a ruthless
> > crazy dictator so we can get Amtrak to be on time?
>
> I think that when people get hungry they will turn to anyone
> that will promise to feed them. That isn't so much of a leap
> as you may think.
>
The US has a glut of food and could produce much more. Why would we be
hungry? And people in Africa want democracy and freedom even though many
are hungry. I know the US is filled with fat-assed, Liberal sissies who
would just freak out if they missed even one meal, so maybe you are
right.
> I suggest a novel that I read and enjoyed "It can't happen here"
> by Sinclair Lewis.
>
Is it online or still under copyright?
> > > I think a serious depression is inevitable, just a very long ways off.
> > >
> > Why? There is nothing economic that is unavoidable if it is a long ways
> > off.
>
> Remember this was the same nation that was suprised when
> the Soviet Union collapsed.
>
They didn't collapse. They were pushed into change by Reagan.
> This is the same nation that is
> presently adding features to Medicare eventhough it will go
> bankrupt in a decade.
>
Well, I didn't say that we should elect more idiot Democrats.
> I don't have faith in our leadership.
>
> > > I think a decade of low-to-stagnant growth (ala Japan) would
> > > happen first.
> > >
> > There are a ton of things that we could do that would create jobs.
>
> Of course. That's what they thought in 1932 as well.
>
The war worked.
> > We've
> > burned through the Internet.
>
> That is actually a very poor example.
>
It was just a true statement. We have burned through the Dot Com
explosion. That won't work again. We need something new for the next
decade. I'd prefer it to be Space but maybe it will be porn.....
> > Maybe it's time to look at Space or
> > learning to farm and living on the oceans.
>
> That would be great. I hope that things actually do
> work out. It's just that history has shown a return to
> the well-tred path is the most likely outcome.
>
We shouldn't think ourselves intrinsically better than those before us
but we can learn from their mistakes. It doesn't make us more
intelligent but it can make us less ignorant.
Bill Bonde
Garrett wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > Garrett wrote:
> > > Bill Bonde wrote:
> > > > Garrett wrote:
> > > > It would further lower prices and lower volume. That is the makings of
> > > > grief.
> > >
> > > Then they just cut production again, which is exactly what they
> > > intend to do.
> > >
> > You do realize that cutting production reduces their income and they
> > don't like that. This provokes many to cheat.
> > Here's a URL listing what each member state has done in the past. It's
> > worth looking at:
> > http://www.platts.com/opec/glance.shtml
>
> While informative, I don't see how it helps your point.
>
You can see that the different countries react differently to supply
quotas.
> Here's the a related article to what I've been reading:
> http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3KOUWZJPC&live=true
>
> Opec, which accounts for about a third of world oil
> output, is talking of reducing its formal quota total
> of 24.2m barrels a day by another 1 to 1.5m b/d. Earlier
> this spring it sliced a total of 2.5m b/d off its quotas. Its
> aim is to reverse the recent slide in prices that
> has dragged the value of its Opec basket of crude
> oils close to the $22-a-barrel price floor
> that the cartel has set itself.
>
I agree they will try to do this. I seem to disagree with you on the
likelihood of success. As the volume goes down, the cheating goes up.
This is how it works.
> "What we want to avoid is pushing oil back to
> $30 again," says Ali al-Naimi, oil minister of Saudi
> Arabia, Opec's dominant producer. But that has
> not stopped a chorus of commentators warning
> him and Opec of the risk of overshooting.
>
What they need is to assure the markets that enough oil will be
available at a set price period. It is price fixing, but OPEC could
agree to sell as much oil as we want but at a fixed price. (I know this
would start up a new form of cheating....)
> Even
> if the price of the Opec basket of crude oils rose
> no further than $28 - the ceiling of Opec's target
> range - this would still imply prices of $30 or
> more for the better quality Brent and West Texas
> Intermediate traded on the London and New York
> futures markets.
>
> "Opec risks cutting output too much too soon,
> pushing up prices sharply and putting the global
> economy under even more stress", says Adam
> Sieminski of Deutsche Bank Alex Brown in the
> US. "Opec sees weak oil demand as the disease
> to be fixed with production cuts rather than the
> symptom of a vulnerable economy."
>
It might make sense to help the world economy by keeping oil prices on
the low end of the band for a while. What do you think?
> The London-
> based Centre for Global Energy Studies says this
> "pursuit of higher prices may very well work in
> the short term but in the longer term the
> organisation will pay the price of lower growth
> in demand for oil and higher non-Opec production".
>
I agree and have been saying this often.
> > > The more I learn about macro-economics the more I
> > > realize that the people leading us in this field are just
> > > guessing.
> > >
> > It's the dismal science.
>
> We agree on something.
>
We probably agree on more if you'd just leave the personal attacks and
animosity out of the posts.
> > > > What am I supposed to do to show I care about the environment?
> > >
> > > Stop fighting all environmental regulation.
> > >
> > I didn't fight all environmental regulation. I fought environmentalist
> > wacko regulation.
>
> So far it seems we simply haven't discussed environmental
> regulation that you support. I'd be interested in finding out
> what that is.
>
I believe that you shouldn't be allowed to pollute in a way that greatly
affects the environment. I don't think that grandfathered in power
plants (or whatever) should be attacked and shut down although I know
that the Centralia steam plant causes most of the smog over Mt. Rainier.
I sure what to see that mountain so I know when it is erupting.
> > > > There are plenty of alternatives.
> > >
> > > Yes, there is walking or riding a bicycle. There is also
> > > public transit.
> > > But the simple fact of the matter is that OPEC is in no
> > > danger of anyone finding another alternative to fossil fuels.
> > >
> > Wind, nuclear, biomass.
>
> As far as I can tell, none of them make a car go.
>
Please. Wind and nukes make electricity. This makes electric cars go. No
greenhouse gases. There is a car in India that looks to be very good for
in city transport and it is cheap and purely electric.
Biomass gasification can be used directly in vehicles. I've suggested
that first farmers and truckers get involved in this. Trains are another
good option. Cars can run on methanol which can be catalysed from
woodgas. In WWII, over a million vehicles ran on producer gas, basically
wood or coal gasified and filtered and sent straight to the engine.
> I would love to see wind and biomass make a significant
> impact, but even during the energy crises of the 70's
> the federal government never took an active role
> in finding alternatives to fossil fuels. With George Dubya
> in charge there is even less of that chance now.
>
I don't believe this at all. Oil companies have no problem producing
product locally. They, in fact, prefer it. I'm not sure what the price
point where gasification of biomass becomes competitive is. I believe
that wind power is really going to take off in the next ten years. Off
shore, the systems can be multi-use. They can protect shorelines from
erosion (perhaps from the fabled global warming sea level rises) and
they can provide power.
> > > A rather obvious one. The price of oil isn't going to come down
> > > no matter how deep the global recession.
> > >
> > It's already at the bottom of the band. How far down do you think down
> > is?
>
> My mistake. It WAS at the bottom of the band a few weeks
> ago. Now it seems it is back in the middle. But OPEC still
> wants to cut production.
>
What are we disagreeing about again?
> > > They've also learned that if they stick together they all get rich.
> > >
> > But can they stick together with ever decreasing volume quotas?
>
> A question that can't be answered until after the fact.
>
In the past, they have not.
silverback
<stderr_...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Garrett wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde wrote:
>>
>> > Garrett wrote:
>> > > Bill Bonde wrote:
>> > > > To what? You think that Americans would suddenly decide they want rabid
>> > > > socialism?
>> > >
>> > > I know the question was aimed at Scott, but I would say that Americans
>> > > are spoiled and that if we really got hit with pain, like a 1930's
>> > > Depression, this country would turn fascist. Not socialist.
>> > >
>> > We didn't turn fascist in the 1930s.
>>
>> No, but Americans had a very different make-up back then.
>>
>You must mean there are must sissy-ass Liberal wacko nutcases around
>now'days. I agree.
no the fascist purge of the 50s known as McCarthism thinned the ranks
of liberals.
>
>
>
>> > And why would we turn fascist? What
>> > do you even mean by fascist?
>>
>> The classic definition of fascism.
>> From the American Heritage Dictionary:
>> "A system of government that excercises
>> a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically
>> through the merging of state and business
>> leadership, together with beligerant nationalism."
>>
>So why would Americans support such a goofy thing? Remember that Germany
>had a different system of government than we do. They were unable to get
>a major coalition going and tried numerous elections without doing so.
>Finally only because of the hubris of one man did Hitler get his toehold
>and then everything.
>
>Do you have some scenario where the US would embrace dictatorship
>against an over 200 year history of democracy?
sure do. The fascist plot by the du Ponts, Morgans and other leaders
of corporate America in the 30s. With many of the genrals of the
military at that time openingly opposed to FDR they would have stood
down.
>
>
>
>> From Webster's Encyclopedia:
>> "Fascism protected the existing social order
>> by forcible suppression of the working-class movement
>> and by providing scapegoats for popular anger: jews,
>> foreigners, or blacks."
>>
>Fascism, at least in Hitler's case, didn't protect the existing social
>order. It was bad for everyone. They were just too stupid to see it
yer full of shit penguin bill. The Nazis did perserve the existing
social order to the limit. Proof of that can still be found in Forbes,
where many of the corporate elites in the days of Hitler are still
listed among the richest people in the world.
>right away. And while one person likely could've stopped it, EVERY
>political group helped it along. This includes the communists.
>
>
>
>> We already look towards businessmen to lead out
>> government as it is.
>>
>Business isn't fascism.
fascism=corporate rule
corporate rule=fascism
>
>
>
>> Plus the merging of government and
>> business has been going on for decades (the private prison
>> system is the best, and most disturbing, example).
>>
>How is this fascism? The communists wanted to nationalize all
>businesses. Isn't that merging too?
Hey penguin bill, Hitler privatized a large segment of the government.
>
>
>
>> As for popular scapegoats, foreigners have always
>> been popular in this country.
>>
>They are popular everywhere.
>
>
>
>> > You think we are going to demand a ruthless
>> > crazy dictator so we can get Amtrak to be on time?
>>
>> I think that when people get hungry they will turn to anyone
>> that will promise to feed them. That isn't so much of a leap
>> as you may think.
>>
>The US has a glut of food and could produce much more. Why would we be
>hungry? And people in Africa want democracy and freedom even though many
oj and we have a glut of housing I suppose too? Well penguin bill why
is it that some are forced to live under bridges and eat whatever they
can find in dumpsters?
>are hungry. I know the US is filled with fat-assed, Liberal sissies who
>would just freak out if they missed even one meal, so maybe you are
>right.
>
>
>
>> I suggest a novel that I read and enjoyed "It can't happen here"
>> by Sinclair Lewis.
>>
>Is it online or still under copyright?
never read it, huh?
>
>
>
>> > > I think a serious depression is inevitable, just a very long ways off.
>> > >
>> > Why? There is nothing economic that is unavoidable if it is a long ways
>> > off.
>>
>> Remember this was the same nation that was suprised when
>> the Soviet Union collapsed.
>>
>They didn't collapse. They were pushed into change by Reagan.
they collapsed penguin bill. Even the CIA gives the eastern European
labor leaders more credit for bringing down the USSR than they give
the drooling idiot, ronnie.
>
>
>
>> This is the same nation that is
>> presently adding features to Medicare eventhough it will go
>> bankrupt in a decade.
>>
>Well, I didn't say that we should elect more idiot Democrats.
>
>
>
>> I don't have faith in our leadership.
>>
>> > > I think a decade of low-to-stagnant growth (ala Japan) would
>> > > happen first.
>> > >
>> > There are a ton of things that we could do that would create jobs.
>>
>> Of course. That's what they thought in 1932 as well.
>>
>The war worked.
Oh? The republiCON party accepted money from Hitler in the 1942
election.
>
>
>
>> > We've
>> > burned through the Internet.
>>
>> That is actually a very poor example.
>>
>It was just a true statement. We have burned through the Dot Com
>explosion. That won't work again. We need something new for the next
>decade. I'd prefer it to be Space but maybe it will be porn.....
>
>
>
>> > Maybe it's time to look at Space or
>> > learning to farm and living on the oceans.
>>
>> That would be great. I hope that things actually do
>> work out. It's just that history has shown a return to
>> the well-tred path is the most likely outcome.
>>
>We shouldn't think ourselves intrinsically better than those before us
>but we can learn from their mistakes. It doesn't make us more
>intelligent but it can make us less ignorant.
***********************************************
Bill Bonde
coolpapa wrote:
>
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3B5C8D2E...@verizon.net...
> >
> > The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
> > lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
> > sixteen years.
>
> In Yen/gold (i.e., *real*) terms, the Nikkei is up 7% this year. This is in
> now way, shape, or form a "capitalist crisis". The problem is deflation
> which is a direct result of government mismanagement of monetary policy.
> The illiquidity trap that the world economy is in right now stems from the
> Fed arbitrarily *raising* interest rates in the late '90's.
>
The real test that we are having is whether a slowing US economy (and
world economy) can be reignited by lowering interest rates. Greenspan
taking a hot bath and wondering. We shall see.
Bill Bonde
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
> > financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
>
> Not on purpose. If you've ever studied the economics of oil it's a tricky
> balance -- keep the price as high as possible without damaging the economies
> of your client states and without creating a backlash desire for alternative
> energy resources. At the same time, you need to figure out how long
> supplies will last and maximize profit over time. The threat comes less
> from any kind of Arab desire to raise oil prices dramatically, but from some
> kind of crisis like another war, a terrorist strike, etc.
>
The war might do it but supplies during the Gulf war still allowed
reasonable prices. A terrorist event isn't likely to cut the flow of oil
too much. Perhaps if they attacked a major pipeline.
> > Furthermore, they know that high oil prices encourage the US and other
> > countries to find alternatives. This cuts into their bottom line.
> >
> > And even if they did want to raise prices on oil too high, they couldn't
> > because the global slowdown would decrease the amount of oil needed and
> > lower prices.
>
> But note: I only said that higher energy prices could make the problem
> worse. I see this as a time where two major theories will be tested: a)
> capitalism leads to universal prosperity and peace as it spreads, slowly but
> surely vs. b) capitalism is prone to major crisis and potential collapse.
> The depression gave evidence for 'b', the long boom of the last fifty years
> for 'a'. Those on the side of hypothesis "a" have had the most evidence in
> their favor, but the current downturn and structural problems in the system
> suggest that those arguing "b" still may be right. We don't know, we can
> only watch now as things unfold.
>
That you are considering the theory that capitalism sucks suggests that
you are really a loony nut. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of
democracy. It is something called 'freedom'. It has all sorts of
problems but it is morally the right thing to do. It's rather sad that
you can't see that.
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
> >
> That you are considering the theory that capitalism sucks suggests that
> you are really a loony nut. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of
> democracy. It is something called 'freedom'. It has all sorts of
> problems but it is morally the right thing to do. It's rather sad that
> you can't see that.
Your opinion is noted. Do you even know what you're talking about, though? No
one but the looney fringe argues for pure capitalism, every system is mixed in
some way. Almost everyone on the Left as well as the Right argues that markets
are necessary, as are wage differentials and private property. But how such a
system operates can vary. The complexities are where the interesting questions
lie.
cheers, scott
Martin McPhillips
>
> The US will develop its own path. I'd prefer to see a decentralized move to the Left, the country
> is too big to have a German-style centralized system. If the economy tanks, the move will come
> sooner. If not, I except gradual moves towards health care guarantees and other more socially just
> programs.
Fabian socialism pleases you, Scott?
Would you anticipate as well increased levels of public housing due to
fewer people being able to form enough capital because they are forced
to pay more taxes for "socially just programs?"
Well, of course, the State of Maine has a "socially just program" that
pays you, so you're set. For the moment.
msoja
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>Your opinion is noted. Do you even know what you're talking about, though? No
>one but the looney fringe argues for pure capitalism, every system is mixed in
>some way. Almost everyone on the Left as well as the Right argues that markets
>are necessary, as are wage differentials and private property. But how such a
>system operates can vary. The complexities are where the interesting questions
>lie.
Why do you think you can control people, Scoti, and why, really, do
you want to?
Mike
Garrett
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> > That you are considering the theory that capitalism sucks suggests that
> > you are really a loony nut. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of
> > democracy. It is something called 'freedom'. It has all sorts of
> > problems but it is morally the right thing to do. It's rather sad that
> > you can't see that.
>
> Your opinion is noted. Do you even know what you're talking about, though? No
> one but the looney fringe argues for pure capitalism, every system is mixed in
> some way.
There is a very large "looney fringe" representation on usenet.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Garrett
You've totally missed Scott's point.
--
"One is punished most for one's virtues."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Eagle Eye
silverback <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote:
>On 24 Jul 2001 04:37:51 -0000, Eagle Eye
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>In article <3B5CA0B0...@nyc.rr.com>
>>Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>Scott Erb wrote:
>>>> Yeah, you get all kinds on the internet.
>>>Well, dissembling college perfessers who don't know
>>>their own field is certainly one of those kinds.
>>"Insults carry no sting on the internet..."
>didcha just figure that out plucked chicken. Considering how you like
>to insult people I find the above statement ironic. Go ahead and try
>to deny it and I'll kick yer damn fool ass until yer nose bleeds.
You're a self-parody, Glen. I suppose I shouldn't expect you to
recognize when someone lampoons Scottie (disingenuous fraud) by
quoting his own words. After all, you are a drunken retard.
In your case, Mercury's remark may be true, since you're too stupid
to figure out when you've been insulted.
msoja
posted:
> There is a very large "looney fringe" representation on usenet.
Let's not make fun of Zippy the Zepp Pinhead's weight problem. The
government is working hard at expropriating some low-cal cheese for
him . . .
Developing . . .
Mike
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
-snip-
> This stuff doesn't work in the UK. They have a health care system that
> is getting 3rd worldish. To have quality health care for 'free', you
> have to have taxes far higher than in the UK. The US is not going to
> leapfrog over the UK and go for europe style confiscatory tax rates.
Actually, in Germany and many parts of Europe they have a very good health care systems, and I know most
Germans turn their nose at the American system, even German doctors are appalled by how the US does it.
The British have historically had a bad system, but other states, especially those who learned from
British mistakes, have done quite well.
I really think we're going to someday have a national health care system that like in Germany builds on a
private system and works with insurance companies in order to assure that everyone is covered and no one
left out. But at this point that does seem a ways off, so you have the political upper hand on this
issue...for now ;)
Bill Bonde
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > >
> > That you are considering the theory that capitalism sucks suggests that
> > you are really a loony nut. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of
> > democracy. It is something called 'freedom'. It has all sorts of
> > problems but it is morally the right thing to do. It's rather sad that
> > you can't see that.
>
> Your opinion is noted. Do you even know what you're talking about, though?
>
Yes, I do.
> No
> one but the looney fringe argues for pure capitalism, every system is mixed in
> some way.
>
Mixed in the sense that there are some government safeguards, rules and
the like.
> Almost everyone on the Left as well as the Right argues that markets
> are necessary, as are wage differentials and private property. But how such a
> system operates can vary. The complexities are where the interesting questions
> lie.
>
You are the person who was arguing that capitalism could fail. Now you
are taking a 'balanced approach'?
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
-snip-
> You are the person who was arguing that capitalism could fail. Now you
> are taking a 'balanced approach'?
Where did I argue that? I said this could be a real crisis in capitalism, like the
crisis back in the thirties. I believe it may force us to rethink how our economies
are structured. But markets must be a part of any system for it to function in a
manner that can bring prosperity and create incentives for innovation.
Bill Bonde
Garrett wrote:
>
> msoja wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:55:00 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> > <scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
> > >Your opinion is noted. Do you even know what you're talking about, though? No
> > >one but the looney fringe argues for pure capitalism, every system is mixed in
> > >some way. Almost everyone on the Left as well as the Right argues that markets
> > >are necessary, as are wage differentials and private property. But how such a
> > >system operates can vary. The complexities are where the interesting questions
> > >lie.
> >
> > Why do you think you can control people, Scoti, and why, really, do
> > you want to?
>
> You've totally missed Scott's point.
>
I guess I missed his point too. He had said that 'capitalism' could be
on the way out. Now he's talking a moderate tone about some mixed
system. We already have, as he noted, a mixed system. So it isn't really
clear what he means, in my opinion.
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
> I guess I missed his point too. He had said that 'capitalism' could be
> on the way out. Now he's talking a moderate tone about some mixed
> system. We already have, as he noted, a mixed system. So it isn't really
> clear what he means, in my opinion.
I must not have been clear in my statement. A capitalist crisis is expected from
theorists on the left who believe that the centralization of wealth and power that is
growing with globalization leads to a number of contradictions that can cause systemic
collapse (they would argue this happened once in the Great Depression). I noted that the
current downturn is possibly in line with those arguments, and could be seen as a test of
the two views of modern capitalism -- one very bullish on markets, one who believes the
system is built on weak foundations.
However, if there is a crisis, that likely will benefit the left (I disagree with Garrett
that the US would move towards fascism, but I see his point too), but I would totally
oppose the kind of controlled planned economy totalitarianism of the old left. Markets
are necessary, democracy essential, and individual liberties of primary value. Perhaps a
crisis, if it comes, would break us out of the dichotomous view that ignores the
multidimensionality of political/economic life.
I don't think a major crisis is coming, rather, I think there is going to be a deeper
than expected recession. The point of the post was when I look at the long term
stagnation in Asia, and general weakness of the global economy overall, it is possible to
"think the unthinkable," that we could be on the verge of a major economic crisis.
For me, this is fascinating to live through -- I don't know what theory is best, people
tend to interpret the world to fit into what they believe. But the evidence and data
that the next few years will provide will, I suspect, enhance our understanding of what
globalization and the technology revolution means.
cheers, scott
Bill Bonde
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > This stuff doesn't work in the UK. They have a health care system that
> > is getting 3rd worldish. To have quality health care for 'free', you
> > have to have taxes far higher than in the UK. The US is not going to
> > leapfrog over the UK and go for europe style confiscatory tax rates.
>
> Actually, in Germany and many parts of Europe they have a very good health care systems,
>
??? I said that the UK was in a position where they don't tax enough to
have free health care and they tax too much for people to afford an
American type system.
> and I know most
> Germans turn their nose at the American system, even German doctors are appalled by how the US does it.
> The British have historically had a bad system, but other states, especially those who learned from
> British mistakes, have done quite well.
>
The issue is how much money they have to spend on it.
> I really think we're going to someday have a national health care system that like in Germany builds on a
> private system and works with insurance companies in order to assure that everyone is covered and no one
> left out. But at this point that does seem a ways off, so you have the political upper hand on this
> issue...for now ;)
>
True, my side does.
msoja
posted:
>msoja wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:55:00 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>> >Your opinion is noted. Do you even know what you're talking about, though? No
>> >one but the looney fringe argues for pure capitalism, every system is mixed in
>> >some way. Almost everyone on the Left as well as the Right argues that markets
>> >are necessary, as are wage differentials and private property. But how such a
>> >system operates can vary. The complexities are where the interesting questions
>> >lie.
>> Why do you think you can control people, Scoti, and why, really, do
>> you want to?
> You've totally missed Scott's point.
And I think you missed mine. All Scoti's preaching about how complex
the markets are is just the charlatan's stock-in-trade sales pitch for
gulling people into thinking a select elite is capable of
"manipulating" the market for the public good. He decries what he
calls the looney fringe capitalists because they stand for the least
control, the least manipulation. And, of course, the UN-stated
presumption behind the attempted manipulation of markets, the really
nasty fact that comes before one can muster the gall to try and beat
supply and demand at its own game, is the presumption that Scoti
actually know's what is best for people, that he (or an even bigger
moron like Al Gore, for instance) should decide what is best for
people and with his other great abilities then coerce the market into
providing or denying appropriately. That is the control I spoke of,
and it's been sought by dictators and despots throughout history.
Mike
Bill Bonde
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > You are the person who was arguing that capitalism could fail. Now you
> > are taking a 'balanced approach'?
>
> Where did I argue that? I said this could be a real crisis in capitalism, like the
> crisis back in the thirties.
>
On the one hand, you say it is a possible real crisis in 'capitalism'
and then on the other, you claim that our system is 'mixed'. Sounds like
you want to blame a possible crisis in our mixed system on capitalism.
How do you know it isn't because of the other parts?
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
> > Where did I argue that? I said this could be a real crisis in capitalism, like the
> > crisis back in the thirties.
> >
> On the one hand, you say it is a possible real crisis in 'capitalism'
> and then on the other, you claim that our system is 'mixed'. Sounds like
> you want to blame a possible crisis in our mixed system on capitalism.
> How do you know it isn't because of the other parts?
Oh, I see. I'm using the term "capitalist world system" following the theoretical
approach of Immanuel Wallerstein and others who talk about the world system as
essentially capitalist, with a systemic logic. When I talked about domestic economies, I
noted they were mixed systems, and not pure capitalist. You are right to point out the
contradictory way it sounds when mixing that terminology.
Partially, I think the term "capitalist" is a tough one to define. Some people say the
US has "socialist" tendencies because of government programs, but others say it is a
successful "capitalist" system. For Wallerstein and others, capitalism is defined as a
world system with a particular logic, even encompassing countries less capitalist. I
talked about the system using his terminology, but used conventional notions of mixed
economy to define domestic systems.
I think my point (that markets, etc., are necessary components of any system, as well as
democracy and individual liberties) is still legit, but I will be more careful in how I
use the term 'capitalist' in this discussion so as to avoid that kind of
misunderstanding. My fault. Sorry.
Scott D. Erb
from my own. That's what happens when you don't actually discuss something with someone
else, but imagine what they must think based on perconceived images of what someone of a
different perspective is proposing. I won't even try to go through and correct all your
falsehoods about my beliefs (I won't call them lies, you probably really think I believe
those things), except to tell you that you are WAY off!
Martin McPhillips
>
> I really think we're going to someday have a national health care system that like in Germany builds on a
> private system and works with insurance companies in order to assure that everyone is covered and no one
> left out. But at this point that does seem a ways off, so you have the political upper hand on this
> issue...for now ;)
In other words, you have a strong appreciation for national socialism.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Partially, I think the term "capitalist" is a tough one to define.
Could it possibly be harder for you to define it than "socialism"
was?
> Some people say the
> US has "socialist" tendencies because of government programs,
It does. It runs a Ponzi scheme pension program and a socialized
healthcare program for the elderly. Between the two programs they
eat up much of the federal budget.
> but others say it is a
> successful "capitalist" system.
It is a successful capitalist system, and that's why socialists
are able to feed off of it. Maine is a successful state government,
but weasels are able to feed off of its university system. See the
similarity?
Bert Hyman
news:3B5F181D...@worldnet.att.net: y
>
> I really think we're going to someday have a national health care
... crushes it.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com
Martin McPhillips
>
> Wow. All I can say, Mike, is that the opinions you assign to me are very different
> from my own. That's what happens when you don't actually discuss something with someone
> else, but imagine what they must think based on perconceived images of what someone of a
> different perspective is proposing. I won't even try to go through and correct all your
> falsehoods about my beliefs (I won't call them lies, you probably really think I believe
> those things), except to tell you that you are WAY off!
What? He has you down exactly. What he says applies directly not
only to your national socialist ideas, expressed today, about
what kind of health care system you'd like to see in the U.S.,
it also applies to the kind of things you say to David Friedman
in the exchanges with him that *you* posted, Scott.
Bill Bonde
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > > Where did I argue that? I said this could be a real crisis in capitalism, like the
> > > crisis back in the thirties.
> > >
> > On the one hand, you say it is a possible real crisis in 'capitalism'
> > and then on the other, you claim that our system is 'mixed'. Sounds like
> > you want to blame a possible crisis in our mixed system on capitalism.
> > How do you know it isn't because of the other parts?
>
> Oh, I see. I'm using the term "capitalist world system" following the theoretical
> approach of Immanuel Wallerstein and others who talk about the world system as
> essentially capitalist, with a systemic logic. When I talked about domestic economies, I
> noted they were mixed systems, and not pure capitalist. You are right to point out the
> contradictory way it sounds when mixing that terminology.
>
> Partially, I think the term "capitalist" is a tough one to define. Some people say the
> US has "socialist" tendencies because of government programs, but others say it is a
> successful "capitalist" system. For Wallerstein and others, capitalism is defined as a
> world system with a particular logic, even encompassing countries less capitalist. I
> talked about the system using his terminology, but used conventional notions of mixed
> economy to define domestic systems.
>
OK, so maybe we are getting somewhere. So then you said that there was a
possible crisis in the capitalist system. Did you mean just in the
internal capitalist (mixed, you used there, I believe) system(s) or do
you mean the world capitalist system? If you mean the latter, what would
you replace it with?
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
I'm not sure. The old communist notion of capitalism being replaced by some kind of utopian
socialism is bogus, if there is a crisis we'll be in for a resurgence of nationalism, extremism
on the Left and Right, and a general inability to decide just what to do.
I look at it this way: the rise of the computer and the general technological revolution has
altered the very meaning of time and space in politics and social life. Things move faster and
distance isn't as relevant. This has eroded sovereignty, made non-state actors (both
intergovernmental organizations and NGOs, including corporations) more powerful, and may
ultimately have the same kind of impact that the printing press and gunpowder had on the old
European order when it was destroyed with the wars of reformation and replaced by the
Westphalian system. As long as things are good, people will ride with the changes. If things
start deteriorating, with no set way to understand how to respond, you could get social
instability.
The Left argues that capitalism has built in contradictions and a propensity to collapse (the
capitalist world system). If they are right, that suggests a much more serious challenge to
our political and social systems than if the pro-market globalization forces are right that
we're entering a period of enhanced prosperity and peace (Thomas Friedman's 'golden arches'
theory -- two countries with McDonalds don't fight each other in most cases -- a restatement of
the old theory that liberal democracies don't wage war with each other).
Whatever will emerge will probably not be something like what we have now. I suspect it will
be more decentralized, cooperative, and focused less on territorial borders than the present
system. Maybe even Left and Right as we now understand the terms will be obsolete.
That's why I called the thread 'thinking the unthinkable.' We're all so optimistic, and even
those who think the recession will be bad are looking for a recovery in late 2002...but what if
the downturns in Japan, Asia, Europe, and Latin America are part of a trend that hits the US as
well...that idea is intriguing if unsettling, hence my post.
Martin McPhillips
>
>
> I'm not sure. The old communist notion of capitalism being replaced by some kind of utopian
> socialism is bogus,
Not that it wouldn't be desireable if it only worked, right Scott?
But you've seen the error of the "Communist" way, and so you've simply
opted for Fabian socialism.
> if there is a crisis we'll be in for a resurgence of nationalism, extremism
> on the Left and Right, and a general inability to decide just what to do.
You're so spiritual, Scott. You cheerlead for economic crisis because it
will be a great test. And you can only hope that the Left prevails.
Garrett
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> > I won't even try to go through and correct all your
> > falsehoods about my beliefs (I won't call them lies, you probably really think I believe
> > those things), except to tell you that you are WAY off!
>
> What? He has you down exactly. What he says applies directly not
> only to your national socialist ideas, expressed today, about
> what kind of health care system you'd like to see in the U.S.,
> it also applies to the kind of things you say to David Friedman
> in the exchanges with him that *you* posted, Scott.
You really have a hard-on for Scott, Martin.
He must really excite you. I hope I don't live anywhere
near you.
Garrett
> Wow. All I can say, Mike, is that the opinions you assign to me are very different
> from my own. That's what happens when you don't actually discuss something with someone
> else, but imagine what they must think based on perconceived images of what someone of a
> different perspective is proposing. I won't even try to go through and correct all your
> falsehoods about my beliefs (I won't call them lies, you probably really think I believe
> those things), except to tell you that you are WAY off!
That seems to be the biggest problem of usenet:
people assigning you their own stereotype and denouncing you for it.
There's no point in debating those people.
Garrett
> However, if there is a crisis, that likely will benefit the left (I disagree with Garrett
> that the US would move towards fascism, but I see his point too), but I would totally
> oppose the kind of controlled planned economy totalitarianism of the old left.
I think it's been discredited to the point that it won't rise again.
However, that doesn't mean that some form of the old far right economic
plan won't raise its ugly head.
> I don't think a major crisis is coming, rather, I think there is going to be a deeper
> than expected recession.
It think both things are true. The second statement is already true as the
economists all over the world keep saying that they didn't expect things to
get this bad.
I think the first statement will become true, but somewhere down the
line.
> The point of the post was when I look at the long term
> stagnation in Asia, and general weakness of the global economy overall, it is possible to
> "think the unthinkable," that we could be on the verge of a major economic crisis.
Something I think is notable is that there is several times more money exchanged
on the international markets every year then all the GDP's of all the countries of the
world put together. To me that means that the value of money today is based on faith
rather than the value of actual products. Well what happens if people stop having
faith in the value of the paper in their pockets? It isn't such an unlikely question to
ask because since 1997 currencies all over the world have been fluctuating
wildly and uncontrollably and things aren't getting any better. In the early 1930's
people lost faith in banks. We may be on the verge of a currency crises.
That's my $.02.
> For me, this is fascinating to live through -- I don't know what theory is best, people
> tend to interpret the world to fit into what they believe. But the evidence and data
> that the next few years will provide will, I suspect, enhance our understanding of what
> globalization and the technology revolution means.
I agree that economic theories are going to need revising in the next few decades.
It is already a "dismal science" (as Bill, and others, put it) and mankind doesn't seem
to really learn anything unless he suffers pain in the process.
Scott D. Erb
Garrett wrote:
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> > However, if there is a crisis, that likely will benefit the left (I disagree with Garrett
> > that the US would move towards fascism, but I see his point too), but I would totally
> > oppose the kind of controlled planned economy totalitarianism of the old left.
>
> I think it's been discredited to the point that it won't rise again.
> However, that doesn't mean that some form of the old far right economic
> plan won't raise its ugly head.
Agreed. The demise of Communism finally discredited the totalitarian left, but in so doing
many on the far right somehow saw redemption. If things get bad enough, I can see that
happening too.
> > I don't think a major crisis is coming, rather, I think there is going to be a deeper
> > than expected recession.
>
> It think both things are true. The second statement is already true as the
> economists all over the world keep saying that they didn't expect things to
> get this bad.
> I think the first statement will become true, but somewhere down the
> line.
It's fascinating to watch all the sudden surprise and shock that Q3 isn't going to have the
expected bounce, and even Q4 looks bleak...that means that we essentially have wishful thinking
for 2002, and a belief that Fed rate reductions will work. But they have worked -- the fed
cuts have helped prop consumer spending, and that's the only reason people still see the silver
lining. But that raises the issue you brought up before of consumer (and corporate) debt,
so...
> > The point of the post was when I look at the long term
> > stagnation in Asia, and general weakness of the global economy overall, it is possible to
> > "think the unthinkable," that we could be on the verge of a major economic crisis.
>
> Something I think is notable is that there is several times more money exchanged
> on the international markets every year then all the GDP's of all the countries of the
> world put together. To me that means that the value of money today is based on faith
> rather than the value of actual products. Well what happens if people stop having
> faith in the value of the paper in their pockets? It isn't such an unlikely question to
> ask because since 1997 currencies all over the world have been fluctuating
> wildly and uncontrollably and things aren't getting any better. In the early 1930's
> people lost faith in banks. We may be on the verge of a currency crises.
> That's my $.02.
Good point. The strong dollar has been resilient, but really we've seen mini-currency crises
over the past few years. I'll have to read up a bit more on the currency issue, I haven't been
following that.
> > For me, this is fascinating to live through -- I don't know what theory is best, people
> > tend to interpret the world to fit into what they believe. But the evidence and data
> > that the next few years will provide will, I suspect, enhance our understanding of what
> > globalization and the technology revolution means.
>
> I agree that economic theories are going to need revising in the next few decades.
> It is already a "dismal science" (as Bill, and others, put it) and mankind doesn't seem
> to really learn anything unless he suffers pain in the process.
Quite true. That seems to be a constant of human behavior, we usually need to get our fingers
burned before we really learn. I suspect that's true with things like global warming and
environmental concern. As long as the danger is in the future and there is a modicum of
uncertainty, we'll wait until its maybe too late to find an easy way out. But somehow
humankind keeps muddling through :)
msoja
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
This:
>But markets must be a part of any system for it to function in a
>manner that can bring prosperity and create incentives for innovation.
is beautiful truthspeak, no? And has no doubt been approved by the
committee.
Do these slogans of yours repeat often inside your skull, Scoti?
Swing the sickle. BANG the hammer.
... "that can bring prosperity and create incentives for innovation "
BANG!!
Have you EVER created an incentive for innovation, Scoti?
Mike
Martin McPhillips
From the way you rub up against him, you seem to be the one with
the hard-on.
Scott's a sort of official liar. He cranks out the lies, the
Marxist apologetics, the socialist agenda, and I correct the
lies and note the Marxist apologetics and the socialist agenda,
not to mention the ever-present anti-American propaganda.
You seem to be just rubbing yourself all over in his presence.
Get a tube of something and make yourself happy.
Jack Dawes
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> Wow. All I can say, Mike, is that the opinions you assign to me are very different
> from my own.
Since your opinion on any particular subject changes from day to day how can you
know which day and which opinion he is referring to.
Jack
Martin McPhillips
He's denying Mike's characterization in the very same day that he is
expressing precisely the viewpoint that Mike describes.
It's a good thing that Scott doesn't care much for that old-fashioned
totalitarian socialism because it would definitely put him off wanting
the government to involve itself in all aspects of economic life.
Scott's just for a just world, not heaven on earth. He realizes that
the latter will have to wait awhile.