US economy grows at fastest rate in 6 years
Cliff
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901694.html?hpid=moreheadlines
[
The U.S. economy grew at a breakneck rate of 5.7 percent at the end of 2009, the
government said Friday, providing the strongest evidence yet that the nation
will avoid a dip back into recession.
.....
]
Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR201...
> [
> The U.S. economy grew at a breakneck rate of 5.7 percent at the end of 2009, the
> government said Friday, providing the strongest evidence yet that the nation
> will avoid a dip back into recession.
> .....
> ]
And proof that Obama is doing FAR BETTER than Bush ever did.
TMT
Burled Frau
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:985749d4-df14-4263...@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Bullcrap. The economy dipped as much as it came back. His gain is zero.
0bama is a big zero. You are a big zero too.
bugs
It must suck to be in constant denial. Evidently you missed the ride in
stock prices as well?
Fiftycal
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Believing your own propaganda
is stoopid. Most (3.7%) of the "breakneck rate" was due to retailers
stocking up. And about 2% was increased GOVERNMENT spending. So the
ACTUAL "growth" rate is ZERO, ZIP, NADA. IOW, this JOBLESS RECESSION
continues. And will until Dear Leader is thrown out of office and
adults take over. I believe Hitlery's comment about leaving after
"one term" as SOS means she will try to unseat Obammao.
No-bammer
OR DID IT?
Evidence is now coming out that it is a BIG FUCKING LIE.
Brother Lightfoot
"Fiftycal" <n...@abcnnbcbs.com> wrote in message
news:nkbbm5p6gh7rq0m9n...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 01:18:51 -0500, Cliff
> <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> >
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR201001290
1694.html?hpid=moreheadlines
> >[
> >The U.S. economy grew at a breakneck rate of 5.7 percent at the end of
2009, the
> >government said Friday, providing the strongest evidence yet that the
nation
> >will avoid a dip back into recession.
> >.....
> >]
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Believing your own propaganda
> is stoopid. Most (3.7%) of the "breakneck rate" was due to retailers
> stocking up.
Cites ?
And please explain why retailers would stock up if sales are on the
decline......
> And about 2% was increased GOVERNMENT spending.
Obviously you didn't read the article :
"Massive government spending to support the economy provided no net boost to
overall growth. While non-defense federal spending rose at an 8.1 percent
rate, spending on defense and by state and local governments was down
sharply. "
> So the
> ACTUAL "growth" rate is ZERO, ZIP, NADA. IOW, this JOBLESS RECESSION
We could just start a couple more wars and then spend the next 8 years
continuing with the construction and financing of new homes for our children
and grandchildren whom will never be born.
> continues. And will until Dear Leader is thrown out of office and
> adults take over. I believe Hitlery's comment about leaving after
> "one term" as SOS means she will try to unseat Obammao.
--
Brother Lightfoot
"No-bammer" <no-b...@fgi.net> wrote in message
news:NeudnTDR95yaJfjW...@earthlink.com...
> Cliff wrote:
> >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901
694.html?hpid=moreheadlines
> > [
> > The U.S. economy grew at a breakneck rate of 5.7 percent at the end of
2009, the
> > government said Friday, providing the strongest evidence yet that the
nation
> > will avoid a dip back into recession.
> > .....
> > ]
>
> OR DID IT?
> Evidence is now coming out that it is a BIG FUCKING LIE.
Evidence is now coming out that you are a BIG FAT FAGGOT as well.
--
Siobhan Medeiros
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Oh, it dips under Bush, and recovers under Obama, and Obama's the big
zero. Tell me, was it logic or math you flunked in school?
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
Drop in December new-home sales fuels concern over recent gains
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/01/27/AR2010012703202.html?hpid=topnews
"The battered market for new homes ended 2009 with a whimper, according
to government data released Wednesday, fueling concern that recent
improvements in the housing sector could be short-lived.
In December, new-home sales fell 7.6 percent from the previous month, to
a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 342,000, according to the Commerce
Department. Sales were down 8.6 percent compared with the same period a
year earlier."
tankfixer
4bbf92...@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, too_man...@yahoo.com
says...
Fiftycal
<no...@mothmail.com> wrote:
>> >The U.S. economy grew at a breakneck rate of 5.7 percent at the end of
>2009, the
>> >government said Friday, providing the strongest evidence yet that the
>nation
>> >will avoid a dip back into recession.
>> >.....
>> >]
>> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Believing your own propaganda
>> is stoopid. Most (3.7%) of the "breakneck rate" was due to retailers
>> stocking up.
>
>Cites ?
>
>And please explain why retailers would stock up if sales are on the
>decline......
google is your friend. You won't find it on daily kossack or
movemybowelson.org.
No-bammer
I bet you are a left wing wacko and you really believe that Buckwheat's
90 mile an hour high speed rail is really a high speed rail.
Brother Lightfoot
I'm just someone that's smart enough to realize that any un-substantiated
claim is as good as another.
And if it makes you feel like taking bets I suggest resist the urge and seek
help with your gambling problem.
--
Brother Lightfoot
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:12:43 -0800, "Brother Lightfoot"
> <no...@mothmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >The U.S. economy grew at a breakneck rate of 5.7 percent at the end of
> >2009, the
> >> >government said Friday, providing the strongest evidence yet that the
> >nation
> >> >will avoid a dip back into recession.
> >> >.....
> >> >]
> >> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Believing your own propaganda
> >> is stoopid. Most (3.7%) of the "breakneck rate" was due to retailers
> >> stocking up.
> >
> >Cites ?
> >
> >And please explain why retailers would stock up if sales are on the
> >decline......
>
> google is your friend. You won't find it on daily kossack or
> movemybowelson.org.
>
Nope.
Your making a claim of 3.7% being due to "retailers stocking up" without
providing any substantiating citation invalidates your entire arguement.
--
Fiftycal
<no...@mothmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >The U.S. economy grew at a breakneck rate of 5.7 percent at the end of
>> >2009, the
>> >> >government said Friday, providing the strongest evidence yet that the
>> >nation
>> >> >will avoid a dip back into recession.
>> >> >.....
>> >> >]
>> >> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Believing your own propaganda
>> >> is stoopid. Most (3.7%) of the "breakneck rate" was due to retailers
>> >> stocking up.
>> >
>> >Cites ?
>> >
>> >And please explain why retailers would stock up if sales are on the
>> >decline......
>>
>> google is your friend. You won't find it on daily kossack or
>> movemybowelson.org.
>>
>
>Nope.
>
>Your making a claim of 3.7% being due to "retailers stocking up" without
>providing any substantiating citation invalidates your entire arguement.
RIght. Well, here's this;
The US economy in the fourth quarter expanded at the fastest rate in
nearly six years, at 5.7% annualized. Before we jump out of our seats
with joy, it might be worthwhile to take a deeper look into these
numbers. The huge jump in real GDP was largely due to inventory
adjustments which contributed to 3.4% of GDP growth.
Keep in mind during the recession companies sold off their existing
inventories, nervous to produce new goods as the economy was falling
off a cliff. As business sold off much of their existing stocks over
the last few quarters, restocking is contributing a larger share to
GDP growth. Let's keep in mind that inventory growth is not a solid
foundation for a sustained recovery, it can't last forever. Looking at
GDP as final sales to US-based producers, the economy only grew 3.9%.
That is, before the inevitable revisions that will come.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/185659-u-s-economy-q4-gdp-numbers-unearthed
Now it's your turn, where you will claim this is "wrong, incorrect,
biased" , etc.
Brother Lightfoot
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25cf60a...@news.bytemine.net...
27/AR2010012703202.html?hpid=topnews
>
> "The battered market for new homes ended 2009 with a whimper, according
> to government data released Wednesday, fueling concern that recent
> improvements in the housing sector could be short-lived.
>
> In December, new-home sales fell 7.6 percent from the previous month, to
> a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 342,000, according to the Commerce
> Department. Sales were down 8.6 percent compared with the same period a
> year earlier."
Simple economics--current supply greatly exceeds the demand....and unless
people start having more babies ( or immigration is stepped-up ) the
situation isn't going to change for the better anytime soon.
My advice to anyone who earns his living from new home construction, finance
or sales is to find himself a different line of work.
--
Brother Lightfoot
Not really though I will note the above you had quoted was from an op-ed...
Here is the actual report :
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Wherein can be found the pertinent data :
" The change in real private inventories added 3.39 percentage points to the
fourth-quarter change
in real GDP after adding 0.69 percentage point to the third-quarter change.
Private businesses decreased
inventories $33.5 billion in the fourth quarter, following decreases of
$139.2 billion in the third quarter
and $160.2 billion in the second."
IOW, given that inventory levels are still falling, but at a vastly reduced
rate when compared to the second and third quarters, this indicates that
products indeed are moving off the shelves rather than simply sitting in
inventory ( or in your words : "retailers stocking up" ) and suggests ( at
least to me when also considering the quite favorable numbers being reported
concerning real personal consumption, real exports of goods and services and
real gross domestic purchases) rising product sales rather than a continued
lack therof.
--
tankfixer
no...@mothmail.com says...
I'm glad I got out of that line of work 12 years ago...
Burled Frau
"No-bammer" <no-b...@fgi.net> wrote in message
news:KvudnSkGmY0dQPjW...@earthlink.com...
> mile an hour high speed rail is really a high speed rail.Let him build it
> so we can ride him out on it.
Too_Many_Tools
> tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>
> >><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR201...>
> >> The U.S. economy grew at a breakneck rate of 5.7 percent at the end of 2009, the
> >> government said Friday, providing the strongest evidence yet that the nation
> >> will avoid a dip back into recession.
>
> >"The battered market for new homes ended 2009 with a whimper, according
> >to government data released Wednesday, fueling concern that recent
> >improvements in the housing sector could be short-lived.
>
> >In December, new-home sales fell 7.6 percent from the previous month, to
> >a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 342,000, according to the Commerce
> >Department. Sales were down 8.6 percent compared with the same period a
> >year earlier."
>
> over. Look for a rapid return to where we were before they started.
> If it's even that good. People that bought on that plan just months
> ago are finding themselves underwater already. It is the height of
> stupidity to buy real estate now.
>
> And watch what the crashing commercial real estate market does to the
> banks who's loan delinquencies and defaults are increasing
> drastically, the governments that have plunging tax income,
> employment, crime in abandoned areas, and a host of other problems.
> It's a bigger problem that housing real estate was/is.
>
> His Cash for Clunkers gave a one time bump to automobile sales. It
> cleared out the pipeline and caused a temporary bump as re-supplies
> were ordered. That's over and automotive is back in the dumper.
>
> We can not borrow our way to prosperity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
But Bush did...or at least he tried with a TRILLION of your tax
dollars...yet to be collected.
TMT
F. George McDuffee
<paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Simple economics--current supply greatly exceeds the demand....and unless
>> people start having more babies ( or immigration is stepped-up ) the
>> situation isn't going to change for the better anytime soon.
Classic outcome when a bubble bursts.
Folk wisdom suggests that the first thing you should stop doing
when you are in the hole is stop digging...
One simplistic ameliorative measure in the specific case of real
estate [but not a "cure"] is for the FDIC/FRB/Comptroller of the
Currency, etc. to issue regulations prohibiting the underwriting
of loans for new speculative commercial and residential real
estate development using government insured or guaranteed funds.
My brother is in real estate, and almost all areas in the US have
at least a one year supply of new housing, given the current rate
of sales. Many of the "boom" areas have 18-24 months of new
residential units [both houses and condos] available at current
sales rates. When all available housing stocks are considered,
including foreclosures and pre-owned, some areas have 36 or more
months of "stock."
The only loans for new construction should be for
specific/identified owners/tenants. Partly completed projects
should be evaluated on a case by case basis to determine if less
loss will be incurred if completed [or partially completed in the
case of large multi-building projects], or at least
weatherproofed.
When pigs fly....
This appears to be a re-run of post WW2 when the farmers were
raising too much food, and agricultural price supports were
introduced. Why not pay the building trades and contractors *NOT*
to build buildings? ;-(
Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
HH&C
> >dollars...yet to be collected.
>
What would you want a troll to do?
> I won't. I
> don't play your little D vs R game.
>
> Bush squandered a trillion. 0bama saw him and raised him. By a
> factor of four. Yes tax dollars. Yes, yet to be collected.
>
> Yet when 0bama squanders, it's good stuff and when Bush did it, it was
> bad stuff? Get a clue party boy.- Hide quoted text -
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901694.html?hpid=moreheadlines
>>
>> government said Friday, providing the strongest evidence yet that the nation
>> will avoid a dip back into recession.
>
>
> Nobody's making anything, nobody's buying anything, nobody has a job
> and whoopee, the economy is doing great. Lying liberals must have
> their own definitions of things.
They might as well say that the GDP is 27%.... it's all a lie anyways.
This is like living in the Soviet Union, the propaganda is almost too
ridiculous to laugh at.
--
Ed Huntress
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:5hgcm517h1aha684e...@4ax.com...
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901694.html?hpid=moreheadlines
>>
>>The U.S. economy grew at a breakneck rate of 5.7 percent at the end of
>>2009, the
>>government said Friday, providing the strongest evidence yet that the
>>nation
>>will avoid a dip back into recession.
>
> How's that unemployment thing coming?
In a deep recession, employment usually lags the GDP trend by up to a year;
sometimes more. If you don't know this, you don't know enough about it to
raise your hand.
>
> Nobody's making anything, nobody's buying anything, nobody has a job
> and whoopee, the economy is doing great. Lying liberals must have
> their own definitions of things.
How would you know any of the above? Where do you get your information,
Winston? Do you ask opinions down at the 7-Eleven?
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Brother Lightfoot" <no...@mothmail.com> wrote in message
news:xuudnXkdCvpll_vW...@scnresearch.com...
Inventory/sales ratios have fallen off a cliff. In other words, what you're
saying it right -- inventories are run down to decade-record low levels,
which means that sales have been exceeding production.
Here's the data:
http://www.census.gov/mtis/www/mtis_current.html
There's plenty to talk about here:
If you get into this data in a serious way, and want to start breaking it
down by categories, you want the M3 reports.
--
Ed Huntress
CalifBill
Not really. The problem is very few have the money to buy an overpriced
house. My daughter lives in a beach area of Los Angeles. The houses that
are up for sale are still asking the price they were getting when the loans
were being made with no regard to ability to pay. 1938 built house with a
little remodel. $1 million bucks. People upside down, but the state pretty
much bans foreclosure at the present time, so why sell the house? Just do
not pay the mortgage.
Brother Lightfoot
My father-in law is still in the construction business--ironic that his wife
simply loves wal-mart which I suppose is a good thing because that's about
the only place she can afford to shop at these days.
I've considered pointing out to her that in all likelyhood there's virtually
nobody who's employed at the local wal-mart gonna request bids for a home
remodel let alone new construction....alas, some people are just plain
incapable.......
--
Hawke
>> But Bush did...or at least he tried with a TRILLION of your tax
>> dollars...yet to be collected.
>
> don't play your little D vs R game.
>
> Bush squandered a trillion. 0bama saw him and raised him. By a
> factor of four. Yes tax dollars. Yes, yet to be collected.
>
> Yet when 0bama squanders, it's good stuff and when Bush did it, it was
> bad stuff? Get a clue party boy.
You know it's really a shame when people like you talk about things when
you really don't have any understanding of it at all. Here you are
talking about budget deficits as if you actually are knowledgeable on
the subject. You know you are not and that what you are doing is only
repeating what you heard someone else say. That does make you look a
fool when the facts are presented and you are shown to be completely in
the dark.
You didn't see the question and answer session between the president and
the republicans did you? If you had you would have heard the president
answer the false charge about him spending the country into terrible
deficits. Obama explained exactly where the deficit came from. He said
how far in debt the country was the day he took over and how much more
debt was going to come on the books in coming years because of previous
administration's deficit spending. Suffice it to say, the accusations of
it being Obama's spending that has put the country dangerously into debt
were shown to be totally false. You would have known that if you knew
the facts about the deficit. But you don't and all you are doing is
repeating falsehoods that you probably don't even know are false. In the
future please try to learn something about the subject before you give
your opinion. Because you're nothing but a buffoon when you know jack
shit about the subject and pass on incorrect information.
Hawke
F. George McDuffee
<not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Lying liberals must have
>their own definitions of things.
===========
In any large organization [and the Federal Government is the
biggest] you get ahead by being "a team player" and telling the
boss what he wants to hear.
Second observation -- There has been no effort made to separate
the real yankee dollars from the spondulicks in the reported GDP
"increase". It remains to be seen just how much of these "gains"
were real taxable income that you can purchase things with, and
how much were ledger filling spondulicks for the pension plans.
Uhh Clem
>
> We can not borrow our way to prosperity.
>
Are you sure of that ?
--
F. George McDuffee
==========
It all depends what you do with the money and how the economy
changes. For sure if you spend what you borrow on "bling" and
other conspicuous consumption items, you will be worse off.
However if the borrowed money is invested in productive
assets/operations, it is entirely possible, albeit not "a sure
thing."
IMNSHO it is exactly on this point that the efforts at economic
stimulus and "pump priming" are going so wrong. A large part of
the projects are "bling" expense items, and many of the rest of
the programs/projects do indeed stimulate economic growth and
expansion. Unfortunately in large part, the economic sectors
stimulated and expanded [e.g. consumer goods] are for the most
part no longer located within the United States, even if the
nominally American corporate owners are still domiciled here. It
is however doing wonders for China.
What this indicates to me is that the policy makers are relying
on urban myths and legends from the 1930s [Roosevelt] and 1970s
[Reagan] rather than taking a long hard look at the real
socio-economic/real-politik conditions of the 2010s. "More of
the same only better" is not cutting it.
Uhh Clem
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:8rlem59e15n7ht183...@4ax.com...
And then along comes this one :
--
Ed Huntress
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:8rlem59e15n7ht183...@4ax.com...
>
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:11:20 -0800, "Uhh Clem"
> <yeahsure...@msnmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
>>news:9l4cm557jpe956jhe...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> We can not borrow our way to prosperity.
>>
>>Are you sure of that ?
>>
>>http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>>
>>--
> ==========
> It all depends what you do with the money and how the economy
> changes. For sure if you spend what you borrow on "bling" and
> other conspicuous consumption items, you will be worse off.
>
> However if the borrowed money is invested in productive
> assets/operations, it is entirely possible, albeit not "a sure
> thing."
It isn't what *you* or I do, George. It's what 300 million people do. And
the point is well-made by the graphs, which is that borrowing is indeed the
way we have gotten out of recessions. Based on history over the past 100
years, it's the ONLY known way out of a deep recession. The rest is
speculative theorizing, or more likely, wishful, ideological thinking.
>
> IMNSHO it is exactly on this point that the efforts at economic
> stimulus and "pump priming" are going so wrong. A large part of
> the projects are "bling" expense items, and many of the rest of
> the programs/projects do indeed stimulate economic growth and
> expansion. Unfortunately in large part, the economic sectors
> stimulated and expanded [e.g. consumer goods] are for the most
> part no longer located within the United States, even if the
> nominally American corporate owners are still domiciled here. It
> is however doing wonders for China.
There is nothing more useless than spending money on war materiel that you
drop, shoot, get shot out from under you, or leave in foreign countries, but
that's exactly what got us out of the Great Depression.
>
> What this indicates to me is that the policy makers are relying
> on urban myths and legends from the 1930s [Roosevelt] and 1970s
> [Reagan] rather than taking a long hard look at the real
> socio-economic/real-politik conditions of the 2010s. "More of
> the same only better" is not cutting it.
If you go to the Recovery.gov site, you'll see where the money is going.
It's vastly more productive than any stimulus spending we've done before,
especially during the years we ran the national debt up to 120% of GDP --
WWII. Right now it's around 83% of GDP.
Bank prime loan rates are at historical lows:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data/Annual/H15_PRIME_NA.txt
Inflation is the lowest it's been since 1949:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=5
Average personal income tax is the lowest it's been since 1956:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=139
...for an independent source, see this:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=226
The total US tax burden, including federal, state, and local taxes, is the
lowest it's been since 1967:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr165.pdf
Despite the current *un*employment rate, the percentage of the adult
population that's working -- the employment rate -- is about the same as it
was through the '70s and '80s:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
BTW, if the Supply-Siders were right, businesses would be falling all over
them selves investing and hiring right now, and the economy would be taking
off like a rocket -- if small businesses could get loans (big business can,
and is). In terms of the fundamentals they keep harping on, conditions have
never been better.
So, what's your plan, George? What's wrong with this picture?
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<yeahsure...@msnmail.com> wrote:
========
While I am skeptical of CFR pronouncements in general, the
following excerpt from the above article appears to be correct
<snip>
"We've reached a point now where there's an intimate link between
our solvency and our national security," says Richard Haass,
president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior
national-security adviser in both the first and second Bush
presidencies. "What's so discouraging is that our domestic
politics don't seem to be up to the challenge. And the whole
world is watching."
<snip>
=========
My only "improvement" to the statement would be to note the U.S.
politics have not been up to the domestic and international
challenges for at least a generation, and quite likely going all
the way back to Carter. It is only common sense that if what you
are doing has stopped working, and indeed appears to be making
things worse, it is time to try something else.
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>There is nothing more useless than spending money on war materiel that you
>drop, shoot, get shot out from under you, or leave in foreign countries, but
>that's exactly what got us out of the Great Depression.
======
I would suggest that having the only industrial infrastructure
still standing [Canada a very distant second] had a lot more to
do with it.
We will find out if this will work this time when the war with
Iran starts in the spring.
Burled Frau
"Siobhan Medeiros" <sbm...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:5f13c650-d399-466d...@o16g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 11:50 pm, "Burled Frau" <acht...@jawol.jah> wrote:
>> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:985749d4-df14-4263...@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jan 31, 12:18 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
>> > wrote:
>> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR201...
>> >> [
>> >> The U.S. economy grew at a breakneck rate of 5.7 percent at the end of
>> >> 2009, the
>> >> government said Friday, providing the strongest evidence yet that the
>> >> nation
>> >> will avoid a dip back into recession.
>> >> .....
>> >> ]
>>
>> > And proof that Obama is doing FAR BETTER than Bush ever did.
>>
>> > TMT
>>
>> Bullcrap. The economy dipped as much as it came back. His gain is zero.
>> 0bama is a big zero. You are a big zero too.
>
> Oh, it dips under Bush, and recovers under Obama, and Obama's the big
> zero. Tell me, was it logic or math you flunked in school?
Go ask your daddy if he's ready to retire now, thanks to 0bama's recovery.
Ask him if that means your mommy can quit her job now. And just for kicks,
ask him how much he's leaving you in your inheritance. How much is he
leaving Sis? Post a picture of the look on your face when he gives you his
answer.
Uhh Clem
>>
>>Are you sure of that ?
>>
>>http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>
>
I was pointing out the huge amount of deficit spending which took place
during WWII--spending which economic scholars quite often credit with
effecting an end to the great depression of the 30's
>
> Johnson/Nixon spend without taxing for Viet Nam and we had the
> Ford/Carter recession.
>
> Reagan spend without taxing and we had the Bush 1 recession complete
> with S&L collapse.
>
> Bush 2 spend without taxing for Iraq and we have the mess we are in
> now. 0bama is continuing Bush's policies and the s*** is getting
> deeper.
>
> Yup, I'm sure. It has never worked. It's just a question of which
> president gets stuck with the mess. Ain't no such thing as a free
> lunch.
--
robert bowman
> Nobody's making anything, nobody's buying anything, nobody has a job
> and whoopee, the economy is doing great. Lying liberals must have
> their own definitions of things.
Yeah, but the fundamentals are sound. The lying neo-cons or whatever the
hell the last administration was had a few odd definitions too.
John R. Carroll
> "Uhh Clem" <yeahsure...@msnmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
>> news:ij1fm59iunajapqks...@4ax.com...
>>> "Uhh Clem" <yeahsure...@msnmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> We can not borrow our way to prosperity.
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure of that ?
>>>>
>>>> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you want to see in that graph.
>>>
>>
>> I was pointing out the huge amount of deficit spending which took
>> place during WWII--spending which economic scholars quite often
>> credit with effecting an end to the great depression of the 30's
>
> domestic economy WAS put on a war time basis. The recession one would
> expect to follow was moderated by at least three things. Pent up
> demand for items that were rationed during the war created jobs, the
> return of a large competent can-do work force filled those jobs, a
> rash of marriages followed by setting up households and babies feed
> their earnings into commercial channels.
You forgot probably the most important thing.
Savings.
You couldn't spend your earnings in the wartime economy so people saved and
bought bonds.
War Bonds.
When GI Joe came marching home, America was awash in the greatest liquidity
pool the world had ever known.
--
John R. Carroll
HH&C
> Winston_Smith wrote:
> > "Uhh Clem" <yeahsurething...@msnmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Winston_Smith" <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote in message
> >>news:ij1fm59iunajapqks...@4ax.com...
> >>> "Uhh Clem" <yeahsurething...@msnmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> "Winston_Smith" <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote
>
> >>>>> We can not borrow our way to prosperity.
>
> >>>> Are you sure of that ?
>
> >>>>http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>
> >>> I'm not sure what you want to see in that graph.
>
> >> I was pointing out the huge amount of deficit spending which took
> >> place during WWII--spending which economic scholars quite often
> >> credit with effecting an end to the great depression of the 30's
>
> > Ah. That's valid. There were a couple of special conditions. The
> > domestic economy WAS put on a war time basis. The recession one would
> > expect to follow was moderated by at least three things. Pent up
> > demand for items that were rationed during the war created jobs, the
> > return of a large competent can-do work force filled those jobs, a
> > rash of marriages followed by setting up households and babies feed
> > their earnings into commercial channels.
>
> You forgot probably the most important thing.
> Savings.
> You couldn't spend your earnings in the wartime economy so people saved and
> bought bonds.
> War Bonds.
>
> When GI Joe came marching home, America was awash in the greatest liquidity
> pool the world had ever known.
Today, spending everything you have and more is somehow a virtue.
Ed Huntress
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:51:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>>There is nothing more useless than spending money on war materiel that you
>>drop, shoot, get shot out from under you, or leave in foreign countries,
>>but
>>that's exactly what got us out of the Great Depression.
> <snip>
> ======
> I would suggest that having the only industrial infrastructure
> still standing [Canada a very distant second] had a lot more to
> do with it.
So where does that leave us, George? Are you suggesting that our prosperity
depended on our trade balance? If not, what are you saying?
>
> We will find out if this will work this time when the war with
> Iran starts in the spring.
>
>
> Unka George (George McDuffee)
There's no comparison between the total war of WWII and anything we might
engage in against one country the size of Iran, or even the whole Middle
East. Hell, Bush didn't even raise taxes for Iraq. He told us not to upset
anything, and to keep spending at the mall.
The big questions are what are the implications of our having the only
intact industrial infrastructure after the war -- in light of the fact that
our infrastructure is quite intact now, as well -- and what it portends for
a way out of this deep recession.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
But Ed, our industrial infrastructure isn't either especially intact or in
place at the present time.
War, regardless the foe, isn't going to change that.
As I've been preaching for decades now, America spends a lot of money, but
taxation (for the most part) isn't strangling our growth at all.
The killer is that we get so little return for what we spend.
You could halve our defense budget tomorrow and put the money to good use
rebuilding our roads, bridges, and energy generation and distribution
infrastructure without affecting the "security" of the US negatively in any
way. It can even be argued, forcefully, that our military spending excesses
are debilitating both economically and otherwise because defense spending
vs. return looks a lot like the performance curve on a sail boat. Unless the
waterline gets longer, you need increasingly large amounts of power to
generate decreasing improvements in speed.
Health-care, as a national priority, is the same.
What the current health-care legislation doesn't do, and what our elected
officials won't, is address the dividing line where the public no longer has
any interest in providing care and where the nation is well served. Hip
implants for 70 years olds aren't something our society ought to be paying
for any more than transplants at any age. Let the private insurance industry
offer coverage and people can then chose. One choice will necessarily be
death for some.
That was the debate that didn't occur and should have. We have, as a nation,
got to decide and then fix the point we are willing to let people just die.
It's that simple.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:1d2dnUYH4ZhxqfXW...@giganews.com...
Yeah, it is, John. Until the recession, industrial output continued to
climb. Right now, as you often point out, we have a lot of unused capacity.
There's nothing wrong with our industrial capacity. If anything, we have too
much of it. So does the rest of the world, which may provide one insight
into the problem.
> War, regardless the foe, isn't going to change that.
> As I've been preaching for decades now, America spends a lot of money, but
> taxation (for the most part) isn't strangling our growth at all.
Right. But what is the implication of that? Are our taxes too low? Or are we
just stuck with the consequences of a long period in which we had growth,
but taxes were too low then? Or do taxes, as you say, have little to do with
the economy as a whole? And, if that's the case, what DOES drive the economy
up or down these days?
Right now, in a recession, increasing taxes would be a very bad move. But
when we have some growth going, the question will come up again. Personally,
I think that it makes little difference, based on the evidence, and within
the politically possible limits up or down.
>
> The killer is that we get so little return for what we spend.
> You could halve our defense budget tomorrow and put the money to good use
> rebuilding our roads, bridges, and energy generation and distribution
> infrastructure without affecting the "security" of the US negatively in
> any
> way. It can even be argued, forcefully, that our military spending
> excesses
> are debilitating both economically and otherwise because defense spending
> vs. return looks a lot like the performance curve on a sail boat. Unless
> the
> waterline gets longer, you need increasingly large amounts of power to
> generate decreasing improvements in speed.
Right. But you're talking about 20% of the budget, and cutting it in half
would save 10% of GDP and it would beg for replacement of lost jobs. And
they would have to be replaced by the private sector, which is doing squat
to increase employment these days.
So I agree that we're not getting much for at least 10% of our spending. But
freeing up that 10% isn't going to have a lot of net positive effect,
because the jobs problem will counter any gain. If there were waiting jobs
in energy and other elements of infrastructure, it would be one thing. But
there aren't many of them, even though we're trying right now, with
painfully slow effect, to pump them up with government spending.
>
> Health-care, as a national priority, is the same.
> What the current health-care legislation doesn't do, and what our elected
> officials won't, is address the dividing line where the public no longer
> has
> any interest in providing care and where the nation is well served. Hip
> implants for 70 years olds aren't something our society ought to be paying
> for any more than transplants at any age. Let the private insurance
> industry
> offer coverage and people can then chose. One choice will necessarily be
> death for some.
>
> That was the debate that didn't occur and should have. We have, as a
> nation,
> got to decide and then fix the point we are willing to let people just
> die.
> It's that simple.
That debate isn't going to happen. Next issue?
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
Earnings growth and real wage increases.
Primarily the latter.
Partner government with the private sector and get going on the following:
1) 100 new, modern nuclear electrical generating facilities.
2) 100 new solar and wind powered electrical generating facilities.
3) An energy grid to distribute that power both regionally and locally.
4) A three dollar per gallon phased tax on gasoline pumped into passenger
vehicles.
5) Upgrade the countries Interstate HWY system and repair or replace every
defective under and overpass/bridge and tunnel.
6) Real reform of the banking and financial system. Shut down or break up
the 10 largest by having them value their assets at the current market and
declaring them insolvent. You'd need a resolution authority to do that.
7) Basic health care on a universal basis with more comprehensive coverage
through private coverage.
>
> Right now, in a recession, increasing taxes would be a very bad move.
Increasing taxes is nuts. We need to increase revenue by increasing the
earnings pool that the taxes come from.
That is going to take investment.
> But when we have some growth going, the question will come up again.
> Personally, I think that it makes little difference, based on the
> evidence, and within the politically possible limits up or down.
>
>>
>> The killer is that we get so little return for what we spend.
>> You could halve our defense budget tomorrow and put the money to
>> good use rebuilding our roads, bridges, and energy generation and
>> distribution infrastructure without affecting the "security" of the
>> US negatively in any
>> way. It can even be argued, forcefully, that our military spending
>> excesses
>> are debilitating both economically and otherwise because defense
>> spending vs. return looks a lot like the performance curve on a sail
>> boat. Unless the
>> waterline gets longer, you need increasingly large amounts of power
>> to generate decreasing improvements in speed.
>
> Right. But you're talking about 20% of the budget, and cutting it in
> half would save 10% of GDP and it would beg for replacement of lost
> jobs. And they would have to be replaced by the private sector, which
> is doing squat to increase employment these days.
I didn't say we ought not spend the money Ed.
What we ought to do is invest it in our transportation and energy
infrastructure. We need to be a little Chinese.
That would create the millions of jobs we need and they wouldn't be $8 per
hour service sector crap.
>> Health-care, as a national priority, is the same.
>> What the current health-care legislation doesn't do, and what our
>> elected officials won't, is address the dividing line where the
>> public no longer has
>> any interest in providing care and where the nation is well served.
>> Hip implants for 70 years olds aren't something our society ought to
>> be paying for any more than transplants at any age. Let the private
>> insurance industry
>> offer coverage and people can then chose. One choice will
>> necessarily be death for some.
>>
>> That was the debate that didn't occur and should have. We have, as a
>> nation,
>> got to decide and then fix the point we are willing to let people
>> just die.
>> It's that simple.
>
> That debate isn't going to happen. Next issue?
Sure it is Ed.
It's going to have to happen, even if it take on the complexion of
restructuring in bankruptcy.
That is where health care has us all headed.
--
John R. Carroll
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> I would suggest that having the only industrial infrastructure
>> still standing [Canada a very distant second] had a lot more to
>> do with it.
>
>So where does that leave us, George? Are you suggesting that our prosperity
>depended on our trade balance? If not, what are you saying?
==========
Qua waging war for prosperity, Pat Buchanan says it better than I
can.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100202/cm_uc_crpbux/op_3312819
As far as the positive current accounts trade balance goes, it is
a necessary but not sufficient condition for domestic/internal
long-term growth and prosperity. It should be obvious that the
wages paid, the processes engineered, the products developed, the
infrastructure created/maintained, etc. used to produce imported
goods are not contributing to domestic U.S. economic development,
even if selected transnational corporations and individuals are
becoming richer than Midas in the process.
Ed Huntress
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:02:00 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>>> I would suggest that having the only industrial infrastructure
>>> still standing [Canada a very distant second] had a lot more to
>>> do with it.
>>
>>So where does that leave us, George? Are you suggesting that our
>>prosperity
>>depended on our trade balance? If not, what are you saying?
> <snip>
> ==========
> Qua waging war for prosperity, Pat Buchanan says it better than I
> can.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100202/cm_uc_crpbux/op_3312819
An interesting argument, and one that many of us agree with instinctively,
but largely irrelevent. "Guarding" the Pacific costs us around $42
billion/year -- 14% of our defense budget, which is 20% of our total budget.
So Pat is talking about 2.8% of our budget. Meantime, the state of the
economy is driving our budget through the roof. On a list of 10 worthwhile
things to do, this comes in at around number 12. <g> Next idea? Anything
that fits into the top 10?
>
>
> As far as the positive current accounts trade balance goes, it is
> a necessary but not sufficient condition for domestic/internal
> long-term growth and prosperity.
And how would you propose to achieve a positive current accounts balance?
> It should be obvious that the
> wages paid, the processes engineered, the products developed, the
> infrastructure created/maintained, etc. used to produce imported
> goods are not contributing to domestic U.S. economic development,
> even if selected transnational corporations and individuals are
> becoming richer than Midas in the process.
Regardless, how would you achieve it?
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> "Uhh Clem" <yeahsure...@msnmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
>>news:ij1fm59iunajapqks...@4ax.com...
>>> "Uhh Clem" <yeahsure...@msnmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> We can not borrow our way to prosperity.
>>>>
>>>>Are you sure of that ?
>>>>
>>>>http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you want to see in that graph.
>>>
>>
>>I was pointing out the huge amount of deficit spending which took place
>>during WWII--spending which economic scholars quite often credit with
>>effecting an end to the great depression of the 30's
>
> domestic economy WAS put on a war time basis.
(Wage and price controls; rationing; "War Bonds" sales to soak up newly
available cash, which was the result of extreme deficit spending and the
resulting employment, causing a drop in unemployment from 14.7% to 1.2%; a
personal savings rate that climbed from -0.9% before the war to 25%+ during
the war...all by law or by government encouragement, with the express
purpose of controlling inflation during the war.)
> The recession one would
> expect to follow was moderated by at least three things. Pent up
> demand for items that were rationed during the war created jobs....
The "pent-up demand" was there before the war. In fact, during the war, real
final sales of domestic product (actual consumer consumption) more than
doubled:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FINSLCA?cid=106 (use the "edit"
button to show the years you want)
Any demand felt after the war was a continuation of the underconsumption
during the Depression, and the fulfillment of it was made possible by the
very large increase in incomes and savings, which in turn were the result of
deficit spending.
> ..., the
> return of a large competent can-do work force filled those jobs...
They were the same work force that was there before the war -- actually,
around 418,000 fewer, who were the ones who didn't return.
> ..., a
> rash of marriages followed by setting up households and babies feed
> their earnings into commercial channels.
The point is, they only HAD earnings to "feed into commercial channels"
because of the enormous stimulus that created jobs during the war, plus the
savings the wage-earners accumulated.
>
> WW2 was a huge war and thankfully not repeated since. We have had
> "guns and butter" politicians since then and "small" wars without
> resolution and no surge in production to absorb the returning
> soldiers.
We didn't need one. Except for Vietnam, there weren't that many soldiers
returning. They were a tiny blip on the employment figures.
>
>>> Johnson/Nixon spend without taxing for Viet Nam and we had the
>>> Ford/Carter recession.
>>>
>>> Reagan spend without taxing and we had the Bush 1 recession complete
>>> with S&L collapse.
>>>
>>> Bush 2 spend without taxing for Iraq and we have the mess we are in
>>> now. 0bama is continuing Bush's policies and the s*** is getting
>>> deeper.
>>>
>>> Yup, I'm sure. It has never worked. It's just a question of which
>>> president gets stuck with the mess. Ain't no such thing as a free
>>> lunch.
True enough, but WWII didn't have very much taxing to pay for it, either,
until after the war. It was paid for with debt -- astronomical amounts of
it, which would be equivalent, as a percentage of GDP, to $10 Trillion
today.
You're nibbling around the edges, Winston. The only really significant thing
that happened during WWII, economically, is vast amounts of government
spending and deficits to stimulate the economy -- many times more than the
amount we're currently spending.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>And how would you propose to achieve a positive current accounts balance?
>
>> It should be obvious that the
>> wages paid, the processes engineered, the products developed, the
>> infrastructure created/maintained, etc. used to produce imported
>> goods are not contributing to domestic U.S. economic development,
>> even if selected transnational corporations and individuals are
>> becoming richer than Midas in the process.
>
>Regardless, how would you achieve it?
=========
The reversal of a 50 year trend will not be easy, quick or cheap,
but I think it can be done. This is a variation of carbon "cap
and trade."
What I suggest is the creation of a "trade" unit that could be
called the "Eagle." When you export something, you earn "eagles"
equal to the declared value of the export. When you import
something, you must pay the declared value of the import in
"eagles" to the U.S. Treasury in addition to the value of the
goods in dollars to your supplier. Where do you get the "eagles"
if you are an importer? You either export or buy them from the
exporters.
Because of the huge current trade imbalances this would have to
be phased in by crediting the exporters with multiple "eagles"
for each dollar of exports. Over 12 years the export eagle
multiplier can be reduced to 1. This will gradually make the
eagles worth more in terms of dollars. In turn this will make
exports cheaper and imports more expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
Imports $1.570 trillion c.i.f. (2009)
Exports $1.035 trillion f.o.b. (2009)
===============================
$0.535 trillion deficit
or about $1.52 in imports for every $1.00 of exports.
One possible schedule for the "eagle" export multiplier would be
2011 1.55 eagles for each dollar exported
2012 1.50
2013 1.45
2014 1.40
2015 1.35
2016 1.30
2017 1.25
2018 1.20
2019 1.15
2019 1.10
2020 1.05
2021 1.00
It may be necessary/desirable to reduce the eagle multiplier to
less than one to insure a trade surplus to begin to pay off the
huge trade debt we have accumulated.
So it can be done, but it is most unlikely to be done as too many
powerful people/companies are profiting from the current
situation.
Ed Huntress
So, it's a tariff and export-subsidy combination. Yike. That would mean we'd
have to leave the WTO, or we'd be fined many, many billions of dollars. That
would provoke a worldwide regime of tariffs and subsidies, and we'd be right
back where the world was in 1933, with trade pretty much dried up all over.
Are you ready for that? (BTW, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, only
to point out that anyone who thinks there is a simple solution -- and I'm
not referring to you -- just doesn't understand the situation.)
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
>> You forgot probably the most important thing.
>> Savings.
>> You couldn't spend your earnings in the wartime economy so people saved and
>> bought bonds.
>> War Bonds.
>>
>> When GI Joe came marching home, America was awash in the greatest liquidity
>> pool the world had ever known.
>
> Today, spending everything you have and more is somehow a virtue.
What do you mean today? You know that the national debt is some 12
trillion? You know that Obama's first budget is something like 1.2
trillion in deficit? So the other trillions were rung up before he got
the job. Most all of that debt was rung up by republican presidents. So
quit pretending that Obama is somehow responsible for our financial
troubles. They were already there when he took office. But I understand
that you don't want to blame republicans for over spending even though
Reagan and the two Bush presidents are to blame for nearly all the debt.
Hawke
Cliff
>Cliff wrote:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901694.html?hpid=moreheadlines
>> [
>> The U.S. economy grew at a breakneck rate of 5.7 percent at the end of 2009, the
>> government said Friday, providing the strongest evidence yet that the nation
>> will avoid a dip back into recession.
>> .....
>> ]
>
>OR DID IT?
>Evidence is now coming out that it is a BIG FUCKING LIE.
And we all know that wingers lie & that you are a winger.
Hence it MUST be true, right?
QED
--
Cliff
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
Sorry, John. I was chewing on this one for so long that I almost forgot it.
<g>
As for your list of good things to do, it's a great wish-list, but I'm at a
loss to figure out the numbers. And the numbers count. If they work out,
they're great projects.
Regarding the debate over who dies, when hell freezes over. That doesn't
mean it won't be necessary. It does mean that it won't happen in our
lifetimes. We can deny and repress any "necessity" for it long beyond the
time it's tearing up our economy. We'll notice it, and face it, just about
the time the last Ford plant closes its doors for good.
Meanwhile, it will happen without our acknowledging it. In fact, it's
happening right now, because insurance companies are dictating the terms of
covered care. It's not a straightforward thing, but there are elements of
efficacy and expected outcomes in every decision they make. Ultimately, it
determines what kind of end-of-life care we get. But they don't talk about
it.
(So what do 100 nuke plants cost?)
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:dsKdnexl1cLU3vXW...@giganews.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>> news:1d2dnUYH4ZhxqfXW...@giganews.com...
>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> "F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in
>>>>> message news:1evem556i8ojcr2dn...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:51:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>>>>>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>> Primarily the latter.
>> Partner government with the private sector and get going on the
>> following:
>>
>> 1) 100 new, modern nuclear electrical generating facilities.
>> 2) 100 new solar and wind powered electrical generating facilities.
>> 3) An energy grid to distribute that power both regionally and
>> locally.
>> 4) A three dollar per gallon phased tax on gasoline pumped
>> into passenger vehicles.
>> 5) Upgrade the countries Interstate HWY system and repair or replace
>> every defective under and overpass/bridge and tunnel.
>> 6) Real reform of the banking and financial system. Shut down or
>> break up the 10 largest by having them value their assets at the
>> current market and declaring them insolvent. You'd need a resolution
>> authority to do that. 7) Basic health care on a universal basis with
>> more comprehensive coverage through private coverage.
>>
>
> I'm at a loss to figure out the numbers. And the numbers count. If
> they work out, they're great projects.
I've got my own estimates, by project, and can provide references to
sources.
The total investment would be about eleven trillion dollars over ten years.
Two trillion or so would be needed to get started but it would be a self
licking ice cream cone beyond that.
Two trillion isn't peanuts but it also isn't back breaking to an economy
that's now pushing fourteen and the resultant increase in tax revenues over
a single generation would more than make up for the debt and debt service.
That's how investments work you know.
>
> Regarding the debate over who dies, when hell freezes over. That
> doesn't mean it won't be necessary. It does mean that it won't happen
> in our lifetimes. We can deny and repress any "necessity" for it long
> beyond the time it's tearing up our economy. We'll notice it, and
> face it, just about the time the last Ford plant closes its doors for
> good.
There is an alternative. You can frame the issue as a "small government"
solution to BASIC health-care that can be supplimented with private
coverage. Start right off with an outline of what that means. One of the
things that derailed what's before Congress now is the scope of what's
covered. That, in my opinion, is where the Obama administration and the
Congress blew it. They let their opposition frame the debate.
>
> (So what do 100 nuke plants cost?)
Nothing from the public sector.
Can you figure out why that is?
--
John R. Carroll
Brother Lightfoot
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b6895fa$0$31283$607e...@cv.net...
The entire European Union is already fucking over US exporters bigtime in
exactly the manner he is describing above--it's called VAT....it's more or
less waived *but* only if you happen to belong to a member state and so it's
a very real trade barrier to US exporters--now add exorbitant ( though only
randomly applied, kinda hit or miss ) customs charges and then also take
into consideration typical parcel services that can best be described as
dysfunctional and so it might take a month or two....
PS: Cheaper to ship US goods bulk straight into China and just let some
Chinese dude make himself a buck re-packaging because he can then ship US
goods all over Europe and gawd knows where-else for insanely cheap ( chinese
subsidized ) postage rates AND since they're a "trading partner" to the EU
the packages seem to basically slide through customs un noticed and without
any further charges or delay...
Oh and we also routinely ship to the russion federation--high shipping
charges aside, ( the US post office has somehow "partnered" with FED EX )
what they like to do in th eeastern bloc is order ( $340.00 US limit ) every
six months or so, so they have you split the order...be prepared to send a
package worth $339.00 to the mother-in-law, her cousin, his neighbor, her
brother his father the fucking list goes on and on.
--
Brother Lightfoot
"Brother Lightfoot" <no...@mothmail.com> wrote in message
news:nJadnbtFtIRyOfLW...@scnresearch.com...
Oh and if I had a dollar for every time I been asked "can you mark it as a
gift or as a sample having zero value" ?
Well I spose I could but if it gets lost then your out whatever you paid
because if I declare zero on the loss form then that's exactly what the
insurer is going to pay....It's like they're fucking BEGGING me to to take
their money and then 'lose' the package myself--before it even gets logged
at the local post..
--
Brother Lightfoot
"Brother Lightfoot" <no...@mothmail.com> wrote in message
news:nJadnbtFtIRyOfLW...@scnresearch.com...
>
We had one hung up in Portugal for about 2 months just recently...this
actually was 'review samples'...the individual writes reviews for several
international colored glossy mostly latin american rags you know its one
thing sending out free samples it's good advertising but Portugal needed
their cut I guess. Hung up for a month no explanation then we finally find
they are awaiting payment customs and 'processing fees'
Finally he paid the customs charge and picked up his 'free samples'..
Its like WTF can't even give something away gratis to Portugal even when
everything's on the up-and-up the gov there wants a cash handout in
addition...
--
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
I'm going to assume you have some scheme for private investment. To do that
would require huge government guarantees -- no one in his right mind is
going to make a big investment in nukes without huge doses of
government-supplied moral hazard. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
"huge doses of government-supplied moral hazard" used to be known as tax
free muni's Ed.
There isn't any reason not to do this on a national scale after reregulating
the utilities.
The federal tax on petroleum based fuel would drive the energy and vehicle
industry.
There are enough better things to do with oil that it makes perfect sense to
eliminate sectors that would be better served with alternatives.
One other thing I'd do is bring back the law requiring imitation food to be
labeled imitation food.
We have gotten way to caught up in the practice of chemical/nutrient
analysis.
Truth has become "truthy" and nutrition ans become "nutritiony".
The poultry industry now feeds flax seed to chickens to get egg yolks with
more "good" cholesterol in it for Christs sake.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"Brother Lightfoot" <no...@mothmail.com> wrote in message
news:nJadnbtFtIRyOfLW...@scnresearch.com...
>
VATs themselves are not a barrier to trade. The tax is charged to both
domestic manufacturers and importers.
Think about what you're saying about it being "waived" for member states. If
a country charges a VAT on its domestic manufactures, but waives the tax for
what you call "member states," they'd be giving a huge advantage to foreign
manufacturers over their domestic manufacturers.
That doesn't happen, for obvious reasons. The issue with VATs is that, in
theory, they substitute in part for some other tax that the countries would
otherwise charge to their domestic manufacturers. In practice, however, the
US consistently has the lowest or second-lowest overall tax structure in the
OECD. Our nominal corporate taxes are high, but the actual tax rates are,
again, very low. So, in the end, VATs are not the real issue.
The real problems for US manufacturers in terms of their cost structure are
health care and pensions. Those costs are distributed throughout society in
most countries. In the US, manufacturers pay an unusually high percentage of
both.
Also, in practice, US tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade are about the
same as those of European countries. There are large differences on a
product-by-product basis, but not overall. We're much more restrictive than
some would have you believe.
>
> PS: Cheaper to ship US goods bulk straight into China and just let some
> Chinese dude make himself a buck re-packaging because he can then ship US
> goods all over Europe and gawd knows where-else for insanely cheap (
> chinese
> subsidized ) postage rates AND since they're a "trading partner" to the EU
> the packages seem to basically slide through customs un noticed and
> without
> any further charges or delay...
I don't know where you got that. There's very little resale of US-made
goods, as I recall from trade figures I was studying a few years ago. Where
did you get this information?
>
> Oh and we also routinely ship to the russion federation--high shipping
> charges aside, ( the US post office has somehow "partnered" with FED EX )
> what they like to do in th eeastern bloc is order ( $340.00 US limit )
> every
> six months or so, so they have you split the order...be prepared to send a
> package worth $339.00 to the mother-in-law, her cousin, his neighbor, her
> brother his father the fucking list goes on and on.
If you're shipping goods by USPS or FedEx, your numbers are too small to
count.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
John, I sense that you're going to be getting into a nutrition conversation
here with PV. I'll watch from a distance. d8-)
As for using tax-free municipal bonds to finance a couple of hundred billion
dollars worth of utilities, that's out of my realm. I don't think about
those things, so I'll have to just nod my head.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:JdCdncGpZYEXqe3W...@giganews.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>> news:VYudnam3QLH1DfLW...@giganews.com...
>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>>>> news:dsKdnexl1cLU3vXW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:1d2dnUYH4ZhxqfXW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote
>>>>>>>>> in message news:1evem556i8ojcr2dn...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:51:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>>>>>>>>>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>
>> food to be
>> labeled imitation food.
>> We have gotten way to caught up in the practice of chemical/nutrient
>> analysis.
>> Truth has become "truthy" and nutrition ans become "nutritiony".
>> The poultry industry now feeds flax seed to chickens to get egg
>> yolks with more "good" cholesterol in it for Christs sake.
>
> John, I sense that you're going to be getting into a nutrition
> conversation here with PV. I'll watch from a distance. d8-)
LOL
I'm spending my off hours with people that won't eat beef or pork because
it's "BAD" for you.
No salt either - none. Everything purchased is salt and fat free.
Years of that regimen have lead to a stroke in a sixty year old and a quad
bypass in a 49 year old as well as insulin injections.
I'm eating 3600 calories or more every day of real food with whatever salt
it takes to suit my taste. Yeah, I'm one of those that salts before tasting.
I stopped smoking and eating at the same time though. That was my consession
to eating healthy.
LOL
>
> As for using tax-free municipal bonds to finance a couple of hundred
> billion dollars worth of utilities, that's out of my realm. I don't
> think about those things, so I'll have to just nod my head.
We need a trillion dollars of investment in production alone Ed and another
trillion in ditribution delivery systems.
Converting the passenger fleet to electric or fuel cells will require a lot
of refueling capability that doesn't now exist if you want to do it right.
The question, in my mind, isn't why to do this, it's why not.
The investment is large. The number of jobs created is equally large. The
tax reciepts those jobs generate is sizable. All of it leads to a result
that lasts long after it's built, unlike the Bush era send them a check, or
invade the world programs.
I'm still tryimg to figure out the value, short term or long, our incredible
investment in Iraq has, or will, yield.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
In principle, I agree with all of that. Having been burned in the past by
drawing conclusions about things I know only superficially, however, I can't
say with any certainty what would work or not in this realm of
energy-related economics.
For example, if you build a high percentage of your base generating capacity
on nuclear fission, you don't need a national grid, or any kind of "smart"
grid. Nukes are somewhere in the middle, in terms of potential locations,
between gas plants and massive wind farms, and they have constant output.
If you try to get more than 10% or 15% of your electricity from wind and
solar, you probably do need a national grid. And implementing one is likely
to be the slowest component of a reformed electrical system. The political
battles will kill you. We can't even get a power line through NJ to connect
the Susquehanna nuke in PA to the NY grid at Newark. Something like 90
communities have a say in where it goes.
So principle, yes, possibilities -- I'd have to see. It's easy to say that
this is what we have to do. It's much harder to say how we can do it, in
terms of politics as well as money.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:FZydnSR_a_sYoO3W...@giganews.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>> news:JdCdncGpZYEXqe3W...@giganews.com...
>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>>>> news:VYudnam3QLH1DfLW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:dsKdnexl1cLU3vXW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:1d2dnUYH4ZhxqfXW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:1evem556i8ojcr2dn...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:51:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>
> that this is what we have to do. It's much harder to say how we can
> do it, in terms of politics as well as money.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
Gosh. A $189.00 book, and only five left! <g>
If I need another topic, I'll look into it. Meantime, it looks like a
subject just as big as the one I'm working on, and more difficult because
it's moving faster.
Can you tell us the Reader's Digest version? d8-)
For the record, here's the kind of junk that starts populating my mind when
we start talking about a subject like this. You mention all-electric cars;
my question is, with lithium-ion batteries? Maybe. Maybe not. And fuel
cells -- they've been working on them for over 40 years. When are they going
to make one that someone could actually buy?
And grids. Across whose back yard? Especially when they start running
100,000 Volts.
And so on. Timing, resources, development time...if you're going to tackle a
subject like that, you have to be ready to pour on everything you have,
because the subject wants to scatter your brains all over the place. And if
you DON'T get on top of it all, you write useless crap. Which I refuse to
do.
So, it's too much for me to take that one on. But it's very interesting, and
important.
--
Ed Huntress
pyotr filipivich
<hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> reported Elvis on Mon, 1 Feb 2010
20:11:50 -0800 (PST) in misc.survivalism:
>
>>
>> You forgot probably the most important thing.
>> Savings.
>> You couldn't spend your earnings in the wartime economy so people saved and
>> bought bonds.
>> War Bonds.
>>
>> When GI Joe came marching home, America was awash in the greatest liquidity
>> pool the world had ever known.
>
>Today, spending everything you have and more is somehow a virtue.
Still is in some parts of the country. And it has always been
thus. Thomas Jefferson, coming from Virginia, saw nothing wrong in
living the lifestyle to which he was accustomed, even if it mean
piling up debt to do so. (Tom was a bit odd in that regard - he kept
meticulous and comprehensive records of his finances, but never seemed
to have totaled the columns up to see if he was making more money than
he spent. Or maybe he knew, but as long as he didn't tally everything
up, he could ignore that minor detail.)
His friend, John Addams of Quincy Mass, was quite proud of the
fact that he owned no one more than wages, for what happened on his
farm, and to furnish his dwellings where ever his travels took him. He
lived within his means.
And there is debt and there is debt. A mortgage is one thing, a
credit card bill another.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
F. George McDuffee
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>There is an alternative. You can frame the issue as a "small government"
>solution to BASIC health-care that can be supplimented with private
>coverage. Start right off with an outline of what that means. One of the
>things that derailed what's before Congress now is the scope of what's
>covered. That, in my opinion, is where the Obama administration and the
>Congress blew it. They let their opposition frame the debate.
=======
IMNSHO Obama and company grossly underestimated their opposition.
They were used to dealing with the Al Capone and Daley types, and
ignored the fact that their opposition were the people the cappos
and dons were paying protection money, and increasingly
reporting, to.
Obamma's fatal error was not accumulating files on the probable
opposition individuals and corporations detailing their tax
evasions, embezelments, wrongful conversions, frauds,
perversions, sexual harrasments, drug usage, gambling, assets,
etc. *BEFORE* attempting any revision in health care (or
financial re-regulation for that matter).
A series of short videos, even if just on Utube, showing the
multi-million dollar estates and fleets of luxuary cars owned by
the opposition, ALL PAID FOR WITH YOUR HEALTHCARE DOLLARS, just
before starting work on healthcare would have gone a long way
toward eliminating their hypocritical and hysterical opposition.
Louis Ohland
appointees. Tax issues, admiration for Mao, communists, safe school
czar, etc.
What of Utube vids with stuff bought with OUR tax dollars?
Lastly, is this advocating a police state? How are these files to be
"accumulated"? Has anyone considered trying constitutional powers
instead of arbitrary powers?
F. George McDuffee
<ohl...@charter.net> wrote:
{top post converted to bottom post]
==========
>
>> Obamma's fatal error was not accumulating files on the probable
>> opposition individuals and corporations detailing their tax
>> evasions, embezelments, wrongful conversions, frauds,
>> perversions, sexual harrasments, drug usage, gambling, assets,
>> etc. *BEFORE* attempting any revision in health care (or
>> financial re-regulation for that matter).
>>
>> A series of short videos, even if just on Utube, showing the
>> multi-million dollar estates and fleets of luxuary cars owned by
>> the opposition, ALL PAID FOR WITH YOUR HEALTHCARE DOLLARS, just
>> before starting work on healthcare would have gone a long way
>> toward eliminating their hypocritical and hysterical opposition.
>First, this sounds more like what should have happened to the
>appointees. Tax issues, admiration for Mao, communists, safe school
>czar, etc.
========
>
>What of Utube vids with stuff bought with OUR tax dollars?
>
>Lastly, is this advocating a police state? How are these files to be
>"accumulated"? Has anyone considered trying constitutional powers
>instead of arbitrary powers?
=========
Like the neocons are fond of observing, if you don't have
anything to hide, you won't mind the government looking over your
shoulder.... What goes around, comes around.
Louis Ohland
> {top post converted to bottom post]
Pardon me, but is this a country with a rule of law, or one of the rule
of men? At least you give the shadowy "neocons" the praise of saying if
you have nothing to hide... while there are folks that want the nanny
state intruding into what was your private life.... smoking, trans fats,
SUVs, politically correct speech, correct politicians...
In your utopia, there is no room for dissent. No room to question the
proper role of government (which leads to levels of taxation and
regulation).
The salvation of those in the former Soviet Union were bad laws poorly
enforced. My hope is for as much snow in DC as possible.
F. George McDuffee
<ohl...@charter.net> wrote:
>[Bottom post converted to top post]
>> {top post converted to bottom post]
>
>Pardon me, but is this a country with a rule of law, or one of the rule
>of men? At least you give the shadowy "neocons" the praise of saying if
>you have nothing to hide... while there are folks that want the nanny
>state intruding into what was your private life.... smoking, trans fats,
>SUVs, politically correct speech, correct politicians...
You are generation (or more) behind the times. What you and I
(and everyone else on these NGs] would like it to be, means
nothing. It is what it is. This dates all the way back to at
least LBJ and J(ane). Edgar Hoover. See CoinTelPro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_%28software%29
The only questions are "who is to use the information" and for
what/whose ends.
>
>In your utopia, there is no room for dissent. No room to question the
>proper role of government (which leads to levels of taxation and
>regulation).
I had nothing to do with the construction and/or operation of
Utopia.
>
>The salvation of those in the former Soviet Union were bad laws poorly
>enforced. My hope is for as much snow in DC as possible.
If there is anything Washing D.C. is good at, its snowjobs. They
don't handle frozen precipitation too well though.
>
>> Like the neocons are fond of observing, if you don't have
>> anything to hide, you won't mind the government looking over your
>> shoulder.... What goes around, comes around.
=======
Before we get all hot and bothered about the violation of the
health care providers' and their managements' civil rights and
right to privacy, it would be well to remember these are the same
corporations, that at the direction of their management, search
their insured complete medical history to try to establish [or
fabricate] a "pre-existing condition" in order to deny liability
and possibly void coverage, even when the treatment/incident
occurred 20 or 30 years earlier and was long forgotten by the
insured. Such medical record searches apparently are only
conducted after a claim is made, thus until you need your
insurance, it is acceptable to keep paying your premium. Thus
this is mainly a question of whose ox is getting the horn.
You may enjoy this example of how the real world works.
http://www.sacbee.com/989/story/2527328.html
<snip>
Prosecutors contend that while he was chairman of the county
Board of Supervisors in 2006, Postmus agreed to accept $100,000
from Colonies Partners, L.P.,
The partnership had sued the county in 2002 over county easements
for a flood-control basin in Upland. In November 2006, Postmus
joined a 3-2 majority of supervisors to approve settling with
Colonies for $102 million, even though the county counsel and
other attorneys recommended against it.
Erwin is accused of funneling the bribe to Postmus through a
political action committee called the "Committee for Effective
Government" and of creating and threatening to send out political
mailers depicting Postmus as a drug addict and a homosexual to
blackmail him into the vote. {called a carrot and a stick}
<snip>
Louis Ohland
certainly wouldn't want to get in their way. Are you waiting for the
black helicopters to start making low passes overhead?
After you screw the insurance industry and the healthcare industry, then
who will provide healthcare to you? The government is not worried about
making a profit, so if their responsiveness sucks, do you think the
government worker will really give a sh*t if you get the short end of
the stick?
Where is tort reform? Lawyers are making a lot of money....
John R. Carroll
They sure are, just not on medical malpractice litigation.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
I don't have a crystal ball.
There are, however, several clear trends that are increasingly obvious
though.
One that you have probably noticed is the shift in emphasis away from
personal transportation.
Kids today, for example, are far less concerned about squiring themselves
around. Increasing numbers of teenagers and young adults aren't bothering to
obtain a driving license until doing so can't be avoided. Personal
transportation is an expense they avoid and an annoying use of capital once
they can't. Purchases are based almost exclusively on functional value
blended with the desire to minimize any outlay of capital. This, for
American's, represents a fundamental cultural shift. We are maturing as a
society and our economy reflects this.
Government has always lead the way into the future, not just in America, but
the world. Silicon Valley was built by entrepreneurs but they leveraged
technology that flowed from the investments made in basic research funded or
encouraged by Uncle Sam that was leveraged by the private sector. Cisco, for
instance, is the result of the transfer of intellectual property from the
public to private sector.
>
> For the record, here's the kind of junk that starts populating my
> mind when we start talking about a subject like this. You mention
> all-electric cars; my question is, with lithium-ion batteries? Maybe.
> Maybe not. And fuel cells -- they've been working on them for over 40
> years. When are they going to make one that someone could actually
> buy?
You could buy a vehicle powered by hydrogen fuel cell technology today.
Ford has been running a small fleet for several years now, for example. What
is lacking is an application of national will.
Tom Friedman wrote an interesting piece about his experience at Davos this
year. Did you see it?
The buzz surrounded what he mislabeled a lack of stability in American
governance.
The rest of the world is noticing that America, the country, isn't setting a
course into the future through policy because the politics can't be gotten
right.
That single observation might be the most meaningful insight into what
troubles America today.
The boom and bust cycles that define the American experience have ordinarily
left behind something tangible after the bust out.
This is why, in my mind at least, the asset bubble that is in the process of
dragging the world down is so significant, especially here in the United
States. At the expense of the largest transfer of wealth in the history of
the world there isn't anything tangible standing now that the heat has
evaporated. The value add was zero, even negative here in the United States.
>
> And grids. Across whose back yard? Especially when they start running
> 100,000 Volts.
>
> And so on. Timing, resources, development time...if you're going to
> tackle a subject like that, you have to be ready to pour on
> everything you have, because the subject wants to scatter your brains
> all over the place.
All engineering problems Ed and they are imminently solvable.
The path from point A to point B needn't be known in advance beyond certain
rudimentary fundamentals.
Knowing that path is far less important that the decision to make the
journey.
Where the will wants not, a way opens.
It's always has and will be so.
>And if you DON'T get on top of it all, you write
> useless crap. Which I refuse to do.
I am not so afflicted Ed <G>
Obviously.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 20:16:07 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>> There is an alternative. You can frame the issue as a "small
>> government" solution to BASIC health-care that can be supplimented
>> with private coverage. Start right off with an outline of what that
>> means. One of the things that derailed what's before Congress now is
>> the scope of what's covered. That, in my opinion, is where the Obama
>> administration and the Congress blew it. They let their opposition
>> frame the debate.
> =======
> IMNSHO Obama and company grossly underestimated their opposition.
From all appearances, the made no estimate at all.
One mistake the Obama administration has demonstrated repeatedly is the
willingness, or belief, that Congress can be tasked to do anything without
leadership from the executive.
Dave Obey wrote the stimulus bill.
Reid and Pelosi did health-care.
You can't have 535 people writing your vision of the future into legislation
and expect anything but a cluster fuck.
>
> Obamma's fatal error was not accumulating files on the probable
> opposition individuals and corporations detailing their tax
> evasions, embezelments, wrongful conversions, frauds,
> perversions, sexual harrasments, drug usage, gambling, assets,
> etc. *BEFORE* attempting any revision in health care (or
> financial re-regulation for that matter).
Obama hasn't made his fatal error - yet.
I think he's smart enough to regroup and demonstrate the sort of effective
leadership that's not been much in evidence so far.
Time will tell but we saw a clue to this when Reid pared the upcoming jobs
bill to exclude all of the crap that had nothing to do with jobs.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
Yeah. I'm a skeptic about command economies, even hybrids like Japan 30
years ago, or China now.
If the world wants a consensus and a direction from the US, they're going to
have to look elsewhere. We don't do consensus, except in all-out war. We do
chaos very well, however. But that's another story.
> The buzz surrounded what he mislabeled a lack of stability in American
> governance.
> The rest of the world is noticing that America, the country, isn't setting
> a
> course into the future through policy because the politics can't be gotten
> right.
>
> That single observation might be the most meaningful insight into what
> troubles America today.
As I said, if the world wants someone to set a course right now, they're
looking in the wrong place. Any kind of planning or consensus that would
deal rationally with our current problems, particularly financial ones, is
not going to happen in our current political environment.
I think we just got the final word on that, although there is still time and
room for things to change. But the basic problem is that rational solutions
to current problems are anethema to conservative thinking, and to the
Washington Consensus of economics. These are complicated problems and those
countries that are ruled by technocrats, like China, are, in the short term
at least, going to be able to make the big plans and the big moves that a
popular democracy -- like our -- cannot. Those are big-government solutions.
We have too much resistance to government for us to accomplish anything that
would require that kind of direction or shared effort.
We'll muddle through. When the pain becomes extreme, we'll get together and
do some necessary things. When the facts, like energy shortages, become too
big and too obvious to ignore, there will be a market for a solution. It
will come late in the game. That's how we work. Eventually, a cultural
change sweeps over the country and the narrative, which is up for grabs
right now, will settle down into something that allows us to respond
rationally to real problems. Then we'll revise history to sell the story
that we've always thought like that.
Here's one brief example: The Washington Consensus is that free markets for
goods and services, free flow of capital, and tight monetary control of
inflation are the ways for any developing country to succeed. The IMF and
the World Bank, two of our products, demand these things of developing
countries to which we loan money. We demand that they break down trade
barriers and barriers to capital flow. We point to our own history as proof
of the efficacy of these things. (So does the UK.) Addicted to our own
myths, we call it "fair trade."
But we've revised history in order to create that narrative. Our period of
most rapid growth occurred at a time when we had tariffs ranging upward of
40%; when we subsidized railroads and telegraphs, and nationalized highways.
We excluded foreign investment selectively; direct foreign investment,
entirely. We protected our infant industries with policies that,
collectively, are known as ISI (import substitution industrialization). We
were wildly protective, as was Britain, and we both emerged from it as two
of the most economically powerful nations in history.
Of course, we don't talk about that today. Most people don't even know the
extent to which it happened. We keep re-writing history and our own
narrative to suit our needs, and our politics. We'll do it again when the
pressure is too much to ignore. But we don't do it early, when the facts are
clear but inconvenient, and we can still pretend they aren't really there.
>
> The boom and bust cycles that define the American experience have
> ordinarily
> left behind something tangible after the bust out.
> This is why, in my mind at least, the asset bubble that is in the process
> of
> dragging the world down is so significant, especially here in the United
> States. At the expense of the largest transfer of wealth in the history of
> the world there isn't anything tangible standing now that the heat has
> evaporated. The value add was zero, even negative here in the United
> States.
Yes, a financial bubble is a mostly destructive thing, because it was all an
abstraction to begin with. Nothing real was there; the outcome is just the
collapse of a myth built upon an abstraction. There are no useful, tangible
byproducts.
>
>
>>
>> And grids. Across whose back yard? Especially when they start running
>> 100,000 Volts.
>>
>> And so on. Timing, resources, development time...if you're going to
>> tackle a subject like that, you have to be ready to pour on
>> everything you have, because the subject wants to scatter your brains
>> all over the place.
>
> All engineering problems Ed and they are imminently solvable.
> The path from point A to point B needn't be known in advance beyond
> certain
> rudimentary fundamentals.
> Knowing that path is far less important that the decision to make the
> journey.
> Where the will wants not, a way opens.
> It's always has and will be so.
I hope so. The need will have to be compelling.
Wes
>There's no comparison between the total war of WWII and anything we might
>engage in against one country the size of Iran, or even the whole Middle
>East. Hell, Bush didn't even raise taxes for Iraq. He told us not to upset
>anything, and to keep spending at the mall.
I believe the keep spending at the mall comment was in reaction to 9/11. Perhaps he knew
just how much our economy relied on consumer spending?
Wes
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1yCdn.260047$oC1.1...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
Perhaps he knew that he didn't have enough support to put the country on a
war footing, asking for sacrifices.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
<snip>
>We are maturing as a
>society and our economy reflects this.
As a nation we are getting older on the average.
While there does appear to be at least a small correlation
between age and maturity, in general if you are dumb/rash at 20,
you will dumb/rash at 30, at 40, etc. In general this is caused
by an inability or unwillingness to learn from our own mistakes,
if not the mistakes of others.
To be sure the society/economy does appear to reflect the age
change in demographics such as the shift in sales from
motorcycles and beer to walkers and viagra.
Louis Ohland
>> Perhaps he knew
>> just how much our economy relied on consumer spending?
> Perhaps he knew that he didn't have enough support to put the country on a
> war footing, asking for sacrifices.
Gentlemen, the government needs tax money to afford the battle groups,
fighter wings, and ground formations. Government does not produce wealth
(printing aside), the private sector does. Our total economy is large
enough to afford porkbarrel stuff plus the military.
Patriots, to the malls, forward, march!
What are the constitutional expenditures that government should be
paying, that's entirely another question.
Ed Huntress
"Louis Ohland" <ohl...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:13Ddn.94607$1m3....@newsfe11.iad...
>>> I believe the keep spending at the mall comment was in reaction to 9/11.
>>> Perhaps he knew
>>> just how much our economy relied on consumer spending?
>
>> Perhaps he knew that he didn't have enough support to put the country on
>> a
>> war footing, asking for sacrifices.
>
>
> Gentlemen, the government needs tax money to afford the battle groups,
> fighter wings, and ground formations. Government does not produce wealth
> (printing aside), the private sector does. Our total economy is large
> enough to afford porkbarrel stuff plus the military.
>
> Patriots, to the malls, forward, march!
But we haven't paid the taxes yet. The war was put on our children's tab.
Deficit spending is something you do to stimulate a recessionary economy.
Deficit spending at other times is stupid or deceitful.
>
> What are the constitutional expenditures that government should be
> paying, that's entirely another question.
Whatever we want to. We adhere to the Hamiltonian interpretation of the
necessary and proper clause.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>Gentlemen, the government needs tax money to afford the battle groups,
>fighter wings, and ground formations. Government does not produce wealth
>(printing aside), the private sector does. Our total economy is large
>enough to afford porkbarrel stuff plus the military.
>
>Patriots, to the malls, forward, march!
Just look at the nation of origin tags and pick USA before buying ;)
Wes
John R. Carroll
The San Francisco building code will soon be revised to require that new
structures be wired for car chargers. Across the street from City Hall, some
drivers are already plugging converted hybrids into a row of charging
stations.
In nearby Silicon Valley, companies are ordering workplace charging stations
in the belief that their employees will be first in line when electric cars
begin arriving in showrooms. And at the headquarters of Pacific Gas and
Electric, utility executives are preparing "heat maps" of neighborhoods that
they fear may overload the power grid in their exuberance for electric cars.
"There is a huge momentum here," said Andrew Tang, an executive at P.G.& E.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/15electric.html?hpw
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
I'm sure I don't have to remind you about gushy media reports about
helicopters in every garage. <g>
It looks encouraging. At $0.20/mile for battery replacement cost, we're not
there yet. And it's disconcerting that it's taken so long to get even close
to a viable battery. It makes me question what kinds of brick walls they're
really running into. They should have had this one licked 20 years ago, and
it shouldn't have taken billions of dollars to get there.
But, in the long run, of course. Fuel cells, maybe. Batteries, probably.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
No, LOL, you don't. Do I have to remind you that no city or company ever
ordered the installation of the necessary infrastructure?
>
> It looks encouraging. At $0.20/mile for battery replacement cost,
> we're not there yet. And it's disconcerting that it's taken so long
> to get even close to a viable battery. It makes me question what
> kinds of brick walls they're really running into. They should have
> had this one licked 20 years ago, and it shouldn't have taken
> billions of dollars to get there.
Necessity, and it's relationship to invention.
We passed a law here in California at the end of the 90's requiring car
companies to sell 10% of their fleet as zero emission vehicles.
That would have meant 500,000 vehicles on an anual basis. No auto maker
would have been forced to do this - - unless they wanted to sell in the
California market.
There was a constitutional challenge, which failed, and then the first thing
the incoming Bush administration did was get the Atty. General and EPA
involved to kill the law. That did succeed. GM destroyed their rental fleet
of EV1's at the same time.
People are already looking back at thise two decisions and shaking their
collective
heads.
Operating costs for the rental hybrid fleet in the SF Bay area are working
out to $.025/mile.
It's an interesting system and obviously subsidized. You subscribe by the
month and never own a car. You use it and leave it.
>
> But, in the long run, of course. Fuel cells, maybe. Batteries,
> probably.
Like I said, these things nearly always begin with a law or ten. It's going
to take public financing to do this but industry will be able to make the
engineering side work. That's the way it's always been Ed, and you know it.
Do you realize how many jobs something like this has the potential to create
Ed?
Do you comprehend the effect this could have on our relationship with the
Saudi's and other petro producers?
When I mentioned the comments at Davos about American leadership, this is
the sort of thing I was referring to, not some path out of the woods for the
world to follow. What the world is concerned about, a lack of stability in
America, comes down to concern that we are too stupid to do what is so
obviously in our own, and coincidentally the worlds, best interests because
of the power of corporate lobbyists in our society.
You put money on the table along with a big market, even if that market is
commanded, and someone will figure out how to sit and eat.
Just look at the space program in the 60's. Nobody knew how, exactly, to do
that one either but we did.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
I'm not here to argue about the inevitability of electric cars, which I
believe is true. Nor would I question whether we could enforce their use
through command.
I have two cautions about the whole thing. First, if the engineering at
market-determined prices was possible, it would already have been done. This
is not the atomic bomb or even landing a man on the moon. Some natural
limits must be gumming it all up, or making it prohibitively expensive.
We've faced the same thing with solar-thermal generation, ceramic automobile
and turbine engines, and several other technologies that looked compelling,
doable, and inevitable -- but which stalled over the limits of what
engineering could accomplish to overcome physical facts. The cost curve,
economies of scale notwithstanding, appears to be quite high.
Second, if we command the implementation of the things, we're likely to find
ourselves trapped in an uneconomic technology, with little gained except to
prove that we can do it. In that sense, it's like going to the moon. Having
done so, the question now is, "yes? And now what?"
At some point in the future history of fuel supply and technological
development of electric cars, they truly will be compelling. I wish it were
right now -- for the same reasons you cite. There's a value in decreasing
our dependence on foreign oil that I happen to think is quite high. The
payoff, however, is a mixed one of current economics and future world
politics. Given our economic system and our competitive position in a global
economy, I'm not prepared to judge the relative values of these things now.
So I'm a supporter, and I favor limited command economics to develop the
technology. We need to see what the economies of scale really are. A lot of
it is speculation, and what we need is some practical experience, by
ordinary drivers and with large enough numbers to accumulate some useful
data. As for the employment potential, it appears to me that most of it will
be replacement of one job with another. How this could stimulate an
*addition* to employment escapes me.
I'll buy one when I can afford it. My family is a natural for even a
short-range electric. One of my neighbors in town has a Corbin Sparrow, and
she loves it. But I paid only a couple of thousand more for my Focus ZX3.
And I can drive that thing 400 miles on a tank, and often have to.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
> I have two cautions about the whole thing. First, if the engineering at
> market-determined prices was possible, it would already have been done.
>
> Second, if we command the implementation of the things, we're likely to find
> ourselves trapped in an uneconomic technology, with little gained except to
> prove that we can do it. In that sense, it's like going to the moon. Having
> done so, the question now is, "yes? And now what?"
>
> I'll buy one when I can afford it. My family is a natural for even a
> short-range electric. One of my neighbors in town has a Corbin Sparrow, and
> she loves it. But I paid only a couple of thousand more for my Focus ZX3.
> And I can drive that thing 400 miles on a tank, and often have to.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
I agree except for electric cars being inevitable. There are several
competing technologies that could prevail instead. One is natural
gas. Either compressed or converted to LPG. Another is oil from
algae. Electric cars seem unlikely to ever be feasible in Wyoming,
the Dakotas, Texas, or Montana.
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:dac85ac1-3ae0-4803...@f5g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Certainly it will be a mixed fleet for a long time to come. CNG is
interesting and I agree it could be an interim solution, or maybe even a
long-term one if we start producing synthetic gas, or we discover more, very
large reserves (I know we just found a lot over the last few years, but it's
likely that we'll switch a lot of current electrical generating capacity to
gas, too, if things go as expected.). The algae-to-oil has been intriguing
for a while but it seems to be coming awfully slowly. And I haven't seen
anything about its potential scale.
Again, I don't doubt that electric vehicles will become a substantial part
of the mix. I just wonder why we're still fiddling with battery
technologies, after all of these years.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>It looks encouraging. At $0.20/mile for battery replacement cost, we're not
>there yet. And it's disconcerting that it's taken so long to get even close
>to a viable battery. It makes me question what kinds of brick walls they're
>really running into. They should have had this one licked 20 years ago, and
>it shouldn't have taken billions of dollars to get there.
==========
It may be due to the way the payout is structured. You pay for
"research," you get "research." You pay for results, you get
results.
Another approach is to implement Deep Throat's advice and "follow
the money." Who are the corporations and individuals who have
the most to lose if there is a significant shift away from import
petroleum based fuels? In many cases the major losers would not
be the oil companies, who can shift their output from fuels to
petrochemicals, but rather the commodity traders/speculators, mid
eastern governments, etc.
It is well to remember that vehicle fuel taxes provide a
substantial amount state and local governmental funds. How will
this revenue be replaced if electric cars are widely introduced?
Ed Huntress
As you know, George, I'm not into paranoid fantasies. I leave that for the
Tea Partiers, ammo hoarders, militias, and so on. <g>
I think we don't have adequate batteries for the same reason we don't have
ceramic engines. (At one time, I probably was doing more interviews, reading
more engineering white papers, and writing more about that subject than
anyone.) We're up against some physical limits that don't share our Optimism
bias and enthusiasm.
There's plenty of money waiting for those who accomplish the goal. And the
goal includes a competitive cost. For the record, the lithium-ion batteries
in the Tesla cost $30,000 to replace. And it's a common battery
configuration that's already made in large quantities for other
applications.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>It looks encouraging. At $0.20/mile for battery replacement cost, we're not
>there yet. And it's disconcerting that it's taken so long to get even close
>to a viable battery. It makes me question what kinds of brick walls they're
>really running into. They should have had this one licked 20 years ago, and
>it shouldn't have taken billions of dollars to get there.
>
>But, in the long run, of course. Fuel cells, maybe. Batteries, probably.
>--
>Ed Huntress
========
Suzuki is making progress on fuel cells. Scooter on sale in 2015
depending on fuel availability.
See
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/7222183/Hydrogen-fuel-cell-Suzuki-tested.html
Hydrogen fuel-cell Suzuki tested
Is hydrogen the future? Suzuki thinks it might be and has a
working prototype based on its Burgman scooter.
By Kevin Ash
Published: 4:00PM GMT 15 Feb 2010
<snip>
Suzuki doesn't see battery power as a practical solution, which
is why it's developing a hydrogen fuel-cell and battery hybrid
drivetrain, in conjunction with British fuel-cell specialist
Intelligent Energy (IE).
<snip>
The aim is to produce a vehicle that does not demand a change in
rider behaviour. Therefore, it must have comparable range, power
and refuelling times to conventional petrol scooters.
The prototype machine I rode matched most of these requirements.
The weight, for example, is similar to the production Burgman
125. It took slightly longer to refill than a tank of petrol, but
it was still only a few minutes.
The time between turning the "ignition" key and being able to
ride away is about one second, so no problem there, but the
claimed range is 200 miles at a steady 19mph.
<snip>
IE's Dr Damian Davies insists there's no reason why the range of
a production version shouldn't match the Burgman 125 in normal
riding, but figures better aligned with everyday use would have
been more convincing.
<snip>
Suzuki plans to have a viable production fuel-cell two-wheeler on
sale by 2015. It will cost more than a conventional,
petrol-engined Burgman 125, which costs just over �3,000, but
service costs will be minimal because the cell requires little
maintenance and is intended to last the life of the vehicle.
Compared with exorbitantly costly all-battery two-wheelers,
there's no question hydrogen fuel cells present a more realistic
alternative to petrol engines.
The Burgman I rode was barely distinguishable from the stock
machine and that's what matters.
==========
Anyone know how much money American companies have "invested" in
fuel cell vehicles with no results?
Ed Huntress
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:56:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>>It looks encouraging. At $0.20/mile for battery replacement cost, we're
>>not
>>there yet. And it's disconcerting that it's taken so long to get even
>>close
>>to a viable battery. It makes me question what kinds of brick walls
>>they're
>>really running into. They should have had this one licked 20 years ago,
>>and
>>it shouldn't have taken billions of dollars to get there.
>>
>>But, in the long run, of course. Fuel cells, maybe. Batteries, probably.
> N.B. ^^^^^^^^
>>--
>>Ed Huntress
> ========
> Suzuki is making progress on fuel cells. Scooter on sale in 2015
> depending on fuel availability.
>
> See
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/7222183/Hydrogen-fuel-cell-Suzuki-tested.html
>
>
> Hydrogen fuel-cell Suzuki tested
> Is hydrogen the future? Suzuki thinks it might be and has a
> working prototype based on its Burgman scooter.
'Sounds good, although Suzuki is saying they're not planning production
until 2015. It's encouraging that they're getting right into demos and
extended tests, however.
I can't follow the cost issues on those PEM fuel cells. They've been used in
military and space applications since the mid-'60s. One time I hear tens of
thousands of dollars, and the next time they're building a scooter that's
"just a bit more expensive" than the gas-powered equivalent. Maybe that's
why they're saying production starts in 2015 -- they're trying to get the
cost down.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>I can't follow the cost issues on those PEM fuel cells. They've been used in
>military and space applications since the mid-'60s. One time I hear tens of
>thousands of dollars, and the next time they're building a scooter that's
>"just a bit more expensive" than the gas-powered equivalent. Maybe that's
>why they're saying production starts in 2015 -- they're trying to get the
>cost down.
>
>--
>Ed Huntress
Most likely has to do with production volumes and the amount of
customization demanded. Mil Spec stuff is know to be "gold
plated," when not "diamond encrusted." It would be neat if IE
have developed some sort of modular design and if you needed
more/less power, just bolt on/remove a cell rather than needing
to completely redesign.
I think the big knot in the pantyhose will be the refueling
stations. Also many office buildings and transportation areas
such as bridges and tunnels currently prohibit large high
pressure gas cylinders, so you may not be able ride freely or
park at the office garage.
Any how, it looks like progress is being made, even if not here
in the US.
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>I can't follow the cost issues on those PEM fuel cells. They've been used in
>military and space applications since the mid-'60s. One time I hear tens of
>thousands of dollars, and the next time they're building a scooter that's
>"just a bit more expensive" than the gas-powered equivalent. Maybe that's
>why they're saying production starts in 2015 -- they're trying to get the
>cost down.
And this from Mercedes
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/02/mercedes-benz-f800-pairs-hydrogen-fuel-cell-with-plug-in-hybrid/1
Feb 20, 2010
Mercedes-Benz F800 pairs hydrogen fuel cell and plug-in hybrid
<snip>
That means the F800 Style can travel for 18 miles on electric
power alone after being plugged in overnight -- and when it runs
out of juice it can cruise for another 375 miles on hydrogen. The
result: no emissions.
<snip>
-----------------
Anyone know if it is cost/emissions to burn hydrogen rather than
gasoline/diesel when the current processes to generate the
hydrogen is considered? Water electrolysis using wind/tide/wave
generated power would be emissions effective but the cost?
Still no magic [carpet] solution...