GREENSPAN: "The Iraq War Is Largely About Oil"
Hope-Gandalf-Obwon III
Greenspan reserves much criticism for your White House war criminal.
"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to
wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes.
"Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush
presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront
approach was a major mistake."
The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and
House in last year's elections. "The Republicans in Congress lost
their way," Greenspan writes. "They swapped principle for power. They
ended up with neither."
Greenspan adds, " 'Deficits don't matter,' to my chagrin became part
of the Republicans' rhetoric."
Your Nimcompoop-in-Chief, who managed to run several Bush-family-
furnished businesses into the ground before he stumbled into public
office, will leave the White House with the nation in far worse
financial shape than the country he inherited from Bill Clinton, whom
Greenspan deems a smart economist.
-------------------
"Greenspan Is Critical Of Bush in Memoir"
"Former Fed Chairman Has Praise for Clinton"
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 15, 2007; A01
Alan Greenspan, who served as Federal Reserve chairman for 18 years
and was the leading Republican economist for the past three decades,
levels unusually harsh criticism at President Bush and the Republican
Party in his new book, arguing that Bush abandoned the central
conservative principle of fiscal restraint.
While condemning Democrats, too, for rampant federal spending, he
offers Bill Clinton an exemption. The former president emerges as the
political hero of "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,"
Greenspan's 531-page memoir, which is being published Monday.
Greenspan, who had an eight-year alliance with Clinton and Democratic
Treasury secretaries in the 1990s, praises Clinton's mind and his
tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president's 1993
economic plan "an act of political courage."
But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. "My biggest
frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto
against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. "Not exercising
the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. . . . To my
mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake."
Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party's
majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate
excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The
Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and House
in last year's elections. "The Republicans in Congress lost their
way," Greenspan writes. "They swapped principle for power. They ended
up with neither."
He singles out J. Dennis Hastert, the Illinois Republican who was
House speaker until January, and Tom DeLay, the Texan who was majority
leader until he resigned after being indicted for violating campaign
finance laws in his home state.
"House Speaker Hastert and House majority leader Tom DeLay seemed
readily inclined to loosen the federal purse strings any time it might
help add a few more seats to the Republican majority," he writes.
He adds three pages later: "I don't think the Democrats won. It was
the Republicans who lost. The Democrats came to power in the Congress
because they were the only party left standing."
Greenspan, 81, indirectly criticizes his friend and colleague from the
Ford administration, Vice President Cheney. Former Bush Treasury
Secretary Paul H. O'Neill has quoted Cheney as once saying, "Reagan
proved deficits don't matter."
Greenspan says, " 'Deficits don't matter,' to my chagrin became part
of the Republicans' rhetoric."
He argues that "deficits must matter" and that uncontrolled government
spending and borrowing can produce high inflation "and economic
devastation."
When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, "I
thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of
effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets. . . . I
was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions."
He says, "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate
or the weighing of long-term consequences." The large, anticipated
federal budget surpluses that were the basis for Bush's initial $1.35
trillion tax cut "were gone six to nine months after George W. Bush
took office." So Bush's goals "were no longer entirely appropriate. He
continued to pursue his presidential campaign promises nonetheless."
Greenspan was intensely criticized for endorsing a large tax cut in
2001 in congressional testimony during the first weeks of the Bush
administration. He notes that he was recommending any tax cut, even a
smaller one proposed by some Democrats. But he acknowledges that those
who had warned him about the perception he was backing Bush's plan
were right. "The tax-cut testimony proved to be politically
explosive," he writes.
Yet, he adds: "While politics had not been my intent, I'd misjudged
the emotions of the moment. . . . Yet I'd have given the same
testimony if Al Gore had been president."
By the end of last year, Greenspan writes with some bitterness,
Washington was "harboring a dysfunctional government. . . . Governance
has become dangerously dysfunctional."
However, he calls Clinton a "risk taker" who had shown a "preference
for dealing in facts," and presents Clinton and himself almost as soul
mates. "Here was a fellow information hound. . . . We both read books
and were curious and thoughtful about the world. . . . I never ceased
to be surprised by his fascination with economic detail: the effect of
Canadian lumber on housing prices and inflation. . . . He had an eye
for the big picture too."
During Clinton's first weeks as president, Greenspan went to the Oval
Office and explained the danger of not confronting the federal
deficit. Unless the deficits were cut, there could be "a financial
crisis," Greenspan told the president. "The hard truth was that Reagan
had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I
was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to
the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live
in the real world."
Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed
devoting the extra money to "save Social Security first." Greenspan
writes, "I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire
the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with."
Greenspan interviewed Clinton for the book and clearly admires him.
"President Clinton's old-fashioned attitude toward debt might have had
a more lasting effect on the nation's priorities. Instead, his
influence was diluted by the uproar about Monica Lewinsky." When he
first heard and read details of the Clinton-Lewinsky encounters,
Greenspan writes, "I was incredulous. 'There is no way these stories
could be correct,' I told my friends. 'No way.' " Later, when it was
verified, Greenspan says, "I wondered how the president could take
such a risk. It seemed so alien to the Bill Clinton I knew, and made
me feel disappointed and sad."
Known for his restrained if not incomprehensible public statements
over the past several decades, Greenspan's direct criticism of Bush
and his economic policies comes as the economy is emerging as an issue
in the 2008 presidential race. And the man Greenspan praises so highly
for fiscal probity is married to the current front-runner for the
Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
The politically charged observations are scattered through the first
half of the book, in which Greenspan offers a standard memoir covering
his birth in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York City in
1926 through his years as Fed chairman, from when he was appointed in
1987 by President Ronald Reagan to his retirement in 2006. His theme
is the unequaled power of free-market capitalism; Greenspan calls
himself a "libertarian Republican."
The second half offers a graduate education in global economics that
is at times lucid and at times dense. Greenspan occasionally slips
into his notoriously complicated Fedspeak, touring the world with
detailed analysis of the global economy and the prospects in Japan,
Britain, France, China, Russia, India and just about everywhere else.
He clearly considers China the big economic question of the future. "I
have no doubt that the Communist Party of China can maintain an
authoritarian, quasi-capitalist, relatively prosperous regime for a
time. But without the political safety valve of the democratic
process, I doubt the long-term success of such a regime," he writes.
"The Age of Turbulence" is likely to be mined word by word on Wall
Street, where the Masters of the Universe will seek clues to how to
make billions. Greenspan dives deep into his economic data, his
experiences, his philosophy and meetings with world political and
economic leaders.
He explains how an advanced economy hinges on property rights, the
rule of law, a culture of trust, contracts, debt, reputation, self-
interest and "creative destruction" -- the scrapping of old
technologies and processes.
He argues, for example, that the loss of manufacturing jobs in the
United States -- from the steel, automobile and textile industries to
computers and telecommunications -- "is a plus, not a minus, to the
American standard of living." He maintains that immigration reform,
"by opening up the United States to the world's very large and growing
pool of skilled workers," will help reduce the inequality of incomes.
Without elaborating, he writes, "I am saddened that it is politically
inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is
largely about oil."
Looking ahead to 2030, he predicts that the U.S. gross domestic
product will be 75 percent larger than it is now. His most dire
forecast is that if the Federal Reserve is prevented from constraining
inflation, the 10-year Treasury note would be "flirting with a double-
digit yield sometime before 2030, compared with under 5 percent in
2006."
Greenspan has nothing but praise for hedge funds, which he describes
as "a vibrant trillion-dollar industry dominated by U.S. firms." He
claims that hedge funds help eliminate inefficiency in the markets.
"They are essentially free of government regulation, and I hope they
will remain so." He scoffs at proposals to regulate them, declaring,
"Why do we wish to inhibit the pollinating bees of Wall Street?"
For all his wonkish ways, Greenspan writes with delight about his
marriage to journalist Andrea Mitchell and their travels, friends and
mutual love of classical music. He knows how to enjoy a good Vivaldi
cello concerto in Venice.
Though cautious about the coming decades, Greenspan ultimately shows a
flash of hope at the end of his memoir. "Adaptation is in our nature,"
he writes, "a fact that leads me to be deeply optimistic about our
future."
(Brady Dennis and Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Bob Woodward, an assistant managing editor of The
Washington Post, is author of "Maestro: Greenspan's Fed and the
American Boom," published in 2000. In his book, Greenspan acknowledges
that in writing "The Age of Turbulence," he used interviews he had
given Woodward.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402451.html
Bob Eld
"Hope-Gandalf-Obwon III" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189867048....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Yep, and Greenspan is a Republican too! At least some Republicans have
enough brains to rub two cells together....Can't say that about most of
them, however.
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
> In his just-released book, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
> Greenspan reserves much criticism for your White House war criminal.
>
> "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to
> wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes.
My 2nd biggest frustration is Greenspan flooding the economy with cheap credit
at 1% interest.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
lysa...@comcast.net
RArmant
<slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>He maintains that immigration reform,
>"by opening up the United States to the world's very large and growing
>pool of skilled workers," will help reduce the inequality of incomes.
Should government be in the wage deflating business?
It is the growing underclass caused by US immigration policy
that is behind growing wage inequality. A simple fix -- crack down
on employers who hire illegals.
El Tico
wrote:
> KOOK ALERT! NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ!
>
??? Not even the original quotation? "I am saddened that it is
politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq
war is largely about oil."
And maybe someday you'll learn how to turn off the Caps Lock.
> ...
>
> read more »
Econotron
news:1189867048....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Greenspan reserves much criticism for your White House war criminal.
>
> "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to
> wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes.
> "Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush
> presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront
> approach was a major mistake."
>
writing about someone else's "mistakes", hoping that history will forget
about LTCM and post 9/11 monetary expansion. He ought to burn in hell. :-)
e.
sinister
"Hope-Gandalf-Obwon III" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189867048....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> "Greenspan Is Critical Of Bush in Memoir"
>
> "Former Fed Chairman Has Praise for Clinton"
>
> By Bob Woodward
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Saturday, September 15, 2007; A01
<snip>
> Greenspan, 81, indirectly criticizes his friend and colleague from the
> Ford administration, Vice President Cheney. Former Bush Treasury
> Secretary Paul H. O'Neill has quoted Cheney as once saying, "Reagan
> proved deficits don't matter."
>
> Greenspan says, " 'Deficits don't matter,' to my chagrin became part
> of the Republicans' rhetoric."
>
> He argues that "deficits must matter" and that uncontrolled government
> spending and borrowing can produce high inflation "and economic
> devastation."
>
> When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, "I
> thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of
> effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets. . . . I
> was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions."
<snip>
He's either a liar or an idiot. (Probably both.)
Paul Krugman pointed out that Bush's numbers didn't add up even before he
won the election.
lysa...@comcast.net
> On Sep 15, 10:03 am, "lysan...@comcast.net" <lysan...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> KOOK ALERT! NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ!
>>
>
> ??? Not even the original quotation? "I am saddened that it is
> politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq
> war is largely about oil."
>
> And maybe someday you'll learn how to turn off the Caps Lock.
>
You are reading something entirely different from the post. I did not
see that in the post or the WP article. Care to elaborate where it came
from?
lysa...@comcast.net
> "Hope-Gandalf-Obwon III" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1189867048....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, "I
>> thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of
>> effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets. . . . I
>> was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions."
>
> <snip>
>
> He's either a liar or an idiot. (Probably both.)
>
> Paul Krugman pointed out that Bush's numbers didn't add up even before he
> won the election.
>
>
A. Krugman is a politictal zealot in his column. He also tends to
frequent forget about policy lags. As a macoreconomist he knows damn
well that they exist.
B. There is nothing here about the budget at all in this quotation.
Greenspan is referring to the overall message of the campaign to limit
the size of government. The tax cut was only part of that. Since Reagan,
Republicans have run on limiting spending and cutting taxes. It didn't
happen during Reagan because the Republican senate and Democratic house
log rolled spending. The Senate and House made a deal to increase both
social and military spending. I have documented in another thread how
spending for both social and military projects rose in the 1980's.
Alesinni and Carliner have noted the surprise that a divided house and
senate actually led to log rolling rather than gridlock and spending
rose. This was of great interest in the Political Science field.
Greenspan is referring to the message that Bush and Cheney gave not the
actual budget. Greenspan went on record being against the tax cut due to
the strain it could put on social security.
He is neither a liar or an idiot. The man countered the wrong policy of
log rolling for high deficits in the 80's that the two parties knowing
partook in. He managed through the 90's to cut inflation without
increasing unemployment and helped steer the economy better than any
other Federal Reserve chairman.
Compare that to someone who claims the senate and house have been
controlled by the Republicans since 2000 eventhough Nancy Pelosi is
speaker of the house and the Jeffords incident triggered neither party
having a majority in the senate from 2001 to 2003. Now who is a liar or
an idiot?
sinister
<lysa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:46ef1749$0$26364$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> sinister wrote:
>> "Hope-Gandalf-Obwon III" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1189867048....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
<ssnip>
> He is neither a liar or an idiot. The man countered the wrong policy of
Yes, he is. He was stupid enough to have given support for the invasion of
Iraq---at very high levels of White House contact when the invasion was in
the planning stages---because he claims he saw Saddam as a threat to world
oil price stability.
Wow, that worked out well, huh?
sinister
<snip>
> Now who is a liar or an idiot?
Uh...the guy who Roy has convincingly shown doesn't understand the economic
definition of "price"?
Oh, yeah, that would be _you_.
Les Cargill
Aw geez. *SURELY* he meant that he saw Saddam as a threat to
political stability in the region, which could by extension
affect oil price stability.
I mean, it's not like journalists like to omit words
to have punchy headlines now, is it? But Alan G. is a
modeling guy, and ... maybe he just ... missed it.
If he didn't get it, and Scott Adams *did* get it, I'm gonna
stop reading or watching anything but cartoons.
--
Les Cargill
Raymond
wrote:
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shalom Lysan,
I was amazed to hear you say that the war in Iraq was not about OIL
Where have you been since 1975?
It is all about oil and Israel. Haven't you read the following
agreement?
Israel-United States Oil Memorandum of Understanding
(September 1, 1975)
3. Israel will make its own independent arrangements for oil supply to
meet its requirements through normal procedures. In the event Israel
is unable to secure its needs in this way, the United States
Government, upon notification of this fact by the Government, of
Israel, will act as follows for five years, at the end of which period
either side can terminate this arrangement on one year's notice.
(a) If the oil Israel needs to meet all its normal requirements for
domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances
where no quantitative restrictions exist on the ability of the United
States to procure oil to meet its normal requirements, the United
States Government will promptly make oil available for purchase by
Israel to meet all of the aforementioned normal requirements of
Israel. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to transport
such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make every
effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport.
(b) If the oil Israel needs to meet all of its normal requirements for
domestic consumption is unavailable for purchase in circumstances
where' quantitative restrictions through embargo or otherwise also
prevent the United States from procuring oil to meet its normal
requirements, the United States Government will promptly make oil
available for purchase by Israel in accordance with the International
Energy Agency conservation and allocation formula as applied by the
United States Government, in order to meet Israel's essential
requirements. If Israel is unable to secure the necessary means to
transport such oil to Israel, the United States Government will make
every effort to help Israel secure the necessary means of transport.
Israeli and U.S. experts will meet annually or more frequently at the
request of either party, to review Israel's continuing oil
requirement.
4. In order to help Israel meet its energy needs and as part of the
over-all annual figure in paragraph 1 above, the United States agrees:
(a) In determining the over-all annual figure which will be requested
from Congress, the United States Government will give special
attention to Israel's oil import requirements and, for a period as
determined by Article 3 above, will take into account in calculating
that figure Israel's additional expenditures for the import of oil to
replace that which would have ordinarily come from Abu Rudeis and Ras
Sudar (4.5 million tons in 1975).
(b) To ask Congress to make available funds, the amount to be
determined by mutual agreement, to the Government of Israel necessary
for a project for the construction and stocking of the oil reserves to
be stored in Israel, bringing storage reserve capacity and reserve
stocks, now standing at approximately six months, up to one year's
need at the time of the completion of the project. The project will be
implemented within four years. The construction, operation and
financing and other relevant questions of the project will be the
subject of early and detailed talks between the two Governments.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/mou1975.html
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz (8/25/03) published a report confirming
that the war in Iraq was very much about oil. The U.S. Defense
Department sent a telegram to the Israeli Foreign Ministry on the
possibility of pumping oil from U.S.-occupied Iraq to Israel, A
"senior Pentagon official" has sent a telegram to a "top Foreign
Ministry official" on the cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa
pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. Americans are looking into the
possibility of laying a new pipeline via Jordan and Israel." The new
pipeline would take oil from the oil-rich Iraqi northern area of
Kirkuk, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, transport it
via Mosul to Jordan and then to Israel. After the end of the British
mandate, the 1948 war and the creation of Israel, Iraq stopped the
flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline, only 8 inches in diameter, fell
into disrepair since then.
A recent research by the Israeli National Infrastructure Ministry put
the construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and
Haifa at some 400,000 dollars per kilometer. Israeli National
Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky vowed to discuss the issue with
the U.S. secretary of energy during his envisaged visit to Washington
He asserted that the whole project depends on Jordan's consent, adding
that the kingdom would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to
flow through its territory. Paritzky believes restarting the pipeline
could reduce Israel's fuel costs by 25 percent and turn Haifa into
"the Rotterdam of the Middle East." Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon's
government "views the pipeline to Haifa as a 'bonus' the U.S. could
give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-
led campaign in Iraq,"
Turkey is angry. At present, Iraqi oil is being shipped via Turkey to
a small Mediterranean port near the Syrian border. Ankara, which
considers the transit fee it collects an important source of revenue,
has warned Israel it would regard the talked-about Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa
pipeline as "a serious blow to Turkish-Israeli relations." Haaretz
quoted sources as saying reports about the alternative pipeline are
part of an American "attempt to apply pressure on Turkey" which had
opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and is still reluctant to commit
troops to the neighboring country to ease the burden on American
forces.
And, surely you have heard about that Yid Netanyahu fellow and his
boasting about Iraq oil flowing to Haifa now that Israeli's mercenary
American troops landed in Iraq. It was in all the papers: Lots of busy
Americans missed it.
By Steven Scheer
LONDON (Reuters) - Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (news -
web sites) said he expected an oil pipeline from Iraq (news - web
sites) to Israel to be reopened in the near future after being closed
when Israel became a state in 1948.
"It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa," the
port city in northern Israel, Netanyahu told a group of British
investors, declining to give a timetable.
"It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and
Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean."
Netanyahu later told Reuters the government was in the early stages of
looking into the possibility of reopening the pipeline, which during
the British Mandate sent oil from Mosul to Haifa via Jordan.
"It's not a pipe-dream," Netanyahu said. "This is the central issue of
our time"
Homework:
Kirkuk to Haifa Pipeline: Reason for the War?
http://zionofascism.wordpress.com/category/netanyahu-watch/
Big Oil in Iraq: "World Class Racketeering"
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/26576
The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243
We are All Jews Now
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles4/Jones_Palestine.htm
A gezunt dahf dein kop!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/iraq_israel.htm
-----------------------------------
sinister
"Les Cargill" <lcar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46ef3e70$0$32474$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> sinister wrote:
>> <lysa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:46ef1749$0$26364$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>> sinister wrote:
>>>> "Hope-Gandalf-Obwon III" <slipu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1189867048....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> <ssnip>
>>
>>> He is neither a liar or an idiot. The man countered the wrong policy of
>>
>> Yes, he is. He was stupid enough to have given support for the invasion
>> of Iraq---at very high levels of White House contact when the invasion
>> was in the planning stages---because he claims he saw Saddam as a threat
>> to world oil price stability.
>>
>> Wow, that worked out well, huh?
>
> Aw geez. *SURELY* he meant that he saw Saddam as a threat to
> political stability in the region, which could by extension
> affect oil price stability.
That's not my read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html
"His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated.
"If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those
sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong
as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of
the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very
clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of
Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.
"Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could
translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the
recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would
mean "chaos" to the global economy.
"Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he
added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab."
sinister
<lysa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:46ef1503$0$24325$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Huh?
It's in the original post.
Mobius_A...@yahoo.com
How much longer 'till he figures out Clay Aikins is gay?
> product will be 75 percent larger than it is now. His most ...
>
> read more »
lysa...@comcast.net
Roy doesn't understand price nor the first thing about economics. If you
think Roy's "definition" of price is correct then you have never picked
up an economics textbook. Market price is not the lowest price someone
will sell in ANY market structure. The closest structure that this
resembles price in is perfect competition where at equilibrium the price
of the good sold = the buyer's willingness to pay for the LAST good
bought = the seller's willingness to sell for the LAST good sold. If Roy
were correct Producer surplus would always be zero.
Raymond
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bush Disagrees With Greenspan on Economy
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Tuesday defended his management of
the economy and "respectfully" disagreed with former Federal Reserve
Chairman Alan Greenspan, whose new book blisters the president for
mishandling the nation's spending.
"I would say that the record - our fiscal record - is admirable and
good," Bush said in a broadcast interview with Fox News.
"I would respectfully disagree with the characterizations of Chairman
Greenspan," the president later added in his first public response to
Greenspan.
In his book, Greenspan accused Bush of racking up big budget deficits,
saying the president and Congress' former Republican leaders abandoned
the party's conservative principles favoring small government.
Bush took office in 2001, the last time the government produced a
budget surplus. Every year after that, the government has been in the
red. In 2004, the deficit swelled to a record $413 billion.
"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to
wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan wrote in
his book.
Bush, though, countered that the deficit remains low as a percentage
of the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic
health.
"I would also argue that cutting taxes made a significant difference,
not only with dealing with a recession and an attack on our country,
but it also made a significant difference in dealing with the
deficit," Bush said. "Because a growing economy yielded more tax
revenues, which allows us to shrink the deficit."
Greenspan has done a series of high-profile interviews to promote his
book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World."
sinister
"RArmant" <rar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:r31oe3p8bf4opq2oh...@4ax.com...
But that's why the current anti-immigrant movement is a joke.
Some people within the movement sometimes talk about cracking down on
employers, but most focus on border security (a Herculean task) or cracking
down on immigrants.
It's clear that a crackdown on employers would be far more
effective---cracking down on immigrants will, if anything, _lower_ their
wages (and make them that much more competitive against other workers),
because they'll be that much more beholden to the good faith of their
employers. And employers have much more to lose. (Imagine what would
happen in a strict enforcement regime where hiring an illegal immigrant was
a felony punishable by a minimum of 6 months in jail.)
The politics of the issue are pretty much hopeless if someone thinks
immigration needs to be curtailed or more regulated, because business loves
the lower wages, but it's apparently not possible to even make that the main
focus of the debate.
ro...@telus.net
<sini...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>It's clear that a crackdown on employers would be far more
>effective---cracking down on immigrants will, if anything, _lower_ their
>wages (and make them that much more competitive against other workers),
>because they'll be that much more beholden to the good faith of their
>employers. And employers have much more to lose. (Imagine what would
>happen in a strict enforcement regime where hiring an illegal immigrant was
>a felony punishable by a minimum of 6 months in jail.)
I imagine they'd just hire patsies to serve the hard time. Make it
punishable by a _mandatory_ fine of six months' _revenue_, and you'll
have something.
-- Roy L
sinister
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:46f28f9...@news.telus.net...
Yeah---I think we're in basic agreement that $$ as a means of punishment is
highly underutilized in the US (and probably other places).
>
> -- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
>sinister wrote:
>> <lysa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:46ef1749$0$26364$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Now who is a liar or an idiot?
>>
>> Uh...the guy who Roy has convincingly shown doesn't understand the economic
>> definition of "price"?
>>
>> Oh, yeah, that would be _you_.
>
>Roy doesn't understand price nor the first thing about economics.
I guess that must be why I have demolished every single argument you
have essayed.
>If you
>think Roy's "definition" of price is correct then you have never picked
>up an economics textbook.
<yawn> Let's see a textbook definition of price that agrees with
_you_.
Thought not.
>Market price is not the lowest price someone
>will sell in ANY market structure.
And that is not the definition I quoted to you is it, stupid,
ignorant, lying GARBAGE?
>The closest structure that this
>resembles price in is perfect competition where at equilibrium
Perfect competition or not, equilibrium is where all goods trade. All
land trading means the supply is always the same, and the supply curve
is vertical. You are again proved flat wrong.
Don't you ever get tired of being constantly and invariably demolished
and humiliated like this, John? Aren't you afraid that your employer
might somehow get wind of this exchange, and realize that your claimed
"advanced degree in economics" must have been obtained by mail order,
as you are comprehensively ignorant of the subject?
>the price
>of the good sold = the buyer's willingness to pay for the LAST good
>bought = the seller's willingness to sell for the LAST good sold.
Uh, lying garbage? All land parcels are unique, so there is no "last"
good sold that is any different from the first good sold.
>If Roy were correct Producer surplus would always be zero.
It is (leaving aside the fact that no one produces land), because the
rent the owner gets to pocket in return for zero contribution to
production is the same no matter who owns it.
You are again demolished.
-- Roy L
The Trucker
I would at least attempt to PAY for the cost of enforcement through the
collections of the fines. That includes all discovery, serving, and
prosecutorial costs. More can be added if the costs to the employers seem
insufficient to fund the program. This is, to me, the real point of fines
as compared to jail time. It costs _ME_ money to put someone in jail.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
lysa...@comcast.net
> Yeah---I think we're in basic agreement that $$ as a means of punishment is
> highly underutilized in the US (and probably other places).
>
Not only is it underutilized but it is used wrong in the US. For
instance, iirc it is Sweden (or another Scandavian country) that sets
all criminal fines based on income and/or assets. In the US if you get a
speedy ticket there is a flat fine. Usually around $200. In the other
country the fines are a percentage of your wealth or income. In the US
Bill Gates can scoff at a $200 fine where a janitor risks not being able
to pay rent if fined the amount.
This is clearly not fair nor effective. The cost of the illegal action
is not enough and often not enough to be prohibitive on its own for the
wealthy. In Sweden, iirc, the poor man pays a small fine but one that
hurts while some really rich guy got a spending ticket that cost him the
equivalent of 1 million US dollars! The sliding scale would be highly
preferable to the system we have here.
Although I agree crack downs on those employ illegals would be useful
and much better than spending billions on border security that doesn't
work, I am not sure how much effect it would have. In my experience
companies who I have seen who hire illegals tend to small operations
that operate mostly on cash and are already taking some big legal risk.
There are also a lot of illegals hired by individuals who hire these
guys at day labor sites or outside of stores where illegals hang out. It
would be preferable and more effective but still not perfect.
lysa...@comcast.net
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:23:09 -0500, "lysa...@comcast.net"
> <lysa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The closest structure that this
>> resembles price in is perfect competition where at equilibrium
>
> Perfect competition or not, equilibrium is where all goods trade. All
> land trading means the supply is always the same, and the supply curve
> is vertical. You are again proved flat wrong.
>
> Don't you ever get tired of being constantly and invariably demolished
> and humiliated like this
ROTFLMAO! You mean saying you didn't say what you said is demolishing
me. This gibberish that does not understand supply is demolishing me.
Dream on and take your meds you are having delusions of grandeur.
Now to the statement. What does all land trading means the supply is
always the same mean? I think you meant quantity supplied. You need to
learn definitions Roy. Asserting the supply curve is vertical over and
over again is not proving it is.
> Aren't you afraid that your employer
> might somehow get wind of this exchange, and realize that your claimed
> "advanced degree in economics" must have been obtained by mail order,
> as you are comprehensively ignorant of the subject?
>
Roy I have published in peer reviewed journals.
>> the price
>> of the good sold = the buyer's willingness to pay for the LAST good
>> bought = the seller's willingness to sell for the LAST good sold.
>
> Uh, lying garbage? All land parcels are unique, so there is no "last"
> good sold that is any different from the first good sold.
>
Then we are dealing with monopolist competition. Therefore the price
will definitely not be the lowest amount someone will sell for and there
is no supply curve. Roy doesn't understand the definitions of market
structures either. When the owner has a monopoly over his own piece of
land but there are close substitutes that is monopolist competition and
the notion of a vertical supply curve no longer makes sense because
there is no supply curve in monopolist competition. Price will be above
marginal cost, in this case 0.
>> If Roy were correct Producer surplus would always be zero.
>
> It is (leaving aside the fact that no one produces land), because the
> rent the owner gets to pocket in return for zero contribution to
> production is the same no matter who owns it.
>
> You are again demolished.
>
In your dreams Roy. Learn some economics.
ro...@telus.net
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:23:09 -0500, "lysa...@comcast.net"
>> <lysa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> The closest structure that this
>>> resembles price in is perfect competition where at equilibrium
>>
>> Perfect competition or not, equilibrium is where all goods trade. All
>> land trading means the supply is always the same, and the supply curve
>> is vertical. You are again proved flat wrong.
>>
>> Don't you ever get tired of being constantly and invariably demolished
>> and humiliated like this
>
>ROTFLMAO! You mean saying you didn't say what you said is demolishing
>me. This gibberish that does not understand supply is demolishing me.
>Dream on and take your meds you are having delusions of grandeur.
>
>Now to the statement. What does all land trading means the supply is
>always the same mean? I think you meant quantity supplied.
You are reduced to meaningless quibbles because you have nothing of
substance to say, and never have.
>You need to
>learn definitions Roy. Asserting the supply curve is vertical over and
>over again is not proving it is.
The fact that the supply curve for land is vertical is true by
definition, not an "assertion," and is part of the furniture of
economics.
Stupid, ignorant, lying garbage.
>> Aren't you afraid that your employer
>> might somehow get wind of this exchange, and realize that your claimed
>> "advanced degree in economics" must have been obtained by mail order,
>> as you are comprehensively ignorant of the subject?
>
>Roy I have published in peer reviewed journals.
Just not of economics. What was it, "Proceedings of the International
Association for Astrological Science"?
>>> the price
>>> of the good sold = the buyer's willingness to pay for the LAST good
>>> bought = the seller's willingness to sell for the LAST good sold.
>>
>> Uh, lying garbage? All land parcels are unique, so there is no "last"
>> good sold that is any different from the first good sold.
>
>Then we are dealing with monopolist competition.
Yep. Land is a canonical example of monopoly.
>Therefore the price
>will definitely not be the lowest amount someone will sell for and there
>is no supply curve.
The price of land is what the owner sells for, by definition, and as
the quantity of land is fixed, the supply curve is a vertical line.
>Roy doesn't understand the definitions of market
>structures either. When the owner has a monopoly over his own piece of
>land but there are close substitutes that is monopolist competition and
>the notion of a vertical supply curve no longer makes sense because
>there is no supply curve in monopolist competition. Price will be above
>marginal cost, in this case 0.
Thank you for agreeing that you lied again.
-- Roy L
zzbunker
wrote:
> In his just-released book, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
> Greenspan reserves much criticism for your White House war criminal.
>
> "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to
> wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes.
> "Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush
> presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront
> approach was a major mistake."
>
> The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and
> House in last year's elections. "The Republicans in Congress lost
> their way," Greenspan writes. "They swapped principle for power. They
> ended up with neither."
>
> Greenspan adds, " 'Deficits don't matter,' to my chagrin became part
> of the Republicans' rhetoric."
With finaclial morons like Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush,
Clinton,
Halliburton and Trump Inc running the country for the last 40
years, the only thing
we can say to idiots like Greenspan and Kissinger is
enjoy your free trip to Dubia, you fucking wacked, despicable
and exiting Exxon hirelings.
> computers and telecommunications -- "is a plus, not a minus, to the
> American standard of living." He maintains that immigration reform,
> "by opening up the United States to the world's very large and growing
> pool of skilled workers," will help reduce the inequality of incomes.
>