Politics as usual instead of, you know… what’s the word… Oh yeah. Governing.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
An working inapplicable theory is just as useless as a broken applicable theory. If you can’t implement it, it’s useless.
Derek–you continue to fail on the basic defintions/functions of words. WORDS that reflect, are the very substance, of what/how you think:
Not implementing a plan is NOT the same thing as can’t implement a plan. The first is a choice, the second an impossibilityl
You can’t choose the impossible.
See the difference?
You can’t drink water in the desert if you don’t take it with you. Thats not a failure of water. That was your choice.
Get real.
I suggest if you plan on going into the desert: take some water with youl
I suggest if you plan on running a modern economy: you follow Keynes.
Easy, Peasy.
You know I’m sick of people assuming that we get nothing for our taxes, so how about we do without all federal government services for the next four years.
No DEA, no DHS, no DoD, no EPA, no FBI, no house, no IRS, no INS, no NASA, no NSF, no SEC, no senate, no supreme court, no TSA, no USDA, no nothing. No expenses of any kind. No subsidies of any kind.
No cops, no jurors, no medicaid, no medicare, no social security.No services of any kind.
We just shut it ALL down.
We turn off the juice and stop all of this shit.
We just reboot them one at a time, when necessary, after four years.
That would just shut you the fuck up.
“I am 54 years old and as far as I know the Federal Government has never implemented a Keynesian economic policy.”
The WPA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration
For you people that keep touting Keynes, you should step back a second. In Keynes time (nearly 70 years ago), global competition was a fraction of what it is now and he did not have available to him vehicles to dramatically affect the money supply whereas now we do. He assumed that the only way to improve the economy was to spur demand (and it still didn’t work even in his time).
In addition, the premise that spending during a recession, over the long term, is beneficial is specious. Instead, it racks up debt which is never paid. Paying down the debt in good times, at best, only pays down some of the amount spent during the previous trough. Over time, those cycles build up debt until you hit a point where you cannot hope to spend your way to recovery. It’s been 55 years since our country actually ran a surplus and it doesn’t seem likely that we’ll see one in the next 4-8 years for sure.
Further, temporary government jobs will never get a country out of a recession. So this specious notion that if Obama just hired more government workers we could solve the unemployment problem is silly. Once those jobs end, we’re back to where we started. The only way to reduce unemployment over a longer term is through private hiring. The problem is that businesses, especially small businesses, are not hiring. The number one reason given on numerous surveys is government uncertainty. Uncertainty about health care, taxes, and now the budget. That’s Obama’s fault. Unfortunately for Obama, it’s really too late to change that before 2012 election.
#32
“ignore the Debt Ceiling silliness”
I smell a trap, after all who controls the Supreme Court. This, being a constitutional matter, would go directly to them. Anyone want to wager it wouldn’t come back as a 5-4 decision for affirming the constitutionality of the debt ceiling?
Mitch McConnell even got up and dared Obama to take the bait. Either do whatever we tell you or go to to the courts.
#38
The WPA was created in April of 1935:
Unemployment Rate
1935 20.1%
1939 17.2%
A “whopping” 3% drop in unemployment over the course of four years. So, how much did said program cost us for that miniscule drop in unemployment? According to Wikipedia, about 6.7% of GDP per year. Today that would equate to about $1 T per year. Over four years, that would amount to $4 T additional to the debt. Does anyone here really think we have the money for that?
#41 Thomas
It was also
in 1936: 16.9%
in 1937: 14.3%
Did it fix everything forever? No.
Did it help hundreds of thousands of people who had no where else to turn? yes
Did it create value for the US that we are still enjoying today? Yes
http://money.howstuffworks.com/12-wpa-projects-that-still-exist.htm
The anti keynes rhetoric forgets this: there’s lots of US infrastructure that needs upgrading and fixing. Its money we should be spending anyway, it will have long term benefits, it will help the unemployed and, help grease the wheels of the economy.
#42
Tell you what, we require that the Federal government must have a balanced budget via an Amendment and then we’ll consider blowing another trillion dollars a year on temporary jobs. Until then, forget it, we don’t have the money. The WPA didn’t get us out of the recession in 1935 through 1939 so why should we assume it would now? It comes down to cost-benefit. We simply cannot afford to increase the debt by $4 T over four years to give people temporary busy work jobs.
Over the long term, it is folly to assume politician’s will spend less during booms unless they are forced. That accumulation of debt eventually chokes the country into the death spiral we have now.
The anti keynes rhetoric forgets this: there’s lots of US infrastructure that needs upgrading and fixing.
Great. Do with a balanced budget. Do it with a deficit = 0. The question is never whether you should spend money on infrastructure projects. The question is about what you are willing to give up for it.
Ignore the debt ceiling on constitutional grounds? Who is buying this debt that has not been authorized by Congress?
I agree, let’s follow bobbo’s plan, and have him be first in line to buy the bonds.
Obama’s & the Democrat’s thinking is that when you find leaks in the bow, run and drill holes in the stern of the ship, thus as the water rushes through the holes into ship from the bow, it can flow out the holes they made in the stern.
WINNING! GLUG! GLUG! GLUG!
Vote them all out, it’s the only way to be sure…
Like everything else, Keynes has its limits. It cannot correct every other kind of mismanagement that we employ.
The debt ceiling which is a statute conflicts directly with the 14th Amendment. Striking down the debt ceiling circus does nothing to the validity of the debt on the books. No other country has a debt ceiling. Other countries will loan to the USA without the uncertainty of the debt ceiling circus coming to town.
There is only one reason to put my money into USA Bonds: no where else is more secure.
Same as it ever was.
#46
The debt ceiling which is a statute conflicts directly with the 14th Amendment.
There is no Constitutional impediment since Congress imposed the limit on itself. Congress simply needs to vote to remove or increase the limit. IMO, this is akin to Congressional censuring of members which is also not covered by the Constitution.
Striking down the debt ceiling circus does nothing to the validity of the debt on the books.
Of course not. It simply changes the protocols and procedures by which Congress releases money.
No other country has a debt ceiling.
Not true. Denmark also has a self-imposed debt ceiling. In addition, many of the wealthier EU countries have asked for the creation of a debt ceiling for its member countries specifically to prevent the scenarios like that in Greece and Portugal.
There is only one reason to put my money into USA Bonds: no where else is more secure.
That is changing. There are investment vehicles which provide comparable security. In addition, if the US continues its death spiral into debt, that will definitely change.
Thomas–you missed the issue. Of course congress can do as they wish. The issue is what can THE PRESNEDENT of the USA do should Congress refuse to act? What does the 14th Amendment language mean? The PRESNEDENT takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the political masturbations of Congress. To that end, I just caught something interesting to the point that the President could only issue one kind of debt, not the standard Treasury Bonds that Congress issues. Would the usual suspects of foreign note holders accept this new debt instrument on the same terms as the expected product? I would think not===just to get a higher return before our eventual default if for no other reason.
Yes, its all a game of who can extract the most money before the fall of the status quo. Does ANYONE think its not coming? Faster than Global Warming. Ha, ha.
Yes, I spoke with too much enthusiasm about USA being the only one. Please excuse my Republican Moment.
# 6 B. Dog said:
(Just scroll back and read it.)
Kudos, B. Dog!
THE essential clue in the 6th post!
Of course, it was wasted on the usual suspects.
#49–Somebody==more pure toxic BS? My, my.
So–connect the dots for us: how does paying off Obama get the Republicans in the House to hold America hostage to their Debt Ceiling demands in a way that has never happened before?
How would that work? Even conceptually?
Seems to me Soros would be paying the Teabaggers–not Obama.
Yep, toxic BS.
Prove me wrong.
McCain had far more billionaires on his side, Somebody. Try again, sport. 😉
#43
“we require that the Federal government must have a balanced budget via an Amendment”
Can you give me the specific amendment to the constitution that requires the federal government to have a balanced budget?
# 23 Bobbo, the clueless said:
“From Obama’s first day in office the Pukes have been pushing their magical thinking on the American Public with piling on by too many Dumbo’s: the TARP program….”
Funny, I count 39 Dems for and 34 Reps for and 9 Dems against and 15 Reps against TARP.
Is it brain damage or bigotry that makes you blame the Republicans for TARP?
How do you like facts and history now?
I guess that was the Senate.
172 Dem for 63 Dems against
91 Rep for 108 Rep against
in the House.
And stop stealing my bits.
I came up with “toxic BS” as a label to apply to you as a public service.
Bobbo the clueless said:
“Prove me wrong.”
So, don’t take my word for it. But when the man who revels in being called “the Man Who Broke the Bank of England” modestly allows that he might be also be fairly called “the Man who Broke the FED”.
Who am I kidding? You still won’t get it.
But OK.
1) Bobbo is ALWAYS wrong.
2) You are Bobbo.
3) You are wrong. QED
That’s right, Somebody… just ignore all those right-wing billionaires contributing countless millions to Republican politicians and causes. Just doesn’t fit your narrative.
# 51 Phydeau said:
“McCain had far more billionaires on his side”.
Fascinating to know you believe that, thanks!
The Koch brother… Richard Mellon Scaife… there are others, Somebody. But don’t look.
#53–Somebody==typical Puke. Can’t win the argument as stated so you change it to what was just about oppositely said. That is toxic. Go back and “parse” what was posted and how incorrect your response is. If you don’t like parsing, then do a penectomy. ((Looks for approval from Animby.))
#55–there’s room in the pool. I used toxic and I used BS. You put them together. You touched them. Obviously you now claim ownership. Ha, ha. What a puke.
#56–so==connect the dots. Yes, Soros supported Obama. You have to take it farther than that. You do know what “connect the dots” means don’t you? Or do we need an analogy?? Heres one: pull your head our of your ass. That should work on a number of issues.
#57–rather a childish syllogism. You know that goes to the power of deductive reasoning and is not a form of proof? You have to prove the validity of the premise before you have a proxy. Ha, ha.
Prove me wrong. Connect the dots.
I’m smelling baby oil and talcum powder.
Ha, ha.
Is it brain damage or bigotry that makes you blame the Republicans for TARP?
#53
Tarp was obviously an Administration\Fed creation. Bush II was in at the time, so…
Not a bad thing, by the way.