This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
We Cannot Separate Economics and Politics. And Those Who Speak Out Against Bad Policy Are Helping the Economy ... And Our Individual Investments
Some people criticize the injection of politics into economic discussions.
But economic historians tell us that economists used to
understand and accept that economics is wholly interrelated with
politics, and that politics affects our economy. They note that modern
economists have artificially tried to somehow separate the two, like
Descartes tried to separate the mind from the body.
Indeed, the father of modern economics - Adam Smith - talked a lot about politics in relation to economics.
If
mainstream ("neoclassical") economists think that politics is an
irrelevant and separate topic, it may be because they are using wholly discredited models or that "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
In the real world, political decisions
determine who gets bailed out and who doesn't, who stays afloat and
who goes under, who gets rewarded and who gets prosecuted (and if
prosecuted, who gets hit hard and who gets off with a slap on the wrist
... or a slap on the back). As such, it should be obvious that we
cannot discuss our economy or even investing decisions without
addressing politics.
Another example of the intersection of politics and the economy is
military policy. America's military policy is directly connected with
the economy, and is indirectly connected with our individual
investments.
Specifically:
- War is bad for the economy. The multi-trillion dollar price tag for the wars in Iraq and elsewhere are bankrupting our country. Moreover, war always causes inflation, and thus decreases the value of our money.
- We were lied into war
- The lies are continuing
- The state of emergency we've been living under for the past 10 years has interfered with the free markets. Political decisions
determine who gets bailed out and who doesn't, who stays afloat and who
goes under, who gets rewarded and who gets prosecuted (and if
prosecuted, who gets hit hard and who gets off with a slap on the wrist
... or a slap on the back) - It is much harder to make investment decisions when we are not in a free market
- Therefore, if enough of us speak out against the ongoing lies,
we may have some chance of helping the economy and reinstating some
semblance of a free market ... which would help increase the value of
our money, and make investing simpler
As I noted last November, the lack of trust by the American people in the government's military decisions is harming the economy:
Trust in Government is Necessary for a Stable Economy
A 2005 letter in premier scientific journal Nature reviewed the research on trust and economics:
Trust ... plays a key role in economic exchange and politics. In the absence of trust among trading partners, market transactions break down.
In the absence of trust in a country's institutions and leaders,
political legitimacy breaks down. Much recent evidence indicates that
trust contributes to economic, political and social success.Forbes wrote
an article in 2006 entitled "The Economics of Trust". The article
summarizes the importance of trust in creating a healthy economy:Imagine
going to the corner store to buy a carton of milk, only to find that
the refrigerator is locked. When you've persuaded the shopkeeper to
retrieve the milk, you then end up arguing over whether you're going to
hand the money over first, or whether he is going to hand over the
milk. Finally you manage to arrange an elaborate simultaneous exchange.
A little taste of life in a world without trust--now imagine trying
to arrange a mortgage.
Being able to trust people might seem
like a pleasant luxury, but economists are starting to believe that
it's rather more important than that. Trust is about more than whether
you can leave your house unlocked; it is responsible for the
difference between the richest countries and the poorest.
"If
you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain
basically all the difference between the per capita income of the
United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist
at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for
over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion
dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5%
of this country's income. ***
Above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth. ***
Economists
distinguish between the personal, informal trust that comes from
being friendly with your neighbors and the impersonal,
institutionalized trust that lets you give your credit card number out
over the Internet.Similarly, market psychologists Richard L. Peterson M.D. and Frank Murtha, PhD noted:
Trust is the oil in the engine of capitalism, without it, the engine seizes up.
Confidence is like the gasoline, without it the machine won't move.
Trust
is gone: there is no longer trust between counterparties in the
financial system. Furthermore, confidence is at a low. Investors have
lost their confidence in the ability of shares to provide decent returns
(since they haven't).Two professors of finance pointed out:
The
drop in trust, we believe, is a major factor behind the deteriorating
economic conditions. To demonstrate its importance, we launched the
Chicago Booth/Kellogg School Financial Trust Index. Our first set of
data—based on interviews conducted at the end of December 2008—shows
that between September and December, 52 percent of Americans lost trust
in the banks. Similarly, 65 percent lost trust in the stock market. A
BBB/Gallup poll that surveyed a similar sample of Americans last April
confirms this dramatic drop. At that time, 42 percent of Americans
trusted financial institutions, versus 34 percent in our survey today,
while 53 percent said they trusted U.S. companies, versus just 12
percent today.
As trust declines, so does Americans’ willingness
to invest their money in the financial system. Our data show that
trust in the stock market affects people’s intention to buy stocks,
even after accounting for expectations of future stock-market
performance. Similarly, a person’s trust in banks predicts the
likelihood that he will make a run on his bank in a moment of crisis:
25 percent of those who don’t trust banks withdrew their deposits and
stored them as cash last fall, compared with only 3 percent of those
who said they still trusted the banks. Thus, trust in financial
institutions is a key factor for the smooth functioning of capital
markets and, by extension, the economy. Changes in trust matter.They quote a Nobel laureate economist on the subject:
“Virtually
every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust,”
writes economist Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel laureate. When we deposit
money in a bank, we trust that it’s safe. When a company orders goods,
it trusts its counterpart to deliver them in good faith. Trust
facilitates transactions because it saves the costs of monitoring and
screening; it is an essential lubricant that greases the wheels of the
economic system.And a distinguished international group
of economists (Giancarlo Corsetti, Michael P. Devereux, Luigi Guiso,
John Hassler, Gilles Saint-Paul, Hans-Werner Sinn, Jan-Egbert Sturm
and Xavier Vives) wrote:
Public distrust of bankers and financial markets has risen dramatically with the financial crisis. This column argues that this loss
of trust in the financial system played a critical role in the
collapse of economic activity that followed. To undo the damage,
financial regulation needs to focus on restoring that trust.They noted:
Trust
is crucial in many transactions and certainly in those involving
financial exchanges. The massive drop in trust associated with this
crisis will therefore have important implications for the future of
financial markets. Data show that in the late 1970s, the percentage of
people who reported having full trust in banks, brokers, mutual funds
or the stock market was around 40%; it had sunk to around 30% just
before the crisis hit, and collapsed to barely 5% afterwards. It is
now even lower than the trust people have in other people (randomly
selected of course).Time Magazine pointed out:
Traditionally, gold has been a store of value when citizens do not trust their government politically or economically.
In other words, the government's political actions affect investments, such as gold, and thus the broader economy.
Trust Is At An All-Time Low
Unfortunately, the public's trust in government as a whole (and see this and this), the justice system, bankers, and the corporate media are at all-time lows.Why?
Partly because the government has been repeatedly caught lying.
The
government repeatedly said about the subprime crisis, banking crisis,
debt crisis, mortgage crisis, and other economic crises:
- "It's contained"
- "We've got it under control"
and
- "We're going to fix it"
It wasn't, and they didn't ... and so people have lost trust in the government.
But it's not just the economy. The government also got caught making false claims that:
- Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, had a hand in 9/11 (and see this) and carried out the the anthrax attacks
- 9/11 wasn't foreseeable
- That the government doesn't spy on Americans (it did even before 9/11), Americans don't torture, etc.
It
is basic human nature that - if you catch someone lying about one
topic - you will tend to doubt the truth of what he is saying in other areas as well.So
Americans' loss of trust in the government's political actions have
also undermined their trust in the government's statements and actions
in the economic field.But there's another important reason for
Americans' lack of trust in our government and our economy: the failure
to prosecute the criminals.
Prosecuting the Criminals and Launching REAL Investigations Is Necessary to Restore Trust
One of the leading business schools in America - the Wharton School of Business - has written an essay
on the psychological causes and solutions to the economic crisis.
Wharton points out that restoring trust is the key to recovery, and that
trust cannot be restored until wrongdoers are held accountable:According to David M. Sachs, a training and supervision analyst at the Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia, the
crisis today is not one of confidence, but one of trust. "Abusive
financial practices were unchecked by personal moral controls that
prohibit individual criminal behavior, as in the case of [Bernard]
Madoff, and by complex financial manipulations, as in the case of AIG."
The public, expecting to be protected from such abuse, has suffered a
trauma of loss similar to that after 9/11.
"Normal expectations of what is safe and dependable were abruptly
shattered," Sachs noted. "As is typical of post-traumatic states,
planning for the future could not be based on old assumptions about
what is safe and what is dangerous. A radical reversal of how to be
gratified occurred."
People
now feel more gratified saving money than spending it, Sachs suggested.
They have trouble trusting promises from the government because they
feel the government has let them down.
He framed his argument
with a fictional patient named Betty Q. Public, a librarian with two
teenage children and a husband, John, who had recently lost his job.
"She felt betrayed because she and her husband had invested
conservatively and were double-crossed by dishonest, greedy businessmen,
and now she distrusted the government that had failed to protect them
from corporate dishonesty. Not only that, but she had little trust in
things turning around soon enough to enable her and her husband to
accomplish their previous goals.
"By no means a sophisticated
economist, she knew ... that some people had become fantastically
wealthy by misusing other people's money -- hers included," Sachs said.
"In short, John and Betty had done everything right and were being
punished, while the dishonest people were going unpunished."
Helping
an individual recover from a traumatic experience provides a useful
analogy for understanding how to help the economy recover from its own
traumatic experience, Sachs pointed out. The public will need to "hold the perpetrators of the economic disaster responsible and take what actions they can to prevent them from harming the economy again." In addition, the public will have to see proof that government and business leaders can behave responsibly before they will trust them again, he argued.Note that Sachs urges "hold[ing] the perpetrators of the economic disaster responsible." In other words, just "looking forward" and promising to do things differently isn't enough.
Economists such as William Black and James Galbraith and Nobel prize winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and George Akerlof agree.Indeed, polls show that:
- Most Americans believe that the Iraq war was a mistake. At least half of all Americans wanted Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the Iraq war
- Hundreds of millions of Americans think that there was a cover up about 9/11, and want a thorough investigation
- Americans want those who committed financial fraud to be prosecuted
Remember, distrust in the political actions of government officials undermines the economy as
well. Therefore, the economy will not recover until the economic
criminals are prosecuted, and there are real investigations into 9/11
(even the 9/11 Commissioners themselves think there should be more
investigation: see this and this), the Iraq war, torture, spying on Americans and other government failures.
So
people who criticize the government's lies, and call for the
prosecutions of those who made the misstatements, are actually working
towards stabilizing our economy, and making our investment decisions a little easier.
- advertisements -
Note that the tiny bar of Kelloggs(tm) pre-mixed-up snack bar is "image enhanced for detail" That's why it's only 2/3rds the size pictured.
...now with only 90 calories!
So I shall continue to trust Mr. Kelloggs' people.
Snip pip pip-up!
Politics and economics is like sex and love. Now we have the ecological concern in mix to balance/blend with economics and political/social goals. Scary small world where climate change runs amok across continents. Pushing the analogy, sex and love now have to balance global population growth. If we do it more often but don't procreate so often, its like consuming more without polluting more. Tall story ... like the loch ness monster!
Thank you, G.W. Keep bringin' it, brother!
Most POVs in this debate hate where this country is heading and are pushing in various directions with much disdain for others who push against something else. Oh, but if we could all push together on one or two unifying issues...
/lament
William, LIKE!
"...polls show that:
* Americans want investigations into torture and wireless wiretapping
* Most Americans believe that the Iraq war was a mistake. At least half of all Americans wanted Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the Iraq war
* Hundreds of millions of Americans think that there was a cover up about 9/11, and want a thorough investigation
* Americans want those who committed financial fraud to be prosecuted"
Out of a population of slightly more than 300 million, half of which are children, what percent would "hundereds of millions of Americans" be??
...John and Betty had done everything right and were being punished, while the dishonest people were going unpunished."...
Nothing embitters the human soul more than injustice. " Eye for an Eye" is a compassionate, enlightened and gracious response for acts done with malice aforethought against an innocent.
The judiciary is our gatekeeper to prevent escalations of mob rule in the US republic. They have proved themselves horribly co-opted by the legislative and executive branches as directed by their privately held corporate handlers in the financial and information industries.
By the way, John and Mary are not innocents. They elected these clowns and are now experiencing the results of their fool heartiness. I don't / won't expect them to apologize.
I'd be glad to see a renewed emphasis on trust. It will be a fine day when the current mantra of Hope as the highest virtue is laid to rest in that without trust, hope is irrelevant.
My post would not be complete without advocating the US mint punch out precious metal coinage and the treasury issue US notes redeemable on demand for said coinage again.
"By the way, John and Mary are not innocents. They elected these clowns and are now experiencing the results of their fool heartiness. I don't / won't expect them to apologize."
Ah yes. Elections. We're all to blame, aren't we?
</sarcasm>
I really don't care if I get junked, but if you think the average American carries any blame, any blame at all, for the last 10 years, you are out of your mind.
I personally accept NONE.
Excellent piece. Some in the above string seem to believe that the loss of trust you decry is only about government malfeasance. I see this as myopic. My point is that U.S. culture as a whole has undermined trust. For example, in utopian America individuals pride themselves on being useful, producing value for their customers, etc. While this trait still exists, if you search enough, it is being replaced by "what's in it for me?", atendency toward scamming, getting something for nothing. I would not disagree that this dichotomy has always existed in our society, I merely point out that with the change from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, the balance has shifted toward me-ism and away from creating value. This change is grossly manifest in the FIRE industries. When I purchased my first house, I closed under to tutelage of my real estate agent. Today, I would never enter a closing without a lawyer - a junk-yard dog of a lawyer at that. Similarly, I was once ripped-off by a stock broker. Hence, I have trained myself to do my own trades. Thus, this loss of trust, is not just a loss in trust in politicians and government agencies, I have lost trust in all but my closest friends. Hell, even the Catholic Church coddles priests who fellate little boys. Sorry to go off the rails a bit, I simply want to state the obvious, WE are getting less and less trustworthy. Mea culpa.
the free market works... all Govt intervention is a sack of shit to walk around... if you want to see sacks of shit see US property, banking and healthcare to see where Govt involvement and regulation gets you.
Game Over Govt
nice GW. TRUST is essential for without it how can we have justice, equality, fairness. Of course when others betray trust they are labelled spys and traitors who are subject to our highest penalties-should not the same apply to govt officials?
Also true to the number of 3 letter agencies (and you thought the KGB was bad), the thousands of pages of laws/regs, employment contracts from programs and the sheer number government employs.
So what is the solution GW? We get it. You hate
Bush and Cheney and the evil Republicans. While
Obama, Pelosi and Reid are our saviors right? I
don't think so. How about some statistics on the
more than 700 exemptions for large Unions and
others for the health care law that is opposed
by a majority of Americans. How do I get an
exemption GW? How about the thousands of
civilians killed by Obama in Pakistani drone
strikes? So my point is GW, you can keep pitting
us against eachother ie GOP vs Democrat the
way the corrupt politicians have designed for
you. Or work to unite us all under the banner
of liberty. So far your choice is abundantly clear.
There really is no need to take any of your
commentary seriously when you present a one
sided view each and every time. Better luck
next time.
You are also wrong.
Sounds reasonable considering we're trading paper or even worse 1s and 0s accross a computer screen. But you also have to believe all are treated fairly by the law, risk has consequence and policies are in place to benefit the Average Joe.
That America is long past for many.
I've graded your research paper A+ Mr. Washington. I've never felt this disgusted bymy government in all my 63 years of life. I qualify that by saying worse than the Nixon/Agnew period.
The problem I have with GW is that his aspersions of pols and policy is just too one-sided. Lots of Bush era bashing (which I agree with) but none for the fascism now apparent in the DHS destruction of the Bill of Rights and the Obama suckup to the marxists and jihadists?
You're wrong.
Suleiman the Magnificent, also known as "the law giver." He also went by the name "Lover." Odd for a conquerer of which he is one of History's greatest. Caviar Emptor--also known as a transcendentally focused realist. Cognitive Dissonance: scary truth guy--seems to imply we're all hard wired in some way and thus all our behavior can be predicted in advance and with ease.
Here's a good example of my comment above. I found this in two minutes using foreclosureradar.com.
3176 Bells Road, Placerville, CA
Jan 2008 first mortgage: $406k
April 2009 default
Nov 2010 trustee's sale (loan balance then $442k)
Fannie's winning bid: $361,512
Jan 2011 list price (on foreclosure.com): $229k
I believe the government's strategy is clear. By bidding high they limit the loan loss to about $80k ($442 less $361k). There is a second, much bigger shoe to drop when the home sells, i.e., another $140k loss ($361k less $229k and sales costs). This way they can "time" the second, larger loss. If the political climate can accept a little larger Fannie bailout, they'll let a few of these REO's go. If not, they'll just hold on to the properties as shadow inventory.
Yep, give the banks a not so subtle bailout from fannie with high above the market bids, then every few months ask the taxpayer for more bailout money for fannie. I hate those motherfuckers.
Hanging some bankers would help. Throwing many others in jail would also help. I gave a statistical roadmap for anyone wanting to prove that trades were and are attributed non randomly. Another reader pointed out if they look at all this structured finance sold by goldman and others which has and will continue to bankrupt municipalities, and look at the settlement dates and figuresfor all the complex derivatives within those structured financial products, they will likely see even more obvious forms of gouging. The tireless work of td and others may eventually help. The troll has a few things in common with the angry populist ( besides the fact that I deign to employ a few of you). We both hate banking fraud. If they cant go after the mbs cdo fraud which was the most blatant then i dont see howwe ever rebuild a secondary mortgage market to bring back private capital.
Of course they think that way. The supposed triump of US political ideology has rendered it invisible. As it happens anytime a feature becomes dominant.
That recalled, they can pretend economics evolves independently of politics as the political framework that enables their economics is dominant. Theirs that is already established is invisible. While the others who have to struggle to establish the political environment to enable their economics drivel mantra make by their struggle their political environment apparent and the links between the two.
This crisis has always been much more a political crisis than an economical crisis. US style political ideologues are caught in a web of contradictions as their main shield, the emergency state resulting from a minor ideology forced to protect itself from major players the US knew at its start (and therefore in a position of denying its own principles) is no longer.
Now US political ideology is the dominant force in the world and the only force able to prevent the delivery on promises is the US itself. Nobody else can prevent the US. The US is in power and it is in power in an extent no other had in the world history.
These are tough times for propagandists. They are caught naked on multiple events. For example, they sold the Muslim Brotherhood as a formidable enemy, one that could take over the world.
The crisis in Egypt painted a totally different picture: a weak organization, unable to wrestle its own country out of the clutches of a sick dictator while millions protested on the streets, calling for change.
This is raw reality and propagandists have to step in to dress reality.
It should not be expected otherwise from economists.
I suspect that some people in Washington agree with this premise (that trust must be restored) but also believe that the best way to do that is to prevent the public from discovering just how bad things really were in Sept 2008 and remain so today. A perfect example is Fannie Mae. I watch daily as it makes full credit bids at trustee's sales on homes that are worth 50% less than the amount of their credit bid. The credit bid artificially prevents a "loss" from occuring at the time of foreclosure. Instead, the loss is kicked down the road to the loss mitigation department, i.e., REO, and to a later quarter. It is fraud in plain sight, happening today, and nobody is talking about it.
The moral hazard was unleashed long ago. It is way too late to put this genie back in the bottle. I see trolls shilling for one party or the other. This is the underlying problem people, the average retard thinks their party is not responsible for the mess (BOTH parties represent a corrupt enterprise). Dividing the populace is the plan morons. The pendulum will swing and keep swinging back and forth until the system collapses under it's own weight or honest leadership emerges to actual fix the structural problems that still exist. My bet is on the former occurring first.
hedge accordingly.
The percentage of Americans that are unaffiliated with any party is greater than the percent of Demicans or Replicrats. The American people are sufficiently aware of the USA's "one party rule". The problems lie elsewhere.
My take away from this article is that it is very difficult to socialize risk if no one trusts the government.
Has there ever been a time when the government was trusted?
Distrust in the government is one of the foundations of democracy. The Monday morning quaterbacking of decisions taken during war and depressions leads to many great discussions. Many a career has been made by a coffee row senators debating these items.
If you want to sell to the SEIU, Jane Fonda, et al. you need to get your politics right. They aren't interested in buying from a political adversary.
As an addendum, you may want to read this book about the roaring '20s. It could be useful in establishing benchmarks or setting goal posts... depending on whether you want to navigate or score points...
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/ALLEN/cover.html
Greatest generation ever trusted the government. But since then, you are probably right.
Where? Certainly not in the US. The US citizens trust their military for example.
Our founders did not trust the government and tried to limit and specifically enumerate the things government could do. Despite language that is reasonably clear, we put crow bars in a couple of their phrases to create an expansive view of government. Most now have a low view of liberty. Most now believe they really are incapable of finding their own way through life without the material and persistent help of government. Most believe they are a victim of some sort and / or entitled to many things outside of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Congratulations folks -- what you got what is sadly deserved.
"Our founders did not trust the government and tried to limit and specifically enumerate the things government could do."
Well stated sir. It's outlined in the Constitution, Barry's definition of negative liberty. The Bill of Rights is ours, the peoples, they screw with it at their peril.
My thought has always been...if there was no Central Bank the Treasury bonds would have to be purchased and paid off with real money...no more printing to pay interest & principal, thus devaluing the very same money used to pay for war AND welfare...it would come out of your hide...that is, your labor...as it should be.
How many of our current politicians could stay in office if this were the case? All I can offer you is misery by my decisions...doesn't that sound pleasant for a politician to say? ;-)
So, a way was found around that bit of unpleasantness, of you having to pay for it immediately by taxation...and the pol could dance away to another election...until you discovered your "money" is worthless.
The next thing, I would say, is a definition of the Commerce Clause as we all (left & right, at least here) believe statism is bad...riiight?
When first instituted it was to keep tariffs out of state to state commerce within the Union. This has morphed into DC dictating what commerce is. To a politician the very air we breath can be defined by them as "commerce" as it travels state to state and is used by it's inhabitants...don't laugh, this is how they think.
We should concentrate on what gives them (the federal government) power instead of what they have done with it, to us, in the past and present...IMHO.
And to GW...I won't take away from the thrust of your post/thread for the rest of the night with my ramblings...as an olive branch ;-)
SeeYa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
The present set of circumstances regarding interstate commerce seems to be centered upon the notion that corporations are people. This distinction provides the legal foundation to seize power from the separate states in order to protect these "individuals" freedom to engage in life, liberty & the pursuit of their vocation. Corporations are a piece of paper, staffed by individuals that posses these freedoms. In seeking to establish this protection for bits of paper the federal authority is expressly destroying the very freedoms, and the foundations of federalism, that had been a key element of our societies legal founding.
Or....
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
- Frederic Bastait
The sooner our legal system departs this foolery of corporations are people and begins once more to hold individuals to account for their individual actions the better off we will all be.
A divergence from my focus on the creation of "money" instead of taxation for wants and needs perhaps...but we can chase this rabbit together for a bit ;-)
I assume your speaking about the Citizens United case.
We can agree a corporation is not an individual. It does not breath and is not alive. It cannot speak for itself. However, being staffed by individuals who have an interest in it (the corporation) they must be heard or their rights are abridged.
All that should be required is disclosure...meaning complete disclosure...no shell organizations. If it's there in plain sight everyone knows what their angle is and what value it is contributing to a candidate in order for the citizen to police the candidate if elected. I would say that's a hell of a lot better than organizations popping up like weeds around elections and then disappearing.
We have bribery & graft laws on the books...all that's needed is enforcement...giving campaign donations is neither...voting against your constituents wishes in favor of a corporation is...like in ObamaCare, like TARP etc.
On the bastardization of the Commerce Clause...what DC has done is inhibit intra-state commerce not promote it, as it was designed. It has become like a Sicilian named Vito. Just today bills started arriving to employers to pay for federally mandated 99 weeks of unemployment (running out of ink?).
They just want the interest...for now.
Anyways...I have a long day tomorrow...I have to be in a courthouse all day.
I'll return here tomorrow...seeya.
Blessed by a reprieve. Until tomorrow. Tschuss
I don't recall the lengthy Bastiat passage in your original to me Miles...perhaps an oversight on my part? ;-)
At any rate, my default is always to more freedom, not less.
The assumption is, is that those who have the most money will win in elections. So, by virtue of this assumption, we would expect to see a proportional return on "investment" if we are to keep assuming this.
So let's turn to the recent election cycle where one party was, for all intents and purposes, practically annihilated.
The >>> <<< is my interjection of the time element.
"As of today, >>> October 27, 2010<<< the Center calculates that Republicans have raised $1.64 billion to Democrats’ $1.59 billion."
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/10/election-2010-to-shatter-spending-r.html
So I'm calling BS on money equaling results, as one week before the election the R's & D's were essentially tied in money raised or spent. If they are at parity in campaign war chests how could the results be so lopsided to continue on with the assumption?
So, I would postulate it was the message sent with the money, not the money itself. It was a repudiation by the citizens of statism/cronyism.
A good thing we would both have to agree on? Now we find support among our congress critters to cut spending instead of taxing more (the extraction of our labor for their purposes), again, something we would have to agree on?
More troubling to me is Kelo vs. City of New London where a precedent was set to take private property from an individual for the purposes of enriching corporations & the state. This one will have to be re-addressed at some point...it can't be allowed to stand.
Cheers my friend.
Cheers in return .. as I am happily reminded that there are ample reasons to have bestowed confidence & trust. So ya know, I am notorious for amending my longer posts as it takes a little time for my expression to maturate.
As I have yet to delve into the referenced cases (ya, momentary lapse of time management) commenting on their specifics would just open me up to being filleted, for good reason.
LOOOL. Oh my. Are you trying to tell me that contributions under section 501 & related sections of the IRS code are an inclusive representation of politically (or election related to be more specific) contributing, influencing and interaction? (The sum total of the inputs to be considered under a one dollar, one vote paradigm) If you are then I suppose that everything one needs to learn about corporate political interaction can be ascertained by examining a companies accounting breakdown of 501 and related activity. I suggest that if one were to do so the results of the inquiry would be skewed from the reality of multidimensional corporate interaction with government & broad society.
Simply put, political activity generally and election activity specifically is best expressed by ones pocketbook, the expenditure of ones labor & time in total. Where we as individuals or organizations implicitly and/or explicitly drive political & economic policy (the juxtaposition of of monetary & fiscal policy regardless of street name from where this interaction originates), or election results, is by how we chose to spend our money, be it on a political campaign, raw-intermediate-finished goods, manpower, philanthropy and more. If this weren't so then we would not be witnessing the broad policies from the JMK, super econometric, macro centric folks that we have been under what I term faith based governance.
Just like trying to say that a company being accused of serious violations of law equals a death sentence for that company. I think I'll defer to JW's timely commentary for a quick look see into both of these concepts...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-10/wall-street-justice-means-nobod...
Now, you'll get little from me in the way of argument (tons of discourse tho) regarding further examination of what are genuine (hard) assets vs what is simply an expression of a notional asset premised upon the considered capacity of this notional item to carry debt. (political election results most definitely included heh) Value & money are quite possibly the most esoteric of our constructs. Heck, most folks can hardly express what money is an actual expression of, which I view as an important contributing factor in fostering and enabling its creators and gamers the freedom of maneuver enjoyed thus far. In this I suspect we would both look to the work accomplished by Bastait and others as reference points of further exploration.
Thanks for your patience and presenting an engaging set of alchemic precursors. I have enjoyed this immensely.
Best As Always & see you soon, ya absurdly dynamic fight clubber
Meanwhile .. Welcome to the recliner at 130 knots & 1200' agl :D Remember to have fun - Even when the Special Forces Q course is waiting on the ground
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DZPIGhL3bY
"So ya know, I am notorious for amending my longer posts..."
I understand this about you...LOL...though I find it...disconcerting to my perceiving what was previously said...but I am enjoying this discussion immensely.
I ask the same from you as you did of me, as my time is limited this morning.
Around 19:00 this evening then...I'll bring bring my friends Jameson & Ginger (ale).
It ain't easy livin like a gypsy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1urxv2SkMo
1900ish then. Good deal on Ginger as The Captain has always danced best with that partner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxPgplMujzQ
LOL...nice mixing of metaphors.
You gave me quite a bit to chew on with your last.
I can honestly say I have nothing much to add to your interpretation of the subornation of law...natural or otherwise, as all law flows from the concept of equality. The reason no one has gone to jail is because everything was done by "the book" as it is now written...fairness is not written anywhere in it, it seems.
On this point;
"Now, you'll get little from me in the way of argument (tons of discourse tho) regarding further examination of what are genuine (hard) assets vs what is simply an expression of a notional asset premised upon the considered capacity of this notional item to carry debt."
We agree, without sound money it is impossible for the average joe to truly save & create his own wealth. Faith has been crushed, so it seems unworkable. My practice is to trade silver for gold around this ratio, low 40's to 1. Do you have a preferred measure of value?
I ask because I don't follow the option "bull ring" and only trade outside of stepping in to remove a scalp here & there in stocks...there is little discussion of when to "swap" and I don't see governments the world over giving up their love of fiat backed by nothing but hope/faith & air.
Any opinions here would be appreciated, if any.
"...which I view as an important contributing factor in fostering and enabling its creators and gamers the freedom of maneuver enjoyed thus far."
It's always nice to know you have a limitless supply...which of course, is what Glass-Steagall was all about...removing commercial banking from the protection of the "one" with the biggest gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vabnZ9-ex7o
Until your next...
Indeed. Miles had to cross some of these bridges which laid the foundation for choosing it as my avi (as did V).
It is hard work, but as you note, far easier and much less damaging for nearly everyone than the alternative. An alternative every dissident should abhor while the anarchists get their piss woody, until the process turns on them, which it always does in the end (and right back to LDS). Even project mayhem waited until the buildings and adjoining streets were empty before doing the master wipe.
It has been noted that folks refuse options one day while dreaming of having those same options available the next. It is always easier on those that populate an institution to handle it than it is for the institution, and those that populate it to have this reintroduction of standards imposed & enforced from outside. The question remains; Is if it's entirely possible for self enforcement to be effective? So far it doesn't looking promising. I suppose this could be called one mans answer to how does one define loyalty to competing institutions. Without the rule of law there can be no rule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzIT67dBkSc
Into the ether indeed, as the fluffers go flaky (or tweaky) and get flash baked. Thinking on anarchists, flaky flashbaking .... and joking on flaming out at the end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MHK_SCNfbM
Mark Twain is noted for his ability to understand and employ the power of voice. Combine that with the Bedouin observation regarding camels & tents and you’ll get some real dynamic intellectual alchemy almost every time.
Thanks for an excellent turn down thread. Love to do this again, whenever it suits your situation. Until then, a toast to a wonderful week for you & yours. Cheers
Meanwhile, a tune and a late snack on an annoying subject dear to us both
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cadbYIzhqQ
http://baselinescenario.com/2011/02/11/richard-posner-is-my-new-hero/
In passing .. Watching kids explore is always way cool. From my youngest .. on one eyed vision. heh Cheers
the backwards: they are all individuals. all lost, they are social to make connections with people. out of desperation. for reasons that aren't worth two shits. (they can also be "successful" but if the forward or spinners defined it, it would be a false sense of success.)
the forward: also individuals. but the mold they've created for themselves is permanent. they're intelligent. accomplished. successful. they laid the foundation of today. true intellects, but they see too much of the world in black and white. props to them for expanding the realm of the binary.
the spinners: a whole new kind of collective. all i know is the majority is moving backwards, few have moved forward. ill be content with spinning around, throwing everyone off, sitting down and laughing at it all. and the backwards will pretend like it never happened, the forward will shake their heads, and those that laugh will see the world through one eye. we will change things, and we'll have a more dynamic experience than the rest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjbVmX1_wh8
Kids say the darndest things ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9BA6fFGMjI&feature=related
Take care my friend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAAjpl23pAI
And getting back to that sticky item of valuation.
What would the potential impact be of all precious metals (and perhaps other key commodities) being accounted for and stored in a global repository where the the whole maintained proper accounting of their collective assets and a clearing mechanism was put into place to ensure timely reflection for the purposes of engaging in global commerce? (If it isn't accounted for there it has no open commercial value) Of course processes would need to be put into place to address the needs of industrial production and individuals/museums desire for a de minimus collecting of historic coins & such. Make it supremely transparent while, if not removing, then displacing the current paradigm of foundational fraud that currently underpins that whole nut roll...
You asked for an idea, clueless as it may be there's one for ya, with my compliments.
Ahhh yes...valuation.
"What would the potential impact be of all precious metals (and perhaps other key commodities) being accounted for and stored in a global repository where the the whole maintained proper accounting of their collective assets and a clearing mechanism was put into place to ensure timely reflection for the purposes of engaging in global commerce? (If it isn't accounted for there it has no open commercial value)"
I believe that is their problem in fact...that they (PM's, commodities, gems, artwork etc.) cannot be accounted for, as they are held outside of a main repository.
Clearly if they cannot be trusted to balance their ledgers in a fiat world we would not want to allow them anything tangible to fiddle around with. Even in repositories scattered across the globe, they would be looted by accountants working in concert with those who oversee them.
We have to assume (or at least I do), that humans (all human's, including myself) have at least one drop of larceny in their bloodstream...LOL. So I would say it is better that true wealth be held that way...in billions of repositories...only coming out to purchase on their own schedule.
From that I would say, we find value by observing what it goes to purchase.
There is nothing in my mind to support gold at $1,400 dollars an ounce outside of the fact that the dollar, or any fiat currency for that matter, is incredibly weak in it's structure (debt based faith, in the power to tax the subjects who are maxed out).
So I believe it would follow that what a dollar (or any other fiat) purchases is inflated in price as is the labor to produce something.
That is, there is no reason that a bushel of corn cannot be purchased for a dime, given everything else is equal, including what everyone is paid for their labor...it would also be low.
The above is why I pay no attention to the (dollar) price of gold or silver, rather only it's value to purchase something else with. Historically it is said to be 16oz. silver to 1oz. gold (the gold to silver ratio swap value). All I know is since I've been following it (a short period compared to others) I've never seen it this low...42.53...usually in the upper 50's & 60's.
The presumption is, with a high probability of being true, is that the debt cannot be repaid as it is too large and selective debt defaults seem an improbability, so the currencies as we now know them will collapse. I would rather be holding something tangible when this happens like family, land, silver, gold, labor implements & equipment and the means to protect them.
And, picking up an uninhabited island around the equator, for retirement, for a few ounces of metal, does have a certain appeal ;-)
I'm not an economic's professor or theorist so I hope I have laid out my thoughts accurately for you to understand them.
Long thread...thanks for sharing your time (which has a value that can only be priced by you) with me.
Your bud,
nmewn
Pleasure
Still out, but I wanted to take a moment to observe that it is amazing how many Zero Cool mf'ers could find a spot.
In war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might.
Nothing is so exhilarating in life as to be shot at with no result.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd4VSkj0Wks
Amazing how this whole cast of characters always seem to find each other, across generations, time and again. Represent indeed as a little CTL is spread around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AOQ9jXC6iE
"Amazing how this whole cast of characters always seem to find each other, across generations, time and again. Represent indeed as a little CTL is spread around."
Yes it is.
Evil will always be with us...just like what are said to be righteous mofo's...it's the process of elimination, wheat from chaff that makes it interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o
On Churchill...my personal favorite, presumed to be his;
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill! Well, I suppose – we would have to discuss terms, naturally.
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
Say's much about where we find ourselves (financially & politically) today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSwjuz_-yao
My dog detests the smell of stupidity - Isobel and a h/t to MsC
Welcome to the CondomNation maximus budimus. Good to find ya on the high ground with your black powder dry - Luke 'chutewalker
Pax old friend, always a pleasure to see you be you as we're off to Sink The Bismark. Cheers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf3Fwg8K3aE
"My dog detests the smell of stupidity - Isobel and a h/t to MsC"
LOL...yeah, ignorance is curable...stupidity not so much. As an aside, MsC and I went to the same high school...although years apart...it is a small world.
Be prepared!
Jimmy Dix: You're a real bastard, ya know that, Joe?
Joe Hallenbeck: And then some.
Take care.
Jimmy & Joe, Jeff, ya that's the name they gave me. Left coast meets right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf5rIuJPTt0
Echoes across generations and locations indeed ;)
Just remember, those SoCal folks are considered slow starters to us NorCal folks. LOOOOL
It's all homeslice as the off South Main community rocks!!
Catch as catch can. Ride strong .. my brotha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKqW5o4idt8
Take care