Money Masters
- Thread starter analag
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Seems an interesting documentary, will watch tonight thanks for posting, on quick view it reminds me of those Zeitgeist movies, interesting as well....
living sounds
Well-known member
I've watched that recently. Some interesting ideas, but overall it's riddled with factual errors, unproven assumptions and weird, paranoid conspiracy theories. And a huge dose of naivite in economic matters.
This is part of a widespread (and IMO deeply worrying) tapestry of (mostly) right-wing conspiracy theories present in today's US. A significant portion of the population seems to be widely out of touch with reality right now, far beyond the usual chracteristic anti-government sentiment in that country.
Stuff like this only aids in deflecting attention from the real perpetrators on Wall Street, lack of regulatory oversight in the economy, widespread tax evasion and the general too-close-to-comfortness of industry and government in the US today.
Here are some facts:
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html
http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/federal-reserve-system
This is part of a widespread (and IMO deeply worrying) tapestry of (mostly) right-wing conspiracy theories present in today's US. A significant portion of the population seems to be widely out of touch with reality right now, far beyond the usual chracteristic anti-government sentiment in that country.
Stuff like this only aids in deflecting attention from the real perpetrators on Wall Street, lack of regulatory oversight in the economy, widespread tax evasion and the general too-close-to-comfortness of industry and government in the US today.
Here are some facts:
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html
http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/federal-reserve-system
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Thomas Jefferson
It's very true that a number a conspiracy theories get spun that are quite out of touch with reality. But the will to power is IMHO a virtual law of nature - an ever expanding wave. Most people want to see it in the positive - "economical growth and expansion" and wince at the terms "world domination, corruption and greed". It's sometimes hard to sort out the ethics portion of it.
I don't see this as being too far from the core of what people are upset by regarding the perception of the Federal Reserve. Big power has gone unchecked and people are pi%^#d. They know they're getting squeezed but "who?" is often hard to see. Political bias in the media serves to aid confusion. I admire Flaherty's sobriety and keep a cautious eye on his "reasonableness" (not as cynicism or paranoia but because the power of denial is like a vise grip). I would love to hear his thinking on our current economic problems. The paper is limited to a debunking.
Today, in Charlotte NC, people publicly gathered to protest Bank of America over it's tax evasion practices. Lots of working class folk of middle america. Probably some of those same folk would have considered guys like Michael Moore a "left wing nut" years ago when he wrote about the tax evasion practices of big corporations - may have called it "conspiracy tripe".
Thomas Jefferson
It's very true that a number a conspiracy theories get spun that are quite out of touch with reality. But the will to power is IMHO a virtual law of nature - an ever expanding wave. Most people want to see it in the positive - "economical growth and expansion" and wince at the terms "world domination, corruption and greed". It's sometimes hard to sort out the ethics portion of it.
I don't see this as being too far from the core of what people are upset by regarding the perception of the Federal Reserve. Big power has gone unchecked and people are pi%^#d. They know they're getting squeezed but "who?" is often hard to see. Political bias in the media serves to aid confusion. I admire Flaherty's sobriety and keep a cautious eye on his "reasonableness" (not as cynicism or paranoia but because the power of denial is like a vise grip). I would love to hear his thinking on our current economic problems. The paper is limited to a debunking.
Today, in Charlotte NC, people publicly gathered to protest Bank of America over it's tax evasion practices. Lots of working class folk of middle america. Probably some of those same folk would have considered guys like Michael Moore a "left wing nut" years ago when he wrote about the tax evasion practices of big corporations - may have called it "conspiracy tripe".
caveat.. I haven't watched the video and don't plan to.
There are disturbing trends in the world today but it's rarely anything as simple as the Michael Moore's of the world think they are. While I don't doubt there are evil doers in the world... doh.
For now I think we (the US) should focus on something really simple, like not borrowing to spend more money than we can realistically pay back.
This is not that complicated. Even congress should be able to handle the relatively simple math. If they remain confused many of their constituents will explain it to them (with the ballot box).
JR
There are disturbing trends in the world today but it's rarely anything as simple as the Michael Moore's of the world think they are. While I don't doubt there are evil doers in the world... doh.
For now I think we (the US) should focus on something really simple, like not borrowing to spend more money than we can realistically pay back.
This is not that complicated. Even congress should be able to handle the relatively simple math. If they remain confused many of their constituents will explain it to them (with the ballot box).
JR
living sounds
Well-known member
The feral reserve, like most central banks, is not a private bank, but controlled by the government. It might be conceptually flawed (charged with the task of controlling inflation as well as unemployment) and can be severely misused (like Greenspan madly feeding the bubbles), but there's just no evidence for the idea that it is a real problem in itself.
As for public dept, the issue IS quite simple - too little revenue (top earners and corporations have been taxed too low for far too long), too much spending (especially on the military), financial disbalances caused by lack of regulation (=bubbles).
In the Keynsean post war era the public debt went steadily down, then Reagan and Bush I (who in the late 70s called Reagans tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves policy "voodoo economics") brought it up, then Clinton brought it down, Bush II blew it through the roof, now Obama has to deal with the consequences of the failed policies and the right-wing once again, hypocritically, demands lower spending while at the same time making - already highly privileged - top-earners pay even less.
And all the corporate spinning and nutty conspiracy theories help to disguise these pretty obvious facts.
As for public dept, the issue IS quite simple - too little revenue (top earners and corporations have been taxed too low for far too long), too much spending (especially on the military), financial disbalances caused by lack of regulation (=bubbles).
In the Keynsean post war era the public debt went steadily down, then Reagan and Bush I (who in the late 70s called Reagans tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves policy "voodoo economics") brought it up, then Clinton brought it down, Bush II blew it through the roof, now Obama has to deal with the consequences of the failed policies and the right-wing once again, hypocritically, demands lower spending while at the same time making - already highly privileged - top-earners pay even less.
And all the corporate spinning and nutty conspiracy theories help to disguise these pretty obvious facts.
Spiritworks
Well-known member
I was listening to NPR yesterday regarding General Electric paying little/no corporate income tax. They did nothing underhanded and simply ( well, not quite ) used the existing tax laws to their advantage. This is what we all have the potential to do. ( not saying anything is fair or not ) Apparently they have a thousand people on payroll just in their tax dept.
I just do not understand why it is so impossible/untenable to institute a flat tax. If I'm paying ten percent, and Bill Gates is paying ten percent, we're both paying the same and I would be completely OK with that.
I just do not understand why it is so impossible/untenable to institute a flat tax. If I'm paying ten percent, and Bill Gates is paying ten percent, we're both paying the same and I would be completely OK with that.
living sounds
Well-known member
Spiritworks said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism
OK, I guess I can think of something to say now...
I should have known this was all Bush's fault....
------
First an easy one, GE had a huge tax loss in their commercial credit division, so they were able to carry this loss forward into future years, so there is nothing funny going on here. That said one little reported and poorly understood tidbit is that the last few years of near zero federal funds borrowing interest rate, means the big banks have been slowly being recapitalized, by profiting from the spread between the interest rate the big banks pay, and what they loan money for. We, the US taxpayers, are subsidizing the recapitalization and GE finance was one of the hogs at that trough (Tarp too). A little embarrassing since Obama appointed Jeffery Immelt as one of his top advisors from the business community. A little too cozy there guys.
----------
I was uncomfortable with Bush's increase to the federal debt, but the increase in just the last two years, make even him look like a piker when it comes to spending and expanding the government. A larger wrong, does not make the former wrong right, so bad Bush, and very bad Obama. (note: our history is full of borrowing to finance wars, but this current confrontation with international terrorism is not typical. The pain of funding this needs to be shared more broadly. Likewise what is the exit strategy for Libya? Despite the gyrations worthy of a circus performer to appear uninvolved, we are spending lot's o money and putting assets at risk.)
I see the current debate along partisan lines as pretty simple. One side wants to expand government and entitlements, and increase taxation even more to pay for that. The other side wants to cut spending and ultimately taxes for everybody to promote growth and a stronger economy. The proposition that healthcare reform legislation would save money, is bad math that even they don't believe. (I want a waiver too.)
There is great deal of partisan smoke thrown out there to confuse the voters, who can barely follow one complete thought at a time. The recent haggling over the still not completed 2010 budget, was painted as the conservatives, wanting to starve seniors and deny women healthcare. At the end of the day, the actual cuts won were minuscule, but at least the debate has the direction arrow pointed lower instead of higher for a change.
I expect an equally ugly and distorted debate about the borrowing authority, which we have exceeded and need to increase soon or suffer default. I recall complaining (right here) the last time they increased the borrowing limit a couple years back, but it went mostly unnoticed by the voters. This time they may not understand it all, but at least they are paying more attention, than the last time. These suckers in congress do need to be watched or they will bankrupt us all.
The rhetoric thrown around in the tax debate is all about tax breaks, or increases, for millionaires, but this is mostly smoke to confuse the real game at play. Just like Willie Sutton proclaimed that he robbed banks because that is where the money is, the tax increases will hit the $100-200k earners, because "that is where the money is". You could take all the money from the millionaires, and run the government for only days. It is interesting to see the current administrations definition of wealthy creep down towards the money sweet spot as reality sits in.
Likewise corporate tax debate is equally confused. We have competing sets of statistics where one side argues that nominal rates are too high (among the highest), while the other side argues that corporate tar receipts are too low. Guess what, they are both right. The effective tax rates paid by large corporations, who can afford to lobby for their own tax deals, are much lower than small business, the true backbone of our economy who pay these high nominal rates. The fix is not to raise the nominal tax rates even higher, but to reset all these corporate tax breaks to flatten the tax code. This would allow us to collect more money, from a lower rate, and stimulate small business at the same time, the real job creation engine. We need to stop giving the likes of GE or GM special tax treatment, they are not part of the solution, small business is.
I would entertain a VAT like tax, but it needs to be revenue neutral, not like government often does where they create a new tax and keep the old one, to effectively double dip and damp economic growth even further. I was glad to see congress repeal the $600 1099 provision in the health reform (?) act. This felt to me like they were laying the ground work for VAt or federal income tax., but I can only speculate.
Finally tax cheats. I've heard numbers thrown around like $350 Billion, and this is wrong but the best way to reduce it, is to get the government's house in order and simplify the tax code. It is difficult to feel good about giving the government money that they waste in so many ways.
The size of our national debt is grown large enough that even the liberals have admitted to the need for cuts, but don't expect any similar agreement about what to cut.. Why can't they just cut everything 10%. First we must stop the cancer from growing larger, then we can surgically cut out the worst parts. The government is not smarter than the people, and they surely are not the best shepherds of our hard earned money. We need to support a certain amount of government, but we don't need to grow it larger.
Of course I expect opinions vary...
JR
PS: I am not opposed to all regulation, and I appreciate seeing the parade of insider trading criminals doing the perp walk, but this is not the result of new laws, just old laws being enforced. I applaud this stepped up enforcement, while at the same time worry about what czarina Elizabeth Warren is crafting, structured to avoid even congressional budgets and oversight. I am a consumer and don't want her protection, or new extra-constitutional executive branch agencies.
PPS: A flat tax is too regressive to reflect our national generosity toward disadvantaged groups, but we do need to remove the complexity and tax breaks, engineered to influence tax payer behavior. We need a fair tax with some progressive structure but far less meddling and social engineering.
I should have known this was all Bush's fault....
------
First an easy one, GE had a huge tax loss in their commercial credit division, so they were able to carry this loss forward into future years, so there is nothing funny going on here. That said one little reported and poorly understood tidbit is that the last few years of near zero federal funds borrowing interest rate, means the big banks have been slowly being recapitalized, by profiting from the spread between the interest rate the big banks pay, and what they loan money for. We, the US taxpayers, are subsidizing the recapitalization and GE finance was one of the hogs at that trough (Tarp too). A little embarrassing since Obama appointed Jeffery Immelt as one of his top advisors from the business community. A little too cozy there guys.
----------
I was uncomfortable with Bush's increase to the federal debt, but the increase in just the last two years, make even him look like a piker when it comes to spending and expanding the government. A larger wrong, does not make the former wrong right, so bad Bush, and very bad Obama. (note: our history is full of borrowing to finance wars, but this current confrontation with international terrorism is not typical. The pain of funding this needs to be shared more broadly. Likewise what is the exit strategy for Libya? Despite the gyrations worthy of a circus performer to appear uninvolved, we are spending lot's o money and putting assets at risk.)
I see the current debate along partisan lines as pretty simple. One side wants to expand government and entitlements, and increase taxation even more to pay for that. The other side wants to cut spending and ultimately taxes for everybody to promote growth and a stronger economy. The proposition that healthcare reform legislation would save money, is bad math that even they don't believe. (I want a waiver too.)
There is great deal of partisan smoke thrown out there to confuse the voters, who can barely follow one complete thought at a time. The recent haggling over the still not completed 2010 budget, was painted as the conservatives, wanting to starve seniors and deny women healthcare. At the end of the day, the actual cuts won were minuscule, but at least the debate has the direction arrow pointed lower instead of higher for a change.
I expect an equally ugly and distorted debate about the borrowing authority, which we have exceeded and need to increase soon or suffer default. I recall complaining (right here) the last time they increased the borrowing limit a couple years back, but it went mostly unnoticed by the voters. This time they may not understand it all, but at least they are paying more attention, than the last time. These suckers in congress do need to be watched or they will bankrupt us all.
The rhetoric thrown around in the tax debate is all about tax breaks, or increases, for millionaires, but this is mostly smoke to confuse the real game at play. Just like Willie Sutton proclaimed that he robbed banks because that is where the money is, the tax increases will hit the $100-200k earners, because "that is where the money is". You could take all the money from the millionaires, and run the government for only days. It is interesting to see the current administrations definition of wealthy creep down towards the money sweet spot as reality sits in.
Likewise corporate tax debate is equally confused. We have competing sets of statistics where one side argues that nominal rates are too high (among the highest), while the other side argues that corporate tar receipts are too low. Guess what, they are both right. The effective tax rates paid by large corporations, who can afford to lobby for their own tax deals, are much lower than small business, the true backbone of our economy who pay these high nominal rates. The fix is not to raise the nominal tax rates even higher, but to reset all these corporate tax breaks to flatten the tax code. This would allow us to collect more money, from a lower rate, and stimulate small business at the same time, the real job creation engine. We need to stop giving the likes of GE or GM special tax treatment, they are not part of the solution, small business is.
I would entertain a VAT like tax, but it needs to be revenue neutral, not like government often does where they create a new tax and keep the old one, to effectively double dip and damp economic growth even further. I was glad to see congress repeal the $600 1099 provision in the health reform (?) act. This felt to me like they were laying the ground work for VAt or federal income tax., but I can only speculate.
Finally tax cheats. I've heard numbers thrown around like $350 Billion, and this is wrong but the best way to reduce it, is to get the government's house in order and simplify the tax code. It is difficult to feel good about giving the government money that they waste in so many ways.
The size of our national debt is grown large enough that even the liberals have admitted to the need for cuts, but don't expect any similar agreement about what to cut.. Why can't they just cut everything 10%. First we must stop the cancer from growing larger, then we can surgically cut out the worst parts. The government is not smarter than the people, and they surely are not the best shepherds of our hard earned money. We need to support a certain amount of government, but we don't need to grow it larger.
Of course I expect opinions vary...
JR
PS: I am not opposed to all regulation, and I appreciate seeing the parade of insider trading criminals doing the perp walk, but this is not the result of new laws, just old laws being enforced. I applaud this stepped up enforcement, while at the same time worry about what czarina Elizabeth Warren is crafting, structured to avoid even congressional budgets and oversight. I am a consumer and don't want her protection, or new extra-constitutional executive branch agencies.
PPS: A flat tax is too regressive to reflect our national generosity toward disadvantaged groups, but we do need to remove the complexity and tax breaks, engineered to influence tax payer behavior. We need a fair tax with some progressive structure but far less meddling and social engineering.
living sounds
Well-known member
JohnRoberts said:
Agreed. But they're the ones paying for campaigns, even more so thanks to the Koch brothers and the Roberts court. The US voting/campaign finance system needs to be updated significantly first before you can change the rest, I think.
As for taxes being complicated, I took tax law classes back at the university, and I think the statistics was that 70% of all literature on taxes worldwide is in German.
So don't think the US is the worst in this regard.Agree too. But the power mismatch seems too big. Barring something extreme I don't ever see the effective tax rates being leveled for big vs small business, not to mention the continual additions of nickel & dime fees on the state and local level for the small guys. Just can't see that direction being taken to any meaningful degree outside of some major crisis.
living sounds said:Agreed. But they're the ones paying for campaigns, even more so thanks to the Koch brothers and the Roberts court. The US voting/campaign finance system needs to be updated significantly first before you can change the rest, I think.
As for taxes being complicated, I took tax law classes back at the university, and I think the statistics was that 70% of all literature on taxes worldwide is in German.
A recent editorial (by Laffer the same guy the "Laffer curve" is named after) commented on how much time and cost is spent filing and processing tax returns. This is another huge economic drain on the economy, and on government too. A simpler tax code, would leave more revenue for the government's business, while costing us less.
------
Another recent letter to the editor in a major newspaper made some personal observations about businessmen being apprehensive about "publicly" supporting politicians who were running against incumbent office holders. Even before government became even more intrenched in influencing the private economy, through regulation and direct support, they were something to be feared. Entire industries are routinely whip sawed by government fiat. People you don't want to get angry if you make yourself a visible target, by supporting their competition in elections.
This editorial argued the merit of secret financial support for politicians being similar to the secret ballot, to prevent intimidation from those already in power. I concede this is not a simple black or white topic. It is easy to imagine potential abuses from secret campaign contributions too. This is a classic tug of war for political power, and neither side can claim no snakes in their respective wood piles.
I wouldn't mind anything that reduces the big money influence in election campaigns on both sides. Reports are that Pres Obama is raising a $1B war chest for his 2012 campaign. This plus the opposition spending a like amount is all money that could be better spent on more productive enterprises, than throwing mud at each other.
The simple fact that gaining high office is worth billions of dollars, to interest groups, since individuals don't have billions of dollars to spend, means quid pro quo is inevitable with either winner.
JR
JohnRoberts said:
This is exactly why less government is the answer, not more. Whoever gains control turns the apparatus to protect themselves and theirs. More agencies, more taxes, more control, more regulations, more unionized government goons getting all deep, I mean deeper into everything is certainly not the answer.
Mike
Spiritworks
Well-known member
Living Sounds - thanks for the link to the wiki about marginalism. I read through it and my eyeballs are still smoking. ??? I see how that concept relates to consumer behaviour, supply&demand, etc. , but I don't get the relationship it has to taxation.
What sucks about US tax policy is that there is no level playing field. The middle class shoulders all the burden, which is expected in light of current tax laws. I am not, however, in favor of taxing the wealthy simply because they are/have it. The same percentage rate for everyone just seems to be the fairest, and make the most sense to me.
What sucks about US tax policy is that there is no level playing field. The middle class shoulders all the burden, which is expected in light of current tax laws. I am not, however, in favor of taxing the wealthy simply because they are/have it. The same percentage rate for everyone just seems to be the fairest, and make the most sense to me.
gltech
Well-known member
sodderboy said:
I know, it's like what part of "'10 corrupt politicians' is better than '100 corrupt politicians'" don't you understand?
I have given this a lot of thought and the honey that is attracting the flies is two part. One part is the huge spending projects that can make instant millionaires for the ( luck has nothing to do with it) lucky contract award winners. The other class of winners is businesses who lobby for competitive advantage by targeted regulation, and tax favors.
There is a definite place for regulation, but this doesn't need to be expanded... If the people selling toxic assets were just allowed to go out of business (instead of bailing them out and making them bigger), I assure you they'd stop doing it. We have tons of regulations already on the books that aren't enforced. Prove they will enforce the old regulations (or obsolete them) and we'll consider new ones.
Spending needs to be rational... not treated like some bottomless punchbowl that never goes empty.
I favor a constitutional amendment to limit borrowing and spending to a percentage of GDP. We can't expect the drunken sailors to check the other drunken sailors, time for the people to step up. We need a spending limit amendment. Time to grow up.
They can still argue over what to spend it on, but if we make the amount of spending smaller, it will attract less flies, and do less harm.
JR
There is a definite place for regulation, but this doesn't need to be expanded... If the people selling toxic assets were just allowed to go out of business (instead of bailing them out and making them bigger), I assure you they'd stop doing it. We have tons of regulations already on the books that aren't enforced. Prove they will enforce the old regulations (or obsolete them) and we'll consider new ones.
Spending needs to be rational... not treated like some bottomless punchbowl that never goes empty.
I favor a constitutional amendment to limit borrowing and spending to a percentage of GDP. We can't expect the drunken sailors to check the other drunken sailors, time for the people to step up. We need a spending limit amendment. Time to grow up.
They can still argue over what to spend it on, but if we make the amount of spending smaller, it will attract less flies, and do less harm.
JR
Arghhh OK the 2012 campaign is officially in full swing...
The new bogey man in campaign speeches this week are evil oil speculators who are blamed for high gas pump prices.
No mention of
1) the shut down and only partial restart of drilling in the gulf region
2) painfully slow permit process for new wells
3) destabilization of middle east by weak support for old allies and encouragement of protests in weak regimes, while remaining mum about the real troublemakers in the region, creating the current risk premium in oil.
4) bowing to the OPEC cartel instead of confronting and challenging them by increasing marginal supply.
5) devaluation of the dollar by inflating the money supply, and drunken sailor debt policies. A chart of the price of oil, is almost a perfect inverse match to the value of the US dollar in recent years.
What seems to be missed by our leaders, is that high prices are exactly the market signal that is needed to stimulate more investment capital moving into exploration to find and extract more oil (and all alternate energy sources for that matter too). For the markets to work effectively, the government needs to get out of the way. Not perp walk some oil futures investors to get a few votes (of course if people are actually breaking any laws, throw them in the slammer, but lets not confuse future price discovery with fraud).
These high oil prices are actually helping the "green" alternate energy projects the government is pushing, that won't fly with cheap oil. Watch what they do, not what they say.
I am impressed by how many voters seem to be paying paying more attention to what their government is doing. This can only be a good thing. You can't fool all the people all the time. They're starting to catch on...
JR
Note: Hopefully the end of QE due soon, and future interest rate increases will reverse the slide of the dollar, and hopefully move oil back down again, but QE will not stop on a dime, and the FED seems invested in propping up an economy that is only slowly recovering on the strength of exports due to weak dollar policy...
The new bogey man in campaign speeches this week are evil oil speculators who are blamed for high gas pump prices.
No mention of
1) the shut down and only partial restart of drilling in the gulf region
2) painfully slow permit process for new wells
3) destabilization of middle east by weak support for old allies and encouragement of protests in weak regimes, while remaining mum about the real troublemakers in the region, creating the current risk premium in oil.
4) bowing to the OPEC cartel instead of confronting and challenging them by increasing marginal supply.
5) devaluation of the dollar by inflating the money supply, and drunken sailor debt policies. A chart of the price of oil, is almost a perfect inverse match to the value of the US dollar in recent years.
What seems to be missed by our leaders, is that high prices are exactly the market signal that is needed to stimulate more investment capital moving into exploration to find and extract more oil (and all alternate energy sources for that matter too). For the markets to work effectively, the government needs to get out of the way. Not perp walk some oil futures investors to get a few votes (of course if people are actually breaking any laws, throw them in the slammer, but lets not confuse future price discovery with fraud).
These high oil prices are actually helping the "green" alternate energy projects the government is pushing, that won't fly with cheap oil. Watch what they do, not what they say.
I am impressed by how many voters seem to be paying paying more attention to what their government is doing. This can only be a good thing. You can't fool all the people all the time. They're starting to catch on...
JR
Note: Hopefully the end of QE due soon, and future interest rate increases will reverse the slide of the dollar, and hopefully move oil back down again, but QE will not stop on a dime, and the FED seems invested in propping up an economy that is only slowly recovering on the strength of exports due to weak dollar policy...
living sounds
Well-known member
"Painfully slow"? There's still no way to contain a spill in reasonable time. How short-sighted can one be?
And yes, speculation plays a vital role in the prices of all commodities. At least over here in reality-land.
Conservative (former?) hero and Rand disciple Greenspan was the one who thought a weak dollar wasn't a problem at all. This is what you get when you stop producing goods and base an economy on the 'virtual' financial "industry". The dollar has gone down long, long before QE was even at the horizon.
Voters are paying attention, and you're not going to like it. Anti-democratic, big government actions in the mid-west, blatant corporatism and cronyism, reckless redistribution from the bottom to the top, infringement efforts on voter registration accross the GOP governed states, all the attacks on the social safety net may very well create an epic backlash. And not a single candidate with good prospects in sight for the Republicans presedential ticket.
Of course, Obama has moved so far to the right on many issues that it often doesn't matter. But looking at the sheer abyss on the other side, he'll win the election easily, I think.
And yes, speculation plays a vital role in the prices of all commodities. At least over here in reality-land.
Conservative (former?) hero and Rand disciple Greenspan was the one who thought a weak dollar wasn't a problem at all. This is what you get when you stop producing goods and base an economy on the 'virtual' financial "industry". The dollar has gone down long, long before QE was even at the horizon.
Voters are paying attention, and you're not going to like it. Anti-democratic, big government actions in the mid-west, blatant corporatism and cronyism, reckless redistribution from the bottom to the top, infringement efforts on voter registration accross the GOP governed states, all the attacks on the social safety net may very well create an epic backlash. And not a single candidate with good prospects in sight for the Republicans presedential ticket.
Of course, Obama has moved so far to the right on many issues that it often doesn't matter. But looking at the sheer abyss on the other side, he'll win the election easily, I think.
What about the virtual theft of the 2000 election? I don't feel there was enough voter backlash over that debacle. That we've somehow let that slide sets precedence as did the near impeachment of Clinton over a civil suit. Symbol of American strength and perseverance or weakness?
It seems we need a backlash on some level to really move in a different direction. IMO the election of Obama represented more of an emotional reaction than a rational one. And now he has appeared to move towards the sway of the bigger powers at large.
Maybe this story represents political maneuvering of some sort vs a real possibility but I've no reason to believe it's not what corporate power really seeks. Novant has affected a large scale takeover of many small hospitals and doctors offices because the hospitals had managed to get themselves in some state of desperate financial crisis.
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/03/michigan-budget-would-let-republicans-dis-incorporate-whole-cities-dismiss-elected-officials/
