text: Dean's List Letter Congratulations! Emily Raetz made the Daemen College Dean's List during the Fall 2017 semester. News releases of our Dean's List achievers are sent electronically to local newspapers using a comprehensive zip code based news service, which assists with providing news of your student's accomplishment to your area newspaper. Please be aware that publication of this information is at the discretion of the newspaper. As always, the administrators and faculty remain available to you throughout the year if questions arise. We appreciate your concern for your student's successful college experience and welcome your contact with us. Sincerely, Michael S. Brogan, DPT, Ph.D. Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the College Share Tweet List of Students who Earned Dean's List

subset: commoncrawl


text: Hey, look around! You have got surrounded by the juiciest naked moms! They're craving to see your cock getting hard, as you watch their impressive juggs and butts shaking in your honor. Scroll down the front page to see the increasing heat of their wonderful bodies! Thousands of xxx mature porn photos were gathered together for your pleasure and satisfaction on Nude Hot Moms. We've handpicked the most beautiful, horny and inspiring mothers to play in Moms Wife Pics for you! Bookmark our free mature sex site and get an unquenchable source of mom porn galleries!


text:
Attend Citrix XenDesktop & XenServer training in Porterville. NetCom Learning provides more than 2700+ IT and Business training courses throughout Porterville, CA. Whether you're looking for customized onsite Citrix XenDesktop & XenServer training for a private group throughout Porterville or an instructor-led online Citrix XenDesktop & XenServer class, NetCom Learning has the solution for you.
Citrix XenDesktop is a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) solution that delivers a complete Windows desktop experience as an on-demand service to any user, anywhere.
XenDesktop provides a more flexible computing experience for users while helping your organization address key business priorities. It provides easy access to complete virtualized desktops, applications, and data from any location using any device. This enables a more mobile but still productive workstyles.
NetCom Learning offers customized private training solutions to corporates to achieve maximum value for their training funds. We at NetCom Learning have been helping our clients achieve their private group training objectives since 1998.
At NetCom Learning, we offer all the classroom or online course in a private format - at your facility or ours or online, in any time zone and anywhere in the world.
Discover big savings with a Free Private Training Consultation today! We at NetCom learning have dedicated Learning consultants who will help you to meet your learning goals.Request Free Private Training Consultation »


text:
Professor of Law
S.J.D., Harvard Law School, 2007
LL.M., (waived) Harvard Law School, 2001
LL.B., Tel Aviv University, 1999
B.A., Tel Aviv University, 1999
Dotan Oliar joined the faculty in 2007. His areas of interest include intellectual property, law and economics, property theory and cyberlaw.
Oliar received his LL.B. and B.A. from Tel-Aviv University, and clerked for the Israeli Supreme Court. His S.J.D. dissertation advances a new understanding of the U.S. Constitution's intellectual property clause. His LL.M. thesis — an economic analysis of the fair use doctrine on the Internet — won the Harvard Law School Irving Oberman Award for Best Essay on The Internet and the Law. He served as a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society and Olin Center for Law and Economics.
Oliar has presented in several fora, including the Stanford/Yale Junior Faculty Forum, the annual meetings of the American, Canadian and European law and economics associations, and the intellectual property scholars conference.
Oliar was a visiting professor at New York University School of Law in 2010-11.
Recent News
Professor Dotan Oliar, Students' Article Named Among Best of the Year in Intellectual Property
Five UVA Law Professors Participate in Prestigious ALEA Conference
The Federal Intellectual Property Power, in American Governance. Ed. Stephen L. Schechter. 5 vols. Detroit: Macmillan (forthcoming).
"Copyright Registrations: Who, What, When, Where, and Why" (with Nate Pattison and Ross Powell) 92 Tex. L. Rev. 2211 (2014).
"Copyright Preregistration: Evidence and Lessons from the First Seven Years, 2005-2012" (with Nicholas Matich) 55 Ariz. L. Rev. 1073 (2013).
SSRN | HeinOnline (PDF)
"The Copyright-Innovation Trade-Off: Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Intentional Infliction of Harm", 64 Stan. L. Rev. 951 (2012).
SSRN | HeinOnline (PDF)
"Intellectual Property Norms in Stand-Up Comedy" (with Chris Sprigman), in Mario Biagioli, Peter Jaszi & Martha Woodmansee, eds., Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property: Creative Production in Legal and Cultural Perspective 385 (University of Chicago Press, 2011).
"The (Constitutional) Convention on IP: A New Reading," 57 UCLA L. Rev. 421 (2009).
SSRN | HeinOnline (PDF)
"From Corn to Norms: How IP Entitlements Affect What Stand-Up Comedians Create" (with Chris Sprigman), 95 Va. L. Rev. In Brief 57 (2009).
"There's No Free Laugh (Anymore): The Emergence of Intellectual Property Norms and the Transformation of Stand-Up Comedy" (with Chris Sprigman), 94 Va. L. Rev. 1789 (2008).
SSRN | HeinOnline (PDF)
"Alternatives to the Copyright Power: The Relationship of the Copyright Clause to the Commerce Clause and the Treaty Power" (panelist), 30 Colum. J.L. & Arts 287 (2007).
HeinOnline (PDF)
"Resolving Conflicts among Congress's Powers Regarding Statutes' Constitutionality: The Case of Anti-Bootlegging Statutes," 30 Colum. J.L. & Arts 467 (2007).
"Making Sense of the Intellectual Property Clause: Promotion of Progress as a Limitation on Congress's Intellectual Property Power," 94 Geo. L.J. 1771 (2006).
SSRN | HeinOnline (PDF)
"Incentives to Create Under a 'Lifetime-Plus-Years' Copyright Duration: Lessons from a Behavioral Economic Analysis for Eldred v. Ashcroft" (with Avishalom Tor), 36 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 437 (2002).
SSRN | HeinOnline (PDF)
In the Media
- "How Supreme Court Ruling Affects Aereo, the Cloud, and You" (CNET, 06/26/2014)
- "Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo" (Inside Cville, 06/25/2014)
- "UVA Professors: Redskins Trademark Ruling Could Be Hard to Fight" (The Daily Progress, 06/24/2014)
- The Docket: Discussion on the Aereo Case (KUCI-FM , 04/28/2014)
- Soundboard (WTJU, 04/24/2014)
- "Why the Aereo Supreme Court case over TV's future is too tough to call" (CNet, 04/21/2014)
- "The Humor Code: Who owns a joke? And can a comedian sue if someone steals his material?" (Slate, 03/31/2014)
- "Standup Comedy and the Rise of an Informal Intellectual Property Regime" (Bloomberg BNA, 06/26/2012)
- "Comedians Stand Up to Joke Thieves Without Lawyers" (Bloomberg Law, 01/10/2012)
- Discussing Comedy and Copyright (with Chris Sprigman) ("Q", Canadian Broadcasting Network, 04/21/2010)
- "Take My Joke, Please" (National Public Radio, 04/09/2010)
- "Fighting Over Punch Lines" (University of Virginia Magazine, 08/01/2009)
- "The Law of Comedy" (WVTF, 12/31/2008)
- "That Ain't Right!": Comics rely on social norms to punish and deter the theft of jokes. Are there lessons here? (with Chris Sprigman) (IP Law and Business - 2008 Almanac, 12/01/2008)


text:
Underpinning Dublin
Underpinning Dublin
Underpinning Dublin ? We provides professional home Re stumping , Salt Damp Removal, re Blocking and stabilise foundation in Dublin.
Dublin does not have to deal with unstable foundations anymore because we are here at Northern Underpinning to take care of them. For more than 20 years we have been making foundations sturdier and more stable with our finest and safest underpinning solutions. Our certified professionals are experienced in restumping, underpinning, resolving walls cracking, foundation repairing, providing excavation under the house, retaining walls, cellar waterproofing, and a wide range of other underpinning related services. Call us to hire expert underpinners of Dublin to give your home uncompromised safety!
If you are going to hire someone for underpinning services then you better make sure that you are hiring someone reliable and who is an expert at doing this job. We have been catering outstanding underpinning services at reasonable rates and our professionals are known for giving satisfactory results.
We offer following Underpinning Services in Dublin
- Home Restuming Services
- assistance with engineering certification
- respond to enquiries same day where possible
- Computer leveling used for floor re-leveling service
- Re-blocking & Stabilising the foundations
- concrete pump used when necessary
- Structural repairs
- Drilling
- Small access machines
- Pressure grouting
- Jacking foundations
Call 1300 879 205 Book Underpinning Specialist Today. FREE Quote !!!
Northern Underpinning Dublin – Celebrating 25 years of service
Northern Underpinning Dublin got over 25 years of underpinning experience throughout Dublin and rural South Australia (SA). Northern underpinning Dublin, restumping contractors are professional in making your building's foundation strong and better than ever before.
We offer following Underpinning Services in Dublin?
What is Underpinning?
Signs Showing you Need Underpinning and Salt Damp Treatment
If you see any of the above mentioned signs in your building then you should contact underpinning contractors hastily. Underpinning may be required in various different situations. How We Get To Work at Northern Underpinning & Salt Damp Removal Our underpinning team will investigate your property and chart a plan accordingly. We take into consideration the following before we get down to work:
- Drainage
- Sub foundation soil evaporation
- Leaks caused due to faulty plumbing
- Sub foundation tree root transpiration
- Current weather state
- The existing foundation
Salt Damp Treatment Dublin
Advantages of Using Northern Underpinning Dublin Services
Restumping Dublin
We are specialist in underpinning
Like us on Facebook


text:
I was staying at the Mirage during the 1st weekend of March madness this past season and was making a 5 team money line parlay for 2 dimes. I told the ticket writer this and preceeded to tell him the five teams I wanted.
I started telling him I want Florida St moneyline. I want Cincinnati, NC St., Creighton and Georgetown. Well he gives me Florida St money line, but he gives me the other 4 teams against the spread opposed to the moneyline. I had a 5 teamer 1 against the money line and the 4 against the spread. Right before the games started I thought the payoff seemed pretty damn high and I realized what he had done.
I decided to ride it out and lo and behold the 4 teams against the spread covered the number and Florida St won against the money line and my ticket cashed for $28,660.
His mistake gave me probably an extra $10,000 to 15,000.
This is the funniest thing I ever saw in Vegas.
About 10 years ago I was killing time playing nickel video poker at the Gold Coast. These machines had a "double-up" feature where, on any winning hand, you could try to double your win by picking a card higher than the dealer's card (basically a 50/50 shot). If you doubled and won you could again take a shot to double your winnings but if you lost you lost everything you have won to that point.
So this homeless dude sits down two machines away from me and pulls some change out of his pocket, searching for nickels, and puts 2 or 3 in the machine. He is looking at the buttons trying to figure out how to play...finally plays a hand and wins maybe 15 credits. He hits the double up button, and wins, then doubles again and wins...and keeps doubling...and winning! Each time he wins the machine racks up his credits and is taking longer and longer to do so...and after a while I stop playing my machine and just watch him.
He keeps hitting the double up button and keeps winning...maybe like nine times total. By this time he has over $300 in credits, all after starting with 2 or 3 nickels! I am watching him to see if he is gonna cash out or risk it all once more...and he is just looking at the machine and just seems baffled. I finally ask him "hey man, do you know what you are doing?" and he says "naw, man, I just been trying to get my money out of this thing". He had NO IDEA that he had been winning...he was just pushing buttons! I explained to him that if he hit the button on the left, they would come pay him about $300. He says "no garbage?", I say "no garbage!" and he hits that button. They come hand pay him over $300 and he digs back into his pocket, finds his last two nickels, puts them in, loses, and takes off.
^^^ good story... I actually laughed...
Last season, a friend of mine put a $100 Future bet right before the NFL playoffs (I think). He took NYG to win the superbowl and all of our friends, including me thought he was an idiot. This guy just had a gut feeling and went with it at +2000. All of us thought they would've lost their first playoff game to GB. Nope, NYG spanked them. We all thought they were going to lose to SF at SF... Wrong again. Superbowl was coming up and we were telling our friend he should hedge the bet a little to atleast get back his initial $100... He didn't. He rode the play out and if I'm not mistaken, he also put a hundo on the ML and won that, too. He was down about 2 grand on the season, and NYG winning the superbowl put him even, if not up a little. Biggest win in his life being that he is only a $50-$100 bettor. Since then he has been on a roll in the preseason. He doesn't start with a BR, nor does he bet in units. Just gut feeling and his personal opinion. He doesn't try to cap the game, or does he do any sort of research. Right now, he is up over $1200 from betting on the NFL preseason cause he just hit a $40 5tm parlay and a few big straight bets. The guy is just on a crazy run....
I live here and loved all the stories...one Sunday morning at the Palms I settled in for a afternoon of playing the ponies at Santa Anita...went to McDonalds, grabbed a large coke and was on my way back to my seat...all of a sudden a machine starts pinging really loud and as I look up people are cheering, the lady sitting at the machine is crying and my only thought is WTF...so I casually venture over and ask a guy what happened the woman won 8 million dollars paying the Megabucks machine...to think I was that close to 8 million dollars was a nice thought...was really happy for the lady.
simply, that is an awesome story my friend. I love it! Kudos, and I love the station casinos too. Sunset especially. Good luck in the future my friend.
I lost five games in a row. ONE WIN would help. I saw this
iPad2 giveaway on a site called Bragstr so I entered that, hopefully it'll give
me a win. They're giving away a garbage ton in prizes because I guess it's pretty
new or something. Do you guys know anything about that?
Wassup guys... I got another one...
Drove up to Buffalo Bill's to take my family to go ride the roller coaster which we found out was closed down when we got there. Ended up gambling in the hotel while my family went shopping in the mall connected to the hotel. I was on the craps table when this guy comes and takes the position to my left. His friends were on the table and asked him how he was doing. He told them he was on his last $20 but his luck was about to change. I ended up crapping out and it was his turn to roll. He put $5 on the pass line and the rest on hard 8. He would set his dice up a certain way before each roll, and a few rolls later he hits his hard 8. He spread some of his winnings on all the hardways and a few rolls later he hit another hardway. He kept pressing up his hardway bets, but not really paying attention to the passline number. He kept hitting the hard numbers and kept pressing up his bets. At one point, he had $100 on all the hardways and hit one of those before he hit the easy number. He threw a few passes and every now and then he would throw money on "yo" or "box cars" and he would hit them more than not. It was crazy!!! He rolled for about half an hour, but in that little time, he made over 3 grand mainly playing the hardways. Thats when I learned that playing the hardways is not always a sucker bet if the roller knows how to use dice control.
BTW.... I asked him why he set his dice like that and he told me to go check out goldentouch craps. Youtube it... it is very interesting... I tried it the last time I went to Vegas and I actually hit more hardways than usual...
Originally Posted by arrgy: One night I was in a 15-30 limit game at the Taj in AC, and I was getting my clock cleaned. If you ever been there you know the Keno room shares space with the poker room, so after an hour of doing nothing I get up grab a blank ticket and come back to the table and notice a deck change. So while we are waiting, I ask everyone at the table who basically has all my cash to give me a number, including the dealer. I play a 40 game 8 spot ticket for $1 a game. We go back to poker, three hours later I am broke. I get up from the table, and notice a flurry of activity in the Keno room, which is unusual and I remember I still have that ticket. So I walk up to the window, give the woman my ticket, and she says "Oh your the lucky one" I hit two 8/8 games for $16,000 each and a 7/8 for $1500. I went back to the table I lost at like an hour later after filling out all the tax forms, and thanked each person who took my money and gave me a Keno Number.
That's incredible man, it's unbelievable to me really. Wow, major congrats for that comeback.
I am heading to LV this weekend and was reading these stories to get myself jacked .... well done gents, you were successful. This will be my 2nd trek to LV, and in my first trip (my buddies BP) we just got our feet wet, but this time back I plan on being better prepared. Anyways, wanted to share a story about my first time around .... I gamble quite a bit, have back home, but mainly stuck to low key sports bets, roulette, BJ, and a little bit of craps (again, mostly low key bets, nothing extreme). So one morning at 10AM we're having Vodka and OJ's at the Bellagio ... I'm walking past the blackjack tables and there is a crowed of maybe 25-30 people around one table. I think, sweet someone famous, and walk over. Now this dude could have been famous, no idea, but one thing is certain he was hammered. He had every seat at the table occupied with roughly $500-$1000 in bets at each positon. He had a massive stack infront of him, and his general attitude made me think that he had just gone on a massive run (if I had to estimate, I would say over $40k). He was calling out to people watching, asking for kisses, giving high 5s to people. It was pretty funny. I watched for a bit, he raked in some more big hands, and went on a rant about how "he was suppose to be at the golf course for 1000 for a golf tournament but clearly didn't give a F*CK" ...... So I got a chuckle, walked around some more, played a bit, met up with my buddies. As we are leaving I decided I want to see if he's still there (about an hour and a half or so had passed) ... I come back to see a very thinned out crowed around him, not to mention a very thinned out chip stack .... he now looks like a shell of his former self. Now true he could have cashed in, but this was not the look of a man who just raked in and was playing with the houses money .....
Admittedly I felt bad for said drunk guy because I respect gambling, and he seemed like he was enjoying himself. Still though, haha, couldn't help but shake my head as I walked away ....


text:
Fairways and Roughs Users
James Jackson
Lives in Florida, United States of America
Member since: 09/09/2011
Ratings and Reviews
This user has not rated or reviewed any golf courses.
Course Photos uploaded by this user
This user has not uploaded golf course photos.
Golf Games Played
This user has not created or played in any golf games. Once they create games, they will be listed here
Classified Items For Sale
This user is not selling any items using the Fairways And Roughs classified ads.
Buy and sell new and used golf equipment using classified ads at Fairways and Roughs.


text:
Dog Brothers Public Forum
. Please
February 25, 2018, 01:42:29 AM
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
Posts in
Topics by
Latest Member:
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
Politics & Religion
Political Economics
« previous
next »
Topic: Political Economics (Read 472929 times)
Power User
Posts: 2004
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1200 on:
February 21, 2012, 08:48:12 AM »
I'm confused; I could have posted that article. I agree, pension funds are underfunded. All the areas you put bold are true.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I thought you were implying that you wouldn't get your full pension/retirement plan because of these reasons?
Unlike private plans, who if they are severely unfunded, simply go broke, public plans just cut desperately needed services or raise taxes; they must do whatever it takes to provide
the money to pay for exorbitant public retirement plans that begin benefits after 20 years of service. You have a gold plated contract. Sleep well.
Future negotiations may affect future retirees, but that which has been promised to date must be paid.
So don't worry GM, YOUR pension plan is fully guaranteed by the taxpayer. Whatever it takes, cutting teachers and other jobs, cutting basic services, raising taxes, you name it,
it will be done to insure your outrageous retirement plan.
I'm not blaming or faulting you; you just reap the rewards of your Union fighting for you and nearly every generous City giving freely giving away the taxpayer's money. It's time to
settle up.
Power User
Posts: 15533
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1201 on:
February 21, 2012, 08:56:58 AM »
1. I don't have a union.
2. My state is preparing to gut retirement to prevent the collapse of the state budget. Unlike California or other blue states, they believe in fiscal sanity here in flyover land.
Power User
Posts: 2004
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1202 on:
February 21, 2012, 09:37:19 AM »
Wow; you are right; I thought all police/fire had a union. Maybe it's time you form a union too?
Police collectively going on strike/sick day leave can be very persuasive.
Actually, police are one of the most powerful unions in America.
I don't know what state you live in, but....
In general, the state can gut retirement for future benefits, i.e. new hires can have a totally different plan (they should; I never understood this absurd 20 year and out deal or the excess of a rich defined benefit plan that nearly no one in private business has anymore), henceforth, states may be able (conflicting rulings) to adjust future retirement benefits for current employees i.e. their benefit henceforth can be accrued at a different lower rate (new contract). BUT money promised as of today, be you a retiree (they are fully protected) or a current employee, whether the plan is fully funded or not (not your problem); that money is yours. The state can huff and puff, cry poverty, but if you play hardball, you have a gold plated contract backed up by the state; wrong or right, the state needs to cut services, raises taxes, do whatever it takes to pay that contractual obligation.
That's why being a public employee is so great.
Power User
Posts: 15533
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1203 on:
February 21, 2012, 09:42:06 AM »
Police collectively going on strike/sick day leave can be very persuasive.
Police strikes are illegal and "blue flu" job actions don't fly out here.
Power User
Posts: 2004
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1204 on:
February 21, 2012, 10:21:54 AM »
illegal? Yes I know; sorry I wasn't clear; working slower, doing basically nothing, gaining support from other unions, are all tactics used; "job actions" are the key. What's wrong with the "blue flu"? Albeit rare, police wildcat strikes have happened; what are they going to do, fire you all like the traffic controllers? Legal to fire you, I agree, however..... a few days of no police on the beat might change the public's mind.
I'm of the opinion (we don't agree) that police and fire as well as most public employees are overpaid; primarily I am referring to benefits. That said, a deal is a deal; a contract is a contract;
like in private business or anywhere else, if you make a deal, keep it. And when it's up for renewal, change it henceforward. That's fair. But you don't go back and change a contract.
In what state do you work? I mean I'm in LA (yes I admit we have numerous problems; but depending upon your perspective, the LAPD's union is VERY powerful and successful).
Power User
Posts: 15533
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1205 on:
February 21, 2012, 10:26:37 AM »
What applies to "big city" departments, like LAPD or NYPD doesn't apply across the board. Keep in mind most police agencies across the country have on average 20 officers or less and no collective barganing/job protections like you see in the big departments.
Power User
Posts: 2004
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1206 on:
February 21, 2012, 11:00:15 AM »
As you have pointed out,
I will often give opinions on areas beyond my expertise. I don't really know anyone on a small police force; it seems
they are either part of a larger force or sheriffs (LA County) or affiliated in some way with a larger police force.
I am however quite knowledgeable about Pensions having been, quite some years ago, an Employee Benefit Consultant to large corporations and unions for many years, including I might point out, the LAPD Health and Welfare Plan.
Contract law is contract law. While I abhor many aspects of public employees, the waste and abuse is absolutely terrible, a contract is a contract.
It sounds like your police force is not in agreement. Without knowing the facts, I can't give an opinion, but collectively they are strong; individually they are weak.
Power User
Posts: 9483
Political Economics: Gallup has unemployment spiking back up to 9%
Reply #1207 on:
February 21, 2012, 02:34:58 PM »
We are on the right track politically is bullsh*t.
Unadjusted unemployment back up to 9%. The adjusted number is zero or any other number that you want. "Underemployment" is back up to
February 17, 2012
U.S. Unemployment Increases in Mid-February
Underemployment also up, to 19.0%
by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist
PRINCETON, NJ -- The U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 9.0% in mid-February, up from 8.6% for January. The mid-month reading normally reflects what the U.S. government reports for the entire month, and is up from 8.3% in mid-January.
Power User
Posts: 15533
Re: One promise Obozo is keeping
Reply #1208 on:
February 24, 2012, 12:09:01 PM »
Quote from: G M on February 20, 2012, 03:45:50 PM
5.00 gas! Thanks Obozo!
#Invalid YouTube Link#
Power User
Posts: 15533
Re: One promise Obozo is keeping
Reply #1209 on:
February 24, 2012, 12:28:02 PM »
Quote from: G M on February 24, 2012, 12:09:01 PM
Quote from: G M on February 20, 2012, 03:45:50 PM
5.00 gas! Thanks Obozo!
#Invalid YouTube Link#
Pelosi 2008: Bush to Blame for High Gas Prices; Pelosi 2012: Wall Street to Blame for High Gas Prices
Posted by Jammie on Feb 24, 2012 at 8:54 am
Obviously the Democrats are worried their golden boy will be taking heat for skyrocketing gas prices so this week theyve gone on the offensive. Their diversionary tactics will probably work since the media will dutifully carry their water. But its interesting to see the double talk from idiots like Nancy Pelosi. Back in 2008, it was the evil Bush to blame for soaring prices at the pump.
This is a scam of the greatest magnitude, says Speaker Pelosi.
Rising gas prices affect groups like the Boys and Girls Club that is cutting programs to save costs, a small businessman who finds himself being priced out of competition or a caregiver who cant afford gas to get to clients.
And for other Meals on Wheels programs around the bay, hikes in fuel costs have meant fewer deliveries. They cant find volunteers who can afford to fill their tanks.
Prices at the pump are a pain for all of us, but Speaker Pelosi is accusing President Bush of policies that have driven up the prices, and says she has a solution to bring prices down immediately,
Mr. President, do not fill the strategic petroleum reserve with oil at record highs. Instead, take out the oil that we brought at a lower price to bring down the price of oil, to reduce the price at the pump, says Speaker Pelosi.
So, whose fault is it now? Obviously not Obamas.
Wall Street profiteering, not oil shortages, is the cause of the price spike, Pelosi said in a statement. Unfortunately, Republicans have chosen to protect the interests of Wall Street speculators and oil companies instead of the interests of working Americans by obstructing the agencies with the responsibility of enforcing consumer protection laws.
Expect hearings on Capitol Hill any day now. The Democrats will do anything to distract you from Obamas failed policies and will just blame Big Oil and now Wall Street. Good thing for them they have willing accomplices in the media to play along.
Power User
Posts: 15533
Must be sunspots
Reply #1210 on:
February 24, 2012, 12:41:45 PM »
"Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe," Mr. Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in September.
Power User
Posts: 15533
High gas prices, It's a feature, not a bug!
Reply #1211 on:
February 29, 2012, 07:28:49 PM »
Sunspots made the gas go up, right JDN?
Chu to Congress: Were not interested in lowering gas prices
posted at 11:00 am on February 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Hey, at least Energy Secretary Stephen Chu gave an honest answer. When asked by Rep. Alan Nunnelee whether the Obama administration wants to work to get gas prices to come back down, Chu replied that theyre not focusing on that and that higher gas prices mean more of a push for the alternative energy sources the administration wants to push:
We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this, said Chu, speaking to the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee. As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what were trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.
Chu specifically cited a reported breakthrough announced Monday by Envia Systems, which received funding from DOEs ARPA-E, that could help slash the price of electric vehicle batteries.
He also touted natural gas as great and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.
High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.
But is the overall goal to get our price of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.
No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy, Chu replied. We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and well help the American economy and the American consumers.
The Heritage Foundation jumped all over Chus comments:
As shocking as his remarks are, they shouldnt come as a surprise. Chu has a long record of advocating for higher gas prices. In 2008, he stated, Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe. Last March, he reiterated his point in an interview with Fox News Chris Wallace, noting that his focus is to ease the pain felt by his energy policies by forcing automakers to make more fuel-efficient automobiles. What Im doing since I became Secretary of Energy has been quite clear. What I have been doing is developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices.
One of those methods is dumping taxpayer dollars into alternative energy projects like the Solyndra solar plant. Another is subsidizing the purchase of high-cost electric cars like the Chevy Volt to the tune of $7,500 per car (which the White House wants to increase to $10,000). In both cases, those methods arent working. Solyndra went bankrupt because its product couldnt bear the weight of market pressures, and Chevy Volts arent selling, even with taxpayer-funded rebates. Whats the presidents next plan? Harvesting a bunch of algae as a replacement for oil.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is seemingly doing everything it can to make paying for energy even more painful by refusing to open access to the countrys oil and gas reserves and blocking new projects that would lead to the development of more energy in America. Case in point: the presidents decision to say no to the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would have delivered hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil from Canada to Texas refineries, while bringing thousands of jobs along with it.
And while Chu gave an honest answer that actually matches the actions taken by this administration, Heritage notes that Obama has offered nothing but double-talk on gas prices:
Sensing impending political fallout from the high cost of gas, President Obama last week spoke on the subject and attempted to deflect blame for the pain. He said that there is no quick fix to high gas prices and the nation cannot drill its way out of the problem, but as Heritages Nicolas Loris writes, the president ignored reality and dished out a series of half-truths. Among them, the president claimed oil production is its highest in eight years, that increasing oil production takes too long, and that oil is not enough. Loris writes that while production is up on private lands, unrealized production on federal lands and offshore could have yielded even more output, increasing supply and driving down costs. If the president had said yes to Keystone, oil could have reach the market quickly. And as for the presidents push for alternative energy, those sources simply cannot stand the test of the market.
Power User
Posts: 42556
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1212 on:
February 29, 2012, 08:32:49 PM »
GM: Please post on the Energy policy thread as well. TIA
Power User
Posts: 2004
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1213 on:
February 29, 2012, 08:36:52 PM »
I don't know much about sun spots or climate change (that's why I stay off that thread) but Chu in the long run is not wrong IMHO.
Indirectly the price of oil is elastic. Raise the price and people will seek alternative ideas and/or cut back. In the long run, America is better off.
Further, we don't set the price of oil; the world market sets the price. That's why I get a big laugh out of domestic drilling supposedly lowering the price of oil; it won't, they
will just ship it to the highest bidder.
Also, the price of gas is not only the price of oil. Taxes etc. all play a part.
Frankly, higher oil prices IMHO is not all bad.
"Fuel is a drug the U.S. has long since needed weaning off. Admittedly Americans have to cover greater distances than Europeans. But you don't need a glorified double bed powered by a throbbing great V8 to do that. A sensibly-sized car with a two-liter turbo will do the job just as comfortably."
Power User
Posts: 42556
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1214 on:
February 29, 2012, 08:49:47 PM »
"That's why I get a big laugh out of domestic drilling supposedly lowering the price of oil; it won't, they
will just ship it to the highest bidder."
a) Transportation costs will tend towards our oil/gas staying here, but yes at some point we will make money by selling it elsewhere.
b) Not subject to vagaries of Middle East or other foreign politics
c) Law of Supply and Demand: More supply=lower prices. Just like the law of gravity, the law of supply and demand is not up for negotiation.
Power User
Posts: 2004
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1215 on:
February 29, 2012, 09:02:58 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on February 29, 2012, 08:49:47 PM
"That's why I get a big laugh out of domestic drilling supposedly lowering the price of oil; it won't, they
will just ship it to the highest bidder."
a) Transportation costs will tend towards our oil/gas staying here, but yes at some point we will make money by selling it elsewhere.
b) Not subject to vagaries of Middle East or other foreign politics
c) Law of Supply and Demand: More supply=lower prices. Just like the law of gravity, the law of supply and demand is not up for negotiation.
a)Transportation costs in the overall scheme of things is not a deciding factor.
b)Not being subject to the vagaries of the Middle East begs my point, prices will rise in case of turmoil and oil producers will sell to the highest bidder. Or do you suggest
legislation that they must sell to America first? As of now, much, most of our oil is sold internationally.
I agree with the Law of Supply and Demand, but given the world's thirst for oil, our supply will not affect prices that much. Combine that with the response of
other oil producing nations to keep prices stable, but high, I doubt if it will have much impact on world prices. Better to seek alternatives.
What's the martial art expression? Short term pain, long term gain....
Do you really need a giant Suburban? If the answer is yes, expect to pay.....
Power User
Posts: 15533
Re: Wesbury: The Sky is not falling
Reply #1216 on:
February 29, 2012, 09:08:24 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on January 28, 2008, 10:58:54 AM
Brain Wesbury has an outstanding track record as an economist. His predictions have an unusually high degree of accuracy.
The Economy Is Fine (Really)
By BRIAN WESBURY
January 28, 2008; Page A15
It is hard to imagine any time in history when such rampant pessimism about the economy has existed with so little evidence of serious trouble.
True, retail sales fell 0.4% in December and fourth-quarter real GDP probably grew at only a 1.5% annual rate. It is also true that in the past six months manufacturing production has been flat, new orders for durable goods have fallen at a 0.8% annual rate, and unemployment blipped up to 5%. Soft data for sure, but nowhere near the end of the world.
It is most likely that this recent weakness is a payback for previous strength. Real GDP surged at a 4.9% annual rate in the third quarter, while retail sales jumped 1.1% in November. A one-month drop in retail sales is not unusual. In each of the past five years, retail sales have reported at least three negative months. These declines are part of the normal volatility of the data, caused by wild swings in oil prices, seasonal adjustments, or weather. Over-reacting is a mistake.
A year ago, most economic data looked much worse than they do today. Industrial production fell 1.1% during the six months ending February 2007, while new orders for durable goods fell 3.9% at an annual rate during the six months ending in November 2006. Real GDP grew just 0.6% in the first quarter of 2007 and retail sales fell in January and again in April. But the economy came back and roared in the middle of the year -- real GDP expanded 4.4% at an annual rate between April and September.
With housing so weak, the recent softness in production and durable goods orders is understandable. But housing is now a small share of GDP (4.5%). And it has fallen so much already that it is highly unlikely to drive the economy into recession all by itself. Exports are 12% of the economy, and are growing at a 13.6% rate. The boom in exports is overwhelming the loss from housing.
Personal income is up 6.1% during the year ending in November, while small-business income accelerated in October and November, during the height of the credit crisis. In fact, after subtracting income taxes, rent, mortgages, car leases and loans, debt service on credit cards and property taxes, incomes rose 3.9% faster than inflation in the year through September. Commercial paper issuance is rising again, as are mortgage applications.
Some large companies outside of finance and home building are reporting lower profits, but the over-reaction to very spotty negative news is astounding. For example, Intel's earnings disappointed, creating a great deal of fear about technology. Lost in the pessimism is the fact that 20 out of 24 S&P 500 technology companies that have reported earnings so far have beaten Wall Street estimates.
Models based on recent monetary and tax policy suggest real GDP will grow at a 3% to 3.5% rate in 2008, while the probability of recession this year is 10%. This was true before recent rate cuts and stimulus packages. Now that the Fed has cut interest rates by 175 basis points, the odds of a huge surge in growth later in 2008 have grown. The biggest threat to the economy is still inflation, not recession.
Yet many believe that a recession has already begun because credit markets have seized up. This pessimistic view argues that losses from the subprime arena are the tip of the iceberg. An economic downturn, combined with a weakened financial system, will result in a perfect storm for the multi-trillion dollar derivatives market. It is feared that cascading problems with inter-connected counterparty risk, swaps and excessive leverage will cause the entire "house of cards," otherwise known as the U.S. financial system, to collapse. At a minimum, they fear credit will contract, causing a major economic slowdown.
For many, this catastrophic outlook brings back memories of the Great Depression, when bank failures begot more bank failures, money was scarce, credit was impossible to obtain, and economic problems spread like wildfire.
This outlook is both perplexing and worrisome. Perplexing, because it is hard to see how a campfire of a problem can spread to burn down the entire forest. What Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently estimated as a $100 billion loss on subprime loans would represent only 0.1% of the $100 trillion in combined assets of all U.S. households and U.S. non-farm, non-financial corporations. Even if losses ballooned to $300 billion, it would represent less than 0.3% of total U.S. assets.
Beneath every dollar of counterparty risk, and every swap, derivative, or leveraged loan, is a real economic asset. The only way credit troubles could spread to take down the entire system is if the economy completely fell apart. And that only happens when government policy goes wildly off track.
In the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to collapse by 25%, which caused a dangerous deflation. In turn, this deflation caused massive bank failures. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, Herbert Hoover's tax hike passed in 1932, and then FDR's alphabet soup of new agencies, regulations and anticapitalist government activity provided the coup de grace. No wonder thousands of banks failed and unemployment ballooned to 20%.
But in the U.S. today, the Federal Reserve is extremely accommodative. Not only is the federal funds rate well below the trend in nominal GDP growth, but real interest rates are low and getting lower. In addition, gold prices have almost quadrupled during the past six years, while the consumer price index rose more than 4% last year.
These monetary conditions are not conducive to a collapse of credit markets and financial institutions. Any financial institution that goes under does so because of its own mistakes, not because money was too tight. Trade protectionism has not become a reality, and while tax hikes have been proposed, Congress has been unable to push one through.
Which brings up an interesting thought: If the U.S. financial system is really as fragile as many people say, why should we go to such lengths to save it? If a $100 billion, or even $300 billion, loss in the subprime loan world can cause the entire system to collapse, maybe we should be working hard to build a better system that is stronger and more reliable.
Pumping massive amounts of liquidity into the economy and pumping up government spending by giving money away through rebates may create more problems than it helps to solve. Kicking the can down the road is not a positive policy.
The irony is almost too much to take. Yesterday everyone was worried about excessive consumer spending, a lack of saving, exploding debt levels, and federal budget deficits. Today, our government is doing just about everything in its power to help consumers borrow more at low rates, while it is running up the budget deficit to get people to spend more. This is the tyranny of the urgent in an election year and it's the development that investors should really worry about. It reads just like the 1970s.
The good news is that the U.S. financial system is not as fragile as many pundits suggest. Nor is the economy showing anything other than normal signs of stress. Assuming a 1.5% annualized growth rate in the fourth quarter, real GDP will have grown by 2.8% in the year ending in December 2007 and 3.2% in the second half during the height of the so-called credit crunch. Initial unemployment claims, a very consistent canary in the coal mine for recessions, are nowhere near a level of concern.
Because all debt rests on a foundation of real economic activity, and the real economy is still resilient, the current red alert about a crashing house of cards looks like another false alarm. Warren Buffett, Wilbur Ross and Bank of America are buying, and there is still $1.1 trillion in corporate cash on the books. The bench of potential buyers on the sidelines is deep and strong. Dow 15,000 looks much more likely than Dow 10,000. Keep the faith and stay invested. It's a wonderful buying opportunity.
Mr. Wesbury is chief economist for First Trust Portfolios, L.P.
Good thing that was a false alarm!
Power User
Posts: 15533
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1217 on:
February 29, 2012, 09:30:50 PM »
Quote from: JDN on February 29, 2012, 09:02:58 PM
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on February 29, 2012, 08:49:47 PM
"That's why I get a big laugh out of domestic drilling supposedly lowering the price of oil; it won't, they
will just ship it to the highest bidder."
a) Transportation costs will tend towards our oil/gas staying here, but yes at some point we will make money by selling it elsewhere.
b) Not subject to vagaries of Middle East or other foreign politics
c) Law of Supply and Demand: More supply=lower prices. Just like the law of gravity, the law of supply and demand is not up for negotiation.
a)Transportation costs in the overall scheme of things is not a deciding factor.
b)Not being subject to the vagaries of the Middle East begs my point, prices will rise in case of turmoil and oil producers will sell to the highest bidder. Or do you suggest
legislation that they must sell to America first? As of now, much, most of our oil is sold internationally.
I agree with the Law of Supply and Demand, but given the world's thirst for oil, our supply will not affect prices that much. Combine that with the response of
other oil producing nations to keep prices stable, but high, I doubt if it will have much impact on world prices. Better to seek alternatives.
What's the martial art expression? Short term pain, long term gain....
Do you really need a giant Suburban? If the answer is yes, expect to pay.....
So, vote for Obozo, he'll continue to raise gas prices? Sounds like a winner! You should suggest this to the DNC, JDN.
Power User
Posts: 42556
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1218 on:
March 01, 2012, 08:27:10 AM »
GM: Hat tip on the 2008 Wesbury!
JDN: Random numbers to illustrate the point concerning the transpost costs variable: If the cost in the world is $100 and the cost of shipping from the US for a given country is $5 greater than some other source and the cost in the US is $98, then the US oil would cost the other country more than the market cost and will not be purchased by that country.
More importantly, the idea that the massive energy capabilities of the US would not have a significant effect on the marginal cost of oil on the world market seems to me rather , , , silly. Look at the efffect on oil prices when Libya, a mere million or two barrels a day, went off-line.
And there is the matter that our supplies would be secure to us.
Power User
Posts: 15533
States Facing 'Sleeping Cancer' in 96% Unfunded Retiree Benefits
Reply #1219 on:
March 10, 2012, 05:16:16 AM »
March 7 (Bloomberg) -- The near-failure by U.S. states to fund rising retiree health-care costs for millions of government workers threatens to produce budget crises similar to the one that pushed Stockton, California, to take a step toward bankruptcy last week.
States haven't financed almost 96 percent of the $627.4 billion they were projected to owe for future retiree benefits in 2010, according to Bloomberg Rankings data. The estimated deficit grew from about 95 percent in 2009 as governors coped with lower general-fund revenue and rising demand for services following the longest recession since the Great Depression.
Read more:
Power User
Posts: 7840
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1220 on:
March 10, 2012, 08:20:21 AM »
*States haven't financed almost 96 percent of the $627.4 billion they were projected to owe for future retiree benefits in 2010*
And states simply print money like the Federal gov. flooding the financial system with green paper.
And that is one difference between Greece and the US. Greece uses the Euro and so they can't simply print monopoly money like we do and try to con our way out.
How dare me suggest this is a ponzi scheme.
Power User
Posts: 42556
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1221 on:
March 10, 2012, 09:16:48 AM »
As best as I can tell, the Fed's essentially zero-negative interest rate policies (after taking into account inflation and taxes on the interest rates) are a major player here by changing the actuarial assumptions upon which funding must be made.
Power User
Posts: 7840
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1222 on:
March 10, 2012, 09:57:10 AM »
What does that mean with regards to the interest rates and changing the assumptions on funding?
Power User
Posts: 42556
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1223 on:
March 10, 2012, 10:48:12 AM »
If I understand correctly, "fully funded" is defined in part by the reasonably expected rate of return on what is put into the fund. Much of the current problem comes from assuming rates of return of something like 9% per annum, a number which arguably was supported by the actual rates of return during the 90s. Now with rates of return much lower, both in equity and in interest rate denominated vehicles (bonds, t-bills etc) actuarial assumptions now require larger amounts of money be deposited to properly prepare to meet future promises.
Power User
Posts: 7840
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1224 on:
March 10, 2012, 11:45:23 AM »
makes sense
Power User
Posts: 9483
Re: Political Economics - Unemployment is up or down?
Reply #1225 on:
March 12, 2012, 10:44:06 PM »
Gov't figures showed job growth up last month, adjusted for climate model type adjustments. Of course the denominator of the equation has dropped by 6 million jobs gone.
Gallup has unemployment up last month
and real unemployment, the percentage of people looking for full time work and cannot find it is up to 19%.
Unemployment in North Dakota where energy production is legal is 3%. Nothing to be learned from that.
Unemployment in the Twin Cities metro is 5%. California 11%. Nevada 13%.
Power User
Posts: 15533
When fantasy fails; Blue Bites Empire State (NY)
Reply #1226 on:
March 12, 2012, 11:16:15 PM »
March 12, 2012
Blue Blights Empire State
Weekend readers of the New York Times got an eyeful yesterday; the Grey Lady took a long look at New York state, and the result is an article that could almost have appeared in the Weekly Standard or the National Review. While the Times carefully avoided drawing any indelicate conclusions that might upset its liberal readership, the review of government finance at the state and local level reveals an appalling picture of blue model thinking at its worst. New York state and local politicians, egged on by public sector unions, have dug the state into such a deep hole that it will be hard to emerge.
And the unions along with the pro-bankruptcy wing of the Democratic Party want to keep digging.
The reality is that from Long Island to Buffalo, New York cities and counties face severe and growing fiscal woes. The chief drivers of the crisis: blue sweetheart programs that are out of control: state pensions, Medicaid, and retiree health costs.
Example: New York Citys annual out of pocket pension costs have ballooned from $1.5 billion a year ten years ago to $8 billion today. This is the cost of the lies New York politicians have told their sheep like constituents for many years, promising fat pensions to workers while refusing to raise taxes to put enough money away for when the bills come due. According to the eye popping numbers in the Times, 3 percent of New York city property tax revenues went to pay pension costs in 2001; 35 percent of those revenues will go to pensions by 2015.
Meanwhile, the ratings agencies have been downgrading the debt of New York cities and counties as if we were on the Mediterranean: last month alone Rockland County and the city of Utica got downgrades, with Long Beach and Yonkers getting hit last year. Suffolk and Nassau counties are having to borrow to pay their pension fund contributions for this year; worse is likely to come even as the general economy slowly improves.
Read the whole piece to see both how a whole state can go down the tubes, and how a newspaper can report facts while tip toeing carefully around any implications that might make its readers unhappy.
The root problem is that New York elected officials lost sight years ago of the need to run the state and its cities on a businesslike basis. They made investments in social policy and educational spending that manifestly did not pay off in terms of enhanced productivity or economic benefits. They made pension promises that they neglected to fund. New York as a state has been committed to the belief that a high regulation, high cost, big government approach to state and municipal management would pay off in the long run: yes, government in New York would cost more than in Texas or Alabama or other benighted hell holes, but New Yorkers would be better educated and more productive. New Yorks infrastructure might be expensive, but it would facilitate business growth. New Yorks public sector labor force might be expensive, but it would be competent and motivated so that it would deliver more. New York could make a high cost, high regulation governance model work: that was the big bet.
It has failed.
Its time for the state to take a long hard look at itself. The investments havent paid off at least not enough to justify the costs. The government model is breaking down; the system doesnt generate enough revenue to cover its cost.
Hopefully an economic recovery will provide a little breathing space, but New York cant afford to waste any respite it gets. The state is on the wrong road and the outlook is grim.
When blue policy goes wrong, blue pols and their chorus of captive intellectuals sing for bailouts. If the city is broke, the state must pay up. If the state is broke, the feds must pay up.
But the feds cant and wont pay up. The feds are tapped out, the state is a mess, and there will soon no alternative to deep policy change.
Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 11:50:14 AM by Crafty_Dog
Power User
Posts: 15533
Scamulus FAIL
Reply #1227 on:
March 15, 2012, 03:54:58 PM »
Obama's 3rd book:
"How I turned 840 billion dollars in stimulus funds into 5 dollars cash"
Power User
Posts: 15533
Vote high energy prices! Vote Obama!
Reply #1228 on:
March 16, 2012, 01:18:21 PM »
Gas is expensive, but poverty is free!
Power User
Posts: 9483
Political Economics - Keynesians say we need more stimulus
Reply #1229 on:
March 18, 2012, 11:48:23 AM »
Former chief economic adviser Christina Romer says what we need to get different results is more of the same:
"I absolutely think more fiscal stimulus would be very helpful," she says. "We need faster growth [to bring down unemployment]. Fiscal stimulus could help do that."
Good grief. $6 trillion wasn't enough, we need more fiscal stimulus. Somebody is trying to get her job back.
Power User
Posts: 9483
Political Economics - Have you been unemployed long?
Reply #1230 on:
March 18, 2012, 11:54:40 AM »
The human damage they are willing to do in their ideological battle against economic freedom is appalling.
Power User
Posts: 15533
Re: Political Economics - Keynesians say we need more stimulus
Reply #1231 on:
March 18, 2012, 11:56:06 AM »
Quote from: DougMacG on March 18, 2012, 11:48:23 AM
Former chief economic adviser Christina Romer says what we need to get different results is more of the same:
"I absolutely think more fiscal stimulus would be very helpful," she says. "We need faster growth [to bring down unemployment]. Fiscal stimulus could help do that."
Good grief. $6 trillion wasn't enough, we need more fiscal stimulus. Somebody is trying to get her job back.
Anyone still think we aren't heading to an economic collapse?
Power User
Posts: 42556
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1232 on:
March 18, 2012, 12:19:55 PM »
Scott Grannis doesn't.
Power User
Posts: 15533
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1233 on:
March 18, 2012, 12:32:52 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on March 18, 2012, 12:19:55 PM
Scott Grannis doesn't.
All due respect to Mr. Grannis, but hasn't he been telling us about how the economy is improving for the lest few years now?
Power User
Posts: 9483
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1234 on:
March 18, 2012, 12:47:36 PM »
"Scott Grannis doesn't [think we aren't heading to an economic collapse]."
Scott has good insight and data. I would like to go back a little through his blog which I haven't read for a while. Like Wesbury, it seems to me that we are hearing positive words that describe a very lethargic non-recovery. I wrote this about housing too, but I'm not going to count any margin of error level 'growth' as any kind of rebound. Maybe we aren't currently headed into collapse, but we also aren't building up enough economic strength to survive the next, major, self-inflicted setback.
I think both Wesbury and Grannis would agree that the 'growth' they are reporting, from the lowest of all lows, is a fraction of what it ought to be and that our policies are desperately in need of change.
Power User
Posts: 9483
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1235 on:
March 19, 2012, 07:33:09 AM »
Reading several blog pages back from Scott Grannis, this chart of his shows graphically what I think of the current 'reecovery'. A real recovery would show sharp growth aimed back at the line formerly known as 'growth trend'. The gap under is becoming what in Japan they called the 'lost decade'. You don't have to lose a decade. Decline, slow gfrowth and no growth, these are policy choices.
Power User
Posts: 9483
Re: Political Economics - employment
Reply #1236 on:
March 19, 2012, 07:44:27 AM »
Another graphical look from Scott Grannis. Employment is one of the best and most important indicators of how an economy is really doing. Take a look at the recent uptick in employment that Wesbury and others are seeing - in the context of the hole that we dug.
Keep in mind also the budget gap, separate post. Climbing out of this hole is not optional!
Power User
Posts: 42556
Blinder in WSJ:
Reply #1237 on:
March 19, 2012, 09:12:37 AM »
By ALAN S. BLINDER
At some point, the spectacle America is now calling a presidential campaign will turn away from comedy and start focusing on things that really mattersuch as the "fiscal cliff" our federal government is rapidly approaching.
The what? A cliff is something from which you don't want to fall. But as I'll explain shortly, a number of decisions to kick the budgetary can down the road have conspired to place a remarkably large fiscal contraction on the calendar for January 2013unless Congress takes action to avoid it.
Well, that gives Congress plenty of time, right? Yes. But if you're like me, the phrase "unless Congress takes action" sends a chill down your spineespecially since the cliff came about because of Congress's past inability to agree.
Remember the political donnybrook we had last month over extending the Bush tax cuts, the two-point reduction in the payroll tax, and long-term unemployment benefits? That debate was an echo of the even bigger donnybrook our elected representatives had just two months earlierand which they "solved" at the last moment by kicking the can two months down the road. And that one, you may recall, came about because they were unable to reach agreement on these matters in December 2010. At that time, President Obama and the Republicans kicked one can down the road 12 months (the payroll tax) and another 24 months (the Bush tax cuts).
The result of all this can kicking is that Congress must make all those decisions by January 2013or defer them yet again. If the House and Senate don't act in time, a list of things will happen that are anathema either to Republicans or Democrats or both. The Bush tax cuts will expire. The temporary payroll tax cut will end. Unemployment benefits will be severely curtailed. And all on Jan. 1, 2013. Happy New Year!
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
.There's more. As part of the deal ending the acrimonious debate over raising the national debt ceiling last August, the president and Congress created the bipartisan Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, commonly known as the "super committee." It was charged with finding ways to trim at least $1.5 trillion from projected deficits over 10 years. Mindful that the committee might not prove to be that super, Congress stipulated that formulaic spending cuts of $1.2 trillion would kick in automatically if the committee failed.
Sure enough, it failed. So those automatic cuts are headed our way starting Jan. 15, 2013. To make this would-be sword of Damocles more frightening, the formula Congress adopted aimed half the cuts straight at the Pentagon.
Now, you don't really believe the defense budget will be cut that much, do you? Probably the rest won't happen, either. But if it all did, the resulting fiscal contractionconsisting of both tax increases and spending cutswould be in the neighborhood of 3.5% of gross domestic product, depending on exactly how you count certain items, all at once. That's a big fiscal hit, roughly as big as what a number of European countries are trying to do right now, though with limited success and with notable collateral damage to their economies. An abrupt fiscal contraction of 3.5% of GDP would be a disaster for the United States, highly likely to stifle the recovery.
At this point, you are probably thinking: Well, of course Congress will find ways to wriggle out of its self-imposed budgetary corset. I agree. But the invisible hand won't do it; someone needs to figure out how.
It is next to certain that nothing will be done about the fiscal cliff during the election season. In fact, some Republicans are now threatening to renege on the spending cap for fiscal year 2013 that they agreed to last summer. In the absence of progress between now and Election Day, Congress will have about eight weeks leftincluding Sundays, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's Eveto either (a) find a solution to the long-running fiscal battle or (b) kick the can down the road again.
Bet on (b). Also bet that the agreement will come just before the bubbly flows on New Year's Eve. An outcome like that is far more likely than falling off the fiscal cliff. But my point is that finding a clever way to kick the can down the road again is becoming a bigger and bigger challenge. And Congress has barely coped with previous such challenges.
Fast forward to December 2012. The lame duck Congress will have on its plate all the issues it had to deal with in the December 2010, August 2011, December 2011, and February 2012 budget battles, plus the automatic cuts mandated by the failure of the super committee, plus the legacy of whatever claims and promises are made during the campaign. We may also be bumping up against the national debt ceiling again. And who will have to sort it all out? A Congress whose days are numbered and whose complexion may have been altered dramatically by the election.
The current betting odds say that President Obama will be re-elected in November, with Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate. Does anyone think a mix like that will be less contentious than the one we have now? And does anyone think that Republicans, seeing control of both houses of Congress on the horizon, will be more compromising in the lame duck than they have been in the recent past?
In sum, while we probably will not fall off the fiscal cliff in January 2013, there are ample opportunities for stumbles and slips between now and then. So wouldn't it be nice if the two parties engaged on this issue prior to Election Day?
Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Power User
Posts: 42556
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1238 on:
March 19, 2012, 10:34:58 AM »
Scott G. and I are emailing back and forth a bit this morning. With his permission, here are his comments on the Blinder piece:
"I have a dim view of Blinder. He is less partisan and somewhat more objective than Krugman, but is still more of a partisan hack than a serious economist. He's also a Keynesian who never met a spending-fueled budget deficit he didn't like. I actually look forward to more gridlock in Washington. Already it has helped spending decline from 25% to 23% GDP. Less spending means a stronger economy in my book. Bring on the "austerity!" "
Power User
Posts: 9483
Political Economics - What caused the collapse? Forbes Mag. answers Geithner
Reply #1239 on:
March 25, 2012, 12:19:02 PM »
This is important, was it economic freedom running wild or was it botched government programs and regulations that caused the financial collapse? Forbes contributor Charles Kadlec answers the political spin of our Treasury Secretary.
(read it at the link)
Tim Geithner Covers for Corruption On Pennsylvania Avenue
Last Friday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner charged in a Wall Street Journal op-ed (
) that those who oppose the Obama Administrations regulatory regime for the financial services industry seem to be suffering from amnesia about how close America came to complete financial collapse under the outdated regulatory system we had before Wall Street reform. Au contraire, Secretary Geithner, it is you who choose to ignore and misrepresent the lessons of the financial crisis by perpetuating the myth that the source of the crisis was a lack of regulation.
First, your essay glosses over the central role the federal government played in creating the crisis. In particular, the government through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac directed $5.2 trillion (that is trillion with a t) of capital to increase the supply of mortgages. In addition, it passed a law that required banks to make billions of dollars in loans to individuals that were unlikely to pay off the loans, in the end with 0% down.
In 1998, Fannie Mae announced it would purchase mortgages with only 3% down. And, in 2001, it offered a program that required no down payment at all. Between 2001 and 2004, subprime mortgages grew from $160 billion to $540 billion. And between 2005 and 2007, Fannie Maes acquisition of mortgages with less than 10% down almost tripled. These loans are now known as subprime and alt A loans. At the time they were made, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged their issuance by lowering their standards and buying them up from the now vilified mortgage brokers, S&Ls, banks and Wall Street investment banks.
This activity was not due to a lack of regulation or oversight as you claim. Both companies are under the direct supervision of a federal regulator and Congress. At the time these loans were being purchased by these two Government Sponsored Enterprises, their actions were defended by many in Congress who, led by Senator Chris Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, saw such reckless lending as a successful government initiative.
At the same time, the easy money policies of the Federal Open Market Committee, of which you were a voting member, were feeding an asset bubble in residential real estate, providing what proved to be an irresistible lure not only for speculators, but also for American families trying desperately to buy a house before inflation robbed them of their chance for home ownership.
Yes, mortgage brokers and banks encouraged reckless borrowing, though many who borrowed, with a little honest reflection, could have known that they would be unable to meet the financial obligation of paying the mortgage that they were using to buy a house that they could not afford. Nor does any of this excuse the poor judgment of those on Wall Street who levered their firms balance sheets so that even a 4% loss on their investments would leave them either bankrupt or in need of a bailout.
But, the culpability of those in the private sector should not be used to cover up or excuse the irresponsible behavior of those in the federal government. The self-regulatory check normally provided by markets on activities that are likely to lose money lenders backing away was simply blocked by the governments intervention in the capital markets. As you must know, six top executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission with securities fraud for hiding the size of the purchases of low quality mortgages from the market.
In addition, the normal check on excessive leverage provided by unwilling lenders was overwhelmed by the perception, now validated, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt were backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government. This created a willing buyer backed by the federal government with unlimited access to credit markets and a trillion dollar budget. No wonder S&Ls and Wall Street found ways to satisfy the demand. Blaming a lack of regulation for the subsequent losses is political spin meant to cover up the greed and corruption on Pennsylvania Avenue that led to the crisis.
Second, your claim that increased regulatory oversight would have prevented the crisis requires a credulous belief in the wisdom and courage of those in power. Regulators with all of the necessary powers have failed in their most basic task of preventing fraud including Bernie Maddoffs Ponzi scheme, and now the still unexplained disappearance of $1.6 billion of customer money at MF Global. Yet, you ask us to believe tens of thousands of pages of new regulations will somehow empower you and other elite public servants to prevent another financial crisis?
As we know now, you and the other members of the Federal Open Market Committee in 2006 did not grasp the implications of the then faltering housing market for the general economy or the health of the banking system. As a consequence, you and your colleagues did not use the powers you had to head off the financial crisis when there was still plenty of time to act. As former Prime Minister Tony Blair writes in his memoir, A Journey of My Political Life, an important contributor to the financial crisis was a failure of understanding. We didnt spot it it wasnt that we were powerless to prevent it even if we had seen it coming; it wasnt a failure of regulation in the sense that we lacked the power to intervene. Had regulators said to the leaders that a huge crisis was about to break, we wouldnt have said: Theres nothing we can do about it until we get more regulation through. We would have acted. But they didnt say that.
Third, the new regulatory regime for the financial industry created by the Dodd-Frank bill ironically named after two of the perpetrators of the financial crisis omits any reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Yet, unlike the commercial and investment banks who have repaid the government bailout money, these two state sponsored financial giants have cost taxpayers more than $140 billion and are seeking billions more in bailout funds. At the same time, HUD is moving forward on issuing new rules that would support racial quotas for bank mortgages, which no doubt will again force banks to make loans to individuals who cannot afford them.
In light of this evidence and your own experience, your promise that a new, expansive regulatory regime reduces the risk of financial crisis is not credible. The regulatory maze created by Dodd-Frank not only robs the private sector of real resources that otherwise would be committed to allocating capital to credit worthy borrowers, it also undermines market skepticism essential to preventing systemic risk. In addition, it puts even more power in the hands of a few individuals who, like you, are fallible, rather than dispersing power among market participants.
You conclude your essay by writing: We cannot afford to forget the lessons of the crisis and the damage it caused to millions of Americans. Amnesia is what causes financial crises.
With all due respect Mr. Secretary, federal government policies, not amnesia, were at the heart of the financial crisis. The arrogance of power revealed by your selective memory and political spin, and the expansive regulatory regime you support are now the primary source of systemic risk to the U.S. financial system and the economic security of the American people.
Power User
Posts: 15533
I'd like Scott Grannis' take on this:
Reply #1240 on:
March 25, 2012, 12:31:08 PM »
From Instapundit:
HOWS THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN OUT FOR YA?I was in Australia earlier this month and there, as elsewhere on my recent travels, the consensus among the politicians I met (at least in private) was that Washington lacked the will for meaningful course correction, and that, therefore, the trick was to ensure that, when the behemoth goes over the cliff, youre not dragged down with it. It is faintly surreal to be sitting in paneled offices lined by formal portraits listening to eminent persons who assume the collapse of the dominant global power is a fait accompli. . . . Greeces total debt is a few rinky-dink billions, a rounding error in the average Obama budget. Only America is spending trillions. The 2011 budget deficit, for example, is about the size of the entire Russian economy. By 2010, the Obama administration was issuing about a hundred billion dollars of treasury bonds every month or, to put it another way, Washington is dependent on the bond markets being willing to absorb an increase of U.S. debt equivalent to the GDP of Canada or India every year. And those numbers dont take into account the huge levels of personal debt run up by Americans. College-debt alone is over a trillion dollars, or the equivalent of the entire South Korean economy tied up just in one small boutique niche market of debt which barely exists in most other developed nations.
No organization can survive corruption and ineptitude at the top forever. And weve had the worse political class in American history for a while now, though its rottenness has really accelerated lately.
UPDATE: A longtime reader emails:
Im a Canadian, and you might be interested to know that the Harper government are working very hard (in the background) along the same lines as the Aussies. They are doing everything possible to diversify Canadas export markets away from the US as fast as possible, for example the pipeline to move Alberta and Saskatchewan oil to world markets via the sea, not to the US. Ditto aeroplanes, rail cars, fibre-optic electronics, robotics, lumber, and a wide range of other products.
The quiet back-room planning is driven by the alarming extent to which the Obama administration has already deeply damaged the US economy (compared to Canada) with its policies, actions, and insane deficits. The Harper government are now moving to shut down US environmentalist activity in Canada Were not going to be your National Park. says the PM and are already developping scenarios for maximum-possible disconnect from the States in the event Obama and his crew are returned to power in the coming elections. [no name please if published ... in spite of my present location I continue to follow Canadian politics very closely and have children living there. If it weren't for Canada's lack of truly free speech, draconian gun laws, and miserable health system, I'd be moving back.]
Power User
Posts: 42556
Scott Grannis speaks
Reply #1241 on:
March 25, 2012, 07:50:06 PM »
Scott's answer to you GM
Interest rates will only go up if the economy does better. Meanwhile, look at Japan where their debt burden and their deficit are both much bigger than ours relative to GDP and yet interest rates are even lower than ours
If the economy strengthens then the tax base expands and tax revenues go up. Meanwhile the average maturity of federal debt is very short. The yield curve is positively sloped so that means that higher interest rates are already factored in to some degree, so higher rates are not a death sentence by any stretch. Moreover, a stronger economy would likely happen if policies improved, so even as interest rates rose the deficit could shrink as a percent of GDP.
The way out of the current predicament is growth. The election this year has a good chance to deliver that.
Power User
Posts: 15533
Re: Scott Grannis speaks
Reply #1242 on:
March 25, 2012, 08:04:56 PM »
Quote from: Crafty_Dog on March 25, 2012, 07:50:06 PM
Scott's answer to you GM
Interest rates will only go up if the economy does better. Meanwhile, look at Japan where their debt burden and their deficit are both much bigger than ours relative to GDP and yet interest rates are even lower than ours
If the economy strengthens then the tax base expands and tax revenues go up. Meanwhile the average maturity of federal debt is very short. The yield curve is positively sloped so that means that higher interest rates are already factored in to some degree, so higher rates are not a death sentence by any stretch. Moreover, a stronger economy would likely happen if policies improved, so even as interest rates rose the deficit could shrink as a percent of GDP.
The way out of the current predicament is growth. The election this year has a good chance to deliver that.
I hope he is correct.
I appreciate his response.
Power User
Posts: 9483
Re: Political Economics
Reply #1243 on:
March 26, 2012, 09:34:02 AM »
"Interest rates will only go up if the economy does better. Meanwhile, look at Japan where their debt burden and their deficit are both much bigger than ours relative to GDP and yet interest rates are even lower than ours."
Scott is right on this, but it is unfortunate to need to look at stagnation elsewhere for guidance.
3 things come to mind (and more) that will keep economy from seriously entering a period of robust, uninhibited growth:
a) Interest rates as GM and Scott say. Interest rates will go up when some economic activity gets going again, but that will further hurt the cost of buying homes, automobiles, business expansion etc. We have seen this cycle before.
b) Energy costs will go up. The price increases proved the inelasticity of oil demand, consumption was down only 3% while prices at the pump skyrocketed. But in fact and in light of the barriers still in place to new production, gas prices are artificially low compared to what they would be if 6 or 10 million more people were soon commuting to work and a hundred million or more were better able to afford weekend and vacation travel. Just as likely as a new lease from the administration offshore is a crackdown on fracking or closure of coal or nuclear etc.
c) We still have unindexed, progressive tax brackets with more tax rate increases coming. The more that nominal incomes go up either through economic growth or inflation, the larger of a share that is taken and the greater the disincentive is to either produce or report that additional income.
d) Over-regulation and botched and convoluted regulation. Nothing in the Stimulus 1, 2, 3 or QE to the nth power plans address that. Even a Supreme Court decision striking down all of Obamacare only gets us back to where we were before implosion.
We build into our economy all these man-made forces that ensure the better things go, the worse things will get.
Scott G makes clear the importance to the economy of changing political course. Many economists do not come out and say that, and there are many economists of course who hold a different or opposite political policy view. (Romer and Krugman say government spending stimulus is still too small.) I don't see how anyone can project the future direction of our economy without knowing the policy outcomes this election, house, senate and Presidential, will bring. Will we have national healthcare? Will have 20% across the board tax rate cuts? We will the rate increases plus the Buffet surcharge plus a near doubling of capital gains rates? Will we have corporate rates cut to around the OECD average or the highest in the world? Will interest rates be near zero or double digit? Will we have gas at the pump - or algae?
Like the uncertainty of investing in a third world country, nobody knows.
Power User
Posts: 15533
Death of the blue model
Reply #1244 on:
April 01, 2012, 02:15:10 PM »
The House that Jack Built
March 30, 2012 - 10:42 pm - by Richard Fernandez
What is at least partly driving Al Sharptons call for civil disobedience if the city of Sanford doesnt arrest George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin? What is at the heart of Keith Olbermanns dispute with Al Gore? Why are Rosie Odonnell and Oprah Winfrey no longer best friends? What has made the Huffington Post bloggers sue Arianna Huffington?
A subject as old as the ages; a matter discussed in the Bible which has gone by many names down through time. A matter so solid some have called it the foundation of society even a memorial to dead presidents on which their likenesses are emblazoned. Found in large quantities it is called grand. The central pole of the Big Tent is made of it. Yes, were talking about money.
The chief problem with money, as Walter Russell Mead observes, is that the Blue Model is running out of it. Once upon a time the money was just out there. The dollars were mooing and lowing like the buffalo on the Great Plains. The only problem was divvying it up. But now that its getting harder to come by, a whole host of professions based on the dollar hunting and skinning business is becoming endangered. Mead describes the situation in his vivid prose:
The dream machines of the blue social engineers dont sail serenely across the azure sky anymore. Think of the various carbon exchanges and environmental planetary schemes; think of high speed rail proposals like Californias $100 billion train to bankruptcy; think of Obamacare. These days the experts, social entrepreneurs and smart young blue twenty somethings fresh out of the Ivy League whomp up social programs with as much verve and dedication as their New Deal and Great Society predecessors, but the new Dreamliners dont take off. At most they roll around the runway, emitting clouds of noxious smoke; wings fall off, windows pop out, turbines misfire and the tires go flat.
The Big Tent is the house that jack built. And jack has left town.
So dont be surprised if the the Big Tent is sagging at the edges. The marketing department has been particularly hard-hit. Al Gores Current network was paying Keith Olbermann $50 million to attract viewers they hoped to have. Olbermann was supposed to be its primary liberal voice. But the New York Times explained that Olberman wasnt attracting anybody, even though he acted like he was:
In his 40 weeks on Current TV, he had an average of 177,000 viewers at 8 p.m., down from the roughly one million that he had each night on MSNBC. Just 57,000 of those viewers on any given night were between the ages of 25 and 54, the coveted advertising demographic for cable news.
Talking Points Memo quoted a source which said Olbermann failed to show up for work without authorization, missing almost half of his working days in the months of January and February. Olbermann asked for a vacation day on March 5, the night before Super Tuesday, according to the source. He was told it would be a breach if he took the vacation, which Olbermann did. For his part, Olbermann said he would sue Gore. In the end, perhaps, they both needed and deserved each other.
Olbermann was a reprise of the recent fall of Rosie ODonnell. Early this March the Oprah Winfrey Network issued a press release announcing The Rosie Show had been canceled, following six months of humiliating ratings. What went wrong? Multiple insiders interviewed for this story say that both Ro and O are to blame; the network never fit ODonnell, and ODonnell wasnt able to make the splash she was supposed to.
Becoming a liberal voice was once where the money was. The jack. A lot guys still believed that. And boy were they wrong. Arianna Huffington won the right in court not to pay her bloggers a dime from the money she received from AOL for the sale of the Huffington Post. U.S. District Judge John Koeltl rejected claims by social activist and commentator Jonathan Tasini and an estimated 9,000 other bloggers that they deserved $105 million, or about one-third, of the purchase price.
It was, as one Columbia Law professor put it, signing up to engage in the electronic equivalent of someone writing a letter to the editor. It is no longer so easy to hitch ones wagon to the liberal star.
But if these individuals were facing a loss of income, Al Sharpton, by contrast, was trying to climb out of a deep financial hole. The left-wing National Action Network Inc., headquartered in New York Citys Harlem neighborhood, owes at least $1,556,059 in federal taxes and $108,489 in New York taxes, according to the Nexis tax liens database. Tax agencies typically file tax liens only after taxes have become significantly overdue and other collection methods have failed.
After Trayvon Martin was killed, the Chicago Tribune found the Reverend raising money for Trayvons cause. At a rally he shouted:
Im going to start off with $2,500, Sharpton said, holding up a check. Whos next?
Then Sharpton announced that television personality Judge Greg Mathis donated $10,000.
Several elected Florida officials were present, and each took a turn addressing the crowd before Sharpton was scheduled to speak. U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown was one of the first to address the crowd Thursday night. She rallied the crowd by yelling, I want an arrest, I want a trial.
The she asked the crowd: What do you want?
And the crowd responded, We want an arrest!
Doubtless Sharpton really wants an arrest. But given the parlous state of his finances, it would be understandable if he didnt mind making a few bucks on the side as well. All across the board the Blue Model is experiencing what parliamentary systems call the loss of supply. Supply is a term used to describe money bills, either taxation and government spending, which is the lifeblood of politics.
Karl Rove notes that even President Obama is feeling the pinch. He is raising far less money than he did during his first campaign and is having to work much harder for it.
Last July, President Obamas campaign announced that it had raised an average of $29 million in each of the previous three months for itself and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). I was only mildly impressed. After all, that was well below the $50 million a month needed to reach the campaigns goal of a $1 billion war chest for the 2012 race.
Seven months later, Im even less impressed. Through January, the president has raised an average of $24 million a month for his campaign and the DNC. Next week, the Obama campaign will release its February numbers, but the president is on track to be hundreds of millions of dollars shy of his original goal.
Its not for lack of trying. Mr. Obama has already attended 103 fund-raisers, roughly one every three days since he kicked off his campaign last April (twice his predecessors pace).
The Obama administration fears a Supreme Court finding that its health care law is unconstitutional above all because it is one of the dwindling number of places from which it can source the megabucks needed to feed its army of public sector and activist constituencies. Without Obamacare to fall back on as a milking cow, things could really get tough.
Just how bad things have become was illustrated by the floor defeat of Obamas budget 414-0. It received not a single vote. Republicans wrote an amendment that contained Mr. Obamas budget and offered it on the floor, daring Democrats to back the plan, which calls for major tax increases and yet still adds trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade. But no Democrats accepted the challenge.
The Achilles heel of the Big Tent and Big Government is its penchant to spend money faster than it can raise taxes or borrow. Its very bulk works against it. Told that mighty German cruisers were loose in the South Atlantic during the Great War, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill declared that they were doomed in any case. Without fuel and sustenance, they could not survive a cut flower in a vase, fair to see yet bound to die. He might have been talking about Hope and Change.
The Blue Model has had a good run. But it needs to reform itself. If even celebrities like Keith Olbermann and Al Sharpton are feeling the pinch, how are the Occupy Wall Street dupes going to fare? And who else is going to have to tighten his belt in the house that jack built?
Power User
Posts: 15533
Good news for JDN!
Reply #1245 on:
April 03, 2012, 03:56:51 PM »
**It's great for the environment!
Harper: Thanks to Obamas no on Keystone, the price of Canadian crude will go up for the U.S.
posted at 2:50 pm on April 3, 2012 by Tina Korbe
The damage is done. Even if President Barack Obama decides to approve the Keystone XL pipeline at some point in the future, he already sent a message to Canada that our northern neighbor cant rely on us as its only energy customer and Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper heeded it.
In an interview with former U.S. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) in D.C. yesterday, Harper explained that Canada will now seek to expand its export market to Asia and will also cease to supply oil to the United States at a discounted rate.
Look, the very fact that a no could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets, Harper told Harman in front of a live audience of businesspeople, scholars, diplomats, and journalists.
Harper also told Harman that Canada has been selling its oil to the United States at a discounted price.
So not only will America be able to buy less Canadian oil even if Keystone is eventually approved, the U.S. will also have to pay more for it because the market for oilsands crude will be more competitive.
We have taken a significant price hit by virtue of the fact that we are a captive supplier and that just does not make sense in terms of the broader interests of the Canadian economy, Harper said. Were still going to be a major supplier of the United States. It will be a long time, if ever, before the United States isnt our number one export market, but for us the United States cannot be our only export market.
That is not in our interest, either commercially or in terms of pricing.
We cannot be, as a country, in a situation where our one and, in many cases, only energy partner could say no to our energy products. We just cannot be in that position.
Harpers comments came the same day that Barack Obamas Super PAC, Priorities USA, released an ad that sought to tie Mitt Romney to Big Oil. The ad was itself a response to an ad underwritten by the American Energy Alliance that attacked Obama on his energy record and warned that this administration would be content to see gas prices rise as high as $9 a gallon.
This fallout from the presidents decision on Keystone XL underscores the truth that Obama does not make policy decisions in a vacuum. Hell do what he will and other countries will respond accordingly. Our famously cerebral leader might have preferred to have had more time to sufficiently review the project, but he didnt. In the time frame he was given, he made his priorities perfectly clear: He cares more to retain the support of certain constituencies than to approve a project that would have created thousands of jobs and signaled to Canada that were committed to ensure a supply of affordable energy for ourselves. The American Energy Alliance had it right: The presidents energy policies have done nothing to secure Americas energy future. Well be ever more at the mercy of the oil-producing countries the president likes to blame so much.
Power User
Posts: 15533
He kept one promise!
Reply #1246 on:
April 04, 2012, 06:57:24 AM »
Power User
Posts: 15533
Pay no attention to this
Reply #1247 on:
April 07, 2012, 09:31:20 AM »
**This is why it's all about birth control and hoodies in the DNC-MSM.
(Reuters) - Egan-Jones Ratings downgraded the credit level of the United States as Washington has struggled to reduce the federal debt burden, which is projected to surpass the size of the country's economy.
The independent rating firm, which issued the downgrade late Thursday, said its senior debt rating on the United States is now AA, its third highest rating, down one notch from AA-plus.
It also maintained a negative watch on the world's biggest economy as the federal debt load could rise to $16.7 trillion at the end of 2012. U.S. gross domestic product, in the meantime, could grow to $15.7 trillion, assuming it would grow at a rate of 2.5 percent, the firm said.
The firm downgraded the United States for second time in less than nine months "because of the lack of any tangible progress on addressing the problems and the continued rise in debt to GDP," said Sean Egan, co-founder of firm, in an e-mail statement.
Egan-Jones's downgrade did not elicit major market responses. U.S. government debt prices jumped on Friday after news of much weaker-than-expected job growth in March renewed bets the U.S. central bank would embark on more bond purchases to foster economic growth.
Back in mid-July, Egan-Jones stripped the United States' of its top AAA-rating amid the debt ceiling fight in Washington that stoked fears of a federal default.
The three larger rating agencies, however, currently have higher ratings on the United States than Egan-Jones.
Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings still rate the United States with their highest credit grade of AAA, although Moody's has said it could strip the country of its top rating.
In August Standard & Poor's stripped the United States of its AAA rating, knocking it by a notch to AA-plus. It warned of a possible further downgrade.
Efforts to contain federal spending and borrowing have been unsuccessful. A congressional "Super Committee" seeking spending cuts of $1.5 trillion over 10 years, equal to $150 billion annually, "was a failure," Egan-Jones said in its report.
"Obviously, the current course is not enhancing credit quality. Without some structural changes soon, restoring credit quality will become increasingly difficult," it said.
While the rock-bottom interest-rate climate, a result of the Federal Reserve's ultra-loose policies, has helped the United States to finance its federal debt, it could run into trouble once its borrowing costs rise and the government does not reduce its debt load, Egan said.
The Fed has clung to a near-zero interest rate policy since December 2008. It has also purchased more than $1 trillion worth of Treasuries securities over the past three years, stemming from its emergency measures to lower mortgage rates and other long-term borrowing costs to stimulate borrowing and investment.
"Monetizing the debt depresses interest rates in the short run but does not address underlying credit quality as manifested by the rapid rise in debt to GDP," Egan said.
Power User
Posts: 2268
The Two Economies
Reply #1248 on:
April 12, 2012, 08:04:56 AM »
"If Cowens case is right, the U.S. is not a nation in decline. We may be in the early days of an export boom that will eventually power an economic revival, including a manufacturing revivial. But, as Cohen emphasizes, this does not mean that nirvana is at hand."
Power User
Posts: 9483
Re: David Brooks / Tyler Cowen, Two Economies
Reply #1249 on:
April 15, 2012, 06:50:20 PM »
Bigdog, Thanks for that post. I am not much of a Brooks fan but his reporting here is very good.
At the high end of the economy, if you invent, innovate or simply out-hustle the competition today you now have a much larger global market in which to sell your product or service than you had a generation ago. The income that come come from even a very low margin successful global business is nearly limitless. That is a good thing and should not be used as a distraction for what the rest of us may need to do to survive and prosper. There is NOT a fixed size pie that we are splitting up. Wealth creation is just that, new wealth, and it improves potential of everyone around them for new income. An app developer may be able to sell a million off of one home-run. That it doesn't seem fair to someone else is not a productive thought. Still, a plumber can only replace only one tub faucet at a time though the products, methods and tools he uses may have improved. A professor of constitutional law still needs an hour (plus prep time) to deliver a first class lecture. Not every profession benefits from the change of scale though we all can benefit from living in a healthier economy.
One fear is that a few big businesses will take over everything, but everyone who has worked for one of the giants knows that they turn down and pass up plenty of opportunities everyday leaving behind a plethora of new opportunities for new entrepreneurs in their wake.
The question no one but me it seems is asking is why is life getting so expensive? Everything it seems now costs way more than it should. It take so much money to just get by.
Something like 40 cents of every dollar of resources goes to public sector overhead. I don't know what that burden ought to be but for my money I would say quite a bit lower. Worse I think is the regulatory burden mostly hidden from view but perhaps one of every family's biggest expenses. Again, I can't say what that burden ought to be, we certainly need one, but it needs to be a whole lot lower.
The 3rd economy unmentioned is the large number of people who live outside of our productive economy, not in the economy one or economy two. In many areas, that is the majority.
Back to the first tier, it is quite a tragedy for the rest of the globe that America at the moment with its public sector brakes on is failing to lead in a forward direction.
« previous
next »
Jump to:
Please select a destination:
DBMA Martial Arts Forum
=> Martial Arts Topics
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
=> Politics & Religion
=> Science, Culture, & Humanities
DBMA Espanol
=> Espanol Discussion
Powered by SMF 1.1.21
SMF © 2015, Simple Machines