How can he dare?
-
I guess I anticipated this in my response to Ed. Once the American consumer stops buying, we're all screwed -- globally, not just in the US or in the West. Meanwhile the G20 are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, while the Bush administration is playing "nearer My God, to Thee." Not that Obama will do any better. There was a conspiracy theory going around among the Democrats for awhile that Reagan's real goal in outspending the USSR to the point where that country declared defacto bankruptcy was to put the US so deep in the hole financially that the liberals wouldn't be able to fund any of their pet projects. Whether it was true or not, then, Bush has pretty much done it. Obama can print money, of course, but unlike FDR who tried to spend his way out of a depresion, our money is already worthless not simply less valuable than before. The only bright spot I can see is that the price of oil is cutting the gonads off of Chavez, Amadinijhad, the Saudis and Putin.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The only bright spot I can see is that the price of oil is cutting the gonads off of Chavez, Amadinijhad, the Saudis and Putin.
Don't seem to be much movement in the UK prices for petrol, diesel, natural gas and electricity to reflect these reduced prices.
Oakman wrote:
outspending the USSR
Arguably, it was the right policy at that time, but with Russia becoming ever more powerful today in terms of energy provision, and Europe needing that energy, the pendulum has again swung eastwards. Looks like the US Treasury is somewhat busy tonight set to receive a flood of last-minute applications from firms seeking government rescue funds by the Nov. 14 deadline[^]
Last modified: 17mins after originally posted --
-
Reagan Conservative wrote:
Wasn't it the "government" (our lawmakers, mainly DEMOCRATS) who passed laws instituting that everyone should be able to own a home
Actually, no. It was George Bush in 2004 while pandering for re-election. In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.[^]
Gee, how does the "EXECUTIVE BRANCH" pass laws, Ed? Isn't that Congress job??
AF Pilot
-
Oakman wrote:
The only bright spot I can see is that the price of oil is cutting the gonads off of Chavez, Amadinijhad, the Saudis and Putin.
Don't seem to be much movement in the UK prices for petrol, diesel, natural gas and electricity to reflect these reduced prices.
Oakman wrote:
outspending the USSR
Arguably, it was the right policy at that time, but with Russia becoming ever more powerful today in terms of energy provision, and Europe needing that energy, the pendulum has again swung eastwards. Looks like the US Treasury is somewhat busy tonight set to receive a flood of last-minute applications from firms seeking government rescue funds by the Nov. 14 deadline[^]
Last modified: 17mins after originally posted --
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Don't seem to be much movement in the UK prices for petrol, diesel, natural gas and electricity to reflect these reduced prices.
Fascinating. Prices around here have dropped from $4.19 @ gallon to $1.75 @ gallon. Which is roughly 3 litres for a pound.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Gee, how does the "EXECUTIVE BRANCH" pass laws, Ed? Isn't that Congress job??
AF Pilot
Reagan Conservative wrote:
"EXECUTIVE BRANCH" pass laws, Ed? Isn't that Congress job??
Ok, so it was the then Republican Congress at the urging of their president... I think you may be trying to defend the indefensible. Bush has a major portion of the blame in this catastrophe, as does the congress (both parties). As a Reagan Conservative, you should be furious with Bush, who certainly was not one.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Don't seem to be much movement in the UK prices for petrol, diesel, natural gas and electricity to reflect these reduced prices.
Fascinating. Prices around here have dropped from $4.19 @ gallon to $1.75 @ gallon. Which is roughly 3 litres for a pound.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Fuel Price Reports[^] shows the prices of UK Petrol and diesel for today - namely 95.2 p/litre for Petrol and 109.0 p/litre for Diesel. I don't remember how many years ago it was that I got change from a £1 for a gallon of petrol - my early 20's I should think.
-
Gee, how does the "EXECUTIVE BRANCH" pass laws, Ed? Isn't that Congress job??
AF Pilot
Perhaps you missed this part of my post: "President Bush will ask Congress for authority"
-
Have to be careful that domestic production for domestic consumption does not become domestic protectionism. Some references on how domestic protectionism might be played out ... Protectionism: Protecting Whom?[^], A protectionist stance for one industry at home only invites pleas from other industries and retaliation abroad[^], The Frontier of National Sovereignty - an on-line readable book[^]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Have to be careful that domestic production for domestic consumption does not become domestic protectionism
Hopefully, we remember Smoot-Hawley.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
domestic production for domestic consumption played a major role in the success of the U.S. once upon a time.
But it never has in China, IIRC - at least not on the scale that China operates with now. On the other hand, a lot of their stimulus package is coming from state owned corporations which have a lot of cash, so - unlike the US - they aren't just printing money. Maybe it will work and they could be the base which the global economy uses to rebound.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But it never has in China, IIRC
It's been a while.
Until the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), China was a world leader in technology and scientific discovery. Many Chinese inventions--paper and printing, gunpowder, porcelain, the magnetic compass, the sternpost rudder, and the lift lock for canals--made major contributions to economic growth in the Middle East and Europe.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Have to be careful that domestic production for domestic consumption does not become domestic protectionism
Hopefully, we remember Smoot-Hawley.
-
Fuel Price Reports[^] shows the prices of UK Petrol and diesel for today - namely 95.2 p/litre for Petrol and 109.0 p/litre for Diesel. I don't remember how many years ago it was that I got change from a £1 for a gallon of petrol - my early 20's I should think.
-
Oakman wrote:
But it never has in China, IIRC
It's been a while.
Until the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), China was a world leader in technology and scientific discovery. Many Chinese inventions--paper and printing, gunpowder, porcelain, the magnetic compass, the sternpost rudder, and the lift lock for canals--made major contributions to economic growth in the Middle East and Europe.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Many Chinese inventions--paper and printing, gunpowder, porcelain, the magnetic compass, the sternpost rudder, and the lift lock for canals--made major contributions to economic growth in the Middle East and Europe.
Also pasta. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Have to be careful that domestic production for domestic consumption does not become domestic protectionism. Some references on how domestic protectionism might be played out ... Protectionism: Protecting Whom?[^], A protectionist stance for one industry at home only invites pleas from other industries and retaliation abroad[^], The Frontier of National Sovereignty - an on-line readable book[^]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Have to be careful that domestic production for domestic consumption does not become domestic protectionism.
China is already a protectionist state. Only Western Civilization has to keep trade barriers low regardless of economic conditions or the lack of reciprocity.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
where can the finger of failure be pointed at?
Government. The state is the problem, always has been and always will be. It is the answer to absolbutly nothing except "How can we more effectively control people's lives.?"
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Government. The state is the problem, always has been and always will be. It is the answer to absolbutly nothing except "How can we more effectively control people's lives.?"
Wouldn't a society without government lead to anarchy? Create a society where your right to live is connected to your ability to fight ?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Government. The state is the problem, always has been and always will be. It is the answer to absolbutly nothing except "How can we more effectively control people's lives.?"
Wouldn't a society without government lead to anarchy? Create a society where your right to live is connected to your ability to fight ?
Sahir Shah wrote:
Wouldn't a society without government lead to anarchy? Create a society where your right to live is connected to your ability to fight ?
No one said anything about no government. Government is a necessary evil to maintain the bare essentials of social order. The question is should government err on the side of doing only what is absolutely essential,or should it err on the side of doing everything it possibly can? If it takes the latter approach where does that end? Government is as subject to the vageries of human nature as is any other artifact of human civilization. If it is given carte blanche authorrity to assume ever greater responsibility and power to solve problems which it is causing, human civilization becomes swallowed whole by government and we end up with anarchy anyway.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Government. The state is the problem
Too much regulation ? or not enough regulation ? Do you restrict this finger pointing to the Offices of the President, or Congress or elsewhere. What about that "Smarter Government" remark of Bush. Are the lessons of this debacle learnable or is it a far too complex problem.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
What about that "Smarter Government" remark of Bush. Are the lessons of this debacle learnable or is it a far too complex problem.
I would not use President Bush as a philosopher for any political system I would prefer. He is one of those conservatives who beleives as much in government power as any liberal, he just believes that it can be used to achieve a more conservative society. I disagree with that completely.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
What about that "Smarter Government" remark of Bush. Are the lessons of this debacle learnable or is it a far too complex problem.
I would not use President Bush as a philosopher for any political system I would prefer. He is one of those conservatives who beleives as much in government power as any liberal, he just believes that it can be used to achieve a more conservative society. I disagree with that completely.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
He is one of those conservatives who beleives as much in government power as any liberal, he just believes that it can be used to achieve a more conservative society. I disagree with that completely.
No, you don't. You want lots of govermental power - just on the state level. The only difference in this regard between you, Obama and Bush is who gets to exercise the power, not how much.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
This was a Democrat + Republican creation. Ronald Reagan played a hand in it, as did George Bush, as did Bill Clinton. Republican Senator Phil Gramm pushed through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) which forbid regulation of swaps (for example, Credit Default Swaps), thus allowing the rampant speculation and over-leveraging that has pushed us to the edge of financial collapse.
You have summed it up perfectly. Trying to absolve this one or that one of blame by dredging up any one aspect of this mess is like trying to salvage the lookout's reputaion while the Titanic is sinking. It appears that the Brits were able to fix the Libor, the stock market seems to be trading in the 8300 - 8700 range with occasional daytrips outside those parameters, the CDS's seem to have done their damage already, but the the American consumer, whether its because he's lost his job, thinks he may lose his job, or has a friend down the street who lost his job isn't spending any more money than he must. That's 2/3rds of the US economy slamming on the brakes. And if the US isn't buying, China is in the toilet. It could be a death spiral.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
The impact on China and other countries that have effectively become factories for the west is going to be catastrophic. Demand for fancy consumer goods, flat screen TVs, PDAs, is plumeting, and this is all these contries have.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription