Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I have my idea. Encourage the University of California system to establish branches in Appalachia, where real estate and construction labor are both cheap. A college boom in Appalachia would absorb many of the former coal miners as construction workers, alleviating much of the economic distress in the area. It would also establish some excellent colleges that have been rare in the area.

California residents would get in-state tuition due to the investment... and very low rents by California standards. Of course the local attractions might be awful to non-existent... but nobody would have to pay $3000 monthly rent for an apartment. One good thing about studying in a God-awful place is that there are no distractions.

But think of the boon to Appalachia: there would be well-educated youth as models of hope and the prospect of success.



High-quality education pays for itself in federal income tax payments alone. Single payer? Even Medicare at 50 would have some positive effects. One is that it would stop age discrimination. Be 50 and generally competent and you might be desirable again. People in their 50s and early 60s can still be active... so long as they have not messed themselves up with bad habits (smoking, boozing, obesity).



The housing bubble will implode. Many California residents are going to ask whether they might be better off to go to a place in which they can live for less than they are paying in rent. Sure, that means having to put up with fire-and-ice climates like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo,_Iowa#Climate

...The sort of place where it is possible to get frostbite and heatstroke in the same month.

Coastal California weather is for wimps. But Iowa has virtues -- good schools and a low crime rate.



Count on the Koch syndicate turning on him and offering its model of Hard Right pure plutocracy. Of course that has been done.




If Democrats don't win the House, then expect the same situation as from 2011 to now... and say hello to some right-wing Republican President who promises to get a lot done. Almost all of it will be wrong except for the economic elites of America; but elect Ted Cruz as President and we could see America turned back to having much the same institutions that it had when Herbert Hoover was President. Say farewell to Social Security, Medicare, and even the right to have a union. You might be working 12-hour workdays for near-starvation pay... and having to buy your necessities at the company store. You will want your children to get into the tourist business so that they might attract some rich foreign tourist and seduce him or her.



Republicans will simply say no. They will filibuster everything, just as the Koch brothers tell them to do. We will have the same gridlock. Of course I can think of far worse than gridlock -- lockstep in a very bad direction



Sage wisdom from the Boy Scouts -- Be prepared!

Under Sanders, the Dems will win back the House--in 2018 if not in 2016. Unlike Obama, Sanders will not compromise and above all, he will not be disbanding the organisation he is building. Sanders will immediately start preparing for the 2018 Election with one hand while he governs the country with the other. It's all a matter of channelling all that energy and frustration people feel and turning it against Republicans in Congress and state legislatures.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Most Americans can't stand the very idea of Hillary occupying the oval office. Personally the very thought of that hag running the country and holding the nuclear football should scare any sane person.

I think of Hillary's "victory dance" after Libya "We came We saw He died". And then I think of Hillary with nuclear launch codes and I cringe.

We are finally seeing Sanders articulate some real differences in foreign policy from Hillary. Consider the fact that Henry Kissinger is Hillary's mentor as Secy. of State. See http://www.thenation.com/article/hen...war-and-peace/ . Then consider the exchange between Hillary and Bernie over Henry K at tonight's debate: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...kissinger.html . Bernie is highly critical of the current Neo-Conservative/Liberal Interventionist orthodoxy that Henry Kissinger fostered after Vietnam. Bernie may be willing to repudiate the Petrodollar.
I find those possibilities refreshing. We cannot go forward in foreign policy with only one direction with one set of ideas like a car travelling with it's anti-theft steering lock on. The US is running out of room for the kind of interventions overseas it has grown used to. In Syria, this could lead to war with Russia.

Originally Posted by Odin

Playwrite, you and all the other Hillarians sound like robots spewing the same talking points after being programmed with the latest talking points.

Keep on doing it, because you are just pissing us Millennials off even more and thus helping Bernie.

Hey, Odin.

'Hillarians' is ok, I guess ... sorta.


Prince

PS: May I suggest using the term:
'Antidisestablishmentarians'.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Which doesn't make him wrong, necessarily. Yes, we are choosing between paradigms, and it's about time. Will we succeed? That's one of those pesky known unknowns. It's true that the 1850s only happened once, but they did happen. We can act all civilized right up to the first mass action, or we can try to bend the line of history in a better direction. Like I noted about, what is gained by electing a Wall Street tool, when they are the problem?

So I'll take my chances, and only I'll vote for the tool if it's her or someone from the Trump/Cruz cabal. I probably won't if its another tool like Kasich, even knowing that he's a bigger tool than she is. I'm done with this.

I think you missed the point.

Anyone who doesn't see it's election by election, just win baby, and each completely changing the landscape for the next, is not in touch with reality.

Even quantum mechanics has its set point energy levels.

The country was feeling the Bern last nite

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-...b_9215858.html

Bern baby Bern!!

Originally Posted by Einzige

Bernie Sanders is a Silent, or at least an honorary one. If Sanders were a core Boomer, EtG would be all over his jock. But as is typical of the Me Generation, anyone outside of it can be given no shrift.

Just a nit. Sanders is a real Silent, not an "honorary" one. "Honorary" is given to cuspers who display the archetype of the generation that they just missed being.

The classic example of an "honorary" something is President Carter, who was born in the tail end of the GI cohort (October 1924) but functioned much more like a Silent, being concerned with excellence (his campaign motto was "Why Not the Best"), fairness, and decision making by cost-benefit analyses, hallmarks of the Silent Generation. Thus, many consider him an "honorary" Silent, even though strictly speaking, his birthdate places him the GI cohort.

Since Sanders was born in 1941, kind of near the start of the Boom generation (1943-1960), you could characterize Sanders as an honorary Boomer. He is not an honorary Silent, though, because he is a Silent.

That is, of course, if you accept the S&H cohort boundaries for generations.

My last post made me wonder -- any thoughts about a Silent leading the country in the middle of a 4T? This was something that S&H assumed would not happen after the 2000 election (unless something happened to the Presidents, since both the Veeps -- Cheney and Biden) are Silents).

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

My last post made me wonder -- any thoughts about a Silent leading the country in the middle of a 4T? This was something that S&H assumed would not happen after the 2000 election (unless something happened to the Presidents, since both the Veeps -- Cheney and Biden) are Silents).

Well everything is about innovation these days - so perhaps some Artistry is in order.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

My last post made me wonder -- any thoughts about a Silent leading the country in the middle of a 4T? This was something that S&H assumed would not happen after the 2000 election (unless something happened to the Presidents, since both the Veeps -- Cheney and Biden) are Silents).

I think Sanders, despite being technically a Silent, is, as you said, an honorary Boomer and is playing, in his behavior, the archetypal elder Prophet role.

I think Playwrite doesn't actually personally know any Millie Sanders supporters, all his ideas about us sound like BS he read and heard from the Very Serious People.

Obama and Sanders are very different politicians. Obama was a Big City Machine establishment politician posing as an idealistic progressive to get young voters and using his race to secure support from Blacks in the primaries. He ran into trouble because as soon as he got in he essentially disbanded all the genuine progressive electoral apparatus that got him elected and them went and put in Establishment tools like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in control of the DNC. Then he went in thinking that he could find common ground with an intransigent GOP, and he could not use the bully pulpit to maximum effect because he would have been blasted as a stereotypical Angry Black Man.

Bernie, unlike Obama, isn't a poseur and has the track record to prove it, he will put progressives in full control of the DNC, he will not disband his force of activists, he has no delusions about either the GOP or the establishment DINOs, and he is willing to use the power of the bully pulpit to incite popular rage against an intransigent Congress.

Hillary will have to do better if she's going to win. I agree Bernie won the PBS debate. She keeps on with this, "yes I agree, but I have a better plan" retort while Sanders lays out a clear agenda and a challenge to the status-quo-that-ain't-workin'. And voice quality counts. That's a big reason Trump is doing well too. His voice appeals to people and inspires confidence. His career on TV helped develop this, as it did Reagan's. Hillary sounds good when she's quiet; confident and generous. This helped her win the first debate. But when she raises her voice it sounds too grating. She loses touch with her heart and sounds like a nag. Sanders by contrast sounds sincere, courageous and warm with an appealing Brooklyn accent; the energetic revolutionary that people are rising with. Both have a bit of a temper though, which they have to watch if Trump rattles them in debates. Trump is teflon-coated and can get away with anything, it seems.

An official prediction that Sanders will win may come from me soon! The astrology already indicates it.

Originally Posted by Odin

I think Playwrite doesn't actually personally know any Millie Sanders supporters, all his ideas about us sound like BS he read and heard from the Very Serious People.

Unfortunately, I know plenty of people with the Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome. And regardless of age, gender, race, income status, intelligence level, etc., they say crap like this -

Originally Posted by Odin

It's increasingly clear that the Clinton campaign is in desperation mode and is resorting to scaring black voters by insinuating that Bernie's populism is for poor whites only. She doesn't give a shit that this risks blowing the party to bits as long as she wins.

- and not only refuse to back it up, but are so self-delusional that they also go further and proclaim crap like this -

Originally Posted by Odin

I am getting so sick of this kind of divisive BS.

If Clinton gets the nomination because of racial identity politics then I will have lost all hope in this country, because it would show that we are not a coherent society but just a collection of splintered demographic units fighting for influence and patronage.

And then these idiots will wonder why we end up with a President Trump...

And that is why, if Sanders gets elected, they'll completely forget that they said this -

Originally Posted by Odin

Bernie, unlike Obama, isn't a poseur and has the track record to prove it, he will put progressives in full control of the DNC, he will not disband his force of activists, he has no delusions about either the GOP or the establishment DINOs, and he is willing to use the power of the bully pulpit to incite popular rage against an intransigent Congress.

And abandon President Sanders as well because he didn't bring them their promised magic ponies.



Each generation has its Odins, and the Smithsonian collects them -

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...Sanders lays out a clear agenda

Beyond telling Liberals that he's bringing magic ponies, exactly what is his agenda? Are you buying into this horsey-poo -

Originally Posted by Odin

.. he is willing to use the power of the bully pulpit to incite popular rage against an intransigent Congress.

- do you really think President Bern is going to get the people who vote the Freedom Caucus in rage to turn them out, or will he enrage them enough to insist that Caucus get impeachment proceedings underway ASAP?

Have you all forgotten the very basics that ONLY the President is a national election???

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... if Trump rattles them in debates.

He'll do more that just rattle the Bern. He's going to paint him as a commie who wants to increase the size of federal govt by 40% by raising everyone's taxes possible in the middle of a recession. McGovern's loss is going to look like a mild spanking in comparison. It's not only going to be very ugly (I'm sure more than a few Odins' synapses will explode), but with the SCOTUS on the line, very very long lasting - something that the Millies' kids are going to have to live with for a very long time.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hillary will have to do better if she's going to win. I agree Bernie won the PBS debate. She keeps on with this, "yes I agree, but I have a better plan" retort while Sanders lays out a clear agenda and a challenge to the status-quo-that-ain't-workin'. And voice quality counts. That's a big reason Trump is doing well too. His voice appeals to people and inspires confidence. His career on TV helped develop this, as it did Reagan's. Hillary sounds good when she's quiet; confident and generous. This helped her win the first debate. But when she raises her voice it sounds too grating. She loses touch with her heart and sounds like a nag. Sanders by contrast sounds sincere, courageous and warm with an appealing Brooklyn accent; the energetic revolutionary that people are rising with. Both have a bit of a temper though, which they have to watch if Trump rattles them in debates. Trump is teflon-coated and can get away with anything, it seems.

An official prediction that Sanders will win may come from me soon! The astrology already indicates it.

-- well I hope your charts are right bcuz Reid wants a brokered convention. An obvious end run around Bernie, altho the Dems may be getting concerned over the email scandal not going away. The Bernie voters won't go for this. They will walk away from the Party

Originally Posted by B Butler

Does this imply we ought to move Bernie to the outfield?

I think he's been out there for a long time, and just took a turn on the mound. He finished the second inning in good shape, but there are 7 more to go.

Originally Posted by Odin

I think Playwrite doesn't actually personally know any Millie Sanders supporters, all his ideas about us sound like BS he read and heard from the Very Serious People.

Obama and Sanders are very different politicians. Obama was a Big City Machine establishment politician posing as an idealistic progressive to get young voters and using his race to secure support from Blacks in the primaries. He ran into trouble because as soon as he got in he essentially disbanded all the genuine progressive electoral apparatus that got him elected and them went and put in Establishment tools like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz in control of the DNC. Then he went in thinking that he could find common ground with an intransigent GOP, and he could not use the bully pulpit to maximum effect because he would have been blasted as a stereotypical Angry Black Man.

Bernie, unlike Obama, isn't a poseur and has the track record to prove it, he will put progressives in full control of the DNC, he will not disband his force of activists, he has no delusions about either the GOP or the establishment DINOs, and he is willing to use the power of the bully pulpit to incite popular rage against an intransigent Congress.

A couple of things I like about the notion of a Democratic Socialist / Social Democrat in the WH are as follows:
- It opens the minds of Americans to possibilities long known in Western Europe
- Such a PotUS would be a lot less beholden to Wall Street / Corporatists / in general the failing long-in-the tooth 1990s globalony mentality. Which would be especially ironic in this case given he'd be an old dude.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I think you missed the point.

Anyone who doesn't see it's election by election, just win baby, and each completely changing the landscape for the next, is not in touch with reality.

Even quantum mechanics has its set point energy levels.

Are you one of those people who would measure a football field with a yardstick, because incrementalism is the same idea. You never arrive at a goal, because you are always mid-process.

Originally Posted by Einzige

Eric The Green is a functional conservative. Like the self-admitted conservatives he peddles superstition in place of reason; like the conservatives, he prefers the maintenance of the status quo to its overturn.

Bernie Sanders is a Silent, or at least an honorary one. If Sanders were a core Boomer, EtG would be all over his jock. But as is typical of the Me Generation, anyone outside of it can be given no shrift.

Fuck that, fuck him and fuck Hillary.

That's not fair Mr. Einzige. People today have no idea what "superstition" is. Today's science dogma is superstition. I back my claims with evidence. Science has its important place.

I don't prefer the maintainance of the status quo. I don't know where you get that.

Hillary is a Boomer and I like that, and I think she's WAY better than ANY fucking Republican. But I prefer Bernie Sanders, and as my questionnaires show, I agree with him 99% and Hillary only 78%. So, I gave Bernie some shrift. You're wrong. QED.

Your poor taste in music is showing. Bluster and noise trumps fact.

You're a millennial, aren't you? Boy, you guys are hot tempered. Jordan, Odin, Taramarie and now you. Hair-trigger.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Beyond telling Liberals that he's bringing magic ponies, exactly what is his agenda? Are you buying into this horsey-poo -

Not entirely; I think cost cutting will be needed in both education and housing, not just taxes on the rich. I have always been for single payer, and I don't think Sanders would junk Obamacare to get it. Remember that Sanders pointed out that he helped write the ACA. He is not incapable of working with others. Nor do I think Sanders is likely to get very much anyway, unless he can rally the people to vote out the insane GOP congress. No doubt getting money out of politics is a long-term challenge, and depends on some major changes on the court or some kind of amendment process.

He'll do more that just rattle the Bern. He's going to paint him as a commie who wants to increase the size of federal govt by 40% by raising everyone's taxes possible in the middle of a recession. McGovern's loss is going to look like a mild spanking in comparison. It's not only going to be very ugly (I'm sure more than a few Odins' synapses will explode), but with the SCOTUS on the line, very very long lasting - something that the Millies' kids are going to have to live with for a very long time.

Bernie seems to be doing better against Trump than Hillary now. We'll see what the polls say later on. But I have no doubt that whoever the GOP nominee is will get withering attacks. But Sanders has a lot of ability to rattle the GOP back just as hard, and inspire the people behind him instead of the GOP nonsense. So, based on my crystal ball too, as you know, I predict a Sanders win. But I understand your point, if I am wrong.

So now I'm getting it from both sides. The main point is to defeat the Republicans. Either Hillary or Sanders must do it. Sanders may actually be the stronger candidate to do it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's not fair Mr. Einzige. People today have no idea what "superstition" is. Today's science dogma is superstition. I back my claims with evidence. Science has its important place.

I don't prefer the maintainance of the status quo. I don't know where you get that.

Hillary is a Boomer and I like that, and I think she's WAY better than ANY fucking Republican. But I prefer Bernie Sanders, and as my questionnaires show, I agree with him 99% and Hillary only 78%. So, I gave Bernie some shrift. You're wrong. QED.

Your poor taste in music is showing. Bluster and noise trumps fact.

You're a millennial, aren't you? Boy, you guys are hot tempered. Jordan, Odin, Taramarie and now you. Hair-trigger.

They need a good nasty war against totalitarians to blow off all that steam.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think he's been out there for a long time, and just took a turn on the mound. He finished the second inning in good shape, but there are 7 more to go.

Eventually the team is going to have to look for a good relief pitcher. Too soon to worry about that, though.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Also, I'm not sure what the mechanism would be; nothing much out there comparable to the perfect storm of real estate bubble , securitization, risk tranches, and CDOs - yea, energy and related junk bonds are big but nowhere near that big.

I think you are overthinking it. The SUPPLY of sound investments (that is enterprises that can produce a good/service than consumers will ultimately buy) will track income going to consumers. The DEMAND for such investments will track income going to investors.

Rising inequality means that income going to investors increases faster than income going to consumers. That is demand for sound investments outstrips supply for the same. One response to this situation is that the price of sound investments will rise. Now whether or not a sound investment is a good investment depends only on price. At some price it becomes a bad investment. Bubbles in real estate or stocks are examples of this.

Another response is new supply comes to the market to meet rising demand. These will be other, often derivative financial products such as those you mentioned: securitization, risk tranches, and CDO, etc.

Now I will point out that 2008 did not cause wealth inequality to fall (like 1929 did) so apparently the investor class has even more money (i.e. demand) than they did before. The stock market is certainly a lot more overvalued than it was in 2007, although not as high as it was in 2000 or 1929. Reals estate is no where close to the levels it was at then. So where is all this wealth that makes inequality so high? It's got to be invested in something. Whatever it is, it's value has to be linked in some way to the real economy, because ultimately that is where money obtains its value (as the wherewithal with which goods and services and purchased).

There exists today vast quantities of money that can never be spent on goods and services, the only thing that gives it value is that it can be used to pay taxes. But since more and more of this money is begin taken out of the reach of taxation, it ceases to have any real value at all. It might as well not exist at all. Sooner or later the market gets wind of this and an adjustment is made, and voila, a panic ensues.

Regulators can no more prevent panic that Canute could command the sea. The only way is to reduce the size of the pools of investor wealth by massive taxation, which is how Congress got rid of panics in the 1930's. And then they brought them back by cutting all sorts of taxes in the 1980's, capital gains taxes in the 1990's and all sorts in the 2000's.

Of course that was not the intent of the tax hikes, panic suppression was simply a side effect. And since they also started regulating Wall Street, when people later noted that panics no longer were happening, they attributed this outcome to regulation. The success of economic policy in dealing with the nasty 1921 recession, also had led many to believe that the financial regulation provided by the Fed (established 8 years earlier) had eliminated financial panics. And so do many believe that the regulations installed in the wake of 2008 have done this today. Methinks they will be wrong.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Are you one of those people who would measure a football field with a yardstick, because incrementalism is the same idea. You never arrive at a goal, because you are always mid-process.

Sorry , but there is no comparison of the number of touchdowns with at least one 1st down achieved to those achieved without (runbacks and Hail Mary's).

It's called a game of inches for a reason.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's not fair Mr. Einzige. People today have no idea what "superstition" is. Today's science dogma is superstition. I back my claims with evidence. Science has its important place.

Science is not superstition. Science has tests of truth, like double-blind testing in which those who have the hypothesis do not do the testing, and those who do the testing have no idea of what they are testing. Pseudoscience like phrenology and eugenics used scientific lingo to fit the narrative, which is not science. Superstition does not make sense. It invariably fails after even the slightest of philosophic criticism.

Hillary is a Boomer and I like that, and I think she's WAY better than ANY (expletive deleted) Republican. But I prefer Bernie Sanders, and as my questionnaires show, I agree with him 99% and Hillary only 78%. So, I gave Bernie some shrift.

Barack Obama is clearly no Boomer, and he follows what must be one of the most failed Presidencies ever. He may not be the optimum; he is a very mature Reactive (see Washington, John Adams, Garfield, Cleveland, Truman, and Eisenhower), which may be just what one needs to create a calm mood. If he is out of season... he is not that bad. Would Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney have been a good President? Do you think that Donald Trump will be a good President if elected?