Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

The only people that would do that are some vengeful professors at liberal arts colleges. They have no power. They cannot "gleefully betray." At best, they'd make good heads of a puppet regime.

Once the Democrats are back in office, said professors will expect to have at least the same degree of political influence that the theocons have now - and will not hesitate to use it, if they do get it.

I disagree. They have become marginalized from the party as the younger generation assumes more leadership roles. They are seen as a liability - just as some smarter Rethuglicans are starting to view the wingnuts in their party.
The problem is the Rethugs feel they owe the wingnuts something for their support. The Dems don't owe the Ward Churchills of the world a damn thing.

I hope this is true.

Of course it is true. The most militaristic branch of the left is Earth First, and they don't target people, only hotels. Scoff all you want, but the left has seriously digested all that "peace stuff" they've been spouting for forty years.
Inane academics, like whipping boy Ward Churchill, subsequently have no power. The Dems would only have to worry about what someone like that said, not about left-wingers setting bombs off at the Olympics, shooting abortion doctors, threatening judges lives, or phoning in death threats to political targets.
That stuff is the knee-jerk reaction of the "must have my gun at all costs" violent Rethug base. Ask any lefty blogger. Their lives have been threatened by that goon squad.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by spudzill

A lot of the religious scare me 'cause they seem to want this big uber destruction so they can join Jesus in heaven. They want to destroy the world so's they can live in paradise.

Kinda makes you wonder why they don't just all commit suicide and be done with it.

It's that mortal sin thing, otherwise they might be a self correcting problem. :?

Originally Posted by Andy '85

I'm investing my good money to put my child through the best education possible, and I don't want him/her to be subject to information and subjects that do nothing to build their degrees, and God help me if I see them come home as a pot-head anarchist vegetarian homosexual and start criticising my materialist fascist lifestyle. Those professors have to learn to get their act together and teach!

Don't send your kid to a liberal school. There are conservative institutions out there and if more parents opted for that there would be a lot more of them.

Mind you, Bob Jones U isn't really going to cut it for the rich WASP constituency.

Why not? If liberalism on campuses really was a problem for conservatives, then why don't more well-heeled conservative parents send their kids to conservative colleges?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Andy '85

I'm investing my good money to put my child through the best education possible, and I don't want him/her to be subject to information and subjects that do nothing to build their degrees, and God help me if I see them come home as a pot-head anarchist vegetarian homosexual and start criticising my materialist fascist lifestyle. Those professors have to learn to get their act together and teach!

Don't send your kid to a liberal school. There are conservative institutions out there and if more parents opted for that there would be a lot more of them.

Mind you, Bob Jones U isn't really going to cut it for the rich WASP constituency.

Why not? If liberalism on campuses really was a problem for conservatives, then why don't more well-heeled conservative parents send their kids to conservative colleges?

Do you think the academic world would even trust or accept the legitimacy of a conservative college? They'd be laughed out of the establishment.

I can imagine the sort of reactions potential employers would see when browsing resumes . . . "Son, that isn't an accredited location to earn a degree."

Originally Posted by Andy '85

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Andy '85

I'm investing my good money to put my child through the best education possible, and I don't want him/her to be subject to information and subjects that do nothing to build their degrees, and God help me if I see them come home as a pot-head anarchist vegetarian homosexual and start criticising my materialist fascist lifestyle. Those professors have to learn to get their act together and teach!

Don't send your kid to a liberal school. There are conservative institutions out there and if more parents opted for that there would be a lot more of them.

Mind you, Bob Jones U isn't really going to cut it for the rich WASP constituency.

Why not? If liberalism on campuses really was a problem for conservatives, then why don't more well-heeled conservative parents send their kids to conservative colleges?

Do you think the academic world would even trust or accept the legitimacy of a conservative college? They'd be laughed out of the establishment.

I can imagine the sort of reactions potential employers would see when browsing resumes . . . "Son, that isn't an accredited location to earn a degree."

What about Pepperdine? What about the Hoover Institution at Stanford?

Originally Posted by Herr Hans-Hermann Hoppe

In
March of 2004, during a 75-minute lecture in my Money and Banking
class on time preference, interest, and capital, I presented numerous
examples designed to illustrate the concept of time preference (or
in the terminology of the sociologist Edward Banfield of "present-
and future-orientation"). As one brief example, I referred to homosexuals
as a group which, because they typically do not have children, tend
to have a higher degree of time preference and are more present-oriented.
I also noted ? as have many other scholars ? that J.M
Keynes, whose economic theories were the subject of some upcoming lectures,
had been a homosexual and that this might be useful to
know when considering his short-run economic policy recommendation
and his famous dictum "in the long run we are all dead."


During
my lecture no question was raised. ... However, two days later an informal complaint was
filed by a student with the university's affirmative action
"commissar." The student claimed that he?as a homosexual had
been made to?"feel bad" by my lecture. Based on this "evidence"
the commissar, who, as I would find out only weeks later, was a
former clergyman turned "certified" gay activist, called me at home
to inform me that he would shut down my class if I continued making
such remarks.

I
have long regarded the political correctness movement as a threat
to all independent thought, and I am deeply concerned about the
level of self-censorship in academia. To counteract this tendency,
I have left no political taboo untouched in my teaching. I believed that
America was still free enough for this to be possible, and
I assumed that my relative prominence offered me some extra protection.

Originally Posted by Andy '85

Do you think the academic world would even trust or accept the legitimacy of a conservative college? They'd be laughed out of the establishment.

Why should conservative care what the academic world thinks? It's what potential employers think that counts.

I can imagine the sort of reactions potential employers would see when browsing resumes . . . "Son, that isn't an accredited location to earn a degree."

Considering that businessmen tend to be conservative, if liberal colleges were a problem for conservatives, businessmen would be loathe to hire from Ivy League schools and would prefer graduates from places like Bob Jones. Since you seem to believe otherwise, I would surmise that perhaps liberal colleges aren't perceived to be a problem by the conservatives best equipped to judge--prospective employers.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Andy '85

I'm investing my good money to put my child through the best education possible, and I don't want him/her to be subject to information and subjects that do nothing to build their degrees, and God help me if I see them come home as a pot-head anarchist vegetarian homosexual and start criticising my materialist fascist lifestyle. Those professors have to learn to get their act together and teach!

Don't send your kid to a liberal school. There are conservative institutions out there and if more parents opted for that there would be a lot more of them.

Mind you, Bob Jones U isn't really going to cut it for the rich WASP constituency.

Why not? If liberalism on campuses really was a problem for conservatives, then why don't more well-heeled conservative parents send their kids to conservative colleges?

I think Andy was playing "devil's advocate" (in lower case letters, since in know way do I wish to confuse him with the notorious poster by that name :wink: ) with himself, posting what the average conservative's objections to liberals teaching in universities. I don't think these are his own views.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

What about Pepperdine? What about the Hoover Institution at Stanford?

Yale?

Sanctuary to Bush and Taft alike?

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Andy '85

I'm investing my good money to put my child through the best education possible, and I don't want him/her to be subject to information and subjects that do nothing to build their degrees, and God help me if I see them come home as a pot-head anarchist vegetarian homosexual and start criticising my materialist fascist lifestyle. Those professors have to learn to get their act together and teach!

Don't send your kid to a liberal school. There are conservative institutions out there and if more parents opted for that there would be a lot more of them.

Mind you, Bob Jones U isn't really going to cut it for the rich WASP constituency.

Why not? If liberalism on campuses really was a problem for conservatives, then why don't more well-heeled conservative parents send their kids to conservative colleges?

I think Andy was playing "devil's advocate" (in lower case letters, since in know way do I wish to confuse him with the notorious poster by that name :wink: ) with himself, posting what the average conservative's objections to liberals teaching in universities. I don't think these are his own views.

Funny... I don't recall ever feeling, when i was at Cal State, that a majority of my professors were trying to cram an uber-liberal ideology down my throat. Only one, my freshman year US History professor, allowed his personal experiences and political views to dominate his teachings, and he was an obvious nutcase (and, as it turned out, a literal one as well).

High school, on the other hand, was QUITE a different matter.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

What about Pepperdine? What about the Hoover Institution at Stanford?

Yale?

Sanctuary to Bush and Taft alike?

Did Howard Dean have a sex change, or experience some sudden metabolic changes about which we should be aware?

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

What about Pepperdine? What about the Hoover Institution at Stanford?

Yale?

Sanctuary to Bush and Taft alike?

Did Howard Dean have a sex change, or experience some sudden metabolic changes about which we should be aware?

Blue Stater's icon is Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, correct? She is prettier, but I'll take Howard Dean. :wink:

Originally Posted by Distinguished Toastmaster

Originally Posted by Milo

... Did Howard Dean have a sex change, or experience some sudden metabolic changes about which we should be aware?

Blue Stater's icon is Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, correct? She is prettier, but I'll take Howard Dean. :wink:

Well, either is more flattering than their geographical predecessors.

[quote="Peter Gibbons"]

Originally Posted by cbailey

That sums a lot of what's going on very nicely. Now add some larger context issues (petroleum-related, mostly) and international politics (China/Taiwan, N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, potential petro-Euro market) and the picture is even more complete.

Simply put, the institutional order that arose out of the old 4T is maladaptive and decaying. That is what supplies the raw fuel. It is the new generational alignment that heats and dessicates. Lord knows what exact spark will now set it all off.

That's probably a good summation of the whole situation we're likely to face in the next 4T. I can't imagine what's going to happen with China, but I definitely think they'll be involved...that country is just too much of a powder keg these days. They have a roaring economy, a bunch of young men who know they'll never find a wife because of female infanticide, and a big dollop of nationalism and jingoism, which they are negatively directing at both Taiwan and Japan...like I said, if any large nation is likely to get involved in a state vs. state war, it's China. Meanwhile, we in the US will be busy transforming our infrastructure to use something other than oil, all the while doing this with little capital because of the inflated dollar. And that's just a predicted beginning.

Of course, Strauss and Howe could be wrong about everything, and we'll be stuck in an eternal 3T :P

Originally Posted by Harv

Of course, Strauss and Howe could be wrong about everything, and we'll be stuck in an eternal 3T :P

Which would make the Trog VERY HAPPY!!!!!!!!! :wink:

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Harv

Of course, Strauss and Howe could be wrong about everything, and we'll be stuck in an eternal 3T :P

Which would make the Trog VERY HAPPY!!!!!!!!! :wink:

Indeed.

This NYT article (NYT link is different from the CS Monitor below) states that the economic mood of the US has changed dramatically during the past week. Over the past week, several factors seem to have soured the national mood in economic matters, including predictions that oil will remain high for the foreseeable future, disappointing earnings for companies such as GM, Ford, and IBM, the SEC supoena of GM, the fall of stocks from these companies, the Japanese holdout in buying more US Bonds, the sudden downturn of consumer sentiment. The main questions are, is this the beginning of a storm, or will the weather clear up again within the next few weeks or months? I don't expect for the US to be entering a bull market anytime soon; the stock indices of the DOW, NASDAQ, and S&P have not regained their turn of the millennium high.

The article below states that the consumer craze that has consumed Americans since the Awakening might finally be coming to an end. If Boomers are finally closing their wallets, this can be a sign of entering elderhood. This could very well mean that we are at a precipice, or maybe not.

Disclaimer: For Discussion Purposes Only

Signs point to an end to America's buying binge

By David R. Francis

Have American consumers finally emptied their purses? Economists have debated that question for a few years now, and for Paul Kasriel, the answer today is "maybe yes."

As evidence for this conclusion, Mr. Kasriel, director of economic research at the Northern Trust Co., a Chicago bank, looks no farther than Harley-Davidson Inc. Last week the fabled motorcycle manufacturer announced that it was cutting back shipments of its machines and its earnings forecast for this year. Apparently too many 2005 models are cluttering dealer floors.

Kasriel wonders if aging baby boomers - big buyers of these powerful bikes - are closing their wallets. They may be investment bankers or lawyers during the week, but on weekends, they become Walter Mittys. Donning studded leather jackets and bandannas, they mount their macho bikes to roar down America's highways.

But the drag in sales involves more than just motorcycles. Last Wednesday, the Commerce Department said retail sales in March rose a mere 0.3 percent to $339 billion, growth decidedly below the forecast of Wall Street economists.

So what is behind the apparent shift in spending? Economists point to five key factors:

? The nation's net national savings rate has plunged to a record low of 1.5 percent of total gross domestic product, its output of goods and services, since early 2002. The federal government is running deep in the red. American businesses are doing better. But consumers are racking up bigger and bigger credit-card bills. As one result of the shortfall in domestic saving, the nation is running a record trade deficit and a current account deficit exceeding $600 billion. In essence, the nation is splurging. It's piling up debts abroad, buying more and more Japanese cars, Chinese toys, and clothes, etc.

? Oil prices are about quadruple those of late 1998 - a drag on other consumer spending.

? Job growth slowed in March. Only 110,000 payroll jobs were created, and the unemployment rate returned to 5.2 percent. Announced layoffs by companies through March are running 9.2 percent ahead of last year, notes Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc., a Chicago outplacement firm. As might be expected, workers without jobs usually spend less.

? Real wages are being compressed by the desire of businesses to cut costs and, to some degree, competition from low pay abroad as globalization grows. Wages also are lagging behind inflation. This is unusual in a period when productivity has been growing rapidly - a 4.1 percent annual rate since 2001. Nonetheless, real wages fell 0.5 percent last year, and in the first three months of this year, the annualized nominal rate of wage growth was only 2.3 percent, a bit below inflation. "People are spending everything they are earning, and then more," says Kasriel.

? The Federal Reserve is pushing up interest rates in an attempt to avoid more inflation. That raises the cost of borrowed money and makes the purchase of a house more expensive.

Kasriel regards this latter factor as possibly the most threatening to the economy. Yet he still sees GDP growth running at a 3.25 percent annual rate for the rest of this year, somewhat below the consensus of 3.6 percent of some 50 economists surveyed monthly by Blue Chip Economic indicators. That's a slowdown, but not a recession.

Most Wall Street economists don't like to make forecasts too far from the consensus. The consensus is usually a safe place to be. If an economist makes a prediction way out of line with the consensus and he proves to be wrong, his reputation will suffer. He might even be fired.

Kasriel is one of the minority of economists these days who gives some weight to the nation's money supply in making forecasts. A hike in interest rates usually slows the growth in money - the cash and credit that people use to buy things and services - after about three months. In turn, that retards economic activity after perhaps six months or so.

Since the first half of 2004, the growth rate in the money supply has fallen from as high as 9 percent to 3.6 percent in the last 13 weeks - not much more than inflation, he says.

In addition, the leading indicators - statistics intended to point to the future path of the economy - are weak. Consumer confidence dipped in March, notes the Conference Board. The tax cut boost is past.

That's the gloomy side of the economy. But maybe it's just a spring phenomenon.

David Malpass, chief economist of Bear, Stearn & Co., a New York investment firm, tosses out as many good numbers as Kasriel can bad numbers.

Mr. Malpass notes that there was talk of a slowdown also in the springs of 2002, 2003, and 2004 - and now again this spring.

"The economic environment is nearly as good as in the past three springs, and the GDP growth result will be similar - steadier and faster than historical norms," he predicts. That is, growth in GDP will run between 3.3 and 4.5 percent this year.

I agree Robert. This may not be the end, but it would probably look something like this when it starts.

When I re-read Bill Strauss and Neil Howe's prediction made back in 1997 when they wrote The Fourth Turning, what America circa 2005 was going to be like. It looks like the prediction they made was eerie its accuracy.

Ever since 911, probably Election 2000 the mood in America has gotten steadier darker, America is still in an unraveling. But the mood is much darker than it was in the late 90?s.

Enjoy while you can enjoy the last days of the Unraveling, things will change completely when the Crisis starts.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I agree Robert. This may not be the end, but it would probably look something like this when it starts.

So do I close on my house tomorrow or not??? :shock:

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

When I re-read Bill Strauss and Neil Howe's prediction made back in 1997 when they wrote The Fourth Turning, what America circa 2005 was going to be like. It looks like the prediction they made was eerie its accuracy.

Ever since 911, probably Election 2000 the mood in America has gotten steadier darker, America is still in an unraveling. But the mood is much darker than it was in the late 90?s.

Enjoy while you can enjoy the last days of the Unraveling, things will change completely when the Crisis starts.

I completely agree all 'round.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I agree Robert. This may not be the end, but it would probably look something like this when it starts.

So do I close on my house tomorrow or not??? :shock:

Don't look at me. Our Wiccan'd avatar friend thinks I'm a "fool" when it comes to housing decisions.

But do you see interest rates rising and rising structurally? Is the ratio of median house prices to median rents and is the ratio of median house prices to median income way out of wack in your area?

If the answer to these three things is "yes" . . .

But don't look at me.

I don't pretend to "know" how the national economic mood is going but I do know that I and my other Boomer friends have been talking frequently the last few weeks about how expensive it is becoming to live lately. A friend of mine who does a home day care for toddlers told me yesterday that she's added another day of care per week because of the rising cost of living. She's a very frugal person, owns her home outright, a no-frills type. I'm resisting any unnecessary purchases or repair work on the house; not because I'm broke but because my mood has become uneasy about frivolous spending. My friends have expressed similar opinions lately.
My personal belief is that this uneasiness may be growing among the population, it just isn't getting spewed out in the media yet.

My husband and I have been uneasy for a while. In January, we knew that oil was going to go up because we had been watching the futures market and we figured that would have a bad effect on the economy. We sold some of our stock and paid off the mortgage. We made a goodly profit on that stock. Now we wish we had sold it all.

Originally Posted by mandelbrot5

I don't pretend to "know" how the national economic mood is going but I do know that I and my other Boomer friends have been talking frequently the last few weeks about how expensive it is becoming to live lately. A friend of mine who does a home day care for toddlers told me yesterday that she's added another day of care per week because of the rising cost of living. She's a very frugal person, owns her home outright, a no-frills type. I'm resisting any unnecessary purchases or repair work on the house; not because I'm broke but because my mood has become uneasy about frivolous spending. My friends have expressed similar opinions lately.
My personal belief is that this uneasiness may be growing among the population, it just isn't getting spewed out in the media yet.

I feel the same way.

I'm about to close on a house, because (a) I found a great place in a neighborhood I really like, (b) the home prices here in Portland are in the process of exploding...buying now could enable me to move wherever the hell I want in another year or two (or not), and (c) I need a place to live in the meantime, anyway.

By the same token my once-dream-car BMW 323Ci is five-and-a-half years old, still running and looking good at 91k miles, and paid for. In an earlier time I'd be waiting in line eagerly for a new 2006 model arriving later in the year. But now, the idea of another 5 year car note is extremely frightening to me. If the worst (another Great Depression)were to happen next year, or the next, and the Park Road Program were to go away, I might be able to scrape together enough each month to eat and get my mortgage paid... but not another new car as well.

I like to shop... but nowadays I'm inclined to do so only when there's something I need....I'd rather have the money in the bank. I eat out 90% most of the time...because it sucks eating dinner alone... but may have to cut back on that.

Needless to say, with this week's oil shock worries and stagflation on the horizon, I find myself retreating again from a developing We Be 3T position. Why am I somehow not surprised?