Originally Posted by TeddyR

Flawed boomer logic. Exemplifies our current state of affairs well.

Okay then, how will "centrism" change the status quo? Because in a nutshell, that's pretty much what he was saying--that centrism maintains it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's right. The problem right now is Americans are not ready to accept the consequences of change.

It may mean that taxes have to go up. It may mean choosing between social programs and high taxes. It means recognizing you can't have everything and pay nothing for it. It means being willing to adopt solutions that might not always work immediately. It may mean recognizing the scale of the problems require large solutions. It may mean questioning your view of the world. It means questioning your automatic responses.

Americans are not willing to see things as they are. We can't blame the politicians or the institutions; they are made up of the American people, and put in place by them. A new party will not solve that problem. A new constitution will not even solve that problem. Until more of us get it, and are willing to see that the problems require big solutions, nothing will change.

We have to begin with where we are. Where we are, is if Republicans are allowed another year of power, ever again, the damage may be so great that no change of ANY kind will ever be possible again. Another minute with the likes of Boehner is another minute on which the ship of state is close to sinking forever. How much water do you want to take on? Do you have your life rafts on?

Either we see where we are, or we choose to put blinders on, by saying that boomers are stuck in the past, or whatever other irrelevant nostrum you choose instead of dealing with reality.

I disagree, I don't know many Xr's who aren't able to see things as they are, accept certain things as they are or the way it should be or tell it the way that it is. In a way, that's what's so cool about Xrs and what is probably most attractive or repulsive about Xr's.

The reality is that some people are more capable than others, some are more ambitious than others, some are more intelligent than others, some are luckier than others, some are more attractive than others, some have more advantages than others, some people make it while others don't, some live to be old while others die young, and so on and so on. This is the ability to see it as it is. How do you address or change human reality? How would you change it without threatening or loosing those who truely represent growth and progress in America?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I disagree, I don't know many Xr's who aren't able to see things as they are, accept certain things as they are or the way it should be or tell it the way that it is. In a way, that's what's so cool about Xrs and what is probably most attractive or repulsive about Xr's.

I didn't say they didn't (no more than any other generations of Americans who don't see reality either, that is); I said referring to boomers stuck in the past is irrelevant to our current politics.

The reality is that some people are more capable than others, some are more ambitious than others, some are more intelligent than others, some are luckier than others, some are more attractive than others, some have more advantages than others, some people make it while others don't, some live to be old while others die young, and so on and so on. This is the ability to see it as it is. How do you address or change human reality? How would you change it without threatening or loosing those who truely represent growth and progress in America?

Those are good questions, and people are not equally competent or endowed. If you have a higher vision of progress beyond the green, you might want to explore that.

Myself, for now, it seems clear to me that those who "represent growth and progress in America" are not the well-endowed or advantaged. What we need to do as a first prerequisite of progress is to ditch the trickle-down theory. We need to see the reality of its falsehood. Allowing those who have natural or inherited advantages to do what they wish, in the hopes the benefits will trickle-down, does not work and only increases lack of opportunity for those who may not have those advantages. That ends up being, as OWS says, the 99% of us.

You don't change human reality, as you describe it. You do what works, which is to ask those who have advantages to contribute to their society through taxation and regulation. You don't claim that allowing the advantaged to have even more, will cause the less advantaged to advance too. Nor do you only care about the advantaged, thinking that the less-advantaged don't count or aren't as good, or that somehow the "welfare state" held back the advantaged, or wasted their money. It did not. It does not hurt the rich or lucky for them to contribute more than they do today. We already know that a mixed and fair society works better. It is simply a delusion that the trickle-down society works. It is only a banana republic.

Everyone needs to watch this video:
http://youtu.be/z5CCRI1vdwE
It should be required viewing for anyone interested in reality and "progress."

Only if we can get beyond rank stupidity and backwardness, can we look at other ideas for growth and progress besides watered-down "socialism." Today's Republican trickle-down philosophy, expressed by the likes of John Boehner in no uncertain terms, is mere stupidity and backwardness, which is not the way to "growth and progress."

Some important questions beyond ditching the old failed ideologies (including the religious right of course, and neo-con militarism) may occur. Is our federal system really the way to go into the future? Are corporations, and the federal government, too big and remote from individuals and communities? What ways of organizing our cities and land are really sustainable, given the facts of pollution and global warming? How should our cities be designed to maximize human interaction instead of inequality? Is our elected-king system really better than a more parliamentary system like most other democracies have, including even the one we set up in Iraq? Will the internet allow for more direct democracy in the future? Is a two-party duopoly the best way to represent the people? Should money be allowed to dominate our political system?

Once the trickle-down delusion, and the other Republican delusions, are defeated, we can move into a higher phase of new solutions. Until then, we cannot. Trying to deal with these higher problems and solutions is putting the cart before the horse. That defies the predominate opinion on this website and probably at OWS meetings, that we have to get money out of politics first. But we have been at work at that for decades and have failed, because the Republicans squelch it. A party that believes as its central tenet that money and greed should be left free to rule, is never going to reform the system to take money out of politics. The trickle-down theory and its representatives need to be defeated first. The Democratic Party does not have this idea as its central tenet. They can be worked with, generally speaking.

This may also mean dealing with the question of whether our federal republic can remain intact, if it comes to that. Other reforms of the system may follow within the liberated sections.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Oh, here we go again into you guys' magic pony land.

The MIT Billion Prices Project tracks nearly exactly with the CPI - are you now claiming that the thousands of govt workers engaged in the CPI for decades through all kinds of economic conditions and Administrations are now joined in their insidious conspiracy by the academic world?

There's absolutely no reason for all those people to lie and, even if they tried, there is no way that it would not have been revealed with that many people over that many decades. More than any other data set that any skeptic has EVER put forward, the CPI data and methodology is out there and poured over nearly constantly. What we have are experts attempting to do the best that can be done at capturing a difficult economic phenomena and it's pretty idiotic to think a bonehead like you is going to come up with something that they have missed or not considered let alone any valid alternative.

Way to beat up on a straw man.

Where junior sleuths like you go amiss is right out of the starting gate as to what inflation is. While it is related to the cost-of-living, it is different. It is sustained generalized increases in prices. Yes, gasoline and food prices can go up (and down like of late), but people SUBSTITUTE other expenditures - they adjust. They don't take the trip to Disney World but instead stay home and go to the movies or the zoo. They eat out less and substitute chicken for beef. The cost of that substitution is perhaps a lower standard of living, a higher cost of living, but that is not inflation. Inflation is where everything is going up and there is little if any ability to adapt or substitute - your money is worth less ACROSS the board - not for any one, two or three components of your economic life.

We've had this discussion before, and it isn't my fault that you're stuck on a very narrow definition of what inflation is. I'm sure you got acceptable grades in your econ classes back in the 1960s.

What makes the distinguishing important is that it tells you a whole hell of a lot as to why prices are going up.Energy prices, particular anything related to oil, go up because there is a functioning cartel that controls much of the world's oil supply particularly at the margin, there is increasing global demand, and there is now a speculative market that has a very strong upward bias build in - it has nothing to do with federal deficits, debt, spending or the other bullshit that inflationisties throw out. Have you notice that oil/gasoline prices went crazy a couple of years ago but since have dropped or stayed at worst level? That's not sustained price increasing, that's not inflation. And those price increases had a lot to do with Middle East instability and China coming on strong - that's not inflation caused by either US monetary or fiscal policies.

So... oil demand quadrupled in 10 years? No, that won't explain it...

Did OPEC cut production? Nope. So much for the cartel.

There's one nugget of truth in there, but you're not examining it very carefully.

"there is now a speculative market that has a very strong upward bias build in"

And how exactly is that speculative market enabled? I'll give you two clues: Gramm–Leach–Bliley and monetary policy.





Guess what the deregulated banks like to bet on when they get easy cash!?

Food and commodity prices are like oil with whatever increases there has been are attributable to supply issues and to global demand. And prices are now coming down or at least stabilizing. That is not inflation.

Of course, that is the expected outcome of monetary policy. Within 12-18 months, any impact it had on the markets should be stabilizing and wearing off... Unless, of course, the investment lobby blackmails us for QE3.



And that isn't just peak oil or gold bugs or more mouths to feed. That is a relatively sudden and extreme jump in the price of standardized materials we use to make useful stuff. It is the negative consequence of easy monetary policy in a deregulated banking/finance sector, and it makes the "cure" in to a toxic cycle of unaffordable inputs.

This is the fundemantal institutional reason why a deregulated financial sector leads to rapid increases in the cost of commodities, especially when they're all deemed "too big to fail." So what if they drive up the cost of living and doing business? They'll stay solvent and pocket nice bonuses to boot.

Medical costs? Really? You really thing that has anything to do with generalize price increases caused by govt deficits or debt? That's just ignorant of what is going on around you.

Well, what is it? Are medical costs stable at a 3% annual growth rate like the BLS says, or is it going up 7.5-9% like every other market analyst concludes? Is the CPI accurate here or do we have a healthcare cost crisis? You can't have it both ways. The same thing is happening in education - CPI says prices are steady, but every college in the country is saying tuition needs to go up another 8-10% every year.

This old Austrian inflationistie crap is no longer relevant (if it ever was). We've been off the gold standard completely since 1971. The guys who preach this stuff are closed-minded dinosaurs with a young audience that has known nothing but the neo-liberal economic propaganda of the last 40 years. You need to wake up and start doing some real independent thinking, starting with throwing out this worn-out skepticism of CPI data and magic pony numbers that you all never seem able to produce.

You need some independent thought, Indy.

Yawn, please don't lecture me on dinosaurs and stale thinking. I'm a little bit impressed that you can even think in terms of MMT, but you're willfully blind to the negative consequences of our half-assed policies and double standards. MMT for the U.S. bankers, and everyone else gets the IMF treatment and debt collectors.

Starving children and food riots? Must be too many people, even though per-capita calorie production rose.

Cost of production rapidly rises? Blame OPEC for everything from copper to coal.

Cost of living jumps in all mandatory spending categories? Not inflation because people can stop going to Disney World.


In your magic pony land, all of these price changes are completely unrelated, just coincidentally correlated, right?



And the oil and food price changes are logical due solely to demand, but those gold nuts are chasing a bubble... am I hearing you right?

Yeah, don't talk to me about dinosaurs... lol

Originally Posted by Odin

Romney? LOL, a Romney nomination will cause the Tea Party to bolt. His Mormonism and the TPers hatred of anything smacking of "Northeastern Elites" doom him from the start. The GOP has created a monster it can't stop, and it will consume the GOP.

That's right. Romney can't win an election as a Republican because it will divide it's base. 4 out 10 republicans are Christians or evangelicals or something. The Mormonism is too big of a pill for many of them to swallow. Me???

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

My experience with you Teddy, is that you do not think out your ideas and positions very well, but just throw things out.

That stings coming from a guy who thinks celestial bodies control our lives.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What is flawed about the logic? Why do you throw in the word "boomer" as if it had any relevance?

Flawed is the thinking that it is a zero sum game. You can see how well that is working for us now. This is a boomer trait Eric, that is why it is relevant.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Of course James is going to agree. He is a centrist. What would you expect? Progress is going to come from progressives. What would you expect?

Can't speak for James, but I'm pretty sure he isn't anti-progress. I come out pretty progressive on those goofy political tests, but that doesn't mean that I can't see others have a different viewpoint, which may also have some legitimacy. Sorry that makes me a sell out to you Eric.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You are not being denied "centrism" in this country. That is what we have, at least when things are going as best as can be expected. That is deadlock and business as usual. That is Centrism. Centrism means a little from this side, and a little from that side. It means a flawed compromise like Simpson-Bowles. It means pretty much what we have, and our current corporate society muddles along and continues to decline. It means we do not face the problems with the scale of solutions that are needed.

You are wrong. We don't have centrism right now at all. We have no compromise at all. We have a Grover Norquistization of our politic. I think the GOP deserves a large share of the blame, but Dems have some blame to share too.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The Democrats are the centrists. They are weak; they give in. They make compromises. They sell out and allow themselves to be bought. They settle for half measures.

Of course, but despite that, the Dems won the 20th century. The GOP has spent the last 80 years in reactionary mode to Dem gains.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's because you are too young to know how the world really works, my son (that's a sarcastic retort to your stupid "boomer" remark).

Your attempts at snark are as good as mine at astrology, gramps.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

The answer I expected from you. It is not using conservative in the manner in which political discourse uses conservative--in fact it blatantly states as much. It is conservative in the effort that it moves towards conserving its existence. It takes upon itself a change in order to ensure that it'll survive.

So surprising Eric would have a Pavlovian knee-jerk response to the term.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Way to beat up on a straw man.




We've had this discussion before, and it isn't my fault that you're stuck on a very narrow definition of what inflation is. I'm sure you got acceptable grades in your econ classes back in the 1960s.



So... oil demand quadrupled in 10 years? No, that won't explain it...

Did OPEC cut production? Nope. So much for the cartel.

There's one nugget of truth in there, but you're not examining it very carefully.

"there is now a speculative market that has a very strong upward bias build in"

And how exactly is that speculative market enabled? I'll give you two clues: Gramm–Leach–Bliley and monetary policy.



Guess what the deregulated banks like to bet on when they get easy cash!?



Of course, that is the expected outcome of monetary policy. Within 12-18 months, any impact it had on the markets should be stabilizing and wearing off... Unless, of course, the investment lobby blackmails us for QE3.


And that isn't just peak oil or gold bugs or more mouths to feed. That is a relatively sudden and extreme jump in the price of standardized materials we use to make useful stuff. It is the negative consequence of easy monetary policy in a deregulated banking/finance sector, and it makes the "cure" in to a toxic cycle of unaffordable inputs.

This is the fundemantal institutional reason why a deregulated financial sector leads to rapid increases in the cost of commodities, especially when they're all deemed "too big to fail." So what if they drive up the cost of living and doing business? They'll stay solvent and pocket nice bonuses to boot.



Well, what is it? Are medical costs stable at a 3% annual growth rate like the BLS says, or is it going up 7.5-9% like every other market analyst concludes? Is the CPI accurate here or do we have a healthcare cost crisis? You can't have it both ways. The same thing is happening in education - CPI says prices are steady, but every college in the country is saying tuition needs to go up another 8-10% every year.



Yawn, please don't lecture me on dinosaurs and stale thinking. I'm a little bit impressed that you can even think in terms of MMT, but you're willfully blind to the negative consequences of our half-assed policies and double standards. MMT for the U.S. bankers, and everyone else gets the IMF treatment and debt collectors.

Starving children and food riots? Must be too many people, even though per-capita calorie production rose.

Cost of production rapidly rises? Blame OPEC for everything from copper to coal.

Cost of living jumps in all mandatory spending categories? Not inflation because people can stop going to Disney World.


In your magic pony land, all of these price changes are completely unrelated, just coincidentally correlated, right?


And the oil and food price changes are logical due solely to demand, but those gold nuts are chasing a bubble... am I hearing you right?

Yeah, don't talk to me about dinosaurs... lol

First, let's get your little game-playing out of the way by replacing your highly selective time period with one of my own -



So, after unprecedented injections of money supplies since the Great Depression, commodities are back to where they where. Some have put the liquidity at nearly $8 trillion -
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...in-income.html

Others have suggested nearly $30 trillion -
http://www.alternet.org/economy/1534...er_three_years

All that, and we're back to where we started from with commodity prices. Sort of blows a big gapping hole in your entire thesis, no? And that's without pointing out that your thesis says nothing about the increase in global demand (you remember China growing at 9%+, yes?) during that time period.

Second, let's now deal with your real problem. Your real problem, as previously noted, is confusing sustained generalize prices increases (i.e. inflation) with components of cost-of-living increases.

Commodity prices, including oil, are increasingly less a component of production, e.g., it takes less and less oil to produce a $1 of GDP. The ability of producers to pass on the cost of other inputs is even less so than it is with oil prices.

This inability of yours to understand the differences keeps you blinded to cause-and-effect. Why oil prices go up has nothing to do with why health care costs go up which in turn has nothing to do with why educational costs go up. While it makes it easy for you to blame it all on the big evil govt printing press, your lack of informed discernment basically leaves you at least PARTIALLY stupid as to what is going on around you.

That "PARTIALLY" leads to my third point, which is you are correct that aspects of MMT were applied to the bankers in that the monetarily-sovereign govt was able to bail (for good or for bad) out the financial sector with no direct financial costs - either in tax increases or in increased inflation. One should remember, however, that MMT is, in part, founded on Hymen Minsky's work concerning the inherent instability of the capitalist system by way of accumulating toxic debt in the private sector. While Minsky may have been kinder about bankers' criminal sentences because he sees the instability of capitalism inherent and only manageable by govt oversight, most MMTers would be okay with not only long criminal sentencing but perhaps a few public hangings.

What MMTers are screaming for is exactly what you stated: MMT for the non-financial sector. Your call for this as well would be much more on solid footing if you FULLY understood what was going on around you by adopting the discernment that I am suggesting.

Again, I'm not arguing with you that liquidity injections (MMTers are not very found of monetary fixes, we are about fiscal fixes, i.e actual federal spending) haven't helped, in part, energy and commodity prices to surge (although now leveling out if not dropping). What I'm suggesting to you is not only is that not as important in the grand scheme of things right now, it is actually what is being used by a very strong propaganda machine to divert your attention away from what is really going on. In other words, until you really start to think about these things from a more independent viewpoint and question your SO-TYPICAL 'heretic' belief system, you are just another of the clueless sheeple being lead around by the nose.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If that is true, then just give up and let the corporations keep on doing what they do. See where that gets you.

Apart from just doing things on a local level, there is no alternative to electing the right politicians and keeping their feet to the fire with activism. Only they can make the reforms needed to do what you advocate. Right now we can't even have a constitutional convention, because Republicans own too many state legislatures.

You have to work with the electorate you have, or else do nothing. The American people proved in 2004 and 2010 that they frequently not only take leave of their senses, but are willing to support criminal activities in their name. Given the level of political intelligence of Americans, the Democrats are about the best we can realistically hope for. I am all for laying out the truth and what needs to be done. It needs to be said over and again. That said, just proposing the best platform does not mean it will succeed. That's because the American people are not smart enough to vote for it. The chances are high that they won't, for many possible reasons.



Statistics generally are more relevant that anecdotes as indicators.

There is little more stupid than blaming whoever is currently in power for the economic mess. It has been created by at least 30 years of wrong policies, instituted by Republicans and Democrats in name only.

I have no intention of giving up. This is why I work to get big money out of Washington. And I do support some of our political reps, like Bernie Sanders, Kucinich, Woolsley and a hand full of others. But their voice is minimized and drowned out by those who are beholding to campaign dollars.

Until *We the People* have as much access to our politicians as do the lobbyists, we will remain the mere tax payers who cushion the pockets of the elites and fund these damn wars.

Working for justice for all is not a dualistic either / or situation. Many forms of addressing the enormous problems in our country will be needed for reform.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Way to beat up on a straw man.




We've had this discussion before, and it isn't my fault that you're stuck on a very narrow definition of what inflation is. I'm sure you got acceptable grades in your econ classes back in the 1960s.



So... oil demand quadrupled in 10 years? No, that won't explain it...

Did OPEC cut production? Nope. So much for the cartel.

There's one nugget of truth in there, but you're not examining it very carefully.

"there is now a speculative market that has a very strong upward bias build in"

And how exactly is that speculative market enabled? I'll give you two clues: Gramm–Leach–Bliley and monetary policy.





Guess what the deregulated banks like to bet on when they get easy cash!?



Of course, that is the expected outcome of monetary policy. Within 12-18 months, any impact it had on the markets should be stabilizing and wearing off... Unless, of course, the investment lobby blackmails us for QE3.



And that isn't just peak oil or gold bugs or more mouths to feed. That is a relatively sudden and extreme jump in the price of standardized materials we use to make useful stuff. It is the negative consequence of easy monetary policy in a deregulated banking/finance sector, and it makes the "cure" in to a toxic cycle of unaffordable inputs.

This is the fundemantal institutional reason why a deregulated financial sector leads to rapid increases in the cost of commodities, especially when they're all deemed "too big to fail." So what if they drive up the cost of living and doing business? They'll stay solvent and pocket nice bonuses to boot.



Well, what is it? Are medical costs stable at a 3% annual growth rate like the BLS says, or is it going up 7.5-9% like every other market analyst concludes? Is the CPI accurate here or do we have a healthcare cost crisis? You can't have it both ways. The same thing is happening in education - CPI says prices are steady, but every college in the country is saying tuition needs to go up another 8-10% every year.



Yawn, please don't lecture me on dinosaurs and stale thinking. I'm a little bit impressed that you can even think in terms of MMT, but you're willfully blind to the negative consequences of our half-assed policies and double standards. MMT for the U.S. bankers, and everyone else gets the IMF treatment and debt collectors.

Starving children and food riots? Must be too many people, even though per-capita calorie production rose.

Cost of production rapidly rises? Blame OPEC for everything from copper to coal.

Cost of living jumps in all mandatory spending categories? Not inflation because people can stop going to Disney World.


In your magic pony land, all of these price changes are completely unrelated, just coincidentally correlated, right?



And the oil and food price changes are logical due solely to demand, but those gold nuts are chasing a bubble... am I hearing you right?

Yeah, don't talk to me about dinosaurs... lol

Great post, Indie! Those charts are damning.

Washington's ATM.

The political one percent of the one percent

There are approximately 312 million people living in the United States. Yet just 26,783 (less than one in ten thousand) accounted for 24.3% of all political contributions in the 2010 election cycle.Unlike the 99.99% of Americans who do not spend ten grand of their own money on an election cycle (mostly because they can’t afford to do so), The One Percent of the One Percent have unique access to candidates and party leaders. They know that candidates and parties need their money, and this presumably allows them to play a kind of gatekeeper role, allowing them to set the parameters of priorities of “legitimate” politics.

They congregate in a limited number of elite zip codes. Their concerns are not the concerns of ordinary Americans.

Some are motivated by ideological reasons. For others, the motivation is less partisan and more pragmatic: Many are lawyers and lobbyists, and even more are corporate executives, all seeking to influence legislation and policy.

Over time, more individuals are choosing to spend $10,000 or more on politics, and candidates and especially parties are becoming more reliant on them. With new vehicles for unlimited money in the 2012 election, a small number of individuals with both the means and the motive to spend lavishly on elections are poised to play an even greater role. To the extent that the priorities and interests of these elite donors are not representative of the country, there are good reasons to be concerned that their unique access is having a distorting impact on our politics.

Methodology

All of the data used in this analysis originates from the Federal Election Commission. Information on the total amounts raised by candidates and committees comes from the FEC’s summary files, available here. Information on itemized contributions (contributions over $200) is published by the FEC and standardized by our partner organization, The Center for Responsive Politics. (CRP). CRP identifies unique donors and assigns organizational and ideological affiliations. Contributions under $200 are not required to be itemized, so our analysis cannot say anything about the characteristics of this group of donors, other than the total amount of money raised.

Figures for total amounts given by all individuals are computed by summing the total individual amounts listed in the candidate and PAC summary files. Contributions coming from organizations, rather than individuals, are not considered anywhere in our analysis. Figures for the total itemized contributions are taken by summing all contributions from individuals in the CRP itemized data. The only exception is candidate self-contributions (FEC transaction type 15c), which are excluded from the analysis. This results in figures that are higher than those reported by CRP here since CRP’s analysis includes only contributions to candidate, party and leadership committees, and not independent committees.

We identified the set of super donors by finding all CRP contributor IDs associated with at least $10K in contributions in a single cycle. These contributions could be to candidates, party committees, or independent groups. Because of contribution limits to candidates and party committees, donors in the upper ranges of the super donors are giving mostly to 527s and SuperPACS, for which there are no contribution limits.

We categorized the donors using CRP’s ContribCode field, which includes codings for lobbyists, ideological groups and business sectors. If the candidate has given any money to an ideological group then they are considered an ideological donor. If they have given any money as a lobbyist then they are considered a lobbyist donor. If the contributions fall into any of the hundreds of business sector categories then they are considered a corporate donor.

http://itsoureconomy.us/2011/12/the-...e-one-percent/

Originally Posted by playwrite

First, let's get your little game-playing out of the way by replacing your highly selective time period with one of my own -

HOLY FUCK!!!!

Almost SEVEN WHOLE YEARS, with only very little effect!

Indeed, that is damning and conclusive proof that all of the rest of history has nothing whatsoever to tell us at all about the Totally Brand-New reality in which we operate now.


I wonder if Indy was correct in his assumption. Did you actually even get 'adequate' marks in your college Econ classes? You're like a guy who shouts, "ICE AGE!!" every time a cloud passes in front of the sun...

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Okay then, how will "centrism" change the status quo? Because in a nutshell, that's pretty much what he was saying--that centrism maintains it.

The status quo is changed by necessity when conditions require it. Centrism allows people of different viewpoints to find common ground and work together. The conditions are nearly present now, but the stubbornness of the current leadership of this country prevents any advancement.

We will work our way out of this, just as we always have.

Bernie Sanders emphasizes the threat that the corporate hold has on our politicians.

Bernie Sanders explains why congress fears Citizens United
Bill Boyarsky tells the story.

Noting that the six largest banks on Wall Street have assets equal to 65 percent of the national gross domestic product, he asked what happens in Congress “when an issue comes up and impacts Wall Street … to break up these huge banks and members walk up to the desk and have to decide [whether] to vote against it with full knowledge that if they vote against the interest of Wall Street that two weeks later there may be ads coming down into their state attacking them. Every member of the Senate, every member of the House, in the back of their minds, will be thinking … ‘If I cast a vote this way, if I take on the big money interest, am I going to be punished … will a huge amount of money be unleashed in my state?’ Every member knows this is true. It is not just taking on Wall Street, maybe it’s taking on the drug companies, maybe it’s taking on the private insurance companies, maybe it’s taking on the military-industrial complex. … You’re going to think twice about how you cast that vote.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...ited_20111216/

Originally Posted by TeddyR

That stings coming from a guy who thinks celestial bodies control our lives.

Indicate, not control. Sorry to be so stinging, but I want you to dialogue with a bit more thought.

Flawed is the thinking that it is a zero sum game. You can see how well that is working for us now. This is a boomer trait Eric, that is why it is relevant.

It doesn't matter what boomer traits are. It only matters what the policies are, and who supports them. An objective, rational examination of the facts does not support the notion that our problems are primarily bipartisan; only to the extent that sometimes Democrats cave in to Republican policies. Republican policies are wrong. It is not that we should always be divisive or radical. It is just that right now, the extreme right is concentrated in, and dominates, the Republican Party. We have no chance to accomplish anything with our elected constitutional peoples' government until the Republicans are defeated and deserted once and for all. Only then will you have people in office we can deal with.

And by the way Republican vs. Democrat is not equal to "right vs left" (some people here have made that mistake)

Can't speak for James, but I'm pretty sure he isn't anti-progress. I come out pretty progressive on those goofy political tests, but that doesn't mean that I can't see others have a different viewpoint, which may also have some legitimacy. Sorry that makes me a sell out to you Eric.

It's a matter of degree. I can see other viewpoints as easily as anyone else, and I do. I also see what the political situation is. It is being willfully blind not to see that we are deadlocked because the extreme right has too much power.

James is a centrist at best. That is not progressive, but muddled middle. Of course categories are always approximate, and James makes good points here and there, now and then.

You are wrong. We don't have centrism right now at all. We have no compromise at all. We have a Grover Norquistization of our politic. I think the GOP deserves a large share of the blame, but Dems have some blame to share too.

How specifically should the Dems share the blame for lack of centrism? (assuming centrism is desireable to begin with)
How can you say we have no centrism, when we have the Democrats, who are always willing to compromise, and have continually done so?

I apologize if I was too snarky.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I have no intention of giving up. This is why I work to get big money out of Washington. And I do support some of our political reps, like Bernie Sanders, Kucinich, Woolsey and a handfull of others. But their voice is minimized and drowned out by those who are beholding to campaign dollars.

Until *We the People* have as much access to our politicians as do the lobbyists, we will remain the mere tax payers who cushion the pockets of the elites and fund these damn wars.

Working for justice for all is not a dualistic either / or situation. Many forms of addressing the enormous problems in our country will be needed for reform.

Yes. And I agree with and support all measures to take money out of politics 100%, and have always done so. I agree. I wonder though, about the strategy and priority that some insist on, of doing it first before addressing other problems. Taking money out of politics is only a means to an end; the reforms that would actually solve problems and create greater opportunity would still need to be made.

And voters and politicians don't always vote according to who pays them and how much. Many can't be bought, if they can be swayed not to be. California demonstrated that by rejecting energy utility PG&E's well-funded initiative to repeal global warming regulations, andby voting for Jerry Brown instead of Meg Whitman, whose only qualification was that she had enough money to try to buy the office. It was not for sale.

And many of our representatives can feel enough heat from the people not to be bought too. But that does not include Republicans, because their ideal, dogma and platform is specifically this: to allow money and greed to rule our country without impediment. However imperfect Democrats are, that is not their ideal.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

The status quo is changed by necessity when conditions require it. Centrism allows people of different viewpoints to find common ground and work together. The conditions are nearly present now, but the stubbornness of the current leadership of this country prevents any advancement.

We will work our way out of this, just as we always have.

But which side has been more "stubborn"? Hint: which party's Senate leader expressed his goal to make the sitting President a one-termer (rather than a goal of, say, governing well)?

Because Eric is right to some extent: there is one party that has been far more compromising than the other, over the last several years (actually a couple decades). And one that has been more stubborn and determined to pursue their agenda more aggressively, or else be steadfastly obstructive of the other's in those periods where aggressive pursuit of their own isn't as possible (i.e. when they don't hold majorities). The former is the Dems, and the latter is the GOP.

Now granted, this wasn't always the case--but ever since Reagan brought in the resurgence and ascendancy of the Republican Party, it seems the Dems have been scared of their own values, and have been frantically seeking to reinvent themselves, while the GOP saw increased acceptance of their own memes in the electorate and felt more and more emboldened. I.e., the Republicans became more stubborn and aggressive because they could. The Dems, after Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis, felt more and more like they needed to embrace those popular right wing memes and paradigms to be successful--enter Clinton, and the DLC. And they have become more submissive (because that's what "compromise" is, when only one side is doing almost all of the compromising--it's effectively submission. True cooperative compromise, which is what I believe you desire to see, is compromise done more or less equally by both sides). They are actually afraid to stand up for their own values (those that still might even have them, that is), afraid of being called "liberal", afraid of appearing "soft on crime (or 'terror')", "unpatriotic", "against the troops", "coddling welfare queens", or however the Right's Mighty Wurlitzer would ridicule them if they so much as made a peep in support of any kind of progressive agenda or urged some restraint of the Right's.

Problem is, old habits and behavior patterns die hard. Because now that it's becoming more obvious (or at least more easily arguable) to more people that the GOP ascendancy of the last 3T has led us to a place most of us don't want to be, the Dems (at least the more progressive ones) should feel more emboldened to offer alternatives, or at least seriously challenge the ideas of the Right. But still they kowtow, still they answer the stubborn brick wall with even more offers of concession--to get "something" done or passed, I guess (and there comes a point where a piece of crap bill is not "better than nothing", but potentially worse). Because, well, for decades now, that's all they've known how to do. And as far as serving corporate interests? "If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em" pretty much sums up their attitude there--and they now feed out of the same trough of slop.

And now, the people have moved away from many of the old Right paradigms (which both parties now largely follow), finding them wanting, and are hungry for alternative leadership. Or at least, leaders who will fight on their behalf and not "compromise" away what remains of their rights or protections. But we've still got some people on the sidelines that remind me of teachers I had in elementary school: they'd see one kid start a fight and clearly be the bully, pummeling and bloodying another kid; they'd then see the other kid finally get up and try to fight back, and then they'd bust both of them for fighting.

In a nutshell, finding common ground through "centrism" can only work when both sides come to the table willing to compromise more or less equally. If one consistently feels forced to do it more than the other, resentment (naturally) builds. And things can go way out of balance, as we're seeing today, because no one "side" really does have all the answers, and yet one has been granted the lion's share of the leeway for quite some time now.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If that is true, then just give up and let the corporations keep on doing what they do. See where that gets you.

Apart from just doing things on a local level, there is no alternative to electing the right politicians and keeping their feet to the fire with activism. Only they can make the reforms needed to do what you advocate. Right now we can't even have a constitutional convention, because Republicans own too many state legislatures.

You have to work with the electorate you have, or else do nothing. The American people proved in 2004 and 2010 that they frequently not only take leave of their senses, but are willing to support criminal activities in their name. Given the level of political intelligence of Americans, the Democrats are about the best we can realistically hope for. I am all for laying out the truth and what needs to be done. It needs to be said over and again. That said, just proposing the best platform does not mean it will succeed. That's because the American people are not smart enough to vote for it. The chances are high that they won't, for many possible reasons.



Statistics generally are more relevant that anecdotes as indicators.

There is little more stupid than blaming whoever is currently in power for the economic mess. It has been created by at least 30 years of wrong policies, instituted by Republicans and Democrats in name only.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If the choice is between Schuschnigg and Hitler, Metaxas and Hitler, or even Franco and Hitler...

This is a 4T, and things can go from bad to worse very fast. Radical change is a certainty in a 4T, but the radical change can be a Frankenstein monster. Do you have any question that some powerful people would gladly destroy democracy to establish a system that best protects class privilege and eviscerates all power of the workingman (even choice of employer) and fosters wars for profit (first the raid on the treasury for the high-profit war itself and then the exploitation of conquered countries with near-slave labor, theft of resources, or monopoly control of local economies?) Brazil may have nicer beaches than Michigan, but I don't want to start any trip to Rio under duress and in fear of consequences upon return.



...which demonstrates how destructive the Dubya-era speculative boom was. It destroyed perhaps forty years of economic progress.



Which implies that stasis is better than reactionary policies that will only make things worse... and don't fool yourself. The Republican Party has its agenda for one in which anyone who doesn't own the assets is a serf in all but name. It now represents the sorts of people stupid and craven enough to want America to be a Corporate State in which some people decide who does exhausting toil for near-starvation pay and who 'simply' starves.

These two comments suggest that some people are coming around to my view. . .that while the status quo is bad, the obvious alternative to it under Republican rule would be much worse, and that we must vote accordingly.

But Eric later said there was no idealism in a High. I have to say that depends on the High. There was plenty of idealism in the Jeffersonian High and in the one I grew up in (ever hear of Kennedy?) But there was none with a capital N in the post-civil war high.

Having read the rest of this thread. . .

There is indeed one centrist in our political life, a rather important one named Barack Obama. I'm not defending his centrism or suggesting that it's accomplishing much of anything except perhaps keeping the government nominally functioning, but it's real all the same, and he's staking his, and our, future on it. He wants to bring on the High.

DK

Back on topic. ..

Silver is now running daily projections for Iowa and New Hampshire at fivethirtyeight.com. Things are much more fluid in Iowa that you might think--it's basically a 3-way tie between Gingrich, Paul and Romney. Romney remains a good bet to win New Hampshire. Things could change very quickly indeed in this race.

Originally Posted by Odin

Great post, Indie! Those charts are damning.

Odin, you got your nose ring on again. I hope they're not pulling on it too hard.

Barack Obama is not a centrist. If anything, he is to the right on positions of war, the economy and our civil rights. I'm not saying he is a bad person, just a president who is not and has not taken us in a positive direction. Just look at his most recent major attack in the direction of imprisonment without representation.

Unfortunately, he has us by the ovaries, because he knows that the other presidential candidates appear like escapees from the Looney Toons. We best get our heads on straight about this because if he is elected in 2012, we will need to be out in mass force to steer him in a more positive direction so he doesn't pay back the corporate donors with our freedoms and tax dollars.

It's time to start movements in every state aiming for a constitutional convention. Until we get the corporate money out of politics, nothing else is going to happen, and the force of Supreme Court rulings is such that only by amending the Constitution can we make that happen. Nor is it realistic to expect the necessary amendments to receive the 2/3 approval in a corrupt Congress that they require if we go that route. A convention is the only recourse we have, short of revolution.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

HOLY FUCK!!!!

Almost SEVEN WHOLE YEARS, with only very little effect!

Indeed, that is damning and conclusive proof that all of the rest of history has nothing whatsoever to tell us at all about the Totally Brand-New reality in which we operate now.


I wonder if Indy was correct in his assumption. Did you actually even get 'adequate' marks in your college Econ classes? You're like a guy who shouts, "ICE AGE!!" every time a cloud passes in front of the sun...

You may have missed the point of the discussion; you often do.

Indy was trying to assert that inflation is due to govt bond purchases and the resulting injection of currency into the system.

He used cherry-picked data set to show Fed purchases/injections coincided with commodity price increase, starting, of course, at the nadir of the recession and near financial collapse - well, because Indy is that kind of guy.

I have no problem with the conclusion that this monetary move had commodity prices moving up as a collateral effect from the Fed's objective of stabilizes the financial system after the biggest contraction since the 1930s. What I am pointing out is the typical Austrian fallacy that this results in inflation, particularly harmful inflation that you boneheads have been jumping up and down about for the last decade, if not the last 3 decades, and constantly proven wrong.

First, after all that Fed purchasing/injections ($1.5 Trillion, 7.7 Trillion, 29 Trillion or whatever you want to believe), commodity prices have only returned to the point at which they were before the Fed actions and pretty much stabilized (presently seeming to be headed back down) - that is not inflation.

Second, commodities are increasingly less of an element of each dollar of output, and there are near-countless ways in which producers and consumers adjust so as to limit the impact of any price increases on their actual pocketbooks and thereby keep inflation from gaining much ground - this is not the 1970s, get over it.

Third, you'd be hard-pressed to find an MMTer enamored of FED monetary policy as a means for macro-economic management, we are about fiscal policy. We don't live in the magic pony lands of either the Austrians or Milton Freeman.

You and I were having a pretty good exchange on the Debt Ceiling thread. It really came down to very simply MMT tenets that even you realized that you could not refute - the federal can spend to employ every unemployed person who is willing and able to work and that would not cost anyone any new taxes and one could only hope it would result in some honest-to-goodness real inflation.

You've since disappeared until now. I thought you might be coming around and just needed time to deal with the emotional side of your world belief system crashing down. Now, I see that all you got left is to return to your usual hit-and-run snark and empty-headedness. Disappointing.

Doesn't this govt-is-lying-about-the-data get a little old particularly with markets taking the 10yr under 2% and the 30 yr under 3%, or is that some sort of conspiracy as well? It's been 40 yrs of 'Zimbabwe right around the corner' - doesn't it get a little old to be so wrong and confused for so long?

Or, are you just another example of the ultimate in cognitive dissonance and make the excuse that it is our supposedly "inept government" that is purposefully keeping interest rates down as it puts its printing press in hyper-drive - gawd, I hope you're not that far gone.