Originally Posted by Alioth68

[/FONT]



Just because people for the most part "outside this forum" don't understand the nature of turnings, and therefore are likely not going to take that understanding into account, doesn't invalidate the argument itself.

People were fairly patient with the slow recovery in the 30s and the various trial-and-error responses to it (hell they gave FDR four terms--at least two full ones in the Depression), because they seemed to understand that the problems were deeper than normal (or were otherwise not as inclined to demand quick gratification from their leaders--maybe we can thank the Boomers for that changing in the general culture), and some of where they were was uncharted territory (a defining feature of 4Ts btw).

It's not the 1930s anymore. There are a variety of reasons why FDR was able to stay in power despite abject failure to revive the economy:

1. Hoover had 3 full years to respond to the downturn, and failed.
2. Hoover's policy response was identical in nature to FDR's, but more timid. Much of what FDR did was merely an expansion of what Hoover had already begun.
3. The big-government approach was new at the time.
4. People were poorly educated, and had extremely limited access to information. Government was far less transparent than it is today, mainly due to technology.

Today, we already have a massive federal government. We know what the consequences of it are, and there is no excuse for a repeat. We know that the "New Deal" did not work. It was only once the country mobilized for total war, and most of its foreign economic competition was bombed into dust, that the economy recovered. It recovered in spite of FDR's economic policies, not because of them. If we can no longer be mesmerized for more than a few years by a charismatic demagogue whose policies don't work (like FDR or Obama), that's something we should be thankful for.

In fact, what we can now conclude is that FDR's policies (and Hoover's before him) actually prevented the economy from recovering, just as Obama's policies are preventing us from recovering now (especially Obamacare). But the comparison to FDR is only partially valid. If anyone bases their analysis of real world events entirely on S&H, they're making a big mistake. The Democrats' policies have not changed in 80 years, and it doesn't take a repeat of the Great Depression to explain what's going on. What we've really learned from Obama is what America would have been like if Jimmy Carter had been re-elected in 1980.

But if you insist on making a comparison to the last "4T"...Obama is actually much more like Herbert Hoover than FDR. The Great Depression began in the fall of 1929, Hoover's first year in office. He had three years to respond to it. Obama has had longer, almost four years. And the result has been nothing.

Here is more comparison between Reagan's first term and Obama's, in summary for those who can't read graphs:

The recovery under Reagan did not begin until 1983. From that point through the election in 1984, the economy grew at an average rate of 6.3% per quarter. Unemployment fell by almost 4% in less than two years.

Under Obama, the "recovery" began in late 2009. From that point until today, the economy has grown at an average rate of 2.35% per quarter. Unemployment has fallen by less than 2% in three years, and much of that decline has been due to people dropping out of the workforce. In other words, there has been no recovery. The economy declined and has flat-lined for 3 years.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Indeed.



Panem(ie:$$$) and Circenses! But, "The Show" must go on. On with "The Show"!

Prince

PS:Please forgive me for my Juvenal behavior; The Satire is simply the X in me.

Overture...dim the lights...this is it...the night of nights...
No more researching, rehearsing our parts...
We know every line by heaaaart! :-/

Bottom line: the Democrats and their left wing supporters have been spouting a lot of loud, arrogant and condescending garbage for a long time. Their mouth has been writing checks that their policies can't cash. The time has come for them to pay up.

In the interest of including S&H, here's another thing to consider. Who were the most significant presidents during the 3T that began in the early 1900s? What was the new, growing philosophy that was sweeping politics? It was TR and Wilson, and the philosophy was "progressivism".






Who held the same position is this last 3T?

You guessed it.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Overture...dim the lights...this is it...the night of nights...
No more researching, rehearsing our parts...
We know every line by heaaaart! :-/

Yes, Roadbuilder! That's the spirit! This is it!

Prince

PS:BTW, I resemble that reference.(ie: "Looney Tunes"!)

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Here is more comparison between Reagan's first term and Obama's, in summary for those who can't read graphs:

The recovery under Reagan did not begin until 1983. From that point through the election in 1984, the economy grew at an average rate of 6.3% per quarter. Unemployment fell by almost 4% in less than two years.

Under Obama, the "recovery" began in late 2009. From that point until today, the economy has grown at an average rate of 2.35% per quarter. Unemployment has fallen by less than 2% in three years, and much of that decline has been due to people dropping out of the workforce. In other words, there has been no recovery. The economy declined and has flat-lined for 3 years.

The 1981 Reagan/Volker- INDUCED recession was done by raising interest rates (e.g. 12% mortgages in the early 1980s was considered a great deal for borrowers!). It was done in reaction to the cost-push inflation being experienced from the new OPEC cartel (and, completely unnecessary given that utilities switched to deregulated natural gas and broke the back of OPEC).

On the other hand, the near-depression that began in 2008 is a balance sheet issue of unsustainable debt accumulation finally collapsing. It is a result of decades of lack of wage growth, households turning to debt accumulation to sustain life styles, and a financial sector on steroids gone berserk with deregulation and lack of any meaningful oversight. There has been NOTHING comparable to it except for the 1930s Great Depression cause by more or less the same factors.

Anyone who compares the 2008 economic contraction and the aftermath we are currently living to anything other than the Great Depression does so out of sheer ignorance if not abject stupidity.

On the other hand, such comparisons could also be further confirmation of the increasingly obvious fact that Republicans today lie about everything all the time.

- and what this election is about.

As a result of nearly 40 years of really stupid neo-liberal economic philosophies implemented by the Reagan/Thacher 3T policy shifts, the deck of cards finally collapsed in 2007/08. Resulting in extreme debt deflation that continues to this very day and which has removed household demand sufficient to sustain economic growth.

Only the federal govt is in the position to afford aggregate demand in such a balance sheet recession/depression. First under Bush 2 and then under Obama federal deficit spending increased sufficiently to arrest further economic contraction in the face of continued debt de-leveraging by households. The economy began to grow in late 2010 and into 2011 as a result of federal deficit spending and jobs began to significantly recover. The actual cost of the increased federal deficit spending is zero - no increase in taxes and no demand-pull inflation.

In 2010, as a result of fear-mongering (e.g. 'federal deficits are dingos that will take your baby!')and an increasingly obvious fact that today's Republicans lie about everything all the time (e.g. 'death panels'), a set of really stupid people came into Congress and destroyed any chance of any further federal deficit spending to lift the economy out of its balance sheet contraction. These stupid people brought even more harm by sowing uncertainty with the idiocy of debt ceiling and the nonsense of the federal govt running out of money or going bankrupt - full-on stupidity most evident in their comparing federal debt to the debt of households or businesses.

As a result of the stupid people elected into Congress in 2010, the economy is now just muddling through in 2012 with anemic job growth. Evident of how the stupidity continues is the fact that everyone gets the "fiscal cliff" at the EOY from sgnificantly reducing federal deficit spending, but nobody is able to transcend that to understanding that MORE federal deficit spending would give us a "fiscal elevator" to higher growth and employment. Stupid people keep fear mongering over "hyperinflation is just around the corner" even those these people have been wrong for decades.

Now the stupid people think that the American people are stupid enough to not only re-elect them but to also put in the White House really stupid people who will basically return us to what got us into the economic mess to begin with.

Essentially, after years of highly-inebriated joy-riding, the stupid people finally ran the car into the ditch in 2007/2008. A tow-truck driver came along in 2009 and started to pull the car out of the ditch. However, in 2010, the stupid people started shooting at the tow truck driver bogging down his getting the car out of the ditch. The stupid people now want you to give them back the car keys.

The only question is are you stupid enough to hand over the keys again?

of maybe we're not so stupid?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ention-bounce/

Sept. 7: Polls Find Hints of Obama Convention Bounce

The three national tracking polls that were published on Friday all moved toward President Obama, probably reflecting momentum from the Democratic convention.

In the Gallup national tracking poll, Mr. Obama moved into a three-point lead over Mitt Romney, up from one point on Thursday.

What’s a bit more worrisome for Mr. Romney is that Gallup’s reporting of the head-to-head results in its poll occurs over a lengthy seven-day window, meaning that only a minority of the interviews in the poll were conducted before the major speeches at the Democratic convention.

In fact, most of the interviews in the poll were conducted just after the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., a period in which Mr. Romney should have been enjoying a convention bounce of his own.

Gallup’s approval ratings, however, are published over a three-day window, meaning that they will be quicker to respond to shifts in opinion. Mr. Obama’s approval ratings shot up to 52 percent in the version of poll published on Friday, while his disapproval ratings declined to 43 percent. The FiveThirtyEight forecast model does not use approval ratings directly, but this is a sign that there could be more good news for Mr. Obama in the head-to-head portion of the poll in the days ahead.

Mr. Obama still trails Mr. Romney in the Rasmussen Reports national tracking poll, but he narrowed his deficit to one point from three on Thursday. Rasmussen publishes its results using a three-day window, quicker than the Gallup, though almost none of their interviews yet reflect reactions to Mr. Obama’s speech on Thursday night.

Finally, Mr. Obama moved into a two-point lead in the online tracking poll conducted by Ipsos, which had given Mr. Romney a one-point lead on Thursday. About half of the interviews in the Ipsos poll were conducted after Michelle Obama’s speech on Tuesday — although only about one-quarter will reflect reaction to former President Bill Clinton’s Wednesday night speech, and almost none to the speech given to Mr. Obama.

It’s certainly important to be cautious when interpreting one-day changes in the polls. But so far, this data is tracking toward a decent-size convention bounce for Mr. Obama. It’s quite unlikely, in fact, that the movement in the polls reflects statistical noise alone.

I looked for previous instances in our database in which both the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls each moved toward Mr. Obama by at least two points on the same day, and found only six other occasions on which they did so, out of about 140 days on which they were both published simultaneously. The Ipsos poll has started to be published only recently, but the fact that it moved toward Mr. Obama also further strengthens the case.

Instead, that Mr. Obama has gained two or three points in polls conducted essentially halfway through his convention suggests that his gains could eventually be larger, perhaps on the order of five points, once the surveys fully reflect post-convention data. Typically, the bounce grows over the course of the convention, peaking in interviews conducted just a day or two after it.

Fingers crossed.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Depends. There is good research on video gaming and education:

http://www.amazon.com/Video-Games-Te.../dp/1403961697


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Paul_Gee

We found our son a good simple MMO game (Minecraft) that is fairly instructional. It is nice because you can set it up to work on your own home network without strangers. It would be somewhat difficult to describe here, but it is teaching him some problem solving skills. It is also a very good "carrot" tool. Finish your homework, read this much in your book, do your chores and you can play your game. He comes home motivated to get things done most days. I bought my husband the book, but he hasn't had time to get it in his curriculum as yet.

OK, it is possible to organize learning in the form of a video game, and some programmed learning has the style of a video game. I suppose it would be possible even to design a course on differential equations as if a video game. Historical simulations? There might be some merit.

TV, I will agree is mostly junk. Phineas and Ferb is pretty good as cartoons go, but he has somewhat outgrown it. TV never worked in carrot fashion. If you want to stay away from commercials, Netflix is the way to go.

The point. If I miss TV I have usually missed nothing.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What, you think Chinese kids don't watch cartoons? And Russian boys and girls don't get wasted on their off time? And the Finns don't have Reality TeeVee?

You need to get out more, buddy. Like, a lot more.

No fooling! I am stranded in a hick town in the Midwest with two elderly Silent parents who can no longer drive or do laundry. They couldn't live anywhere else because they are so sentimental about that hick town, and as a Boomer I can see that dreary hick town as the sort of place to get away from if possible. When you are confined to a twenty-five mile radius and about every vista is either that hick town or some grain field...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Mark Twain wrote humor and should not be taken seriously. There are things that cannot be explained in one sentence. You do not seem to understand that, frankly.

If you do not want to understand what I am talking about, you have forfeited any right to talk about it. Read the book or shut up. Those are your only two legitimate options.

(It's only about thirty pages long anyway, and it's free, you twit.)

I've admitted nothing of the sort. You'd know that if you'd read the book. Do so, or shut up.

Simple question: What is the penalty to those who do not socialuize their busioness? If it is a law that means with guns. Either that, or you do not know how laws are enforced, you twit.

Thirty pages or three hundred. You are not worth it. Sorry to deflate your massive ego. I know what yopu are up to now.

You did admit it, although you tried to obscure it. Unless you don't know the difference between voluntary and forced.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Simple question: What is the penalty to those who do not socialuize their busioness?

Having to compete with those who do for employees and customers.

The law applies to all businesses formed after it is enacted. As I've preliminarily conceived things, pre-existing business is grandfathered. But would you rather work for a company that pays you a wage only and gives you no say in company policies, or for another that pays you the same wage plus an ownership share and also gives you a vote on electing the executives?

I think that's probably all that would be required.

I've observed before that you have a tendency to jump to conclusions and thus to misunderstand what I'm saying, which, unfortunately for you, is usually something you need to think about at least a LITTLE bit. This is another example. Do you feel stupid? You should, even though you're not stupid. You're just intellectually lazy.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Having to compete with those who do for employees and customers.

The law applies to all businesses formed after it is enacted. As I've preliminarily conceived things, pre-existing business is grandfathered. But would you rather work for a company that pays you a wage only and gives you no say in company policies, or for another that pays you the same wage plus an ownership share and also gives you a vote on electing the executives?

I think that's probably all that would be required.

I've observed before that you have a tendency to jump to conclusions and thus to misunderstand what I'm saying, which, unfortunately for you, is usually something you need to think about at least a LITTLE bit. This is another example. Do you feel stupid? You should, even though you're not stupid. You're just intellectually lazy.

If people want to form a co op that is their business, so to speak. It is still wrong ot make it mandatory.

If the job pays better, and is more likely to be around in five years, I might want the one "where I do not ahve a say." If you really want a say, start your own business. I could turn this around and ask, what sort of business would you rather run? One where you have the say with the money you put up, or one where you get second guessed. In some cases the latter, but usually the former. Forbidding that will prevent many businesses from getting started at all.

I have observed that you arer pretty evasive, and do not like to answer simple question when hiding will make things more complicated. Do you feel stupid? You should even though your not stupid. You are a coward.

A little something Deb might appreciate, although I'm sure she'll have an interesting "spin" on this:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...BXciEidja2ZQXN

Democrats convened in Charlotte, NC, will double down on their claim that Bain Capital is really the Bain crime family. They will accuse Republican nominee Mitt Romney and Bain’s other “greedy” co-founders of stealing their winnings, evading taxes and lighting cigars with $100 bills on their yachts. But Bain’s private-equity executives have enriched dozens of organizations and millions of individuals in the Democratic base — including some who scream most loudly for President Obama’s re-election...


Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund ($2.2 million)
Indiana Public Retirement System ($39.3 million)
Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System ($177.1 million)
The Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System ($19.5 million)
Maryland State Retirement and Pension System ($117.5 million)
Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada ($20.3 million)
State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio ($767.3 million)
Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System ($231.5 million)
Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island ($25 million)
San Diego County Employees Retirement Association ($23.5 million)
Teacher Retirement System of Texas ($122.5 million)
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System ($15 million)...

Purdue University ($15.9 million)
University of California ($225.7 million)
University of Michigan ($130 million)
University of Virginia ($20 million)
University of Washington ($33 million)...

Stewart Mott Foundation
Doris Duke Foundation
Metropolitan Museum of Art
Ford Foundation
Heinz Endowments
Oprah Winfrey Foundation...

Why on Earth would government-union leaders, university presidents and foundation chiefs let Bain oversee their precious assets?

“The scrutiny generated by a heated election year matters less than the performance the portfolio generates to the fund,” California State Teachers’ Retirement System spokesman Ricardo Duran said in the Aug. 12 Boston Globe. CalSTRS has pumped some $1.25 billion into Bain.

Since 1988, Duran says, private-equity companies like Bain have outperformed every other asset class to which CalSTRS has allocated the cash of its 856,360 largely unionized members...

----


Thanks to a PM from Wallace 88, I discover this PrinceofCats post:

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Originally Posted by Odin

...I am getting sick of your trollish behavior.

But,(in response to Rani):

Originally Posted by Odin

Calling another poster a troll is not cool.

< giggle>

...now, POC titled his post:

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Where's Glick when you need him?

...but if my replacements were well-trained, they could police the 4TF themselves!

Unfortunately, POC, you missed this:

Originally Posted by Odin

[I put on "ignore"] ...the spammers, the loony schizophenic poster KatSung, and the troll Lady Vagina...

...and:

Originally Posted by Odin

Eric, LV is a troll posing as a stereotype of a "Leftist", ignore her.

...and:

Originally Posted by Odin

She's [LV's] a troll, ignore her.

...and:

Originally Posted by Odin

[to Wallace 88] Looks like you are nothing but a troll, welcome to my ignore list.

...and so many more! I guess I still have work to do.

BTW, Odin, it's sort of mean the way you treat Lady Hoo Hoo, and ironic, since she (?) reminds me a lot of you. Except I don't think she's ever gloated at the thought of killing her fellow Americans.

Although I'm sure she'll around to it...

Originally Posted by Odin

I should have known that you, Rani, and Glick were part of a "Stalk Odin" club...

...to which Exile 67 replied:

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I don't stalk you. I just hammer you and flip you around once you give me the opportunity to hammer you and flip you around, so to speak. Who's fault is that Odin?

...I agree. If the Self-Proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom would live up to his call-sign, there'd be nothing to point out.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

If people want to form a co op that is their business, so to speak. It is still wrong ot make it mandatory.

Why? Why is it any more wrong to write into law that ownership of the goods produced by a company goes to those who do the work, than to mandate in law, as we do now, that it goes to those who invest the capital? Either way, you have a law forcibly mandating who owns what. Both are coercive. To change from the one to the other is not making things any worse, in terms of coercion by the state.

I have observed that you arer pretty evasive

I can see why you would have observed this. Others have not. The reason is that I don't take you seriously. You have shown yourself to possess a bumper-sticker mentality incapable of staying with an idea long enough to understand it unless it is extremely simple. As such, I know that any attempt to discuss serious issues with you is a waste of time, and instead I tend to play with your head.

It's not cowardly, although perhaps it is sadistic.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Why? Why is it any more wrong to write into law that ownership of the goods produced by a company goes to those who do the work, than to mandate in law, as we do now, that it goes to those who invest the capital? Either way, you have a law forcibly mandating who owns what. Both are coercive. To change from the one to the other is not making things any worse, in terms of coercion by the state.



I can see why you would have observed this. Others have not. The reason is that I don't take you seriously. You have shown yourself to possess a bumper-sticker mentality incapable of staying with an idea long enough to understand it unless it is extremely simple. As such, I know that any attempt to discuss serious issues with you is a waste of time, and instead I tend to play with your head.

It's not cowardly, although perhaps it is sadistic.

Because that is not the government's business. If you want to form a co op then no one is stopping you.

You obvioulsy take yourself so serioulsy that you want people to read you lame book that vyou can't even give away.

L!

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Because that is not the government's business. If you want to form a co op then no one is stopping you.

You obvioulsy take yourself so serioulsy that you want people to read you lame book that vyou can't even give away.

L!

BR is a little self-important, isn't he? Nice deflation, Wallace.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Because that is not the government's business.

If it's not the government's business to do that, then why is it the government's business to say that ownership of what's produced goes to the investors of capital?

You really can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

BR is a little self-important, isn't he? Nice deflation, Wallace.

Thanks, he needs it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If it's not the government's business to do that, then why is it the government's business to say that ownership of what's produced goes to the investors of capital?

You really can't have it both ways.

The government doesn't order that. It accepts the company as is, just as it accepts a coop as is. No conradiction. You are confused by the idea of leeting private citizens do what they want. I pity you.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

The government doesn't order that. It accepts the company as is, just as it accepts a coop as is. No conradiction. You are confused by the idea of leeting private citizens do what they want. I pity you.

Good luck, dude. He's hopeless.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Good luck, dude. He's hopeless.

I know. But maybe someone else will have a light bulb moment.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

The government doesn't order that. It accepts the company as is

The government DOES order that, and the company "is" that way only because the government HAS ordered that for a long time.

I'll bet you think meat appears magically in packages at the supermarket, too.

EDIT: Perhaps what you meant is that people investing in a business can, if they choose, draw up a contract specifying that ownership of the business goes to the workers instead of to them. That's true. It's equally true that, under socialist laws, people starting a worker-owned business could draw up a contract assigning ownership to the investors of capital instead.

But the law specifies what the default is, and at present it's that the owners of capital own the goods or services produced by the business. That's not a natural or inevitable arrangement. It's something that is crafted by the government, through the law.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The government DOES order that, and the company "is" that way only because the government HAS ordered that for a long time.

I'll bet you think meat appears magically in packages at the supermarket, too.

No, governemnts do "order" that. They recognize what is already agreed upon by those forming the business. If a business is formed as a coop, the governemtn recognizes that, if is formed as a corporation, the gov recognizes that, id is is formed by a family or partners or anythiung else, the goverenment recognizes that. What world do you live in? If you want a coop, go create one., no one is stopping you.