Originally Posted by JDFP

Yeah, I don't classify Michael Bay as the "quintessential hollywood liberal" - I just consider him to be a shitty director. I don't have anything against Hollywood actors/actresses being politically left or right as long as they shut the hell up about it. I don't really care what Alec Baldwin has to say about U.S. foreign policy. I do enjoy his acting though (usually). I really don't care what Kurt Russell (on the opposite end of the spectrum) has to say on politics either - just act and keep your mouth shut about politics. I'm not interested in your opinions outside of acting. The same goes for singers as well.

Oh, by the way, Cynic, you'd probably go further in making a point without using "teabaggers" or using "LOL" in a conversation which makes you look like a dumb ass or a 14 year old (or both).

j.p.

I always joke that every time CH posts here he is off his meds, because his posts are bizzaro.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The most ironic thing in recent years is the way the left constantly spews hate for rich people, corporations, and Wall Street, but they were the ones fully on board with TARP. As soon as you bring it up and point out that the Democrats and Obama were all for it, while House Republicans opposed it, they start coming up with a million excuses for why it was great.

Plenty of us on the Left criticized TARP as a give-away to the Banksters.

Greeted like a rock star, Romney looks to transform momentum into votes



That was last night at Red Rocks in CO. He's had similar crowds in OH.

This was Obama yesterday in OH:




Not tiny, but in comparison...

Maybe the 2012 re-election of Obama will at last make it apparent to the Republicans that they are offering the wrong remedies at the wrong point in time. Perhaps as a consequence, the American Right will be reinvented as a protectionist, nationalist, social conservative force rather than a laissez faire, universalist, neoliberal force.

I hope so at least since it would offer a way out for the US as well as European civilization at large.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Maybe the 2012 re-election of Obama will at last make it apparent to the Republicans that they are offering the wrong remedies at the wrong point in time, and that perhaps they will reinvent the American Right as a protectionist, nationalist, social conservative force rather than a laissez faire, universalist, neoliberal force.

I hope so at least since it would offer a way out for the US well as European civilization at large.

Not going to happen. Libertarianism is on the ascent within the Republican Party. And Romney is very likely going to win, despite not being fully in step with that movement.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Not going to happen. Libertarianism is on the ascent within the Republican Party. And Romney is very likely going to win, despite not being fully in step with that movement.

Then you're all done for.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The most ironic thing in recent years is the way the left constantly spews hate for rich people, corporations, and Wall Street, but they were the ones fully on board with TARP. As soon as you bring it up and point out that the Democrats and Obama were all for it, while House Republicans opposed it, they start coming up with a million excuses for why it was great.

Great? No. Necessary? Yes. In fact, you can run a whole line of one-word qualifiers, and "necessary" is quite likely the only one to get a postiive response. Why? Because we tried the other option under Hoover, and it turned a banking collapse into the Great Depression. I don't know about you, but doing the same thing over and expecting different results ...

... and for the record, I would have mandated that all senior staff and managment must resign, with none of the sweetheart compensation packages for them honored then or in the future. A few perp walks would have been nice, too.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Simply, there would not be today a GM or Chrysler under Romney's proposed managed bankruptcy. With the impact on suppliers, it is likely that Ford would not have survived as well.

Totally. And everyone knows that only those specific organizations are capable of manufacturing automobiles, employing people to do so, or indeed even making use of ready-to-go tools and installations. What apocalypse would have resulted from allowing the GM, Chrysler, and Ford wealth to be transferred from proven-incompetent hands to demonstrably-more-competent ones... One shudders to think. American cars might even be made by people who don't give money to those particular shareholders at all! The horrors! The portfolios! The carnage!

Good thing the the government was there to take money from the public at large so it could give money (naturally, not the exact same money, but the workings of the taxation-spending connection are something even MMT doesn't deny, no matter how hard it tries to mask them) to save the riches of that particular small group of people. Some of them might have ended up not quite as rich, otherwise.

Originally Posted by Odin

I always joke that every time CH posts here he is off his meds, because his posts are bizzaro.

The mental gymnastics that leftists like odin and rightists like JDFP and JPT go though in order to deny the existense of the Russian and iranian threat is mind-boggling. The main problem with bush's foreign policy was that it was not strong enough. This is the main reason why obama has largely thrown the anti-war left under the bus. The main trouble spot is the economy but that is because the republicans are deliberately worsening the crisis in order to force obama out of office. A president who follows obama's economic policy with a free hand to do simultanously with a bush-style foreign policy would be ideal; in fact the bush-style foreign policy if anything should be on steroids. What the voting base these days has been unable to understand was that bush's failure was due to faulty application of the foreign policies, not the policies themselves. Same with obama, the economic prescription was brilliant, that is prescisely why the GOP is doing everything to prevent its application, they stand to lose too much if any success is permitted.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

...the existense of the Russian and Iranian threat...

Threat to what and to whom? Seriously, you got to be kidding me.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Greeted like a rock star, Romney looks to transform momentum into votes



That was last night at Red Rocks in CO. He's had similar crowds in OH.

This was Obama yesterday in OH:




Not tiny, but in comparison...

That was an impressive turnout.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Then you're all done for.

I don't think you understand American politics very well. I gave a short answer above. A more complex one is that the Republicans are all of the things you mentioned, except for protectionist. On that front, Romney's statements on trade with China have been far tougher than any presidential nominee in recent memory.

What you're probably referring to in a more general sense is things like "globalization" and "multiculturalism". The "globalist" era of the 90s ended in America on 9/11/2001. Some elites still cling to it, but it's a world view that's waning in the face of reality. China, Russia and the various Islamist regimes cropping up in the Middle East make that inevitable. The UN has discredited itself to the point where it is completely ignored in the U.S. now. Nobody cares what it says or does, at all.

Multiculturalism is a much tougher beast, because it's backed up by an immediate charge of racism whenever anyone questions it. Racial division and "identity politics" are the lifeblood of the Democratic Party. However, their abject failure on the economy throws all of their other agendas into disrepute. At some point, integration and assimilation will happen whether the Democrats like it or not. Then they'll go out in search of other lines to divide people.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

But on the other hand, if the government blesses the printed money before it hands it to the rich, it is not laissez faire and therefore remains holy. People earning their own money is simply theft.

It is not class struggle that is happening. It is a societal evolution beyond the supposed need for strongarm masters controlling us all for our own good.

The social contract has long been an excuse for these busybodies, but it is becoming clear with Obama's continued use of murder and torture that there is no salvation in the current system. Democrats are as pure evil as the Republicans who support these crimes against humanity.

Unless and until these parties renounce the power to murder and torture, they remain anti-human and are not worthy to govern. Obama's kill list argues strongly against the idea that Democrats are any damn good at all. They cut and run from their so-called principles the moment they have power, giving the lie to all the words that came before.

And yet this is the beginning of the devolution of power from the almighty state to lower levels of government, and to individuals.

Sucks to be a statist these days. People are not mollified by a good lion mauling or hanging the way they used to be.

H-m-m-m. A bit overstated, but if you crank-down the volume a bit, I can agree with this.

We are in an era where the range of political choice runs the entire gamut from bad to horrible. Right now, I would settle for mediocre.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Threat to what and to whom? Seriously, you got to be kidding me.

I have made numerous posts before regarding russia and iran's plans for world conquest. Plans involving the conquest of at the very least europe and the middle east followed by the "aryanization" of those regions in which "non-aryans" are systematically exterminated. There are numerous websites documenting the military and WMD buildups in russia and iran. There is also information from religious sources such has newprophecy.net or the writings of JR nyquist which document numerous prophecies going back to medieval times concerning the third world war.

Originally Posted by Dave 89

I'm seriously doubting it's even worthwhile for me to vote this year. My candidate has no chance of wining the election. I refuse to be a "lesser" of to evils voter. I have yet to see that much true "change" under Obama. Much of his promises including closing Gitmo have been broken. Watching his interview on CNN about the Drone War really makes me question how truthful he has been about the war in the Middle East. His hesitation and uses of filler words while being asked about Drone's was way higher than anyone telling the truth should have.

I can't disagree with a word of this, but I live in Virginia. I'll swallow my pride and vote for Obama and the D Team ... again. If Romney and the R Team weren't the brilliantly bad option they so clearly are, I would vote Green.

Where's a real third party candidate when you need one?

For that matter, where is that third party? The Brits aren't using Labour at the moment. Can we borrow them?

any highlights from last night's third party debate? anybody?

bueller?

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Threat to what and to whom? Seriously, you got to be kidding me.

Since I've already been outed by this guy as a high-ranking member of Zombie-Stalin's Army of Aryan Communists (Directorate of Propaganda, Misinformation, and Tasty Cupcakes), allow me to say, clearly and conclusively, that he is most definitely not talking about plans to take over the world, station death-ray lasers on the moon, or corrupt the precious bodily fluids of all free peoples everywhere. We're totally all bunnies and flowers.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Totally. And everyone knows that only those specific organizations are capable of manufacturing automobiles, employing people to do so, or indeed even making use of ready-to-go tools and installations. What apocalypse would have resulted from allowing the GM, Chrysler, and Ford wealth to be transferred from proven-incompetent hands to demonstrably-more-competent ones... One shudders to think. American cars might even be made by people who don't give money to those particular shareholders at all! The horrors! The portfolios! The carnage!

Good thing the the government was there to take money from the public at large so it could give money (naturally, not the exact same money, but the workings of the taxation-spending connection are something even MMT doesn't deny, no matter how hard it tries to mask them) to save the riches of that particular small group of people. Some of them might have ended up not quite as rich, otherwise.

Oh, creative destruction! Of course. Why didn't I thnk of that. There is one thing, though. The cyclic rate is rising with the destruction coming much quicker and being more complete. What happens when the rate exceeds the capacity of the system to build anew? That seems to be happening now in some industries. One misstep can kill a company: look at Research In Motion as a prime example ... or Nokia, for that matter. As high as Google is today, Yahoo has been there and fallen. The question arises, is this process a net benefit?

The most recent research indicates that we are crossing the point where creative destructon produces too little gain during the creative periods to cover what it destroys on the backside. The creative periods are getting compressed to the point that the cost to capitalize a new product or business venture is not recovered fully before the product cycle completes or the venture fails ... and the process repeats.

So yes, I prefer to keep something operating that is fully capitalized and also pays many good salaries -- if its feasible. Get rid of the managment team, and perhaps the stockholders need to take big haircuts, but try to keep the enterprise ... again, if its viable. To be honest, GM needed to shrink even more than it did, and it needed to get back to being a company that making motor vehicles. Chrysler was actually a better car company, though a rotting hulk financially. Both are now profitable ... and making good cars. GM still has a way to go.

Originally Posted by JDFP

No; I just say to myself: "Man, I hope Playwrite can think of some really asinine comments to make!" - and more times than not, I'm not disappointed. We love listening to Playwrite's asinine jabs here in magic pony land. Maybe you can tell us some good fart jokes next? All we sheeple here love your witty zingers!

j.p.

I'm just helping you get comfortable when you assume the postion. The real fun for you begins when your true masters start with the real action. Lucky for you that your brainstem is obviously pretty numb already.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

But on the other hand, if the government blesses the printed money before it hands it to the rich, it is not laissez faire and therefore remains holy. People earning their own money is simply theft.

It is not class struggle that is happening. It is a societal evolution beyond the supposed need for strongarm masters controlling us all for our own good.

The social contract has long been an excuse for these busybodies, but it is becoming clear with Obama's continued use of murder and torture that there is no salvation in the current system. Democrats are as pure evil as the Republicans who support these crimes against humanity.

Unless and until these parties renounce the power to murder and torture, they remain anti-human and are not worthy to govern. Obama's kill list argues strongly against the idea that Democrats are any damn good at all. They cut and run from their so-called principles the moment they have power, giving the lie to all the words that came before.

And yet this is the beginning of the devolution of power from the almighty state to lower levels of government, and to individuals.

Sucks to be a statist these days. People are not mollified by a good lion mauling or hanging the way they used to be.

The one silver lining to a Romney win is to finally beat into you morons some discernment.

S&H's theory is based in part on forgetfulness - the next crisis begins when the last person alive as a young adult in the last crisis passes away and with her the hard earned lessons of that previous crisis. You are one of the ones that represent the new breed of not capable of remembering just 4 years earlier. Could it be that the basis of a 70-80 year cycle has been broken because of the now high percentage of morons in our society today who can’t recall yesterday?

Originally Posted by Dave 89

I'm seriously doubting it's even worthwhile for me to vote this year. My candidate has no chance of wining the election. I refuse to be a "lesser" of to evils voter. I have yet to see that much true "change" under Obama. Much of his promises including closing Gitmo have been broken. Watching his interview on CNN about the Drone War really makes me question how truthful he has been about the war in the Middle East. His hesitation and uses of filler words while being asked about Drone's was way higher than anyone telling the truth should have.

Yea, remember that when you're watching President Mittens explain his giving the big OK to his buddy Bibi to nuke millions of Iranians and spread enough radiation in the world to increase cancer and mutation rates a couple 1000 percent. But don't worry, you can always go to the emergency room.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Oh, creative destruction!

Destruction?? So you assert that, outside the hands of that particular group of stockholders, the factories and tools break, the mechanics go braindead, and the inventories disintegrate?

Kind of a weird take on the whole 'corporate personhood' myth. But whatever floats your boat...

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Mr. Plawrite, you apparently just don't understand my sense of humor(or just don't think it's funny).



BTW, it's really not necessary for you to give a rehash of the MMT-perspective with every response, but feel free to continue to do so. I certainly understand that it might help others to understand where you're coming from. If I have any personal questions, I'll ask you.

So, since the economy is not currently over-heating, according to the MMT-perspective, the U.S. can(should) increase
deficit-spending. When it's deemed appropriate to destroy the money in the economy, it will be accomplished via Federal Taxation, thus my joke about Future Taxpayers doing the current spending.
Am I missing something?
[Note: I'm refering to the Stimulus(et al), but I fully understand that you and others are calling for more]



I just wanted to make sure where your head was at. The metric of good/bad can be pretty dodgy when the mere aspect of Spending is seen as the goal. So, you are making a list of priorities(eg: minimizing unemployment being more important than spending just for spending's sake). Some aren't.
[Note: On a philosophical level, I'm not a big fan of maximizing "the good", but I can definitely see the case for minimizing "the bad". But, I digress]



I find your lack of self-doubt in this matter to be: adorable!



You sure do seem to show a lack of respect for the "Price Mechanism", IMO. Just sayin'.

Prince

PS: I just wanted to clear up some things for any possible future conversations i/r/t your interpretation
of the MMT-perspective. I believe I received the type of answers that I was looking for. Thank you.

No you're missing a lot if your concern is someone in the future paying for the Stimulus or suggesting I lack respect for the "Price Mechanism."

The Stimulus was a one-time expenditure; it added to annual federal deficits in the couple years it was appropriated for. No one's taxes went up; they actually went down. No inflation can be attributed to it; inflation went up and down in that period, but mostly at historic lows and all of it attributable to cost-push factors and hysterical speculation.

The Stimulus is now part of the federal debt - that gets paid off in its ENTIRITY every 3-4 months, i.e. the Treasury pays off enough bonds equivalent to the entire federal debt and just re-issues more bonds. Lately, the re-issuing comes with substantially less interest payments which means less dollars issued into the economy which is DEFLATIONARY.

Paying interest on the debt is the 'cost' but that is just the govt using keystrokes to credit bond holders' bank accounts. The govt doesn't need taxes to do that, at least not directly (the primary reason the govt taxes is to get everyone to use its currency). However, if the interest payments (now at historical low rates) spending when added to all other govt spending (i.e. other computer keystrokes) and added to all spending in the private sector results in aggregate demand exceeding the economy's aggregate ability to provide (and actually that is the increasingly-automated GLOBAL economy), then your beloved "price mechanism" might mean prices will rise (i.e. demand pull inflation).

Why in the world would you think that tomorrow's demand will exceed the world's economy to supply??? That is certainly not the situation today and it certainly is not the trend. If you got a serious answer, I'd sure like to hear about it. If you just want to play the smart ass role, I'm okay with that as well.

from newsmax.

Mourdock: Pregnancy From Rape ‘Intended’ by God

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said that pregnancy caused by rape is something “God intended” and not a situation that justifies an abortion, roiling a tight race less than two weeks before the election.

Mourdock’s comment came in response to a voter-submitted question toward the end of a debate last night with his opponents, Democratic U.S. Representative Joe Donnelly and Libertarian candidate Andrew Horning.

Edit: And Romney had recorded a TV ad the day before endorsing Mourdock, and said he needs his vote to make the kind of changes he wants. Mourdock is the only senate candidate he has endorsed with a TV ad!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Mr. Playwrite, I see that you dodged the question about what President Obama claimed in the last Presidential Debate. Not a problem. But, I don't believe Gov. Romney specifically addressed the auto-suppliers, (at least I've never come across anything)so I might disagree with you on your claim of him lying. But like you said, nobody really cares, anyway, IMO. I know most people believe everything their guy says is the truth and everything the other guy says are lies, but what are the odds of that actually occuring?

That said, although the possible bankrupcy of said auto suppliers due to the reasons that you mentioned is a popular opinion, I don't necessarily agree(although I really can't disagree either because both are just hypotheticals in the past). IME, the Fed Govt has shown a propensity to alter their procedures given whatever issue presents itself(albeit almost always much later than they could have). IOW, they find a way to skirt the wording of the law for their purposes(for better and for worse). I'm not sold on the possibility that the same wouldn't have occured for the auto-suppliers(allowing structurally failing ones to close; Supporting ones that were only in financial distress, probably with some of the TARP funds, or something similar.). Whatever. Again, nobody cares, IMO. It'll all be decided in a couple weeks, regardless.

Prince

PS: In the future, when all this crap is over, I might like to pick your brain, if I may, concerning
the MMT-perspective's opinion on Spending i/r/t Liquidity-related issues, specifically.

I'm not sure how I could have been clearer. I didn't make the declarative statement "Romney lied" but assumed my explanation certainly implied it. So, here it is -

Romney lied.

The issue with the auto suppliers is secondary. It is the transmittal mechanism of why the liquidation of Chrysler and GM would have likely bankrupt Ford as well. With or without that, what Romney was proposing would have ended GM and Chrysler and he lied that it would not.

Here's another take that allows for Romney supporting govt guarantees (I don't believe he even supported that) but which would still have resulted in liquidation -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg

As so often happens in a presidential race, the issue has been beaten down into contending catchphrases. But the real decision, the real difference is about as clear today as it was almost four years ago.

Yes, both Obama and Romney favored the companies going through managed bankruptcy. But the US auto industry entered its own existential crisis as the world economy, particularly credit markets, were at a standstill. Even with government guarantees there was no private capital for the GM and Chrysler to power to keep them functioning as they went through the bankruptcy process. And that was the rub. Government guarantees weren’t enough. The government had to write checks and at a moment when bailouts of all sorts had become politically toxic.

Romney said no. Obama said yes. Without those funds — politically unpopular and with little guarantee of a return — the car companies would go into liquidation bringing down not only themselves but lots of associated companies and suppliers with them. We know this is what he said at the time on multiple occasions but now Sam Stein has dug up yet another interview from the time in which Romney claimed that direct government money would be the end of the US auto industry.

For where Romney stood at that moment, saying no to any more bailouts was the politically expedient thing to do and it looked like a good long term political bet. The details of just what happened and the fact that Romney really would have let Detroit ‘go bankrupt’ in the liquidation sense of word has been distorted and obscured no end. But in the final analysis people in the bit auto industry states seem to get it.

Basically, Obama showed leadership; Romney showed he was a self-servng dickhead.

Got it?