Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
Unrestrained spending WILL cause the price of imported goods to rise (and eventually the price of domestic goods too). Not all price increases occur in all segments of the economy at once.

It usually occurs something like this:

Loose monetary policy (i.e. artifically low interest rates) makes too much money available. This creates false signals in the market regarding current (and future) demand and current production. This causes businesses to invest in riskier projects (i.e. with a longer production cycle) because the rosier outlook now appears to justify it. As whatever is being produced nears the end of the production cycle, businesses discover that the anticipated inputs that are needed at the end of their production cycle are not there (or at least not at the prices they anticipated). They then bid up the prices for these last links in their production chain which raises prices. Since the aniticipated demand is no longer there, this will eventually result in a recession/correction and prices (and output) will fall to lower levels. This is what happened in the dot-com boom, telecom boom, railroad boom etc. etc. etc.

Now I'm really confused. What you describe here seem to be your view of the effects of monetary policy, not unrestrained spending, right?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Limited time, so let me try to educate you quickly.

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
In other words, it is invested. These investments already end up in the hands of businesses.

or governments, consumers, homeowners, gold bullion hoarders, etc. -- that is, the moneys moving around somewhere, but whether the location of the money has further impact on the economy requires a lot more analysis.

I assume you mean under-invested. Under-invested compared to what? The amount in them at the height of the dot-com bubble? Since you think it is under-invested, what is the correct amount of investment in venture funds, as opposed to vulture funds? Secondly, if there is an excess capacity here (as you alleged infra), why are they investing their money overseas? (to create excess capacity there too)?

I mean invested in a way that has further impact.


Filling out S-4s doesn't make you a stock analyst, and stock analysis doesn't make you an economist. So, unless you are an economist...I don't buy it.

Ah, the old dismissive ad hominem. Neither of us are going to get the others academic credentials, which would be pretty outable; you might be surprised at mine. The specific reference I was making was to the fact that I deal with lots of people who are holding money in the most conservative possible places, which are the places least likely to have major economic impact. Let's just have a debate and not resort to dismissing each other as not economists before I ask to see your resume, OK?

It is already invested in the economy. I think you mean that the incentive isn't their to shift it to riskier investments (like venture capital financing). I agree with that, if that is what you meant.

See above.


Ugggh....It's not in mattresses...and it's already "deployed".

there was a series there, guy, and mattresses was a reference to your post.

OKAY! Now we are getting someplace. Excess capacity doesn't exist everywhere, right? Where is there excess capacity? In Telecom and certain production sectors that over-invested in longer (riskier) production cycles b/c they were misled by demand signals and indicators of available productive capacity. Why were they misled? B/c a loose monetary policy made credit too easily available (i.e. money was being printed too rapidly) which caused the tech bubble. More government "stimulus" is what got us into this mess in the first place, its not what will get us out of it.


Believe it or not, monetary policy wasn't the sole cause of the "demand signals". Much of the demand that didn't pan out was an assumption about changes in consumer behavior that never occurred (and that the whole market was never counting on since traditional retailers' stock never collapsed as the dot coms went crazy).

Also, lots of overcapacity in other areas, ranging from service industries (including law) to IT to banking.

They should be cutting taxes that will encourage people to work, save and invest. Cutting the marginal tax rates? Yes! Cutting capital gains...maybe. Cutting rates on non-luxury goods spenders? Depends what rates you are talking about.

We can have the tax cut debate another time, but the idea that life is limited to work, save, and invest leaves out spend. What, you want everyone to die with it?

Economic policies that work, left and right, tend to include all the different factors in their equations.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are right. He is certainly out of the closet.

Cronkite's criticism of the Bush admin's handling of Iraq hardly makes him a liberal. We were also talking about TV back in his day -- 1950's through 1970s, when Uncle Walter was regarded as smack-dab Middle America.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Cronkite's criticism of the Bush admin's handling of Iraq hardly makes him a liberal. We were also talking about TV back in his day -- 1950's through 1970s, when Uncle Walter was regarded as smack-dab Middle America.

Read his recent columns. He says he's a liberal and that every newsperson's personal views in some way affect their reporting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Read his recent columns. He says he's a liberal and that every newsperson's personal views in some way affect their reporting.

Don't you think that publishers and media owners have ways of affecting what's aired? Have you noticed that major media is owned by large corporations? Have you noticed that advertisers have some pull?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Don't you think that publishers and media owners have ways of affecting what's aired? Have you noticed that major media is owned by large corporations? Have you noticed that advertisers have some pull?

I think publishers and media owners are capable of affecting this, but I don't think they exercise it. I don't believe, for example, that Eisner call's up Jenings and says "Let's go after the GOP today."

Yes I understand that major media is owned by large corps, so what?

Advertisers have pull in general programming, but in news?

[rufus leeking]

Washington Times reports Zell Miller is voting for Bush. At first I thought he must be running for re-election, and wanted to make a premeptive strike to avoid being Clelanded (sp?), but then remembered he had announced retirement.*

His "reason" hints to the perception the Dems will have to overcome to compete outside of the coasts. and I know its the WT, but its a quote for godness sakes.

Miller to back Bush
Sen. Zell Miller, the conservative Georgia Democrat who often bucks his party leadership, said he is going to buck it on a big vote next year by supporting President Bush for re-election.
Mr. Miller told The Washington Times in an interview this week he cannot support any of the nine Democrats currently running for president.
"I've thought about this a lot. I think the next five years are going to be crucial in deciding what kind of world my grandchildren and great-grandchildren live in. And I cannot support any of these. I can't leave that crucial decision to any of these Democrats who are running," he said.
"That does not mean I'm going to become a Republican. It just means in 2004 this Democrat's going to vote for George Bush," the senator said.
"I think President Bush is the right man in the right place at the right time. I see some Churchill in the man," Mr. Miller said. "Down South, we'd call it 'he's got a little grit in his craw.' I like that very much."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/...0613-3167r.htm

* it is a lie I remembered. I googled.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
We were also talking about TV back in his day -- 1950's through 1970s, when Uncle Walter was regarded as smack-dab Middle America.

He might have been smack-dab Middle America then, but from 1950 to 1970, Middle America was wrongly operating under the political influence of the misguided traitors in the State Department who brought down Joe McCarthy.

You need to find a different baseline. Try the 1930s. Germany, that is. Find me a moderate in that climate, and you'll have the ideal modern Middle American.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
the 1930s. Germany, that is. Find me a moderate in that climate, and you'll have the ideal modern Middle American.

Rudolf Hess

[sgtclub]

She would make a great poster here;

http://www.anncoulter.org/

[column on Justice Brown hearings]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
She would make a great poster here;

http://www.anncoulter.org/

[column on Justice Brown hearings]

Some of Coulter's lines are funny. Can we talk about Justice Brown for a second? She doesn't have a bad reputation for her decisions, from what I know. Conservative enough, and somewhat libertarian (NTTAWWT), but whatever. From what I've heard -- and I don't know a lot about it -- nothing remarkable, and not grounds to oppose her.

But then there are her speeches. Apparently she has said all sorts of crazy things in speeches. E.g., she rejects the Incorporation Doctrine -- that the bill of rights applies to the states. And other wacky views that are, with apologies to Ann Coulter, far from the mainstream.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Some of Coulter's lines are funny. Can we talk about Justice Brown for a second? She doesn't have a bad reputation for her decisions, from what I know. Conservative enough, and somewhat libertarian (NTTAWWT), but whatever. From what I've heard -- and I don't know a lot about it -- nothing remarkable, and not grounds to oppose her.

But then there are her speeches. Apparently she has said all sorts of crazy things in speeches. E.g., she rejects the Incorporation Doctrine -- that the bill of rights applies to the states. And other wacky views that are, with apologies to Ann Coulter, far from the mainstream.

I actually watched her confirmation hearing (yes all of it, I have insomnia some nights and CSPAN is a great cure). Your characterization of her speeches is not quite accurate. She says that she often times uses her speeches to pose questions or stir the pot. Maybe a confirmation conversion, maybe not. She also said that she doesn't reject the incorporation doctrine as settled law, but that she is not convinced the cases deciding that were rightly decided. Under a strict constructionist reading, it's hard to disagree with that.

I think the DEMS are on the wrong side of these confirmations when it comes to minority candidates. Opposition to one candidate I can take as legitimate. But they have consistently opposed nearly all the minority candidates nominated and that is just BULL SHIT in my mind.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I actually watched her confirmation hearing (yes all of it, I have insomnia some nights and CSPAN is a great cure). Your characterization of her speeches is not quite accurate. She says that she often times uses her speeches to pose questions or stir the pot. Maybe a confirmation conversion, maybe not. She also said that she doesn't reject the incorporation doctrine as settled law, but that she is not convinced the cases deciding that were rightly decided. Under a strict constructionist reading, it's hard to disagree with that.

I think the DEMS are on the wrong side of these confirmations when it comes to minority candidates. Opposition to one candidate I can take as legitimate. But they have consistently opposed nearly all the minority candidates nominated and that is just BULL SHIT in my mind.

My characterization of her speeches "is not quite accurate"? Bitch, please. You haven't watched her speeches. If you are just going to accept whatever she says at the hearing as post hoc rationalization ("honest, Senator, I was just stirring the pot"), then whatever. I'm inclined to support her based on what I know, but I know different lefties whose judgment I trust who feel differently about her.

And don't give me this about "nearly all the minority candidates" nominated. So far they've opposed Estrada and maybe Brown (jury is still out, from what I can tell). Others, like Judge Bea, got through fine. Other candidates filibustered include Pryor (white man), what's her name from Texas (white woman), and Pickering (white man). So not even a majority of those filibustered are minority.

I think I have this right, but didn't bother to Google any of it, so who knows.

[rufus leeking]

Zell (D Ga) finds the senate Dems deplorable on [this confirmation.] [edit different confirmation, bt same sentiment. I've fired my research assistant over this FWIW] He is either senile, or someone who will finally blow away the bullshit this party has tried to spin.....

"Pickering has been the victim (of) inaccurate
race-baiting and political trash talk in the news media,
members of Congress and Washington's liberal elite"
Senator D Ga.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
My characterization of her speeches "is not quite accurate"? Bitch, please. You haven't watched her speeches. If you are just going to accept whatever she says at the hearing as post hoc rationalization ("honest, Senator, I was just stirring the pot"), then whatever. I'm inclined to support her based on what I know, but I know different lefties whose judgment I trust who feel differently about her.

I didn't watch them, but I heard them. They were read into the record during the hearings (not verbatim of course, just those portions that Shumer and Kennedy were concerned about). And I already granted the confirmation conversion in my post, so Bitch please yourself.

[As an aside, "Bitch please" is such a tired, played out line that the only people who use it are over the hill, non-hip, white boys (and girls) who want to sound hip]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop And don't give me this about "nearly all the minority candidates" nominated. So far they've opposed Estrada and maybe Brown (jury is still out, from what I can tell). Others, like Judge Bea, got through fine. Other candidates filibustered include Pryor (white man), what's her name from Texas (white woman), and Pickering (white man). So not even a majority of those filibustered are minority.

Precilla Owens is here name. When I said nearly all minorities, I meant those nominated to the appeals court. I don't know what the status of the district court is, but the DEM strategy is clear. They don't want a minority justice up for the Supremes because those hearings actually get publicity and they will have a hard time splaining to their core constituency why they are opposing.