patrick.net

If he is, he is certainly working hard for our very small constituency. Kudos.

Kewp, I had mistaken you for a free market advocate. Oh well…

I am a free market advocate. However, unlike Internut Libertardians, I understand that for a market to be healthy fraud has to be controlled via stiff regulation by an unbiased third party. I.e., the government.

Eliminate government meddling and let the free market do it’s thing.

This is exactly what the Bush administration did! I guess the free market decided to take its own life?

The free market committed suicide...

PermaRenter Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 3:05 pm
"Malcom is chief of propaganda in new administration …"

That would be my dream job.

Kewp, you're hired.

As far as I know the Concorde never made a profit. In that particular case I don’t even care since that kind of development, one which propels society forward has a different value than just the money.

Why do you see the Concorde as an item "that propelled society forward?"

I saw it as a rich man's toy assembled from existing military technology. Such enhancement of the jet setters at taxpayers expense did nothing to help the rest of us.

I believe NASA's development of the Rogallo wing, which made hang gliding an affordable sport, did more to propel society forward.

Yep. Since rich men fly private jets Concorde was doomed.

Wars did propell the society forward though.

actually CONTRADICTS

What are you insane or just fucking stupid?

We could call it matressbank.com. I’ll sign up to be the chairman, anyone else want to join?

Whoa! Is this a ground floor for a Madoff/Stanford scheme? You are one up on these masters, since you do not even have to make phony statements showing well above average returns. I'm in, provided we only accept the personal savings from leaders of bailed out entities.

I am a free market advocate.

You wouldn't recognize a free market if it hit you upside your head.

This is exactly what the Bush administration did!

Duh. what do you call Fannie, Freddie, the Fed, the Central bank, SEC, the FDIC and the rating agencies then, free market entities?

Goldman Sachs is running policy now

I know of very few financial institutions that shouldn't be immediately dismantled along with every government sponsored entity, program or legislation that has any hand in the market.

I can only hope that the majority of you are below average intelligence, otherwise we truly are doomed as a nation.

If he ends up balancing the budget in 8 years there will be a lot of people eating crow.

Reminds me of Clinton, who balanced the budget in no small part by his support of NAFTA and GATT.

I would love to see Bush's deficit cut in half in four years as Obama claims, and then balanced in 8 years as you claim. However, his policies so far seem more likely to double Bush's deficit. If you are correct, and we see a balanced budget by 2016, I will lead the charge to amend the Constitution to permit Obama's 3rd term. But I fear that no one will be eating crow, we will all be eating sh*t.

Here are a few ways I believe Obama's policies will result in a net gain on the money being spent. We can agree or disagree whether they are proper uses of public funds but these could very well pay off in the future.

1. As I discussed with someone before, the money going in as an equity position in these large banks has already increased in value. Banks that were on the verge of folding now have healthier balance sheets with the removal of the bad loans. The banks not closing saves taxpayers billions in deposit guarantees. Also, instead of paying the insurance claim the government has purchased real assets. By stabalizing falling prices (at some reasonable fundamental) all of a sudden banks are able to conduct business again.
2. Related but seperate, as the banks are lending again, a lot of economic activity, which was on hold, is happening again. Patrick's favorite people (realtors) are back to work, off unemployment and paying taxes.
3. Realtors are flashy spenders, plenty of taxes will be raised from incomes. Also, investment properties selling again raises more capital gains taxes.
4. Taxing the top 2% is a lot of tax money.
5. Reducing taxes on the bottom 98% seems like a loss, but through multipliers these people cause even more taxes and jobs because they spend the money. Even if they pay debt, that frees money to lend, even more economic activity and taxes.
6. Infrastructure improvements, these create high paying jobs for Americans. This strengthens the lower and middle classes, helps businesses with less traffic and more options. Despite what some say, it is actually pretty hard for government to waste money on infrastructue investment unless they build something that is counterproductive, and they have gotten much better IMO. I never hear anyone complain about what a bad investment the freeway system was.
7. Energy grants and subsidies. Help the economy spur new innovations and propel us to maintain our leadership position. Also reduces dependence on foreign oil and reduces competition for global resources. Hence, less wars, less money spent, so it is saved. Ex. Give someone who wouldn't do it otherwise $10,000 to install soloar or other renewable energy. A sale is made that wouldn't happen, the owners of the business create interesting jobs, and with income tax on the profits and payroll the grant is almost paid back before additional multipliers through their spending of their money, and again, they are no longer on unemployment.
8. The benefits to California mean that we no longer are in a budget crises. Less handouts to the states, more money stays in the Fed, the deficit shrinks.

If people here are below average in intelligence then I feel very good about our society. I don't think that is the case.

HeadSet Says:
March 1st, 2009 at 6:54 pm
"Why do you see the Concorde as an item “that propelled society forward?”

For the first time, ordinary people could travel faster than the speed of sound. Arguably not a pressing social need, which is why the Concorde would fail in my test if I had to make the decision to fund it with public funds. There is a history there that makes judging those decisions to harshly, for one thing the embargo causing fuel prices to rise.

Even though I would not have made the decision to fund the Concorde, I am glad they did. Seeing a couple fly in my life was enriching.

too harshly.

frank, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Headset,

No, actually it was halfway serious. It could be a useful and profitable experiment. But I like your version also, for other reasons :-).

What is the problem with banks? They take your money, supposedly keeping it safe, but then instead they leverage it and lend it out in all kind of crazy schemes and sometimes lose lots of it, all the while giving you crappy interest rates (and even crappier interest after the Fed starts bailing them out by forcing interest down).

What are the alternatives to bank deposits? Well, you could invest in assets, but given the bubble economy, no asset is safe.

The problem is that there is no alternative to banks and assets. What we need is a bank that will safe-keep your cash for a small fee, while promising to keep it out of any sort of circulation such as lending or as capital.

If enough savers simply pulled their cash from circulation, interest rates would be forced upward, and speculation would be curtailed. Of course this assumes that the Fed does not provide "liquidity" on demand for the banks.

Think of it as one necessary component of a free market in interest rates. In the present world, savers have no way of expressing their non-confidence in all markets at the same time. You always have to park your cash somewhere, and the banks and brokers will use your own deposits to screw you.

Mattressbank.com is just like your mattress, only safer, for a small fee.

You can also think of it as a method for fixing the asymmetric power of depositor and deposit-taker in the current system.

It's not so much about the asset prices as the debt.

Stock bubbles are pretty harmless so longs as they are not fueled by debt, like pre-1929 where 1x10 leverage was allowed. Had there been no debt, there would be no long lasting fallout.

When the music stopped from the 20's stock bubble, some people were deeply in debt, and the "lucky" ones were filthy rich, since they were the ones owed that debt. Just like today.

--Karl Marx