Friday, October 31, 2008
obama-lays-plans-kill-expectations-election-victory/
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/obama-lays-plans-kill-expectations-election-victory/
For the latest news and developments, go to www.thinkorswim.com > Hello swimmers- It may surprise you, but our developers are aware that there is a
For the latest news and developments, go to www.thinkorswim.com >
Hello swimmers-
It may surprise you, but our developers are aware that there is a Presidential Election coming up. Thoroughly disappointed with their choices, they are considering diverting some of their genius to field a Programmer's Party candidate for the 2012 contest. Their platform? Swarthy, muscular men will be banned from beaches and nightclubs. Children will begin learning Java in first grade. And strict price controls will be placed on cheeseburgers and Red Bull. Scared yet? For the good of our country, we will keep them busy coding cool stuff.
Hello swimmers-
It may surprise you, but our developers are aware that there is a Presidential Election coming up. Thoroughly disappointed with their choices, they are considering diverting some of their genius to field a Programmer's Party candidate for the 2012 contest. Their platform? Swarthy, muscular men will be banned from beaches and nightclubs. Children will begin learning Java in first grade. And strict price controls will be placed on cheeseburgers and Red Bull. Scared yet? For the good of our country, we will keep them busy coding cool stuff.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
michelle obama
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/30/october-surprise-2-whitey-tape-revealed/?icid=200100397x1212610330x1200776713
The Obama campaign was so upset by the tough questions from Barbara West
The Obama campaign was so upset by the tough questions from Barbara West
fucking irs
irs sees stocks sold
thinks i owe them $
I sent proof sale below buy price
they just took all $ in my account 4700
no money 4 rent
unbelieveable
big government evil
witing endlessly on phone
thinks i owe them $
I sent proof sale below buy price
they just took all $ in my account 4700
no money 4 rent
unbelieveable
big government evil
witing endlessly on phone
Obama Presidency an Illegal Immigrant’s Dream
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_la_raza/2008/10/29/145550.html
Sowell: Obama Win Would Be Historic Tragedy
Sowell: Obama Win Would Be Historic Tragedy
Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:07 PM
By: Thomas Sowell Article Font Size
Some elections are routine, some are important, and some are historic. If Sen. John McCain wins this election, it probably will go down in history as routine. But if Sen. Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic — and catastrophic.
Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.
Performance is where Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.
Policies he proposes under the change banner are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries — and failed repeatedly in other countries.
Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.
The economies of China and India began to take off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of change.
Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.
Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.
Higher taxes to "spread the wealth around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and a lack of incentives has stifled the production of new wealth.
Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran’s being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counterattack.
Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy — and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that situation cannot be reversed.
Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?
If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.
In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for President Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat — yet.
America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.
Do you think our leaders wouldn't do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn't bet my life on that.
What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has been demonstrated repeatedly in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.
None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage, and decisive actions, none of which Obama has ever demonstrated.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. 94305. To find out more about Sowell, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
© 2008 Creator's Syndicate Inc.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:07 PM
By: Thomas Sowell Article Font Size
Some elections are routine, some are important, and some are historic. If Sen. John McCain wins this election, it probably will go down in history as routine. But if Sen. Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic — and catastrophic.
Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.
Performance is where Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.
Policies he proposes under the change banner are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries — and failed repeatedly in other countries.
Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.
The economies of China and India began to take off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of change.
Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.
Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.
Higher taxes to "spread the wealth around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and a lack of incentives has stifled the production of new wealth.
Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran’s being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counterattack.
Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy — and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that situation cannot be reversed.
Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?
If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.
In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for President Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat — yet.
America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.
Do you think our leaders wouldn't do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn't bet my life on that.
What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has been demonstrated repeatedly in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.
None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage, and decisive actions, none of which Obama has ever demonstrated.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. 94305. To find out more about Sowell, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.
© 2008 Creator's Syndicate Inc.
obama bs analyzed
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
___
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years—and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
___
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals—the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more—cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged—although not in his commercial—that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."
___
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
___
THE SPIN: "We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close." These lines in the ad were taken from a debate with McCain.
THE FACTS: Obama was once and very often definitive about getting combat troops out in 16 months (At times during the primaries, he promised to do so within a year). More recently, without backing away explicitly from the 16-month withdrawal pledge, he has talked of the need for flexibility. In the primaries, it would have been a jarring departure for him to have said merely that "we've got to look at" ending the war. As for Iraq's surplus, it's true that Iraq could end up with a surplus that large, but that hasn't happened yet.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
___
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years—and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
___
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals—the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more—cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged—although not in his commercial—that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."
___
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
___
THE SPIN: "We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close." These lines in the ad were taken from a debate with McCain.
THE FACTS: Obama was once and very often definitive about getting combat troops out in 16 months (At times during the primaries, he promised to do so within a year). More recently, without backing away explicitly from the 16-month withdrawal pledge, he has talked of the need for flexibility. In the primaries, it would have been a jarring departure for him to have said merely that "we've got to look at" ending the war. As for Iraq's surplus, it's true that Iraq could end up with a surplus that large, but that hasn't happened yet.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
obama bs analyzed
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
___
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years—and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
___
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals—the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more—cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged—although not in his commercial—that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."
___
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
___
THE SPIN: "We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close." These lines in the ad were taken from a debate with McCain.
THE FACTS: Obama was once and very often definitive about getting combat troops out in 16 months (At times during the primaries, he promised to do so within a year). More recently, without backing away explicitly from the 16-month withdrawal pledge, he has talked of the need for flexibility. In the primaries, it would have been a jarring departure for him to have said merely that "we've got to look at" ending the war. As for Iraq's surplus, it's true that Iraq could end up with a surplus that large, but that hasn't happened yet.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
___
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years—and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
___
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals—the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more—cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged—although not in his commercial—that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."
___
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
___
THE SPIN: "We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close." These lines in the ad were taken from a debate with McCain.
THE FACTS: Obama was once and very often definitive about getting combat troops out in 16 months (At times during the primaries, he promised to do so within a year). More recently, without backing away explicitly from the 16-month withdrawal pledge, he has talked of the need for flexibility. In the primaries, it would have been a jarring departure for him to have said merely that "we've got to look at" ending the war. As for Iraq's surplus, it's true that Iraq could end up with a surplus that large, but that hasn't happened yet.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
obama bs analyzed
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
___
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years—and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
___
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals—the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more—cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged—although not in his commercial—that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."
___
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
___
THE SPIN: "We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close." These lines in the ad were taken from a debate with McCain.
THE FACTS: Obama was once and very often definitive about getting combat troops out in 16 months (At times during the primaries, he promised to do so within a year). More recently, without backing away explicitly from the 16-month withdrawal pledge, he has talked of the need for flexibility. In the primaries, it would have been a jarring departure for him to have said merely that "we've got to look at" ending the war. As for Iraq's surplus, it's true that Iraq could end up with a surplus that large, but that hasn't happened yet.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:
THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."
THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.
___
THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."
THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years—and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."
___
THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "
THE FACTS: His proposals—the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more—cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged—although not in his commercial—that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."
___
THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."
THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.
___
THE SPIN: "We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close." These lines in the ad were taken from a debate with McCain.
THE FACTS: Obama was once and very often definitive about getting combat troops out in 16 months (At times during the primaries, he promised to do so within a year). More recently, without backing away explicitly from the 16-month withdrawal pledge, he has talked of the need for flexibility. In the primaries, it would have been a jarring departure for him to have said merely that "we've got to look at" ending the war. As for Iraq's surplus, it's true that Iraq could end up with a surplus that large, but that hasn't happened yet.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
How do we avoid another disastrous housing bubble?
Today's question: How do we avoid another disastrous housing bubble? Increased regulation, or trust the market to price risk better next time? Previously, Mitchell and Abromowitz discussed what Washington should do about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, John McCain’s proposal for the government to buy bad mortgages, the biggest players in the mortgage meltdown and whether Washington should give tax breaks to homeowners.
Act more like Hong Kong, not France
Point: Daniel J. Mitchell
At the risk of putting a smile on your face, David, I must admit that the last month has been a miserable time for people like me who support economic liberty. The politicians in Washington approved a massively expensive $700-billion bailout. The Treasury Department, after first proposing a goofy plan to buy bad assets for either too much (to line the pockets of financial institutions) or too little (to supposedly make a profit for taxpayers), has now decided to coerce banks into accepting partial government ownership. Combined with a similarly inept $300-billion housing bailout earlier this year, politicians are displaying their typical ability to make a bad situation even worse.
But the ultimate insult to injury is that the financial crisis is largely a result of other government mistakes. As I explained in my counterpoint column on Tuesday, the current turmoil is the result of the housing bubble, and the housing bubble can be traced to three misguided policies.
* Easy money from the Federal Reserve: Egged on by politicians who think artificially low interest rates somehow are good for growth, the Federal Reserve flooded the economy with excess liquidity earlier this decade. That extra money had to go someplace, either by bidding up consumer prices or bidding up asset prices. For reasons I'll explain soon, the funds got channeled into the housing market.
* A corrupt system of subsidies from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: As I explained in my Thursday counterpoint, these two infamous government-sponsored enterprises used their favored status to dramatically expand the size and scope of their activities, making the bubble even bigger and increasing systemic risk.
* Government-mandated lending to borrowers with bad credit: A number of policies, ranging from the Community Reinvestment Act to so-called affordable-housing quotas imposed on Fannie and Freddie, either extorted or lured lenders into giving mortgages to people who were ill-prepared for the responsibilities of homeownership.
The only piece of good news in the "perfect storm" of bad policy is that policymakers now have a road map to avoid disastrous housing bubbles in the future. If politicians want a stronger economy (or, to be more accurate, if they want a stronger economy more than they want to curry favor with special-interest groups), they should get rid of the policies that caused today's mess.
That means abolishing Fannie and Freddie, which hopefully should be easy now that they've gone bankrupt and have stopped giving campaign contributions. It also means repealing the Community Reinvestment Act and other "affordable-housing" mandates. Luring people into homes they cannot afford is bad for banks and bad for poor people.
But why stop there? To protect taxpayers as well as the economy, the entire Department of Housing and Urban Development should be shut down. And, just to be on the safe side, the building should be razed and the ground covered with a foot of salt to prevent it from springing back to life and haunting future taxpayers. As I explained in my Monday post, housing is not a legitimate role for the federal government.
Fixing monetary policy is a more challenging task, particularly since a stable, zero-inflation policy requires the Federal Reserve to accurately gauge both the supply of money and the demand for money. But one no-brainer step would be to repeal the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, which saddles the Fed with an impossible dual mandate of price stability and macroeconomic fine-tuning. Europeans generally are not role models for economic policy, but we could learn at least one lesson from them, because the European Central Bank is responsible for price stability and nothing else.
The key goal, in all cases, is to reduce the amount of damage that government imposes on the economy. There is a reason the United States is more prosperous than France, and that is because the burden of government is smaller. But this is also a reason Hong Kong grows so much faster than America. It has a limited government, similar to what our founding fathers envisioned. Rather than become more like France, maybe it's time for the United States to become more like Hong Kong.
Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, where he is an expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy.
Government must keep an eye on the 'free market'
Counterpoint: David M. Abromowitz
Dan,
If consistently repeating "poor people ruined our housing market" in various ways made it so, conservatives would win the argument. But I've see no data that agree with you, nor does your point agree with basic common sense. Lump together all the families assisted by the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie and Freddie affordability efforts, the Federal Housing Administration or any other dreaded government housing help for schoolteachers, secretaries and police officers, and they would still make up a fraction of borrowers during the frenzied bubble period of 2000-06. And as I've pointed out all week, these responsible lending programs verify income and use fixed-rate loans -- meaning that the families making, say, $40,000 or less who were helped by these programs were not the ones bidding $250,000 houses up to $400,000. That behavior, Dan, was brought to us by the excesses of unleashed market "innovation."
But back to topic: Going forward, what would help the housing market restabilize and thrive? A few thoughts:
* First, given the real causes of the bubble (pdf); perhaps you and I agree that a Fed that ignores an inflating asset bubble does so at everyone's peril.
* Mortgage brokers and originators play a critical role in launching either responsible or shoddy loans into the commerce stream. To strengthen the market, we need baseline national standards of responsibility (without pre-empting states that want to more carefully oversee mortgage companies). Although I am sure you would want a caveat-emptor approach -- assuming the average American can ferret out hidden fees, prepayment penalties, interest rate trends and the like -- the experience of the last few years demonstrates why that wouldn't work. Thoughtful proposals exist on how to do this better.
* Now is an opportunity to expand housing affordability for moderate-income families, not retreat from it. Prices have dropped, and as I noted earlier this week, many safe and sound lending models with proven, low-default rates exist for first-time buyers. Particularly interesting is a recent University of North Carolina study highlighting that it is not the low-income borrower profile but rather the risky mortgages themselves that cause defaults (pdf). We must also, however, attend to the rental side of the equation. With nearly one-third of Americans in households that overspend on housing, the market is apparently underproducing on rental options for working families.
* Finally, whatever mortgages are originated, be they fair or predatory, they will be bundled and sold into investor pools in today's global capital era. Reforms are needed to prevent abuses, manage dispersed risk, minimize more "too big to fail" situations and deny incentives to peddle bad products that present little risk to mortgage brokers. Some of these reforms have emerged; others still need to be crafted.
Dan, in sum, all week you have consistently painted government as the problem and the unfettered markets as naturally good. To many of us who do believe in market economies, this is faith-based economics -- which recent experience (not to mention the savings and loan meltdown that occurred after massive deregulation) proves false. As I have written at greater length elsewhere, markets are a human invention harnessed to achieve human goals, not a divine set of commandments to which we must submit. Moreover, for markets to function, we need market referees. Those features that many assume are a natural part of a "free market" -- such as relatively even bargaining power, effective alternatives, perfect information and the like -- do not automatically happen in the real world. Government has a vital role in keeping markets fair and intervening for the public welfare where markets fail or fall short.
David M. Abromowitz is a lawyer and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Act more like Hong Kong, not France
Point: Daniel J. Mitchell
At the risk of putting a smile on your face, David, I must admit that the last month has been a miserable time for people like me who support economic liberty. The politicians in Washington approved a massively expensive $700-billion bailout. The Treasury Department, after first proposing a goofy plan to buy bad assets for either too much (to line the pockets of financial institutions) or too little (to supposedly make a profit for taxpayers), has now decided to coerce banks into accepting partial government ownership. Combined with a similarly inept $300-billion housing bailout earlier this year, politicians are displaying their typical ability to make a bad situation even worse.
But the ultimate insult to injury is that the financial crisis is largely a result of other government mistakes. As I explained in my counterpoint column on Tuesday, the current turmoil is the result of the housing bubble, and the housing bubble can be traced to three misguided policies.
* Easy money from the Federal Reserve: Egged on by politicians who think artificially low interest rates somehow are good for growth, the Federal Reserve flooded the economy with excess liquidity earlier this decade. That extra money had to go someplace, either by bidding up consumer prices or bidding up asset prices. For reasons I'll explain soon, the funds got channeled into the housing market.
* A corrupt system of subsidies from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: As I explained in my Thursday counterpoint, these two infamous government-sponsored enterprises used their favored status to dramatically expand the size and scope of their activities, making the bubble even bigger and increasing systemic risk.
* Government-mandated lending to borrowers with bad credit: A number of policies, ranging from the Community Reinvestment Act to so-called affordable-housing quotas imposed on Fannie and Freddie, either extorted or lured lenders into giving mortgages to people who were ill-prepared for the responsibilities of homeownership.
The only piece of good news in the "perfect storm" of bad policy is that policymakers now have a road map to avoid disastrous housing bubbles in the future. If politicians want a stronger economy (or, to be more accurate, if they want a stronger economy more than they want to curry favor with special-interest groups), they should get rid of the policies that caused today's mess.
That means abolishing Fannie and Freddie, which hopefully should be easy now that they've gone bankrupt and have stopped giving campaign contributions. It also means repealing the Community Reinvestment Act and other "affordable-housing" mandates. Luring people into homes they cannot afford is bad for banks and bad for poor people.
But why stop there? To protect taxpayers as well as the economy, the entire Department of Housing and Urban Development should be shut down. And, just to be on the safe side, the building should be razed and the ground covered with a foot of salt to prevent it from springing back to life and haunting future taxpayers. As I explained in my Monday post, housing is not a legitimate role for the federal government.
Fixing monetary policy is a more challenging task, particularly since a stable, zero-inflation policy requires the Federal Reserve to accurately gauge both the supply of money and the demand for money. But one no-brainer step would be to repeal the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, which saddles the Fed with an impossible dual mandate of price stability and macroeconomic fine-tuning. Europeans generally are not role models for economic policy, but we could learn at least one lesson from them, because the European Central Bank is responsible for price stability and nothing else.
The key goal, in all cases, is to reduce the amount of damage that government imposes on the economy. There is a reason the United States is more prosperous than France, and that is because the burden of government is smaller. But this is also a reason Hong Kong grows so much faster than America. It has a limited government, similar to what our founding fathers envisioned. Rather than become more like France, maybe it's time for the United States to become more like Hong Kong.
Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, where he is an expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy.
Government must keep an eye on the 'free market'
Counterpoint: David M. Abromowitz
Dan,
If consistently repeating "poor people ruined our housing market" in various ways made it so, conservatives would win the argument. But I've see no data that agree with you, nor does your point agree with basic common sense. Lump together all the families assisted by the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie and Freddie affordability efforts, the Federal Housing Administration or any other dreaded government housing help for schoolteachers, secretaries and police officers, and they would still make up a fraction of borrowers during the frenzied bubble period of 2000-06. And as I've pointed out all week, these responsible lending programs verify income and use fixed-rate loans -- meaning that the families making, say, $40,000 or less who were helped by these programs were not the ones bidding $250,000 houses up to $400,000. That behavior, Dan, was brought to us by the excesses of unleashed market "innovation."
But back to topic: Going forward, what would help the housing market restabilize and thrive? A few thoughts:
* First, given the real causes of the bubble (pdf); perhaps you and I agree that a Fed that ignores an inflating asset bubble does so at everyone's peril.
* Mortgage brokers and originators play a critical role in launching either responsible or shoddy loans into the commerce stream. To strengthen the market, we need baseline national standards of responsibility (without pre-empting states that want to more carefully oversee mortgage companies). Although I am sure you would want a caveat-emptor approach -- assuming the average American can ferret out hidden fees, prepayment penalties, interest rate trends and the like -- the experience of the last few years demonstrates why that wouldn't work. Thoughtful proposals exist on how to do this better.
* Now is an opportunity to expand housing affordability for moderate-income families, not retreat from it. Prices have dropped, and as I noted earlier this week, many safe and sound lending models with proven, low-default rates exist for first-time buyers. Particularly interesting is a recent University of North Carolina study highlighting that it is not the low-income borrower profile but rather the risky mortgages themselves that cause defaults (pdf). We must also, however, attend to the rental side of the equation. With nearly one-third of Americans in households that overspend on housing, the market is apparently underproducing on rental options for working families.
* Finally, whatever mortgages are originated, be they fair or predatory, they will be bundled and sold into investor pools in today's global capital era. Reforms are needed to prevent abuses, manage dispersed risk, minimize more "too big to fail" situations and deny incentives to peddle bad products that present little risk to mortgage brokers. Some of these reforms have emerged; others still need to be crafted.
Dan, in sum, all week you have consistently painted government as the problem and the unfettered markets as naturally good. To many of us who do believe in market economies, this is faith-based economics -- which recent experience (not to mention the savings and loan meltdown that occurred after massive deregulation) proves false. As I have written at greater length elsewhere, markets are a human invention harnessed to achieve human goals, not a divine set of commandments to which we must submit. Moreover, for markets to function, we need market referees. Those features that many assume are a natural part of a "free market" -- such as relatively even bargaining power, effective alternatives, perfect information and the like -- do not automatically happen in the real world. Government has a vital role in keeping markets fair and intervening for the public welfare where markets fail or fall short.
David M. Abromowitz is a lawyer and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
fixed nicer index.adp aolserver
if {$uptime < 60} {
set uptime [format %.2d $uptime]
} elseif {$uptime < 3600} {
set mins [expr $uptime / 60]
set secs [expr $uptime - ($mins * 60)]
set uptime "[format %.2d $mins]:[format %.2d $secs]"
} elseif {$uptime < 86400} {
set hours [expr $uptime / 3600]
set mins [expr ($uptime - ($hours * 3600)) / 60]
set secs [expr $uptime - (($hours * 3600) + ($mins * 60))]
set uptime "${hours}:[format %.2d $mins]:[format %.2d $secs]"
} else {
set days [expr $uptime / 86400]
set hours [expr ($uptime - ($days * 86400)) / 3600]
set mins [expr ($uptime - (($days * 86400) + ($hours * 3600))) / 60]
set secs [expr ($uptime - (($days * 86400) + ($hours * 3600) + ($mins * 60)))]
set uptime "${days}d-[format %.2d $hours]h-[format %.2d $mins]m-[format %.2d $secs]s"
}
set uptime [format %.2d $uptime]
} elseif {$uptime < 3600} {
set mins [expr $uptime / 60]
set secs [expr $uptime - ($mins * 60)]
set uptime "[format %.2d $mins]:[format %.2d $secs]"
} elseif {$uptime < 86400} {
set hours [expr $uptime / 3600]
set mins [expr ($uptime - ($hours * 3600)) / 60]
set secs [expr $uptime - (($hours * 3600) + ($mins * 60))]
set uptime "${hours}:[format %.2d $mins]:[format %.2d $secs]"
} else {
set days [expr $uptime / 86400]
set hours [expr ($uptime - ($days * 86400)) / 3600]
set mins [expr ($uptime - (($days * 86400) + ($hours * 3600))) / 60]
set secs [expr ($uptime - (($days * 86400) + ($hours * 3600) + ($mins * 60)))]
set uptime "${days}d-[format %.2d $hours]h-[format %.2d $mins]m-[format %.2d $secs]s"
}
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
nicer uptime for index.adp in aolserver
if {$uptime < 60} {
set uptime [format %.2d $uptime]
} elseif {$uptime < 3600} {
set mins [expr $uptime / 60]
set secs [expr $uptime - ($mins * 60)]
set uptime "[format %.2d $mins]:[format %.2d $secs]"
} elseif {$uptime < 86400} {
set hours [expr $uptime / 3600]
set mins [expr ($uptime - ($hours * 3600)) / 60]
set secs [expr $uptime - (($hours * 3600) + ($mins * 60))]
set uptime "${hours}:[format %.2d $mins]:[format %.2d $secs]"
} else {
set days [expr $uptime / 86400]
set hours [expr ($uptime - ($days * 86400)) / 3600 ]
set mins [expr ($uptime - (($days * 86400) + ($hours * 3600))) / 60]
set secs [expr ($uptime - (($days * 86400) + ($hours * 3600) + ($mins * 60)))]
set uptime "${days}d[format %.2d $days]h[format %.2d $mins]m[format %.2d $secs]s"
}
set uptime [format %.2d $uptime]
} elseif {$uptime < 3600} {
set mins [expr $uptime / 60]
set secs [expr $uptime - ($mins * 60)]
set uptime "[format %.2d $mins]:[format %.2d $secs]"
} elseif {$uptime < 86400} {
set hours [expr $uptime / 3600]
set mins [expr ($uptime - ($hours * 3600)) / 60]
set secs [expr $uptime - (($hours * 3600) + ($mins * 60))]
set uptime "${hours}:[format %.2d $mins]:[format %.2d $secs]"
} else {
set days [expr $uptime / 86400]
set hours [expr ($uptime - ($days * 86400)) / 3600 ]
set mins [expr ($uptime - (($days * 86400) + ($hours * 3600))) / 60]
set secs [expr ($uptime - (($days * 86400) + ($hours * 3600) + ($mins * 60)))]
set uptime "${days}d[format %.2d $days]h[format %.2d $mins]m[format %.2d $secs]s"
}
have i restarted all of the programs that comprise this app?
03:01:53 PM) bootiack: works when restart tomcat
(03:01:59 PM) bootiack: OBAMA!!
(03:02:04 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: DAOH!
(03:02:07 PM) bootiack: heh
(03:02:17 PM) bootiack: but doc goes 'fire up wizard'
(03:02:19 PM) bootiack: !!!
(03:02:25 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: DOH!
(03:02:34 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: must update document
(03:02:52 PM) bootiack: kick me in the jimmy!!
(03:03:01 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: nut punch!
(03:03:07 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: take a bow!
(03:05:41 PM) bootiack: humbled
(03:05:48 PM) bootiack: one must be humbled to grow
(03:06:10 PM) bootiack: tree in strongest wind grows most stout
(03:06:14 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: That which does not kill me only makes me stronger
(03:06:51 PM) bootiack: question to remeber: what programs comprise this app? Have I restarted them all?
(03:07:07 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: Aye'
(03:01:59 PM) bootiack: OBAMA!!
(03:02:04 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: DAOH!
(03:02:07 PM) bootiack: heh
(03:02:17 PM) bootiack: but doc goes 'fire up wizard'
(03:02:19 PM) bootiack: !!!
(03:02:25 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: DOH!
(03:02:34 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: must update document
(03:02:52 PM) bootiack: kick me in the jimmy!!
(03:03:01 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: nut punch!
(03:03:07 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: take a bow!
(03:05:41 PM) bootiack: humbled
(03:05:48 PM) bootiack: one must be humbled to grow
(03:06:10 PM) bootiack: tree in strongest wind grows most stout
(03:06:14 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: That which does not kill me only makes me stronger
(03:06:51 PM) bootiack: question to remeber: what programs comprise this app? Have I restarted them all?
(03:07:07 PM) him_live_up_hill_on_island: Aye'
jira crowd confluence atlassian is shit as sugarcrm gak
why support some idiot's badly documented app made from free software when I could maek my own, charge a license fee like they do, and get rich while some other tool scratches his head.....this is bs....avoid atlassian as sugarcrm both are utter shit
Monday, October 27, 2008
common lisp
http://lisp.jfb-city.co.uk/tutorials/svc/s-http-server.html
http://wiki.alu.org/Tutorials
http://wiki.alu.org/Tutorials
Don't sell unless you absolutely have to. Don't buy until 2010
Real estate broker Leo Nordine is working his well-timed magic in selling distressed houses.
By Ann Brenoff
October 25, 2008
The South Bay's reigning King of Foreclosures runs around barefoot, doesn't own a cellphone and drives an 8-year-old Toyota Tundra pickup.
And without looking the part, Leo Nordine, an affable Hermosa Beach-based real estate broker, expects to average one escrow closing a day this year -- something that would make most agents salivate.
* A day in the life of the foreclosure king
Photos: A day in the life of the...
Nordine, a 45-year-old native son and surfer didn't just catch the current foreclosure tidal wave, he has sold 3,500 bank-owned homes during the last two decades. He credits his uncanny ability to time the real estate market's cycles and position himself to reap its rewards as the key to his extraordinary success. And he does it all from the comfort of his home overlooking the Strand in Hermosa Beach.
Little about Nordine's road to riches is typical. He is a case study in how an intense young man without a formal education can be propelled by his drive and work ethic to the height of success -- even when he doesn't live and breathe his job.
"What's important to me," Nordine says, "is family, surfing and work -- in that order."
Born to European parents who immigrated to the U.S. so their son could be born a citizen, Nordine's childhood was far from the American dream.
His insurance salesman dad, who suffered from Parkinson's disease, left when Nordine was 5. His mom struggled to provide for him and his sister. He recalls the family moving from apartment to apartment, staying one step ahead of the eviction notices. Nordine bought 25-cent T-shirts at Goodwill to wear to school and took two paper routes for the Daily Breeze when he was old enough to have a job.
Nordine recalls how his dad reappeared one day and asked to borrow $200; he obliged, but the loan was never repaid.
"It was the best thing that ever happened to me," Nordine says, noting how he opened a savings account with his very next paycheck.
"Ever since," he says, "it always felt better to me to save than to consume."
Even today he doesn't dress, drive or live rich. In fact, his financial success has come as a total surprise to him. "I never figured myself to be someone who would amount to much," he said, recalling how at age 15 he'd drive his Plymouth Duster to Carlsbad with his longboard on the roof. He'd surf all day, sleep in the car and pick the oranges off people's trees come mealtime. After washing up in the Hadley Orchard Cafe, he'd avail himself of its free samples to supplement the fruit.
Then, at 17, Nordine met the woman who would become his first wife. He took a series of odd jobs to help support her and her child and -- encountering difficulties working for someone else -- was summarily fired from each of them.
When she became pregnant again, he set his sights on real estate. Much to his surprise, he had a natural gift for pricing and timing the market. Within three years, he opened his own business and has run things his way ever since. He began specializing in selling bank-owned properties in 1990 because, he says, that's where the market was headed.
Nordine's business model is E.T. Surf, the Hermosa Beach surf shop he frequented as a kid. He recalls how owner Eddie Talbot "always treated us with dignity, let us hang out like little sponges just soaking up the surfing atmosphere."
Nordine treats his own clients with the same respect. He understands that homeowners may regard him as the devil incarnate, the guy tasked with selling their homes -- sometimes out from under them.
He's fine with it. "Whether I sell their houses or not, they are getting foreclosed," he said. "I negotiate the best deal I can for them . . . cash for keys."
Nordine knows that anybody can fall victim to hard times. And the last thing he wants is for his youngest son, 6-year-old Nate, to think things come easily in life.
To that end, when Nate was just 2, Nordine took him on an outing to Watts. On the subway, Nate saw a homeless man whose disheveled appearance and erratic behavior scared him to the point of tears. When the man exited the train, he paused by the boy, put his hand on his shoulder and said, "I'm sorry I made you cry, son."
"Nate will always remember," Nordine said, "that not everyone is as fortunate as him."
Nordine has made his own fortune not only by selling homes but also by investing shrewdly. In the 1980s, he bought about 20 properties, most of them single-family homes in Torrance. He sold them off in 1990 and '91 when he anticipated a bust was coming. He dived back into the market in the mid-1990s -- this time apartments in Santa Monica -- and sold off most of them in 2005.
Today, he and his second wife own a 22-unit complex and a 12-unit complex in Santa Monica; a single-family home and a four-plex in El Segundo; nine bungalows and a four-plex in Torrance; a five-plex in Redondo Beach; and the house-office in Hermosa Beach.
But being a dad and husband is what it's all about for Nordine. His is the first face his son Nate sees every morning when he wakes and the last one he sees at bedtime.
So what advice does Nordine offer those concerned about the real estate market?
Don't sell unless you absolutely have to. Don't buy until 2010, when prices should be at 2000 levels. And apply every spare nickel to paying off your debt, including mortgages.
Brenoff is a Times staff writer.
By Ann Brenoff
October 25, 2008
The South Bay's reigning King of Foreclosures runs around barefoot, doesn't own a cellphone and drives an 8-year-old Toyota Tundra pickup.
And without looking the part, Leo Nordine, an affable Hermosa Beach-based real estate broker, expects to average one escrow closing a day this year -- something that would make most agents salivate.
* A day in the life of the foreclosure king
Photos: A day in the life of the...
Nordine, a 45-year-old native son and surfer didn't just catch the current foreclosure tidal wave, he has sold 3,500 bank-owned homes during the last two decades. He credits his uncanny ability to time the real estate market's cycles and position himself to reap its rewards as the key to his extraordinary success. And he does it all from the comfort of his home overlooking the Strand in Hermosa Beach.
Little about Nordine's road to riches is typical. He is a case study in how an intense young man without a formal education can be propelled by his drive and work ethic to the height of success -- even when he doesn't live and breathe his job.
"What's important to me," Nordine says, "is family, surfing and work -- in that order."
Born to European parents who immigrated to the U.S. so their son could be born a citizen, Nordine's childhood was far from the American dream.
His insurance salesman dad, who suffered from Parkinson's disease, left when Nordine was 5. His mom struggled to provide for him and his sister. He recalls the family moving from apartment to apartment, staying one step ahead of the eviction notices. Nordine bought 25-cent T-shirts at Goodwill to wear to school and took two paper routes for the Daily Breeze when he was old enough to have a job.
Nordine recalls how his dad reappeared one day and asked to borrow $200; he obliged, but the loan was never repaid.
"It was the best thing that ever happened to me," Nordine says, noting how he opened a savings account with his very next paycheck.
"Ever since," he says, "it always felt better to me to save than to consume."
Even today he doesn't dress, drive or live rich. In fact, his financial success has come as a total surprise to him. "I never figured myself to be someone who would amount to much," he said, recalling how at age 15 he'd drive his Plymouth Duster to Carlsbad with his longboard on the roof. He'd surf all day, sleep in the car and pick the oranges off people's trees come mealtime. After washing up in the Hadley Orchard Cafe, he'd avail himself of its free samples to supplement the fruit.
Then, at 17, Nordine met the woman who would become his first wife. He took a series of odd jobs to help support her and her child and -- encountering difficulties working for someone else -- was summarily fired from each of them.
When she became pregnant again, he set his sights on real estate. Much to his surprise, he had a natural gift for pricing and timing the market. Within three years, he opened his own business and has run things his way ever since. He began specializing in selling bank-owned properties in 1990 because, he says, that's where the market was headed.
Nordine's business model is E.T. Surf, the Hermosa Beach surf shop he frequented as a kid. He recalls how owner Eddie Talbot "always treated us with dignity, let us hang out like little sponges just soaking up the surfing atmosphere."
Nordine treats his own clients with the same respect. He understands that homeowners may regard him as the devil incarnate, the guy tasked with selling their homes -- sometimes out from under them.
He's fine with it. "Whether I sell their houses or not, they are getting foreclosed," he said. "I negotiate the best deal I can for them . . . cash for keys."
Nordine knows that anybody can fall victim to hard times. And the last thing he wants is for his youngest son, 6-year-old Nate, to think things come easily in life.
To that end, when Nate was just 2, Nordine took him on an outing to Watts. On the subway, Nate saw a homeless man whose disheveled appearance and erratic behavior scared him to the point of tears. When the man exited the train, he paused by the boy, put his hand on his shoulder and said, "I'm sorry I made you cry, son."
"Nate will always remember," Nordine said, "that not everyone is as fortunate as him."
Nordine has made his own fortune not only by selling homes but also by investing shrewdly. In the 1980s, he bought about 20 properties, most of them single-family homes in Torrance. He sold them off in 1990 and '91 when he anticipated a bust was coming. He dived back into the market in the mid-1990s -- this time apartments in Santa Monica -- and sold off most of them in 2005.
Today, he and his second wife own a 22-unit complex and a 12-unit complex in Santa Monica; a single-family home and a four-plex in El Segundo; nine bungalows and a four-plex in Torrance; a five-plex in Redondo Beach; and the house-office in Hermosa Beach.
But being a dad and husband is what it's all about for Nordine. His is the first face his son Nate sees every morning when he wakes and the last one he sees at bedtime.
So what advice does Nordine offer those concerned about the real estate market?
Don't sell unless you absolutely have to. Don't buy until 2010, when prices should be at 2000 levels. And apply every spare nickel to paying off your debt, including mortgages.
Brenoff is a Times staff writer.
deregulations that have occurred in the past 8 or 14 years that caused this mess
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:58PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Would someone please list for me the major economic deregulations that have occurred in the past 8 or 14 years that caused this mess? I havent been able to pin them down. But I do know that groups like ACORN use tactics that force banks to lend money to people who can't pay it back. Just wondering.
* Overall: 1/5
Would someone please list for me the major economic deregulations that have occurred in the past 8 or 14 years that caused this mess? I havent been able to pin them down. But I do know that groups like ACORN use tactics that force banks to lend money to people who can't pay it back. Just wondering.
comments torch PHD who syas free market is dead
Charles Wheelan, Ph.D. The Naked Economist
Charles Wheelan, Ph.D., The Naked Economist
The Twilight of Free-Market Ideology
by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.
Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story
Good (619 Ratings)
2.646202/5
Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008, 12:00AM
When I heard Alan Greenspan's testimony before Congress last Thursday, I had one immediate thought: This is the beginning of the end for the free-market ideologues.
According to press reports of the testimony, Greenspan told Congress that he "had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets." That's no small statement.
In fact, it struck me that if 1989 was the year when no reasonable person could still believe in communism (or any of its government-intensive relatives), then 2008 will go down in history as the year in which the free-market zealots saw their "wall" come crumbling down.
Too Free to Last
You don't have to take it from me. Just look around. One by one, the economic meltdown is slaying one shibboleth of the uber-free-market camp after another.
Here are some of the inflexible, hardcore beliefs that are crashing along with the stock market:
• Individuals always know best
Not so much, it turns out. The whole financial crisis is rooted in irrational personal decisions. Consumers borrowed more than they could afford based on the naive assumption that housing prices would always go up. Not just a few people -- lots and lots of them.
• Firms always manage resources better than government
Let's take a poll of Lehman Brothers shareholders to see how they feel about that statement. One of the most remarkable things about the whole crisis is the amount of wealth destroyed by private firms. The shareholders and managers of firms like Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, Countrywide, and others destroyed themselves.
That can't be blamed on flawed regulation. No matter how bad the regulatory scheme, it's never rational for private firms to destroy themselves along with all of the wealth of their shareholders.
It's definitely true that government incompetence deserves a share of the blame (e.g., Fannie and Freddie, or the push to put low-income citizens in homes they couldn't afford), but that doesn't make blindly eliminating regulations the answer. Deregulation and sensible regulation are not synonymous.
• Tax cuts are an economic miracle balm
I suppose one could argue that the economy would be in even worse shape right now without the Bush tax cuts -- but that's pretty thin gruel. The more reasonable argument is that the deficits that have accumulated over the last eight years -- during relatively good economic times -- are a hugely destabilizing force going forward. Everything happening right now is made much worse by the fact that the United States is highly indebted to the rest of the world. The ideologues pushed tax cuts without demanding corresponding spending cuts, and that's just plain irresponsible.
Three entities borrowed recklessly over the past decade: homeowners, Wall Street, and the U.S. government. So far, only two of them have had their reckoning.
• Less government is always better
I don't think most Americans are prepared to tell Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke to leave the markets alone right now. Nor are they pushing for the FDIC to scrap the insurance on bank deposits. And many of us are wondering: 1) What is a credit default swap? 2) How could something I've never heard of be destabilizing the economy? and 3) Why didn't someone do something about this?
Does all of this mean that economics books should be burned and Nobel Prizes returned to Stockholm? Absolutely not. The free-market zealots were never right in the first place; they twisted, bastardized, and oversimplified conventional economic thinking. They saw simplicity where the bulk of economists saw tradeoffs and qualifications. They clung to simple and elegant views despite all evidence to the contrary -- and the analysis in the first 10 chapters of any basic microeconomics text.
A colleague of mine, who worked in (and was frustrated by) the George W. Bush administration, coined a term that summarizes it best: faith-based economics. That's not supposed to be how it works.
• Mainstream economists have a profound belief in markets
But they also understand that markets fail in some cases. And they recognize that most markets work better with some government infrastructure, whether it's information, modest regulation, or just a place to sue someone who cheats you.
Mainstream economists recognize the costs of taxation; taxes take money out of people's pockets and distort behavior in ways that can have serious economic costs. But the non-ideologues also recognize that tax revenues can be used to provide government services that make people better off. Good policy is about managing that messy tradeoff.
Mainstream economists recognize that individuals have a pretty good idea of what they want -- but that those same individuals sometimes make systematic errors of judgment, which can lead to things like bubbles and panics.
Mainstream economists recognize that too much regulation can harm innovation and diminish prosperity. But they also recognize that sensible regulation provides information and security, both of which make it much easier to do business with strangers. Regulation also protects third parties from market behavior that has negative spillovers, whether it's the guy who drinks too much at the bar before getting into his car or the paint factory that cuts costs by dumping lead in your drinking water.
A Monument to Self-Interest
There's now a museum in Berlin where visitors can go to see a remnant of the Berlin Wall and learn about the damage done by an overly rigid, poorly conceived ideology.
Maybe there should be some kind of 2008 Meltdown Museum. It would have a large subdivision of homes, all with "for sale" signs out in front. And there would be a quotation from Alan Greenspan inscribed over the arch at the entrance:
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief."
Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story
Rate This story
Good (619 Ratings)
2.5/5
Rate It:
PoorFairGoodVery GoodExcellent
Thank you for your rating. Add a comment
273 Comments
Showing comments 1-5 of 273Next >>
Sort: first to last
*
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:16PM ET Report Abuse
o Overall: 1/5
Absolute piffle. There's a scad of journalists who love writing scary headlines and then making up a story to go with it. This is another in that vein. Stuff happens - given any set of information, the individual will ALWAYS know better than the government what's best for their self-interest. To claim that government (regulators) know better just because something big and bad happened is a logical non sequitur. In fact, it can be argued that government helped cause the problem in many ways. Was the government's role as a lender of last resort the buffer that caused so much unwarranted risk taking? Or perhaps it was the laws that forced banks to make subprime loans to meet the Community Reinvestment Act requirements. If a free market is a collection of free and willing opinions about value expressed in money, how dangerous and morally corrupt it is to say that free markets are dead! To the question about why so many people got it wrong for so long, the author suggests that the government would know better. Really? A collection of pundits and bureaucrats with no business experience sitting in a large grey building somewhere in suburban Virginia has more information than the smartest business minds around? That is absurd. Free markets can be volatile and they can be unstable. There is always a tendency for players to monopolize and temptation to misrepresent. The only role a government should have is to ensure transparency and honesty so that all players can make the best decisions for themselves. In this case, the complexity of the system did not allow full transparency and the risk management tools could not cope with the actual risks. Unless the government stays its regulatory hand and let's businesses fail and succeed on their own, the tools will never be developed, the system will not evolve and this will happen again.
*
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:16PM ET Report Abuse
o Overall: 1/5
Anti Free Market Zealotry shall never win in this country. Separating the agent from the borrower with corrupt quasi public institutions like Fani and Fredi is the real cause of our current problems. Congress with 12% approval rating and collection of bird brains will fail again when it tries to regulate. Corrupt state politicians are incapable of regulating the insurance market "self interest" of lenders and regulation of Balance Sheets suppose to have been improved by Sarbane and Oxley. Incompetent regulators are not able to execute the current laws in the books let alone new ones. Alan Greenspan is a Washington Comic Character. He is more concerned with the next reception he will be attending with his wife. Why would anyone cares what he thinks about the current situation. The Washington Swamp needs to be drained. God Bless those who voted against the Poulsen plan twice.
*
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:13PM ET Report Abuse
o Overall: 3/5
Having heard the many reasons for the financial state now it appears that no one simple reason can be attributed to the downfall. The concept of free market economics without right regulation seems misguided. Is not the lawmakers removing protective barriers (read: less regulation) in itself against the notion of government intervention?
*
OxfordGrad - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:12PM ET Report Abuse
o Overall: 1/5
Charles Wheelan, Socialist, Idiot, Yahoo Finance contributor. I can't believe this garbage is being spread on my beloved Yahoo Finance. You may be able to convince hippies and all the MTV liberals that this sewage is true but you won't convince anyone here. Take this drivel elsewhere. I laugh at you and your degree, you have lost absolutely all credibility not only with me but with every other American citizen with half a brain. You should be ashamed of yourself for taking the time to write this trash. Grow up, get a pair, and stop spreading lies.
*
Chai - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:12PM ET Report Abuse
o Overall: 1/5
We have had over twenty five years of prosperity with a low tax and regulatory structure. The fact that firms went out of business is part of capitalism. Government will never find the next Google, Microsoft or the Wright Brothers for that matter. It can though create wealth redistribution mechanisms which can help bring unemployment to over 10% for the first time in decades.
#
Rick Underbrink - Monday, October 27, 2008, 3:03PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
These views are interestingly spun towards socialism. I disagree with them entirely.
#
zzzzzzz - Monday, October 27, 2008, 3:02PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Whoever is responsible for the Congressional oversight of Fannie and Freedie should be hung. Period.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 3:00PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Can't believe this is in the "Expert Opinion" section.
#
jcifonelli - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:59PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Mishmash of logic which completely ignores the basic fact that we do not and have not lived in an era of unregulated markets.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:58PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Would someone please list for me the major economic deregulations that have occurred in the past 8 or 14 years that caused this mess? I havent been able to pin them down. But I do know that groups like ACORN use tactics that force banks to lend money to people who can't pay it back. Just wondering.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:55PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
You sir are a liberal idiot.
#
dwlglobal - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:53PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
And this guy claims to be a Libertarian
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:51PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Another gem from this fool. Go away, Whelan.
#
Rick Cain - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:51PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
Let's just be honest here. Wealthy people are to blame for it all. The government didn't force anybody to do anything...quite the reverse! They deregulated so much that the market went out of control. And its shameful that the same wealthy people now blame the poor for it all. The poor are the weakest, least politically influential, and have no stocks, no bonds, no hedge fund investments. The wealthy now want and got their bailouts. The free market cannot be stable without being heavily regulated. Another name for regulations is LAWS. Individuals must follow laws, and the market should too.
#
ksechows - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:47PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
You sir, are an idiot.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:46PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
He's become more and more socialist.
#
Mahlalie - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:44PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
As others have stated, this "crisis" was brought, in part, by the government forcing companies to make loans to people who couldn't afford it. Secondly, a historian would be able to tell you that the same things were being said back in the Great Depression. I think it's safe to say that, in spite of New Deal regulation, the economy rebounded nicely. Give it time. I trust the free market over any kind of "economic stimulus package" the government can hand out any day. Of course, I may change my mind if they cut the corporate tax rate and call it a "stimulus package." Also, please notice that the whole world is being impacted by the economy. Our relatively free market is the reason we remain the most competitive economy in the world.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:42PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 3/5
Consumer, Wall Street, and Government are all responsible for this mess. Each of them looked out for their own personal interest and short term benefit while no one was guarding the overall impact on society (also called greed). This article imparts pretty good clarity although it is hindsight.
#
kerry b - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:38PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Whelan is fraudulently claiming that there is something wrong with a free market. Perhaps someone should tell him that the real estate market, with respect to loans, has NEVER been a "free market". At least not sioince before WWI when the Fed reserve was established. The failure of the real estate market can be attributed to two things : a fiklure of longstanding govt agencies to perform their traditional function and ensure that the financial system is sound, a large part of which is ensuring that our financial institutions make sound loans.Did anyone see Greenspan doing that during the boom years? Didn't you all hear him testify that the fed was not set up to "bust commodity bubbles" ? Well, Alan, how about just ensuring that those interest-only loans that you were endorsing were used as they were intended? Greenspan is practically the sole cause of the RE mess. Trying to pin the blame on a free RE market (that doesn't even really exist) is Whelan's method of whitewashing a fellow economist. Sorry, Whelan, you can invent facts and history all you want, but we all know who caused the mess, even if you're too cowardly and unethical to admit it.
#
crankyoldperson - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:34PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
In a free market, insurers set rules for those they insure. To do otherwise risks financial ruin. Classic example. The fire insurance industry, not the government, has helped vastly improve fire safety. Only the government insures without regulating, because only the government gets bigger and stronger the more it screws up. The current financial mess is NOT a failure of the free market. It, like the Great Depression, is a consequence of the government's attempt to create a financial utopia.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:31PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
The article and accompanying comments nicely summarize why the trust in the free market is essentially a religious belief. I have traveled in many countries where there really is an unfettered market, with little governmental interference. They are all very poor, third world countries.
#
rodger.darr - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:31PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 3/5
Rodger Darr says - I read a very disturbing news headline last week on Yahoo Finance. It stated, "Stocks Rise on Hopes of Credit Recovery." Shouldn't stocks rise on hopes of PROFIT recovery, VALUE recovery, EARNINGS recovery, or any other thing associated with making more real money instead of getting more credit? Kind of makes one think the depths to which things have gotten and how much further they are likely to go south WHEN THE CREDIT MONSTER UNDE THE BED - THE SECOND WAVE OF MORTGAGE DEFAULTS (Alt-A, Option Adjustible Rate, Jumbo Prime) HITS IN 2010. Yeah, that second phase of meltdown no one talks about.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:30PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Whelan and his moronic me-too chorus on this message board are the type of boobs who shout loudest for government to "do something", all the while blissfully unaware that government intervention caused this mess in the first place, and will actually make it much worse. Once they're finished demolishing the currency in this ludicrous "bailout" effort, you can be sure Whelan and his sheep will be begging for more intervention. Unreal.
#
markhagerman - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:26PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Ivory-tower nonsense. This situation was caused by government interference in the marketplace. We need a gold-backed currency, and an end to taxation.
#
pbergn - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:25PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Is this guy even serious? A Harvard grad or something? OMG!!!!!!! This country is really going down if such rhetoric is even conceivable in this day and age... What a shame!! Mind boggling even to begin to comprehend!! Boo to this article (x 1000000000000000000000000) !!!!! [.. and yeah, he forgot to add that the "labor camps" is the ticket, and all the "greedy capitalists" and "fat cats", and "rich people" and everyone in between need to be disciplined by a firing squad... Way to go, Charles!!! Well done!!!! Your forefathers will be really proud of you!!!]
#
sincodemiyo - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:25PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Seems you forgot about the regulation to lend to "poor" people and the mark to market requirement to name just two. Communism has been tested completely and failed. A true free market has never been tested therefore how can you say it has failed? (answer: you can't)
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:23PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
Hi Prof. Wheelan: Thanks for a very accurate assesment. I guess what really let us down was the laissez-fare and crony capitalism which was being practiced since the last 8 years. In that aspect, this crash is a welcome one; this will ensure a little more shift to the center in terms of economic policies. I am amused by the nay-sayers to your comments - other than knee-jerk ad-hominem insults, they have little to offer.
#
Paul - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:23PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
Thank God for the death of faith-based economics. One can only hope the concept is never resurrected. This is the most accurate, honest perspective on the failings of the deregulated, greed-based economy I've seen yet. I hope we have learned our lesson.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:23PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
The federal government provides subsidies and incentives for individuals to buy homes using borrowed money. Don't you think that had anything to do with the real estate bubble?
#
muc diner - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:22PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
A thoughtful article that highlights the weaknesses of the free-market philosophy and 'trickle down' populism. We may never know exactly if the philosophy or its execution failed the U.S. and the world. Fact is, the article reflects today's sentiment in most parts of the world, and many governments are in the process of implementing regulations that will avoid the risks that caused the current crises. By the way, effective regulation is a far cry from socialism, which allows only limited personal property. Effective regulation and shareholder protection will not disown us. Instead, it will reduce the disastrous impact of corruption, greed, and incompetence.
#
magenta_tapir - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:21PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
You're a big improvement over Ben Stein! The comments on this piece astonish me; I guess it just goes to show how we've gone almost 30 years and hardly ever heard a peep from anybody who didn't believe the "free market" religion. Just the idea that the government should regulate nuclear power plants or weapons of mass destruction seems to offend the sensibility of millions of US citizens. I'll guess they'll be voting for McCain.
#
Bryan C - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:21PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Wrong wrong and wrong. America is still the greatest country in the world, and free-market capitalism will thrive.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:19PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
Very accurate and appropriate. The borrow-and-spend philosophy started by Reagan put us in a world of hurt by 1990. Clinton reversed that trend with some responsible fiscal leadership, turning our deficit into a surplus, only to have w put us back in severe deficit mode, with multiple recessions along the way, while we mortgage our country to China in exchange for stable interest rates. No wonder monetary policy doesn't work anymore. Meanwhile on the campaign trail we're supposed to feel sorry for some fake plumber who doesn't want to pay his taxes and lies about wanting to buy a business, claiming that he can't because he's going to pay 4% more taxes on his income after deductions above $250K, while nobody says a thing about a working professional with kids he will not send to college and who's house will get foreclosed because his insurance company doesn't want to cover a disorder that could kill one of his kids and he can't let that happen, even if he loses everything to keep her alive. Only in America folks, do people have to make that choice. You call it socialism and demonize it, but the rest of the world is beginning to demonize us for this backwards thinking. The rest of the world can accept the role of a well-run government in a representative democracy, it works for the rest of the developed world, just not here. I'm tired of no-government zealots that have run this nation to the brink of losing its stature permanently.
#
cowboy47201 - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:17PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 4/5
Couple of things. First are the either/or posters who see the world in black or white. Forget it, you will never grasp the economic system we live in. It has never been "free markets" since we left the simple bartering of ages ago. Get over the idea that we are losing it. Secondly, in this world of economic complexity, we seem to have a lot of people who like to game the system. They have always been around trying to figure how to move money, take a cut, and move it again. It is totally non-value added to the health and well being of the population at large. The more complex the more opportunities, so do not look for this to go away for very long. And finally, all the "smart" people bashing this, why did you not see this coming, get out, and take you money and run for office. And we know why, you are fringe characters who like to rant and would not be taken seriously by anyone except the other fringe folks. You know, all this anger is not good for your body, and believe it or not, no one cares what you think, or what I think for that matter. let it be, move on, take care of yourself, quit screaming at the world to let you be in control. Not going to happen.
#
ACE - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:17PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Spoken like a good little Marxist Dr. Wheelan. Are you a part of BHO's campaign? If given the chance, the markets always correct themselves. Government regulations and price fixing will be the death of us all. If you are looking for someone to blame for this economic crisis, take a look at who forced the lenders to make bad loans. Yes, there are those who starting living beyond their means but they never should have been approved for the loans in the first place! You are a socialistic moron sir. Why don't you move to France? Your advice would be welcomed there, not here.
Charles Wheelan, Ph.D., The Naked Economist
The Twilight of Free-Market Ideology
by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.
Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story
Good (619 Ratings)
2.646202/5
Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008, 12:00AM
When I heard Alan Greenspan's testimony before Congress last Thursday, I had one immediate thought: This is the beginning of the end for the free-market ideologues.
According to press reports of the testimony, Greenspan told Congress that he "had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets." That's no small statement.
In fact, it struck me that if 1989 was the year when no reasonable person could still believe in communism (or any of its government-intensive relatives), then 2008 will go down in history as the year in which the free-market zealots saw their "wall" come crumbling down.
Too Free to Last
You don't have to take it from me. Just look around. One by one, the economic meltdown is slaying one shibboleth of the uber-free-market camp after another.
Here are some of the inflexible, hardcore beliefs that are crashing along with the stock market:
• Individuals always know best
Not so much, it turns out. The whole financial crisis is rooted in irrational personal decisions. Consumers borrowed more than they could afford based on the naive assumption that housing prices would always go up. Not just a few people -- lots and lots of them.
• Firms always manage resources better than government
Let's take a poll of Lehman Brothers shareholders to see how they feel about that statement. One of the most remarkable things about the whole crisis is the amount of wealth destroyed by private firms. The shareholders and managers of firms like Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, Countrywide, and others destroyed themselves.
That can't be blamed on flawed regulation. No matter how bad the regulatory scheme, it's never rational for private firms to destroy themselves along with all of the wealth of their shareholders.
It's definitely true that government incompetence deserves a share of the blame (e.g., Fannie and Freddie, or the push to put low-income citizens in homes they couldn't afford), but that doesn't make blindly eliminating regulations the answer. Deregulation and sensible regulation are not synonymous.
• Tax cuts are an economic miracle balm
I suppose one could argue that the economy would be in even worse shape right now without the Bush tax cuts -- but that's pretty thin gruel. The more reasonable argument is that the deficits that have accumulated over the last eight years -- during relatively good economic times -- are a hugely destabilizing force going forward. Everything happening right now is made much worse by the fact that the United States is highly indebted to the rest of the world. The ideologues pushed tax cuts without demanding corresponding spending cuts, and that's just plain irresponsible.
Three entities borrowed recklessly over the past decade: homeowners, Wall Street, and the U.S. government. So far, only two of them have had their reckoning.
• Less government is always better
I don't think most Americans are prepared to tell Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke to leave the markets alone right now. Nor are they pushing for the FDIC to scrap the insurance on bank deposits. And many of us are wondering: 1) What is a credit default swap? 2) How could something I've never heard of be destabilizing the economy? and 3) Why didn't someone do something about this?
Does all of this mean that economics books should be burned and Nobel Prizes returned to Stockholm? Absolutely not. The free-market zealots were never right in the first place; they twisted, bastardized, and oversimplified conventional economic thinking. They saw simplicity where the bulk of economists saw tradeoffs and qualifications. They clung to simple and elegant views despite all evidence to the contrary -- and the analysis in the first 10 chapters of any basic microeconomics text.
A colleague of mine, who worked in (and was frustrated by) the George W. Bush administration, coined a term that summarizes it best: faith-based economics. That's not supposed to be how it works.
• Mainstream economists have a profound belief in markets
But they also understand that markets fail in some cases. And they recognize that most markets work better with some government infrastructure, whether it's information, modest regulation, or just a place to sue someone who cheats you.
Mainstream economists recognize the costs of taxation; taxes take money out of people's pockets and distort behavior in ways that can have serious economic costs. But the non-ideologues also recognize that tax revenues can be used to provide government services that make people better off. Good policy is about managing that messy tradeoff.
Mainstream economists recognize that individuals have a pretty good idea of what they want -- but that those same individuals sometimes make systematic errors of judgment, which can lead to things like bubbles and panics.
Mainstream economists recognize that too much regulation can harm innovation and diminish prosperity. But they also recognize that sensible regulation provides information and security, both of which make it much easier to do business with strangers. Regulation also protects third parties from market behavior that has negative spillovers, whether it's the guy who drinks too much at the bar before getting into his car or the paint factory that cuts costs by dumping lead in your drinking water.
A Monument to Self-Interest
There's now a museum in Berlin where visitors can go to see a remnant of the Berlin Wall and learn about the damage done by an overly rigid, poorly conceived ideology.
Maybe there should be some kind of 2008 Meltdown Museum. It would have a large subdivision of homes, all with "for sale" signs out in front. And there would be a quotation from Alan Greenspan inscribed over the arch at the entrance:
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief."
Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story
Rate This story
Good (619 Ratings)
2.5/5
Rate It:
PoorFairGoodVery GoodExcellent
Thank you for your rating. Add a comment
273 Comments
Showing comments 1-5 of 273Next >>
Sort: first to last
*
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:16PM ET Report Abuse
o Overall: 1/5
Absolute piffle. There's a scad of journalists who love writing scary headlines and then making up a story to go with it. This is another in that vein. Stuff happens - given any set of information, the individual will ALWAYS know better than the government what's best for their self-interest. To claim that government (regulators) know better just because something big and bad happened is a logical non sequitur. In fact, it can be argued that government helped cause the problem in many ways. Was the government's role as a lender of last resort the buffer that caused so much unwarranted risk taking? Or perhaps it was the laws that forced banks to make subprime loans to meet the Community Reinvestment Act requirements. If a free market is a collection of free and willing opinions about value expressed in money, how dangerous and morally corrupt it is to say that free markets are dead! To the question about why so many people got it wrong for so long, the author suggests that the government would know better. Really? A collection of pundits and bureaucrats with no business experience sitting in a large grey building somewhere in suburban Virginia has more information than the smartest business minds around? That is absurd. Free markets can be volatile and they can be unstable. There is always a tendency for players to monopolize and temptation to misrepresent. The only role a government should have is to ensure transparency and honesty so that all players can make the best decisions for themselves. In this case, the complexity of the system did not allow full transparency and the risk management tools could not cope with the actual risks. Unless the government stays its regulatory hand and let's businesses fail and succeed on their own, the tools will never be developed, the system will not evolve and this will happen again.
*
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:16PM ET Report Abuse
o Overall: 1/5
Anti Free Market Zealotry shall never win in this country. Separating the agent from the borrower with corrupt quasi public institutions like Fani and Fredi is the real cause of our current problems. Congress with 12% approval rating and collection of bird brains will fail again when it tries to regulate. Corrupt state politicians are incapable of regulating the insurance market "self interest" of lenders and regulation of Balance Sheets suppose to have been improved by Sarbane and Oxley. Incompetent regulators are not able to execute the current laws in the books let alone new ones. Alan Greenspan is a Washington Comic Character. He is more concerned with the next reception he will be attending with his wife. Why would anyone cares what he thinks about the current situation. The Washington Swamp needs to be drained. God Bless those who voted against the Poulsen plan twice.
*
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:13PM ET Report Abuse
o Overall: 3/5
Having heard the many reasons for the financial state now it appears that no one simple reason can be attributed to the downfall. The concept of free market economics without right regulation seems misguided. Is not the lawmakers removing protective barriers (read: less regulation) in itself against the notion of government intervention?
*
OxfordGrad - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:12PM ET Report Abuse
o Overall: 1/5
Charles Wheelan, Socialist, Idiot, Yahoo Finance contributor. I can't believe this garbage is being spread on my beloved Yahoo Finance. You may be able to convince hippies and all the MTV liberals that this sewage is true but you won't convince anyone here. Take this drivel elsewhere. I laugh at you and your degree, you have lost absolutely all credibility not only with me but with every other American citizen with half a brain. You should be ashamed of yourself for taking the time to write this trash. Grow up, get a pair, and stop spreading lies.
*
Chai - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:12PM ET Report Abuse
o Overall: 1/5
We have had over twenty five years of prosperity with a low tax and regulatory structure. The fact that firms went out of business is part of capitalism. Government will never find the next Google, Microsoft or the Wright Brothers for that matter. It can though create wealth redistribution mechanisms which can help bring unemployment to over 10% for the first time in decades.
#
Rick Underbrink - Monday, October 27, 2008, 3:03PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
These views are interestingly spun towards socialism. I disagree with them entirely.
#
zzzzzzz - Monday, October 27, 2008, 3:02PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Whoever is responsible for the Congressional oversight of Fannie and Freedie should be hung. Period.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 3:00PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Can't believe this is in the "Expert Opinion" section.
#
jcifonelli - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:59PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Mishmash of logic which completely ignores the basic fact that we do not and have not lived in an era of unregulated markets.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:58PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Would someone please list for me the major economic deregulations that have occurred in the past 8 or 14 years that caused this mess? I havent been able to pin them down. But I do know that groups like ACORN use tactics that force banks to lend money to people who can't pay it back. Just wondering.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:55PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
You sir are a liberal idiot.
#
dwlglobal - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:53PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
And this guy claims to be a Libertarian
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:51PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Another gem from this fool. Go away, Whelan.
#
Rick Cain - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:51PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
Let's just be honest here. Wealthy people are to blame for it all. The government didn't force anybody to do anything...quite the reverse! They deregulated so much that the market went out of control. And its shameful that the same wealthy people now blame the poor for it all. The poor are the weakest, least politically influential, and have no stocks, no bonds, no hedge fund investments. The wealthy now want and got their bailouts. The free market cannot be stable without being heavily regulated. Another name for regulations is LAWS. Individuals must follow laws, and the market should too.
#
ksechows - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:47PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
You sir, are an idiot.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:46PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
He's become more and more socialist.
#
Mahlalie - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:44PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
As others have stated, this "crisis" was brought, in part, by the government forcing companies to make loans to people who couldn't afford it. Secondly, a historian would be able to tell you that the same things were being said back in the Great Depression. I think it's safe to say that, in spite of New Deal regulation, the economy rebounded nicely. Give it time. I trust the free market over any kind of "economic stimulus package" the government can hand out any day. Of course, I may change my mind if they cut the corporate tax rate and call it a "stimulus package." Also, please notice that the whole world is being impacted by the economy. Our relatively free market is the reason we remain the most competitive economy in the world.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:42PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 3/5
Consumer, Wall Street, and Government are all responsible for this mess. Each of them looked out for their own personal interest and short term benefit while no one was guarding the overall impact on society (also called greed). This article imparts pretty good clarity although it is hindsight.
#
kerry b - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:38PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Whelan is fraudulently claiming that there is something wrong with a free market. Perhaps someone should tell him that the real estate market, with respect to loans, has NEVER been a "free market". At least not sioince before WWI when the Fed reserve was established. The failure of the real estate market can be attributed to two things : a fiklure of longstanding govt agencies to perform their traditional function and ensure that the financial system is sound, a large part of which is ensuring that our financial institutions make sound loans.Did anyone see Greenspan doing that during the boom years? Didn't you all hear him testify that the fed was not set up to "bust commodity bubbles" ? Well, Alan, how about just ensuring that those interest-only loans that you were endorsing were used as they were intended? Greenspan is practically the sole cause of the RE mess. Trying to pin the blame on a free RE market (that doesn't even really exist) is Whelan's method of whitewashing a fellow economist. Sorry, Whelan, you can invent facts and history all you want, but we all know who caused the mess, even if you're too cowardly and unethical to admit it.
#
crankyoldperson - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:34PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
In a free market, insurers set rules for those they insure. To do otherwise risks financial ruin. Classic example. The fire insurance industry, not the government, has helped vastly improve fire safety. Only the government insures without regulating, because only the government gets bigger and stronger the more it screws up. The current financial mess is NOT a failure of the free market. It, like the Great Depression, is a consequence of the government's attempt to create a financial utopia.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:31PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
The article and accompanying comments nicely summarize why the trust in the free market is essentially a religious belief. I have traveled in many countries where there really is an unfettered market, with little governmental interference. They are all very poor, third world countries.
#
rodger.darr - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:31PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 3/5
Rodger Darr says - I read a very disturbing news headline last week on Yahoo Finance. It stated, "Stocks Rise on Hopes of Credit Recovery." Shouldn't stocks rise on hopes of PROFIT recovery, VALUE recovery, EARNINGS recovery, or any other thing associated with making more real money instead of getting more credit? Kind of makes one think the depths to which things have gotten and how much further they are likely to go south WHEN THE CREDIT MONSTER UNDE THE BED - THE SECOND WAVE OF MORTGAGE DEFAULTS (Alt-A, Option Adjustible Rate, Jumbo Prime) HITS IN 2010. Yeah, that second phase of meltdown no one talks about.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:30PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Whelan and his moronic me-too chorus on this message board are the type of boobs who shout loudest for government to "do something", all the while blissfully unaware that government intervention caused this mess in the first place, and will actually make it much worse. Once they're finished demolishing the currency in this ludicrous "bailout" effort, you can be sure Whelan and his sheep will be begging for more intervention. Unreal.
#
markhagerman - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:26PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Ivory-tower nonsense. This situation was caused by government interference in the marketplace. We need a gold-backed currency, and an end to taxation.
#
pbergn - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:25PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Is this guy even serious? A Harvard grad or something? OMG!!!!!!! This country is really going down if such rhetoric is even conceivable in this day and age... What a shame!! Mind boggling even to begin to comprehend!! Boo to this article (x 1000000000000000000000000) !!!!! [.. and yeah, he forgot to add that the "labor camps" is the ticket, and all the "greedy capitalists" and "fat cats", and "rich people" and everyone in between need to be disciplined by a firing squad... Way to go, Charles!!! Well done!!!! Your forefathers will be really proud of you!!!]
#
sincodemiyo - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:25PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Seems you forgot about the regulation to lend to "poor" people and the mark to market requirement to name just two. Communism has been tested completely and failed. A true free market has never been tested therefore how can you say it has failed? (answer: you can't)
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:23PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
Hi Prof. Wheelan: Thanks for a very accurate assesment. I guess what really let us down was the laissez-fare and crony capitalism which was being practiced since the last 8 years. In that aspect, this crash is a welcome one; this will ensure a little more shift to the center in terms of economic policies. I am amused by the nay-sayers to your comments - other than knee-jerk ad-hominem insults, they have little to offer.
#
Paul - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:23PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
Thank God for the death of faith-based economics. One can only hope the concept is never resurrected. This is the most accurate, honest perspective on the failings of the deregulated, greed-based economy I've seen yet. I hope we have learned our lesson.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:23PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
The federal government provides subsidies and incentives for individuals to buy homes using borrowed money. Don't you think that had anything to do with the real estate bubble?
#
muc diner - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:22PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
A thoughtful article that highlights the weaknesses of the free-market philosophy and 'trickle down' populism. We may never know exactly if the philosophy or its execution failed the U.S. and the world. Fact is, the article reflects today's sentiment in most parts of the world, and many governments are in the process of implementing regulations that will avoid the risks that caused the current crises. By the way, effective regulation is a far cry from socialism, which allows only limited personal property. Effective regulation and shareholder protection will not disown us. Instead, it will reduce the disastrous impact of corruption, greed, and incompetence.
#
magenta_tapir - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:21PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
You're a big improvement over Ben Stein! The comments on this piece astonish me; I guess it just goes to show how we've gone almost 30 years and hardly ever heard a peep from anybody who didn't believe the "free market" religion. Just the idea that the government should regulate nuclear power plants or weapons of mass destruction seems to offend the sensibility of millions of US citizens. I'll guess they'll be voting for McCain.
#
Bryan C - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:21PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Wrong wrong and wrong. America is still the greatest country in the world, and free-market capitalism will thrive.
#
Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:19PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 5/5
Very accurate and appropriate. The borrow-and-spend philosophy started by Reagan put us in a world of hurt by 1990. Clinton reversed that trend with some responsible fiscal leadership, turning our deficit into a surplus, only to have w put us back in severe deficit mode, with multiple recessions along the way, while we mortgage our country to China in exchange for stable interest rates. No wonder monetary policy doesn't work anymore. Meanwhile on the campaign trail we're supposed to feel sorry for some fake plumber who doesn't want to pay his taxes and lies about wanting to buy a business, claiming that he can't because he's going to pay 4% more taxes on his income after deductions above $250K, while nobody says a thing about a working professional with kids he will not send to college and who's house will get foreclosed because his insurance company doesn't want to cover a disorder that could kill one of his kids and he can't let that happen, even if he loses everything to keep her alive. Only in America folks, do people have to make that choice. You call it socialism and demonize it, but the rest of the world is beginning to demonize us for this backwards thinking. The rest of the world can accept the role of a well-run government in a representative democracy, it works for the rest of the developed world, just not here. I'm tired of no-government zealots that have run this nation to the brink of losing its stature permanently.
#
cowboy47201 - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:17PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 4/5
Couple of things. First are the either/or posters who see the world in black or white. Forget it, you will never grasp the economic system we live in. It has never been "free markets" since we left the simple bartering of ages ago. Get over the idea that we are losing it. Secondly, in this world of economic complexity, we seem to have a lot of people who like to game the system. They have always been around trying to figure how to move money, take a cut, and move it again. It is totally non-value added to the health and well being of the population at large. The more complex the more opportunities, so do not look for this to go away for very long. And finally, all the "smart" people bashing this, why did you not see this coming, get out, and take you money and run for office. And we know why, you are fringe characters who like to rant and would not be taken seriously by anyone except the other fringe folks. You know, all this anger is not good for your body, and believe it or not, no one cares what you think, or what I think for that matter. let it be, move on, take care of yourself, quit screaming at the world to let you be in control. Not going to happen.
#
ACE - Monday, October 27, 2008, 2:17PM ET Report Abuse
* Overall: 1/5
Spoken like a good little Marxist Dr. Wheelan. Are you a part of BHO's campaign? If given the chance, the markets always correct themselves. Government regulations and price fixing will be the death of us all. If you are looking for someone to blame for this economic crisis, take a look at who forced the lenders to make bad loans. Yes, there are those who starting living beyond their means but they never should have been approved for the loans in the first place! You are a socialistic moron sir. Why don't you move to France? Your advice would be welcomed there, not here.
biden asked tuff questions
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/biden_intervew_angered/2008/10/26/144294.html
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
king of sartar - glorantha
http://www.amazon.com/King-Sartar-Various/dp/1929052006/ref=sr_1_1/185-0938130-4733811?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224919918&sr=1-1
Friday, October 24, 2008
the black company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Company#The_Ten_Who_Were_Taken.3B_The_New_Taken
fukin
http://cdn76.xtube.com/e8/watch_video.php?v_user_id=xtube_sponsor&cv=8&idx=7&v=97BjU-S617-&cl=oBoKl-S617-&from=&ver=3&ccaa=1&qid=&qidx=&qnum=&preview_flag=
guy banging his young girlfriend
http://cdn40.xtube.com/e8/watch_video.php?v_user_id=Luvs_pussy&cv=8&idx=2&v=iyiIzjOXg9c&cl=E2wBH2ycbsL&from=&ver=3&ccaa=1&qid=&qidx=&qnum=&preview_flag=
govt economists FAIL
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=10&year=2008&base_name=citing_the_biggest_losers_post#110308
Dennis Kucinich To Investigate Exec Bonuses; Calls for Accountability, Reform, Regulation
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/37090
Man Sued For Leaving Negative Feedback on ebay
http://www.money.co.uk/article/1001771-man-sued-for-leaving-negative-feedback-on-ebay.htm
Thursday, October 23, 2008
fed hands 540B to money market funds why?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-10-21-fed-money-market_N.htm?csp=34
Barbra Walters interviews Sean Connery on smackin' bitches
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FgMLROTqJ0
fed lends 100B to banks this week
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081023/business/fed_credit_crisis_37
gold-bull-Jim-Sinclair
http://www.myprops.org/content/Legendary-gold-bull-Jim-Sinclair-gives-a-fabulous-interview-on-the-future-collapse-of-the-American-dollar-audio-must-listen/
true love 63 year old billionaire and 27 year old model
http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/swimsuit-model-reveals-her-love-for-browser-man/2008/03/25/1206207089330.html
jim rogers is the man
http://www.myprops.org/content/Jim-Rogers-the-US-has-doubled-its-national-debt-in-one-weekend-to-bail-out-two-companies-run-by-fraudsters-video/
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
tomcat comedy
jasonb No, I'm not suggesting making Tomcat the first contact web server (you actually should.. Tomcat is faster and more secure). But, what I said was to use mod_proxy to send requests from httpd to Tomca
tomcat wisdom
ChanServ [#tomcat] Welcome. DO NOT ASK YOUR QUESTION until you have told us your Tomcat, Java, and OS versions (all three)! Tomcat version numbers are THREE numbers long, like "6.0.7". We will probably ignore your question if you do not provide this -- we won't keep asking for it.
16:54 azathoth99 does tomcat 5.5 run with java 1.6?
16:56 MHSL azathoth99, yes
17:02 azathoth99 is java_home set to /some/path/java-xyz not /some/path/java-xyz/bin/java right?
17:04 azathoth99 going to assume yes
17:08 MHSL yes
17:18 azathoth99 so where does one go to learn to build a webapps with the jsp servet stuff?
17:18 azathoth99 servlet even
17:19 jasonb There are web pages, but probably tutorial books are best.
17:19 jasonb One of the best servlet programming books is "Java Servlet Programming" (O'Reilly).
17:19 azathoth99 are servelts ok on memory
17:19 jasonb Yes, great.
17:19 azathoth99 or do they burn up a cpu
17:20 azathoth99 and this async stuff?
17:20 jasonb No, they're very lightweight, if they're not poorly written.
17:20 azathoth99 wher is that liek described?
17:20 azathoth99 ok cool
17:20 jasonb what async stuff?
17:21 MHSL jasonb, are you aware of this error, if you are, what may be the cause? http://pastebin.com/d3afa1b7e
17:21 azathoth99 nio
17:23 jasonb azathoth99: What makes you think you should use the NIO connector, or any async stuff?
17:23 MHSL azathoth99, you should also learn how to use google
17:23 jasonb MHSL: Which version of Tomcat? And, which connector implementation are you using?
17:24 MHSL jasonb, tomcat 6.0.14 and mod_jk 1.2.26
17:24 azathoth99 I dunno
17:24 jasonb MHSL: And on the Tomcat side, you're using the JIO JK connector?
17:24 azathoth99 I heard async was faster
17:24 jasonb azathoth99: It's not.
17:24 azathoth99 !!
17:25 azathoth99 really?
17:25 MHSL jasonb, AJP/1.3 if that's what you're asking
17:25 jasonb MHSL: Do you have clustering configured/enabled?
17:25 MHSL yes
17:25 MHSL default configuration
17:25 jasonb MHSL: By default, clustering is turned off.
17:25 MHSL yes, it's turned on, but i'm using the default clustering configuration
17:26 jasonb MHSL: Ahh.
17:26 jasonb MHSL: This exception is in part of the clustering code.
17:26 MHSL yep
17:26 jasonb MHSL: I haven't seen it before, but I can tell it's the clustering code. :) That code is better than it was, but it's still not very used, and not very mature.
17:26 MHSL ic
17:27 jasonb MHSL: It looks to me like it's a regular bug that you should report in Tomcat's/ASF's bugzilla.
17:27 MHSL maybe i'll give 6.0.18 a try and see whether i'll still get the same error, because i cant really see the cause of it
17:27 MHSL the problem is, i dont know how to reproduce it
17:27 MHSL but i got it quite often, it may be something related to webapp reloading
17:27 jasonb MHSL: The clustering code hasn't changed all that much recently, but 6.0.14 was out quite a while ago, so there may have been some changes/fixes in the clustering code.
17:28 MHSL ic, i know that there are some changes to the configuration part, but not sure whether this issue has been fixed, maybe i'll also take a look at the changes
17:28 jasonb MHSL: I'd suggest not using mod_jk, first, and then I'd suggest not using JK at all.. use mod_proxy and send your requests via HTTP.
17:28 MHSL i dont really want to send all requests to tomcat, since that defeats the purpose of apache
17:29 MHSL just want to forward any jsp/servlets/actions stuff to tomcat, and the rest handled by apache
17:29 jasonb No, I'm not suggesting making Tomcat the first contact web server (you actually should.. Tomcat is faster and more secure). But, what I said was to use mod_proxy to send requests from httpd to Tomcat.
17:30 jasonb Tomcat is faster at handling static file requests than apache httpd is, in case you didn't know.
17:30 MHSL ok, let's talk about tomcat standalone, how are you going about doing clustering without a middle man like apache?
17:31 MHSL and session replication for that matter
17:32 jasonb All you need is a layer 7 switch such as any layer 7 load balancer box, or if you want all open source software then here's one: http://l7-filter.sourceforge.net/HOWTO-kernel
17:32 MHSL since i have 2 machines, on machine A i dont really need apache, but on machine B i need apache, since i need to support php as well
17:32 MHSL kernel level, ic, anything beside kernel level stuff
17:32 jasonb If you have to use PHP, then you can proxy from Tomcat to Apache for those requests, proxying requests from Tomcat --> httpd is faster than proxying from httpd --> Tomcat.
17:33 jasonb You don't need to run any kernel-level stuff if you don't want to.. there are both user space and kernel space layer 7 switches.
17:33 MHSL ic, so you're saying, set up proxy on tomcat and forward php to httpd instead
17:33 MHSL and i also prefer the cross platform app
17:33 jasonb Yes. The performance is far better.
17:34 MHSL i meant, i prefer the cross platform way of doing tomcat clustering without httpd (if it's better)
17:35 MHSL jasonb, is terracota supported with tomcat?
17:35 jasonb MHSL: You probably want this link to the user space layer 7 switch: http://l7-filter.sourceforge.net/HOWTO-userspace
17:36 MHSL jasonb, so in essense that still relies on iptables, correct?
17:36 *** roadt joined #tomcat
17:36 jasonb MHSL: Terracotta is one thing I don't know much about yet. :)
17:37 MHSL ic
17:37 MHSL wonder whether tomcat will work with that
17:37 jasonb MHSL: I believe this user space L7 switch implementation does rely on iptables, but this is a Linux solution.. I don't know of any kind of a cross-platform layer 7 software switch. There probably isn't one.
17:38 MHSL ic
17:38 jasonb Tomcat probably does work with terracotta.
17:38 MHSL so in this case apache can still be used as a cross platform method?
17:39 MHSL unless there is a different way of doing it instead of using apache
16:54 azathoth99 does tomcat 5.5 run with java 1.6?
16:56 MHSL azathoth99, yes
17:02 azathoth99 is java_home set to /some/path/java-xyz not /some/path/java-xyz/bin/java right?
17:04 azathoth99 going to assume yes
17:08 MHSL yes
17:18 azathoth99 so where does one go to learn to build a webapps with the jsp servet stuff?
17:18 azathoth99 servlet even
17:19 jasonb There are web pages, but probably tutorial books are best.
17:19 jasonb One of the best servlet programming books is "Java Servlet Programming" (O'Reilly).
17:19 azathoth99 are servelts ok on memory
17:19 jasonb Yes, great.
17:19 azathoth99 or do they burn up a cpu
17:20 azathoth99 and this async stuff?
17:20 jasonb No, they're very lightweight, if they're not poorly written.
17:20 azathoth99 wher is that liek described?
17:20 azathoth99 ok cool
17:20 jasonb what async stuff?
17:21 MHSL jasonb, are you aware of this error, if you are, what may be the cause? http://pastebin.com/d3afa1b7e
17:21 azathoth99 nio
17:23 jasonb azathoth99: What makes you think you should use the NIO connector, or any async stuff?
17:23 MHSL azathoth99, you should also learn how to use google
17:23 jasonb MHSL: Which version of Tomcat? And, which connector implementation are you using?
17:24 MHSL jasonb, tomcat 6.0.14 and mod_jk 1.2.26
17:24 azathoth99 I dunno
17:24 jasonb MHSL: And on the Tomcat side, you're using the JIO JK connector?
17:24 azathoth99 I heard async was faster
17:24 jasonb azathoth99: It's not.
17:24 azathoth99 !!
17:25 azathoth99 really?
17:25 MHSL jasonb, AJP/1.3 if that's what you're asking
17:25 jasonb MHSL: Do you have clustering configured/enabled?
17:25 MHSL yes
17:25 MHSL default configuration
17:25 jasonb MHSL: By default, clustering is turned off.
17:25 MHSL yes, it's turned on, but i'm using the default clustering configuration
17:26 jasonb MHSL: Ahh.
17:26 jasonb MHSL: This exception is in part of the clustering code.
17:26 MHSL yep
17:26 jasonb MHSL: I haven't seen it before, but I can tell it's the clustering code. :) That code is better than it was, but it's still not very used, and not very mature.
17:26 MHSL ic
17:27 jasonb MHSL: It looks to me like it's a regular bug that you should report in Tomcat's/ASF's bugzilla.
17:27 MHSL maybe i'll give 6.0.18 a try and see whether i'll still get the same error, because i cant really see the cause of it
17:27 MHSL the problem is, i dont know how to reproduce it
17:27 MHSL but i got it quite often, it may be something related to webapp reloading
17:27 jasonb MHSL: The clustering code hasn't changed all that much recently, but 6.0.14 was out quite a while ago, so there may have been some changes/fixes in the clustering code.
17:28 MHSL ic, i know that there are some changes to the configuration part, but not sure whether this issue has been fixed, maybe i'll also take a look at the changes
17:28 jasonb MHSL: I'd suggest not using mod_jk, first, and then I'd suggest not using JK at all.. use mod_proxy and send your requests via HTTP.
17:28 MHSL i dont really want to send all requests to tomcat, since that defeats the purpose of apache
17:29 MHSL just want to forward any jsp/servlets/actions stuff to tomcat, and the rest handled by apache
17:29 jasonb No, I'm not suggesting making Tomcat the first contact web server (you actually should.. Tomcat is faster and more secure). But, what I said was to use mod_proxy to send requests from httpd to Tomcat.
17:30 jasonb Tomcat is faster at handling static file requests than apache httpd is, in case you didn't know.
17:30 MHSL ok, let's talk about tomcat standalone, how are you going about doing clustering without a middle man like apache?
17:31 MHSL and session replication for that matter
17:32 jasonb All you need is a layer 7 switch such as any layer 7 load balancer box, or if you want all open source software then here's one: http://l7-filter.sourceforge.net/HOWTO-kernel
17:32 MHSL since i have 2 machines, on machine A i dont really need apache, but on machine B i need apache, since i need to support php as well
17:32 MHSL kernel level, ic, anything beside kernel level stuff
17:32 jasonb If you have to use PHP, then you can proxy from Tomcat to Apache for those requests, proxying requests from Tomcat --> httpd is faster than proxying from httpd --> Tomcat.
17:33 jasonb You don't need to run any kernel-level stuff if you don't want to.. there are both user space and kernel space layer 7 switches.
17:33 MHSL ic, so you're saying, set up proxy on tomcat and forward php to httpd instead
17:33 MHSL and i also prefer the cross platform app
17:33 jasonb Yes. The performance is far better.
17:34 MHSL i meant, i prefer the cross platform way of doing tomcat clustering without httpd (if it's better)
17:35 MHSL jasonb, is terracota supported with tomcat?
17:35 jasonb MHSL: You probably want this link to the user space layer 7 switch: http://l7-filter.sourceforge.net/HOWTO-userspace
17:36 MHSL jasonb, so in essense that still relies on iptables, correct?
17:36 *** roadt joined #tomcat
17:36 jasonb MHSL: Terracotta is one thing I don't know much about yet. :)
17:37 MHSL ic
17:37 MHSL wonder whether tomcat will work with that
17:37 jasonb MHSL: I believe this user space L7 switch implementation does rely on iptables, but this is a Linux solution.. I don't know of any kind of a cross-platform layer 7 software switch. There probably isn't one.
17:38 MHSL ic
17:38 jasonb Tomcat probably does work with terracotta.
17:38 MHSL so in this case apache can still be used as a cross platform method?
17:39 MHSL unless there is a different way of doing it instead of using apache
stossel on mcbama
John Stossel's E-Mail
Oct. 16, 2008
98 comments
FONT SIZE
EMAIL
PRINT
SHARE
RSS
I just wanted to remind you that I have a special hour on "20/20" tonight.
At 10 p.m. ET, ABC airs "John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics."
There's tremendous excitement about this year's election. People say that their candidate will fix America. Barack Obama inspires idol worship that's usually lavished on rock stars. At the Republican convention, one man told me John McCain was like Superman.
Give me a break. Obama and McCain would have to be a combination of Superman, Santa Claus and Mother Teresa to do what their supporters say they will do. Even if they were, politicians cannot direct our lives and solve our problems. This faith in political solutions thrives in the face of repeated government failure:
Big farm bills have raised the price of food and squeezed out small farms. Campaign finance reform has made it harder to challenge incumbents. FEMA can't deliver water to a hurricane-ravaged New Orleans as well as Walmart can. Medicare has a $35 trillion unfunded liability.
Politicians' "fixes" usually make things worse. Yet the media and the political class call for more government control. Do we really need a president to plan our lives? No. Most of life works best when YOU are in charge.
Imagine that you had never seen a skating rink, and I told you: "I'm going to have people strap blades to their feet and go out on ice -- experts and beginners -- fast movers and slow -- all skating where they choose to go." Your initial response would be, "That would create bedlam! We must have rules: signs, traffic cops (aka: a president), or skaters will smash into each other." But of course, the existence of rinks demonstrates that there is another way to organize life: something called spontaneous order.
We need some predictable and understandable rules -- like the rules you learn in kindergarten: don't hit other people, don't take their stuff and keep your promises -- but most of life is governed by spontaneous order. It regulates how we choose our jobs, hobbies, lovers, recreation and most of the best of our lives. It runs most of the economy. The Soviet Union taught us what happens if government tries to plan the economy: people starve.
Something similar happens when I try to "govern" the skating rink (I shout orders with a bullhorn). Skaters hate it. Some fall down. I suppose a politician would say I failed at "leading" the rink because I'm not smart enough, I don't know enough about skating, so we need to elect a more expert leader. So I get Olympic gold medalist Brian Boitano to take the bullhorn. He does no better than I.
The moral: Intuition leads us to think that complex problems require centrally planned solutions, but political decision making is rarely the answer.
Government fails even when Americans clearly want government help, like after a disaster. Compare Walmart's response to FEMA's after Hurricane Katrina. Walmart got water to people while FEMA bureaucrats dithered. Was FEMA's failure Bush's fault? Was it because "Brownie" didn't do "a terrific job"? No. All governments make mistakes like that.
I interview New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who acknowledges it, saying "Government is the PROBLEM, at all levels."
Nagin says he's improving things. Has he? In the worst hit part of his city, most homes still look like wrecks. Why haven't they been rebuilt? Partly because before people are allowed to rebuild, they must get government permits. Getting one can be a nightmare. I try Nagin's automated permit kiosks. They didn't work.
Amid the devastation in New Orleans, there are pockets of beautifully rebuilt homes. It turns out they were rebuilt in spite of government, by private charities, like Habitat for Humanity. Brad Pitt, Michael Moore and Harry Connick Jr. helped. It's the spontaneous order.
Nagin, when confronted about New Orleans' failures, said, "You guys in New York City can't get a hole in the ground fixed. And it's five years later. So let's be fair." Nagin has a point. Even the city that never sleeps can't manage to rebuild at ground zero. They've tried for seven years. Yet right next to that horrible hole in the ground is a brand new building. It was built in half the time it's taken governments to build … nothing. How did it get built? It was financed by a private company.
Yet people still thrill to hear politicians' magic "solutions." Even McCain's opponents praise him as a reformer for campaign finance reform, which promised to get the big money out of politics. Yet campaign finance law, like all our government's laws, is subject to a still more powerful law: the Law of Unintended Consequences. Campaign finance "reform" has actually made it harder for the little guy to have his voice heard.
We interview one little guy, Dr. Ada Fisher. She ran for Congress on a shoestring budget. Her staff was entirely composed of unpaid volunteers. They tried to obey the rules, but campaign finance laws are so complex -- I taped the pages together and stretch them out at New York Giants' stadium; they are longer than the length of the field -- that they were unable to get some forms filled out in time. They ended up being personally liable for $10,000 in fines. They didn't have it. Says Fisher: "The system is rigged for incumbents and against challengers, because incumbents already know the game. They have gamed the game to win."
I tried filling out some Colorado campaign finance forms. I couldn't. One political science professor asked 200 educated people to fill out sample forms. No one completed all the forms correctly. One young man told us the forms killed any interest he had in elective office: "I'd rather just not get involved in the process if I have to go through the nonsense that I had to go through today."
McCain declined to be interviewed about his revered "reform," so I confront three reform supporters. Cecilia Martinez, who works for a campaign finance reform group once headed by McCain, said the campaign forms are "very simple." Paul Ryan, who works for a group founded by McCain's campaign lawyer, told me, "This is really good. I'm happy to see that the state of Colorado is doing this much to help people understand." But when I asked them to show me how easy it was, and fill out the forms then, all declined. Ryan sent in his correctly, but not until a week later.
For all its complications, what has "reform" accomplished? Just as many congressional incumbents win elections now than did during the Watergate era. Obama has backed out of public financing so he can keep attending $20,000-a-plate fundraisers. McCain skirted his own donation limits. Today there's more money in political campaigns than ever.
Enough on McCain; it's Obama's turn. He supports farm subsidies, saying that America has "farms to save." McCain opposed this year's $300 billion farm bill, calling it "bloated" legislation that "will do more harm than good," but Obama supports it. The bill spends huge amounts of money and fails to accomplish its goals. It was supposed to save small farmers and small towns. Instead it fuels the expansion of industrial megafarms and the depopulation of rural America. A study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City shows the more federal farm dollars a county receives, the more likely it is to lose population.
Congress' protectionism has other unintended consequences. Food costs more because farmers are paid NOT to farm. We use home video cameras to show how real estate agents sell homes to non-farmers by promising "farm" subsidies.
Yes, its true that without subsidies, some farms will go out of business. "That's OK," says economist Walter Williams, it's the creative destruction that makes America strong. "When there's progress, certain jobs are destroyed and certain jobs are created," says Williams. "The guy who used to deliver ice to my house no longer has that job. If we had tried to save his job, America would have been held back."
But Obama still wants to spend your tax dollars to try to keep farms in business. So far, it hasn't worked. Today Obama and McCain advocate similar subsidies to try to protect auto companies and big banks. How well is that working for you?
Listening to the media and the political class, you'd think the election is about who will "run America." But politicians don't run the country; 300 million free individuals run the country. "We don't appreciate the things that we do on our own that are not designed by anyone but still get solved. We naturally assume that good stuff that happened must have been caused by someone -- the president, a planner, an expert. We forget solutions emerge without anyone designing them," says Russ Roberts, a professor of economics with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
David Boaz, senior vice president of the Cato Institute, points out that most change doesn't come from politicians. "It comes from people inventing things and creating. The telephone, the telegraph, the computer -- all those kinds of things didn't come from government. They came from people. Most of life -- our families, our romances, our jobs, our travel, our learning -- is outside the government sector. We think sometimes of government as being so important -- and it can interfere in our lives in a lot of ways -- but if the government just protects us from rapists and murderers and foreign armies, and leaves us alone to run our own lives, we'll be better off."
Amen to that.
Here are some edited comments on my latest column, "The Reregulation Mantra":
Oct. 16, 2008
98 comments
FONT SIZE
SHARE
RSS
I just wanted to remind you that I have a special hour on "20/20" tonight.
At 10 p.m. ET, ABC airs "John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics."
There's tremendous excitement about this year's election. People say that their candidate will fix America. Barack Obama inspires idol worship that's usually lavished on rock stars. At the Republican convention, one man told me John McCain was like Superman.
Give me a break. Obama and McCain would have to be a combination of Superman, Santa Claus and Mother Teresa to do what their supporters say they will do. Even if they were, politicians cannot direct our lives and solve our problems. This faith in political solutions thrives in the face of repeated government failure:
Big farm bills have raised the price of food and squeezed out small farms. Campaign finance reform has made it harder to challenge incumbents. FEMA can't deliver water to a hurricane-ravaged New Orleans as well as Walmart can. Medicare has a $35 trillion unfunded liability.
Politicians' "fixes" usually make things worse. Yet the media and the political class call for more government control. Do we really need a president to plan our lives? No. Most of life works best when YOU are in charge.
Imagine that you had never seen a skating rink, and I told you: "I'm going to have people strap blades to their feet and go out on ice -- experts and beginners -- fast movers and slow -- all skating where they choose to go." Your initial response would be, "That would create bedlam! We must have rules: signs, traffic cops (aka: a president), or skaters will smash into each other." But of course, the existence of rinks demonstrates that there is another way to organize life: something called spontaneous order.
We need some predictable and understandable rules -- like the rules you learn in kindergarten: don't hit other people, don't take their stuff and keep your promises -- but most of life is governed by spontaneous order. It regulates how we choose our jobs, hobbies, lovers, recreation and most of the best of our lives. It runs most of the economy. The Soviet Union taught us what happens if government tries to plan the economy: people starve.
Something similar happens when I try to "govern" the skating rink (I shout orders with a bullhorn). Skaters hate it. Some fall down. I suppose a politician would say I failed at "leading" the rink because I'm not smart enough, I don't know enough about skating, so we need to elect a more expert leader. So I get Olympic gold medalist Brian Boitano to take the bullhorn. He does no better than I.
The moral: Intuition leads us to think that complex problems require centrally planned solutions, but political decision making is rarely the answer.
Government fails even when Americans clearly want government help, like after a disaster. Compare Walmart's response to FEMA's after Hurricane Katrina. Walmart got water to people while FEMA bureaucrats dithered. Was FEMA's failure Bush's fault? Was it because "Brownie" didn't do "a terrific job"? No. All governments make mistakes like that.
I interview New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who acknowledges it, saying "Government is the PROBLEM, at all levels."
Nagin says he's improving things. Has he? In the worst hit part of his city, most homes still look like wrecks. Why haven't they been rebuilt? Partly because before people are allowed to rebuild, they must get government permits. Getting one can be a nightmare. I try Nagin's automated permit kiosks. They didn't work.
Amid the devastation in New Orleans, there are pockets of beautifully rebuilt homes. It turns out they were rebuilt in spite of government, by private charities, like Habitat for Humanity. Brad Pitt, Michael Moore and Harry Connick Jr. helped. It's the spontaneous order.
Nagin, when confronted about New Orleans' failures, said, "You guys in New York City can't get a hole in the ground fixed. And it's five years later. So let's be fair." Nagin has a point. Even the city that never sleeps can't manage to rebuild at ground zero. They've tried for seven years. Yet right next to that horrible hole in the ground is a brand new building. It was built in half the time it's taken governments to build … nothing. How did it get built? It was financed by a private company.
Yet people still thrill to hear politicians' magic "solutions." Even McCain's opponents praise him as a reformer for campaign finance reform, which promised to get the big money out of politics. Yet campaign finance law, like all our government's laws, is subject to a still more powerful law: the Law of Unintended Consequences. Campaign finance "reform" has actually made it harder for the little guy to have his voice heard.
We interview one little guy, Dr. Ada Fisher. She ran for Congress on a shoestring budget. Her staff was entirely composed of unpaid volunteers. They tried to obey the rules, but campaign finance laws are so complex -- I taped the pages together and stretch them out at New York Giants' stadium; they are longer than the length of the field -- that they were unable to get some forms filled out in time. They ended up being personally liable for $10,000 in fines. They didn't have it. Says Fisher: "The system is rigged for incumbents and against challengers, because incumbents already know the game. They have gamed the game to win."
I tried filling out some Colorado campaign finance forms. I couldn't. One political science professor asked 200 educated people to fill out sample forms. No one completed all the forms correctly. One young man told us the forms killed any interest he had in elective office: "I'd rather just not get involved in the process if I have to go through the nonsense that I had to go through today."
McCain declined to be interviewed about his revered "reform," so I confront three reform supporters. Cecilia Martinez, who works for a campaign finance reform group once headed by McCain, said the campaign forms are "very simple." Paul Ryan, who works for a group founded by McCain's campaign lawyer, told me, "This is really good. I'm happy to see that the state of Colorado is doing this much to help people understand." But when I asked them to show me how easy it was, and fill out the forms then, all declined. Ryan sent in his correctly, but not until a week later.
For all its complications, what has "reform" accomplished? Just as many congressional incumbents win elections now than did during the Watergate era. Obama has backed out of public financing so he can keep attending $20,000-a-plate fundraisers. McCain skirted his own donation limits. Today there's more money in political campaigns than ever.
Enough on McCain; it's Obama's turn. He supports farm subsidies, saying that America has "farms to save." McCain opposed this year's $300 billion farm bill, calling it "bloated" legislation that "will do more harm than good," but Obama supports it. The bill spends huge amounts of money and fails to accomplish its goals. It was supposed to save small farmers and small towns. Instead it fuels the expansion of industrial megafarms and the depopulation of rural America. A study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City shows the more federal farm dollars a county receives, the more likely it is to lose population.
Congress' protectionism has other unintended consequences. Food costs more because farmers are paid NOT to farm. We use home video cameras to show how real estate agents sell homes to non-farmers by promising "farm" subsidies.
Yes, its true that without subsidies, some farms will go out of business. "That's OK," says economist Walter Williams, it's the creative destruction that makes America strong. "When there's progress, certain jobs are destroyed and certain jobs are created," says Williams. "The guy who used to deliver ice to my house no longer has that job. If we had tried to save his job, America would have been held back."
But Obama still wants to spend your tax dollars to try to keep farms in business. So far, it hasn't worked. Today Obama and McCain advocate similar subsidies to try to protect auto companies and big banks. How well is that working for you?
Listening to the media and the political class, you'd think the election is about who will "run America." But politicians don't run the country; 300 million free individuals run the country. "We don't appreciate the things that we do on our own that are not designed by anyone but still get solved. We naturally assume that good stuff that happened must have been caused by someone -- the president, a planner, an expert. We forget solutions emerge without anyone designing them," says Russ Roberts, a professor of economics with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
David Boaz, senior vice president of the Cato Institute, points out that most change doesn't come from politicians. "It comes from people inventing things and creating. The telephone, the telegraph, the computer -- all those kinds of things didn't come from government. They came from people. Most of life -- our families, our romances, our jobs, our travel, our learning -- is outside the government sector. We think sometimes of government as being so important -- and it can interfere in our lives in a lot of ways -- but if the government just protects us from rapists and murderers and foreign armies, and leaves us alone to run our own lives, we'll be better off."
Amen to that.
Here are some edited comments on my latest column, "The Reregulation Mantra":
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
fed is a tax -- no limit now second stim package
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown
trader journal
http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=1d16d21bd7cb71fa35d83bf1d4f5f744&threadid=114087
sarah silverman bombs in uk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/10/20/btsilverman120.xml
why didn't mccain call obama on 95%
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
[Review & Outlook] AP
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
[Review & Outlook]
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
[Review & Outlook] AP
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
[Review & Outlook]
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
madonna gives guy 60m in divorce
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/report-madonna-guy-ritchies-60m-divorce-settlement/14346?nc
Lahde Quits Hedge Funds, Thanks `Idiots' for Success
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aLmRPHKZLYmY&refer=home
Friday, October 17, 2008
Deadpan and emotionless, Fuld repeatedly frustrated congressmen by answering questions with lengthy, technical financial explanations.
'Your company is bankrupt, you keep $480m. Is that fair?'
* Andrew Clark in New York and Elana Schor in Washington
* The Guardian,
* Tuesday October 7 2008
* Article history
Richard Fuld testifies in Washington Link to this video
It was a showdown to cherish for critics of Wall Street's culture of enrichment. The grim-faced boss of the bankrupt bank Lehman Brothers was left squirming yesterday as a veteran Democrat roasted him over his multimillion-dollar pay.
With the startled look of a man unaccustomed to sharp examination, Lehman chief executive Richard Fuld clashed bluntly with the chairman of the House oversight committee, Henry Waxman, on Capitol Hill.
Called on to explain why Lehman collapsed last month, Fuld began with a note of humility, saying he felt "horrible" over the demise of the 158-year-old institution. "I want to be very clear," Fuld said. "I take full responsibility for the decisions I made and for the actions I took."
In a brief speech which was heard in silence, Fuld told legislators that if he could turn back the clock he would do many things differently. As soon as he finished speaking, sparks began to fly.
The chairman of the committee held up a chart suggesting that Fuld's personal remuneration totalled $480m (£276m) over eight years, including payouts of $91m in 2001 and $89m in 2005.
"Your company is now bankrupt and our country is in a state of crisis," said Waxman, a liberal from California. "You get to keep $480m. I have a very basic question: Is that fair?"
After a long pause, Fuld said the figure was exaggerated: "The majority of my compensation, sir, came in stock. The vast majority of the stock I got I still owned at the point of our [bankruptcy] filing."
Waxman cut him off, saying that even if the figure was slightly lower, it was "unimaginable" to much of the public. "Is that fair, for a CEO of a company that's now bankrupt, to make that kind of money? It's just unimaginable to so many people."
"I would say to you the $500m number is not accurate," said Fuld. "I'd say to you, although it's still a large number, for the years you're talking about here, my cash compensation was close to $60m, which you've indicated here, and I took out closer to $250m [in shares]."
Interrupting again, Waxman listed Fuld's collection of property, including a $14m ocean-front villa in Florida and a home in an exclusive ski resort.
"You and your wife have an art collection filled with million dollar paintings," Waxman said. "Your former president, Joe Gregory, used to travel to work in a helicopter."
A pugnacious congressman with a bald head and military moustache, Waxman warmed to his theme: "You made all this money taking risks with other people's money."
Refusing to give ground, Fuld said his pay had been set by an independent compensation committee which spent "a tremendous amount of time" making sure executives' interests were aligned with those of shareholders.
"When the company did well, we did well," Fuld said. "When the company did not do well, we didn't do well."
Waxman disagreed: "Mr Fuld, there seems to be a breakdown, because you did very well when the company was doing well and you did well when the company was not doing well. And now your shareholders who owned your company have nothing. They've been wiped out."
Fuld's evidence was his first public appearance since Lehman failed, sparking a chain of events which has sent shockwaves through the global financial system and prompted the US government to begin a $700bn bail-out of the banking sector.
A lifelong Lehman employee who joined the firm as an intern in 1966, Fuld has been blamed for the debacle by many of the bank's 28,000 staff - including those in London who have accused senior management of filleting Lehman's British operation of money in the bank's final days.
Deadpan and emotionless, Fuld repeatedly frustrated congressmen by answering questions with lengthy, technical financial explanations.
Frustrated by his demeanour, a Republican congressman, John Mica, tried humour: "If you haven't discovered your role, you're the villain today. You've got to act like a villain."
Fuld stared back wordlessly, without a shadow of a smile.
* Andrew Clark in New York and Elana Schor in Washington
* The Guardian,
* Tuesday October 7 2008
* Article history
Richard Fuld testifies in Washington Link to this video
It was a showdown to cherish for critics of Wall Street's culture of enrichment. The grim-faced boss of the bankrupt bank Lehman Brothers was left squirming yesterday as a veteran Democrat roasted him over his multimillion-dollar pay.
With the startled look of a man unaccustomed to sharp examination, Lehman chief executive Richard Fuld clashed bluntly with the chairman of the House oversight committee, Henry Waxman, on Capitol Hill.
Called on to explain why Lehman collapsed last month, Fuld began with a note of humility, saying he felt "horrible" over the demise of the 158-year-old institution. "I want to be very clear," Fuld said. "I take full responsibility for the decisions I made and for the actions I took."
In a brief speech which was heard in silence, Fuld told legislators that if he could turn back the clock he would do many things differently. As soon as he finished speaking, sparks began to fly.
The chairman of the committee held up a chart suggesting that Fuld's personal remuneration totalled $480m (£276m) over eight years, including payouts of $91m in 2001 and $89m in 2005.
"Your company is now bankrupt and our country is in a state of crisis," said Waxman, a liberal from California. "You get to keep $480m. I have a very basic question: Is that fair?"
After a long pause, Fuld said the figure was exaggerated: "The majority of my compensation, sir, came in stock. The vast majority of the stock I got I still owned at the point of our [bankruptcy] filing."
Waxman cut him off, saying that even if the figure was slightly lower, it was "unimaginable" to much of the public. "Is that fair, for a CEO of a company that's now bankrupt, to make that kind of money? It's just unimaginable to so many people."
"I would say to you the $500m number is not accurate," said Fuld. "I'd say to you, although it's still a large number, for the years you're talking about here, my cash compensation was close to $60m, which you've indicated here, and I took out closer to $250m [in shares]."
Interrupting again, Waxman listed Fuld's collection of property, including a $14m ocean-front villa in Florida and a home in an exclusive ski resort.
"You and your wife have an art collection filled with million dollar paintings," Waxman said. "Your former president, Joe Gregory, used to travel to work in a helicopter."
A pugnacious congressman with a bald head and military moustache, Waxman warmed to his theme: "You made all this money taking risks with other people's money."
Refusing to give ground, Fuld said his pay had been set by an independent compensation committee which spent "a tremendous amount of time" making sure executives' interests were aligned with those of shareholders.
"When the company did well, we did well," Fuld said. "When the company did not do well, we didn't do well."
Waxman disagreed: "Mr Fuld, there seems to be a breakdown, because you did very well when the company was doing well and you did well when the company was not doing well. And now your shareholders who owned your company have nothing. They've been wiped out."
Fuld's evidence was his first public appearance since Lehman failed, sparking a chain of events which has sent shockwaves through the global financial system and prompted the US government to begin a $700bn bail-out of the banking sector.
A lifelong Lehman employee who joined the firm as an intern in 1966, Fuld has been blamed for the debacle by many of the bank's 28,000 staff - including those in London who have accused senior management of filleting Lehman's British operation of money in the bank's final days.
Deadpan and emotionless, Fuld repeatedly frustrated congressmen by answering questions with lengthy, technical financial explanations.
Frustrated by his demeanour, a Republican congressman, John Mica, tried humour: "If you haven't discovered your role, you're the villain today. You've got to act like a villain."
Fuld stared back wordlessly, without a shadow of a smile.
lehman-brothers-ceo-got-punched-in-the-face
http://consumerist.com/5060063/lehman-brothers-ceo-got-punched-in-the-face
"The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets."
Peter Schiff: The Beginning of the End - "our economy will now face death by hyperinflation"
3 points by nickb 6 days ago | 39 comments
Editor's Note: Schiff predicted the current crisis with stunning accuracy over two years ago and now he is sounding another alarm bell. Read his latest advisory below.
From Peter Schiff's weekly email:
The Beginning of the End
October 10, 2008
Peter Schiff, President and Chief Global Strategist
While I have warned for years that the United States was headed into the eye of an economic hurricane, nearly every other "expert" from Washington, Wall Street, the press and academia saw nothing ahead but sunny skies. Now, suddenly, there is an overwhelming consensus that absent the Federal mortgage bailout, my dire forecast would have come to pass. While I'm glad that rose colored glasses have finally been removed from so many eyes, the vast majority of these observers are still blind. In truth, the bailout plan substantially increases the threats to the U.S. economy.
When I wrote my book "Crash Proof", I not only predicted that our consumer/mortgage credit-based economy would fall apart, but that the government would ineptly try to repair it. The magnitude of those potential policies formed the basis of my worst case scenario. My fears have now been confirmed, and the U.S. Government is now set to destroy all hope of economic recovery.
Make no mistake; had the government resisted the political pressure to interfere with the markets, we would now be experiencing a very deep recession. But by refusing to let the markets work, policy makers are resisting the only medicine capable of curing the economic disease that afflicts us. The same mistakes were made in the early 1930's, causing a severe financial crisis to morph into the decade-long Great Depression.
The government will now attempt to keep bad loans from failing and real estate prices from falling. Rather then allowing market forces to rein in excess borrowing and replenish savings, it will encourage even more borrowing and drain what is left of our savings pool. Rather than allowing our economy to return to one based on legitimate production, it will continue to encourage reckless consumption.
In the end, by refusing to allow market forces to work their cure, our economy will inevitably die from the disease. Our economy will now face death by hyperinflation, which will cause a complete loss of confidence in the dollar and result in prices and interest rates skyrocketing out of sight. The evaporation of our national wealth will lead to civil unrest, food and energy shortages, and the possible imposition of martial law. If such a scenario unfolds, what is left of our Constitution will surely be completely shredded.
Although this reality looms as large as anything I have ever seen, investors still do not see the forest for the trees. Convinced that the bailout will actually work, and that foreign governments are derelict for not launching similar plans, global investors are fleeing other currencies in favor of the dollar. Soon investors will discover that foreign politicians and central bankers have acted responsibly. When they do, the current gains seen by the dollar will reverse violently.
Investors seem to be bracing themselves for a global depression that will not occur. Foreign stocks, particularly those exposed to China or natural resources, are trading at the lowest valuations I have seen in my entire career. Fears of a global meltdown are based on the misconception that the U.S. economy is the tent pole for economic activity around the world. The premise of my entire argument is that the U.S. economy, by consuming so much of the world's resources and manufactured goods, and borrowing so much of the world's savings, has in fact been a drag on the global economy.
The enormous global vendor financing scheme is finally coming to an end as the vendors discover that their biggest customer is flat broke. In the short run, our creditors are experiencing some pain because they finally realize that they will never get their money back.
Once the foreign stock markets take this hit, they will be far better poised to grow than their American counterpart. Foreigners will reclaim their productivity and savings for themselves, and will subsequently experience the biggest global economic boom in history. America on the other hand will fare much worse, as we will be left with a hollowed out manufacturing base, dilapidated infrastructure, no savings, and a gigantic Federal Government that will regulate, spend, borrow and print our economy into ruin.
For an updated look at my investment strategy, order a copy of my just released book, "The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets." While the "bull moves" I forecast have yet to materialize, I am confident that given time they will. The good news is that now you actually have some time to put my strategy in place at favorable prices and exchange rates!
-- Peter Schiff is the President, Founder and Chief Global Strategist for Euro Pacific Capital. He is widely acknowledged as a expert in international markets, and in global economic strategy. He is a speaker at all the major investment conferences. He is regularly featured on CNBC and Bloomerg TV , and often quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Barron's, New York Times, the Financial Times, Investors Business Daily, and many others.
3 points by nickb 6 days ago | 39 comments
Editor's Note: Schiff predicted the current crisis with stunning accuracy over two years ago and now he is sounding another alarm bell. Read his latest advisory below.
From Peter Schiff's weekly email:
The Beginning of the End
October 10, 2008
Peter Schiff, President and Chief Global Strategist
While I have warned for years that the United States was headed into the eye of an economic hurricane, nearly every other "expert" from Washington, Wall Street, the press and academia saw nothing ahead but sunny skies. Now, suddenly, there is an overwhelming consensus that absent the Federal mortgage bailout, my dire forecast would have come to pass. While I'm glad that rose colored glasses have finally been removed from so many eyes, the vast majority of these observers are still blind. In truth, the bailout plan substantially increases the threats to the U.S. economy.
When I wrote my book "Crash Proof", I not only predicted that our consumer/mortgage credit-based economy would fall apart, but that the government would ineptly try to repair it. The magnitude of those potential policies formed the basis of my worst case scenario. My fears have now been confirmed, and the U.S. Government is now set to destroy all hope of economic recovery.
Make no mistake; had the government resisted the political pressure to interfere with the markets, we would now be experiencing a very deep recession. But by refusing to let the markets work, policy makers are resisting the only medicine capable of curing the economic disease that afflicts us. The same mistakes were made in the early 1930's, causing a severe financial crisis to morph into the decade-long Great Depression.
The government will now attempt to keep bad loans from failing and real estate prices from falling. Rather then allowing market forces to rein in excess borrowing and replenish savings, it will encourage even more borrowing and drain what is left of our savings pool. Rather than allowing our economy to return to one based on legitimate production, it will continue to encourage reckless consumption.
In the end, by refusing to allow market forces to work their cure, our economy will inevitably die from the disease. Our economy will now face death by hyperinflation, which will cause a complete loss of confidence in the dollar and result in prices and interest rates skyrocketing out of sight. The evaporation of our national wealth will lead to civil unrest, food and energy shortages, and the possible imposition of martial law. If such a scenario unfolds, what is left of our Constitution will surely be completely shredded.
Although this reality looms as large as anything I have ever seen, investors still do not see the forest for the trees. Convinced that the bailout will actually work, and that foreign governments are derelict for not launching similar plans, global investors are fleeing other currencies in favor of the dollar. Soon investors will discover that foreign politicians and central bankers have acted responsibly. When they do, the current gains seen by the dollar will reverse violently.
Investors seem to be bracing themselves for a global depression that will not occur. Foreign stocks, particularly those exposed to China or natural resources, are trading at the lowest valuations I have seen in my entire career. Fears of a global meltdown are based on the misconception that the U.S. economy is the tent pole for economic activity around the world. The premise of my entire argument is that the U.S. economy, by consuming so much of the world's resources and manufactured goods, and borrowing so much of the world's savings, has in fact been a drag on the global economy.
The enormous global vendor financing scheme is finally coming to an end as the vendors discover that their biggest customer is flat broke. In the short run, our creditors are experiencing some pain because they finally realize that they will never get their money back.
Once the foreign stock markets take this hit, they will be far better poised to grow than their American counterpart. Foreigners will reclaim their productivity and savings for themselves, and will subsequently experience the biggest global economic boom in history. America on the other hand will fare much worse, as we will be left with a hollowed out manufacturing base, dilapidated infrastructure, no savings, and a gigantic Federal Government that will regulate, spend, borrow and print our economy into ruin.
For an updated look at my investment strategy, order a copy of my just released book, "The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets." While the "bull moves" I forecast have yet to materialize, I am confident that given time they will. The good news is that now you actually have some time to put my strategy in place at favorable prices and exchange rates!
-- Peter Schiff is the President, Founder and Chief Global Strategist for Euro Pacific Capital. He is widely acknowledged as a expert in international markets, and in global economic strategy. He is a speaker at all the major investment conferences. He is regularly featured on CNBC and Bloomerg TV , and often quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Barron's, New York Times, the Financial Times, Investors Business Daily, and many others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
