Off Topic; The downfall of the US.

In football, the referees don't make the rules, they simply enforce them.

And they CERTAINLY don't play the game!

Thanks, Rich

It's already been well-established that you prefer to be a slave than to face the risks (and concomitant benefits) of Liberty - but if you try to impose you own lord and master's will on US, remember, we have guns and know how to use them.

Personally, I prefer trying to be a grownup[1] over turning my will and my life over to the nanny state.

Good Luck! Rich [1] Admittedly, still working on that one! ;-)

Nice chart. It featured a GoogleAd, with propaganda from the most profligate spender in the history of mankind -- BarackObama.com (cited below)

The misrepresentation & projection is Keynesian / Orwellian ("cutting spending costs jobs", "divisive"--both are double plus untrue), but it's the illogic (false choices, etc.) that's especially chilling.

Lord save us.

--- quote --- "President Obama is committed to working with both parties to find common ground on a budget that allows us to live within our means while still investing in our future.

But he can't go along with a Republican plan that costs nearly 1 million American jobs, guts investments in education and innovation, and pursues a divisive social agenda.

If congressional Republicans won't come to the table ready to find a reasonable solution, the federal government will shut down. That's an outcome we can=97and must=97avoid.

Add your name today to show Republicans in Congress we stand behind the President=92s call to come together:

I stand with President Obama in support of passing a responsible budget =97one that cuts spending without slowing our economic growth or costing hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

Sincerely, "

---end quote ---

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Yep. Besides, AFAIK even Keynes never said wasting money (as we've done) was helpful, nor that failed businesses should be saved, nor was (FDR) digging from a deep a debt hole as we're currently in (i.e., he had more leeway w/o running aground).

And. all that aside, even with PrezBO's dissipated trillions and and trillions we're essentially already at Great Depression-level unemployment--roughly 19-20%--if you actually count the unemployed rather than use the gov't figures. (e.g., see Gallup)

Official unemployment is now 8.9% because people are giving up, not because they're finding jobs. Labor-force participation rates (LFPR) are plunging--fewer and fewer people are working. By 2007 (IIRC) LFPR, current unemployment would be >12% nationwide.

But Barack has a magic cure for people without jobs--just don't count them.

James Arthur

Yes, and the reason they're exporting jobs is because the unions are bankrupting them. It's nuts to pay $40.00/hour for work that's only worth ten.

Hope This Helps! Rich

e

What makes you think that? Money is just a device to allow us to equate the value of different goods and services. Gold is a useful metal, and people seem to like to own chunks of it, but allowing their enthusiasm to mess up the economy is insane.

If you beleived in monetarism this might be a relevant observation.

I don't think that any economist with any interest in reality would bother thinking about the proposition.

Or so you would like to think.

So how did we get from "bits of information" to gold? The price people will pay for gold is just one more chunk of price signalling information, and claiming that the price of gold has some unique significance is not a proposition for which you can peouce a rational argument.

And how does that bear on worrying about the price of gold?

The design was Russian - originally based on Walter Christie's 1928 work (but that was widely known by that time, and also adopted by English tank designers) and originally incorporated in the Russian BT tanks, from which the T-34 was evolved.

k/2/hi/6215847.stm

So what. It's production owed nothing to US efforts, and the design had evolved a fair way from Christie's original ideas. The T-34's suspension wasn't convertible.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

till

ve

ed

n

nt.

y

he

e t o

They are busy trying to debunk it, and their efforts sell well to right-wing nitwits who really want to believe the crap being peddled. You seem to forget that a large chunk of "economic science" is devoted to creating superficially plausible arguments that tell the rich what they want to hear.

Keynes was an energetic speculator and investor, and made a lot of money that way. Right wing economsts don't seem to have the same kind of contact wth reality, and have to rely on telling the rich what they want to hear to make their money.

r -

The bad real estate paper is universally accepted as the fundamental problem - nobody needs spend any time spelling that out. The drama was all about the order in which the various financial institutions fell apart.

Worrying about the "stock of money" is a monetarist preoccupation.

Monetarism is one more of those economic theories that has proved to be pretty much useless in practice. Thatcher believed in it, and during the 1980's the UK Treasury made solemn economic predictions based on monetarist theory, which Will Hutton - a UK economic journalist with close links to neo-Keynesian economists - took a lot of pleasure in second guessing. His predictions - published in the Guardian newspaper - were a lot more reliable than the Treasury's.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

James Arthur has cited this pseudo-reseach here before.

And your example is?

General Motors? Keynes might well have thought that saving a few hundred thousand jobs was worth a significant investment.

dwell

This does suggests that the rescue was rather more selective than your comment would suggest - a lot of dead wood was excised in the process.

And put a nasty crimp in the recovery by going for a balanced budet in

1937, which was a bit earlier than he should have done

You and your "reinterpreted" statistics ...

Labour-force participation rates are also dropping because people are living longer in retirement. The defects in the US health care system mean that your population dies a little earlier than those of other advanced industrial nations, but not enough to reverse this particular trend. Come up with some real numbers - and tell us exactly where you got them from.

You've a long history of selective and misleading misquotation, and I

- for one - don't attach any credibility to any unsupported number that you comne up with.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

YOU work for someone for only ten buck an hour, asshole.

The shit you spew in here tells me that is all YOU are worth.

*Learn* from the past, not wallow in it. Of course, if you have no future, the past is the only place you can look :-)...

Regards,

Chris

Absolute bollocks. I think you need to reexamine your history. Russia my have got to Berlin first, but the allies were well on their way by that time and fighting on several fronts. By the time the us came into wwII, the uk was on it's knees and western europe was in the tight grip of nazi control. It was only with us help that europe was liberated and lets not forget it as you view history through the blinkers of your anti americanism.

Shhesh, the way you talk, it's as though Russia won ww2 all by themselves. Still, strong, authoritarian, father figure leaders do appeal to a certain class of person...

Regards,

Chris

-)

The more expensive Barack makes it to employ people here, the fewer people will be employed here, right? Outsourcing is just capital fleeing oppression.

I don't approve of that. I want very much to keep jobs in America. The thing is you just can't heap burdens on people and expect them to take it forever, to the point of bankruptcy. Yet, Obama presses on.

I do approve of companies having the freedoms of free men and free people, which means they don't have to stay where they're ill-treated.

There are two aspects to Obama's harms--his spending, a burden which falls on, weighs down, damps, and which must be borne by the productive people; and his anti-jobs anti-employer policies. Both work to drive down employment and drive away employers.

Yes, cut spending! We simply have to here, it's now a matter of survival. And we need to stop making promises we can't keep--that's dishonest. We've promised benefits we can't possibly pay, and thrown Obamacare on the heap.

Beyond that, we have to remember that government lives off society, not the reverse. Any government we mutually decide we need takes resources /out/ of production and /drags/ on society. Government is a

*cost*, not a benefactor. It doesn't create wealth, it lives on ours.

"Stimulus spending," for example, kills 2 or 3 real jobs for every temporary, make-work "job" created. It's a voodoo solution to what ails us.

Ethanol from corn is stupid, yet we're accelerating and mandating more of it. 40% of American corn is now grown for ethanol, driving up pollution, the cost of fuel, and the cost of food. It's suicidal.

.

Businesses provide _all_ jobs. Government jobs are funded by taxes _from_ employers and employees. Those taxes _reduce_ total employment. (e.g., if you take $50K in extra tax from an employer, how many people will that make him hire? Answer: -1.)

Not only does government subsist entirely off the blood of businesses, but its functions act, in large part, to impede them.

Gov't is necessary, but more is not always better. They do dumb, wasteful things like mandating ethanol and bad mortgages.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

The perfect storm.

No, they export jobs so that they can make more profit for their shareholders and has nothing to do with the value of work. At least governments have to be reelected, whereas globalised companies only need to think about the bottom line and are unencumbered by any ethical considerations. For any civilisation to survive and be reasonably stable, the relationship between wages and the cost of living, such as shelter, food clothing etc, has to be such that people can have a reasonable standard of living. If you ship jobs to low cost countries so that domestic workforce can no longer compete bacause of high and rising cost of living, what do those people do ?. Let them starve in the street, or do you perhaps have a more final solution ?.

All the talk about millions of dead in wars, but there are many ways to "kill" people which don't involved shooting or other extreme methods. Still it's ok if it's just business, right ?...

Regards,

Chris

When jobs move from high-cost regions to low-cost regions, the world generally benefits. Poor countries need jobs and income much more badly than rich countries.

Unemployed Americans have problems, but they don't "starve in the street." People in poor countries literally do.

But companies must compete with other companies or go out of business. Profit isn't greed, it's the lifeblood that keeps companies alive.

If the US wants to keep jobs, it will have to stop chasing employers away. The way to do that is to reduce taxes and regulatory burdens on business.

Businesses do what thay have to do to survive, just like any other organism. And businesses aren't charities. At 10% private-sector unemployment, businesses are still creating 90% of the jobs, and would happily create more if allowed to do so. I could hire a couple more employees, 10% or so more, with the money I pay in state and federal corporate income tax, unemployment tax, workman's comp, city payroll tax, property tax, equipment tax, sales taxes, hazardous materials storage penalties [1], and accounting/bookkeeping/tax prep/legal fees.

John

[1] Cans of latex paint. Which we have to have to paint over graffiti, or we'll be fined for not painting over the graffiti. We get tagged almost every night, in a well-lighted, major downtown intersection. Of course, the taggers are never arrested, and wouldn't be prosecuted if they were.

I thought it was about exporting jobs to Asia? Then they cry about unemployment -- crazy... Done here in .au too.

OT: So how much would it involve to put in surveillance gear and publish the taggers' faces on the Internet? Like some shops put up a photo of caught shoplifters, since the law doesn't deter them, shame them yourself :)

Grant.

These taggers routinely increase tagging, or physically attack, people who complain about the tagging.

And they wouldn't be ashamed.

John

Maybe legalize the summary execution of any taggers caught in the act?

Cheers! Rich