A Lou Dobbs induced orgasm

Email Print posted by Nick86 05/08/2008 03:06:40 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
http://youtube.com/watch?v= UOX54jUQEXA

This exchange was so frank and to the point that I could not but help but enjoy the uncomfortable face of the congressman. This is how the American people are fooled into economic purgatory, with the empty mantra's of "free markets", "competition", and other neoclassical/neoliberal drivel that has not worked ever, and never will. Lou attacked the bastard, as he should have, pointing out that there are 10 major companies which control the market. The congressman states that there are 6000 credit card OFFERS, not companies. Thus, 6000 different credit cards but 10 major owners of those 6000 credit cards. That's what "competition" is these days, go to the mall and you would be surprised how many of those "competing stores" are really under one big holding company.

How can the individual stand up against a corporation? It is impossible, especially if Americans are so divided politically, and culturally. The people need something strong enough to defend their interests, that is the government. Sorry to break it to you "free market" morons, but there is no market where no one company can affect price, pure bull shit. Thus, we need to realize that industries due to a myriad of reasons are naturally geared towards oligopoly, and thus we need the people need to defend ourselves from usury and exploitation. I hope Lou's rhetoric catches on so there can be a systemic shift in thinking...gets me warm just thinking about it.
< How McCain can Win the White House | EV Count Update for 5/08 FINALLY WITH 33 states! >
 Display:
A Lou Dobbs induced orgasm | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 hidden)
Rep Jeb Hensarling Defends High Interest Rates (none / 0)
WOW!  Go get'em Lou.  Thanks for the post, Nick86, I enjoyed it thoroughly.  Maybe the so-called "liberal media" is starting to take notice.

by detroiter on 05/08/2008 05:04:50 PM EST

Uncle Lou (none / 0)
Here is one of my favorite Dobbs clips. US helping Fund Iran Nukes.

by z1p101 on 05/08/2008 08:06:50 PM EST

Lou baby...you got me confused (none / 0)
I have always been 60/40 on Lou, 60 in favour and 40 against. He does pander to the lowest common denominator at times, for instance him pouncing on Obama with the "elitist" comments, Lou I think prefers Clinton imo. However, Lou is a hero because he is challenging the neoliberal/neoconservative hegemony in American politics, I do not think that Lou is radical enough. I feel that Lou appeals to a more conservative reaction to the failures of neoliberalism and Republicanism in the United States, by appealing to nationalism. I am unsure where Lou stands ideologically, he claims to be a populist but that is such an overarching term that it means nothing. Is he a right-wing or left-wing populist? He claims to be an independent, but does that mean he will abstain from voting in November? I feel fairly confident he will not vote for McCain. Lou to me represents both hope and fear due to his reactionary tone on the negative side, and bunking the hegemonic discourse in the American mainstream media on the positive.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/08/2008 10:10:36 PM EST

Great Post (none / 0)
Just do me a favor and never use that title again.

I threw up a little in my mouth.

by richardshort2001 on 05/08/2008 11:01:36 PM EST

Neoliberal Free Market Solution (none / 0)
1. Remove all constraints on the actions of lenders and credit card companies.

2. Remove all constraints on the behavior of consumers.

Credit card companies should be allowed to charge consumers confiscatory , usury rates of interest.

Consumers should be allowed to default with impunity.

A lender's only option for retaliation should be to issue a poor credit report on the consumer.

Then, let's see how fast credit card companies tighten up their rules with respect to extending credit to consumers who are not credit worthy.

This approach worked in the subprime housing market. Overwhelmed consumers mailed in the keys, and predatory lenders were forced to eat the loss.

Everybody involved learned a damn good lesson. There were no good guys.

"Neither a borrower, nor lender be."

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/08/2008 11:57:07 PM EST

KenTX (none / 0)
That post shows that you are not sure what a "free market" even means...defaulting on debt is not a neoliberal or free market solution that is a case of failure of the system to support its own contradictions, as we have seen with the subprime market. Contradiction = crisis...look familiar?

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/09/2008 12:26:16 AM EST

Government meddling in private affairs. (none / 0)
Most of these problems began when the federal government got involved in the business of regulating personal bankruptcy laws. This meant that consumers were on the hook, and they couldn't walk away as easily from debt. Then predatory lenders started pushing easy (high interest) credit on every consumer in America, and turning them into enslaved, indentured servants.

It just goes to show what happens when the federal government starts regulating the affairs of the people. There are always disasterous, unintended consequences, because they come up with stupid ideas, like biofuels, that cause global crop shortages and starvation. 

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 10:32:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Somebody shoot me (none / 0)

for agreeing with ken. I guess I'm more of a libertarian on issues like these. My main problem with ken's scenario is that you can't be a half-assed libertarian for it to work, you gotta go all the way. That means when bear-stearns comes crawling hat in hand you give'em the finger. Future generations of wall street investors would have you to thank for your tough-minded principled policy that ushered in an era of accountability.

Here's the catch, that's never gonna happen. Ideologically if someone was going to do this, it would have been the repubs. But you saw exhibit A of how that's an impossible outcome just last month. That's why in terms of policy, I favor an amount of regulation that protects consumers and prevents economic meltdowns. 

by hazmat on 05/09/2008 01:29:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ask Bear Stears shareholders (none / 0)
and Bear Stearns employees, and Bear Stearns creditors, and Bear Stearns lendors if they feel "bailed out".

The Feds merely facilitated transfer of control and assets to shore up confidence in the U.S. financial market, and prevent a run on the financial instititutions.

The demise of Bear Stearns was healthy for the economy, as was the demise of Enron. I have stated this position in the past.

What the federal government needs to regulate is transparency. When a lender loans money to a person with terrible credit, and bundles thousands such loans into derivative packages to be sold to investment houses, the buyer needs to know what he's getting himslef into. Same with Enron. Investors need transparency in order to make good decisions.

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 03:50:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
agree re: bs and enron (none / 0)
I do appreciate the benefit of these companies going down, and the need for transparency. Ultimately good for the market. I'm interested in your thoughts on why executive salaries have continued to go up and corporate malfeasance is on the rise even in the wake of enron. Do you A) think there's no corporate malfeasance or B) think the wave of unaccountability has yet to crest and there's a correction coming (maybe we're hitting it NOW). I'm not using the corporate malfeasance term as a pejorative here, I'm really referring to the shell games of the type Enron played in the leadup to their meltdown. I have another question for you about your views on enron, but that can wait.

by hazmat on 05/09/2008 04:10:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rainmaker (none / 0)
Executive salaries increase rapidly for the same reason that NFL head coach salaries increase rapidly. Corporations and NFL owners are trying to buy a quick fix.

In fact, it would be interesting to see a plot of average CEO salaries versus average NFL head coach salaries over the past 20 years. I’ll bet they follow the same trajectory.

If you think Jeff Skilling of Enron was bad, you should consider the malfeasance of Jeff Immelt. I knew him when he sold plastics in Dallas, and now he’s being paid big bucks to run GE over a cliff.

American business has always focused on the latest earnings statement. Nobody is measured or rewarded for growth in earnings 5-10 years from now. That’s not really good for creating a vision of long term growth.

In my own experience, I’ve been offered big money to take on projects with medium-sized companies as a “rain-maker” because I have a lot of market knowledge. What happens is that you sign a contract with a huge salary, and the company expects instantaneous results. There is never any way to live up to the expectations for a quick fix, and everyone winds up disappointed. Fortunately, I never took the bait. I’ve always preferred base hits to swinging for the fences.

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 04:40:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're officially interesting (none / 0)

to talk to, if not entirely credible. I'm just messin with you dude. Thanks for a thoughtful reply. I'm always a little skeptical when people say they "turned down the big bucks" for their current gig, but since I have at least one friend that I know did this for a fact, I know it happens, and for good reasons. Anyway have a good weekend.

by hazmat on 05/09/2008 06:33:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That is not what I think of (none / 0)
When I think of overpaid CEOs I think of the guys who run a company not just into the ground but 6 feet under the ground and then get 10s of millions of dollars walking out the door.  Like the Tyco guy.  Near as I can tell they take over, fabricate a prospectus, launch an IPO based on lies.  Everyone who owns some of the company at launch makes a bunch of money, CEO leaves with his suitcases of cash, company collapses, employees and defrauded investors are fucked.  Bush tells government to make up crimes against Don Siegelman.

by ProfRich on 05/10/2008 01:44:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nyet (none / 0)
The opposite is true, firstly the Bush administration has NOT been involved and has refused to regulate or enforce the regulations already existing in any effective way, especially in the financial sector. What this administration has done instead is actually make financial manipulation easier with the Bankruptcy law. The Bankruptcy law was obviously written by lobbyists and supported by your party of preference, the Republicans. This is NOT a government of the people its a government of the few against the people. So the real problem is not the government, the real problem is the undue influence that corporate interests have in the creation of US policy.The Bush administration is captured by FIRE, oil companies, and the military-industrial complex. This administration acts not as a government but as a massive corporate machine that co-ordinates corporate welfare programs at the expense of the American people and American economy. That is the problem, the role of the government is to make sure that capitalists do not do something as stupid as...subprime mortgages, because capitalists are UNABLE to plan in the long run. The subprime crisis is how capitlalism works without government intervention, it fails and it always will fail to the logic of accumulation. The government has to get involved in regulating the financial markets especially because left unregulated it will always end up in bubbles and then collapse, what do you think Keynes was most worried about? So, again this free market bull-shit blames government, when it is the very opposite that is the problem, not enough government.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/09/2008 12:05:12 PM EST

let's recap (none / 0)
You say that Congress passed f ederal bankruptcy legislation that the Executive signed, and it totally screwed up the lending market, but this is not a problem caused by government intervention.

Yet, if borrowers could still walk away from their debt, like they did prior to the bankruptcy law, then the burden would be on lenders to choose their customers with more caution.

Once you start regulating, you create unintended consequences, which are corrected by yet more regulation, which multiplies the unintended consequences, until the entire market spins out of control.

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 12:27:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe (none / 0)

Be even if this is true which it may or may not be it fails to address the uninted consequences of unregulated capitalism or lending or coal mines or anthing else.

This is how you always argue, "your sides ideas aren't completely perfect therefore my side is right."

Its ludicruous.

When the GOP gets control of the country everything falls apart.  See the 1920s and 2000s.  Go ahead and throw in the nightmare that was the average American's life in the Golden Age of Deregulation follwing the Civil War until 1900 when regulation began.

So not all regulation works perfectly, it is still demonstrably better than no regulation. 

by ProfRich on 05/09/2008 12:38:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Re: (none / 0)

No, re-read what I wrote and try to understand it. What I am saying is that the government you have today in the US is not a government, it is captured by special interests. It is a corporatist (as in actual corporation) state which allows special interests to write the laws of the land. Thus, how can the government regulate effectively if it is not autonomous from the private sector? The problem is not the government, the role of the government again is to prevent the private sector from engaging in short-term speculative investments and games, a la subprime mortgages.



Historically Ken, the market "spins out of control" when there is NO government intervention, reference 1929-1933. Do you think that the welfare state came out of no where? The free market does not exist, capitalism would destroy itself without state intervention due to its own inherent contradictions, and capitalism is only possible with a state. I know you believe all those myths of supply and demand, and equilibrium, but there is NO theoretical foundations for those theories, unless of course you can measure utility and assuming that the whole economy is one consumer with the same tastes...and if you believe that you'll believe anything. You have to study more about economic history and not refer to some graph that tells you have supply will equal demand at a unique point. Read Keynes for starters.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/09/2008 12:40:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Its hopeless (none / 0)

There is a cult (its called the Republican Party) here in the US that rejects everything Keynes says and insists that all economic situations can be handled by regulating the money supply.  They insist demand is completely irrlevant to the functioning of the economy and support the complete intertwining of the government and corporations.

They accept the twin premises that the best people in a society will become rich and the rich are the best people in a society without seeing the apparent contradiction in this worldview in that it automatically justifies the wealth of the wealthy by the very fact they are wealthy.

I believe that during the period 1932-1968 America shifted so dramatically to government control of the corporate sector that we have to live through a reactionary period.  This period appears to have reached its zenith which is the government becoming controlled by the corporations. 

This cycle began with corporations raping America in the post Civil War era.  This ended in the collapse of the economy in the 1890s which was followed by the brief period of reform in the first two decades of the 20th Century.

Then rampant corporate raping in the 1920s, followed by utter economic collapse in the 1930s, then another big war (WWII), then a really marvelous period of responsible government, then the reaction, corporate rape.

This seems to suggest next comes economic collapse, a big war and then a period of reform.

Ask yourself which periods of time do you think were best to live in in US History?

Massive war: 1861-1865, 1939-1945

Corporate Rape: 1866-1890, 1920-1929, 1968-2008

Depression: 1890-1900, 1929-1939

Reform: 1900-1920, 1946-1968

by ProfRich on 05/09/2008 01:22:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
thank you for the Canadian perspective (none / 0)
Read this and try to understand it. The U.S. Government is no more or less captive to special interests than it has been throughout history. The business of America is business.

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 01:27:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
@KenTX (none / 0)
@ KenTX

The business of America is business.

That goes for EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, do not forget that the state is really the executive committee of the capitalist class. The difference is that corporate interests in America are so powerful due their size they control cause a lot damage internally and externally. Also, the difference is which corporate interests are in control, back in the Golden Age it was more industrial capitalism and thus producing goods and jobs, now its FIRE which does neither and depends on debt.

I would also say that American business is FAILING, look at America's GDP as a percentage of world GDP its going down rapidly, stock market valuation relative to the world it is also declining. The only place where the US is rolling ahead is in debt accumulation. America, if its a business, is bankrupt.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/09/2008 05:00:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
facts to consider (none / 0)
Everyone knows the emerging economies of China and India are growing at explosive rates as a result of low labor cost.

But let's compare the U.S. economy with that of Europe or Canada or some other non-emerging economy. Who is doing better?
laugh this off

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 05:17:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
National income inequality narrowing (none / 0)
...look at America's GDP as a percentage of world GDP its going down rapidly...

Many countries have a lot of room for growth. It's not a bad thing that world GDP is growing faster than America's.

by Twba on 05/09/2008 05:19:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
History (none / 0)
Historically Ken, the market "spins out of control" when there is NO government intervention, reference 1929-1933.

Only a fool believes there was no government intervention in that time period.

by Twba on 05/09/2008 01:45:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
only a fool would post /believe this (none / 0)
The U.S. Government is no more or less captive to special interests than it has been throughout history

Support the Troops
End the Occupation

by Chinese Democracy on 05/09/2008 03:00:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
only a fool would look for love in a bathhouse (none / 0)
But it hasn't stopped you.

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 03:34:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank God It's Dubya! (none / 0)
Dub, please weigh in with neoclassical liberal economic theory. We are winning over hazmat, and Prof Rich is ready to embrace Uncle Milty.

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 03:32:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
TGIF (none / 0)
...Prof Rich is ready to embrace Uncle Milty.

Rich has a long way to go still.

Nick86 is stuck on Marxist nonsense. I recommend that he check this out of the university's library.

by Twba on 05/09/2008 05:22:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Neoliberalism is on the march! (none / 0)
Rich is trying to apply old fashioned Marx and Engels socialist economic models that have been repudiated the world over. The days of static trench warfare between labor and capital are forever dead. In France and Canada and Germany and Italy and the Czech Republic, pro-American, pro-Bush, pro-free market presidents were elected because voters ha ve had it with socialism. 
harper 
berlusconi

havel 



sakozy
merkel

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 05:32:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Where did Nick go? (none / 0)
He started this thread with his typical challenge in the form of an insult,

"Sorry to break it to you "free market" morons"

and then, after he starts getting his ass kicked, he runs away like a little girl.

This causes me to lose respect for him. If an elite, intellectual grad student in economics can be punk slapped on the subject of economics by a couple of regular Americans who cling to their beer and guns, then what exactly is he supposed to be good at? 

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 05:39:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nick wants to French-Fry the U.S. economy. (none / 0)
I think I'm beginning to understand Nick's obsession with the U.S. economy. He understands that when we embrace neoliberal economic policies, the rest of the world must follow our path in order to compete. Globalization has no time for the lazy and non-productive.

Nick is campaigning hard to have the U.S. follow France in constructing a socialist’s dreamland.

France’s top personal tax rate is 48 percent, with a VAT tax of nearly 20 percent. So that means French laborers face a combined 68 percent tax rate on consumption and investment. No wonder France has created less than 3 million jobs over the past 20 years, compared to 31 million in the United States. Economic growth in “cowboy capitalist” America has exceeded that of France’s worker paradise by nearly 50 percent.

In a dramatic speech to the European Parliament last summer, British Prime Minister Tony Blair hit the mark when he criticized all Western European economies for their inability to compete on an acceptable global level. Asked Blair, “What type of social model is it that has 20 million unemployed in Europe? Productivity rates falling behind those of the USA? That, on any relative index of a modern economy — skills, R&D, patents, information technology — is going down, not up?”

Financial Times international editor Olaf Gersemann blames French and European unemployment on high minimum-wage requirements and overly strict employment-protection laws. Gersemann, who scathingly criticized Western Europe in his book “Cowboy Capitalism,” says these labor-market regulations have created millions of involuntary unemployed throughout Europe, affecting immigrants in particular. He writes, “Most French, German, and Italian voters simply refuse to accept the necessity of a Thatcher-Reagan style economic revolution.” He notes that per capita income in the U.S. now exceeds that of France by close to 40 percent, with Germany and Italy lagging even further behind.

This explains why investment capital is fleeing France, and the only thing they still produce is wine, cheese, and truffles.

On average, at least one millionaire leaves France every day to take up residence in more wealth-friendly nations, according to a government study.

At a time when France is struggling to stay competitive in an increasingly integrated world, business leaders say the country can't afford to make refugees of some of its most established business families. They include members of the Taittinger champagne empire, the Peugeot auto magnates and leading shareholders of dominant retailers Carrefour and Darty. Also going are members of a new generation of high-tech entrepreneurs.

Socialist leaders and some government officials argue that the rich are merely trying to shirk their social responsibilities by fleeing the country with their millions.

The wealth tax -- officially called the solidarity tax -- is collected on top of income, capital gains, inheritance and social security taxes. It's part of the reason France consistently ranks at the top of Forbes magazine's annual Tax Misery Index -- a global listing of the most heavily taxed nations.

"This tendency to take from the rich and give to the poor which is supposed to solve all the problems in France is ruining the country," said Alain Marchand, who left France six years ago and now has a London-based consulting business that helps relocate French business leaders and entrepreneurs in England and other countries. "That's an incredibly stupid and narrow-minded vision of economic life."


Eric Pinchet, author of a French tax guide, estimates the wealth tax earns the government about $2.6 billion a year but has cost the country more than $125 billion in capital flight since 1998.

In France, employers are required to pay social security taxes equal to 48 percent of each employee's salary. Labor laws make it difficult and costly to fire incompetent workers.

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 05:51:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fact (none / 0)
Facts are facts, the US gvt under Hoover cut the budget to maintain a budgetary surplus making the depression worse. So no the government was withdrawing from the economy during the period 1929-1933. Hoover was a neoclassical thinker who thought that the depression was actually a good thing, and that eventually (like in neverneverland) the economy would recover if left to its own devices. Obviously, that would NEVER happen as, I am going to get Keynesian here, expectations of future profit were nil thus so was investment. It was under FDR that the state got rid of the illogical neoclassical theory that the market would correct itself, reality check it never would. He increased demand by inserting the government into the economy and regulating the uncontrolled corporate oligarchy, so much so that they tried to overthrow him in a fascist coup in 1933. The only fool here is you my friend.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/09/2008 04:55:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fool me once (none / 0)
So no the government was withdrawing from the economy during the period 1929-1933.... The only fool here is you my friend.

President Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. If that is not intervention, then you are a fool, my friend.

by Twba on 05/09/2008 05:17:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Responses (none / 0)
I am right here KenTX, I am not scared or intimated by your google knowledge. I did not see my "ass kicked" anywhere, you always make this refrain yet there is never a ass kicking to be seen. Much like Alejandro, you live in your own dream world like most neoconservatives. I also doubt you ever had respect for me, so no loss there.

Of course when you refer to mainstream media, especially the likes of the "Financial Times" you are going to get the cookie cutter answers to very complex questions. Please, do not waste my time with these publications: Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal.

Neoliberalism is on the retreat it has been since 1998, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Argentina, Russia, Belarus, Malaysia, etc. The failures of the late 90s and early 00s to solve the endemic crisis of neoliberalism in the developing world is now spreading into the developed world. Neoliberalism is in crisis, as capitalism always eventually enters. Its called a "Social-Structure of Accumulation", meaning that every 30-50 years the existing system of accumulation no longer is able to guarantee increasing profits and accumulation, and the social pressures get to great to handle.  This happened in 1929, 1980, and for much of the world 1998-2002, and now it seems to be heading in the US in 2008, and was AVOIDED in 2002 by Greenspan.

You may bleat on about France, but fact is that France is going to grow faster than the US will this year. The French many have a slower growing economy, but its a fundamentally more sound economy that is not even close to the brink of bankruptcy as the American economy is. Again, the rate of decline in America's GDP, Market Capitalization is staggering since Bush took office with very little historical parallel. How do businesses define success? By beating the average, and the US is falling FAR short of the average.

Sure I could be an ignorant fool, like you show yourself to be, by saying, hey we have 5% unemployment = good economy. Ummm...nyet, then the Soviet Union was the best economy ever. The reality is, what type of jobs are those being created and how do Americans pay for the goods they consume. Even ADAM SMITH, I hear a non-Marxist, even argued that a country should consume what it produces. How the American economy works is simple, DEBT eventually either Americans will either go into default of become paupers at the hands of creditors.

So please...Ken, don't waste my time with your drivel. Try to make an argument not a Grade 10 civics class presentation, with pictures of presidents to make a point. Secondly, I am not a Marxist...you wouldn't even know what I am.

@Twba

How was that tariff bill government intervention into the economy on the way I was describing? I am describe the STATE'S direct intervention into the economy through fiscal stimulus. Please try to contextualize my arguments, and avoid red herrings.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/09/2008 06:29:12 PM EST

Responsive (none / 0)
How was that tariff bill government intervention into the economy on the way I was describing? I am describe the STATE'S direct intervention into the economy through fiscal stimulus.

Smoot-Hawley increased the cost of imported raw materials and finished goods. It triggered a trade war that virtually closed many foreign markets to American exports. It was a direct intervention in the economy.

by Twba on 05/09/2008 07:34:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)
It was not a "direct" intervention, it was a indirect intervention because the government did not manipulate the dmenad within the country through its own institutions. It merely protected domestic industry, yes it was an intervention but not in the way I was describing. Did the act make the depression worse? Yes, I don't disagree with you there. But the point remains, even assuming that your position is valid, the government did not respond to the Depression in a net fashion. Meaning the government did less than what it did do.  Again, contextualize my arguments or do not bother.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/09/2008 10:09:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
bookmark this post (none / 0)
"Please try to contextualize my arguments"
OK, I'll try.

"Neoliberalism is on the retreat it has been since 1998, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Argentina, Russia, Belarus, Malaysia, etc."
Are you saying that these countries are moving in the right direction, politically and economically? Outside of nationalizing huge oil reserves at a time when oil is approaching $200 per barrel, what are any of these countries doing to recommend themselves as worthy of emulation?

"Please, do not waste my time with these publications: Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal."
These publications are to the financial markets what the Washington Post is to American politics. They are the papers of record. 

"Again, the rate of decline in America's GDP, Market Capitalization is staggering since Bush took office with very little historical parallel."
Which of the following is true:

1. You are a liar.
2. You are a fool.
3. You are uneducated.
4. You are a socialist propagandist.

(I think the correct answer is 1 and 4)

I just demonstated how the America's GDP has performed since Bush assumed office in 2001. Notice how poor it was in 2001, after 9/11 and the dot.com financial crash.

As you can see, the economy was very anemic when Bush took office, then it increased in dramatic fashion. The U.S. economy ebbs and flows, as do all economies.
you're a punk

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/09/2008 07:40:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes I do suggest you bookmark this... (none / 0)
@KenTX

In terms of the growing anti-neoliberalism reality that is emerging around the world, the question of emulation is moot. The point of this movement is move away from a standard model, such that neoliberalism tried to impose on everyone through the "Washington Consensus". The situation in Argentina, which has grown 9% for 6 years and will continue even without access to international credit, is not the same as Venezuela or Russia which are oil producers. I argue that countries should have their OWN economic policies, that the people of those countries feel are good for them, this is the position of the Chinese government mind you, the next superpower. Actual sovereignty, and with the decline of American hegemony so pronounced its much easier to do this. America is becoming an afterthought for many in the world, thanks to China. I know the world is so much easier for a little brain to make it into "good/bad" but it is not that simple.

Indeed, the question is today, who wants to emulate neoliberalism? It has FAILED throughout the world in 1998 with the Asian Financial Crisis, Russian Crisis, LTCM Crisis, Argentine Crisis, and now with the sub-prime crisis. The reason the US avoided the fate of the rest of the world during the early 00's was due to loose monetary and fiscal policies of the Greenspan-Bush coalition. This transfered credit from the stock market to the housing markets. Only now the situation is MUCH MUCH worse. Economic growth in the US has been based ENTIRELY on debt, do you understand how that is unsustainable and a facade? Does someone have to bash a hammer into your head for you to get it?

About the newspapers, please do not appeal to authority, they are not objective. They are neoclassical drivel, with an agenda to "liberalize" everything at any cost, under the ideological assumption that the non-existent "free market" is better than anything else. If you rely on newspapers for your opinion, your even less intelligent than I had even imagined!

[i]I just demonstated how the America's GDP has performed since Bush assumed office in 2001. Notice how poor it was in 2001, after 9/11 and the dot.com financial crash.[/i]

Notice how much that changes nothing. You want to see a graph kid? I'll show you a graph:


US GDP decline as a percent of world total

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/09/2008 09:09:58 PM EST

You call yourself an "economist"? (none / 0)
“The situation in Argentina, which has grown 9% for 6 years and will continue even without access to international credit, is not the same as Venezuela or Russia which are oil producers.”
Sounds like you agree that when a country is sitting atop a mountain of oil, it’s pretty difficult for them to brag about a superior economic system. It would be like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait claiming that their extreme wealth is proof that monarchies are the only way to go.  

It turns out that Argentina is a net energy exporter. They already have a lot of oil, and they are finding more every day. When the price of oil increases ten fold in a few short years, it has a buoyant effect on the economy of energy producers.

I have two oil wells currently producing on my land in Fayette County, Texas. You should see what this has done to the KenTX household GDP. That should be enough proof that KenTX economics is superior to all other systems. So please spare us the glowing praise for economies in Argentina, Russia, Venezuela.

By the same token, the temporary downturn of the U.S. economy shares similarities with the 1970s. Its called an “Oil Shock”, and we’ve been here before.
oil
“America is becoming an afterthought for many in the world, thanks to China.”
I remember when they were saying exactly the same thing about Japan in the 1980s. My estimate is that China will hit their natural economic limits when their labor force finally demands wages approaching three bowls of rice per day. Some countries are rich in oil, and some countries are rich in cheap labor.

“Economic growth in the US has been based ENTIRELY on debt.”
Economic growth in the US has been based principally on growth in productivity and innovation.
So we’ve established that the U.S. economy is experiencing a minor downturn, based primarily on a sharp increase in oil prices. You want to claim this temporary setback is proof that capitalism doesn’t work. Your arguments are laughable.

Would you care to offer an example of a socialist country that isn’t a developing nation (and doesn’t produce energy), yet has a good long term track record of growth in GDP?

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/10/2008 12:09:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
By the way (none / 0)
I love your misleading graph, which extrapolates projected trendlines to the year 2013, and presents it as the responsiblity of George Bush.

A dip in the ratio of U.S. GDP to total world GDP is a function of the growth in total world GDP as a result of developing nations like China and India. If you applied the same plot to any socialist (non-energy producing) country, the dip would be more pronounced.

I know this, Twba knows this, I assume you know this, and yet you choose to present misleading data as fact. I just want you to understand that I recognize what a complete phony you are.

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/10/2008 12:26:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Academics not propaganda (none / 0)
@KenTX

Where did I say Vene or Russia had a superior system? If you can do that, we'll talk.

Argentina is a net exporter for now, but its past its peak and production has been declining since around 1998 and will soon be importing oil. Argentina depends very little on oil exports, and come a couple years it will be a net negative on their balance sheets. Argentina's economic growth is mostly industrial, with unemployment going from 25% in 2002 to 7.5% today, and expected to decrease to around 6-5% by 2009. Argentina has done this by totally rejecting neoliberalism, the IMF, and without access to international credit. Argentina's model has its issues, but in general it is much better than the American imposed neoliberal garbage of the 1990s.

Another example is Belarus, which did not liberalize after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Standards of living in Belarus are higher than the rest of the former USSR except for the Baltic state's. You can look it up, Belarus has no oil :).

What is that graph supposed to show me? Real oil prices depend heavily on how you measure inflation. Producer, consumer? Which currency, etc. By some measures the real price of oil is still below 1980 levels. Anyways, why are we talking about oil? I agree with you that countries like Russia and Venezuela do not have models because they depend on oil. But that does not mean they did not reject neoliberalism.

China will not hit the same wall as Japan because the economies are fundamentally different, the fact is that the Chinese economy has A LOT of room to grow and by every measure, IMF, Goldman Sachs, not exactly the most "marxist" of sources. China WILL supercede the United States by 2015-2020. American power is an aberration, a mistake in history, it is coming to an end. Also Japan in the late 80s is where the US is now, in a property bubble induced by low interest rates and it burst in a big way...sounds familiar. China is a net creditor, and has a savings rate of over 40% of its income. So...no America is screwed vis-a-vis China.

"Economic growth in the US has been based principally on growth in productivity and innovation."

Here is the contradiction in the US economy. Firstly, productivity gains is measured in a very odd way, I had an article on this I will see if I can dig it up. Secondly, US economic growth measure consumption as well as production. I wrote a 25 page essay on this issue, I will grant you the privilege to read part of it:

"The reason the tax cut was so important is because 70% of economic activity in the American economy is based on consumption. To stifle consumption through higher taxes could have caused an exacerbation of the recession that the United States was experiencing in 2001-02.  Thus the basis of economic growth in the United States is not actually increasing supply of goods so much as it is the ability to accumulate debt to increase consumption as Bonner explains, “as the Anglo-Saxon economies lost their competitive edge in manufacturing, they tried to make up for it by encouraging consumption” (Bonner 224). According to Bonner the American economy grew not through productive investment but by manipulating interest rates “to encourage consumer debt” (Bonner 223). Also manipulating the interest rate had the effect of attracting the foreign funds needed to finance the increasing deficits that was a result of the new consumption based economy. The result of this was to make the American economy into the world’s single largest debtor, and to stimulate more consumption.
    The access to cheap foreign savings reduced the interest rates in the United States. Cheap foreign credit has also given the illusion of a “free lunch” that the Americans could get away with this cycle of debt accumulation because it seems permanent and illogical to destroy; reminiscent of the logic behind the debt accumulation of the 1970’s."

This is the difference between ACADEMIC RESEARCH and propaganda. Deal with it.

Also, I am not against capitalism, I am against neoliberalism. So I will not even deal with your second question.

"A dip in the ratio of U.S. GDP to total world GDP is a function of the growth in total world GDP as a result of developing nations like China and India. If you applied the same plot to any socialist (non-energy producing) country, the dip would be more pronounced."

Firstly, deal with the IMF not I about the graph. Seocndly, even if were to take 2009-2013 out the US would have still experienced a massive decline. About socialsit countries...like China, Vietnam? Last time I checked they were socialist countries, and their shares of global production are EXPLODING...seems you sowed the seeds of your own destruction. The US economy is not growing sufficiently, it is FAILING to CAPITALISM'S own logic which is to beat the average. Understand how the game works? If you live by the logic of the system, then do not ignore it. If neoliberalism is such a pancea to the American economy as you say, it would not be facing declining GDP figures. It would be SO competitive that it should leave others in the dust, but I guess when you live in a dream world where everything is rationalized by "Amerika is goodz" then I guess you can ignore the 35 million people who go to bed hungry in your United States.




Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/10/2008 01:09:51 AM EST

I've found your weakness. (none / 0)
You dodge straightforward questions, and all I have to do is repeat them:

Would you care to offer an example of a non-emerging nation (and doesn’t export energy), that has a good long term track record of GDP growth?

Globalization is great for the growth rates of developing economies, because its much easier to show growth when they’re starting from ground zero, and they have a labor force that earns $1.00 per day. 

Explosion in oil pricing is great for the growth rates of oil exporting countries.

But please give us an example of a non-emerging, non-energy producing nation that outperforms the U.S. economy on a consistent basis.

Let's go back 25 years (1983-2008) and compare your economic powerhouse challenger with the USA. I chose this period, because America was under neoliberal management during this timeframe.

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/10/2008 02:24:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No, Ken (none / 0)

That's your weakness.  This is well-trod ground on these forums.

I don't know whats sadder, you trying to lay everything you get attacked for on the new guys or your geekgasm when one of the other trolls backs up your point. 

God, that was pathetic.   If it was intended to make me look stupid I think it backfired.

by ProfRich on 05/10/2008 02:35:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm on my BB in ATL (none / 0)
But I remember the smackdown you received at the hands of Twba. I can't get over to that thread right now. Did you answer him, or did you run away? Don't feel bad if you were unable to respond. It doesn't mean you are weak and helpless and effiminate. (I don't have spell check, and I'm driving.)

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/10/2008 05:26:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Question for TWBA (none / 0)
Does Ken spit or swallow?

by z1p101 on 05/10/2008 01:06:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No fear (none / 0)
Do you honestly believe I am afraid to answer your so called questions? But then again you state that you asked this question before and I avoided to answer it...press ctrl-f and type in "non-emerging nation" and the only response you get in is the last question you asked. So how can I dodge a question that was never asked? Oh, thats right because I destroyed every other question and assertion you made so you had to make up a new one!

Nevertheless, I will have to DESTROY yet again, even with your little question:

1980-2008 GDP Growth, accumulated:

United States: 82.6%

Taiwan: 183% (it was a developing nation in 1980 and not neoliberal, now considered a developed nation)

Korea: 185% (same as Taiwan)

Ghana: 114%

Costa Rica: 119%

China: 285%

For "non-emerging markets"

United States: 82.6%

Australia: 95%

Finland: 80% (pretty close for a "socialist country")

Spain: 85%

Iceland: 91% (also a "socialist country" by American definitions)

Thus, have a HUGE government can actually be a good thing. So now that I have destroyed your little fantasy world, please go into your car and type on your loserish BB ;). Do us that favour. 

 

 

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/10/2008 12:51:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nick, please provide links (none / 0)
As usual, you didn’t bother to provide links for the data you presented. But the good news is that the U.S. economy seems to be comparing quite favorably to the best economies in the world.

You're trying to make the case that the U.S. needs socialism in order to improve our economic performance.

The U.S. is home to a relatively small segment of the world’s population, yet we control a relatively large segment of the world’s wealth.

us wealth 
During a time of rapid globalization, the GDP of developing nations is growing faster than the GDP of wealthy nations. This makes sense, because its much more of an achievement for the U.S. economy to expand at a 4% rate of growth, than for the economy of Ghana to expand 4%.
global

Nick offered Australia as the best economy in the world.

Australia has maintained a healthy GDP by exporting raw materials, agriculture products, and petroleum to China, Japan, South Korea, India.

But the United States has maintained a long track record of healthy economic growth.

growth 


more growth

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/10/2008 04:29:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Destruction (none / 0)
You want a source, here is my source. You can do the comparisons yourself.

Source: http://www.imf.org/external /pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/weodat a/index.aspx

Your graphs and pictures again, what is this Grade 10? Secondly, using figures from 2000 is not relevant in 2008 as we have seen. The US was in a totally different economic situation back then, at the height of the dot-com bubble the original crisis.

You asked me to show you which countries that are developed and do not export oil did better than the US, Australia, Iceland, Spain, Korea, Taiwan, Finland came very close. I figured you would find rationalizations to say, hey, hey, hey. Point is that the US is LOSING economic competitiveness, its living on the goodwill of Asian financiers, and you are living a dream world. Neoliberalism has destroyed America, and that is masked by debt. So, go vote McCain in power, because then the US will surely never recover.

Enjoy your defeat!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/10/2008 05:07:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just as I suspected. (none / 0)
You provided a link for the IMF’s economic outlook database. The data is forward looking, rather than retrospective. So there is no way to pull up data for GDP performance going back to 1980.

So I looked into the economic history of Australia, and it turns out that the history is not all that impressive, especially since the unemployment rate is so important to you. Unfortunately, Australia’s economy is not currently doing very well.
unemployment 

But exporting raw materials and agricultural products to Asia during a period of explosive growth has to be very helpful for Australia’s GDP. So I was able to find data comparing the growth in GDP between Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the U.S.
deal with this 

 “Your graphs and pictures again, what is this Grade 10?”
I don’t know what grade it is, but the graphical data illustrates that the U.S. economy compares favorably with the best economies in the world.

I keep waiting for you to present long range GDP data for non-emerging nations that don’t produce energy. Let’s compare your economic powerhouses with the United States.  

“Secondly, using figures from 2000 is not relevant in 2008 as we have seen.” I take comparative data wherever I can get it. For instance, here’s a snapshot from 2005, after the dotcom crash, and the 9/11 crash. Not bad, for a medium sized country with 300 million inhabitants.
usa! usa!

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/10/2008 08:50:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I answered (none / 0)
Your questions, deal with it you have been beat. There are developed countries with strong welfare states that perform better than the US, Iceland, and Finland. Australia is no different from Texas, yes it is resource rich but the vast majority of economic activity is service sector based. So, I do not see the relevance of your criticism. Thirdly, the IMF figures do go back to 1980, try again. I do not see the point of your arguments, they are going in circles and going nowhere fast. I dealt with everything you threw at me, its intellectually dishonest to start qualifiying everything to FIT your argument. Its over.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 03:48:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nick's right about one thing (none / 0)

It is kinda strange that Ken keeps posting evidence of Bush's awesome economic polices that end in 2000 although some end in 2005.  Since most of us are concerned about the mess Bush has made of the economy now this is a bit pointless.

Also, no one tell Ken but his little multi-line graph kinda makes Clintonomics look awesome and the Bush's look like losers. 

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 01:39:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
easy as taking candy from a baby (none / 0)
"Also, no one tell Ken but his little multi-line graph kinda makes Clintonomics look awesome and the Bush's look like losers."

That little dip in 2001 was caused by a combination of the collapse of the "Bill Clinton Dot Com Economy", along with a terrorist attack that did greater than a trillion dollars worth of damage to the U.S. economy.

The miracle rebound was a result of the George W Bush Tax Cuts.  

All the way to Denver with Hillary!

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 02:16:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I had no idea (none / 0)

How incredibly awesome Clintonomics actually were!!!!

Correct me if I am wrong. 

In your total GDP graph it shows the total GDP in 2000 at about 10 trillion dollars.

You claim 9/11 took away 1 trillion in GDP.

You give the rest of the "blame" for the dip in 2001-2002 to Clinton.

1trillion is 20% of 10 trillion.  Even if we split that over 01 and 02 that is a 10% drop each year.

Your GDP growth chart shows a 1% growth in 2001.

This is about 3% under what was typical. 

Therefore Blill Clinton's dotcom disaster meant a staggering 7% growth in the economy.  WOW!

This easily exceed the best year for the US on the chart (around 4%).

Thanks for proving how much greater Bill Clinton was than we already knew, man.

Thank God Ken doesn't have a job that deals with math, huh guys? 

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 02:44:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Clinton (none / 0)
Although he was better, under his rule the corporations that are on the DOW INDUSTRIALS went from about 11% of GDP to 17%. His period in office massively increased the power of monopoly capital, and he betrayed the social democratic values of the Democratic party from FDR to Reaganomics. Clinton was better than Bush or Reagan to be sure, but he was no God either.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 03:51:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
A Lou Dobbs induced orgasm | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: