chuck kottke

>> Inflation is the result of an overheated economy, and it can be due to multiple factors, not all of equal value. Where's the money going? Hmm.. well, for starters, home prices have jumped dramatically, and that's got more to due with excess profits in the housing markets. Also, a great deal more is being spent on health insurance, which has risen dramatically. If the economy were strong to begin with, then the influx of money printed would cause inflation, but with spending slow, if not too much cash is printed and spent, it might simply keep the economy stimulated but not overheated. Inflation has many causes, and in 2006 I recall there being high fuel prices, if I'm not mistaken.;) That seems a more likely causative agent than wage increases. But I'm all for cutting the wages of CEO's, since they have been earning wayy too much money:P. I think the Japanese have it right.

One more positive effect of Campaign Finance Reform is eliminating the kick-back system, which funnels money into the wrong channels, and bloats the Federal Budget.;) Limited Government starts with limiting the campaign donations, and leveling the playing field.

There's progress, but the engine's got a long ways to go.. Increase compression & temperature, extend the power stroke, and neutralize the nitrous oxides produced..

Something Interesting from NOVA:NOVA | Car of the Future | PBS Amory Lovins, Click and Clack, and a lot of other stuff on Green Cars..

Happy Birthday Tifosi!!!!!:)

%

:rolleyes::stunned: :shocked2:Not a good thing to be thinking. Better to focus on believing in one's own worth, and finding ways to fix the troubles.. nothing's that bad that it can't be remedied in time...

Social Security is about all most folks have who are among the working poor. Sad, it's often barely enough to survive on, but pensions only last so long, and are greatly reduced when one spouse passes on. Social Security isn't a ponzi scheme (well, at least it wasn't until the Congress started dipping into it).. it's really something that can be made solvent, if Congress so choose they could fix it. Pensions were supposed to be invested carefully, often in part in the parent company where they worked.. I wonder what diabolical plots have been hatched to get to people's pensions..:thinking: Yes, usery fees are significant, and while legitimate often become excessive. Banks have all sorts of ways of squeezing more out of people - like when you want to borrow more for a project, there's extra fees, and the interest winds up being close to the amount borrowed. While income raised excessively can have the effect of causing inflation, however I think we're nowhere near that level. Goods become cheaper when someone improves the efficiency of the process of manufacture, distribution, or sales, and/or the raw materials become more widely available at a lower cost. But what about when a manufacturer here has to compete with someone making the same type of product in the free trade zone of the Marianas? We offer wages, benefits, abide by rules and regs., and some other manufacturer can simply use virtual slaves to make the same types of products. That's where I believe in international standards, or Fair Trade practices, so that nobody on the low end of the ladder gets rooked. One might argue that wages caused inflation in the 70's, but I think other factors were in play, such as huge spikes in fuel costs, transportation costs, and insufficient gains in efficiency of manufacture. Debt issues can have a great effect as well - we spent tremendously on the Vietnam war, and ran up huge national debts, the interest of which causes inflation as well.

pulled the teat again

True!:laugh3: It's 7:45 Post Meridian, and none of your beeswax!:P

Why didn't they call it "sofa-shaped"?:P I was listening to my latest rendition (not quite exquisite) on the piano..

:laugh3:Slight error on my mind-reading ability there! Crazy can be a good thing - I have a cousin or two like that.. ;) (well, not like Napoleon, but crazy in the good sense..) What was I thinking... hmm... I was trying to imagine what life would be life living somewhere else..

That's Because... He's Bananas.:escaping::laugh3: Charismatic Lunatics that tried to "rule the world"...

:rolleyes:Look at that crazy Corsican, trying to conquer Europe!:P

Wow, this thread's gone on for 134 posts!:wacko: I'm impressed!:laugh3: How about just recognizing that we all have failings as human beings, and some personality traits that make us imperfect; but the majority of our traits are good ones.;)

:hat::hat::hat::hat::sunny::sunny::sunny::sunny:Hooray Jay! YAY!! Happy Birthday Jay; seize the day!!!;):guitarist:

What?? Higher interest rates will equalize wealth??:confused: If Bob and Jan want to fix up their home, and their income isn't rising much, how are they to afford this? And if they fix up their home, then their home value goes up, and their comfort level too. I'm not sure poor people put anything in the stock market on purpose (that's been done to them by the various gambling sharks..) - most live paycheck to paycheck, and save for Social Security and maybe pensions, that's all they have. It's the middle that can afford some stock, and then it's usually not the preferred shares the CEO's get. Probably it would be good to save the poor people from having their homes put on the gambling markets - that I'll gladly agree to! (gosh, ever see Cleveland's working-class neighborhoods!:stunned:) Hmm.. there's that route, or ensure there's a high level of transparency with the investments, so those responsible for investing the 401K's can truly have an honest ratings value to go by, and then those who like to gamble a fraction can do so without risking the big nest egg - just the 10%, if some riskier investements look like they might pay off. I think oversight, if done correctly, can be a blessing for all. It's predicated on honest and open government, which is predicated on campaign finance reform. And the shocks have made the demand for honesty grow, so I'm hopeful. thanks for the conversation, Jay.;)

Dave, I think you're right! Recalling how Ford closed their doors for a week or two in the 70's out of protest - claiming that they couldn't build a car that would get the mileage the government mandated, or reduce emission to the level set by our Government here in the US - it seems like Ford's execs. were just throwing a tantrum because they didn't get their way, and that was their final effort at scaring the public.. So, trust execs as far as you can toss them!:laugh3: We need to clean up politics for real, and get their influence pedallers out of closed-door meetings. Our press isn't all that sharp on investigative reporting (competition, market forces, and conglomeration/consolidation have taken a toll on investigative reporting branches of major media outlets) The science is there - and the tampering has been rejected (finally) after the fall of the Bush regime. Now comes the matter of finance reform, so the will of the people can again be represented in Congress, and in Statehouses. Which, in the end will help even those belligerent types - after all, they breath the same air, drink the same water, and eat the same fish as the rest of us pretty much. The story of King Midas comes to mind, for some reason...:crown: Even the kings cannot escape the consequences of their wishes.

Double post.

Well, compared to Wilson's skills, Harding simply wasn't as skilled an orator;).. I think wages need not go down, since wages are a share of the economic pie, and the purchases made by workers increases demand, which increases profits, which allows factory owners to buy better machinery and increase efficiency. But if the investment class get overly interested in keeping more of the largess, then the workers must work more hours or take second jobs to maintain the same standards of living, reducing their health from excess stress, and reducing their enjoyment of life. (this from actual experience in the mills where we make all those fun toys, like boats, pallets, water skis, cheese, etc.) While the well-off might re-invest in equipment, there has to be enough income for the majority to purchase the goods and services; the wealthy alone do not by and large purchase as much, because they only need so much, and reinvestment alone cannot create demand. So, I would rather see better wages for the average working citizen to rise, and for efficiency of production to increase as a means of improved profitability. Government spending is not of great benefit in some areas, as many things are mis-used (see, for example, the military and equipment sent to Iraq to make a mess of things), or put into questionable research that benefits a few at the expense of the many. But government spending in the areas of rebuilding dilapidated bridges seems like a good investment to me! How we stimulate the economy when people become afraid to spend money, or when their ability to borrow is diminished excessively is a matter to consider carefully. Once re-invigorated, with enough improvement in wages and investment, the need for government spending diminshes, and hence so does the need for taxation. Since roughly 40 - 50% of the Federal budget goes for Defense (depending on how you slice it), in time, I think it's wise to dimish Defense spending, and cut taxes so we the citizens can spend our money, and more of the economic pie is available for goods and services we could all enjoy and use more of! The Defense contractors could instead manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, home high-efficiency power systems, and the like. Some could shift to silicon production, or cell production. There's a zillion better businesses they could be in, that involve ultimately more productive things which build our capacity as a nation to thrive, and the threat of misuse of the military dimishes when war is not so easy an option to turn to as a matter of foreign policy. The psychological factor needs to be considered. Maybe not a big deal was made of the 1920 recession, and then psychologically people did not clam up as much; and in the case of a stock panic as well, regulation can slow the freefall, and give time for investors to regain some stability of mind before proceeding.. The 29' crash had begun in Germany, where everything from unpayable war reperations to printing fiat money to unsound investments (from mostly US investors) caused other markets to cascade down as well - it was quite a fall on the markets, even if production figures show otherwise, and it had a tremedous psychological effect. So, I think the concentration of wealth has some negative effects, in that it creates the tendency for more monopolization to occur (since the ultra-loaded can continue to amass more and dominate economic sectors), and then those same individuals pay heavily into campaigns to prevent anti-trust regulations from breaking up their monopolies. Also, since the upper 1% spends little, and reaps the benefits of a more educated populace who get their education from the taxes we all pay, they need to return more to society, which in turn will make them wealthier in other ways (by increasing profits from the manufacturing of goods and providing of services to every-day Amercians, and by creating a more stable society in which to live, since poverty and crime are connected). A breadwinner who has a wage cut and has to choose between food, keeping the lights on, or providing health coverage for his or her family faces difficulties those with millions to spare can only imagine... I say, tax the wealthy for a change, and cut the defense budget. Stimulate the economy when people are afraid to spend, and the banks less willing to lend, for the time being with productive investments in infrastructure. Improve our capacity to compete globally through greater health security for all citizens, especially in the field of preventive medicine. But most importantly, reducing stress, increasing wages, increasing efficiency, and increasing the stability of working class Americans would generate a healthy and vibrant economy by maintaining the health and vibrancy of citizens who have good jobs and can buy the goods we make.

Corporations were supposed to be limited chartered entities (after the English saddled us with their tea company); they're the product of collusion, and were later supposed to be limited, both in scope and in time.. but then the unscrupulous characters within our nation in the 1800's bent the whole thing into a form to their liking, with the help of some bribed judges, from what I've read. Governments can and often do become unwieldy entities ruled by a connected group - but the influences often go to the benefit of the controllers of commerce, and visa-versa. It's a revolving door, and the money flows from the spigots of those who want certain things to happen - usually to the detriment of the citizens as a whole, and to fill the barrels of those who poured into the pot. Oh sure there were a number of market crashes over time - quite a few. But worse than the Great Depression? The global crash of 29', Germany went under in a major way, banks failed, Hoover the engineer thought it was horrible and catastrophic but he hadn't a positive outlook on ending it. Perhaps the 20' crash was from the war ending - slowing global demand suddenly might do that.. I recall the stories of people committing suicide after the market crash of 29', and the psychological hopelessness that ensued. But the markets were unregulated, and so there was no stopping the plummeting market in a mass panic situation. And a great deal of the failure was from bad investments, which were not corrected quickly enough, as the speculative market grew into a huge bubble. I'll take a look at what you've got there Nick - since market corrections have significant effects.;)

Nick, it's a cycle - the government is run by the corporations they're supposed to regulate. So they pretend to fix things, but then do the opposite. And it's all because of the corrupting money flowing from these same big corporations and investment firms into politics, which sets up the rules for failure.

1. Rich people are a clan. I've seen them, wearing their Tartan plaids, drinking martini's from the fountains in Bohemian Grove.:P It's a conspiracy, I can smell the brimstone! Sure, they may fight over the occasional Bugatti, Alco, and Rolls, not to mention the dinner rolls, but they're all in a room, a boiler room, planning the next assault on us commoners!:laugh3: And yes, Bill Gates has his own battleship, with the microsoft flag right beside the ol' skull and cross-bones, but they do gang up on us! Look at the debt relief robbers, who made off with millions, and bankrupted some despirately poor nations. They probably took the dinner rolls too! Then there's the assault on Social Security - always trying to rope us into risky market gambling, when the nest egg should be secure. We'll have to weld it down! 2. Tax heavens - is that where they go when their meters expire?:laugh3: I say put them all in Guantanamo Bay, and let Castro have at them - then they'll apreciate us more!:P If they think taxes are bad here, let them move to Sweden!:sneaky: I just think we need to get their money out of politics, as best as we can, or they'll just swallow up the whole world, and make us all serfs! They're the reason real income has stagnated - because their vaccum cleaners are sucking up all the extra hard-earned cash on hand (plus a few Buggati Royals).. I think we need more international cooperation to root out the tax-haven states (like Lichtenstein, Switzerland, the Bahamas, and where-ever else they hide their loot). Onward, to Sherwood Forest - the King's carriage is soon to pass by!:elf: 3. Well, that was then, that's for sure!! It's nowhere near as bad now, but the rate of work on the slave galley down below is sped up, and accidents and fatigue take their tolls. I've worked in places that would make you wonder if we've progressed much at all... the Tyler Pipe piece from Frontline - 'it's cheaper to pay $17,000 for a dead worker than slow the line down, or install safer equipment.' And some places aren't much better than this, yet they grow in the marketplace.. 4. Id' watch out if you eat hot dogs, Jay.:laugh3: Workers sometimes just don't seem to show up for work.. But I've worked at dangerous places, and believe me, they're out there! (I think they blindfold the OSHA inspectors, and bribe them when necessary - or their bosses in office - somehow it passes inspection, and I know it can't). Yes, government was already in existance, which is tragic that it takes death to stop bad practices. But would anything have changed if there hadn't been an outcry for regulation and enforcement? I'm glad something made the factory owners comply, or else more deaths would have happened elsewhere. And believe me, defunding agencies, or paying off politicians to soften the regs. makes a lot of workplaces unsafe.. sawmills with too few fire estinguishers, sawing operations where there's no metal mesh gloves and fingers come off, places where the fumes are knocking out the workers like flies - been there, seen that. In crisis, those who use fear to control often get their way - so it was with Bush. I agree - he should have been impeached on numerous occasions. Still should be investigated and tried. He's wiggled his way out of everything, and that's the crime of the century.. I think the biggest problem is the arrogance of power. Missing the point in their high-saddle positions, the agency heads often go unchecked for their mistakes, preferring to blame all on the perpetrators, and avoid all culpability for their poor performance as agency heads. Plus misunderstanding human nature - poverty has a lot to do with why crazy people find sanctuary and recruits in the world. To find a better way forward requires that there be checks on the heads of agencies, so they cooperate better with one-another, and don't become insular in their thinking, or promoters of "group-think" Anyhow, I'm all debated out.. enjoy Easter!:cool:

"The most regulated banks and companies are the ones in the biggest trouble" - got some examples to go with that statement? In my mind, it's when the regulations were taken off - allowing, for example, the packaging of bad debts as good investments to be placed on the great roulette wheel of Wall Street. And the biggest commercial banks and companies control the regulations through campaign contributions, so I'm sure they loosened the reg's. to try the gambles they did - the bigger the entity, the more persuation with the politicians in Washington and elsehwhere. Look at the top campaign donors - Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sacks, Citi-Group, etc. - it's plain as day they payed in to set up the unstable propositions, thinking the gambling could go on forever. I'm not an expert on the New Deal, but while price regulations were no answer, it makes sense that stimulating the economy when people are afraid to spend or borrow helps build confidence, and get's people back to work, enabling them to make the goods and purchase them. So government spending could have been more carefully directed, but the stimulation did help the economy - we could have used more! Socialism isn't great, but in times of crisis, something has to come to the rescue, for temporary relief during a market failure and total erosion of consumer confidence. 1929 was pre-depression, and as I was saying, the stimulation wasn't enough actually to fully pull us out of a depression; even so, 1939's GDP was close to the GDP in 1929, and depending on how the value of the dollar is placed, that was better than the early 30's, when despiration was the norm. Consumer confidence had risen, and that was essential to getting us out as well. If the Great Depression was minor when it started, then why were so many executive types leaping from windows in major US cities??:P

Yes, GM did do a daffy thing there - I agree. They could have been way-ahead of their competition, but after spending some ungodly sum of money on the development of the EV1, they dropped it. Which makes one wonder, if the collusion did it between the oil companies and Generous Motors?? One more reason to clamor for honest government, to investigate and prevent corporate collusion.. I think, in a way, going green is dependent on honest government to a large extent as well - both to obtain more unbiased scientific investigations of environmental matters, and to promote change when change is due, and save lives in the process. I was just reminiscing about how long it took for auto makers to eliminate the use of lead in car bodies and paint finishes - and the horror stories told to me by neighbors who worked on the lines, and how many people wound up poisoned from lead exposure years ago. Some say regulation isn't necessary, but there's a direct example, and the dramatic effect it had on improving human health!