patrick.net

Vicente says

So offer that to personnel who've actually BEEN in war zones. Getting a fat pension for sitting behind a desk in Germany for 20 years, sorry DENIED hope your 401K choices did well move along! I got nothing against the grunt with no legs, he deserves it. However Sgt. Rock is just the Poster Boy, the majority of the military is in no danger of riding over top of an IED and if a teacher doesn't "deserve" a pension neither do they.

There are 2 different issues here. I'm not objecting to somewhat equal pension treatments for all government workers if they are fit and able to provide for themselves and their 401K. But that doesn't apply to wounded or traumatized soldiers, they should be taken care of. So yeah, an administrative desk-sitter in no actual danger of ever being deployed can be treated differently. But that only distracts from the fact that under Ron Paul defense spending would be a fraction of what it is now and the TBTFs would have failed and the FIRE sector reduced. No candidate is the perfect solution, but it's fair to say at this point that it's better than continued warmongering, taking away of civil liberties, crony capitalism and stagflation.

mell says

I'm not objecting to somewhat equal pension treatments for all government
workers if they are fit and able to provide for themselves and their 401K. But
that doesn't apply to wounded or traumatized soldiers, they should be taken care
of.

Fighting the wrong battle here. Instead of complaining about Federal pensions being too rich, should be complaining that private pensions are too poor.

Don't you think there is some correlation of increased profitability, increased executive pay, and decreased worker benefits in the private sector?

Is it really innovative if an executive slashes pensions to make more profit and earn higher bonuses? Anyone greedy can figure that out.

mell says

But that only distracts from the fact that under Ron Paul defense spending would be a fraction of what it is now and the TBTFs would have failed and the FIRE sector reduced.

Ron Paul only claimed a 15% reduction, which I doubt he would get through Congress anyway so it's irrelevant. If you're only going to have a Coast Guard and a few boomers, why do you need 85% of the budget still? Oh right, pork and jobs programs digging holes and filling them up or something.

Oh Ron Paul proposed enacting Glass Steagall again? NOOOPE! Under Ron Paul, we'd be even MORE deregulated, so nothing would have changed in the FIRE sector. As piss poor as the current regulatory scheme is, his would be even more "let 'em run WILD whee let the chips fall where they may!" And we know how things end when there are frequent boom bust cycles, consolidations/mergers and the money percolates upward even faster.

sbh says

My problem with Rand Paul is that he uses the Libertarian moniker to appear different than other Republicans when he strikes me as just an isolationist trickle down conservative. He can't run a country if he has no social policies other than a hands-off economic policy. In order to win a primary election he'll have to show that he's a southern conservative evangelical, fetus-is-a-person candidate, and instantly his singularity will vanish. He's no different than any of them save for some small-military rhetoric which he'll quickly abandon. He can't change anything.

Rand and Ron are very different. Rand is more a career politician, still youngish. I think the Republican party will eventually (have to) modernize, but even now the 2 parties are way to close. Fact is that the citizens on both sides think they are going a grand job for humanity by voting for their party in absolutely minor issues such as abortion regulations and gay marriage while 90% of the policies that do matter are absolutely identical for both parties. I'm socially liberal and would legalize civil unions for everybody incl. polygamists while abolishing government marriage, I also think that picking a point in time up to which abortion is legal is the fairest solution but would let states craft their own laws, but in reality none of these issues matter in order to lead a productive and happy life. We have become trend-setting egomaniacs who think the rest of the worlds needs our "goodness", "greatness" and must adopt our policies or we'll bomb the shit out of them and we are happy with a president who kills innocent children and families around the world as long as he has a domestic gay-friendly agenda. That's the reality, If I could I'd give up my right to marry and give it to a gay couple/polygamist x-tuple instead if I could have one less drone strike on some poor family in the middle-east. Flame away, I don't care ;)

Vicente says

And we know how things end when there are frequent boom bust cycles, consolidations/mergers and the money percolates upward even faster.

That's not true, most grand failures of 2008 would not have been touched with a ten foot pole by the surviving banks and smaller credit unions if the govt/Fed would not have subsidized and backstopped almost every deal/merger. Boom/bust cycles would happen far less frequently if tail-risk is kept and people actually would buy houses to live in instead to flip and wealth/income disparity was greatly reduced during the 2008 crisis but the trend was stopped with the bailouts.

"All we can say at this point is Republican policies continue to work their magic on the country."

All politicians serve the one percent, who provide most of the bribes, er, I mean campaign contributions. I don't see a difference between the two wings of the "Business Party," as Ralph Nader calls it.

sbh says

mell says

I'm socially liberal

Glad to hear it. But how do you vote Libertarian when they are a subset of the conservative group? I would be happy to see more accountability in American business: it gets away with murder. It has models built way-passed-stupid and is run at the street level by ill-trained idiot children. But your vision of "none of this ever would have happened if only"....is a theory you can't test. In order to test it we would have to elect an evangelical in Libertarian clothing. I won't risk it.

I can understand that. I believe though that societies should be able to make their own rules up to the smallest practicable level as advocated by Ron Paul. There is far less risk of dictatorship and totalitarian ideological brainwashing if you can simply move to a neighboring region/state/country if you don't agree with the policies of your current local administration. I don't know exactly what specific "evangelical" issues you would be concerned about though.

This is why the wealthy elite win. When a candidate for legitimate change like Ron Paul achieves some notoriety, they bombard the campaign with bullshit social issues like abortion and gay rights, or racial issues if necessary. This serves to muddy the waters and rile up people on both sides of these emotional but not very significant issues, and polarizes what should be a united electorate. Then it's fairly simple to elect the next White House desk pigeon from a short list of "douche bag" and "turd sandwich."
Otherwise intelligent people like Vicente get the wool pulled over their eyes and soon we're even further toward being the type of war mongering dictatorship we used to despise.

sbh says

mell says

I don't know exactly what specific "evangelical" issues you would be concerned about though.

All of them.

That's too unspecific for me. Abortion (there are far more logical/non-religious reasons to prosecute abortion than any drug use) and gay marriage (not a civil right as marriage is an artificial positive discriminatory government construct that can only be fair if abolished) are not amongst them for me, so what else? What can't be solved by moving into another state if you happen to find yourself in deeply religious territory?

Quigley says

This is why the wealthy elite win. When a candidate for legitimate change like Ron Paul achieves some notoriety, they bombard the campaign with bullshit social issues like abortion and gay rights, or racial issues if necessary. This serves to muddy the waters and rile up people on both sides of these emotional but not very significant issues, and polarizes what should be a united electorate. Then it's fairly simple to elect the next White House desk pigeon from a short list of "douche bag" and "turd sandwich."

Otherwise intelligent people like Vicente get the wool pulled over their eyes and soon we're even further toward being the type of war mongering dictatorship we used to despise.

Agreed - well said.

mell says

I'm socially liberal

That's nice, but if you are never, ever, ever going to be willing to vote for a member of the party which supports these things (i.e. the Democratic party) then your support is hollow.

mell says

That's not true, most grand failures of 2008 would not have been touched with a ten foot pole by the surviving banks and smaller credit unions if the govt/Fed would not have subsidized and backstopped almost every deal/merger.

I call that a HYPOTHESIS, which is an idea you can test.

Feel free to survey the repeated economic crises of the previous couple of centuries and follow the wealth.

Crisis unfolds "naturally", the wealth moves up. Economic crisis is a feast for Richie Rich. Glass Steagall prevented them for 80 years and we had unprecedented stability and a healthy middle class. We threw that all away because wizened Libertopian gnomes like Greenspan and Ron Paul thought we could have an EPIC party and to hell with the hangover. Libertopians are the isolationist Republican crank wing, and are perfectly happy to have "creative destruction" as long as what it creates is a wealthier 1%.

bdrasin says

mell says

I'm socially liberal

That's nice, but if you are never, ever, ever going to be willing to vote for a member of the party which supports these things (i.e. the Democratic party) then your support is hollow.

I outlined above how I think this is equally supported by Libertarians, so I don't need to vote democratic. Also some of the perceived social issues aren't or are very minor compared to killing innocent civilians and children who would gladly opt for the opportunity to just have a live with these social "constraints". In that case I have to weigh what's more important and the choice is easy. But for the record, I supported more democratic candidates than republicans, I just don't have a home in either camp because they appear like one to me ;)

sbh says

He [Rand Paul] can't run a country if he has no social policies other than a hands-off economic policy.

Libertopians don't want to run a country, he attended a RenFest and thought it'd be fun to recreate feudalism.

Vicente says

Libertopian gnomes like Greenspan

How you can call Greenspan a non-interventionist Libertarian when he pushed rates lower and lower to inflate bubbles at the helm of the Fed is beyond me. Not everyone who read Ayn Rand and claims to be inspired is therefore a Libertarian. Greenspan is no different form Bernanke, a crony capitalist interventionist tool.

sbh says

Can you imagine what Rand Paul ( in order to attain/retain office) would have to let Rick Santorum do? If you go down THAT slippery slope, as conservatives have taught us is so instructive, it's just a short hop and a skip to "THEY WANT to abolish marriage for anyone who doesn't pledge to Jesus. THEY WANT to circumcise women who want to have sex outside of marriage." Yeah, the Libertarian experiment isn't worth it.

I can't and I think this is a huge leap compared to having your current president killing innocent families in the middle east, that's a fact. Ron ran as a Republican for practical reasons, Libertarians are not theocrats, some (or a lot if you'd like) of Republicans are. Btw. I don't care under which disguise you do screwed up stuff, "spreading democracry" and "our values" is no better than theological arguments if the outcome is the same or worse.

Purchase index decreased last week by 3%. It is now down year over year.

mell says

How you can call Greenspan a non-interventionist Libertarian

The man DESCRIBES HIMSELF as a "lifelong libertarian Republican".

Who is "Mom" standing left of Uncle Al in this Oval Office photo?

He didn't use a capital L, and of course Ayn Rand has NO relation to Real Libertarians, even though they all have every one of her books on their shelves and committed to memory. He never alluded to thinking he was some sort of Double-Naught undercover agent for the forces of libertarian economic philosophy, and believing that the best policy was hands off because markets were perfectly self-regulating. NOOPE!

Oh wait, you're going for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Carry on then.

I was a card-carrying Libertarian for 20 years, I've made every argument you're making myself.

Vicente says

I call that a HYPOTHESIS, which is an idea you can test.

That the GINI index came down during the crisis is a fact, not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is saying that Libertarian candidates are theocrats.

Vicente says

and believing that the best policy was hands off because markets were perfectly self-regulating.

So having the Fed at the helm gaming the markets is self-regulating? You can't be serious.

mell says

Well, Greenspan was at the helm of the Fed that Libertarians want to see
abolished.

So suddenly all Libertarians are Paulbots? Some liberatarians want to abolish the Fed, not all. Greenspan happens to be one who does not.

mell says

So having the Fed at the helm gaming the markets is self-regulating? You can't be serious.

He's a man who famously said "fraud doesn't exist." And I think that sums up how blinkered Libertopians are on economic realities.

Regulating would imply that were something other than the FIRE lords go-to waterboy for another helping of sending the cops back to the donut shop. Greenspan was quite active in making sure that no actual regulation took place. The job of a sane Federal Reserve head is to take away the punch bowl when the party gets too heated, instead Uncle Al added more vodka and ensure police were quashed. For an example, see what happened to Brooksley Born when she tried to regulate the derivatives market. Creative Destruction is good for us, in Libertopian fantasy, and he gave it to us good and hard, gave us the best disaster he could engineer so we could find out!

http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=30885

control point says

mell says

Well, Greenspan was at the helm of the Fed that Libertarians want to see

abolished.

So suddenly all Libertarians are Paulbots? Some liberatarians want to abolish the Fed, not all. Greenspan happens to be one who does not.

Sure, it's a valid distinction if you want to make it. I'd say though that 99% of modern Libertarians do not fall into this category.

Vicente says

He's a man who famously said "fraud doesn't exist." And I think that sums up how blinkered Libertopians are on economic realities.

It is not just economic realities, it is the realities of human nature in general. Libertarians -- like communists or anarchists -- have their hearts in the right place, and see the best in humanity. That is great, but you can't run a government on the idea that everyone is always going to play nice and be fair.

sbh says

But, still, diluting one's philosophy "for practical reasons" is the first posture of politicians

Running as a Republican vs Libertarian is not really diluting one's philosophy, it depends on what principles you run on, not your party affiliation. Ideally you'd always mix politicians from various parties, but we don't have those as opposed to other countries.

Vicente says

He's a man who famously said "fraud doesn't exist." And I think that sums up how blinkered Libertopians are on economic realities.

As opposed to Obama who has prosecuted numerous bankers for the fraud committed? Oh wait.. ;) I'm sure any other administration would have prosecuted more than zero, esp. the ones that stand against abolishing/undermining the rule of law, that's the first and foremost principle.

sbh says

As much as I see the wisdom in a few of their core ideas, your guys have already debased themselves, and made them untoward in the eyes of independents like me.

It's funny how afraid people seem to be and what scenarios they conjure when it comes to hypothetical 4 years of an alternative candidate. As I said, you can try and vote them off if they don't work for you.

donjumpsuit says

The chart below is what should disgust us.

The fact that the past two recessions have really only doubled the top 1%'s share of wealth.

So more or less the take home message is this. When the economy is stable, everyone wins. When it tanks because of financial games, real people loose jobs, homes, lifetimes full of wealth, and for the 1% it provides the opportunity to buy things on the cheap with borrowed money.

The great American experiment is at this point about about finding out whether the depression was an aberration in which case maybe the trend toward ever increasing income inequality can continue.

That is the goal of the right wing.

It's all about money and power. The only way to prevent evil, IMHO, is to make sure money and power don't get concentrated into too few hands.

Concentration of money is the root of all evil.

Historically, money concentrates at "the top" and those at "the top" use said money to oppress everyone else below.

Oh no! Short-term market movements!! I'd better act now before it's too late!!!

sbh says

They've become so extreme because they're terrified by what they see as inevitable demographic change. They are the ones truly afraid in this country

Yes they want to consolidate as much wealth into the top, before those scary changes occur. The truth though is understood in the big cities. Those demographic changes aren't as scary as they think. In fact we are very fortunate to have Mexico to our south, for times in the future when population growth from new births is insufficient.

There was a time when Irish, or Italian was consider vastly inferior to English (wasp) and there was fear that they would destroy our culture and our economy.

Nobody believes that anymore. Or almost nobody. But for some reason, now, in some circles the difference of darker skinned folks, relative to "whites," is seen as even more scary than the Irish or Italians were back then. The truth is it's the same story all over again. Eventually this kind of thinking will seem off the charts absurd.

But for now, the elites have a captive audience who buy their bs hook line and sinker in the fundamentalist, hillbilly, red neck crowd.

Wait wasn't the topic about income inequality and not race? Let's hope this doesn't turn into (yet) another "race war" thread.

control point says

bob2356 says

The fox brainwashing strikes again. You don't raise taxes on investments, you raise taxes on the profits from investments.

Or you raise them on investments.. asset taxes....

Which would be more effective at lowering income inequality? A higher tax on the income from investments, or a tax on the value of the investment itself?

A tax on investment itself is prohibited in the constitution. A wealth tax would require passing an amendment equivalent to the 16th which allowed income tax.

control point says

In short, the current structure is already skewed towards the top 1% - only those in that bracket pay 39.6%. But why does the top bracket stop there? WHy not have 45% over 1 million, 50% over 2 million, 55% over 5 million, 60% over 10 million, 65% over 20 million, 70% over 50 million, 75% over 100 million, 80% over 250 million, 85% over 500 million, and 90% over 1 billion.

Because Ronald Reagan said that if we got rid of that tax structure the wealth would trickle down. We just going have to wait a bit longer for it to trickle, it's only been 30 years. After all the Jews have been waiting for the messia for 2000 years. Trickle down wealth down may take just as long. Why are you a liberal commie who is against god, motherhood , apple pie, and freedom of the rich to get richer?

bob2356 says

Because Ronald Reagan said that if we got rid of that tax structure the wealth would trickle down. We just going have to wait a bit longer for it to trickle, it's only been 30 years. After all the Jews have been waiting for the messia for 2000 years. Trickle down wealth down may take just as long.

Ronald Reagan raised capital gains taxes, when he was the president he also got rid of tax loopholes as well. Just that tax structure did not last very long after he was gone. Because all those who buy our senators and their elections expect nice gifts in return from the taxpaying hard working americans.

FortWayne says

Ronald Reagan raised capital gains taxes

Source?

Kemp Roth cut Capital gains rates from 28% to 20%. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated a special capital gains rate, essentially raising capital gains rates to 28% in line with the max income rates.

mell says

I'm sure any other administration would have prosecuted more than zero

I don't think so. You can have your unprovable belief, but I didn't see any Republican majority in Congress calling for prosecutions either. As unpalatable as it was, I think most people you put in the White House would have to go along with Congress and Congress was in no mood for lynchings. Congress were all shit-scared by Hank Paulson, and wanted to patch things up an move on. Maybe you've forgotten the TARP vote where Congressmen were calling out falling stock indices as the vote was taken, but I haven't. Despite people's obsession with what goober is taking a turn in the White House, that's not where most of the actual power is.

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999:

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Wednesday, September 11, 2013 __ Level is 97.9

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes indeed, go here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

Vicente says

mell says

I'm sure any other administration would have prosecuted more than zero

I don't think so. You can have your unprovable belief, but I didn't see any Republican majority in Congress calling for prosecutions either. As unpalatable as it was, I think most people you put in the White House would have to go along with Congress and Congress was in no mood for lynchings. Congress were all shit-scared by Hank Paulson, and wanted to patch things up an move on. Maybe you've forgotten the TARP vote where Congressmen were calling out falling stock indices as the vote was taken, but I haven't. Despite people's obsession with what goober is taking a turn in the White House, that's not where most of the actual power is.

It's possible, but now you are hypothesizing a lot.

JH says

The four most dangerous words in investing are 'This time it's different.'

But this time it really is different! And if it isn't you can still come on here and say you did everything right and call yourself the Oracle ;)