patrick.net

SP,

I for one do not mind if some of moo-devine's thoughts indeed happen to be cut/paste from some earlier writings. Moo_devine is lucid and insightful, and I would not mind seeing more of his writings.

Moo_devine,

I'd agree that there are way too many people droning on about our "great freedom" in this country, and many of them seem to have no idea that there are plenty of other countries where freedom is as good if not better than here.

That is, unless you mean "freedom to dominate and exploit all of your fellow citizens that have less money than you have". On that scale, the US scores high.

Did everyone notice how Google Adwords is serving up ads for Russian mail order brides to go along with this thread? Moo_devine, it's all your fault :-).

Moo devine seems like the smartest poster around... you have a blog?

Michael Holiday, you are in the wrong place. Suggest you tune to Bill O'Rylley or whatever his name is, you will have much in common. You are like a girlfriend I have, she spent like 10 thousand on me and now is sticking around hoping I will pay her back. So basically I bought her with her money. (Always wanted to gold dig a gold digger :)
You see the way that the government is threating us is like the way the american parent threats their child. And we have grown up just like the average american child. We are waiting for the "invisible hand" to come and fix all our problems - children, economy, society and so forth. It is the people that know they will have a hard time in the future or have an easy time now that want to keep this crappy status quo.
I mean since those people are now paying for the army they don't even have to nurture nationalism as much since they get their army without the people believing in this crap. The "invisible hand" have got us by the balls so good I envy envy it. No matter who we vote for it is one of them. We can't fight them and we can't protest them. We don't even have anyone to fight and protest because it is usually the "invisible hand".

wow, Florida's hurting -- have a look at this:
This Is the Sound of a Bubble Bursting - New York Times

Mhrist,

The invisible hand turns out to be the parents running interference for their spoilt children, to prevent any pain, suffering or real lessons of life? All at the small expense of their rchildren's inheritance being squandered in the process?

It sounds very similar to Big Daddy Alan Greenspan trying hard to prevent that any of his spoiled Wall Street children gets a boo-boo from engaging in too much horseplay.

No wonder there are so many people in this country that firmly believe in the invisible hand of the markets. It is not an invisible hand, it is the proverbial "man behind the curtain", selling your future down the river all the while assuring you "that everything is going to ok".

Different Sean,

I especially like the bit about Mr. Jarrett that left his mental health-counseling job and began selling real estate.

Perhaps not all that different?

Mhrist Says:

"Michael Holiday, you are in the wrong place. Suggest you tune to Bill O’Rylley or whatever his name is, you will have much in common. You are like a girlfriend I have, she spent like 10 thousand on me and now is sticking around hoping I will pay her back. So basically I bought her with her money."
_____

Mhrist I think I've been posting here, on and off, longer than you have.

Just because you're in league with some of the more liberal posters doesn't give you a monopoly on free speech, though, in true left-wing fashion, your disdain for spirited dialog is stereotypical.

I remind you of your girlfriend. WTF?

Obviously you screwed your girlfriend in more ways that one. Dude, you sound like a garden variety, "Me Generation," "stick it to the man," "I've got mine," Boomer weed. Or, perhaps, you've been smoking too much weed.

I think you suffer from Boomeritus.

I know a few losers like you. Mutual users, stuck in dead-end, symbiotic, co-dependent relationships. You probably play guitar in a cover band and mooch off your girlfriend for a living.

If you can't get a life, at least get a clue.

Moo_devine,

Care to post some more complete references to some of the works that you somewhat informally cited?

Mhrist, who plays the parent role in this country? The free market "invisible hand" or the big government?

Is it the invisible hand that is pretending to protect me from trans fats? And second hand smoke? And "islamofascists"? And predatory lenders? And so on and so forth? And all the while controlling me more and more?

OO says:

People start to realize that high energy price is here to stay - last phase of oil bull run begins, could last a while before crashing back into 2004 USD equivalent of around $50/barrel

Your statement, along with today's Mish Article, http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/12/not-your-fathers-deflation-rebuttal.html?ref=patrick.net gives hope that we will have deflation in 2008. Maybe the house prices in the bubble areas will actually fall to 50% of the 2006 prices, as indicated by the builders price cuts in the LA area.

It seems that the general argument of the moo-divine crowd is that members of the American gov are enriching themselves by serving corporate interests over the American public. Maybe the Michael Holiday - sirisgopalan crowd would agree.

Oddly enough, the moo-divine types seem to think the solution to government abuse is to give even more power to the government. Pehaps they think a properly enlightend individual with broad powers would bring a working man's utopia, similar to the Soviet concept of "1980." Maybe a Putin, Fidel, or Kim.

Maybe a better plan would be to work for checks on gov power, and thus limit the ability for gov to abuse power.

Headset, well put.

There have always been a sizable population in the US that believed in socialistic/communistic principles.

Now that they are seeing with their own eyes all the atrocities that a big central government can do with our money and our rights, their solution is...

a bigger, more powerful government with a "good guy" at its helm!

Government is the only institution in the history of mankind to get rewarded for doing a bad job. In fact, the more horrible its performance, the higher the screams for increasing its size and giving it more power.

And this is not just applicable to one party. Both parties are saying the same thing with small, pointless differences. When will the sheeple wake up?

Headset, well put.

There have always been a sizable population in the US that believed in soc1al1stic/communistic principles.

Now that they are seeing with their own eyes all the atrocities that a big central government can do with our money and our rights, their solution is…

a bigger, more powerful government with a “good guy” at its helm!

Government is the only institution in the history of mankind to get rewarded for doing a bad job. In fact, the more horrible its performance, the higher the screams for increasing its size and giving it more power.

And this is not just applicable to one party. Both parties are saying the same thing with small, pointless differences. When will the sheeple wake up?

Communism will never ever work, because frankly if I become a communist toppling the current admin, I would topple it for my own good, and I believe only the smart (not the mindlessly generous and principled fair guys) and calculating guys will manage to climb to the top of the power ladder. And you expect these smart and calculating guys, once in grasp of the ultimate power, subject themselves to the same set of rules as everyone else, instead of taking advantage of the system, just like the top guys in the capitalist system?

The ultimate solution is always check and balance, be it communism or capitalism. Smart and calculating guys will ALWAYS float to the top under whatever system we are to implement and give themselves the biggest cut of the cake. So the only way to ensure that the rest of us will not be left with no cake is to instill a check and balance, which we had at one time, but got eroded as the American public got lazy and stupid.

Headset,

No, actually, some of us think that the solution is to give more power to the people, not to the government, by tuning up the electoral system so that we can have more than two parties, true proportional representation, and an executive that is held in check by a diverse (that means >2 parties again) legislative body. Would that work for you, Headset?

Anyone who truly believes in free markets ought to support a free market in political representation, rather than the current highly-regulated duopoly that makes it all but impossible for the individual voter to be heard.

SP,

in short, follow Warren Buffet, he cashed out ALL his China stakes in the last 3 months. Currently he held zilch interest in China and refused to put in money in stake in Chinese enterprises when approached.

The longer version is, China has never corrected in the last 20 years because US has never corrected. China has evolved to become a lower-end support structure of the US system, when US system needs a big flush, it will have to sustain a bigger shock.

We all know that China is in a gigantic asset bubble (housing affordability way lower than BA), and stock bubble (P/E of comparable companies 3-5x that of the Wall Street). The key factor leading to the bubble bursting will be determined by one factor - rampant inflation.

Because RMB is pegged to the US, and USD headed down 35-60% against all major currencies, the mere appreciation of 10% against USD still means significant depreciation of RMB against all major currencies except for USD and Yen, another quasi-pegged currency. Therefore, the impact of commodity inflation from industrial metals to crops, from energy to cement, is most felt by China, because it is the lowest on the food chain and commands no products that can charge a premium like the US or Japan. The one and only selling point of made-in-China is CHEAP. At the same time, China has hundreds of millions of low-skilled labor that need to be put to work, so China's policy so far is to endure inflation for as long as possible for the sake of employment.

However, recently statistics has shown that China is coming to that breaking point. China has never been genuine in its intention to control asset bubble, in fact, it is the government's policy to use inflation to digest the asset bubble, because the government is controlled by a group of elites just like this country. The only stark difference is, their elites control a much much bigger share of the country's wealth than us. Since 2006, their inflation has been getting out of control. Food staples and meat has been rising at 30-50% per annum, and lately cooking oil is going up at 10-15% per month! Speaking of hyperinflation!

What does that mean? Unlike the US, China's public spend a far bigger share of their income on food and daily living consumer staples, a common characteristic of population in developing countries. Therefore, the rampant inflation in China is eating away the livelihood of its lower and lower middle class, a major factor in social instability. Riots are happening at a hastened pace. The incumbent ommunists know very well, between profit and keeping their power, they will always opt for the latter, which is the source of all personal profit.

Therefore, after delaying interest rate hikes and just tempering with peripheral ways controlling (not bursting) the bubble, the PBOC and relevant parties are eventually getting serious in mopping up the liquidity, which they never did. They also will appreciate against the USD much faster next year to help alleviate inflationary pressure. However, that is the precisely the last straw on the camel's back which will crash land the economy.

Just to illustrate the importance of inflation to China, may I remind those who thought of the Tiananmen incident as a political event, it was in fact an ECONOMIC event.

People understood little about democracy over there, if you understand little and have never experienced that type of system, why would you be willing to die for that cause? Chinese are very practical, non-religious, so most of the things done by Chinese (99%) can be explained by financial motives and prestige.

The background of the Tiananmen incident was rampant inflation in the 80s when China started to become a capitalistic society. Under Mao, thanks to central planning, food and consumer staples were scarce but the price was fixed for a good 35 years, same as salary. In the 80s, in order to adopt the market-based economy, China chose a dual-track pricing scheme which fixed price for some but floated price for others, which was taken advantage of by the incumbent communist elites as a way of arbitrage to maximize personal profit. The published official data was 20+% inflation a year, but the reality was much worse. People started hoarding rice, wheat flour, soap, anything that they could get their hands on. Tiananmen was just a venue for the country to vent their dissatisfaction and frustration which took the wrong turn.

Tracing back another 50 years, KMT lost China to the communists precisely because of hyperinflation. KMT induced a text-book-style hyperinflation that only comes second compared to Weimar Republic. To finance the civil war against the communists, KMT resorted to printing and got off the gold-standard. The annual inflation was north of 1000%. Those who lived through it, including my grandparents, completely lost confidence in the incumbent government.

sriram - yes indeed. There's always been a large Socialist sentiment in the US. The right thing to do is to channel it into the kind of Folkish, "Nationalist, Protectionist, Isolationist" state we need. This is why there are so many Ron Paul voters right now and so many whom, like me, want Pat Buchanan to run.

Dunno how many of you read www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net but there's a link on the Breaking News page about how the large US banks are trying to sell themselves to China, because they're desperate for cash.

this is the kind of thing that will bring things to a head in the US.

Justme-

Its not that the executive is held in check, it's that congress actually does its job and balances the executive. Congress has abdicated its responsibility. All proportional representation would mean is the more populous states ganging up against the less populous states. No, no, no. What the current system needs is an electorate that actually takes its responsibilities seriously, knows the issues and votes, votes, votes. Everything else, mostly, is symptomatic fixes. People already have the power, they just don't use it.

justme, I am confused about whether we disagree at all.

The current duopoly is sham. Agreed.

I guess the biggest difference seems to be that you still believe in the government as the agent of improvement while I (and some others) think individual liberty is the way to go.

Instead of focusing on trying to fix the fundamentally-flawed, ever-burgeoning democratic system, we suggest a minimal government approach that relies on voluntary co-operation between people as the means to solving problems.

England (and therefore, India and others) have a different kind of a political setup which sound similar to what you propose, but it has its own problem.

No, actually, some of us think that the solution is to give more power to the people, not to the government, by tuning up the electoral system so that we can have more than two parties, true proportional representation, and an executive that is held in check by a diverse (that means >2 parties again) legislative body. Would that work for you, Headset?

The only way to give more "power to the people" is by putting checks on gov power and a strong belief in individual rights. As Richta says, the people already have the power, but will not use it. For example, the Constitution grants only Congress the power to declare war, since no single man should have that ability. But when war on Iraq came up, the Congress chose to to pass that call to the executive instead of having a debate and a vote count. That way they could claim credit if the war went well, and blame Bush if it did not. Why on earth would the American public re-elect any clown/coward who shirked thier duty that way? Why re-elect a man with $90,000 bribe money in his freezer?

Maybe the "people" are too lazy for a Constitutional Republic and use their votes in such a way that we have a DemoPublican party (not two parties as you say) composed of less than honorable men. But that sure beats the hell out of a system where gov power is used to force an outcome in the name of the "people."

But maybe we can hit some common ground. How about these rules on who can vote:
1. Be an net tax payer
2. Must pass a test proving you know your Representative, Senators, and their voting records.
3. In the Presidential Election, know why we have an Electoral College and know why your state has its number of electors.
4. A test showing you have a working knowlege of the US Constitution.

Such an informed voting public would be more inclined to note individual candidates stance on the issues, and put less regard to political party. Under the HeadSet system, the lazy puds can vote on Amercan Idol, while the responsible people can select a responsible government.

Would that work for you, justme?

HeadSet Says:
Maybe a better plan would be to work for checks on gov power, and thus limit the ability for gov to abuse power.

We already have checks on government power via the Congress and the Media - the problem is that they all seem to have been co-opted by shortsighted corporate interest.

BTW, I completely agree that 'more government' is not the answer, nor do I believe in hoping that a powerful 'enlightened individual' will fix things.

@OO, thanks for the detailed reply.

We already have checks on government power via the Congress and the Media - the problem is that they all seem to have been co-opted by shortsighted corporate interest.

That is my point. We need better checks

How can you say that government power is "checked" by Congress when Congress is the lion's share of government? Maybe you are refering to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial system of checks and balances.

And the media, dispite there ego, is not a "check" on government. The media is just one tool toward an informed public, which is.

>We need better checks.

I agree. However, I go back to the analogy by P.J.O'Rourke - giving the government money and power is like giving a teenager whiskey and car keys.

We can talk endlessly about what kind of safety features cars need to have such that drunk teenagers don't crash them.

Or we could simply not give booze and the keys to the teenagers in the first place.

By voting for Ron Paul!

The tiger escape might be a crime!

http://www.kmph.com/Global/story.asp?S=7544222&nav=menu612_2_7

Yesterday, my initial reaction was that it could be domestic terrorism carried out by "animal rights" activists.

If it turned out to be a deliberate act, the perpetrator should be sent to Gitmo Bay!

HeadSet,

Would imposing your rules actually yield a better electorate? The majority of citizens do not bother to vote, and I would guess that the citizens who actually do vote are already more likely to satisfy your rules than those who don't.

Voters vote for their Congressmen not because they are good for America. They vote for them because they are good for their district.

Would imposing your rules actually yield a better electorate?

No, probrably not. Only because I am not qualified to determine what a "better" electorate is. My rules would just create what "I" think would be better. Maybe the guy who doesn't know his basic Constitution but does know he does not want a "bailout" candidate is a quality vote.

My "rules" were just a counter to the idea that we need to monkey with the system because we have an outcome like the "dualopoly" that some do not like. I introduced the Headset Altruistic Citizens' Party platform voting rules to show that I care and know what is best. Trouble is, every else thinks they know what is best, so to accommadate all those ideas we get back to the system currently in place, warts and all.

How can you improve on the system of one person / one vote, a guarenteed set of individual rights, a twin legislative body (one representing people and the other representing states), with a legislative and executive check? Politicians by nature will game the system, but at least the people have the power (if not the brains or will) to vote them out.

Headset,

That's a pretty detailed proposal. I do see some problems with it, though. First of all, qualifying voting rights based on some more stringent criterion than being a citizen of voting age is a very dangerous system. Think back in history on all the shady methods that have been used to prevent people from casting their vote, and now imagine a law that will provide legitimacy to such a system. Who's going to decide who is a "competent" voter, and how? I think every person must have their vote, no matter how ignorant or stupid someone might think they are.

Now, back to how Bush scared the Democrats into giving him the war powers to attack Iraq (based on fraud, lies and deception, but that is a separate story). I don't think the real reason was that they wanted Bush to get the blame and then have an opportunity to get credit. It was because they lnew that there was a VERY high chance they would lose their seat in the 2006 election if they voted against, because the Republican spin-machine and the associated mass media would label them as "soft on terror".'

This can so easily happen in an election system where the "winner takes all", meaning that there is only one representative elected per district. Just sway the public opinion by 5% by labeling the opposition as "soft on terror", and every on of them will lose! It is absolutely frightening how badly this system works.

A good election system is one where it is possible to take a principled stand against wrongdoing, and maybe lose 5% of the votes and therefore 5% of the representative seats that your party holds. It is not a good system when losing 5% of the vote can cost you 100% of the seats. The latter is how the US election system works. Until this country gets an election system that essentially supports representation proportional to the votes received by each party, democracy is only one bad election from a single--party system.

The tiger escape might be a crime!

Is that because someone may have let the cat out deliberately? Or is it because you police disposal of the shot beast as a horrible waste of good tiger steaks?

Some new posts arrived while I was typing.

The problem with Congress is niot that it has too much power. The problem is that when it is 50-49, and the president is on the 51% side, the executive branch has ALL the power. And i the balance is 49-51, he can still veto his way out of too much.

What we need is a *diverse* multi-party congress and *less* executive power. That will be a real democracy. I can't say it too often: It all hinges upon the election system.

Who’s going to decide who is a “competent” voter, and how? I think every person must have their vote, no matter how ignorant or stupid someone might think they are.

Looks like our posts crossed. My 5:03PM post shows that we agree here.

Now, back to how Bush scared the Democrats into giving him the war powers to attack Iraq....because they lnew that there was a VERY high chance they would lose their seat in the 2006 election if they voted against, because the Republican spin-machine and the associated mass media would label them as “soft on terror”.’

In 1776, the Continental Congress knew they would be facing the hangman if things do not turn out right. GWB will not be sending anyone to the gulag or firing squad. Anyone who voted against their principles because of fear of W is not worthy of office. Think, they put the power to send our youth to their deaths in the hands of one man because they were afraid of being called names? Is this the type of pussies you want representing us?

there is only one representative elected per district.

there is only one representative elected per district.

I don't follow. Is Virginia a "District?" If so, we have 11 distinct representatives with differing voting records. Add to that two Senators, one pro Bush and the other a definate Bush antagonist.

A "diverse" party system would be up to the voters. Americans are too homogenous to vote outside the DemoPublican party. Few Americans want Greens, Libertarian, Social1st, Conservative, Labor, Whig, Liberal, Facist, Baathists, or Free Love and Dope candidates. Although I know at least one Social1st and one Libertarian have been elected.

The problem with Congress is niot that it has too much power. The problem is that when it is 50-49, and the president is on the 51% side, the executive branch has ALL the power.

That would be true only if the President had the power to introduce legislation or had a line item veto.

Anyhow, I can see you favor "coalition" over "bipartisan"

Michael Holiday,
you cannot be more wrong. You see, in any event, you don't really debate my points but rather attack my character which I expect you've heard is some sort of a fallacy, but I doubt you know of them "philosophical" bullshits.

In actuality, I do smoke weed here and occasionally there but this is about all you guessed. For you see some months I make me 10-15k after taxes with my work which actually is helping dummies from MySpace, Fandango, and a bunch of others. Currently, beside smooching the plastic out of the girl, and I recently dump her, I have been getting a pay check from WMC Mortgage which is GE mortgage arm. They laid off everyone but I am getting 4 months paid and I actually worked there for like 3 weeks.
With this I am going for 6 months in jail in the next few weeks so I won't be much of a bother anyway. Still be getting me a paycheck of the tune of 20k a month which is plenty many more than what I need.

All in all dude, try and read some more Sherlock Holmes before analyzing my situation from 2 sentences, I mean the guy was educated not a Hank Hill neighbor.

Such a stereotypical stereotype.

Marty

P.S. I've been working since I am 9...

Mrist says about Michael Holliday:

you don’t really debate my points but rather attack my character

Mrist, fom you posts I gleen:

You are a pothead
You use women and brag about it
You brag about big money (ala HaHa and the Fat Stacks)
You are headed toward jail

You don't have much character to attack...

Wow, essay thread.

While I am skeptic about the rise of China in the next 20 years, I am generally optimistic in the longer term, especially if they can straighten out their political system. The biggest hindrance to the development of China is its own government, corrupt, oppressive and selfish, which is typical of any government in the world if it can get away with it. So far, there is no proof that China has broken the historical pattern of any dynasty (we call the current admin the Red Dynasty). At the beginning of the dynasty, elites rule with ideals and common sense, as the government grows, more and more social resources are spent on feeding the swelling body of civil servants, and the government turned defensive and oppressive and corrupt, which led to a violent collapse. Until China figures out a way to break this historical pattern, the diligence and intelligence of its people will just end up in this infinite loop of stability and collapse.

The crash landing of China will impact the US in two ways. Currently China has mastered the art of low-cost production, not only due to labor cost, but also because of the clutter of support structure it has built over the years. India, Vietnam or Indonesia will be at least a decade behind in terms of that infrastructure. That means, many cheap products will see the current value chain disrupted, and that is no good news to the American poor. One cannot shift such production base within months. It takes a decade to build and it will take similar length of time to shift. Therefore, such disruption will have some undesirable ripple effect on the American consumers.

Another problem is a potential military conflict across the strait of Taiwan. As long as China is going fine, nobody in the right mind in the elite ruling class will invoke a military conflict over Taiwan. Taiwan is always used as a excuse for unifying the 1.x billion Chinese who nowadays believe in nothing except for money. A government needs a program to get its ducks in line, and that program for China is called "unification with Taiwan". However, if the incumbent communists encounters serious social instability induced by the coming recession, and risks losing its unopposed status, it may just start a war as an act of desperation. There is really nothing to lose. If they luck out at such a political gamble, we will lose our sphere of influence in the Pacific.

The latter is my biggest worry. I don't think America is ready for that kind of scenario especially under the current idiot administration.