patrick.net

RayDuxbury: You might consider exercising your mind. Because as far as I can tell you only exercise your emotions here. It has been shown that for seniors as well as everyone else, exercising you brain can lead to effective increases in intelligence.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4838849_exercise-your-brain.html

http://www.braintraining101.com/exercise-your-brain-in-15-minutes-flat/

I'm not kidding Dux, this would benefit you. Maybe just play some Soduko or do a crossword puzzle.

duxbury001 says

what was theMarkInSF says

Glad to see you backed off your absurd claim that government promotion of housing ownership caused the housing bubble in Ireland.
And the cause of the dumb mortgages and easy credit was…..?

Ireland was a giant recipient of EU money and had super stimulative low tax rates. These huge imbalances cauesed a tidal wave of prosperity that lead to a boom. Of course government policy plays a part in these booms.

Please explain how low taxes and a few hundred dollars per person per year of EU aid money caused the financial industry to make over $100 billion of bad loans, and then completely collapse. There is an enormous gap in your logic here.

MarkInSF says

Please explain how low taxes and a few hundred dollars per person per year of EU aid money caused the financial industry to make over $100 billion of bad loans, and then completely collapse. There is an enormous gap in your logic here.

ummm.. you know if you want me to teach you basic economics you really need to pay me $100/hour (like public school teachers). Google Irish tiger... THEN SHUT THE F-UP.

bubblesitter says

But how are realtors and potatoes related?

If you want to sell your house, pay two years' crops of potatoes to your scumbag realtor.

duxbury001 says

As for your “Reagan” problem… the seventies were an economic abomination.

The 1970s get a bad rap but job-wise they were outstanding.

Total Nonfarm Payrolls: All Employees (PAYEMS) 1971-1981

shows that the 1970s were a period of very strong growth.

It's my thesis that it was the baby boom turning 20 and 30 that prompted a lot of the inflation

The 2000s are a total joke compared to the 1970s:

Total Nonfarm Payrolls: All Employees (PAYEMS) 2001-2011

actually ending with FEWER jobs than what we started at. "Bush Economy" FTL.

and this graph:

National Debt / GDP, 1965 - 1995

shows that the national debt DECLINED vs GDP from 1970 to 1980, and EXPLODED from 1980 to 1990.

Troy says

In a just world their professional vocabulary would center on “Do you want fries with that?”

Good one. :-)

How do I start a new thread? I don't see a 'Compose' button or anything like that...

Troy says

bubblesitter says
But how are realtors and potatoes related?
In a just world their professional vocabulary would center on “Do you want fries with that?”

I don't think anyone could come up with something better.

Jacob M says

How do I start a new thread? I don’t see a ‘Compose’ button or anything like that…

I got it...

=

Bullshit. You’re simply making up nonsense and pretending it’s true when you have no idea if you’re right or not. Japan’s period of huge industrial growth was called the “Golden 60s”. The 1960s was also termed the second decade of the “Japanese economic miracle. ” Industrial growth in Germany during the 1960s was termed the “Miracle economy”. Since you’re ignorant of these terms I suggest you look them up and educate yourself.

Yea, ok... my little asian boy from samoa. Yes, the earth really is round. Why don't you check out German industrial production vis-a-vis the US circa 1910? Or British? The 1950's was a delusional era when the three great powers (Uk, Germany, Japan) were on their knees. I am not doubting that they recovered from their cities being flattened and nuked very well... but their industries were playing catchup for decades and the US had no serious competitors. Japan's products were a joke in the 60's, Britain committed suicide by socializing its industries and Germany was just getting its act in gear. We all know how much of a serious rival China was in 1950... with those rice paddies and huts.

So I am not sure why your pea sized brain can't adjust to this... Like the Roman empire, we faced NO SERIOUS RIVALS from 1945-1980. After 2010 we don't face a rival, but are inferior to China in overall economic activity by some metricts.

So you are basically saying economic policy should be based on a very temporary period when the US had no major rivals... and that we should keep the idiotic complacency in 2010. We should pay people $70/hour to let them mow the lawn and $100/hour to teach our kids. Am I getting this straight?

duxbury001 says

Like the Roman empire, we faced NO SERIOUS RIVALS from 1945-1980. After 2010 we don’t face a rival, but are inferior to China in overall economic activity by some metricts.

Again-how come our balance of trade over that time period doesn't reflect this then? It should be easy to prove this--why don't you post some data to back it up?

Troy says

The 1970s get a bad rap but job-wise they were outstanding.

Sometimes you've really got to admire the work of college professors. As stupid it is... you really have to kick back and wonder. This is among the dumbest statements... bar none... I have ever heard. Its not something you argue against... like at a freak show when they have the wolf boy. You have to ask yourself can people be this stupid or indoctrinated? Who or what is responsible for this? You have to get philosophical about it and start to question how different we are from apes indeed. It starts to make sense about why the holocaust happend or Joe Stalin... Mao. It all makes sense now. People really can be that stupid.

tatupu70 says

Again-how come our balance of trade over that time period doesn’t reflect this then? It should be easy to prove this–why don’t you post some data to back it up?

OK, I realize your IQ is about half mine, but I am going to try to explain this in small words so that you might understand. Let's give a try? C'mon.. try to listen this time.

If the US is doing really, really swell.. and has super, duper money!!! really happy! Daddy and Mommy might buy a German car like a Porsche (zoom, zoom!!). So because Daddy and Mommy have SOOOOOOOOOOO much money they buy lots of stuff overseas.

But those Germans aren't doing so well.. they can't get as many credit cards and other things. They don't make as much money. So those germans don't buy that many IBM computers from the US.

And to add to our problems... THOSE MEAN GERMANS AND JAPANESE put up trade barriers and super sneaky ones like the VAT, which may our products super duper expensive over there.

So it ends up that we buy stuff from Germany than they buy from us... even though our economy is doing well at the time.

http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

It is true that huge numbers of baby boomers and women entered the work force.

Carter was a downer, with his malaise speech. He basically said we were spoiled. He was a true conservative

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/apr/06/00014/

I have a conspiracy theory that his anti consumerism message got him in trouble with the corporatocracy.

Hence, "DAY 332 OF THE HOSTAGE CRISIS" is what we heard every night for how many months on the news ? I guess that was before we learned not to play into the hands of terrorists.

duxbury001 says

It starts to make sense about why the holocaust happend or Joe Stalin… Mao. It all makes sense now. People really can be that stupid.

I sometimes lose faith in humanity too, but it's not because of people like Troy. What, you would have us believe that between you and Troy, he is the one who believes what his emotions tell him to believe, and you are the truly intelligent wise seer of the truth.

When I fear for humanity's future, it is because of authoritarian types like you who want daddy to tell them what to believe.

I know, I know, he's a troll and I shouldn't respond. I'm not the only one. And we all know it's Ray, or someone very much like Ray.

Carter from his "Malaise" speech:

"We are at a turning point of our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. … All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to the true freedom for our nation and ourselves."

duxbury001 says

This is among the dumbest statements… bar none… I have ever heard. Its not something you argue against…

Of course you can't argue against it. I posted graphs showing the 1970s showed jobs increased from 72 million in 1971 to near 92 million in 1980, while Congress held the national debt steady at 25% of GDP as the 1970s came to a close.

Reagan then took over and juiced the national debt to 40% of GDP by 1990, doubling it in real terms.

The 1970s saw the creation of TWENTY MILLION JOBS.

Then I posted W's great economic performance -- just 8 million piddly jobs created, all of which vanished once the recession hit since they were bubble jobs on a bubble economy.

I lived through the 1970s and it was pretty damn good. What cost a dime in 1970 cost a quarter in 1980, but other than that life was super-fine since wages had also doubled to keep up with that inflation.

marcus says

When I fear for humanity’s future, it is because of authoritarian types like you who want daddy to tell them what to believe.

Actually what I am arguing against is pure and unadulterated criminality. Unions who have destroyed our country through their extortion, their kickbacks to the democrats. They have bankrupted not only the US, but many western states as well like Greece and Spain, where air traffic controllers make 450k and brought the nation to its knees. Today Hawaii is in darkness from thugocracy of absurdly overpaid electrical union workers.

You have to bear in mind the FDR did not allow public sector unions. He thought them wrong. My objection to them is not radical. After seeing the damages they have done I would argue that any remotely sane person would oppose.

Troy says

Of course you can’t argue against it. I posted graphs showing the 1970s showed jobs increased from 72 million in 1971 to near 92 million in 1980, while Congress held the national debt steady at 25% of GDP as the 1970s came to a close.

http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

the problem is that inflation and unemployment increased to utterly unbearable levels, making the 70's second to the 30's in terms of overall economic misery. No sane person thinks the 70's were a booming time of prosperity. I don't know where they teach that... but it is an utterly dumbfounding statement.

Reagan increased the deficit to defeat the soviet empire (where we were losing to the soviets in vietnam and afghanistan in the 70's). He succeeded. The deficit was then brought down as the peace dividend in the 90's when Newt took over. It was a staggering success.

duxbury001 says

the problem is that inflation and unemployment increased to utterly unbearable levels,

Do I gotta pull another chart here to educate you out of your foolery again? Here's unemployment:

The late 70s economy was pretty decent. Real wages were steady. Inflation didn't get *that* bad, like stuff in the Sears Catalog in 1975 wasn't that much different in price in 1980. Unemployment was elevated, but both the baby boom and women were just flooding into the workforce.

The front half of the baby boom was aged 15 to 24 in 1970. The economy expanded by 20 million jobs for them. Not too shabby.

And the big mid-70s recession was a combination of the oil shock and interest rates doubling from 5% to 10%+.

Reagan increased the deficit to defeat the soviet empire

LOL such right-wing fantasyland tripe. Soviet "Empire" defeated itself through its shitty command economy and inability to get reform going under Gorbie before things apart thanks to oil prices falling under $20/bbl 1986-1989 (when Alaska and the North Sea peaked).

Conservatives always assert Soviet-style centralized economies can never work, but when they finally blew up in the late 80s, oh, Ronnie Raygun did it.

Pick a f---ing story already.

duxbury001 says

the problem is that inflation and unemployment increased to utterly unbearable levels, making the 70’s second to the 30’s in terms of overall economic misery

1% if inflation doesn't cause the same misery as 1% unemployment. Not even close. That's just some arbitrary "index" somebody came up with.

duxbury001 says

MarkInSF says

Please explain how low taxes and a few hundred dollars per person per year of EU aid money caused the financial industry to make over $100 billion of bad loans, and then completely collapse. There is an enormous gap in your logic here.

ummm.. you know if you want me to teach you basic economics you really need to pay me $100/hour (like public school teachers). Google Irish tiger… THEN SHUT THE F-UP.

Ok, thanks. Yeah that completely explains how government policy caused the financial collapse in Ireland.

marcus says

But I would argue that blaming government unions for states financial problems doesn’t make sense.

Yeah, I agree to an extent. Public unions get a lot of scrutiny these days because state revenues plummeted and deficits are huge and cuts have to be made somewhere. The right, including duxbury here, are trying to claim unions they are the "the primary challenge confronting the West is thugocracy", but it's a pretty hard case to make. The certainly had nothing with the financial bust we're still dealing with today.

Teachers are the least of my worries as far as pay is concerned. For example, here in San Francisco a typical firefigher makes $140K including benefits and overtime, with base pay of $100K. No I'm not cherry picking, go look at the numbers at http://www.contracostatimes.com/public-employee-salaries-results

And they get to retire after 30 years with 90% of that base salary, 100% guaranteed, which they will be drawing for another 20 years. Not even including medical coverage. I mean seriously, you don't think that's overcompensated?

duxbury001 says

OK, I realize your IQ is about half mine, but I am going to try to explain this in small words so that you might understand. Let’s give a try? C’mon.. try to listen this time.
If the US is doing really, really swell.. and has super, duper money!!! really happy! Daddy and Mommy might buy a German car like a Porsche (zoom, zoom!!). So because Daddy and Mommy have SOOOOOOOOOOO much money they buy lots of stuff overseas.
But those Germans aren’t doing so well.. they can’t get as many credit cards and other things. They don’t make as much money. So those germans don’t buy that many IBM computers from the US.
And to add to our problems… THOSE MEAN GERMANS AND JAPANESE put up trade barriers and super sneaky ones like the VAT which may our products super duper expensive over there.
So it ends up that we buy stuff from Germany than they buy from us… even though our economy is doing well at the time.

OK--how about using some numbers this time. I know you can write a nice story, but real arguments use data and numbers to back up their points.

Your problem is that the data tells a different story than your narrative.. It helps when your mind isn't already made up before you see the data...

Troy says

Not having to deal with landlords over the past 30 years also has non-monetary benefits.

Well, not having to deal with mortgage brokers, realwhores, banks, and remodel/repair contractors also has its non-monetary benefits.

Troy says

I lived through the 1970s and it was pretty damn good. What cost a dime in 1970 cost a quarter in 1980

That’s fine so long as your purchases are limited to candy bars, but that’s more than a 100% increase in a decade and I can promise you the same candy bar was smaller. The same principle was present in the prices of everything in those years, which is what made it so painful. For whatever reason, when inflation is raging, you’re not only penalized by an increase in price, you’re penalized by a decrease in content at the same time. Here’s a representative example in the realm of automobiles, which is the next highest expenditure besides housing. In 1960, the least expensive Oldsmobile 98 could be bought for $3,900, and that was a large, powerful highway cruiser that could pass anything on the road. Ten years later, in 1970, that 98 could be replaced for $4,400, barely a 15% increase in price. And that increase in the golden age of GM engineering bought the best engines, air-conditioners and transmissions, the Turbo-Hydramatic 400, in GM history, with a 5 year/50K mile warranty since 1965. By 1974, warranties had been slashed to 1 year/12K miles and prices were increased five times during the year. By 1980, the thing that was called an Olds 98 had increased 115% to $9,400, while at the same time having extracted every component by the bean-counters that made it such an attractive vehicle in 1970. It was fitted with the weakest transmission and poorest quality air-conditioners in GM history and was driven by a weak-sister small V-8 with 150 HP. Prices doubled again to $20,000 by 1989. If the quality and content had remained constant, the increases would have been bad enough, but it was a double insult to be receiving so much less year after year while paying more and more. I’ve used this particular model as an example, but the same things were true across the board for all makes and models. It’s the main reason foreign cars became more popular as they were better built, but you were still getting less car than you had in the 60’s.

Troy says

The late 70s economy was pretty decent. Real wages were steady. Inflation didn’t get *that* bad, like stuff in the Sears Catalog in 1975

http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

here's just economics 101... because it is painful to watch you make a fool of yourself in public. When inflation and unemployment are both high it is the most hellacious economic scenario because there are no solutions. You are doomed. Reagan (with volker) heroically raised rates induced the '82 recession and purged inflation. You would never see a modern politician do that. They'll spit out "stimulus" ad infinitum as long as the presses can print currency.

tatupu70 says

OK–how about using some numbers this time. I know you can write a nice story, but real arguments use data and numbers to back up their points.

Ok, but I am not here to give you an education and google charts all day so you gonna have to use common sense. If you want me to teach you I demand union terms. This means I get $100/hour, can fondle your daughter, you can't fire me and if you bitch I'll get 50 of my buddies to protest in front of your house.

MarkInSF says

True. Duxbury also ignores the unionization of workers in Germany and Japan. Somehow, even though unions in those industries were on the rise there, and on

Thanks for defending me, but I really can't take away the "jackass" label yet because Japan wasn't so stupid as to keep unions. They dumped them after we tried to foist them on them. They abolished them and whattahyaknow happened?? their economy went on a ferocious tear for 30 years until the out of control growth made a bubble. Germany has unions... but for whatever reason they aren't as psycho as US unions... they aren't making idiotic work rules that hamper production and welding beer cans in chryslers for fun.

duxbury001 says

Ok, but I am not here to give you an education and google charts all day so you gonna have to use common sense. If you want me to teach you I demand union terms. This means I get $100/hour, can fondle your daughter, you can’t fire me and if you bitch I’ll get 50 of my buddies to protest in front of your house.

Typical trollish response. You won't do it because you can't. There is no data to suppport your position.

MarkInSF says

The right, including duxbury here, are trying to claim unions they are the “the primary challenge confronting the West is thugocracy”, but it’s a pretty hard case to make. The certainly had nothing with the financial bust we’re still dealing with today.

It really isn't very hard since labor costs are a huge part of the budgets and funny whereever unions are strong you see budgets careening to oblivion.... but what really makes it obvious is how criminally inflated the wages are... 450k air traffic controllers in spain, 100k teachers in madison, 200k train conductors on amtrak and in france. like the rampant corruption in greece, portugal going bankrupt, cali going bankrupt, deficits in NJ, etc... basically if every public sector employee gets a million dollar pension your budget is screwed.

In my mind it is 10 times worse than that because unions fight for the most psychotic economic policies.. like encouraging unskilled illegals (who they view as social service clients). Paying welfare to encourage poor mothers to be brood mares with giant welfare payments for large families. Fighting accounting and efficiency methods. encouraging muslim immigraton with no intention of assimilation to create a giant underclass in france (dependent on unionized social services).

But the surest was is to contrast union vs. non union states.. financial chaos in maryland vs. financial stability in virginia a few miles away. It ultimately becomes a psychological issue, not a policy issue, if you can't see the problems with public sector unionization.

MarkInSF says

I really hate to be defending duxbury, since he called me a jackass and hurt my feelings, but union membership among public employees is actually much higher than is was in the 50’s and 60’s.

unions were wimps in the 50's and 60's because they were private sector unions... which means all they can do is shoot themselves in the foot with their extortion. They blew up the US industrial base because companies were run into bankruptcy or moved to the south... so private sector unionization is finished because it is so self-destructive. How many factories left in pittsburg? detroit? unions crushed the old factory towns. New factories are in Alabama or China away from thugocracy.

Public sector unionization is infinitely more powerful because you can extort all you want until the government goes bankrupt.. with no consideration of the naive taxpayer. Unions contributed hundreds of millions to the last election cycle + time. Andy Stern practically pushed obama care (Andy was the most frequent guest of obama). So Public sector unions (along with the trial lawyers) are a defacto labor party of the democrats.

I like communists and liberals, I find them naive and idealistic (but ignorant). Democrats are not liberals, they are thugocrats serving millionaire trial lawyers, public sector employees and a few favored companies.

tatupu70 says

Typical trollish response. You won’t do it because you can’t. There is no data to suppport your position.

READ AN ECONOMICS BOOK... PLEASE.

N Dr Lo R says

I’ve used this particular model as an example, but the same things were true across the board for all makes and models. It’s the main reason foreign cars became more popular as they were better built, but you were still getting less car than you had in the 60’s.

Detroit also found itself having to compete with a Japan that had its yen pegged at an insanely low 300-360 to the dollar.

Used Japanese cars actually went UP in value after 1978 when the yen went from ~260 to ~180.

As for 1970s inflation, here's 3 washers from Sears catalogs:

$200 -> $220 -> $288.

(that last one was pretty well-built, it's still going at my Mom's, after 30 years).

Prices went up, but so did wages. That was the wage-price spiral. The main people who got screwed were people on fixed incomes who didn't own their own houses, but the 1972 Congress added automatic COLAs and SSI in 1972 to help address that.

The public will not stomach the tax increases and it is constitutionally difficult to pass tax increases like that in California anyway.

True enough. The voters do in fact control this process, guided by all the anti-tax crap that has been tacked onto the State Constitution via initiatives. Not going to be pretty though.

when will the Dem-controlled state government actually make the tough calls?

Brown is right with you on this, and I'm with him. If the people want cuts, they're going to get cuts.

No free lunches here any more.

Good thing I was in LA in March-April 1992. I've seen this movie before. This is why when I talk about "fortresses" here it's with meaning.

I saw how the LAPD brought in the troops to literally defend Westwood when there was a gang shooting there in 1988. Black gangster-type people were simply not allowed anywhere in 90024 after that.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-02-02/local/me-40025_1_westwood-village

duxbury001 says

but what really makes it obvious is how criminally inflated the wages are

Kind of like CEOs making $25M/year?

People want to be told the lies they want to hear.

Film at 11.

There is no fix for this. It is all going to end very badly.

Well, that's more a Downer-Debbie thing I guess. I was wrong in 1992 and maybe my pessimism will be proved wrong this decade too.

shrekgrinch says

Only one state currently has its own bank . . .North Dakota…and North Dakota doesn’t have any financing or budget problems:

That sounds an awful lot like the socialism

North Dakota has 40 acres of productive cropland per capita, which alone would be enough to support any economy.

On top of that it is producing 200bbl of oil per capita per year, twice that of the KSA.

On top of that it receives an extra 70c for each Federal tax dollar it sends to DC.

It would take a really concerted effort to screw that economy up.

But I do like the state bank idea.