patrick.net

For what its worth I'm not saying my ideas are the "right" way - but they are a way - and hopefully will generate the sort of discussion necessary to come to a well rounded solution that has the best chance of bringing our country (and ourselves) to a better, more stable, more productive place.

neither is going to solve anything unless they can work with the "other" side.

You don't understand the stakes of the game that's being played here.

The goal is to shitcan the entire 20th century and get back to the good days of McKinley.

To do that the conservatives have to destroy government. They made a pretty good 2nd pass at it 1995-2006, one more should just about finish the job.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=30w

shows that from 1960 - 1980 the economy was on a relatively strict governance. The red line is total systemic debt (to GDP) and the blue line is
federal debt / national income.

In 1980 the system changed. I don't know exactly what happened, but debt was allowed to explode in the 1980s.

In the 1990s there was a recovery of governance, but this started falling apart in 1995 and was totally abandoned in 2001-2002.

With the collapse of the private debt bubble the last few years have seen us pile debt on the Feds instead.

The conservatives want to preserve their wealth. It does not profit them in the slightest to save Social Security or Medicare. Saving Social Security requires them paying back the $2.6T they took from it, 1990-2009, and of course rich people aren't going to want to pay for granny's new hip or whatever.

This place is going to simply fail.

"I've always believed that a third party is the cornerstone in restoring true debate and compromise into what has become a bipolar system."

LOL. The only way to get a third party is to change an existing one.

The Republicans are obviously now the party of the John Birch Society -- just look at the freak show candidate list.

But they pander to the Christianists among us, which gives them a 20-25% solid bloc to build a coalition around. Plus the entire Bible Belt and conservative midwest.

If you're looking for rational solutions, you're going to need to find a low-religion high-science place -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Czech Republic, Japan and France all clock in at under 25% religious nutball.

The least screwed up state is Vermont, with 42% religious nutter. The top 10 religious states range from 75-85% nutball.

Lost cause -- people who believe in magical thinking are easily bamboozled. Just look at recent history, 2000-2005.

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

My general observation is be it the Tea Party (which was absorbed by the "right") and the Occupy movements (which is almost certain to be absorbed by the "left") - neither is going to solve anything unless they can work with the "other" side.

Yes, that is true. That's why back in the day we had a rural-urban coalition for Democrats. Farmers wanted subsidies and voted for certain social policies as a result. That broke down at some point, and it's probably time for a new coalition. Unfortunately we live in a time when centrist/moderate candidates are not appreciated. Of course, "centrist" in the US is still pretty far to the right and pretty far to the authoritarian side in the 2D chart.

I agree that in order to solve the problems facing us the “left” and “right” (i.e.- 99% need to work together). I think that there are workable solutions to our problems, but the implementation and follow through is more important than coming up with the solution. I however am tempted to agree with Bill that we are in such a state that this “compromise” will never happen, and as Corn says “…we live in a time when centrist/moderate candidates are not appreciated.”

I believe that to get a viable third party would require going the Tea Party route and co-opting a current party, or change the constitution to make a third party viable.

That said I think that the first step would be to actually identify the problems that need solving. Then what the solution would be, and how that solution could be implemented by the Pnet forum members. Yes, I agree that no problem is theoretically insurmountable, but given resources at hand there may be problems where one is unable to execute the appropriate solution.

So… back to dooms day… given the relatively probability that many of our problems will not be solved a new problem arises --what is the result of the failure, and how to best survive the failure of our government to solve these problems.

Anyway, here are some of the major problems we face as I see them:
-Wealth disparity: it is growing and if not reversed we will end up a third world country
Time frame: 10-15 years?
-Diminishing resources: Potable water, “cheap” energy (coal, oil, etc.); could ripple throughout the economy.
Time frame: now?-50 years?
-Global climate change: desertification of the US, sea level rise, erosion resulting in reduced carrying capacity.
Time frame: 30-100 years?

The people with all the wealth, will decide what table scraps you are allotted and how you may use them.

Until you come up with a plan to rework the structural problem of obscene wealth concentration and power, you are not going to achieve anything that really matters.

OWS must keep focusing on the 99%. It is important to be inclusive of both left and right ideas. For example, OWS could focus on restricting and changing the legal standing of corporations. This issue affects all people. It is not a left wing or right wing issue. It is a 99% issue.

I am not saying OWS should do this, I am suggesting it as a possible path forward. Finding common ground, that a super majority can get behind, will make for a powerful movement.

Another possible area where OWS could focus is Glass-Steagall. I must admit I was in favor of its abolition, but in retrospect, I can see that was a very bad idea. Commercial and Investment banks must be separated to prevent speculation with tax payer money. Once again, I think this could find support from both sides of the political spectrum.

To me the way forward must be a careful building of a super majority.

Oliver

From afar, and probably over-simplifying, the Austrian school of economics as part of the right usually differs from Republican policies, whereas the socialist-inclined tend to support the Democrats by default, but find little the Democrats do as representing them.

The Georgist school occupies the radical centre, and is capable of reconciling the best parts of both left and the right.

I say "capable of", but it's most unlikely of course, as the left consider Georgists to be of the right, whilst the right believe them to be leftists.

Neither most OWS nor Tea Party supporters see the economic rent of natural resources, including land (some 50% of the economy, believe it or not!) as the proper source of necessary government revenue. That's a distinct problem!

We could kick start economies by abolishing taxes on labor and capital and capturing land and natural resource rents--as they've not been earned by companies nor individuals--although we have allowed banks (via bubble-inflated mortgages) and wealthy individuals to privatise the greater part of them.

Economic rents would be more equally distributed, and sustainable economic growth possible, without repetitive boom-bust cycles brought about by rent seeking and the impossible credit extended to fuel the resultant bubbles.

Where are we now, if not at a point of incredibly bifurcated incomes simply because the super wealthy have been stealing our publicly-generated economic rents?

We don't need to socialise 30% of our earned incomes via taxation. There's one thing, and one thing only, we need to socialise: the rent of our natural resources.

It could replace taxation at all levels of government and still return a citizens' dividend to everyone.

First of all, it doesn't supprise me that you're a techie. So am I and so were Karl Denninger and Michael Shedlock. It seems that people with analytical minds accustomed to the critical thought process are the ones most able to who see through all of the lies.

The "left" vs "right" garbage is simply what they use to distract us from the reality that no matter which major party and which oligarchy vetted candidates we may vote for (I don't bother any more), the same oligarchy is in charge with minor tidbits thrown to whatever side won control in a particular election to keep the right/left illusion going for next time. We ALL need to unite toward ONE goal - get money totally out of politics. That's the very root of oligarchical control. Cut the root and they lose control.

wbblair3 says

The "left" vs "right" garbage is simply what they use to distract us from the reality that no matter which major party and which oligarchy vetted candidates we may vote for (I don't bother any more), the same oligarchy is in charge with minor tidbits thrown to whatever side won control in a particular election to keep the right/left illusion going for next time. We ALL need to unite toward ONE goal - get money totally out of politics. That's the very root of oligarchical control. Cut the root and they lose control.

Thanks for the moment of clarity.

What are you people trying to 'solve'? Dont solve anything, stay home. Thats my opinion.

We got into this huge mess by too many cooks in the kitchen in DC - now we got an ungovernable country and a frankenstien economy dependent on government deficit spending/bailouts/money printing to the moon.

We need to starve the government down to a reasonable size so they can't even think about 'keeping house prices high' type of insanity (which is to benefit banks!). But the only thing the OWS wants is more taxes on rich people to pay for more pork/welfare programs/government union jobs.

Anyway I'm trying to enjoy the soviet style financial collapse we might be headed to very very fast when the feds stop deficit spending overnight due to some crazy reason (bond market blow up/interest rate spike?).

Enjoy the collapse. I think it will look just like Greece.

Zlxr says

I guarantee that almost every person in this country who could add and figure out some kind of a household budget would absolutely shit if you saw (on paper) a full accounting of how our tax money is spent.

No, I saw this and did not poop my pants:

http://www.thirdway.org/taxreceipt

Print it out if you'd like it on paper.

PockyClipsNow says

We need to starve the government down to a reasonable size so they can't even think about 'keeping house prices high' type of insanity (which is to benefit banks!).

WTF, are you talking about? They have already figured out they can sell US residency to rich foreigners in-order to keep housing expensive. Now they just need to starve the government to the point where nothing can be done about it.
http://patrick.net/?p=1121006#comment-773835

PockyClipsNow says

Enjoy the collapse. I think it will look just like Greece.

Greece doesn't have $1.2T/yr security budget or $700B/yr on social spending.

That's $14,000 per household alone. Between the thugs on the streets and the pigs at the trough, our problems are a lot bigger than Greece's.

drjohndi says

But we need something more sharp and professional, to symbolize the absolute reality of this process so that even kids and grandparents can understand it.

Monopoly was actually invented to teach this. It was first called "The Landlord's Game", for good reason.

My solutions:

1) Social Security becomes a program for those who qualify. You pay in, but don't get it back unless you need it.
2) Make young people and their education the priority in this country. I'm 52 and believe that the elderly are taking way more than their fair share because they vote and AARP does its job well.
3) As a society, decide how much we want to spend to keep people alive for their last, expensive year of putting off the inevitable. We're all paying for medical advances that keep people breathing, with little or no quality of life. (I always liked the idea of the suicide option in the movie Soylent Green, for those folks who are ready to go).
4) Legalize drugs, release the prisoners convicted of (non violent) drug charges, end the drug war, and build treatment centers in every metropolitan area.
5) Take a fraction of what we're spending to fight "terrorism" and audit Medicare. Kick the bad docs out.
There are extremely tough choices to be made and not enough money to go around. I know I'm not alone in feeling frustrated about hearing the same old arguments. (Are we really still talking about gay marriage?)
Let's move this country forward.

I've lurked on this site for years (thanks Patrick! your site has been very useful) but have never commented before.

I'm glad to see this thread. A couple people have already said it, but get the money out of politics.

I'm pretty sure this is self-evident but... Politicians don't get elected without a significant amount of money. One of the best, and most effective, ways to raise that money is from corporate donations. And the corporations, being run by sensible business people, want a return on that investment.

So, two pretty obvious effects - corporations have a huge influence on policy and the sort of politicians we get are ones willing to take large amounts of money (which look an awful lot like bribes). Makes it tough not to have a corrupt system in which the wants of the biggest donators are put ahead of the best interest of the country.

There are a lot of things that I'd love to see the Occupy Wall Street / Tea Party fervor accomplish, but there's not a snow ball's chance in hell it's going to happen as long as money is allowed to distort the political system.

You point out the problem quite well Zlxr - you can't start your own bank because of overregulation.

All those allegedly well intentioned regulations, the ones people on the left can't get enough of, the ones that are supposed to protect you, rarely do in the end, because all they result in is regulatory capture - people are often corrupt, governments much more so because of the power they're entrusted with, and when governments create regulatory burdens on industry, entrenched interests use those regulations to siphon rents, create barriers to entry and reduce competition. What you end up with is a system that is less competitive, more expensive, and diverts large sums of money to bureaucracy, compliance and lobbying, without affording you nearly what you would hope for in terms of benefit to the consumer.

Bellingham Bill says

I'd do the same with Krugman but his comment section is a lost cause.

Ouch..but I strongly agree. The man is getting to be more of a bomb thrower than anything else.

There is left and right but also up and down. What is at issue isn't so much left and right but I'd argue that some issues have become too attached to left and right. How can prochoice democrats continue to support a war on drugs? Why do Republicans that are big on defense have the military go to war under U.N. resolutions?

The left wants people to have jobs and that makes sense but why have so much in the form of regulations? How do sanctions on countries create jobs? How does the outright banning of industries create jobs? How does making something illegal create jobs?

heck our patent process is first to patent and not first to invent. So all someone has to do is create patents and sue the crap out of people that try to invent..how does that create jobs?

mdovell says

but why have so much in the form of regulations?

regulations result from things that needed regulating.

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?source=patrick.net&id=22807

They are eternal though so we should put as much effort into reviewing regulations as we do in creating them.

How do sanctions on countries create jobs?

This is an easy question. Jobs come from the masses having money and buying stuff with it. But trade with China, Japan, Mexico and Germany alone has sucked $300B out of our economy as of August.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/deficit.html

At $45,000 per job that is the salary of 10 million jobs. I don't know how the flows work in actuality (who does???), but that is largely why things have gone downhill for us since the 1990s, trade with China especially is a faustian bargain.

How does making something illegal create jobs?

If we're talking about drug laws, then we are talking about costs, not jobs.

Due to all the rent-seeking going on, we tend to forget that jobs are only necessary to create the new wealth that we need to replace consumed wealth, to improve our standard of living, and handle population growth.

If we can preserve the wealth we have, we actually need fewer jobs!

Drug abuse arguably causes health and societal damage, and also reduces productivity perhaps.

This is most readily apparent in the nasty drugs like meth.

How can prochoice democrats continue to support a war on drugs?

Politicians gotta go to where the votes are. Parents don't want their kids on drugs, and parents vote. Drug users don't vote like that, and when they do vote they probably spoil their ballots anyway.

Bellingham Bill says

This is most readily apparent in the nasty drugs like meth.

What? how would we have a great TV show like "Breaking Bad" without meth?

And who says meth is unproductive:
http://ngccommunity.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblogs/explorer/2006/10/worlds-most-dangerous-drug.html

Like much of Asia in the early 1990s, Thailand was booming. Foreign investment poured into the country, and a rapid building boom ensued. Skyscrapers were erected at record speed—the country couldn't build them fast enough. The tens of thousands of construction workers who were building Bangkok needed something to keep them going at work. Enter Yaba[meth]. The drug allowed workers to stay awake for days on end. It became so popular that at one time it was estimated that one out of every five Thais had tried Yaba. It made the culture more productive....

Oh, wait... there is also this...

...[F]or a time, anyway. But with increased worker productivity came the incredible paranoia that meth, more than any other drug, is known for. Paranoia fueled by meth use led to rampant crime. Hardly a day would go by that Thai news didn't report that a Yaba user had cracked. Ordinary citizens were being held up at gunpoint, having their throats slit and being robbed.

The Thai government has declared an all-out war against Yaba users. Anyone accused of using the drug can be put to death. I spent time with some construction workers who continue to smoke Yaba, despite that fact that they can be killed if caught. What I learned is that meth deteriorates a person’s whole being, inside and out.

But, I bet a lot of money was made during the boom by people employing meth users.

wbblair3 says

The "left" vs "right" garbage is simply what they use to distract us from the reality that no matter which major party and which oligarchy vetted candidates we may vote for (I don't bother any more), the same oligarchy is in charge with minor tidbits thrown to whatever side won control in a particular election to keep the right/left illusion going for next time. We ALL need to unite toward ONE goal - get money totally out of politics. That's the very root of oligarchical control. Cut the root and they lose control.

I agree with eastcoastbubbleboy that the extreme polarization of the two party system prevents our government from solving the problems that face our country through compromise and teamwork, but I also agree that the money and influence of a few have more power than we can possibley understand over the coarse of our nation...

So what do "we the people" do to change that?

Politics and money can never be separated because politics is about gaining, maintaining, and using social influence and money, by definition, will always be able to affect what people do and say.

If people were more honest about this issue, they would focus on the ideology behind the creation and use of said money rather than the money itself. That people are not honest is why efforts to remove money from politics so often achieve the opposite results of the stated aims.

ke682 says

So what do "we the people" do to change that?

General strike. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

When that fails, vote with your feet to another, less insane country.

I don't have much expectation that there's anything a minority can do in this country.

The moderate middle is just too fat, happy, and stupid to not see the progression of events as they come down.

~50% of this country favored invading Iraq even without specific UNSC approval. That is the mass of stupidity any reform movement (from the libertarian right or the anarcho left) has to deal with. These idiot people are still around, and still causing their damage every election.

Yea, the UNSC. They're the folks that out to be issuing marching orders to our soldiers.

If it's in the US interest we should do it. If not, then no. The UNSCs opinion should be irrelavent.

Also noting no mention of troop action in lybia (welcome sharia) and uganda (absolutely no national interest) even though there's not been any authorization from congress.

I think that a serious discussion about what it would take to fix this would have to include major banking reform.

The people who are protesting on the street may not know exactly HOW it is that DEBT=$ or how the current monetary system *really* works but . . .

You can bet your A$$ they are learning about it now!

A lot of other people who wouldn't normally pay attention are starting to. This is how a major movement for real change grows. It's just the beginning (Hopefully).

In my opinion I would address the Federal Reserve first, and the populace seems to be pointed in the right direction re. banks.

How could the Federal Reserve be fixed?
Should it be abolished?

The problem is not with the Fed.

The problem is us. We borrowed that $14T all on our own.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT

Scaled by household wages, the leverage overextension is clearer:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=35H

Any fix has to address the problem of how so many millions of households were allowed to blow themselves up like this.

It was the Fed's job to prevent this, but IMO they did not want to have the 2001 recession continue through 2004, since that would have been bad for their team.

(And of course this team was already running the other 3 branches of gov't so if the Fed did nothing there was not going to be any policing done)

Zlxr says

Do you ever ask how much of that budget goes to Administrative Overhead?

Do you read publicly available literature about this? Social Security's overhead is very low, just like Medicare's:

http://www.epi.org/publication/issuebriefs_ib145/

Zlxr says

If we could see the item by item list of expenditures, it would give us a good idea of the kind of people we have running our government. It would give us an idea as to their priorities and it would give us a real clue as to what items should be cut and what items could realistically stay.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make any more, but I'm all for government transparency. The Obama administration has done a lot for that by putting as much information as they have on the internets.

The government also undertakes numerous audits to reveal the kind of information you're asking about. My pants are still clean.

Bellingham Bill says

The problem is not with the Fed.

The problem is us. We borrowed that $14T all on our own.

It's okay. They are happier blaming someone else.