patrick.net

Quigley says

Our politicians are bought and paid for. The only way to effect change is to pay them more. If you want political change you must start a PAC and raise money to bribe politicians. Any other activity won't accomplish anything much.

Exactly my point. The far-right / libertanian folks don't seem to get that *money* is what runs government. It always has & always will. They have this quaint idealistic belief that politicians will always do the "right thing" for the "greater good" or "fair play."

Anarcho-capitalism leads to extreme concentration of wealth which leads to aristocracy/plutocracy.

Some kind of wealth redistribution is the only way to avoid a society based on the exploitation of the many by the fiew. Historically, civilization has always worked that way, including the USA. We like to think the USA is exceptional in that regard, but it isn't. Slavery didn't end here until the 1860s, and de-facto wage-slavery didn't end here until the progressive era starting of the 1890s.

Since 1980 we've been steadily heading back to the "normal" system of exploitation of the many by the few. And with every recession, it gets worse.

I appreciate your response but I do not agree. On your first statement you cannot be sure that the investors got the $5 million "in cash" and they did not borrow; most according to articles I have read in Bloomberg and WSJ are borrowing this money.

Also, in the same publications they have been noting that these investment portfolios are only being rented a little over 50%. If they cannot rent all or most of the properties or get other investors to buy the portfolio, we may see a sell off.

The difference is that I believe this run up in 'home prices' was due to these large investors with these large firms. And again, I am reading this from Bloomberg, WSJ and Fortune.

But I do respect that you may be correct; I just think that the other option may be valid as well. Time will tell.

Call it Crazy says

What???? The duck man ONLY keeps blaming the repubs....

Ok, so maybe he's wrong. That's not the point.

The point is, in recent history the national debt has increased much faster under Republican presidents than Democrat presidents.

sbh says

I deeply admire the tough-as-nails ranchers of the American southwest. I have nothing in common with them politically

it's easy being a conservative if you've got hundreds of acres to create wealth from each year.

There are 400 million acres of cropland; it takes 100 or more to have the scale to make a living from farming, so that's employment for at most 4% of the population.

Socialism got its start in the US soon after the last good land was claimed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Thesis

freak80 says

The Democrats are *less* fiscally irresponsible than the Republicans.

Democrats raised taxes in 1991 and 1993 without a single Republican vote ( to his credit and political damage among conservatives, Bush Sr didn't veto these tax raises).

When the electorate threw out the Dems for this in 1994, it didn't take long for Republicans to want to start cutting taxes again, but Clinton prevented that.

Once the idiot Bush was elected by the idiots in our electorate (and SCOTUS), tax cuts arrived in short order and the deficits returned.

Though the $6T housing bubble hid the actual cancer in the economy 2003-2007. When the housing bubble failed, everything was fucked.

Thanks, conservatives.

Call it Crazy says

What happened the last time Congress raised the debt ceiling? Did they
accomplish any meaningful spending cuts before increasing the debt limit? In
a word, no:

Congress and the President last suspended the debt ceiling from February
4, 2013, through May 18, 2013, adding $300 billion to the national debt in less
than four months. Their only request was that the Senate produce a budget for
the first time in four years, which it did. No savings were
accomplished.

No savings.

This is unacceptable.

They paid the bill for things that congress deemed necsessary to buy/fund.

sbh says

But if you put a gun to my head and said "choose who you would become if you had
only two choices" I wouldn't opt to live in the city as a liberal.

Hmmmm...a thoughtful and interesting post...

Are you a "self-hating" liberal? ;-)

Hey crazy, you've got some cuts you want to propose?

The alternative is tax raises, mostly on the rich, who are making most of the money now.

sbh says

They are sole proprietors: capitalism at its finest.

No, wealth creation that does not require land as an input is 'capitalism at its finest', since if you need land, you're very limited in scaling, and so much of our land usage in ag is non-renewable, really.

Over 100 years ago the economics profession was essentially bribed to conflate land with capital, and this has been the source of a lot of our difficulties since.

Call it Crazy says

Take the blinders off.... Where did it say in the article it was Obama;s
fault... It just referenced how many times it's been raised during his
term...

Then why did the article even mention Obama, considering the fact that congress decides where, and when,/ how to spend the money, and they also are the same group that will/will not vote to raise the debt limit?

BTW, how many times has the debt limit been raised while Wayne LaPierre has been at the helm of the NRA?

>It just referenced how many times it's been raised during his
term...

this is Congress' fault too!

Just raise it to $100 trillion and we won't have to deal with the debt limit in our lifetime.

50% of this country is too stupid to understand that the "debt limit" is a bs creation of Congress in the first place.

Bellingham Bill says

There are 400 million acres of cropland; it takes 100 or more to have the
scale to make a living from farming, so that's employment for at most 4% of the
population.

LOL, add in the government backstops and cash(direct payments are no longer....supposedly for most commodity grains) and the overwhelming FACT that most of those fortunate people that will lead you to believe that "they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" INHERITED the land that provides tthe majority of their wealth, well besides the government!!

The problem is not that we have too many rich people. The problem is we have too many lazy unproductive rich people who float along with rent/interest seeking activities that maximize gain and minimize risk while contributing nothing except debt to the economy. These are the shareholders who get a hard-on for a brash new CEO whose strategy is "close plants, move production to china." They do nothing.

The solution is to give them economic incentives to put their money to real work, and economic penalties for simple rent seeking behavior. The smart and wealthy will prosper further under this model, and the economy will boom. The stupid and lazy wealthy will lose their wealth as is only proper. There's no reason to keep an aristocracy around that is nothing but a burden on society.

But none of this can ever happen until either money is taken out of politics (impossible) or the regular people build a PAC of their own to lobby for real change. This PAC should seek to ally itself with others to build a coalition.

All I know is that among many leading economists they disagree like we do regarding what did, is and will happen.

The difference is they do not call each other names...and I will continue to refrain from that as well.

As a matter of fact, there is still very educated disagreement as to what caused the crash in 2008. And for that matter, the Great Depression.

I enjoy a lively discussion with many ideas and debate. I only "cherry pick" as you term, as that pretty much is the nature of a "blog" as this is.

So as I said, you could be right, I could be right or we all could be wrong...only time will tell.

Call it Crazy says

MSNBC

True, MSNBC markets to the far-left "sexual politics" and angry woman crowd.

Call it Crazy says

CNBC

A business and stock market channel is liberal?? Maybe on social issues, but otherwise it's a tough case to make!

Call it Crazy says

sbh says

.......and this never gets old:

Now, let's overlay your chart of who was president with who controlled congress at that time. As we all know, spending has to come from congress, the president just signs (or doesn't sign) the bills presented to him...

This chart looks a little different...
*

facts are not welcome in Libville

sbh says

I am an unabashed blue collar moderate liberal

You'd probably fit in pretty well here in the Rust Belt where I live.

Sadly, much of the blue-collar moderate economic liberalism has been wiped out by a steady stream of far-right propaganda telling us that Democrats want to take our guns away. Deer hunting is a very popular activity around here.

Bap33 says

facts are not welcome in Libville

The facts you post show that the national debt increases fastest during Republican presidencies.

Both parties are "big spenders," but at least the Democrats are occaisonally willing to increase taxes to pay for the spending.

This is an excellent idea.
"Congress should implement spending cuts and entitlement reforms.."

Starting immediately, Members of Congress receive minimum wage,it's an honor to serve America. They purchase health insurance with their money on the free market. If they want a pension,an IRA,401k,etc.should suffice.Oh,we're not paying for that either.

This also applies to the POTUS,SCOTUS & other govt. Peons.

freak80 says

sbh says

I am an unabashed blue collar moderate liberal

You'd probably fit in pretty well here in the Rust Belt where I live.

Sadly, much of the blue-collar moderate economic liberalism has been wiped out by a steady stream of far-right propaganda telling us that Democrats want to take our guns away. Deer hunting is a very popular activity around here.

George Carlin:" Good honest hard-working people; white collar, blue collar it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich cock suckers who don’t give a fuck about you….they don’t give a fuck about you… they don’t give a FUCK about you."

HEY YOU says

Starting immediately, Members of Congress receive minimum wage

Agree. All of the bribe money is more than enough to live on all by itself. :-)

George Carlin was one of the few willing to stand up and tell it like it is.

"America: it's a big club...and you ain't in it."

Call it Crazy says

By dollars or percentages??

That's a fair question. I do not know.

It's hard to tell by just looking at a chart. We'd need actual numbers.

Call it Crazy says

Yep, they should all wear fire suits, like NASCAR drivers, so we would know who their "sponsors" are....

Love it!

Unfortunately there wouldn't be room for all of the corporate logos.

Call it Crazy says

Well, what that hell are you doing sitting here typing??? Go do some research and report back.... Pronto!!!

How much will you pay me?

I refuse to be paid in anything other than Spanish silver because of the severe inflation going on right now. ;-)

Does anyone notice the genuine humility in Mr. Buffet's discussion of economics....

Call it Crazy says

I was going to pay you with hookers.....

Sounds good to me!

Has there been inflation in the price of hookers?

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 Thursday, September 26, 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

Doesn't matter, someone with all-cash is going to win the house, anyway.

freak80 says

The facts you post show that the national debt increases fastest during
Republican presidencies.

and the Prez dont spend money, CONgress does.

I have been very fortunate in my life to have met and been advised by someone who made his fortune at a very young age many, many years ago. He was an inventor and a smart investor. He passed away but his advise he gave to us made our retirement.

We said to him we only made very little money and he said if you "don't know how to save pennies, you cannot save thousands".

When he would write a letter regarding a fund he had his money in, he would not get a letter back, nor just a "phone call or email", the CEO of each fund would call him personally to address anything he needed addressed.

He was a very simple man, yet could have lived beyond money, and very humble.

My point was that usually those that truly know and understand the system, and are truly successful, do not go about calling names and bragging about their knowledge and their investments.

He always said, "this is just my advice, you need to do what you believe is right for you"...always said that. Of course, you could take his advice to the bank.

I enjoy the bloggers on this sight that bring true insight by sharing their thoughts on the facts that have obtained. I do not always agree with their conclusions, but they cause me to "think" and evaluate my opinions against their's which leads one to come to an educated decision.

That is all I was trying to say....

I can't speak for Schiller.

However, as for Peter Schiff being an "idiot," let me point you to the following:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-25/peter-schiff-was-right-part-deux-“taper”-edition

http://www.youtube.com/embed/2I0QN-FYkpw

But let me guess. The clip is from zerohedge so it's made by a bunch of "conspiracy theorist," right?

The only thing that's a fantasy is the belief that a half-baked third-rate community college professor and a slumlording rentier from Lafayette masquerading as a hippie know more than people like Schiff.

Great, cut out the guns. No need to have half the world's military spending. Smaller military = less interventions.

This chart shows a strong correlation between the party in the White House and the derivative of debt.

This chart shows little to no correlation between the party in Congress and the derivative of debt.

The second chart does not contradict what is implied by the first. I could post a graph showing no correlation between the number of puppies chasing squirrels in my yard and the national debt. That wouldn't introduce any new information.

As for the first chart, the gigantic upswings during the Republican administrations are easy to explain and quite frankly, only someone completely ignorant of history would not see the obvious causes of those spikes.

Reagan spent vast quantities of wealth in an arms race with the Soviets to drive them into bankruptcy while reducing the bargaining power of labor, and thus their income, and thus their taxes.

Bush the Moron the First basically followed in Reagan's footsteps, except with the Cold War over, instead of decreasing warfare spending, he increased it. Hence his spike.

Bush the Moron the Second started several wars and financed them all with debt.

So yeah, having a Republican president is the worst thing possible if you are sincerely worried about the national debt. Republicans tend to start expensive, unjust, and intractable wars while fucking up the economy. And that is why they cause the national debt.

Call it Crazy says

Hmmm, I think there is one problem with your assertions:

Bap33 says

and the Prez dont spend money, CONgress does.

The hell presidents don't!

Congress approves budgets, but presidents spend money the moment they start ANY military operation. Just because the money isn't budgeted, doesn't mean it ain't being spent.

CiC,

Why do you constantly defend the party that wants to enslave you to a permanent aristocracy? No, the Dems aren't a whole lot better but they are the lesser of two evils.

Is it social issues that make you support republicans? Have republicans ended abortion or prevented gay marriage?

Black Helicopters.

Dan8267 says

The hell presidents don't!

Congress approves budgets, but presidents spend money the moment they start
ANY military operation. Just because the money isn't budgeted, doesn't
mean it ain't being spent.

Really, and just where does that mililtary come from? Militia?

Or maybe active duty troops whose expense has already been accounted for by congress?

Call it Crazy says

sbh says

.......and this never gets old:

Now, let's overlay your chart of who was president with who controlled congress at that time. As we all know, spending has to come from congress, the president just signs (or doesn't sign) the bills presented to him...

This chart looks a little different...

*

Yet neither chart is very truthful. There is a lag of several years for policies to take effect after they have been passed. In many cases congress changed hands in that time. After that happens very little legislation gets accomplished and things motor on autopilot.

The big debt increases from Reagan's policies and W's policies that were put in place very early in their presidencies. It's true Reagan had a split congress, but he was unbelievably popular and a very skilled politician. He pushed through tax cuts and increases in spending that exploded the debt later in his presidency when congress had turned Dem. W even more so, pushing big tax cuts and spending increases through a Rep congress that later turned Dem. Clinton's early polices passed by a Dem congress dramatically flattened the debt increase later in his presidency when Rep's had taken congress. Clinton also had a very large run of good luck. The economy was experiencing the dot com boom with lots of taxes flowing in combined with very low energy costs. Plus Bush I had passed legislation that helped reduce the increase in the growth of the debt mostly after Clinton was in office. Bush I lost the election, Clinton got the bulk of the credit.

sbh says

Call it Crazy says

Dude, go do some searching here... You'll find out I don't support EITHER party!!! I have always said, they are different sides of the same coin!!!

If you think only ONE side wants to enslave you, you really need to wake up!

Where are pulling your delusions from, your ass???

We run up against you because even if you support neither party you seem only to rail against the left. It's what one doesn't say that informs ones opponents as to your true leanings. We moderate lefties have plenty blue spots to pick at within the Democrats....they're politicians for fuck sake, it's easy to hit the low hanging fruit.

That's odd, because I don't know that I've ever once read any criticizm of the dems, by the dems, relative to the constant bitching about how "stupid republicans ruined everything"

Interesting article, thanks. I think it's spot on.