"I am neither left wing nor right wing; I need both wings to fly." - Deborah Van Valkenburgh.
L. to R: Lydia, Wally Wingert's mom, Deborah Van Valkenburgh
In Burbank over the weekend, Deborah and I signed autographs and had fun with Henry Winkler (Fonzie from Happy Days and children's book author of the "Hank Zipper" series), Ernie Hudson (Ghostbusters and Beverly Hills Cop. Ernie guest-starred on our show in its first season); Michael Beck from The Warriors; Lorenzo Lamas; Juliet Mills; Larry Thomas, the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld (LOVE THIS GUY!); Bruce Kulick, incredibly gifted guitarist from KISS; Wally Wingert - actor, amazing human, and voice over artist extraordinaire; William Forsythe, Branscombe Richmonds who is now host of GOOD MORNING HAWAII. Deborah and I did an interview for the show, and I'll try to upload clips after it airs. I love Branscombe; he played Jackie Rush's love interest on our show. I met lots of others, but have to post them later. Met the legendary sketch artist ROMEO who works in blue pencil; he gave me a portrait of my favorite actress of all time, Audrey Hepburn.
My son got INVADER ZIM'S autograph, Richar Horvitz, who played ZIM!!!
THE DAWN OF HOPE 2
Progressive is the term I choose to call my social and political leanings. Going forward, making progress, advancing new ideas, bringing people together in the spirit of love, making friends out of enemies, having compassion even for the offensive and downtrodden (because I know what it's like to have a bad day.) Progressive means enlightened, spiritual, diplomatic solutions... getting along with ones enemies, finding common ground, realizing that by joining forces and engaging in community we become stronger and better human beings.
Regressive is the opposite of progressive. In my view, regressive thought encompasses the belief that fighting one's enemies is the way to peace! Never have I heard a more ridiculous statement, but it seems to be the philosophy of the regressive movement. Religious fundamentalism is dangerous in any culture. Being focused on materialism, and on judging others completely negates the love required in order to live in a society. Fundamentalism is the primitive, archaic, eye-for-an-eye mentality -- the way of people who are too afraid of losing what they have and too protective of their own possessions. People who are afraid.
Strong people do not need to fight -- or hide behind guns. Truly brave and courageous men do not breed enemies. They are clever enough to outwit and outsmart their enemies by keeping them close. What sane person on earth, if he's not in law enforcement, needs a semi-automatic weapon?
The Constitution of the United States of America mentions "military defense" only once. But it mentions the importance of sharing, helping each other, helping the states, and building community -- several times, repeatedly.
Our Founding Fathers would not recognize the executive branch today. Their values are quite different from the values of America.
God helps those who help others. "God helps those who help themselves" is not mentioned in the bible anywhere. We must replace the idea of "rugged individualism" with "helping others within your community" because no one ever really made it on his own without a helping hand.
I really feel as if the tide is turning and we are all going to be okay. We will avert nuclear war with Iran, despite the president's war lust, and we will create a safer, cleaner better world. Because we all have intentions toward life and peace.
I signed autographs on Friday and Saturday at Ray Courts show in Burbank and spoke to several people about the state of the world. Eight out of ten people, including a police officer, despise this war and think badly of Bush. Only two people I spoke to the entire day said that they could never vote for a Democrat becaues they are pro-life. They never once acknowledge that the war in Iraq has killed 650,000 Iraqi civilians and innocent children, including babies -- even though they are "pro-life." They are so brainwashed they actually do not understand that Democrats are NOT PRO-ABORTION. Democrats hate abortion too.
These unthinking people who parrot the Bush party line, are killing more innocent souls with their ideology and they refuse to wake up and see it.
Got this from a LAKE TAHOE Journal: "Deep inside of us, we hunger for a simpler life. The fresh mountain air, the smell of pine needles and the bluest lake in the world. Nothing alleviates stress better than the surreal beauty of nature."
If you missed it, YOU WILL NEVER WATCH TV NEWS AGAIN after watching the electrifying PBS Special by Bill Moyers "BUYING THE WAR."
"Buying the War," a 90-minute documentary that explores the role of the press in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. This riveting, thorough investigation includes interviews with Dan Rather, formerly of CBS; Tim Russert of MEET THE PRESS; Bob Simon of 60 MINUTES; Walter Isaacson, former president of CNN; and John Walcott, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder newspapers, which was acquired by The McClatchy Company in 2006.
In "Buying the War" Bill Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes document the reporting of Walcott, Landay and Strobel, the Knight Ridder team that burrowed deep into the intelligence agencies to try and determine whether there was any evidence for the Bush Administration's case for war. THIS WILL SHOCK PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN BUYING THE PROPAGANDA OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. BUSH AND CHENEY MUST BE IMPEACHED.
NETWORK OF SPIRITUAL PROGRESSIVES AIM TO:
* Bring about a new bottom line of love and caring in America
* Challenge the misuse of God, religion, and spirit by the religious right
* Challenge the anti-religious and anti-spiritual biases in some sectors of liberal culture
www.spiritualprogressives.org
There cannot be (in my opinion) any long-term future for this country unless we embrace both pragmatism and Justice, in our internal dealings and our relations with the world.
ReplyDeleteIdeology never fed one person, never fixed anything broken, never solved one problem. Ideology kills. Only common-sense assessment offers any hope for progressing, and that is why I consider myself a Progressive.
My common-sense assessment of what Justice is, is that all must answer for the things that they do. I don't believe this country can survive intact for much longer if we don't start to apply Justice to all of those who have wronged it. To not do so makes a joke out of the whole concept of Justice.
Nothing alleviates stress better than the surreal beauty of nature
ReplyDeleteApparently this writer never had sex with me...
No nation ever experiences true security until that nation respects the rights of other nations, and their sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteNo one's talking appeasement or total disarmament, because in truth, that's not going to happen in a world where there are 6 billion different points of view.
What it does mean is acknowledging that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent (exhibit A: 21st Century America). You can be strong without brandishing a gun.
Lydia said "Had a blast and did "Good Morning Hawaii" with Deborah Van Valkenburgh and Branscombe Richards"
ReplyDeleteIs Branscombe Richards (Bobby Sixkiller?) Lorenzo Lamas's buddy from the Renegade series??????
the Bush Administration proposed reclassifying hamburger flipping as “manufacturing."
ReplyDeleteBuilding Blue-Collar … Burgers?
Bush Report: Fast Food Work A Form Of Manufacturing?
NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2004
CBS) Manufacturing jobs making things like airplane engines, cars and farm equipment are disappearing from the American economy.
Or are they? According to a White House report, new manufacturing jobs might be as close as your nearest drive-thru.
The annual Economic Report of the President has already stirred controversy by suggesting the loss of U.S. jobs overseas might be beneficial, and predicting that a whopping 2.6 million jobs will be created in the country this year.
As first reported by The New York Times, the fast food issue is taken up on page 73 of the lengthy report in a special box headlined "What is manufacturing?"
"The definition of a manufactured product," the box reads, "is not straightforward."
"When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?" it asks.
Manufacturing is defined by the Census Bureau as work involving employees who are "engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products."
But, the president's report notes, even the Census Bureau has acknowledged that its definition "can be somewhat blurry," with bakeries, candy stores, custom tailors and tire retreading services considered manufacturing.
"Mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing," the president's report reads. "However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service."
The report does not recommend that burger-flippers be counted alongside factory workers.
Instead, it concludes that the fuzziness of the manufacturing definition is problematic, because policies — like, for example, a tax credit for manufacturers — may miss their target if the definition is overly broad or narrow.
But reclassifying fast food workers as manufacturing employees could have other advantages for the administration.
It would offset somewhat the ongoing loss of manufacturing jobs in national employment statistics. Since the month President Bush was inaugurated, the economy has lost about 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That continues a long-term trend.
And the move would make the growth in service sector jobs, some of which pay low wages, more appealing. According to government figures, since January 2001 the economy has generated more than 600,000 new service-providing jobs.
The annual economic report — most of which consists of charts and statistics — has been the focus of unusual scrutiny this year, perhaps reflecting the presidential campaign and concern about the lack of job creation despite an ongoing recovery.
The report first touched off a furor with a statement regarding the "outsourcing" of U.S. jobs overseas, where wages are lower.
"When a good or service is produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce it domestically. This allows the United States to devote its resources to more productive purposes," the report read.
The statement, which reflects standard economic theory about the efficiencies of trade, was denounced by Democrats and Republicans alike.
"These people, what planet do they live on?" asked Democratic presidential candidate and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.
Even Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert wrote to the White House protesting at the claim.
The president's top economic adviser and the lead author of the report, Gregory Mankiw, replied to Hastert that "My lack of clarity left the wrong impression that I praised the loss of U.S. jobs."
Critics of the White House also seized on a chart in the report that suggested the administration expects 2.6 million new jobs by the end of the year.
"I've got a feeling this report was prepared by the same people who brought us the intelligence on Iraq," said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.
The White House insisted the figure was just an estimate.
©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The Bush adfministration are a bunch of criminals cooking and manipulating, Intelligence, inflation and economic statistics and anything else to benefit themselves and push along their corrupt self serving agenda and cheat the working class.
ReplyDeleteBush, Dems Fight Over Lost Jobs
ReplyDeleteHARRISBURG, Pa., Feb. 13, 2004
A resolution backed by Clinton would commit the Senate to develop and adopt legislation to provide "a manufacturing tax incentive to encourage job creation in the United States and oppose efforts to make it cheaper to send jobs overseas."
As she chided the Bush administration, Clinton noted that 2,900,00 private sector jobs have been lost since January of 2001, including 2,800,00 manufacturing jobs - in an economy with the fewest jobs created since the days of the Great Depression.
Daschle - who is Senate Minority Leader - and Sen. Edward Kennedy meanwhile are proposing new protections for workers whose employers send their jobs overseas. Their bill would require outsourcing companies to tell employees and the federal government where the jobs are being sent, how many and why.
Democrats have seized on the Mankiw remark as an opportunity to criticize the economic policies of the Bush administration.
"In a report President Bush sent to Congress this week, he says sending jobs overseas is good for America and good for our economy," said Kennedy. "All I can say is, 'Mr. President, what planet are you living on?' Americans want and need good jobs to support their families - not in Asia or Europe or Latin America or Mars."
Lydia said "The Constitution of the United States of America mentions "military defense" only once. But it mentions the importance of sharing, helping each other, helping the states, and building community -- several times, repeatedly.
ReplyDeleteOur Founding Fathers would not recognize the executive branch today. Their values are quite different from the values of America.
Regressive is the opposite of progressive. In my view, regressive thought encompasses the belief that fighting one's enemies is the way to peace. Never have I heard a more ridiculous statement, but it seems to be the philosophy of the regressive movement. Religious fundamentalism is dangerous in any culture. It completely negates the love required in order to live in a society. It's primitive, archaic eye-for-an-eye mentality is the way of backwards thinkers, medeival bloodthirsty warriors and people who are too protective of their own possessions. People who are afraid."
Great post Lydia.........This portion in particular is very powerful and very true.............Our Founding Fathers who truly valued Freedom, Democracy and peace and who opposed tyranny and oppression and terrorism by the wealthy elite would be turning over in their graves if they saw what GWB has turned the Executive branch into.
And Your right this looks exactly what it is the wealthy trying to protect and increase their wealth, status and power by controlling the only oil reserves in the Middle East that can significantly increase production and keep the capitalist robbing from the working class gameand their cushy lifestyles going for another 2 decades.........They are operating out of fear and that NEVER needs to good decision making.
Hi Lydia!
ReplyDeleteSounds like you had a nice weekend. ;)
I enjoyed reading your post.. Yes, the tide is turning and the sea of change is coming...
I'm posting a long article.........but its a good read particularly with all the spin and smoke and mirrors being used by the Bush administration......also I think by next year the economy and creating a viable energy policy and plan will become just as relevant election issues as Iraq.
ReplyDeleteInflation, Dow 13K and the Second Great Depression
ReplyDeleteM.A. Nystrom, M.B.A.
April 27, 2007
Cambridge, MA
When I was about 9 years old, my father took my elder sister and I to see a performance by a famous magician called Blackstone. What I remember most about the show is when Blackstone, with a flourish of his cape, made an elephant appear onstage out of thin air. It was an astonishing feat, and the crowd - including me - went wild with applause. I had no idea how he did it. After the show however, as we were exiting the theater, my elder sister said, “I didn’t see what was so great about that elephant. It just walked onto the stage and everyone started clapping.”
My sister’s revelation was just as amazing as the trick itself, which suddenly made perfect sense. Blackstone had used some kind of sleight of hand, distracting the audience over here while he got the elephant to walk on stage over there. With this simple, well-known magician’s tactic, he managed to fool just about everyone.
Yesterday, as the Dow “smashed its all time high,” closing above 13,000 for the first time in history, I was strangely reminded of Blackstone’s performance that day some thirty years ago. The Dow’s current levitating act is the result of another well-known sleight of hand trick used by central bankers. It's called inflation. Even so, most everyone is mesmerized by the performance. Everyone seems transfixed, clapping in amazement at this spectacular feat.
But at the margins of society, far from the action on Wall Street, a silent depression has already begun – one that is affecting the most vulnerable members of our society. This depression is documented in two books that I recently finished reading: Tamara Draut’s Strapped: Why America’s 20- and 30-Somethings Can’t Get Ahead, and Anya Kamenetz’s Generation Debt: Why Now is a Terrible Time to be Young. Both were recently released in paperback, and I was able to find the hardcopy editions at the local library.
What both of these books confirm, though painstaking research and in painful detail, is what today’s younger generation has already long known: Simply surviving in this hyper competitive world is harder than ever, to say nothing of getting ahead. As Draut points out, a college degree is the new high school diploma; to be considered for any kind of a “good job,” you’ve got to have one. The problem is that college tuition costs have been rising three to four times as fast as inflation for the past few decades, and financial aid hasn’t kept up. Whereas the Baby Boom generation had the hat-trick advantage of cheap tuition, ample grants and scholarships, and a booming economy providing well paying jobs upon graduation, the younger generation has had none of these advantages.
Financial aid has shifted increasingly towards loans instead of grants. Because of higher tuition costs and generalized chronic inflation (in spite of official Federal government statistics), housing and food are more expensive too. Many kids who want to go to college simply can’t because they just can’t afford it. Of those who can cobble together enough money – and here I’m talking about working class families, not the privileged minority whose families can college without much pain - many have to work full time to make ends meet. And even then, in this inflation-ravaged world, it still isn’t enough. So they turn to credit cards, which are amply peddled on college campuses to bright-eyed, green newbies who don’t know a thing about debt or personal finance.
Welcome to higher education - at the school of hard knocks.
Today it is not uncommon for young adults to graduate with unmanageable thousands of dollars in combined student loans and credit card debt. “The next generation is starting their economic race 50 yards behind the starting line,” says Elizabeth Warren, co-author of The Two Income Trap. The debt is unmanageable because good jobs are hard to find. This is not your father’s economy. Sure, there are plenty of jobs available. How does $8 per hour sound, no benefits? As Kamenets, a recent Yale grad points out:
…when the Boomers were entering the workforce in 1970, the nation’s largest private employer was General Motors. They paid an average wage of $17.50 an hour in today’s dollars. The largest employer in the post-industrial economy is Wal-Mart. Their average wage? Eight dollars an hour. The service-driven economy is also a youth-driven economy, burning young people’s energy and potential over a deep-fat fryer…The entire labor market is downgrading toward what was once entry level.
In case you missed it, this week GM was dethroned by Toyota as the world’s top automobile producer. Earlier this year, in an effort to shore up American manufacturing, the Bush Administration proposed reclassifying hamburger flipping as “manufacturing." The times indeed are changing, and the experiences of the younger generation shine a light on the terrifying leading edge of that change.
The Second Great Depression is Here
For the past five years I’ve been saying ‘The second great depression will not be televised.’ In addition to paying homage to the 60’s civil rights activist and poet Gil Scott Heron (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised), it is a jab at the inadequacy of the mainstream news to actually report the news. The composition of the American economy is changing in fundamental ways -- ways that will not, in the long run, be favorable to most Americans if current trends continue. The younger generation is simply the first to bear the brunt of these changes, and as a result, is the first to grow up poorer than the generation preceding it. This, ladies and gentlemen, is known as national economic decline.
This is unpleasant news, and is therefore completely unacceptable to the mainstream media. It’s easier to sell the idea that the younger generation is just plain lazy, stupid and hopelessly screwed up. After all, didn’t you hear? The Dow just hit 13K! How can the economy be bad?
As a result, Draut and Kamenetz take the brunt of Boomer criticism from elders who dismiss their claims and only hear what they believe to be whining. But all these authors are doing is telling the story of their generation, pointing out how times have changed, and just how difficult it is to be young, broke, in debt and with little hope for the future. To me, it is the story of a second great depression. College, housing and food are more expensive, taxes, debt and interest rates are higher, (In spite of the fact that official rates hover near historic lows, one late or missed payment by a financially strapped young person sends credit card interest rates soaring across the board -- 29% or higher), wages are lower, competition is fiercer and most of the good jobs have moved away. Given the facts, it is amazing there is not more complaining or real demands for change. Draut points out that this younger generation was thoroughly “Reaganized” – raised under a steady diet of conservative rhetoric which they have fully internalized: The government is the problem, the free market is the solution – if you fail, it is your own fault, so don’t complain and don’t ask for help. Even though youths 18 – 24 are the most likely to hold minimum wage jobs, giving them a poverty rate of 30% in 2000, we’ve heard pitifully little about this in the MSM.
But poverty is a big impediment to getting higher education. Kamenetz points out that the nationwide high school graduation rate peaked in 1970 at 77%. It was around 67% in 2004….For every 100 young people who begin their freshman year of high school, just 38 eventually enroll in college, and only 18 graduate in a timely manner. This is especially worrisome as the world continues its march towards a knowledge-based economy. America is clearly falling behind.
The question of particular interest to readers of all ages should be whether the current decline in living standards is a one-generation anomaly, or the start of a new American trend. The problems afflicting the young – the outsourced jobs, the low wages and high levels of debt – are increasingly moving up the generational ladder. Just ask the entire city of Detroit, where a house can now be purchased for less than the price of a new car. This year also marks the first time in history that the median American home price is likely to decline.
Transition Ahead
What these two important books demonstrate clearly is that at the margins – where all the interesting economic (and other) activity takes place – the US economy is no longer able to provide its citizens with an increasing standard of living. Having read Jeremy Rifkin’s 1992 classic The End of Work a few years ago, the only surprise to me is that his scary predictions of the disappearing jobs are actually coming true. And with “Outsourcing 2.0,” things are only bound to get worse. Yet as Boomers retire – the first crop starts retiring next year – it is young people that they will be relying on (i.e. taxing) in order to maintain their disproportionately wealthy lifestyle. A Generational Storm indeed looms on the horizon.
What will this mean for the future? Neither Draut nor Kamenetz offer a comprehensive view, but James Fallows had an excellent piece in the Atlantic Monthly a few years ago that remains relevant today: Countdown to a Meltdown, a look back from the year 2016.
Lack of Awareness
To my disappointment, neither author goes deep enough into the root causes of the inflation that makes life for young people so difficult: The Federal Reserve System. We all know by now that the Fed has a “printing press” with which it can mint money, but like the 70% of Americans who don’t know that plastic is made from oil, the majority of Americans don’t realize that a fiat money printing press is the cause of currency inflation. The result of this inflation is more expensive food, housing, college tuition, and (surprise!) Dow 13K. You certainly won’t read about that in the New York Times. The information is, however, widely and freely available on the internet, as my friend Charles Zentay points out. All it takes is some thinking to figure out what is really going on.
[Thank you to BlueWire Studio for the above image, which was originally published in the Trendsman's excellent report The American Inflation: Where we are, How we got here and Where we are going]
Not surprisingly, many of Kamenetz’s interviewees regret ever having gone to college in the first place. They’re saddled with debt and working in jobs that are completely unrelated to what they studied – if they even graduated at all. As a result, she makes the daring recommendation that kids think hard about whether college is right for them or not. Before deciding to become an indentured servant to the bank in exchange for a college diploma, she recommends investigating this book: 300 Best Jobs Without a Four-Year Degree. The key point, which I wholeheartedly agree with is to look at the landscape of the world, see it with clear eyes and think! Don’t go to college just because everyone is doing it and because your parents want you to. The world is changing and navigating it will require a new set skills and street smarts – smarts you’re likely not going to get in school. More on this in future installments. Sign up here to be notified.
I urge everyone to go to the library or the bookstore and take a look at the books. For young people, I give the nod to Kamenetz’s book. Her writing is more urgent, more suited, I think to the younger crowd.
Each generation reshapes the country in its own image. The Boomer generation is the current cultural center, but its cultural power will soon be in decline, and as they fade from the national spotlight, a new generation is rising. Based on Strauss & Howe’s generational analysis in The Fourth Turning, the current young generation will likely be shaped by an extreme crisis – brought on by the exiting Boomer generation - sometime quite soon. It is from this crisis that a new America will be born – perhaps it will be the Golden Age that Ravi Batra writes of, or the complete reorganization that Peter Drucker predicted in 1993.
Every few hundred years in Western Civilization, there occurs a sharp transformation . . . Within a few short decades, society rearranges itself - its worldview; its basic values; its social and political structure; its arts; its key institutions. Fifty years later, there is a new world, and the people born can't even imagine the world in which their grandparents live and into which their own parents were born.
We are currently living through just such a transformation.
Conclusion
Thirteen is considered an unlucky number in American culture. Strangely, most American buildings don’t have a thirteenth floor. Both the income tax and the Federal Reserve were established in 1913. The much-maligned Generation X is the thirteenth born on American soil. It makes me wonder just what Dow 13K will bring.
Getting back to the theme with which I began this piece, Dow 13K is a kind of sleight of hand, brought about by inflation, and distracting the majority of people from the true condition of the economy. Inflation makes the economy less prosperous, not more. If the younger generation is any indication, prepare yourselves, for the times indeed they are a changin’.
The way that is bright seems dull;
The way that leads forward seems to lead backward;
The way that is even seems rough.
The highest virtue is like the valley;
The sheerest whiteness seems sullied;
Ample virtue seems defective;
- Tao Te Ching 41
Carl said...
ReplyDeleteNothing alleviates stress better than the surreal beauty of nature
Apparently this writer never had sex with me...
-------------------
Carl:
She is probably afraid that she will be the first woman to see a man (you) conceive a baby!
LOLMAO
Hi Mike, Jolly, and all men... you too Carl!
ReplyDeleteLOL
Jolly Roger said "My common-sense assessment of what Justice is, is that all must answer for the things that they do. I don't believe this country can survive intact for much longer if we don't start to apply Justice to all of those who have wronged it. To not do so makes a joke out of the whole concept of Justice."
ReplyDeleteI agree completely.......we NEED to hold the treasonous criminals accountable in order to heal and move forward.
Hey SQ!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Mike!
ReplyDeleteMurtha said there are options for Bush..impeachment being one of them.
Do you think the Dems will impeach Bush and Cheney if he doesn't get our troops out of Iraq?
I think there will have to be a smoking gun with overwhelming evidence to lead them to impeachment..........I think they should move to impeach him THIS year because EVEN if the impeachment fails all the Bush lies and manipulations will be exposed and made public right before the election and will be fresh and clear in the voting publics mind.
ReplyDeleteThat said I think there is PLENTY of grounds and evidece to impeach Bush and his cronnies the only issue is getting enough repugs to support impeachment and the election, the abundance of lies and scandals coming out and the complete and utter failure and incompetence of this Administration and their failed policies will help also.
But like I said The NEED to try to impeach them.......EVEN if it fails its STILL a win because it gets the MSM to cover all the lies and corruption and makes Americans aware of what REALLY went on and how they were deceived by these treasonous liars.
Hi Lydia. Another eye opener, and well said. I only wish that progressive Republican was not a contradiction in terms. It wasn't always. Maybe once again after the neocons and theocons are driven from power.
ReplyDeleteTomCat said...
ReplyDeleteHi Lydia. Another eye opener, and well said. I only wish that progressive Republican was not a contradiction in terms. It wasn't always. Maybe once again after the neocons and theocons are driven from power."
LOL, your Right Tomcat, Progressive Republican is an Oxymoron just like jumbo shrimp!
Dow at a new record, some do not think so;
ReplyDelete"As the Dow burst through the 13,000 milestone this week, few understood the hollowness of the achievement. Measured against the rising dollar-denominated prices of just about everything else on the planet, the Dow has actually lost value over the past seven years. Measured against the truest benchmark, the price of gold, the record high for the Dow was set back in January of 2000 when its price equaled approximately 43 ounces of gold. Today it is only worth about 19 ounces.
To better appreciate just how much of stock gains can be attributed to inflation, consider that the record high for the Dow in 1929 of approximately 380 also equated to 19 ounces of gold. So despite all of the hoopla and a thirty-fold increase in stock prices, the Dow has actually gained no real value during the past eighty years. The entire rise from 360 to 13,000 has been an illusion made possible by the magic of inflation. So much for the concept of stocks being a “can’t lose” long term investment -- unless you feel that eighty years is not quite a long enough time horizon!
Now that is not to imply that the Dow has not generated returns during those years: it has. However, those returns have been a function of dividends and not appreciation. But its not yields that Wall Street celebrates, its prices. By dazzling investors with higher prices, they distract their attention from the unpleasant reality that they are actually treading water. What difference does it make if you have more dollars if the dollars themselves have less purchasing power?
Despite its recent eclipse of 13,000 the Dow now buys 30% fewer euros than it did then back in 2000 when it was priced at approximately 11,500. It also buys 35% fewer gallons of milk, 40% fewer bushels of corn or wheat, 65% fewer ounces of silver, 70% fewer barrels of oil, 80% fewer pounds of copper, and 90% fewer pounds of uranium. Try figuring what the Dow will buy in terms of other necessities, such as housing, insurance, college tuition or hospitalization. Any way you measure it, the Dow is worth far less today then it was in January of 2000.
Back in 1980 one Zimbabwe dollar was worth more than one U.S. dollar. Therefore a billionaire in Zimbabwe was also a billionaire in America. Today, almost everyone in Zimbabwe is a billionaire yet few of them can afford a pack of chewing gum. Do you think that anyone invested in the Zimbabwean stock market these past 30 years cares how many record highs that market has made?
Many might feel that a comparison of the U.S. to Zimbabwe is ridiculous. However, fundamentally there is no real difference between a Zimbabwean dollar and an American dollar. They are both simply pieces of paper, the value of which depends on the resolve of politicians not to print too many of them. During the difficult economic times that lie ahead, the pressure on the Fed to run its printing presses full throttle will be immense.
Think back to the German experience with hyper-inflation during the Weimar Republic. At the time of its currency meltdown, Germany was a major economic power (even after the devastation of the First World War). Yet that status did not prevent its currency from becoming worthless. The impetus for Germany’s hyper-inflation was the fact that its industrial base had been badly damaged during the war, yet under the terms of Treaty of Versailles it was obligated to pay enormous reparations to the Allies. Lacking the ability to export enough goods to repay its debts, it resorted to a printing press instead. America is now in a similar predicament. Although our industry was not destroyed by bombs, it’s gone just the same. While we might not be bound by a treaty to pay reparations, the trillions of dollars of American IOU’s now owned by foreigners will be just as burdensome an obligation. It is hard to image we can “repay” these debts without civil unrest, massive inflation, or both.
The point to remember is that when it comes to records, it is real purchasing power, not nominal value, that counts. Measured by its purchasing power, the Dow has clearly lost value over the past seven years. Those who have remained invested in Dow stocks during that time period are clearly poorer as a result. Those who continue doing so will likely lose even more wealth in the years ahead, regardless of how many more nominal record highs the Dow sets."
Written by koteli
Come on gay-dalf, dolty, crusty, Tiny the liar, tell me again how well the "dow' is doing.
ReplyDeleteCome on tell me again how great 13,000 is in 2007 when in reality compared real values not arbitrary abstract values how much people are losing when the Dow is performing so poorly against real prices which people pay to live in this society.
And if the dollar keeps losing value which will cause the price of everything we import, (including oil) to rise how bad is it to hold stocks which are losing relative values even when their numbers do go up a little in comparison.
Keep your paper gains until in reality you have lost your shirts.......
There have been 104 U.S troops killed in Iraq this month.
ReplyDeleteAre you happy Bush?
What difference does it make if you have more dollars if the dollars themselves have less purchasing power?
ReplyDeleteTell me again how 13, 000 in 2007 is great when in reality it is worth less then 11,500 in REAL terms was in 2000.
Tell me again how people are coming out ahead, especially since they have paid commissions and fees besides losing REAL value?
At least twelve explosions have went off inside the "green zone" in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteCasualty count to come shortly.
Suzi-q, can you please post a link to your blog? When I click on your name, I can't access your newer blog at wordpress.
ReplyDeleteAnd no matter what I type in, it won't take me to your blog.
I can't find the link in my mailbox.
Thanks!
xo
Lydia
Hi Lydia,
ReplyDeleteYes, here you go...
http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/
Oilman T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday that global demand will outstrip supply in the fourth quarter of this year, leading U.S. oil prices to rise to $80 or more a barrel. Pickens would not predict how high beyond $80 oil would go this year or in 2008 but said he was interested to see how long $80 oil will need to be sustained to lessen demand.
ReplyDeleteIn other words he is saying OIL will peak this fall.
Hi Clif and Larry! ;)
ReplyDeleteTell me again how 13, 000 in 2007 is great when in reality it is worth less then 11,500 in REAL terms was in 2000.
ReplyDelete-clif
Sadly, you have been misinformed once again.
The attached graph shows the value of Dow Jones Industrial Average divided by the price of an ounce of gold. Since 1800, stocks have consistently gained value in comparison to gold...
Wikipedia
Your source is attempting to purposely mislead you:
Now that is not to imply that the Dow has not generated returns during those years: it has. However, those returns have been a function of dividends and not appreciation. But its not yields that Wall Street celebrates, its prices.
-clif's goofy source
Obviously investors care about total return on investment which is part dividends and part capital appreciation.
So you will need to find some other bogus reason to scrap the dynamic free enterprise system in favor of your hallowed marxism.
Well gay-dalf I never said scrape free enterprise a$$hole tell another LIE
ReplyDeleteHey Fool, Clif and I have stated that the DOW has lost buying power the LAST 7 YEARS after adjusting for inflation...............and you do an apples to oranges comparison and put up a chart that compares from 1800 to the present.
ReplyDeleteYou are obviously trying to lie, distort and misrepresent as YOU ALWAYS DO FOOLE!
See Foole lets look at your lies.
ReplyDelete1) Clif said we should scrap Free Enterprise
2) Clif was refering to the Dow from the 2000 peak to today a 7 year period and YOU dishonestly threw in a 2007 year comparison deliberately to skew and muddy the comparison.
clif said...
ReplyDeleteOilman T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday that global demand will outstrip supply in the fourth quarter of this year, leading U.S. oil prices to rise to $80 or more a barrel. Pickens would not predict how high beyond $80 oil would go this year or in 2008 but said he was interested to see how long $80 oil will need to be sustained to lessen demand.
In other words he is saying OIL will peak this fall."
T Boone Pickens is an EXPERT who has been right about EVERYTHING I have ever heard him say............If he makes a prediction...........People NEED to listen!
While it is true that the DOW is worth less in constant dollars than in 2000, it is false that the DOW has remained stagnant since the 1930.
ReplyDeleteThe dramatic turning point in the broad U.S. economy of the late 20th century happened in the early 80s when Reagan and Volker broke the back of Nixon and Carter's curse of rampant inflation.
Inflation-adjusted DOW
what I said is stocks since 2000 have LOSE relative values considering what they could be worth in other commodities and services back then which is TRUE no matter how much you try to cherry pick around that truth.
ReplyDeleteFunny son you quote MY 2000 vs 2007 DOW values but try to use the value of gold to the stock market as proof, NOT oil, gas prices, milk prices automobile prices, Home prices which is what REAL people buy son, very few people buy gold in anything near what they spend their money on like food, housing, energy and regular living expenses which have risen quite a bit since 2000, the US Government's dishonest inflation numbers not withstanding.
IDIOT the article said 1929-2007 NOT 1800 idiot, and if YOU look at the graph you posts the point the article made is very well illustrated there moron.
Jesus Christ your a stupid idiot;
QED
FF said "Your source is attempting to purposely mislead you:"
ReplyDeleteNo Foole YOU are the one deliberately attempting to mislead.
Mike the graph at the wiki article shows 1929 to 2007 very FLAT that is why the LYING draft dodger had to go back to 1800 to try to his the truth from HIS own source, just like he hid from Vietnam in ROTC
ReplyDeleteFreedom Fan said...
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that the DOW is worth less in constant dollars than in 2000, it is false that the DOW has remained stagnant since the 1930.
The dramatic turning point in the broad U.S. economy of the late 20th century happened in the early 80s when Reagan and Volker broke the back of Nixon and Carter's curse of rampant inflation.
Inflation-adjusted DOW"
First of all Foole..........Clif and I were discussing the Dow from 2000-2007.............show me where one of us stated the Dow has been stagnant since 1930.
As for your second statement Jimmy Carter appointed Volker in 1979 to break the back of inflation and it cost him the election and Reagan took credit for it.
It was Cartersappointing Volker to break the back of inflation coupled with Caters push to diversify and lessen our dependency on imported oil that directly lead to the 2o year economic boom from 1982-2000.
Cater invested in Solar, wind, natural gas, nuclear, increased fuel economy standards etc.......in fact Carter installed Solar panels on the White House and Reagan immediately ripped them down............Reagan took all the credit for Carters sacrifices and put us on the wrong path by dismantling the New Deal policies and progressive innititives like energy independence and brought us back towards the Gilded Age with a massive wealth distribution from the working class to the wealthy...........that will ultimately result in another Great Depression and a decline in the quality of life for our Children and Grand Children.
Reagan was a misguided fool!
Well i'm not looking at 1930-2007.........i'm talking 2000-2007 and his 207 year apples to oranges comparison was a dishonest attempt to muddy the watters with skewwed stattistics.
ReplyDeleteMike the article states the Gold to Dow comparison was basically flat from 1929 to 2007, which is what the draft dodging LIAR is seizing on to try to deflect the truth of HOW bad Bush has done and why the economy is in much worse shape then he or the other lying re-pubie wanna admit
ReplyDeleteWhat's Really Squeezing the Middle Class?
ReplyDeleteBy David Leonhardt
The New York Times
Wednesday 25 April 2007
There are two different stories people tend to tell when they're trying to explain why the middle class is feeling squeezed.
The first one is about inequality. The top 0.1 percent of earners - that's one taxpayer out of every 1,000 - now brings in 11 percent of the nation's total income, triple the share that they did just a generation ago. This has happened because the rich have grown ever richer, while the pay of rank-and-file workers hasn't risen much faster than inflation.
The second, related story is about instability. Layoffs seem to happen more frequently than they once did, and these job losses - combined with the spread of bonus pay - have caused workers' incomes to bounce around a lot more than in the past. So not only have middle-class families been getting meager raises, their finances have also become more volatile.
The story about inequality is indisputably true. But we're starting to learn that the second story, the one about instability, is more complicated. It may even end up being wrong.
There is now a big push in both Washington and state capitals to come up with policies that can alleviate middle-class anxiety. That's all for the good. In fact, it is overdue. If it's going to succeed, however, it will have to focus on the actual causes of the squeeze.
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released a study that was arguably the fullest picture of economic volatility anyone has yet put together. Although some academics have taken a crack at the topic in recent years, they have had to rely on surveys in which people are asked how much money they make. The study by the C.B.O., as the budget office is known, used Social Security Administration records, which cover many more people than the surveys and are more reliable.
If you read the C.B.O. report, you can tell that its authors knew they were dealing with a delicate subject. The summary starts by noting that a "significant number of workers experience substantial variability in their total wage earnings," which is certainly true. Only later do you come to the surprising part: there is the same amount of variability now that there was in the 1980s and 1990s. In journalism, this is known as burying the lead.
"Intuitively, you would think volatility is increasing," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who along with Senator Jim Webb of Virginia requested that the study be done. "But it isn't, which I guess shows that the American economy has always been very flexible."
Mr. Schumer's point about intuition is an important one. We can all tick off reasons that the economy feels so volatile. Hardly a week goes by without another big corporation - the Tribune Company, Citigroup, DaimlerChrysler - announcing a big job cut. The number of temporary jobs, meanwhile, has mushroomed. Globalization and technological innovation are causing many of these changes, and labor unions are too weak to prevent them.
But there is also a whole set of other forces, harder to see and pushing in the other direction. Manufacturing, where furloughs and layoffs have always been the norm, accounts for a much smaller part of the work force than it used to, while more stable industries, like health care, have grown. This is one reason that recessions, and the job cuts they bring, haven't happened as often as they once did.
Yesterday's layoffs could go unnoticed by people who weren't affected by them because they were a regular part of doing business. Today's tend to come in big chunks and are often announced in news releases. "There have always been a lot of mass layoffs," said Lawrence F. Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. "We didn't count them before."
In fact, research by Henry S. Farber, an economist at Princeton, has found that job loss rates have followed a cyclical pattern since the early '80s, peaking around the same highs during recessions and falling to similar lows during expansions. (The rate has risen for workers who went to college and fallen a bit who those who didn't.)
Americans, looking at their own jobs, realize that there hasn't been a big change: in a recent Gallup Poll, 12 percent of respondents said it was very or fairly likely they would be laid off in the coming year. In the 1970s, '80s and '90s, at similar points in the business cycle, the percentage was virtually identical.
I don't want to exaggerate how much we know about instability, because there are some conflicting signals. Mr. Farber has also found, for instance, that average job tenure has declined during this time. Maybe people are more willing to leave a job voluntarily - or maybe companies nudge more workers out the door with early retirements and other stealth layoffs.
The C.B.O., for its part, has looked only at the pay of individual workers. In the future, economists there will look at family income - which is affected by divorce and other factors - and could potentially find changes there, as some academic work has.
The bottom line, though, is that the picture is likely to look mixed. Volatility may or may not have increased over the last generation, but it does not appear to have changed in a fundamental way.
Inequality is a whole different story. It has risen enormously and is not about to stop. With the recent jump in gas prices, the pay of rank-and-file workers is once again failing to keep pace with inflation, just as it did from 2002 until early last year, despite healthy economic growth.
In fact, inequality is probably the real reason that the economy often feels more volatile. When people are stretched - when their pay has been stagnant, when they're worried about health insurance, when they don't know what the future holds - a jolt to their income is harder to handle.
As the C.B.O. pointed out, these jolts do happen a lot, even if they don't happen more than in the past. In 2003, a whopping 20 percent of workers saw their earnings drop 25 percent or more compared to the previous year. (For about 22 percent of workers, earnings rose at least 25 percent.)
But it's important to keep in mind what is really changing. As Mr. Schumer says, "If you're holding a job but your share of the pie is getting smaller, that's a different set of policy needs than if you keep losing your job."
In an economy where volatility was the main problem, you might want to protect jobs by making it harder for companies to cut them. In an economy where inequality was the problem, you would want to protect people. You would help them pay for health insurance, retirement, their children's education and other basic needs when the market, left to its own devices, was not doing so.
And if your resources were limited, wouldn't you start with the problem you were sure that you had?
-------
Look at The repug trolls frantically spinning trying to defend GWB.
ReplyDeleteBut it gets harder to TRY to defend a treasonous fool and harder and harder to TRY to defend the indefensible.
As for your second statement Jimmy Carter appointed Volker in 1979 to break the back of inflation and it cost him the election and Reagan took credit for it.
ReplyDeleteIt was Carters appointing Volker to break the back of inflation coupled with Caters push to diversify and lessen our dependency on imported oil that directly lead to the 2o year economic boom from 1982-2000.
-Mike
While it is true that Volker became chairman of the Fed towards the end of Carter's term, it was Reagan who let him control the money supply effectively, which pushed the country inevitably into a severe recession, but broke the back of inflation.
But Reagan's tax policies which provided incentives to producers, together with stable prices created an economic juggernaut which has never returned to the days of Nixon's stifling price controls, Carter's pathetic malaise and Ford's goofy "WIN" buttons.
INTERVIEWER: How important was President Reagan's support for Volcker's policies?
MILTON FRIEDMAN: Enormously important. There is no other president in the postwar period who would have stood by without trying to interfere, to intervene with the Federal Reserve. The situation was this: The only way you could get the inflation down was by having monetary contraction. There was no way you could do that without having a temporary recession. The great error in the earlier period had been that whenever there was a little contraction there was a tendency to expand the money supply rapidly in order to avoid unemployment. That stop-and-go policy was really what bedeviled the Fed during the '60s and '70s. That was the situation in 1980, in '81 in particular. After Reagan came into office, the Fed did step on the money supply, did hold down its growth, and that did lead to a recession. At that point every other president would have immediately come in and tried to get the Federal Reserve to expand. Reagan knew what was happening. He understood very well that the only way he could get inflation down was by accepting a temporary recession, and he supported Volcker and did not try to intervene. Now, you know, there is a myth that Reagan was somehow simpleminded and didn't understand these things. That's a bunch of nonsense. He understood this issue very well. And I know -- I can speak with, I think, authority on this -- that he realized what he was doing, and he knew very well that he was risking his political standing in order to achieve a basic economic objective. And, as you know, his poll ratings went way down in 1982, and then, when the inflation seemed to be broken enough, the Fed reversed policy, started to expand the money supply, the economy recovered, and along with it, Reagan's poll ratings went back up.
-Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Winning Economist
The funniest part the "wiki" article the gutless foole used points that out if you take the time to LOOK which he proly didn't sine he is such an idiot.
ReplyDeleteIf you LOOK at this chart which is part of the wiki article the statement the Gold to DOW values which the article states are proved,
the 1929 value right before the crash of Oct 29th, is almost exactly where we are right now......
thus the draft dodging FOOLE has just proved he is still a lying delusional idiot once again..................
If the idiot would STOP trying to prove something which is a LIE he wouldn't look so stupid all the time till then he is just another member of the lying pink pajama circle jerk crowd ......... proly one of the dumber ones given how wrong he is all the time.
Even stupider, the idiot didn't even read the other link he tried to "prove" his dishonest spin with,
ReplyDeleteMike go here and LOOK at the "quote" in the graph the idiot tried to use;
However, the magnitude of the bull market of 1982 to 1999 (even when adjusted for inflation) was truly of historic proportions. While the Dow has recently made new record highs on a non-inflation-adjusted basis, today's chart does illustrate that on an inflation-adjusted basis the Dow still trades below (albeit slightly) its 1999 peak.
the moron doesn't even READ what he posts to spin his LIES......
hence.......
Gay-dalf is a dumb Foole
QED
CVome ON gaydalf try spinning both the FACTS I have proved, try son,
ReplyDeleteand fail again,
and
again.
You've been bitch-slapped by your own links Once again,
and your welcome for the education once again
FOOLE
Come onb Gaydalf
ReplyDeletetell all of us that chart from th WIKI article doesn't back up the statement in the article I posted son,
tell all of us again,
we can use another good laugh at your idiotic ranting and lies about the facts son
on gay-dalf post another LINK that
ReplyDeletewell ther is not other way to put this son;
Proves Mike and I are right
and your still the BLOG FOOLE son.....
you still have the pointy widdle and son you earned the right to wear it for another month with your stupidity here today.....
Damn you an idiot and both Mike and I proved it once again
QED
What's ther matta gay-dalf feeling kinda stoopid about now?
ReplyDeleteDon't worry son, you've shown all of us your stupid for a long ... long time here son.
Like ever since you decided to show all of us how wrong we all were and FAILED.
Do you actually tead YOUR OWN stats FOOLE?
ReplyDeleteyour stats proved our point..........you had no choice but to backtrack and retract.
you are nothing more than a blindly loyal partisan trying to defend and perpetuate the repug culture of corruption and lies.
Come on gay-dalf find a Milton Freidman quote to make the truth of the links you gave go away and your LIES work again son......
ReplyDeleteThats almost as good as when TT lied and renigged on a bet when he TRIED to CLAIM the repugs would retain both houses of Congress.
ReplyDeleteOr when Volt tried to say that Cheryl Crow was claiming Rove worked only for her.
Come on FOOLE find someway to SPIN this one son..............
ReplyDeleteBTW foole did you bother to READ the comments about the inflation adjusted Dow link you tried to dishonestly spin for all of us?
ReplyDeleteThis chart clearly explains why the rally from 1982 to 2000 feels better to the average person than the 2003-? rally. From a chartist's perspective, it also portends an ominous period coming, similar to 1965 to 1980, with mediocre returns and pesky inflation.
You should have son......
Lying like that Foole is EXACTLY why Brad banned you..........we were talking about the Dow losing purchasing power in inflation adjusted dollars from 2000-2007 and you DISHONESTLY pull the bait and switch and try to slip in statistics from 1800 and from 1930.........and worst of all YOUR OWN STATISTICS CONFIRM that WE ARE RIGHT AND YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteAS USUAL!!!!!!!!!!
About time for a sock puppet to appear.....
ReplyDeleteEvery other time the foole got handed his widdle a$$ like this time,
a sock puppet troll magically popped out of the tubes...
I wonder if one will this time.
LOL
You also tried to slip in a lie that Clif said we should scrap the free enterprise system and that was ANOTHER LIE..........Clif never said anything of the sort YOU lied and claimed he did.
ReplyDeleteYour a hippocrite just like Volt who cries and pisses and moans when people attribute to you things you NEVER said and/or attack you personally................yet YOU gleefully do the very same thing to others like a true lying repug troll and enabler and supporter of the culture of corruption and lies.
Damn Mike, don't remind the foole how he got kicked off the Brad Blog after all his delusions are about all he has left.....
ReplyDeleteThat and a diminishing return on investments which are lagging behind the real rate of inflation, which some think is closer to 8% for real Americans who pay real money for their goods and services, and not the government lies the foole clings to.
You know for how much this dishonest liar claims he hates the lies of the bureaucracy of Washington, he is willing to use their dishonest spin to back up his own dishonest spin all the time.
Looks like the widdle foole has run away with his point hat intact Mike,
ReplyDeleteLOL
Cliffy,
ReplyDeleteI realize that cutting the blue wire instead of the red wire changed your "world view", so let me better lay it out for you:
1) You will see that I agreed several posts ago that the DOW was about even with it's ridiculously high level in 2000, adjusted for inflation.
2) The wiki source shows the value of gold in 1930 as $20.67 whereas today it is about $680, thus representing an average annual rate of return of about 4.6% in nominal terms.
3) The wiki source also shows the value of the DOW in 1930 as 165 compared with today's record high of 13,000. Ignoring the fact that the DOW is comprised of large companies which also typically pay generous dividends, this still represents a rate of return of 5.8% in nominal terms.
But if you add in dividends, the total return of the DOW has yielded well over 10% per year over this same period.
Now even if you adjust both for inflation, you still must conclude that investing in American enterprise over this period was far more profitable than holding gold like a miser.
But you're right I'm stoopid and libs are brainiacs so hi five blah, blah blah.
Which inflation son, the government LIES of what real americans pay year after year which people like You ignore
ReplyDeleteand the graphs don't lie son, even the stupid ones you tried to dishonestly spin even though you never read them son.
You also tried to slip in a lie that Clif said we should scrap the free enterprise system and that was ANOTHER LIE..........Clif never said anything of the sort YOU lied and claimed he did.
ReplyDelete-Mikey
You and clif routinely bemoan the inequality of outcomes produced in a free enterprise system which affords everyone equal opportunity to become prosperous.
So tell me you are not advocating more and more socialism and higher taxes and that you celebrate economic freedom and I will retract my statement.
Lying like that Foole is EXACTLY why Brad banned you..........we were talking about the Dow losing purchasing power in inflation adjusted dollars from 2000-2007 and you DISHONESTLY pull the bait and switch and try to slip in statistics from 1800 and from 1930.........and worst of all YOUR OWN STATISTICS CONFIRM that WE ARE RIGHT AND YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteAS USUAL!!!!!!!!!!
And id-jet it is the relative value of Gold to the DOW, which the graph from WIKI proved I was right and your a dishonest stupid re-pubie troll once again son.
ReplyDeleteSpin it any way you want foole but you posted the wiki article I just read it and realized it showed what I posted was true son.
Bloviate till the cows come home that FACT ain't gonna change son
FF said " 1) You will see that I agreed several posts ago that the DOW was about even with it's ridiculously high level in 2000, adjusted for inflation."
ReplyDeleteWell I guess thats just a nice spinmeisters way of saying the DOW is still below what it was 7 years ago adjusted for inflation..........meaning investors in the DOW would have LOST real purchasing power the last 7 years.
according to you "about even =lower than
So if you do taxes for a client and their business is LOSING money............do you just say they are ALMOST breaking even and call it a day?
Which inflation son, the government LIES of what real americans pay year after year which people like You ignore
ReplyDelete-Cliffy
Doesn't matter cliffy, pick one. Just use the same inflation index on both the DOW and Gold and my point will be the same. That is known as sixth grade algebra.
The dramatic turning point in the broad U.S. economy of the late 20th century happened in the early 80s when Reagan and Volker broke the back of Nixon and Carter's curse of rampant inflation.
ReplyDeleteGenius, you do realize that your moronic monkey Messiah has us on the doorstep of precisely those conditions again, right now, don't you?
We do not have to prove anything foole, you LIED about what I posted and got caught, both on what I said and the facts which surround it.
ReplyDeleteGo back to posting long winded idiotic rants about your fantasy land of false generalizations and non existent strawman arguments son, it is all you really got ,
idiotic rants for the shrinking base of re-pubie kool aid swirlers son.
Let's put fascism fanny's lame lie to bed, right now.
ReplyDeletefanny, you'll want to avoid reading the article. It contains FACTS about the dollar and where it's headed.
No son because the index they used for inflation pre Reagan is very different from the LIES he and his minions tried to foist upon a ignorant public, which is almost the same thing you have tried to do here son, use false based Pseudo facts to spin the truth, instead of just admitting what it is.
ReplyDeleteThe inflation index has been changed to HIDE the fact most people are losing in real terms ever since the Reagan recession of 1981 - 1982, and the middle class and poor have lost real value in both purchasing power and investment terms while the rich just get richer.....
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly what the reichwing has been after ever since FDR leveled the playing field post depression, it ain't about socialism son, but truth and fairness which re-pubies lie about every day.
Gutless re-pubies don't want a fair economy, but one which is very slanted to favor them against everyone else who is not as well off as they are.
Well I guess thats just a nice spinmeisters way of saying the DOW is still below what it was 7 years ago adjusted for inflation..........meaning investors in the DOW would have LOST real purchasing power the last 7 years.
ReplyDelete-Mikey
Yes, if they were unlucky enough to have invested all their money, at the peak of the 2000 market bubble, in the DOW.
However, those fortunate enough to invest at the market bottom in late 2002 would have done very well indeed.
At any rate day-trading would have about the same results as buying a lotto ticket or visting Vegas.
Smart long term investors look for value and don't try to time the market.
Genius, you do realize that your moronic monkey Messiah has us on the doorstep of precisely those conditions again, right now, don't you?
ReplyDelete-jr, uber genius
Yes, I'm sure hillary will do much better about controlling bloated federal spending. So good luck with that.
Ff said "You and clif routinely bemoan the inequality of outcomes produced in a free enterprise system which affords everyone equal opportunity to become prosperous.
ReplyDeleteSo tell me you are not advocating more and more socialism and higher taxes and that you celebrate economic freedom and I will retract my statement.
1) There Certainly has bee an inequality in income distribution where the top 1% get ever richer and the OVERWHELMING majority of the working class struggle.
2) I most certainly celebtate economic Freedom, where we differ is that I celebrate the economic freedom of the 1950's-1960's anf the 1990's where everone's standard of living and lifesysle increased rather than just the top 1% og the wealthy elite.
3) regarding taxes I am for LOWER taxes on the vast majority of Americans the the top 1% need to pay their FAIR SHARE..........incomes for the top 1% of American have risen exponentially even when adjusted for inflation over the last 30 years while taxes have essentially been cut in half, while incomes for the OVERWHELMING majority of the working class has declined when adjusted for inflation even as tax rates are about the same.
So In parting how about this Foole........What would YOU say if the democrats made it an election issue to lower taxes on the overwhelming majority of the working class and pay for it by increasing taxes on the wealthy elite the top 1%-5% of America, who have disproportionately and unfairly benefited at the expense of almost the entire nation.
Do you and your associates oppose lowering the tax burden on almost the entire country and righting and inequity and flaw in our system............i'm sure putting money in the pockets of the working class would stimulate the economy far more than letting the top 1% steal ever more of the pie until we enter a new Great Depression because only a few wealthy people have money to spend.
And gay-dalf we are in the beginning of what is to come.....
ReplyDeletebecause with the crushing federal DEBT, and slow speed melt down of the housing market, there is little else the system can milk for value, something is going to happen, maybe not this year maybe not even by the time Bush leaves office, but the economic system if way too far out of balance world wide to continue indefinitely, some real adjustments are needed, and we are on the losing end of those world economy adjustments, with out even considering the fact almost every giant and super giant oil field is at peak or past peak which means energy price shocks to the system to further stress an house of cards already teetering at the point of collapse.
with NO new giant or super giant fields to replace Cantrell, Brent, Burgan, Gahwar, et al, we are in for some bad times concerning the supply of OIL and the resultant price from the shortage of supply.
Fascist Foole said "Smart long term investors look for value and don't try to time the market."
ReplyDeleteNo, SMART long term investors dont invest their money in an index during a secular long term bear market........particularly when that index is denominated in a declining currency!
Good article Jolly.......I think we will cross the 1.40 mark before Memorial day!
ReplyDeleteThe inflation index has been changed to HIDE the fact most people are losing in real terms ever since the Reagan recession of 1981 - 1982, and the middle class and poor have lost real value in both purchasing power and investment terms while the rich just get richer.
ReplyDelete-cliffy
Actually the CPI market basket of goods and services is constantly being adjusted to reflect changing technology and consumer tastes. It would be meaningless otherwise (how many horses and buggy whips have you bought recently?) It's not perfect, but it is the most meaningful tool available, as long as long as politicians are unable to mess with it.
In America the rich get richer but so do the poor. Statistically there will always be someone in the lower portion of the bell curve, at least temporarily.
Our "poor" are actually wealthier than "rich" folks in most other countries and even folks in our own country a couple of generations ago.
The fact remains that ours is the richest country in history because it has embraced the free enterprise economic model.
Look at most of Europe (as it crumbles) if you want to see where the socialistic nanny state leads.
There is a strong correlation between economic freedom and prosperity.
Liberal policies are designed to punish the rich, but the "poor" would suffer even more.
BTW foole in some ways we are in a very similar situation Weinmar Germany found itself in.
ReplyDeleteWe both had very large foreign debts and a vastly shrinking real industrial base from which to pay it.
Weinmar because the allies destroyed a significant protion during WW1,
the US because the neo-con idiots went after short term gains at long term losses.
How the Fed and major banks deal with this untenable situation will be interesting, but the idiots in Indiana, Texas and California who are selling infrastructure to foreign investors for a short term gain in liquidity over long term investment in the infrastructure of the country are just escalation the situation cause when tolls begin to shrink the available monies available for common people to travel, and the tolls go out side the US thus causing the shrinking base of local and state revenues the true costs will just add to the long term burden to the country as a whole
Every one can't work at Wal-Mart when GM and Ford disappear like they are doing.
and when the costs of Wal-Mart good begins to rise ever rapidly as the dollar sinks lower and lower the whole house of cards will eventually collapse from it's own weigh of over burdening debt.
In former savior of high tech has been outsourced faster then the auto industry even was.
(how many horses and buggy whips have you bought recently?)
ReplyDeleteanother dishonest spin attempt son, added value is NOT a real term to deflect inflation but they use it,
they ignore real normal costs of food and fuels to try to make things which are falling like computers and other NON essential high tech to hide the true costs of inflation for real Americans son.
Our "poor" are actually wealthier than "rich" folks in most other countries and even folks in our own country a couple of generations ago.
ReplyDeleteThank you FDR and LBJ cause if it was left to fooles like YOU they wouldn't be son.
Now RAIL about how bad it is foole.
No, SMART long term investors dont invest their money in an index during a secular long term bear market........particularly when that index is denominated in a declining currency
ReplyDelete-Mike
Ideally, an investor invests at the precise bottom of the bear market. Problem is nobody knows where that is.
"and when the costs of Wal-Mart good begins to rise ever rapidly as the dollar sinks lower and lower the whole house of cards will eventually collapse from it's own weigh of over burdening debt."
ReplyDeleteYou mean kinda like Social Security is doing now?
Too bad your side won't let us fix it...
And regarding the "Raw Deal"...
ReplyDeleteI thought you guys were all about the constitution and all, FDR sidestepped the whole thing in pushing us into taking the first step towards socialism.
Hey Lydia is that picture on the front from this weekend?
ReplyDeleteSo you hung out with the Fonz?
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy
"...a secular long term bear market..."
ReplyDeleteIs that as opposed to a religious long term bear market?...
The blog foole said;
ReplyDeleteThe fact remains that ours is the richest country in history because it has embraced the free enterprise economic model.
Not any more son, the European total stock worth has passed the US son.
The fact remains that ours is the richest country in history because it has embraced the free enterprise economic model.
So Europe's stock markets have passed those of the U.S. in value, at least if you count Russia and Turkey as part of Europe (which they both partly are). This apparently happened last week, but nobody seems to have noticed until Tuesday after an analyst in London named Ian Harnett pointed it out.
(snip)
Still, a landmark. Europe has more than twice as many inhabitants and a significantly larger economy than the U.S., so it shouldn't be all that amazing that the companies traded on its markets are worth more. But it hasn't been the case since the end of World War II, or maybe even World War I.
So what is one to think of this? I'm of the school that sees it as good news when countries around the world emerge from poverty and communism and other forms of misgovernment. And when that happens, the U.S. share of the global economy inevitably shrinks. We currently account for less than 5% of the world's population and about 28% global GDP--meaning that the economic share has got a lot more room to decline.
This sort of relative decline can be a hard thing for a proud nation to put up with. And I'm all for doing whatever we can to make the U.S. as economically competitive as possible. But in the end, what ought to matter most is the living standard of U.S. residents, not the size of our economy or our stock markets.
The blog foole continued:
Look at most of Europe (as it crumbles) if you want to see where the socialistic nanny state leads.
Really then why is this happening son(same article)
Update: John Authers had this in his "Short View" column in the FT way back on Monday. Missed that. He also shared this interesting factoid:
For decades, through boom and bust, US companies were more focused on shareholder value, and delivered far higher returns on equity than their European counterparts. Restructuring has turned that round. According to Absolute Strategy Research, European companies managed a return on equity last month of 17.5 per cent, compared to 16.5 per cent for the US.
You were saying foole?
they ignore real normal costs of food and fuels to try to make things which are falling like computers and other NON essential high tech to hide the true costs of inflation for real Americans son.
ReplyDelete-cliffy
Yes, they sometimes talk about "core" inflation which excludes the price of food and oil. I don't have much use for that measure either, but it is supposedly done to reduce the "volatility" of the measure.
Most folks use the regular full, CPI. We will have confidence in this as long as we keep the political pressure out of it.
Retirees and others whose income increases is tied to the CPI have an obvious vested interest in trying to claim that it is understated.
But the Fed would not be able to control the money supply without a reliable indicator. No one wants that.
well I see dolty has gotten Gay-dalfd cry for HELP
ReplyDeleteFascist Fan said "Our "poor" are actually wealthier than "rich" folks in most other countries and even folks in our own country a couple of generations ago.
ReplyDeleteThe fact remains that ours is the richest country in history because it has embraced the free enterprise economic model.
Look at most of Europe (as it crumbles) if you want to see where the socialistic nanny state leads.
There is a strong correlation between economic freedom and prosperity.
Liberal policies are designed to punish the rich, but the "poor" would suffer even more."
Those are outright lies that we have debunked numerous times.
1) Our poor are most certainly not better off than "MOST" other countries......most of Western Europe particularly Scandinavia and Australia the poor is both smaller and better off than America.
2) Europe is doing better than America is doing right now, there are far fewer poor people and the ones they have are not as poor, the distribution of wealth is not as extreme and inequitable, their economy is much sounder than ours particularly manufacturing their currency and financial system is more stable, Europeand have much more leisure time and a better quality of life they often get 10-15 weeks of vacation per year compared to 2-3 weeks in America.
3) your claim that liberal policies are designed to punish the rich is a bogus lie......The truth is liberal policies are designed to be fair and equitable to EVEYONE not just a tiny cabal of elites and to promote economic growth.........statistics CLEARLY prove that GDP, stock market returns and job growth have been highest under democrats!
Repugs have presided under periods of severe recession and economic Depression and that is no coincidence.......repugs have dishonest inept talking points that DO NOT WORK and little of real substance...........kinda just like YOU and GWB!
"...a secular long term bear market..."
ReplyDeleteIs that as opposed to a religious long term bear market?...
-Volt
Yes, I noticed it is getting increasingly difficult to find a good market to buy secular bears.
Social security is an Insurance NOT an investment system dolty boy, you don't use your insurance as investments do ya son?
ReplyDeleteat least I hope it is NOT your primary form of investment son, other wise your as dumb as you seem to be here time after time.
Idiot how much real money have you spent on a computer compared to food and energy costs foole?
ReplyDeleteDamn son you want to equate a thousand dollars spent on a discretionary costs to tens of thousands spent on the real costs every one has to pay to live and travel.
ReplyDeleteVoltron said...
ReplyDelete"and when the costs of Wal-Mart good begins to rise ever rapidly as the dollar sinks lower and lower the whole house of cards will eventually collapse from it's own weigh of over burdening debt."
You mean kinda like Social Security is doing now?
Too bad your side won't let us fix it..."
you mean gut.....privatize and destroy it!!!!
Why do the rich only pay SS on the first $90,000 of their income regardless of weather they actually collect or not...........its their responsibility to take care of the poor..........how come people who are REALLY rich like Gates, Buffet and Soros have NO PROBLEM paying their fair share and helping those less fortunate but the rest of the top 1% does.
I'll bet with the exception of the peope mentioned above and a few others VERY FEW Of the REALLY wealthy would actually give to charity if they didbt get a big fat tax deduction for doing it!
Well arguing with the BLOG FOOLE has been entertaining exspecially since he shot himself in the brain from the get go, but I have a fewew things to do
ReplyDeleteLater re-pubie fooles hope your stocks don't lose too much REAL value while the dollar plunges further and the costs of food energy and Wal-Mart goodies go up and up.
Social security is an Insurance NOT an investment system dolty boy, you don't use your insurance as investments do ya son?
ReplyDelete-cliffy
Actually it is neither. Investments typically make money, and real insurance is purchased voluntarily (if someone doesn't pay into SS, he goes to jail).
SS is a mandatory ponzi scheme which forcibly transfers wealth from young folks to the old folks.
Unless of course you work for the government; then you get to have a much better government retirement system.
Problem is, like a ponzi scheme, we are running out of young folks to pay for the old folks, so the system is on track to start going belly up in about 8 years.
"at least I hope it is NOT your primary form of investment son, other wise your as dumb as you seem to be here time after time."
ReplyDelete(cliffy - regarding insurance)
Well it worked out pretty good for Warren Buffet. Try googling "General Re"...
Later re-pubie fooles hope your stocks don't lose too much REAL value while the dollar plunges further and the costs of food energy and Wal-Mart goodies go up and up.
ReplyDelete-cliffy
Thanks for you concern. My portfolio is doing handsomely, I assure you. How is the piggy bank in your mattress doing?
"Why do the rich only pay SS on the first $90,000 of their income regardless of weather they actually collect or not...........its their responsibility to take care of the poor..."
ReplyDeleteOh really?, Didn't they do enough by simply creating JOBS for them? Didn't they give enough back to the government by giving all those poor a taxable income?...
As far as Gates and Buffet go, I have nothing against charitable contributions. But TRUE charity doesn't require the threat of jail.
well I see dolty has gotten Gay-dalfd cry for HELP
ReplyDelete-GI Jane
Indeed, the secret Ruffian cry is:
kerokrooo, kerookrooo, kakkawww!
Whew, thanks, Volt. You're here just in time because cliffy and mikey were giving me such a thrashing!
/damn that cry was supposed to be a secret...
And those "poor" that Soro's is helping? You mean like MoveOn.org for instance? Or perhaps indirectly supporting Media Matters?
ReplyDeleteFreedom Fan said...
ReplyDelete"...a secular long term bear market..."
Is that as opposed to a religious long term bear market?...
-Volt
Yes, I noticed it is getting increasingly difficult to find a good market to buy secular bears."
changing the subject to hide your lies and ineptness..........but in case you REALLY are that ignorant and uninformed economically allow me to help...........a Secular Bear Market is a long term bear market lasting around 15-20 years with periodic sucker rally bull markets that can last from 1-4 years and since the Secular Bear Market started in 2000 it should last till 2015-2020.
Looks to me like you were doing just fine FF. I just wanted in before you took 'em all out by yourself...LOL
ReplyDeleteGotta save a little fun for the rest of us you know.
And actually Mikey, it's NOT just the rich. You only have to pay SS on YOUR first 90k too.
ReplyDeleteAs far as that goes though, if they don't NEED social security, and don't plan to take it, why should they be forced to pay in at all?
Mikey, IF there is a "secular bear market", it started a couple of years BEFORE 2000.
ReplyDeleteDont'cha remember Clinton had the GAO fudging the numbers to try to help Algore.
Volt,
ReplyDeleteTo be a lib, you must believe that all the money you earn really belongs to the government.
Folks who want to decide how to spend what they earn are called "greedy" whereas folks, who live their entire lives with snout in the trough supported by productive Americans, are called "compassionate".
To be a lib you must also be skilled at dodging this question: "What is meant by 'fair share'? What percent of a person's income is 'fair' for the government to take?"
Now libs want the government to take all of it, just like marx says, but they can't just come right out and say it, so they must obfuscate.
Considering we are at war, people are shooting and threatening to shoot people in colleges, practically every member of the Bush adminstration is under investigation or indictment, the Attorney Scandal, and now, George Tenet coming out and saying Bush and Cheney are full of shit, I am not surprised to see our trolls in here debating a really important and current topic.
ReplyDeleteSocial Security.
:|
Amazing.
Yeah FF, and to paraphrase...
ReplyDelete"Folks who want to decide how to spend what other people earn are called "progressive"..."
Keep working to bury and hide your ineptness and dishonesty........that doesnt change the fact for ALL to SEE that YOU FF attempted to dishonestly use unrelated facts to try and muddy or blunt the truth of what we said........THEN when you looked like a COMPLETE incompetent lying fool because YOUR links and evidence actually supported and confirmed what WE SAID and DISPROVED what YOU said........you admitted your mistake and tried to bury your lies, ignorance and incompetence with rapid fire posts from YOU and volt .
ReplyDeleteThat Dont change the fact that you Were DEAD WRONG and dishonest enough to try to pull a bait and switch and use facts from a COMPLETELY unrelated time period and worst of all YOUR Facts STILL not only did not support your claim from the 1930- 2007 time period but disproved that as well!!!!!
So you are either:::::
1) A completely incompetent and inept researcher with a reading comprehension problem who is none too smart or
2) a dishonest lying and spinning repug troll.
WHICH IS IT?????
Well Worf, even though we're lowly conservatives we can still "multitask"....
ReplyDeleteBesides YOUR guys were talking about the economy, and SS is part and parcel of that.
With an eye for relevant like that, you two could have great careers as Fox news anchors.
ReplyDeletea Secular Bear Market is a long term bear market lasting around 15-20 years with periodic sucker rally bull markets that can last from 1-4 years and since the Secular Bear Market started in 2000 it should last till 2015-2020.
ReplyDelete-mikey
I see. So folks who jumped in about 5 years ago at the market bottom of late 2002, were "suckers"? Bet they cry all the way to the bank.
Freedom Fan said...
ReplyDeleteVolt,
To be a lib, you must believe that all the money you earn really belongs to the government.
Folks who want to decide how to spend what they earn are called "greedy" whereas folks, who live their entire lives with snout in the trough supported by productive Americans, are called "compassionate".
To be a lib you must also be skilled at dodging this question: "What is meant by 'fair share'? What percent of a person's income is 'fair' for the government to take?"
Now libs want the government to take all of it, just like marx says, but they can't just come right out and say it, so they must obfuscate."
I'll quote Reagan for you Foole...."there You Go Again".............I clearly stated that I support TAX CUTS for virtually the entire working class except the top 1%-5% meaning 80% of the country or 240 million or so..........and you lie and distort and TRY to paint me as a pro- higher taxes guy........it boggles the mind!
Well, no matter.
ReplyDeleteTenets new book is going to be about the last little brick on the bundle for Oberfuhrer Bush and his merry band.
In fact, its a slam dunk.
ReplyDeleteSo far there have been a couple of priceless quotes in this thread though...
ReplyDeleteA. "We must replace the idea of "rugged individualism" with "helping others within your community" because no one ever really made it on his own without a helping hand."
-Lydia (on the main page)
B. "...its their responsibility to take care of the poor..."
-Mikey (regarding the rich)
So tell me, do you agree with this quote?
"To everone according to their need, from everone according to their ability"
hmmm? any takers?
Freedom Fan said...
ReplyDeletea Secular Bear Market is a long term bear market lasting around 15-20 years with periodic sucker rally bull markets that can last from 1-4 years and since the Secular Bear Market started in 2000 it should last till 2015-2020.
-mikey
I see. So folks who jumped in about 5 years ago at the market bottom of late 2002, were "suckers"? Bet they cry all the way to the bank."
No.........they rode out a Sucker rally or cyclical bull market in a long terrm secular bear ,market just like people did from 1971-1973 or from 1975-1978.........if they stay in the martket they will likely lose those gains and possibly more just as people did in the 1973-1974 Bear markets or 1980-1982............unless someone cashes out now they are only paper gains.
"......if they stay in the martket they will likely lose those gains and possibly more just as people did in the 1973-1974 Bear markets or 1980-1982............unless someone cashes out now they are only paper gains."
ReplyDeleteWell, if they DON'T "cash out" at the bottom, those are only "paper" losses, aren't they?
...I am not surprised to see our trolls in here debating a really important and current topic. Social Security.
ReplyDelete-Worf
Yes quite so, the subject of social security and the economic direction of the U.S. are trivial matters compared with hysterical crys for impeaching a President who will be gone in about a year anyway, but Volt and I did not introduce the topics.
As you were. Bush is hitler, Bush is the devil, Bush caused Katrina, Bush orchestrated 9/11, Bush lied people died, no blood for Halliburton, karl rove stole the election (twice), scooter libby committed crimes worse than pol pot...
a stupid FOOLE said;
ReplyDeleteI see. So folks who jumped in about 5 years ago at the market bottom of late 2002, were "suckers"? Bet they cry all the way to the bank.
Just how many people were willing to JUMP in at the exact right time compared to how many were in long before and still haven't made up all their losses son?
Damn you a ignorant troll throwing stupid non-sequiters to attempt to spin away inconvenient facts which you posted to prove Mike and My point son.
I bet the vast a majority of people in the stock market have not made up all they lost in 2000000 yet son especially since they pay broker fees and investment costs which come off the top.
Tenet's in CYA mode. He's shoveling some pretty hefty Babs Striesand there, he's already made statements on the record that contradict what he's saying now.
ReplyDeleteI WORFEUS said...
ReplyDeleteWell, no matter.
Tenets new book is going to be about the last little brick on the bundle for Oberfuhrer Bush and his merry band."
Tenets book and attorneygate have teeth and could bring the house of cards down and do the Bush Administration in........they are certainly MORE damaging than what brought Nixon down and about 1000 times more damaging than what brought Clinton to be impeached.
In fact I say we borrow a page from the repugs and use the same standard they used to impeach Clinton to bring impeachment proceedings against Bush and his cronnies.
BTW dolty, I was talking about the world economy you tried to spin the debate away from that with your dishonest SS spin as usual.
ReplyDeleteYeah, and I bet the broker fee's in the year 2 million are a real bitch.
ReplyDeleteI clearly stated that I support TAX CUTS for virtually the entire working class except the top 1%-5% meaning 80% of the country or 240 million or so..........and you lie and distort and TRY to paint me as a pro- higher taxes guy........it boggles the mind!
ReplyDelete-Mikey
Cool. So you want to leave taxes alone on the "rich" and cut them for everyone else? Hey I'm with you on that. Mea culpa, I mistook you for a liberal.
Sorry Clif, when you were talking about the DOW, I just assumed you meant the US.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it's one of those things like how the constitution applies to foreigners living abroad.
HEY! There's an idea!, Let's beat the UN to the punch and start taxing all foreigners living abroad. We could pay off that debt in no time!
NO, I Clearly said I would RAISE taxes on the top 1%-5% to pay for tax cuts for the working class most likely the bottom 80%
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you this FF or Volt are YOU guys in the top 1% or even the top 5%..........I HIGHLY DOUBT IT.
What i;m saying is YOU and the vast majority of Americans would get a tax cut paid for by a very small amount of very wealthy people that can afford it since their taxers have been cut in half the past 30 years while MOST americans are about the same!
Wasn't Tenet a Clinton admin holdover?...
ReplyDeleteVoltron said...
ReplyDeleteTenet's in CYA mode. He's shoveling some pretty hefty Babs Striesand there, he's already made statements on the record that contradict what he's saying now.
Yea I know.
What you seem to forget of course, is how you guys loved him up until now.
He's one of you.
Well, at least he was, lol.
He was a valiant defender of the faith.
And now, like the rest of the right wing rats, the heats on, and he's turning on the rest of the right wing rats, just like wicked men always do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd dolty boy, Here is the entire article foole;
ReplyDeleteThe Oil Drum
Our World Is Finite: Is This a Problem?
We all know the world is finite. The number of atoms is finite, and these atoms combine to form a finite number of molecules. The mix of molecules may change over time, but in total, the number of molecules is also finite.
We also know that growth is central to our way of life. Businesses are expected to grow. Every day new businesses are formed and new products are developed. The world population is also growing, so all this adds up to a huge utilization of resources.
At some point, growth in resource utilization must collide with the fact that the world is finite. We have grown up thinking that the world is so large that limits will never be an issue. But now, we are starting to bump up against limits.
So, what are the earth's limits? Are we reaching them?
1. Oil
Oil is a finite resource, since it is no longer being formed. Oil production in a given area tends to increase for a time, then begins to decline, as the available oil is pumped out. Oil production in the United States has followed this pattern (Figure 1), as has oil production in the North Sea (Figure 2). This decline has taken place in spite of technology improvements.
US Oil Production
North Sea Oil Production
There is now serious concern that world oil production will begin to decline ("peak"), just as it has in the United States and the North Sea. I discussed this earlier in Oil Quiz - Test Your Knowledge . A congressional committee was also concerned about this issue, and asked the US Government Accountability Office to study it. The GAO's report, titled CRUDE OIL: Uncertainty about Future Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production confirmed that this is an important issue.
Exactly how soon this decline will begin is not certain, but many predict that the decline may begin within the next few years.
2. Natural Gas
Natural gas in North America is also reaching its limits. United States natural gas production reached its peak in 1973. Each year, more and more wells are drilled, but the average amount of gas produced per well declines. This occurs because the best sites were developed first, and the later sites are more marginal. The United States has been importing more and more natural gas from Canada, but this is also reaching its limits. Because of these issues, the total amount of natural gas available to the United States is likely to decline in the next few years - quite possibly leading to shortages.
3. Fresh Water
Fresh water is needed for drinking and irrigation, but here too we are reaching limits. Water from melting ice caps is declining in quantity because of global warming. Water is being pumped from aquifers much faster than it is being replaced, and water tables are dropping by one to three meters a year in many areas. Some rivers, especially in China and Australia, are close to dry because of diversion for agriculture and a warming climate. In the United States, water limitations are especially important in the Southwest and in the more arid part of the Plains States.
4. Top soil
The topsoil we depend on for agriculture is created very slowly - about one inch in 300 to 500 years, depending on the location. The extensive tilling of the earth's soil that is now being done results in many stresses on this topsoil, including erosion, loss of organic matter, and chemical degradation. Frequent irrigation often results in salination, as well. As society tries to feed more and more people, and produce biofuel as well, there is pressure to push soil to its limits--use land in areas subject to erosion; use more and more fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides; and remove the organic material needed to build up the soil.
Are there indirect impacts as well?
Besides depleting oil, natural gas, fresh water, and top soil, the intensive use of the earth's resources is resulting in pollution of air and water, and appears to be contributing to global warming as well.
Can technology overcome these finite world issues?
While we have been trying to develop solutions, success has been limited to date. When we have tried to find substitutes, we have mostly managed to trade one problem for another:
Ethanol from corn
Current production methods usually require large amounts of natural gas and fresh water, both of which are in short supply. Increasing production may require the use of land which has been set aside in the Conservation Reserve Program because of its tendency to erode.
Oil from oil sands and oil shale
Oil from oil sands requires large energy inputs, currently from natural gas, as well as fresh water, and creates pollution issues. Oil from oil shale is expected to require even more energy and fresh water.
Coal to liquid and coal substitution for natural gas
"Clean coal" and sequestration of carbon dioxide from coal are not yet commercially available, and are expected to be very expensive if they become available. Thus, coal production is likely to exacerbate global warming and raise pollution levels. If coal is used to replace both oil and natural gas, it is likely to deplete within a few decades, like the natural gas and oil it replaces.
Deeper wells for fresh water
If deeper wells are used, they will requires more energy to pump the water farther. In locations that use aquifers that replenish over thousands of years, the available water will eventually be depleted.
There are a number of promising technologies — including solar, wind, wave power, and geothermal — but the amount of energy from these sources is tiny at this time. Nuclear power also seems to have promise, but has toxic waste issues and is difficult to scale up quickly. A general introduction to alternative technologies is provided in What Are Our Alternatives If Fossil Fuels Are a Problem?
What if we don't find technological solutions?
We can't know for sure what will happen, but these are some hypotheses:
1. Initially, higher prices for energy and food items and a major recession.
If the supply of oil lags behind demand, we can expect rising prices for oil and gasoline and possibly other types of energy. Prices for food may also rise, because oil is used in the production and transportation of food. Recession is likely to follow, because people will cut down on their purchases of discretionary items, so as to be able to afford the necessities. Layoffs will follow. People laid off will find it difficult to pay mortgages and other debt, so banks and other creditors will find themselves in increasing financial difficulty.
2. Longer term, a decline in economic activity.
With fewer resources, economic activity is likely to decline. We will need to find replacements for many products in a relatively short time frame — heating fuel, transportation fuel, plastics, synthetic fabrics, fertilizer (currently made from natural gas), and asphalt, among other things. Living standards are likely to drop, because we don’t have infinite resources for replacing all the things that are declining in availability.
A graphic representation of how this might happen is shown in Figure 3. Real gross domestic product (GDP) gives a measure of how much goods and services the United States is producing in a year, in constant (year 2000) dollars. The "Fitted" line in Figure 3 shows the expected growth in real GDP, if growth continues as in the past. Scenarios 1 and 2 show two examples of how limitations on oil and natural gas might impact future real GDP. Scenario 1 shows a fairly rapid decline, starting very soon. Scenario 2 shows a slower decline, starting in 2020. If the downturn is still several years away, we have longer to plan, and a better chance that the decline will be more gradual.
US Real GDP may decline
3. Transportation difficulties and electrical outages.
Since transportation generally uses petroleum products for fuel, a reduction in the amount of oil available is likely to cause transportation difficulties. These difficulties may extend to all forms of transportation--automobile, trucks, airplanes, boats, and railroads, to the extent that fuel is unavailable due to shortages, cost, or rationing.
If natural gas supplies decline, electrical outages are likely, especially during high-use times of the year. Electrical outages may also result from interruption of transportation of other fuel, such as coal, to power plants, because of petrolum shortages. Outages may be one time events, or may be planned outages at certain times of the day, to compensate for an inadeqacy in the fuel supply.
4. Possible collapse of the monetary system.
This is perhaps the biggest single issue, and the most difficult to understand.
There is a huge amount of debt in the world today. When loans were made, the expectation of the lenders was that the economy would continue to grow as in the past--that is like the "Fitted" line in Figure 3 above. If this continued growth occurred, people, on average, would be a little better off financially when the time came to pay off their loans than they were when the loans were taken out, so they would have a reasonable chance of paying off the loans with interest. Corporations would continue to grow, and because of this continued growth, most would be able to pay off their debt with interest.
What happens if a scenario like that shown as Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 on Figure 3 occurs? When it comes time to repay the loans, people and corporations will be on average, worse off, rather than better off, than when they took them out. It is likely that many people will be unemployed, and cannot pay back their debt. Companies manufacturing goods that are no longer in demand are likely to be bankrupt, and thus will be unable to repay their debt. Organizations holding this debt, such as banks, insurance companies, and pension funds will find themselves in financial difficulty, because of the many defaults on the loans that are the assets of these organizations.
Two possible outcomes of widespread defaults come to mind. One is that there is so much debt that cannot be repaid that banks, insurance companies, and in fact the whole monetary system fails. The other alternative is that the government guarantees all the debt, so that the institutions do not fail. The latter approach would likely lead to hyper-inflation.
In either event, people and businesses would lose their savings, because money either wouid either be no longer available (first approach), or would be worth very little due to inflation (second approach). In either event, foreign countries would be unlikely to accept our currency in trade. Simple transactions, such as purchasing food or paying an employee, would become very difficult. Eventually, some approach would likely be found to circumvent these difficulties--perhaps a more barter-based approach--but this would be a huge change from our current system.
5. Failure of economic assumptions to hold.
We have been raised in a world where supply and demand are generally in balance. An increase in demand results in a greater price, which in turn leads to a greater supply. If the particular item isn’t available, substitution is generally available.
Once we reach geological limits, these basic principles seem much less likely to hold. An increase in energy demand isn't likely to translate into greater supply. Distribution of the limited available supply seems likely to reflect considerations other than price, such as rationing and long-term alliances. There may also be military conflict over available supplies.
6. Changed emphasis to more local production.
Two factors are likely to encourage local production and discourage international trade. One is the higher cost and/or unavailability of fuels used for transportation. The other is difficulty with the monetary system--either hyper-inflation or complete failure of the system. If there are monetary system problems, other countries are likely to want actual goods in trade, rather than IOUs or money. This requirement is likely to greatly reduce the amount of trade with foreign countries.
Food production is likely to be more localized, since this insures a continuous supply, and reduces the amount of fuel needed for transportation. If there are problems with shortages, people may choose to have gardens, so as to grow a few of the foods they need themselves.
7. Reduced emphasis on debt.
Once it is clear that future production is likely to be less than current production, as in either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 of Figure 3, it will be very difficult to find any lender willing to provide long term loans, since if the loan is paid back at all, it is likely to be paid back in money that is worth very much less than it was at the time the loan was taken out.
If governments still have debt at this point, they will find it difficult to sell new bonds to replace the ones that mature. Businesses desiring to build new plants may find it necessary to accumulate resources for new plants in advance of their construction. Mortgages may not be available for prospective home owners, either.
8. Reduced emphasis on insurance and pensions.
If there are difficulties with the monetary system, insurance companies and pension plans will be among the hardest hit, since thy take in funds and invest them, and pay benefits later.
It is possible that a limited form of Social Security coverage may continue, but this is by no means certain. If a high level of inflation occurs (see point 4 above), benefits that have been promised to date will be worth very little. If a new monetary system is in place, it will be up to the government at that time to determine the level of benefits. Because total goods and services will be lower in the future (Figure 3 above), benefits to retirees will almost certainly be lower as well.
9. More people will perform manual labor.
As the amount of oil and natural gas becomes less available, more work will need to be done by hand, since the fuels to run machines will be less available. In order to encourage people to take jobs involving manual labor, manual labor will pay better in relationship to desk jobs. Because food is such ain important commodity, farming may be particularly highly valued, and may pay especially well.
10. Resource wars and migration conflicts.
If there is is an inadequate amount of a resource (water, oil, natural gas, or food), countries may fight over the limited supplies that are available. Conflicts are likely to spring up regarding areas where resources are plentiful.
Alternatively, people may choose to migrate from an area if resources become less abundant--for example, migration may occur if water supplies dry up, or if land is flooded due to global warming, or if declining oil supplies limit transportation. Receiving areas may not welcome the newcomers, leading to more conflict.
11. Changes in family relationships.
Families are likely to see more of each other, because of reduced transportation availability. Families may work more closely together, tending gardens and running small family businesses. Co-operation may be more highly valued by society. Divorce rates may decline.
12. Eventual population decline.
The food supply produced in the world today is many times greater than the food supply 100 years ago, before oil and natural gas were used in tilling crops, pumping water for irrigation, making fertilizer and pesticides, and transporting food to market. As oil and natural gas become less available, the food supply is likely to decline. Eventually, world population is also likely to decline, reflecting the lower food supply.
Conclusion
We cannot know exactly what the future will hold, if technology is not able to overcome the many issues associated with a finite world, including declining oil and natural gas supply, decreasing fresh water supply, and climate change. Whatever changes occur are likely to differ from location to location, as the world activity becomes more localized.
We tend to think of governments as fairly stable, but these too may change. Countries may subdivide into smaller units. Some have even suggested that groups of states may break away from the United States.
Educational institutions will most likely change. Fewer students will probably attend colleges and universities, and the subjects of interest will likely change. The sciences and agriculture or permaculture are likely to be topics of interest. More students may want to live on campus, if transportation is a problem. Adult education may become more important, as people seek to develop skills for a changing world.
Businesses will also change. Local businesses will become more important, while multinational companies recede in importance. Manufacturing will become less important, and recycling will become more important. Providing necessities will get top priority, while nice-to-have items will not sell well. Barter, or a new monetary system that substitutes for barter, may be the way business is done.
People may choose to live closer to work, or may work at home, so as to minimize costs associated with commuting. Some people may choose to live with relatives or friends, so as to save on utility costs. Eventually, many homes in undesirable locations may be left empty, and the parts of these unoccupied homes that can be used elsewhere will be recycled.
The next 50 years will certainly be interesting ones. Perhaps, with technological advances, some of the potential problems can be avoided. But we will need to work hard, starting now, to develop ways to work around the problems which seem to be ahead.
Enjoy,
BTW you gutless re-pubies these people ain't as nice to trolls as we are here morons.....
Quite a few of them have forgotten more about macro economics and the problems with our current society including it's economy they you id-jets will ever know.
Mike, then at some point you'd HAVE to raise taxes SOMEWHERE. The "rich" would go back to putting their money in tax deferred shelters and revenue to the treasury would DROP.
ReplyDeleteYou really have to take into SOME account that under Reagan the revenue the treasury took in more than doubled. (and it's increased under Bush as well)
Hope you go there and try your pathetic comedy routine,
ReplyDeleteI'll be reading and laughing my a$$ off at your getting bitch slapped like you ain't ever gotten it here widdle boys.
I predicted Tenet would turn on Bush just a month or so ago, back when Cheney laid the responsibility on Tenets shoulders on Meet the Press.
ReplyDeleteI don't have the motivation to go looking for my prediction, but its there somewhere. I predicted Tenet would turn in a matter of months, and here he is, turning like a little ballerina.
And singing like a canary.
Something funky happened there Worf.
ReplyDeleteMy 4:33 post is in reply to your 4:35 post...?
Tenet just stated on National TV that Bush KNEW Al Qaeda was not operational in Iraq in any way and Saddam was not supporting them same for Cheney.
ReplyDeleteWhat does it take to impeach these treasonous criminals.......The Former head of the CIA just stated on national TV that Bush and Cheney Lied to manipulate our country into an unneccessary War that resulted in almost a million deaths, wasted resources and destroyed our International reputation and has actually HEPLED The Terrorist and made our country MUCH less safe...........Why arent these fools impeached and charged with treason!
Damn you a ignorant troll throwing stupid non-sequiters to attempt to spin away inconvenient facts which you posted to prove Mike and My point son.
ReplyDeleteI bet the vast a majority of people in the stock market have not made up all they lost in 2000000 yet son especially since they pay broker fees and investment costs which come off the top.
-cliffy
Say did you know the market bubble which occurred in 2000, caused largely by a ridiculous increase in hi tech and internet related stocks, followed Greenspan's warning about irrational exuberance in the market, by about 2 years? So people were making inordinate amounts of money in stocks during the late 1990s.
Also there was the Enron thang and that pesky skyscraper deal on 9/11/2001. That couldn't have helped either.
Again thanks for your concern about financial investors. Personally I have done quite well because I don't have such little faith in the system that I bail when the market tanks.
Ah the smell of liberal spam in the evening!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I should probably read all that and pick it apart point by point but hell, I ain't got the energy...
ReplyDeleteA foole said;
ReplyDeleteAlso there was the Enron thang
Georgie's BFF while Georgie was in Texas, but after Nov 2001 he didn't know him...
And we all know Condi and Georgie were way to busy in the summer of 2001, to worry about what Richard Clark and George Tenet were warning them about.
Georgie with his vacation, Condi cause she didn't own all the shoes in the world.
Tenet was appointed by Clinton, but Clinton appointed several people who weren't liberal or democrats to various positions.
ReplyDeleteBut thats another discussion.
Suffice it to say Tenet was one of the founders of this war with Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and Powell, which makes him one of the Bush gang.
Now, he's squawkin like a plucked chicken.
I think that's the new Dem strategy isn't it?
ReplyDeleteMake so many charges that one person can't possibly rebut them all...
Bawk Bawk
ReplyDeleteVoltron said...
ReplyDeleteMike, then at some point you'd HAVE to raise taxes SOMEWHERE. The "rich" would go back to putting their money in tax deferred shelters and revenue to the treasury would DROP.
You really have to take into SOME account that under Reagan the revenue the treasury took in more than doubled. (and it's increased under Bush as well)"
Got a link that revenue to the Treasury INCREASED under GWB........and i'm not talking about a one or two year anomally from the rebounding stock market i'm talking about an increase from beginning to end particularly inflation adjusted.
As for Reagan I fully supported Reagans tax cuts in the Early 1980's a 70% taxation rate is ornerous and far too high Reagan cut it to 50% and I support that and believe it actually did increase treasury revenue..........Going from 50% to 36% is too far I think the wealthy need to be taxed at around 45% 50% to be fair...........and my standards of WEALTHY would NOT affect ANY of you or most Americans.
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteSomething funky happened there Worf.
My 4:33 post is in reply to your 4:35 post...?
Yes. I deleted my post for a grammatical correction.
a idiot said;
ReplyDeleteYeah, I should probably read all that and pick it apart point by point but hell, I ain't got the energy...
translation;
I can't because it has too many facts,
If you don't believe me go there and see how much is linked to other things and try to disprove what she says widdle boy.
You know Clif, we're going to have to find a new name for Chris Matthews now. Cause we need to start calling Tenet "Tweety".
ReplyDeleteBecause he's singing like a canary.
Aw heck, I wouldn't have called you on grammar....LOL
ReplyDeleteBut dolty boy CAN'T refute what they said because re-pudie lies and spin fall flat in the face of real facts like gay-dalf did this afternoon
ReplyDeleteCome on gay dalf and dolty BOY go to the Oil Drum and refute what she said son, I wanna watch both you fooles get your a$$es handed to you in SPADES
ReplyDeleteCome on widdle boys go register and play your stupid games there
ReplyDeletewhat's the matta fooles still gutless after all these years?
ReplyDeleteBush took a lot of hits over the last 6 months. He's lower in the polls than root canal, and pretty much everyone is disgusted with him and his entire administration.
ReplyDeleteBut Tenet was more than he can take.
If Tenet is saying Bush misused the data he gave him, and Bush based everything on what Tenet gave him, then I don't see how Bush or Cheney can remain in office.
Regardless of your self imposed mind numbing Volt, the rest of the world has functioning brains and stuff.....
They're not going to accept Bush's bullshit now, if Tenet can make his case.
That may be true Worf, but my point is STILL valid.
ReplyDeleteIs he lying NOW, or was he lying THEN?
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteAw heck, I wouldn't have called you on grammar....LOL
Yea but it changed the meaning of the sentence.
You both KNOW so much. go there and PROVE it.
ReplyDeleteThey are really nice to stupid ignorant partisan trolls I'm sure they will find both you fooles entertaining for a couple of minutes.
Before they destroy your baseless ignorant arguments and send you back to the pink pajama circle jerk widdle boys room.
Fibbing Fascist said "Say did you know the market bubble which occurred in 2000, caused largely by a ridiculous increase in hi tech and internet related stocks, followed Greenspan's warning about irrational exuberance in the market, by about 2 years? So people were making inordinate amounts of money in stocks during the late 1990s.
ReplyDeleteAgain thanks for your concern about financial investors. Personally I have done quite well because I don't have such little faith in the system that I bail when the market tanks."
How does that saying go Foole You are either lazy, intellectually dishonest or BOTH>
How MANY lies, misinformation and completely unsubstantiated BS claims are you gonna spew in one day Foole?
First of All:
1) Greenspan made the irrational exuberance claim in 1996 4 years BEFORE the crash.........again your attention to detail regarding facts and truth is alarming and pathetic at the same time
2) your smear that people who point out problems are naysayers that oppose capitalism and the free markets and do not share in the profits of them is ANOTHER LIE!
In fact Foole regarding your CLAIM you have done quite well in the Markets the past few years I would be willing to bet $10,000 that I have done FAR better than you have in the market........
In Fact I think it would be safe to claim that my net worth has increased at double the rate of yours over the last 3 years!
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteThat may be true Worf, but my point is STILL valid.
Is he lying NOW, or was he lying THEN?
Well its not too logical that he'd be lying now.
You guys keep crying CYA, but so far no one was going after him.
Cheney on the other hand tried to blame it on him last month on Meet the Press, so I imagine it pissed Tenet off.
As for Lying then, he didn't "lie" to the President as far as we know. The information given to the President then by him told Bush that the Niger incident had been discredited, and that it was unlikely Saddam had any WMD.
What happened is what we told you a year ago, and what we've been saying for years.
Bush CHERRYPICKED the intelligence given to him by Tenet. He took the stuff they had on Iraq, and the Niger incident, edited out the parts that said it was discredited, and delivered it to the congress and the American people.
And that little buddy, is what we call, the "bitch" of the bunch.
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteThat may be true Worf, but my point is STILL valid.
Is he lying NOW, or was he lying THEN?"
Ahh attacking his credibility like a true repug...........the way I see it Tenet was in on the lie with Bush.........he didnt want to be a patsie for Bush and Cheney so he is coming forward with the truth.
Of course, Tenet was lying sort of, when he sat behind Colin Powell, and let Powell read what the White House had put together on the Aluminum Tubes.
ReplyDeleteTenet knew it was bullshit, and he played along.
Why?
Who knows.
Who cares.
He went along to a point, and that makes him guilty too.
We also know that growth is central to our way of life. Businesses are expected to grow. Every day new businesses are formed and new products are developed. The world population is also growing, so all this adds up to a huge utilization of resources.
ReplyDelete-cliffy's lame source
While "world" population is growing especially in Islamic and other undeveloped countries, the population of most Western countries except for the U.S. is shrinking dramatically.
This has led to the mass immigration of Muslims into Europe. Because Muslims typically "resist" the culture of their host countries, much of Europe will probably fall under repressive shariah and stamp out classical liberal Western values within a generation or so. For example, in France about one in three children born today are Muslim.
This demographic reality may ultimately result largely in the end of Western civilization as we have known it. It is a concern which will dwarf all the other problems like global warming, whose impact will occur many decades hence if at all.
"Finite resources" scares have often proved false because human needs are met by the ingenuity of productive people in a free market.
The solution for most of these social problems is more freedom, especially economic freedom, not less growth.
But none of thats going to help Bush.
ReplyDeleteBush took the CIA data, picked out the parts that said it was bullshit, and served it up to us serfs like a platter of horseshit with a little ketchup on it.
And now, the chickens are coming home to roost, so to speak.
bok bok
Nothing you can say or do is going to stem the tide of truth Volt.
ReplyDeleteBush will be impeached, and so will Cheney, and no amount of self deluding is going to change that.
You backed the wrong horse buddy.
NO Gay-dalf
ReplyDeleteGO there and PROVE they are wrong son,
There,
prove your smarter then they are id-jet
I notice the widdle circle jerk boys ain't showed up at The Oil Drum to prove their vastly "superior((Bahahwhwahwahwah)sorry about that) ignorance of that post there.
ReplyDeleteWorf, I dont see how Bush and Cheney can NOT be impeached after what has come out in the last month............but then again I dont see how him and his pack of fools got away with what they have for the last 5 years.
ReplyDeleteIMPEACHMENT IS A NECCESSITY!
BTE gay-dalf wear the pointy widdle hat son, they will LOVE that one also.
ReplyDelete"The information given to the President then by him told Bush that the Niger incident had been discredited,"
ReplyDeleteNot true Worf.
The CIA felt that Wilson's report bolstered the credibility that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake.
Yes, Niger didn't sell them any, but the delegation Iraq sent to "open up exchange between the two countries" could have only meant ONE thing. Saddam WAS exploring ways to buy it.
And foole the "growth" of population is as great in India a very up and coming society than some MUCH smaller countries, soon India will pass china as the most populace country in the planet, but both China and India are growing economically at rates which the earth can not sustain from our ability to extract the resources for that growth especially the requirement for energy which is the real limit on growth in many places.
ReplyDeleteCome on FF go register there, USE your FF moniker so I will know it is YOU then try to attack the post
ReplyDeleteCome on FF go there and do you magic show son, I wanna watch them respond to you widdle boy
ReplyDeleteFour years tomorrow since Georgie declared "Mission Accomplished", and major combat operations were over,
ReplyDeleteHow did all that turn out BTW.
Isn't there a surge of combat troops into Iraq for some reason?
Aren't they shelling parts of Baghdad?
Isn't the number of US troops deaths the highest it has ever been for a six month period?
both China and India are growing economically at rates which the earth can not sustain from our ability to extract the resources for that growth especially the requirement for energy which is the real limit on growth in many places
ReplyDelete-cliffy
In 1968, in his bestselling book "The Population Bomb," the eminent scientist Paul Ehrlich declared: "In the 1970s the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."
In 1972, in their landmark study "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and gas by 1993.
None of these things happened. In fact, quite the opposite is happening. We're pretty much awash in resources, but we're running out of people--the one truly indispensable resource, without which none of the others matter. Russia's the most obvious example: it's the largest country on earth, it's full of natural resources, and yet it's dying--its population is falling calamitously...
Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries.
-Mark Steyn
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteNot true Worf.
The CIA felt that Wilson's report bolstered the credibility that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake.
You're full of shit.
Joe Wilson's report said that it was UNLIKELY that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake.
Better brush up on the talking points Heinrich.
In fact, I just watched Joe Wilson reiterate that statement when he testified to Congress.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't come up with an argument then just walk away.
Don't waste my time with silly bullshit.
Sorry Gay-dalf, You ain"t disproven anything I have posted here today yet widdle boy, even though you keep going back to things I never said for some reason.
ReplyDeleteHow about disproving exactly what I said son for once?
TRY again widdle boy;
ReplyDeleteboth China and India are growing economically at rates which the earth can not sustain from our ability to extract the resources for that growth especially the requirement for energy which is the real limit on growth in many places
did you MISS that word widdle boy?
The CIA told Bush that Niger was discredited.
ReplyDeleteThey also included reports explaining what that the aluminum tubes could not possibly be used for manufacturating WMD.
The also told him there was clearly no Saddam\Al Quaida connection. In fact, they told him Saddam and Al Quaida were likely enemies.
Powell, representing the Bush administration, did NOT include any of those facts in his prepared statement.
In other words, Bush CHERRY PICKED the intelligence to sell the war.
Tap dance all you want.
But nothing you say is going to change that.
Worf, These are just a bunch of trolls here to lie and deflect for the Bush Administration..........How many lies have these two told in just the last few hours.
ReplyDeleteVolt just lied abot Joe Wilson and FF has lied about stuffed Clif I I have NEVER said, and tried to dishonestly pull the bait and switch but actually posted links and evidence to support what Clif and I were saying.
They are nothing more than a couple of 3rd string lying trolls trying to carry the water and and spin lies for the Neo Cons...............They have NO credibility just like their masters!
How you can delude yourself is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteI can only assume there is a genetic deformity in the 25 percent of you who's brains ceased to function after 911.
Maybe a panic feature, where some nerve is pinching off essential oxygen to a critical part of your brains.
Whatever it is, I sure as hell hope its not contagious.
You're so scared of dying, you're willing to slaughter the entire world to avoid it.
ReplyDeleteI cannot imagine the level of fear that must require.
The trolls seem to think by dancing, deflecting, obfuscating and burying REAL facts with BS that SOMEHOW they are not losing as badly!
ReplyDeleteDid you miss the fact that we are reaching the physical limits of sustainable oil extraction rates in almost every of the giant and super giant fields which supply the vast majority of the planets black gold son?
ReplyDeleteIf you try to pump faster you mis a hell of a lot of oil just like the old soviet Union did in their large fields and now they have to use more expensive procedures which means they use MORE energy to get the same amount of oil then they would have if they had properly used the best extraction practices for maximum long therm production instead of trying for a short term temporary gain.
Sort of like what the US corporatists do in the manufacturing sector to this country.
BTW foole it ain't people outside the industry saying this It is insiders, people like Matthew Simmons, T Boone Pickens, The GAO, BP, among others son.
ReplyDeleteWe're all dying Volt.
ReplyDeleteWe all lose loved ones and friends and coworkers and everyone else. Believe me, I know.
Death waits for us all.
You can butcher the whole world, but it will still get you, sooner or later, and nothing you can do is going to change that.
It is George w Bush remember son....his state of the Union speech
ReplyDeleteThe 3rd string trolls seem to claim that some dishonest Reich wing troll in a blog KNOWS MORE than:..........trouble is they dont have any credible sources or hard facts or evidence to support THEIR positions while thyeir opponents DO!
ReplyDelete1) Career Oil men with 30 years of experience
2) Experienced global warming scientists with PHD's that have decades of experience and conclusive evidence.
3) CIA, legal and Constitutional experts.
Suicide bomber kills 32 at Iraq funeral
ReplyDeleteMon Apr 30, 2007 3:11PM EDT
By Dean Yates
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide bomber wearing a vest packed with explosives killed 32 people when he blew himself up among mourners at a Shi'ite funeral north of Baghdad on Monday, Iraqi police said.
The attack took place inside a crowded mourning tent in the town of Khalis in volatile Diyala province. More than 60 people had been wounded, police said.
Since U.S. and Iraqi forces launched a security crackdown in Baghdad in February, militants including Sunni Islamist al Qaeda have increasingly focused their attacks outside the capital.
Residents said the funeral had been for the son of a Shi'ite family. The son had been killed by gunmen, they said.
Majed Mansour, a relative of the victim's family, said the traditional three-day mourning period was about to end and the family had just invited all those present to join in a meal before they left when the bomb exploded.
"The blast came from the centre of the tent. It killed many. There was thick smoke, bodies were everywhere. It was complete chaos," Mansour said.
Diyala, a religiously mixed area, has been the scene of fierce fighting between U.S. troops and al Qaeda as well as Sunni Arab insurgents.
Last month, U.S. commanders sent a force of armored vehicles and 1,000 extra soldiers to the province.
In Baghdad, up to a dozen explosions in quick succession rocked different parts of the city after nightfall and smoke was seen rising from the Green Zone government compound.
Sirens echoed from the Green Zone after the blasts, which sounded like mortar bombs or rockets. Officials had no information on casualties.
Police also found 27 bodies bearing gun shot wounds in Baghdad on Monday, a sign that sectarian death squads are roaming the streets again after a sharp drop in such killings since the Baghdad security plan began.
DEADLY MONTH FOR FOREIGN SOLDIERS
Five U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq over the weekend, the U.S. military said on Monday, raising the number killed this month to over 100 and making April one of the deadliest of the war for U.S. forces.
The toll could increase the pressure on U.S. President George W. Bush, who is fighting a plan by Democrats to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.
He has vowed to veto a war-spending bill from Democrats that requires combat troops to begin leaving by Oct 1. The Democrat-controlled Congress plans to send the bill to Bush on Tuesday.
The security crackdown in Baghdad is seen as a final attempt to halt Iraq's plunge into all-out civil war between majority Shi'ites and once-dominant minority Sunni Arabs.
U.S. commanders acknowledge that the offensive, which has led to the deployment of thousands of extra troops on the streets, has increased the risk of military casualties.
Before the announcement of the latest deaths, the independent www.icasualties.org Web site had put the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq in April at 99.
Some 3,350 U.S. troops and many tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
April has also been a bad month for British forces, with 12 killed, the highest number in a month since March 2003, when 27 died in the opening days of the war.
clif said...
ReplyDeleteIt is George w Bush remember son....his state of the Union speech
That one will actually go down in history as the "Hate of the Union" speech.
You might not like the fact that unrestrained growth has limits but in a physically limited world everything has limits son.
ReplyDeleteThere is only so much oil, land, room to grow food, fresh water, even atmospheric air, everything physical on this planet is limited son, and we are reaching the limits of our ability to sustain ther rabid growth people want to make a quick buck on it.
Your just another shallow short term gain over everything else foole who will wonder what the F&^K happened when the sH*T hits the fan sometime in the future, and demand Milton Freidman come to your rescue again.
Jolly Roger just posted a blog that highlighted many of the Bush Administration lies......its long but worth the read. here it is......
ReplyDeleteJolly Roger said "Condilies, and Lies, and Lies....
It is getting harder to figure out whether Chimpy and his cohorts are just that arrogant, just that stupid, or both.
We are both disturbed and appalled by the inability of Chimpy and his cabal to remember what they had to say just a few years ago. We are especially concerned because they were so adamant about it. Therefore, we feel that some reminders for Chimpy and all his little Chimpletons are in order.
Roll that tape!
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02
"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02
"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
Damn.
ReplyDeleteTruth must sting, huh Volt?
"Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,( ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."
ReplyDeleteFull text - warning, it's LONG
Oh well, theres still time.
ReplyDeleteCome over to the good side of the Schwartz Volt.
Cast off your fear of people who cannot hurt you, and walk into the light. Truth and joy await you in the light.
Did you miss the fact that we are reaching the physical limits of sustainable oil extraction rates in almost every of the giant and super giant fields which supply the vast majority of the planets black gold son?
ReplyDelete-cliffy
Wow. Sounds like we need to do something ... like open up ANWR and drilling in the gulf coast, as well as Canadian oil shale production, and fusion technology.
It also sounds like guaranteeing the free flow of oil in the middle east is of paramount international concern until we develop alternative energy technology.
Gee Volt.........Didnt Condi Rice claim just yesterday that Iraq was NOT an IMINENT threat.........so was she lying yesterday or before???????????
ReplyDeleteWe all KNOW the answer to that.........
BTW what to we do to public officials who deliberately lie and attempt to mislead............oh yeah we IMPEACH em!!!!!!!!!!!
A great quote from gTrout a commenter at the oil drum gay dalf and dolty boy ain't gonna like,
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want to study the science, then you must accept an "Argument from Authority". Internet blogs run the Gamut - from those who think the earth is 7,000 years old or don't believe in thermodynamics, to very knowledgeable Phds with years of experience.
The best way to sort out the silly stuff is just reject those who don't believe in the basic laws of physics (or evolution etc) or those who have a political philosophy so set on some agenda (like avoiding government taxation or control) that they are willing to bend all facts.
I would recommend reading "Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update" It does a good job explaining how exponential growth crashes into a wide variety of limits and tends toward collapse. Unthinking creatures follow population booms and busts. And so do thinking creatures that refuse to think (or act). It may be a tough book to get into, but it will pay back far more understanding than reading hundreds of posts.
If that book is too technical, then try "Plan B 2.0" by Lester Brown. It does not do as good a job of explaining the theory behind why systems collapse, but it does have a great list of all the limits the human race is crashing into. And it has helpful ideas of what can be done to act smarter.
There are also a bunch of "state of the planet" type books from reputable sources like Science magazine.
Sorry Volt.
ReplyDeleteA right wing "OPINION PEICE" from the neocons over at GlobalSecurity.org doesn't cut it.
Nice try though. Probably would have fooled a lesser blogger.