More Mark to Market

I have charged the mark to market changes with being the push off the cliff. I am not clear on every single detail. It is clear that Washington was the cause at most stages. I am not letting mark to market off the hook. It does look less guilty.

Mark to Market

"Mark-to-market accounting has received a lot of criticism during the current financial crisis. But a recent email from Less Antman, a CPA and financial planner, offers the best explanation I've seen of why government-mandated capital requirements are the real source of the problem. Economists now realize that reserve requirements, designed to make banks more LIQUID, have the unintended reverse impact during a panic, tying up cash that banks need to pay out in order to stem the panic. As a result, reserve requirements are fast disappearing as a tool of bank regulation. Similarly, capital requirements, designed to make banks more SOLVENT, also have the reverse impact during a crisis."

Yes i did read it all. It is about to where I start to drown. (over my head) But I do learn.

Stopping the Political Fight

Back and forth between the parties. The GOP may find a way back. Right now we would be better for it. In the long run we will end up just where we are now.The economics are the issue now and the GOP is the leader on freedom in that arena. They will fall again when they don't take it far enough or when the freedom of society issues raise up.

EXPLOITING TAXPAYER RAGE NOT THE WAY BACK FOR GOP

"Tapping in to the rage of taxpayers by exploiting their fears then,
would almost certainly result in unanticipated problems for the GOP.
But beyond that, is this the way the Republicans wish to return to
power? The Rovian strategy of using wedge issues to cleave the
electorate over gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues got
Republicans elected but also sowed the seeds of their own destruction.
By the time 2008 rolled around, those wedge issues had lost their
potency and there was ample evidence of a backlash by center-right and
center-left moderates against the GOP and
their perceived intolerance. It was Obama who exploited this backlash
by promising to govern based on not what divides us but by what unites
us."(cont.)

"But if the GOP were to descend to the Democrat’s level – scaring people by screaming about “socialism” and the attendant imagery of economic doom and gloom, the party may indeed make some gains but with what kind of mandate? And would it be as effective as preparing the people for tough choices by playing to their native optimism and saying that as Americans, we are capable of anything if we pull together? Coupled with some new ideas about targeted tax cuts and real “stimulus” spending instead of the porked up monstrosity offered by the Democrats, that rage could turn to optimism and hope which would attract a helluva lot more people than scare tactics."

Optimism is one thing and it is a great thing. The parties tend to sell optimism on there strong suites not as a whole. They can't. You either have more economic less social freedom or less economic more social freedom. Both freedoms are under attack so do we run to the GOP? I am not convinced.

Is there a viable third party now? Are we stuck with a typical but more extreme fight? The consequences of a perpetual collectivist system end the debate out right. Can we have a third party that puts and end to the fight with freedom are do we have to keep the fight going to protect freedom with the GOP? I just hope the GOP doesn't screw it up so bad that they allow the collectivists to take power permanently.

Pre Obama Speakes to Congress

The preview hype is just out of control. He will be a little more hopeful. Not much because he can't. He will again press for big gov./socialist programs. Same old Same old. Keep the campaign going. Lost of big picture no detail populist rhetoric.


It's The Policy, Stupid

"The country and the economy don't need another speech. We need better policy. President Obama is permanently stuck in campaign mode, and as DJ notes below, believes everyone still buys his pitch. It is manisfestly apparent that President Obama believes he can talk his way out of this bad economy and policy debacle. Smartpeople are betting otherwise."

Bingo!

Gibbs Says the Anti-War Socialist Will Give Reaganesque Speech

"Does anyone out there recall President Ronald Reagan promoting trillion dollar spending bills, appeasing enemies, slashing defense spending, raising taxes on the rich, expanding the welfare state, redistributing wealth, funding foreign abortions, and promoting socialized medicine?(cont.)

Only a fool would believe that the Democrat's expansion of government, historic spending, and tax hikes for the rich will bring similar results."

Obama aims for sober honesty, optimism in address

"—He inherited the mess, and a quick turnaround is unlikely. Not only did the recession emerge on Bush's watch, the Bush approach wasn't the right one.

"—Thinking short-term won't do the trick. Focusing even amid the crisis on longer-term goals such as helping the millions without health insurance and switching the U.S. to greater dependence on alternative energy sources is crucial to the nation's economic well-being. "

So it is not his or his parties fault and It will take lots of time to fix. Never faced it before so never before seen solutions. Great?!

Preview of Obama's Speech

"It is befuddling that the public continues placing great trust in Obama to make the right economic decisions despite not having liked his previous ones very much."

More Tax, Less Iraq, China Pressure

I didn't jump on the deficit reduction story in Washington post story. Why I just have a hard time believing Obama is that stupid. I should just get used to it.

"Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011. That means the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent. "

Economic Freedom? Less money to grow the economy? Why work if they take it all? Pic your poison.

Obama plans “soak the rich” class-warfare economics

"Raising taxes in a recession is about the surest way to ensure its continuance. We’ve seen this over and over again in American history, including the Great Depression. With the budget deficits where they are, permanent tax cuts are almost certainly political suicide, but better to do nothing than to take capital out of the market."(cont.)

"However, the capital-gains tax is crucial to the economy. Bush lowered it in the midst of the last recession and economic upheaval after 9/11 to prompt investors to put their money at risk. Raising the tax on investment gains will ensure that we see less investment at the moment we need more of it. Jobs get created by investors taking risks, and if the reward on risk taking becomes low enough, they’ll sink their money into safer havens instead of building job-creating businesses."

Cont. From Wash. Post

"To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from "winding down the war" in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes continued spending on "overseas military contingency operations" throughout Obama's presidency, the official said, but that number is lower than the nearly $190 billion budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year. "

Saving money from the war? It is mostly off budget spending. There is nothing there to save. Are you going to keep borrowing that money too and spend it else where? Military cuts now are the same mistake Bush 41 and Clinton made. Funny Obama as Bush redux.

Can You Spell D-e-p-r-e-s-s-i-o-n?... Obama Promises to Raise Taxes On Businesses & Wealthy

"The stock market ought to love that.
Obama must really want to kill off the remaining American businesses.
His second month is shaping up to be another thriller already."

My question is why talk about the deficit now. The tidal wave has been to ignore it "we must spend" Anything to do with China?

China: We hate you, but we hate everyone else more

"China still could dump US debt, but they’d lose their shirts, and nothing else in the market looks better. Beijing has become a little too capitalist to pull a cut-off-the-nose-to-spite-the-face ploy with its main assets. They need the stability to stay in power. Right now, that means they need to ensure that US debt doesn’t tank."

Chinese Pressure? That's just what we need with a pup in the Withe House. The question is it all just rhetoric? I think so. It is more likely an excuse to raise taxes and push through health care and the like.

More Economic Blame

The blame game is bad, yes. It flies in the face of those who don't know the past are doomed.. Blame everyone. Social justice over economic freedom? I wouldn't bring it up but we are falling into the doomed part of the saying.



2 More vids:

How Democrats Brought Down the American Economy

Economic Good News, Until the Stimulus Kills It

Just to lazy to try to but the information together. Bits and pieces trickled out over the end of last week. It got drowned out as most important news does.

Signs of a bottom? MaxedOutMama: The Old Tried And True

"...the signs of US economic stabilization (not the bottom, but getting there) are beginning to pop up like weeds.

Retail Sales. There are several significant things about January. First, the weather was not favorable, and anyone who remembers the recent spate of weakening retail sales which were all attributed to snow and ice will get a chuckle out of the fact that retail sales rose this January. It appears that consumers are no longer as frightened of snow and/or the wrong color walls.

Second, auto sales increased, and dealer auto sales increased. Third, the SA retail total increased from December, although it is still 9% lower than Jan 09. Fourth, electronics picked up, clothing picked up, general merchandising picked up, and restaurants & bars picked up. The general pattern is one of recession, but the end to the steep fall in consumer spending. Half to 2/3rds of this is driven by the fall in gas and heating oil prices. The rest is due to the fact that things wear out and the financial conservatives are beginning to spend a bit. Between the two, employed people have a little more money each week in their pockets and they may not be willing to spend recklessly, but they are spending for things that are useful and needed."

It is to bad they are going to kill it off. As the government grows as a consumer it crowds out the the more dynamic individual consumers(the free market). They as well begin to set the rules not the market. Their biggest problem is the uncertainty they bring. What are they going to do next? How much money can they borrow? what happens to inflation a year from now? Are ever going to fix the actual problems. Their biggest problem is the uncertainty they bring. It all stifles the economy.

Looking Around, Where Are The Libertarian Going?

Feeling boxed in to a conservative label by the stimulus arguments I went looking again. I am trying to find constructive disarming and well place with more traffic to link to. The first is is nearly impossible the second is nearly impossible not to find. So in my travels there is this: Econlog. Right at the top is an outtake from a libetrarian disscution an this:

"I confess to being an intellectual snob, but by the same token I claim to be able to differentiate between knowledge and educational pedigree. I respect a well-read self-taught individual more than a Harvard-educated narrow-minded one.

To put it another way, I see a difference between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. To the average lefty, both of them are morons. I think Reagan was genuinely engaged with profound ideas. Palin may have talent and charisma, but I do not think she could explain Hayek."

Great! I can explain Hayek either but I can learn. Parts of the back and forth are just about over my head as well as other parts of this blog. That's a good thing as long as I don't drown.

There has been an ongoing debate about where the Republicans should go after the election. It is largely settled now. Some of the fall out is discussions on libertarian ideas. I admit that I am a novice when it comes to the detailed intellectual (in the weeds) knowledge of libertarianism. The definition changes? Some times it is for anarchy and at time it takes more of a socialist bent?

It is still murky. Most of this discussion (I didn't read every word) is about who the libertarians will embrace now or who will embrace them. I would in a novice way that they should go there own way. Throw some of the craziness overboard and take power. Many cases have been make both way if RINOs could run on their own. Libertarians falls into same kind of place. I do believe the answer to both is yes.
I am not trying following their points exactly. This back and forth started in 06 with:

Brink Lindsey and:

"Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that capitalism's relentless dynamism and wealth-creation--the institutional safeguarding of which lies at the heart of libertarian concerns--have been pushing U.S. society in a decidedly progressive direction. The civil rights movement was made possible by the mechanization of agriculture, which pushed blacks off the farm and out of the South with immense consequences. Likewise, feminism was encouraged by the mechanization of housework. Greater sexual openness, as well as heightened interest in the natural environment, are among the luxury goods that mass affluence has purchased. So, too, are secularization and the general decline in reverence for authority, as rising education levels (prompted by the economy's growing demand for knowledge workers) have promoted increasing independence of mind."(cont.)

"Hence today's reactionary politics. Here, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the rival ideologies of left and right are both pining for the '50s. The only difference is that liberals want to work there, while conservatives want to go home there."

It goes on to link changes in tax policy on the liberal side to what I consider conservative ideas in order to move the libertarians there direction. FASCinating.

Wilkinson

"Many bloggers seem to be fixated on the immediate political feasibility of libertarian/liberal fusionism. But I think this misses the point. Feasibility is in part a function of the availability of a well-developed and broadly understood position, and a grasp of the kind of policy that follows from it. Fixating on the status quo balance of interest groups is a great way to go nowhere, or just to drift with the waxing and waning of constituencies wedded to superannuated ideas. I think Brink has opened an important conversation for liberals of all stripes genuinely concerned with helping people successfully exercise their autonomy and lead satisfying, dignified lives"

Jonah Goldberg responds:

"The first principles simply aren't aligned. The theoretical arguments in favor of the stimulus amount to rubbing the libertarian cat's fur backwards. And the so-called "libertarian center" hardly seems to be decisive or even relevant to the public debate. In the most important and fundamental debate about the role of government in a generation, the libertarians are lining-up with, and even marching out in front of, the conservatives."

John Hood follows:

"But that's not the same as suggesting that there is at least as much of a natural affinity between libertarians and modern-day liberals as there is between libertarians and modern-day conservatives, if not more. This statement just isn't true. The principles of liberty and virtue are certainly in tension within the broadly construed Right, but the principles of liberty and egalitarianism would be perpetually at war within a reconstructed Left."

Will Wilkinson's response:

"I think Obama and the Democrats are already in the process of screwing it up. The romance of transformative hope is going to wear off pretty quick as all-but-uncontested Democratic policy deepens and lengthens the recession. There’s a lot of culturally and psychologically liberal people out there who are, and are going to be, interested in a liberalism that actually works. I want to use this time of ferment to work on developing the missing option in American politics: an authentically liberal governing philosophy that understands that limited government, free markets, a culture of tolerance, and a sound social safety net are the best means to better lives.

So “whatever happened to liberaltarianism” is that it’s an ongoing project to change who talks to whom, to freshen the stale dialectic of American politics, and to create new possibilities for American political identity."

"sound social saftey net"? Private sector or governmental?

Then two posts: The Future of Liberaltarianism and The Future of Liberaltarianism (II)

"This is obviously a political gloss on what is essentially an intellectual project, and I know Will, like many libertarians I admire, prides himself on not thinking in terms of partisanship. But for anyone who cares about political outcomes, I think it's important to consider the correlation of forces when you set out on ideological projects - especially in a country where the two-party structure has been as durable as it's been in ours. I understand the impulse for smart, independent-minded libertarians to flee what seems like an increasingly anti-intellectual American Right and seek conversations and alliances with the friendlier parts of the left-of-center. But the vacuum on the Right also militates in favor of smart, idiosyncratic thinkers trying to fill it, instead of fighting for a seat at the crowded liberal table. "

As fun as all this is I still think you need a leader that would clarify libertarian positions for the party and run with it. Drag who you can from the two parties and go. With some wins those who are not wedded to the parties will leave for something more in their wheel house.

Do Not Be Fooled By Stimulus Bills False Hope

I missed the lack of verification of workers not being included and the repeal of the E-verify out right.

That aside. You can not be fooled by this bill. It may work in the short term. I don't think it has much of a chance but may be. It will in the end require another stimulus bill. The US government becomes a massive consumer. When it stops spending the economy tanks again. Even if it doesn't completely tank and recovers some we have hyper inflation pressure that can't be avoided.

This bill may look like its working it will cause massively more harm than good. I not even including the massive spending on welfare programs that are now in the law. They would have to be repealed after the recovery. Is that Going to happen No.

The Real Stimulus Burden

"Far more plausibly, Democrats will take the stimulus increases and make them part of a new, higher baseline for future spending growth. Anyone who proposes to cut from that amount will be denounced as "heartless" and Draconian."

"We aren't deficit scolds, but these levels are uncharted territory, especially if any economic recovery is weak because the spending doesn't stimulate. The new spending means new federal debt in the trillions of dollars over the next few years, which will test the limits of America's credit-worthiness. To the extent that taxes rise to pay for it all, the U.S. will become less desirable as a destination for the world's capital. Perhaps the Federal Reserve will try to inflate away this growing debt, but the world's bond vigilantes will get a vote on that."

Deficit spending as a percentage of what we produce(GDP)? If its Over 100% we will literally spend more than the entire country makes.

Obama Makes History... Breaks US Debt Record In Just 30 Days

We will be at more than twice the debt/GDP level than at any time in our history.


Hyper Inflation - so much money on the system that the money it self is worth much much less. $10, $20, $50, $100, $1000 milk?

It may look good for a while but DO NOT BE FOOLED.

Killing The Banks with TARP

The second version of TARP or what ever you call it is unclear to me. Your going to encourage private money with borrowed leveraged money? Didn't they already get burned by assets that where backed by the government. If they get out of the way wouldn't someone find a way to make some money out of this mess? Instead everyone sits on the side lines waiting to see what the government is going to do. What are they doing? Confusing the issue more and borrowing more money collateralize by borrowed money. I don't trust them. I am not sure they really want fix the problem. At lest until they pass everything they want behind the veil of fear.

From A PLAN TO KILL BANKS TREASURY'S DEADLY 'KINDNESS'

"The new Treasury plan continues to put most of the emphasis on pushing banks to make more loans to over-indebted consumers, homeowners and firms. Unlike last year, however, Geithner now believes, "Our policies must be designed to mobilize and leverage private capital, not to supplant or discourage private capital. When government investment is necessary, it should be replaced with private capital as soon as possible."
That's a laudable goal - but contradictory. In reality, government capital replaces ("crowds out") private capital, leaving taxpayers holding a bigger and bigger bag. Call that nationalization by default. "

The leverage idea has been around from the start of this mess. It is not a bad idea but the way it is being done now really is not leveraging anything.

"TARP-afflicted firms will have to pay dividends to the Treasury for its preferred shares before any remaining crumbs fall to common shareholders. Treasury will be first to get any dividends or capital gains if the firm does well, and first to get repaid in the event of bankruptcy.
Once a bank or insurance company gets in bed with the government, the property rights of that company's stockholders become uniquely insecure. When the government jumps into the cockpit, smart stockholders bail out.
And depressed stock prices deflate the banks' capital cushion, regardless of Treasury investments - making them more likely to fail and therefore less likely to lend. In other words, government "help" achieves the opposite of Geithner's declared goal."

The government should NEVER be this in bed with any company. If you bail them out that should be it. Give them the money and treat it as a loan, take common stock or just walk away. There is no risk to the government if they are first to get payed in all cases. In this case it was public outrage that there was no guarantee the money would be payed back. The people needed a clear explanation of what this was going to lead to "incremental nationalization of banks and insurance companies". The "people" where wrong. Why? They are not taught these things (I really wasn't either), NO one explains it to them(sometimes if you look around enough) and they are often used. Think for yourself (that's usually what I have to do).
It may be a good sized hill to understand the bank mess. The basic are not that hard. You don't need an economics degree, library of books or really a class on economics. The last one might help but is not necessary. A little logic and some quite time and you should be fine. If it still doesn't make sense. Get a book on logic.

Making Work not Creating Jobs

Flipping through A discussion on Fox caught me. A rerun of Hannity. I avoid him, he make some good points but spins far far to much. Megyn Kelly said some thing to some effect that making work( bridges, roads, ect.) is not the same as making jobs. ( I looked for the vid, but I guess I am not that good)

That exactly sums up the problem of this stimulus. Perfect. A company gets hired to build a bridge. They hire a bunch of people. They have work. But if the company can't find more work they have to lay off those people. What are all the people hired going to do when all the "stimulus work" is gone. You have to bust business growth so people have jobs not just some work for a while.

I can see an argument that the stimulus work will help restart the cycle. But why not do it through more direct means like real tax rate cut, some stability in what Washington does and capital gains cut to move money off the side lines. Then spend on the roads and the thing we really need when things start coming back.

Giving work to the people in this amount is artificial. There is nothing to build new jobs on after the stimulus work is gone. Government can't create new jobs through spending just work. Except for those work in the government. Government can however get out of the way and let business create jobs.

McCaskill's Idiotic Red Herring Executive Compensation Bill

I am from Missouri. Senator McCaskill should be called the senator for St. Louis and Kansas City. I am hoping we can oust her next time around. With the state having to carry the a fore mentioned cities it will be difficult. Those areas motto should be "show me the money" unlike the rest of the Show Me state. I have said that I am not going to shed a tear if the whole place burns to the ground and no one dies. The end result, the pit that is St. Louis is gone. I gave some examples in the rant about St. Louis in my election prediction. Prediction wrong, rant is still right.

McCaskill on capping pay of CEOs who take TARP money: “These people are idiots”
Senator McCaskill

"If you’ve run your bank well and don’t need a bailout, pay your chief exec whatever you like. If you haven’t and are now on your knees begging taxpayers for a lifeline, prepare to have your CEO capped at $400,000, the same salary The One gets as president. It won’t mean much in terms of savings but it does create an incentive to run a tight ship if you want another seven-figure payday in 2009"

The Urban senator for the Show Me the Money areas of MO




I should say she has lots of company pushing this idiocy. (and still can't get CNN embed to work)
If we force them to give all the money back for the last 4 years will it solve the problem? NO

Was their pay any of Washington's business before they got tax money? NO

Did all the companies ask for TARP money that got it? NO

Where some companies that TARP money doing fine? Yes

Where some companies at beast brow beaten into taking money? Looks Like

Should those companies be punished with compensation restricted? NO

Are all "bonuses" rewards for good performance? NO

Are most "bonuses" at the lower levels actually part of salaries? Yes

Is this a government mandate to cut salaries? Yes

Will contracts (good and bad) have to be broken? Yes

Will there be any good workers left after this? Not Many

I wish I had a good way to explain my problems with this. We need to set aside the anger and look at what we are doing. There are CEOs and others at the top that should be in jail and investigated to with in an inch of their lives. The people in the middle and at the bottom need to be left alone. They really don't get bonuses. They get payed funny compared to the rest of us. The deal going in is say 150 thousand a year. They get payed 50 thousand a week at a time and the rest at the end of the year. That is just the way it is done. Silly as it is. That 100K is not a bonus. It is money those people depend on. They will be need in the recovery.

As stupid as it sound what kind of hit will the economy take if they do this. She said 18 billion? You cut it to what? 6 billion. A lose of 12 billion, some of that wouldn't have gone into the economy any way. So a net lose to the economy of about 7-8 billion?

Is this a so called maximum wage? Who else will it apply to when all is said and done.If they set the cap at 1-2 million and there is an iron clad sunset on it in say 2 years I would go along. My fear is that you are going to cripple small companies at the top and cripple medium size companies in the middle. They need to be as flexible as possible when the recovery comes.

Free market anyone? No TARP investment in companies? Buy the troubled assets and leave them alone?

Q.H. - Gore and judges

This has been around for a while. My question is what is next? I produce carbon. Do I have to pay or do the employer have to pay? Does gravity cause something? Oxygen causes rust and such. May be we should make a whole new marked for the use or production of oxygen. Just the parts that go into the atmosphere. It causes rust you know.

We Need Sustainable Capitalism - WSJ.com

One more reason the Obama Presidency might be a complete nightmare. Still hope that the damage that might be coming is reversible. I not sure that damage, in general, done under Bush is reversible. The bailoutishthingy.

The Hill Mobile - With other branches in hand, Dems now turn to the judiciary


And the bonus you don't want.
NBC2 News Online - Feds investigating sheriff after 'Hussein' remark

Trickle Up of Down, What is the Growth?

I have not brought this up before i keep meaning to.

Obama on low taxes: “Selfishness”

"This reveals the basic underlying philosophy of the Left - that one cannot possibly be charitable unless they use the government to redirect their funds. Obama assumes that people who don’t want to pay higher taxes are somehow “selfish”, but that’s only true if one assumes that the so-called rich won’t do anything else with their money except sit around like Scrooge McDuck, counting it constantly. Most people today invest it, which creates jobs, or spend it, which creates even more jobs, or donate it to charity — which works much more effectively and with much less overhead than filtering it through government bureaucracy."

This is an example of a more basic problem with not just the left but every day people. Just for a minute set the morals aside and the necessary taxation for military and roads.

The goal is to have a basic safety net and help those at the bottom up. Both sides are talking about the same pool of money. The money from the rich and business. Do we give the money to government to give to those they deem need it? Or do we leave it with the citizens or businesses.

Remember the goal. It goes to government. The talk it over and come up with a plan that is pieces of this idea and that. They take into account disability(real disability), age, income and the other things they should. They use some things they shouldn't like economic state in the area or ignoring the willingness to work. Moral judgments in effect. That aside what is the efficiency? The cost of mailing checks alone wastes millions not to mention the 30% or so fraud in Medicaid.

So lets say overall 20% is wasted in overhead of the agency set up for this and fraud. If we have an imaginary $100, easy to work with. At this point our citizen, imaginary, gets $80. That is spent into the economy. (Citizen $80, government 0)

I will assume nothing for savings or paying dept. If your going to do either you will do it much the same no matter where it comes from

The other side. I am assuming that our $100 is taken from profits and that this $100 is above the taxes taken for the necessary. The overhead of the business is already covered by the ongoing business.

If invested it gives a company about $100 and makes a little money. So it makes 3% or$3 (easy math)and the government takes 4.5 cents year in and year out at 15% cap gains tax. Really it will be more year over year long term as that $3 are added to the investment. (citizen 0, government 4.5 cents and a company has an extra $100)

If they hire someone nearly all of the $100 goes to the our citizen, that gets spent back into the economy. Oh and something like 5-8% profit is made by the company, 35% or (5$*.35) $1.75 t0 taxes. (citizen$98, Government get $1.75 and company growth)

If it is spent on supplies or equipment for the company it goes back into the economy. Yes 5-8% profit is made by the company 35% or (5$*.35) $1.75 t0 taxes. ( citizen 0, government get $1.75 and company growth)

Mostly it ends up in the economy in general plus grows the business that spent it. The economy grows that much faster creating more jobs and more money for our citizen. The government still gets a little and more as the economy grows.

And charity, good charities keep overhead to around 10%, so $90 to our citizen and it goes back into the economy. Or better yet you buy $100 worth food or clothes and take it to the charity. Better yet give it directly to the people that you know that could use that little bit of help. 100% to a citizen and you know it is getting to where it can help the most.

I meant to go with a individual self-reliant comment but you got this instead. It is a little harder to argue with this way.

NO Bail Out Till Long After it Can do Much Good, Their Poisoning It

There will be no bail out till long after it can do much good. There are major problems with both of the vague plans one more socialist than the next. This morning there is some suggestion that some of the possible profits go to community groups like ACORN and La Raza! Insanity! The details. Dems Bailout Proposal Redirects 'Paulson's Profits' To Left-Wing Groups... Will Media Notice? at News Busters. Is this a poison pill? Are they trying to kill this just for politics? The ideas are fundamentally and directly at odds?

Congress started to add crap from the start. The repeated calls to help main street is also pretty crazy. Fix the credit freeze and only that. I hoped that the Rep. revolt would push more capitalistic moves and reduce the overall cost, Google Newts comments over the past few days, but it seems they just want the government to set up a private company to buy the bad paper and insure it through government. This thing has turned into a complete nightmare. We will curse them all years from now when we learn first hand what a real long and deep depression looks and feels like.

The Explotion of the US Economy and Freedom Bubble

I am listening to CNN and they are talking about where the poles are from state to state. A couple states are moving to Obama. The map looks better and better for him. What are you people thinking?! Not that McCain is much better.

Where the talk about the deficit and a freaking fix. The war's course is pretty set no matter what they say or who is in office move the freak on. Where is the talk on Social Security. A fix Not just moving it down the road! DO something about gas, do anything! I don't care if everyone thinks it will work, make a bold mistake I don't care, try try again, just do something.

On top of all that i am coming to the conclusion that our economy is so distorted by subsidies, the weird ways the US reports and figurers it economic reports and the difference in value of the goods we trade that no one knows what the hell is going on. Compare milk now to 2 and five year ago but do it in how much gold, silver or copper.

I feel that the whole economy is vastly over valued or is based far to much on just service, no real things, of a slowly worsening value. The quality of services has taken a dive just as the quality of a lot of people has. The bubble will burst under enough pressure, co2 cap and trade anyone?

When that happens the freedom follows. There not going to close papers or lock you up for speaking against the government. You will just get laughed down, call racist or what ever fits and you will not be heard.

There will be nothing you can do, why because you will be boxed in by the intrusive and oppressive government polices on all types of economic issues. heath care taxes of all types aide to all education for all subsidized house for all The list roles on. I like Animal Farm as a book not a way of life.

I am going to put he pitch fork down. i have to get gas to cut the lawn so the county doesn't come and fine me for bringing down values and cutting into the tax I pay them. What. Deep breath pitch fork down.

Financial Optimism in the Face of Insanity

I have in the past week heard a little faint optimism. It makes me feel a little better then my brain kicks in. An upside to all the financial mess is that more people are looking into it and more of it is being reported. When big companies and government are involved there are rules and practices that make no sense. Take these numbers with a few tons of salt, i don't have direct references. My recollection the Fed can loan money seven time actual money and banks only have to keep 16 to 20 cents on the dollar of money deposited. I understand the Fed lending more than they have, it keeps things growing, but seven times? Changing that ratio would give much more direct control that changing interest rates. As for the second ratio, shouldn't it be in line more with expected money on hand in the future, ie. profits of the company. Something along the lines of 30% cash and 30%+ in assets, i don't really know, but 16 cents of a dollar? yum salt good.

That said for what its worth I am sure most of the current problem would have been avoided if someone has passed a law or issued a guild line or rule that just said that banks couldn't lend more than 99% of the value of residential property. A 125% loan what? No one thought that was a bad idea. The real horror show of all this is that it will allow all sorts of new regulations and law. I am not for no regulation and not for increasing it every time there is a problem. Solutions, way over my head.

The original article tends to disappear. This from Centerfield

The Economist this week published an article suggesting that serious overleverage is afoot. Leverage is the ratio of loans to capital at hand. If it's too big, it's hard to resist financial trouble. The article's freely available to nonsubscribers, so far. They give numbers that suggest Merrill is 50:1, and Goldman is 28:1. Note, an earlier Econ article had the now-deceased Bear-Sterns at roughly 30:1. This article talks about some of Bear's problems in some detail.

Doesn't allow much movement, but if the loans are solid and transparent it should make little difference. When your offering 100% loans like their water and your just getting cliff notes on bundles of loans not so good. Look at it this way 100:2, 100:3.6, 100:3.3 so if the value of the loans decreases by 2-3.6% you have no cash left and everyone is trying to sell to cover the dept.


The Dilbert Strategy Form The NYT op-ed points to Bush lack of regulation. I agree that the Bear Stearns of the world need some regulations, there are a lot of pensions tied up in them, but let's not go overboard. The typical reshuffling won't due, but the current thinking only allows that or massive government interference, not the smart streamline of regulation thats really needed.

Vote Obama if your Stupid?

I do think that if your support any candidate and have not thought about their core ideology and what that means in the end you are stupid. Now if you are aware Obama is a 20th century progressive/national-socialist and support him. well then your ignorant. that stuff has not worked and i like my freedom. Or do you like being poor and the same as everyone else, if so than we just strongly disagree. I post this to show the over reaction from the Conservative side.

A Vote for Obama is Like Raising Your Hand and Saying "I’m F***ing Stupid"

Health care: missing the point as far as progressives go, i thought we moved past this

Iraq: he is making the same mistake most make, trying to argue an idiot's point with his argument.

Foreign aid: Isolationist. Looking back i didn't write an article on the Global Poverty Reduction act. I'll fix that, so you can go over board

Economy: with him in letting people fail, but we let it get far far beyond a few people failing. (Do you think he likes lazy people?)

Immigration: I think one of us is a little confused.

So over zealous much? I thought my arguments are childish at times but i could do a lot worse.

Now the important question. Do you take anyone seriously that calls people that many irrelevant names?

More important than that. Do you take anyone seriously that uses urban slang and purposeful urban misspellings.

No and some hell NO for me. oh, an honest question is their some grown up or serious debate on Myspace?

Economic Stimulus For Economic Stimulus

I appears that the people at the top finally wake up to the scope of the problems with the economy. They are as usual playing the games they always do.
There is this: Health Insurance & The Stimulus
By Cindy ZeldinAs a component of the emerging economic stimulus package, Congressional Democrats are considering an increase in Medicaid matching funds to states. Congressional Republicans and the Bush Administration are reportedly cool to the idea, arguing that public spending on health care has little to do with rekindling the economy. The American public, I suspect, would beg to differ.

Medicaid has little to do with the short term. She goes onto make her argument but my eyes glazed i didn't.. misses the point.
There is also talk of giving this economic stimulus in the form of rebate to people that didn't pay any taxes. will they have to give it back next year like everyone else? If this does help keep things going and if they do not get a check are they not getting the benefit anyway?
I am not sure this will help much. If it does i think it will just push the tide off for a while and may in the end make it at least a little longer.
In the end could we just pass a clean bill that does the one thing its supposed to. Or at least the one thing we think will help. Please. Just a dream i think.