Kicking the TV Habit

[smurff]

Big fan of the Daily Show and Colbert.  This segment from March 5th of 2009 roasting Glenn Beck's nonsense was great...   

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... -war-room-

Here we are, trying to kick the TV habit, and already we've added two fine, hilarious, must-watch shows.

[doodle]

The only source of energy that is a viable alternative to fossil fuels that provides the energy density needed to support what we think of as a modern lifestyle is nuclear power.

I have seen a few articles that suggest that fusion energy would be achievable in about 20 years time if given a Manhattan Project type effort. I also believe that advances in solar technology, combined with hydro, wind, and geo-thermal have the potential to provide quite a bit of our energy needs when combined with more efficient lightbulbs, appliances, and energy efficient building designs.

I do think that the time to begin working on solutions to our long term energy problem is right now while we still have relatively abundant and cheap sources of fossil fuel. If we wait to long before we begin to make a serious transition, it will be a much  rockier road. I don't think we can afford to wait until oil reaches 300 dollars a barrel or higher or scarcity earnestly sets in before we begin to think seriously about our next fuel source.

[Gumby]

I too am happy that more people are starting to see the fundamental dangers of our mainstream media to our democratic freedom. Ironically, I think Comedy Central along with Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert deserve a ton of credit in opening American's eyes to the deliberate political agenda that underlies the main stream media. They have helped many Americans to become wiser consumers of information.

Agreed.

Regarding the economics of the debt and deficit, I am sorely lacking (despite my best attempts) to understand all the complexities of the banking system and how this in turn relates to the world of global economic finance. I don't feel however that concern for this country's debt and deficit is necessarily an extremist position that only resides in the minds of fear mongering shills.

Agreed.

Many, many mainstream voices feel strongly that our country's fiscal issues need to be tackled sooner rather than later. A few of the more respected names that I have heard comment about our situation are:

James Grant, Pete Peterson, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, Warren Buffet, David Stockman, Bill Gross and Mohammed El-Erian, your favorites Jim Rogers and Marc Faber , a slew of former CBO directors..... I am sure I have left some others out.

You are correct. The deficit is a big issue. But, many of the people you've listed have political biases — whether we realize it or not. For instance, Pete Peterson is a deficit hawk, but he has also willingly accepted huge tax breaks designed for the richest people in America. You'd think that the man who funded I.O.U.S.A. would take public efforts to avoid adding to the deficit. But, no he took the large tax breaks and added to the deficit. I'm not trying to criticize him. I don't blame him for taking the tax breaks. I would too. But, it shows that the motivations aren't purely moral when people talk about deficit reduction.

So, I suspect that these individuals lament about deficit spending to argue their political ideologies. Warren Buffet has made a number of statements in recent days that show he understands that the US cannot go bankrupt. Yet, he too worries about reckless spending.

That's what's important... It's the reckless spending that you need to worry about — not the physical size of the deficit itself.

I had dinner with a fiscal conservative Wall Street executive this evening — he's someone whom I almost never agree with politically. When I asked him if the US government could ever run out of money, he said, "No, it's absolutely impossible. It can't happen." He also pointed out that the bond market knows this. The truth is, he wasn't so much worried about the size of the deficit, but rather reckless spending that leads to inflation (via the dollar being devalued beyond repair). He said that if the dollar became worthless, countries would have to demand future spending in a different reserve currency, and that would cause us to go into debt in a foreign currency that we couldn't produce with a printing press — something we've never had to worry about. If that happened, America's military might could be compromised and the entire world could become destabilized. It was an interesting perspective, and I'm sure you agree with most of it.

He's probably right, now that I think about it. If we lost our reserve currency status, it would probably cause a lot of destabilizing problems for the entire world. So, I will amend what I said before about it not being a problem if we lost our reserve currency status. It probably would be bad for the world from a stability standpoint. As long as US dollars don't become completely worthless due to inflation, we should be able to maintain our status as a reserve currency.

Surprisingly, he was far more optimistic than most people you talk to because he felt that Congress was not pushing us down a path of high inflation right now. He pointed out that, if anything, we are having trouble creating inflation in this country. And until American's are flush with disposable income, there's not much risk at creating lasting inflation. And he pointed out that the world really doesn't want to have to find a new reserve currency. The world likes dollars. The world wants the dollar to remain stable. That's why every country you visit knows more about our politics and economy than our own citizens do! They don't want us to f*ck up the deal, which is.... they take our paper fiat dollars and, in exchange, we keep the world safe.

But, ultimately, he said we just need to avoid inflation — which is exactly what MMTers want to avoid at all costs. Having a large deficit doesn't automatically mean that we will have terrible inflation. Yet, we must find a way to avoid high inflation at all costs or it could destabilize the entire world. Again, MMTers are most worried about inflation too. MMT simply provides a framework to control a fiat money supply to avoid inflation. Whereas non-MMTers are more focussed on deciding who gets the money to avoid inflation.

The way I see it — and I may be wrong — fiscal conservatives try to control inflation by making sure that the top earners keep the cash from the deficit spending (via tax cuts) while the poor and middle class are sacrificed to keep inflation low by not having too much disposable income. Whereas Democrats want to soak the rich with taxes and redirect dollars to the poor and middle class to increase productivity (via education and various infrastructure projects for laborers, etc) — which in theory should help keep inflation low, if all goes well.

In reality, neither side wants to see high inflation, but each side wants a bigger slice of that deficit pie. Both are just offering completely different approaches to avoid inflation at the other's expense. Unfortunately, Washington has a ton of lobbyists that fight for that deficit pie in ways that citizens can't. So, Congress may not have our best interest in mind when they decide who gets the deficit money (i.e. which leads to reckless spending, which is very bad).

Now, MMT offers a different solution, via its framework of controlling a fiat currency. It's not perfect because Governments can still f*ck it up, with reckless spending. Whereas Democrats and Republicans simply fight about who gets the money to avoid inflation and they still take part in reckless spending.

Anyways, if these prominent people (coming from all sides of the political spectrum and investment world) feel that our country has a debt and deficit issue, it seems wise to take heed. Also, I think that we should shift the focus off of the "effects" of our fundamental problems which are a large "debt and deficit" to focus on WHAT is "causing" these debt and deficits to begin with. The causation of our debt and deficit issues really are unemployment, health care, social security, and national defense. America seems to have forgotten the fundamental economics 101 lesson of "scarcity". Nevertheless, we want more of everything. More guns....and more butter...(without having to go through the inconvenient step of saving and investing to increase future productivity).  Our huge national debt in part seems to stem from our politicians wish to overcome the fundamentals of economics themselves.  This is the problem....the debt and deficit are only the symptoms of our problem.

I think you have it mostly right. The key is going to be avoiding inflation in the future — not eliminating the deficit. It seems like Congress will move towards austerity and that makes it unlikely that inflation will take root. Unfortunately, that will make life very painful for Americans and our economy. There doesn't seem to be a good way to resolve this given our options.

If nothing else, just remember that the deficit isn't going anywhere. We aren't going to go bankrupt. It's just about keeping inflation low at all costs so that the international community is happy with our dollars. Now Democrats and Republicans just have to figure out how to make sure Americans split the deficit pie up in a way that keeps inflation in check, America prosperous and the world safe and stable. Heaven help us

[AdamA]

I have seen a few articles that suggest that fusion energy would be achievable in about 20 years time if given a Manhattan Project type effort.

We've been saying this for quite a while, and have put far more resources into the search for
fusion than the Manhattan Project required.

I'm not saying we'll never get there, but so far it's pie in the sky.

Here's a great book on the topic. 

http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Bottle-Strang ... 0670020338

[stone]

I guess if the USD depreciates then that won't mean that the oil won't get burned, it will just mean that the people using the oil won't be Americans to such a large extent as now.
I can't recall ever having heard a non-American say anything positive about America's role as "Team America World Police". I think it is deeply misguided to think that world trade needs a world superpower. Historically trade has florished in the absence of any dominant military power. The BBC Radio4 series "History of the World in 100 objects" has many many examples of stuff traded across the World under such circumstances.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/ahow

[Storm]

Big fan of the Daily Show and Colbert.  This segment from March 5th of 2009 roasting Glenn Beck's nonsense was great...   

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... -war-room-

Here we are, trying to kick the TV habit, and already we've added two fine, hilarious, must-watch shows.

You can get TDS and The Colbert Report on Hulu Plus though, so I guess if you watch it on your computer, technically it's not TV! 

[Gumby]

I can't recall ever having heard a non-American say anything positive about America's role as "Team America World Police". I think it is deeply misguided to think that world trade needs a world superpower. Historically trade has florished in the absence of any dominant military power. The BBC Radio4 series "History of the World in 100 objects" has many many examples of stuff traded across the World under such circumstances.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/ahow

But, isn't it all about imperialism? The US has about a dozen air craft carriers. Italy and Spain have 2 and China has 1.

Numbers of aircraft carriers operated, by country

CountryTotalIn serviceIn reserveDecommissionedUnder constructionNever completed
United States6711155212
United Kingdom401039212
Japan20002004
France810707
Russia510402
Australia300300
Canada300300
Italy220002
India210130
Spain320101
Brazil210100
Argentina200200
Thailand110000
Netherlands100100
China110000
Germany000005

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... s_operated

Do we need a dozen air craft carriers to protect ourselves? No. Do we protect the world out of benevolence and loving peace? Of course not. We do it so that regions stay relatively stable enough to keep accepting our dollars in exchange for the resources and cheap labor we need. So, that Intel can have a plant in Thailand where workers are employed for pennies a day..



...and so a KFC can open up down the block there one day. And of course, to secure oil and resources in exchange for our deficit dollars.

[stone]

Gumby, so the USD gets wrung dry by lavishing trillions of $ on a military system who's function is to facilitate the transfer of what would be American jobs to other countries whilst America suffers from mass unemployment? It sounds like a no-brainer to me but in the wrong way. I read something about a US company that actually worked out that it would be cheaper to employ US citizens to do manufacturing (because of reduced logistics costs etc) but were firmly told that Wall Street would view that as being lily livered.

[AdamA]

I read something about a US company that actually worked out that it would be cheaper to employ US citizens to do manufacturing (because of reduced logistics costs etc) but were firmly told that Wall Street would view that as being lily livered.

I think that's exactly Gumby's point.

[stone]

Adam1226 "I think that's exactly Gumby's point."

Cheers. I agree with Gumby and I'm too dumb to sense that .

[Gumby]

Adam1226 "I think that's exactly Gumby's point."

Cheers. I agree with Gumby and I'm too dumb to sense that .

Yes, it's all a very ugly thing. But, it is the unfortunate reality of what's happening. Obviously there are many people in the US government who see a use of "Hard Power" as being key to propping up the dollar and what it can purchase overseas...

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

...And if we look at Power Projection:

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

We see that even the US Department of Defense defines "power projection" as:

The ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national power - political, economic, informational, or military - to rapidly and effectively deploy and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, to contribute to deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.
Source: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddic ... 10683.html

My overall point is that there are many fiscal conservatives who realize that the US cannot go bankrupt (even Dick Cheney once said that "deficits don't matter"). You'd think that once they realized this, they'd be willing to support socialist projects. But, instead, they fear that socialist projects will contribute to inflation because that will give the middle class too much disposable income (and too much disposable income would actually lead to inflation).

So, they choose to spend a ton of fiat money on Hard Power initiatives, tax cuts (for the rich) and anything else that keeps money out of the hands of middle class. As I said, as long as the middle class doesn't have much (or any) disposable income, they aren't worried about inflation.

Politics in the United States is all about class warfare. Republicans who actually understand the money supply want the rich to get richer and keep the middle class poor (i.e. decrease the middle class money supply) to keep inflation under control. Democrats who actually understand the money supply want to soak the rich (i.e. decrease the rich money supply) and give the money to the middle class. MMTers say, "hey, we can use the money supply to grow the economy, for everyone, and keep inflation in check," but most people would rather sling mud, stick to gold-standard logic (since it's easy), and target the other side of the class coin with hardship. That's why there are no MMTers in politics.

The sad part is that 90% of those arguing their political viewpoints don't even understand the fiat money supply. They used flawed logic and it's all regurgitated by the media. Most of those arguing their political position still think we are reserve constrained. And those that do understand that we are not reserve constrained are still using fear-mongering tactics and gold-standard logic to confuse the issues (saying, "we're going to go bankrupt!") in order to shame and fear voters into austerity or taxing the rich.

If everyone understood the ramifications of the fiat dollar, and how to control inflation, a lot of politicians would be voted out of office and our society would look a lot different. But, by keeping everyone confused — whether most people realize it or not — the two parties can continue their class warfare and keep their lobbyists happy and their own pockets padded with cash.

[Gumby]

"By the 2020s China wants a military that will be globally deployable and will be able to challenge American interests where they need to be challenged."

I'm sure they want that. But, China has a long, long way to go before they can attain a Blue-water navy. Remember, they are aircraft carriers. So, they would also need air superiority — among other things — in order to control the seas.

It's an old, and outdated, article, but there are still many challenges that lie before China in terms of attaining a Blue-water navy.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... 113755343/

[Jan Van]

Doodle, I ain't no MT, but i think Perry will do fine with a certain segment of the right 

Governor Says Texans May Want to Secede From Union But Probably Won't

Perry ducked state law on disclosing some stimulus money

Major Challenges Facing Texas Education Today

[quote=Major Challenges Facing Texas Education Today]Texas is #49 in verbal SAT scores in the nation (493) and #46 in average math SAT scores (502).
Texas is #36 in the nation in high school graduation rates (68%).
Texas is #33 in the nation in teacher salaries. Teacher salaries in Texas are not keeping pace with the national average. The gains realized from the last state-funded across-the-board pay raise authorized in 1999, which moved the ranking from 33 to as high as 26th in the nation, have disappeared over the last five years.
Texas was the only state in the nation to cut average per pupil expenditures in fiscal year 2005, resulting in a ranking of #40 nationally; down from #25 in fiscal year 1999.[/quote]

[MediumTex]

Off topic post here....

I am watching Rick Perry on C-SPAN. It seems like he has the makings of a formidable competitor to Obama. He is definitely no George Bush. He has a Reagan type everyman touch to him.

If I wasn't privy to his evangelical background, I would feel a lot more comfortable about him as a candidate.

MT,

What is your opinion of how has he done in Texas? I have heard some negative things regarding his record on education, healthcare, and the environment. How has your experience having him as governor been?

I think that most people in Texas think of Rick Perry as sort of a harmless image that appears on their TV sets from time to time. 

It's sort of the way you might feel about the UPS or Fedex guy that stops by your office every day.  You know them as a fixture in your life, but don't really think deeply about what they might represent or what deep convictions they might have about anything.

When oil is at $100 a barrel, a monkey could probably look like a genius running a state like Texas.

Remember, too, that the position of Governor in Texas is mostly ceremonial, and in a role like that Perry excels.  Perry is an outstanding baby kisser and ribbon cutter.  It's sort of like the mayor in a city manager system.  The Lieutenant Governor's office in Texas is where the real power is.

It's been said that Rick Perry is sort of like George W. Bush without the brains.  I'll let you absorb all of the ramifications of that.

Perry is a bit like Reagan, though with a smaller ideological rudder. 

In another life, I'm pretty sure that Rick Perry would be the general manager of a Ford dealership somewhere out in the country.

Perhaps some other Texans will share their thoughts.

[Odysseusa]

I put my Dish Network cable on pause for $5 per month and I am thinking about canceling it all together. I pays around $40 per month for cable and if I can cancel it, I save ~$500 per year and can put in in a minor account for our baby.

[Gumby]

Speaking of the Daily Show. This says a lot about the media:

The Daily Show: Pretending Ron Paul Doesn't Exist

[moda0306]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlhFZFrR8DQ

Wow... just.... Wow.

[doodle]

As an independent, Ron Paul is the only person in this race on the right side of the aisle that I would consider giving my vote to. I might not agree with all of his positions, but at least he isn't afraid to stand his ground. But, until he starts talking about escalating the wars and invading Iran he will never get the thumbs up from the Faux News propaganda machine.

[Storm]

As an independent, Ron Paul is the only person in this race on the right side of the aisle that I would consider giving my vote to. I might not agree with all of his positions, but at least he isn't afraid to stand his ground. But, until he starts talking about escalating the wars and invading Iran he will never get the thumbs up from the Faux News propaganda machine.

He also needs to ramp up his rhetoric about increasing taxes on the bottom 50% instead of the top 2%... after all, taxes for billionaires is "Class Warfare"... 

[Jan Van]

He also needs to ramp up his rhetoric about increasing taxes on the bottom 50% instead of the top 2%... after all, taxes for billionaires is "Class Warfare"...   ::)

TDS: World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over

[Jan Van]

It's been said that Rick Perry is sort of like George W. Bush without the brains.  I'll let you absorb all of the ramifications of that.

After reading Bush at War by Bob Woodward years ago I had to change my opinion about GW being not that smart. If I remember correctly Woodward got some criticism (from the left of course) for painting too nice a portrait of GW.    Some articles linked I think in another thread somewhere on this board kinda hinted at the same. In public GW played the part of not overly smart bumbling guy, but dumb he ain't...

Now for Perry, I have no idea. It would be kinda fun to see a Perry vs. Bachmann standoff though...

[Storm]

He also needs to ramp up his rhetoric about increasing taxes on the bottom 50% instead of the top 2%... after all, taxes for billionaires is "Class Warfare"...   ::)

TDS: World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over

Yeah I saw that segment - hilarious.  Tax the top 2%?  Naw, that would only bring in $700 billion.  Cut funding for NPR!  YES!  That would bring in $1 million and every million counts!