American Jobs act

[moda0306]

Regarding the depression, I think it's easy to tell a lot of FDR's tomfoolery was counterproductive.

But since nobody here, or at least not that I've seen, is suggesting we enact huge price controls and gold confiscation, what we're left is the simple act of massive deficit spending during high unemployment... Hopefully to build rather than destroy this time.

The almost immediate low unemployment after we significantly increased deficit spending is hard to ignore, and if we can spare ourselves the war, price controls, and wealth confiscation I'm extremely hopeful of what the equivalent today would bring us.

[craigr]

Regarding the depression, I think it's easy to tell a lot of FDR's tomfoolery was counterproductive.

But since nobody here, or at least not that I've seen, is suggesting we enact huge price controls and gold confiscation, what we're left is the simple act of massive deficit spending during high unemployment... Hopefully to build rather than destroy this time.

The almost immediate low unemployment after we significantly increased deficit spending is hard to ignore, and if we can spare ourselves the war, price controls, and wealth confiscation I'm extremely hopeful of what the equivalent today would bring us.

They could create 8-10 Million new jobs within a year if they simply deported illegal aliens and prosecuted any employer that hired them with jail time and stiff fines. A legal immigration moratorium, as we've done in the past, would also keep out more than 1 Million new immigrants a year that mainly take low-paying unskilled jobs. It would also save billions a year in tax payer subsidized costs of having illegals and legal immigrants in the country that consume more in social services than they contribute in taxes. It would also push wages up for the lowest paid in the country.

But this idea won't be done because there is a deliberate policy decision not to do it. This, despite the fact that there is 10-20% unemployment nationally.

Spending more money on govt. programs won't help either because the overhead costs are too high and the money is frequently spent on things that are not needed. Only businesses are capable of spending money in an efficient way because they can only succeed by delivering a good product people want. Govt. spending has no accountability in this regard so the spending is random and unlikely to be successful.

[AdamA]

They could create 8-10 Million new jobs within a year if they simply deported illegal aliens and prosecuted any employer that hired them with jail time and stiff fines.

Some would argue that you could acheive the same thing by getting rid of the minimum wage law (not sure if I agree or not, but it sounds good, in theory). 

[FarmerD]

Regarding the depression, I think it's easy to tell a lot of FDR's tomfoolery was counterproductive.

But since nobody here, or at least not that I've seen, is suggesting we enact huge price controls and gold confiscation, what we're left is the simple act of massive deficit spending during high unemployment... Hopefully to build rather than destroy this time.

The almost immediate low unemployment after we significantly increased deficit spending is hard to ignore, and if we can spare ourselves the war, price controls, and wealth confiscation I'm extremely hopeful of what the equivalent today would bring us.

They could create 8-10 Million new jobs within a year if they simply deported illegal aliens and prosecuted any employer that hired them with jail time and stiff fines. A legal immigration moratorium, as we've done in the past, would also keep out more than 1 Million new immigrants a year that mainly take low-paying unskilled jobs. It would also save billions a year in tax payer subsidized costs of having illegals and legal immigrants in the country that consume more in social services than they contribute in taxes. It would also push wages up for the lowest paid in the country.

But this idea won't be done because there is a deliberate policy decision not to do it. This, despite the fact that there is 10-20% unemployment nationally.

Spending more money on govt. programs won't help either because the overhead costs are too high and the money is frequently spent on things that are not needed. Only businesses are capable of spending money in an efficient way because they can only succeed by delivering a good product people want. Govt. spending has no accountability in this regard so the spending is random and unlikely to be successful.

I spent the first 25 years of my life on a farm then the next 22 years working for the fed governement.  I quickly noticed a stark difference in how the two organization manage money.  There are two types of farmers: 1) farmers who are ruthlessly efficient in keeping expenses down and 2) bankrupt farmers.  At least half of all govt money spent on programs is completely wasted by anyone's definition.  I've seen it with my own eyes.  People who consistently mismanage money never get fired, they get promoted.  Wasteful spending and programs are never made more efficient or eliminated, they are merely enlarged. 

Adjacent to my brother's farm, they recently tore up a perfectly good road and put down a new road.  Next to the road was a sign that proudly proclaimed this road construction was the result of the federal stimulous program or something to that effect.  Great use of funds. 

Federal deficit spending should in theory alleviate an economic downturn but that's assuming govt would somehow spend the money wisely.  It never happens, at least in my version of reality. 

[Gumby]

Regarding the depression, I think it's easy to tell a lot of FDR's tomfoolery was counterproductive.

But since nobody here, or at least not that I've seen, is suggesting we enact huge price controls and gold confiscation, what we're left is the simple act of massive deficit spending during high unemployment... Hopefully to build rather than destroy this time.

The almost immediate low unemployment after we significantly increased deficit spending is hard to ignore, and if we can spare ourselves the war, price controls, and wealth confiscation I'm extremely hopeful of what the equivalent today would bring us.

They could create 8-10 Million new jobs within a year if they simply deported illegal aliens and prosecuted any employer that hired them with jail time and stiff fines. A legal immigration moratorium, as we've done in the past, would also keep out more than 1 Million new immigrants a year that mainly take low-paying unskilled jobs. It would also save billions a year in tax payer subsidized costs of having illegals and legal immigrants in the country that consume more in social services than they contribute in taxes. It would also push wages up for the lowest paid in the country.

But this idea won't be done because there is a deliberate policy decision not to do it. This, despite the fact that there is 10-20% unemployment nationally.

Spending more money on govt. programs won't help either because the overhead costs are too high and the money is frequently spent on things that are not needed. Only businesses are capable of spending money in an efficient way because they can only succeed by delivering a good product people want. Govt. spending has no accountability in this regard so the spending is random and unlikely to be successful.

Craigr, would you happen to know of any data/evidence/facts that supports the case for austerity? I'd like to better understand your point of view. I don't understand how the American consumer is supposed to grow the economy as households and businesses continue to de-leverage (from excessive housing boom debt) and consumers are saddled with high unemployment and low aggregate income levels. The consumer has been forced to become a saver to pay down debt. Private sector demand is way down as consumers have become savers. How does austerity solve this? How does the Federal deficit decrease as tax revenues are declining across the board? Where does the money come from to pay down private sector debt?

My understanding is that there is a balance sheet problem. If the Private Sector is saving, in order to de-leverage, the money needed to sustain demand in the private sector must come from somewhere else. The money can either come from the Public Sector or the Foreign Sector. Those are the only two options if the Private Sector is in saving mode to pay down debt.

[AdamA]

I don't understand how the American consumer is supposed to grow the economy as households and businesses continue to de-leverage (from excessive housing boom debt) and consumers are saddled with high unemployment and low aggregate income levels.

Is it realistic to expect continuous consumption growth?  At some point might we plateau, or even be forced to consume less?

[Gumby]

I don't understand how the American consumer is supposed to grow the economy as households and businesses continue to de-leverage (from excessive housing boom debt) and consumers are saddled with high unemployment and low aggregate income levels.

Is it realistic to expect continuous consumption growth?  At some point might we plateau, or even be forced to consume less?

If we consume less, and there is negative growth, that's the definition of a recession. Of course, recessions happen every few years. But, the question is... Would you prescribe a recession for the economy right now?

[stone]

Gumby, private debt default/forgiveness is the alternative to deficits if you want to get a workable balance sheet.

[Gumby]

Gumby, private debt default/forgiveness is the alternative to deficits if you want to get a workable balance sheet.

Good point! But, I assume that will require some money from the government, no? I don't understand how the private debt is just "forgiven" without it, unless creditors would just be screwed while everyone defaults or declares bankruptcy. Not sure the government would allow creditors to be screwed over on such a large scale — particularly when creditors have strong lobbying power in Washington.

Reminds me of a terrific South Park episode where Kyle forgives everyone's debt on his Amex Platinum Card and then defaults on it — turning all private debt into debt free money.

[align=center][/align]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/220760/

[stone]

Gumby, I guess my point is that financial institutions that lent irresponsibly should not be bailed out via deficits. There are a  few mortgage restructuring ideas out there:

eg: http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc110606.htm
"Suppose a $300,000 mortgage is in foreclosure (or the homeowner and lender can agree to the following arrangement outside of foreclosure court). One possible mortgage restructuring might be to cut the principal of the mortgage to $200,000, and to create a $100,000 PAR. The homeowner would agree to pay off the PAR to the Treasury (and administered through the IRS) out of future price appreciation on the existing home or subsequent property. Ideally, the actual restructuring would involve a PAR obligation of less than $100,000 - possibly half the amount of principal reduction, but some mutually acceptable proportion could likely be negotiated.
The homeowner would be excluded from taking on any home equity loans or executing any “cash out”? refinancings until the PAR was satisfied. The maximum PAR obligation accepted by the Treasury would be based on the value of the home and the income of the homeowner. The program would only be available for mortgages restructured to the point that they were no longer underwater. The lender would receive not a direct claim on that homeowner, but a participation in the Treasury's “PAR fund”? which would pay out proportionately out of all PAR proceeds received by the Treasury by homeowners over time."

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=9956
"At some point, a major economic downturn hits and many people in the estate lose their jobs and find they can no longer meet their mortgage payments and are forced to default.

The bank is now faced with a massive loss which goes well beyond its capital. It is thus insolvent and on the brink of collapse. The government fears that if the bank crashes, it will lead to runs on other banks as depositors fear they will lose their cash. Accordingly, the government takes over all the bad mortgage debts by transferring the accounts from the private bank to the public accounts. Some keyboard operator makes the book entries to accomplish the transaction and lawyers do the contract work.

The government then, as a matter of social purpose, decides it is not productive for the houses to lie idle and that families should remain in their homes. They offer the families are new deal. The families can pay market rents to the government for five years and stay in the houses they were buying. Some families will receive rental subsidies in the meantime while they are unemployed.

After five years, the government will offer the occupant (former owner) first right to purchase the house at the current market rates. If they choose to do that all rental payments in the five year period will be retrospectively counted against the purchase price. If the family decides to move on and not take up the right to buy the house at market rates, the government will sell the property at market rates. It will then write off any “book losses”? that might have occurred in the meantime.

Some keyboard operator will do the calculations and click some keys to accomplish the required transactions.

Questions:

Does anyone lose their house as a consequence of being unemployed? Answer: no.
Are the houses still there and well maintained? Answer: yes.
Are the normal private contractual arrangements interfered with? Answer: yes, the bank still forecloses when the default occurs.
Will this provoke a broadening private debt crisis? Answer: no.
Will current or future generations have to pick up the tab because the government nationalised the mortgage defaults? Which tab exactly has to be picked up if there is one to pick up? Answer: no there is no tab.
Have any real resources been scrapped or wasted? Answer: no
The point is that there is no “real cost”? to the government at all in doing this. They could even just scrap the assets on their books and send the titles to the occupants and say congratulations. I do not recommend this strategy but it wouldn’t add any real costs to the economy at all – now or into the future."

[Gumby]

Thanks for sharing that, Stone. Very interesting.

[moda0306]

craigr and others speaking about government inefficiency,

I agree that we suffer when governments don't properly regulate, or when NASA wastes money and doesn't do its job of inspiring us to know more about the universe, or when the post office delivers the mail late, or when the military attempts an incompletable task of occupation.

I think what some of the others of us are trying to say is that government efficiency, or lack there of, is a secondary to the more broad problem of not enough money in the economy to repair balance sheets.

Further, most of the suggested stimulus isn't in the form of a "program," but tax cuts.  Expanding unemployment insurance may have some of the inefficiency mentioned above, as some of the people receiving it may not deserve it or aren't searching as hard for a job because of it... but our economy, at the macroeconomic level, doesn't really need people more motivated in search of work... we have millions of those... it needs "balance-sheet repair" in whatever form we can get it, and unemployment gets immediately spent at businesses such as grocery stores, rental complexes, and gas stations.  That demand is what our businesses need, first and foremost, before any regulation, taxes, etc even become an issue.

Without revenues, income tax and regulations are non-issues.

So the fact that government may be less efficient at delivering mail or building a widget is pretty irrelevant in our current situation.  Unless we 1) return to bartering, or 2) liquidate vast amounts of private-sector debt, discussing whether there's inefficiencies in some random government program is rearranging the deck furniture on the titanic.

In fact, I'll acknowledge government isn't efficient at many things... but often "efficiency" isn't the point.  If our need is to expand the money supply to repair balance sheets, than the "efficiency" that matters is maybe not whether or not a rail was built with as few laborors as possible, but that a decent amount money entered the economy and we're prepared for future commerce by having a rail line that used labor that was sitting idle.

I don't know what we'd judge social security against, but it's simply a transfer payment with extremely minimal overhead costs... it's quite efficient at delivering $$'s to senior citizens... almost too much so... I don't even see FICA payments on my tax return!!

Also, sending out people checks or enacting payroll tax cuts is extremely efficient in the sense that government isn't trying to do something that the private sector could do, but simply running deficits to allow private savings and spending alike.

Arguing whether government delivers mail efficiently or delivers healthcare efficiently are definitely arguments to have, but when the main problem is balance sheets, and money needs to enter the economy and demand needs to reignite for businesses to hire, then at the very least checks should be sent out and government should do what it would normally do anyway (but cheaper now since there's capacity in the labor force) and build rail, repair roads, and make our systems more efficient.  These are things it would very well have had to do in several years when the economy "wanted" to expand again anyway, but it will be MUCH cheaper to do it now when there are people sitting idle and huge amounts of loanable funds not being used by the private sector.  Then, it's all there in the future, demand is up as a result, and the economy can much more easily expand if it so chooses to because it won't be pushing up against a transportation infrastructure incapable of handling the economic activity that's trying to develop.

[moda0306]

I mean, thinking strategically, even if you are a staunch conservative, one would think that the government should do what it should do when there's capacity in the economy, both in borrowing and in the labor force, rather than waiting for the eventual recovery (in their opinions, brought on by drilling, deregulations and tax cuts/reform).

Isn't it poor governing to wait until labor and funds are more expensive to obtain?

[stone]

moda, I agree that if infrastructure work needs doing then now is the time to do it. But I also think it is essential that deficits are not used as a way to foster irresponsible bank lending and expansion. People talk about the need to prevent government getting too big and they often have a good point. What is also essential is to keep an eye on the size of the banking sector. If banks make dumb loans and double in size and then the government uses various stimulus packages to inject enough money into the economy to service those loans- then you will get an ever expanding banking sector. People making stuff etc have to carry the burden of a bloated banking sector just as much as of a bloated government.

[moda0306]

Could you remind me how deficits encourage lending?

To me, deficits seem to allow net private sector savings, and therefore eliminate the need for private debt to sustain households in their needs & wants.

Further, deficits use private sector savings when they're in abundance, therefore are somewhere between "crowding out" the private sector borrowers and borrowing when they don't want to borrow anyway (much closer to the latter right now, IMO).

Between those two I don't see why you think deficits somehow encourage the private sector to use leverage and create bubbles.

I think what you may be thinking of is deficit spending while simultaneously monetizing debt to encourage people to borrow.

That argument I see much more support for.  I see monetary policy as something to prevent the impression by the investing public of any chance of default risk, not as something that should always be pushed to the brink, trying to get people to borrow money to drive the economy.

[Storm]

I agree with the sentiment of Craigr's posts, that government spending is sometimes wasteful, but what I think we've suffered from is the wrong type of spending.

Our congress has been dumping money into useless stimulus like bank bailouts, cash for clunkers, and first time homebuyer credits.  These types of stimulus are probably the worst kind because they go directly into the balance sheets of large banks or companies and do almost nothing for the broader economy.  What we really need is stimulus that goes right into the economy, and the only way to do that is to put money in the hands of people that will spend it - ie. public works.

You may argue whether it was FDR's New Deal that extended the Depression or not, but that view is not widely held by historians or economists.  I would say that the New Deal helped pull us out of the depression, but there is nothing like war spending of 100%+ GDP and full employment of men and women to get the economy really firing on all cylinders.

Prolonged/worsened the Depression

In a survey of economic historians conducted by Robert Whaples, Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University, Whaples sent out anonymous questionnaires to members of the Economic History Association. Members were asked to either disagree, agree, or agree with provisos with the statement that read: "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." While only 6% of economic historians who worked in the history department of their universities agreed with the statement, 27% of those that work in the economics department agreed. Almost an identical percent of the two groups (21% and 22%) agreed with the statement "with provisos" (a conditional stipulation), while 74% of those who worked in the history department, and 51% in the economic department disagreed with the statement outright.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#W ... Depression

I guess all we really need is a world war III with China or something and we should be doing great!  /sarcasm

[Storm]

Here's another interesting statistical factoid.  Keep in mind the New Deal was implemented from 1933-1936:

Depression statistics

"Most indexes worsened until the summer of 1932, which may be called the low point of the depression economically and psychologically." Economic indicators show the American economy reached nadir in summer 1932 to February 1933, then began recovering until the recession of 1937–1938. Thus the Federal Reserve Industrial Production Index hit its low of 52.8 on 1932-07-01 and was practically unchanged at 54.3 on 1933-03-01; however by 1933-07-01, it reached 85.5 (with 1935–39 = 100, and for comparison 2005 = 1,342). In Roosevelt's 12 years in office, the economy had an 8.5% compound annual growth of GDP the highest growth rate in the history of any industrial country, however, recovery was slow; by 1939, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per adult was still 27% below trend.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#D ... statistics

I know it is fashionable to hate on the New Deal because it caused the dreaded Social Security program to be created, among other evils, but none of us benefit from a distorted view of history.  Only by studying history in it's true form can we prevent ourselves from making the mistakes of the past.

[moda0306]

Storm,

I think the next step after realizing the war (or anything else we decide to "set our minds to" at the very least was a way to bring unemployment down extremely fast is what to make of the aftermath.

If all massive stimulus does is temporarily jolt the economy and create temporary jobs, which all melts away after the massive deficits stop, then it's no solution.

But I think if we look at the aftermath of WWII we saw something else entirely (which trade balance would indicate wasn't simply a result of Europe being demolished).  The post-WWII period was one of very high taxes, strong unions, and yet great prosperity in the US.  I simply have to give Keynesianism SOME credit against supply-siders given the WWII-1960's environment.

This indicates to me that Keynesian stimulus, in proper quantity, actually does tend to have a repairative effect on the nation's social fabric and balance sheets, and maybe isn't simply kicking the can down the road.

That said, I tend to be a non-consumerist environmentalist, so the idea of constantly trying to engineer economic growth when our world is screaming "ENOUGH" is a bit disgusting to me.

[stone]

Moda, we agree that the problem is private indebtedness/lack of purchasing power in the hands of people who would spend it on everyday stuff. One way to deal with that would be to trim back the overhang of private debt by using a government mediated scheme to wipe off underwater mortgages without either giving banks or homeowners a free lunch (as decribed in the links I put above). That would shrink the size of the banking sector and ensure that in future they only made loans on the basis of ability to pay them back rather than on the basis of supposed ability to refinance once house prices had further inflated. Once homeowners with $100k houses and $200k mortgages were no longer paying interest on $200k to the bank, then those homeowners would have money to spend on what they wanted. The economy would then be directed to provide what people want by people spending.
The alternative you propose is to use deficit spending to alow people who were never expected to be able to pay those mortgages from their income (they were supposidly expected to refinance once prices had increased) to actually be able to pay those mortgages from their income. You are acting as a fairy godmother, stepping in to rescue the bank (and house price inflation) after its bubble blowing had run out of breath.

[moda0306]

I see... so you're saying that deficits aren't so much causing future debt, as reinforcing the illiquid debts the private sector already has.

I can see that for sure.

I still tend to think that even after mass liquidation we'd have high unemployment, at least for a while, and running hard deficits will help.

I definitely think letting banks bear a big burden on liquidation is a huge help, but it's going to be messy.  Further, that is "stimulus" MUCH more into the hands of those underwater on their mortgages than those who are not, regardless of whether the banks benefit.  More general deficits will go into everyone's hands, and not be directed at the individuals that malinvested.

So I guess with our two proposals, either one is subsidizing those who malinvested in the past.  I think an approach that combines the two would probably be most prudent.

[stone]

moda, I don't think that those mortgage restructuring proposals would bail out homeowners who "bit off more than they could chew". They were hoping to get lots of free stuff on the back of house price inflation. Infact they will end up in the same boat as if they had been renting and then had entered the house market post crisis.
What is extremely important is that a new bubble does not start up. The moral hazard of propping up otherwise unservicable debts would lead to prudent banks etc losing out to the reckless and bank expansion accelerating unchecked.
As I've wittered on about before, I  believe matching government spending with an asset tax would be just as effective at supporting the real economy as would deficit spending.
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=3

[craigr]

Regarding the depression, I think it's easy to tell a lot of FDR's tomfoolery was counterproductive.

But since nobody here, or at least not that I've seen, is suggesting we enact huge price controls and gold confiscation, what we're left is the simple act of massive deficit spending during high unemployment... Hopefully to build rather than destroy this time.

The almost immediate low unemployment after we significantly increased deficit spending is hard to ignore, and if we can spare ourselves the war, price controls, and wealth confiscation I'm extremely hopeful of what the equivalent today would bring us.

They could create 8-10 Million new jobs within a year if they simply deported illegal aliens and prosecuted any employer that hired them with jail time and stiff fines. A legal immigration moratorium, as we've done in the past, would also keep out more than 1 Million new immigrants a year that mainly take low-paying unskilled jobs. It would also save billions a year in tax payer subsidized costs of having illegals and legal immigrants in the country that consume more in social services than they contribute in taxes. It would also push wages up for the lowest paid in the country.

But this idea won't be done because there is a deliberate policy decision not to do it. This, despite the fact that there is 10-20% unemployment nationally.

Spending more money on govt. programs won't help either because the overhead costs are too high and the money is frequently spent on things that are not needed. Only businesses are capable of spending money in an efficient way because they can only succeed by delivering a good product people want. Govt. spending has no accountability in this regard so the spending is random and unlikely to be successful.

I spent the first 25 years of my life on a farm then the next 22 years working for the fed governement.  I quickly noticed a stark difference in how the two organization manage money.  There are two types of farmers: 1) farmers who are ruthlessly efficient in keeping expenses down and 2) bankrupt farmers.  At least half of all govt money spent on programs is completely wasted by anyone's definition.  I've seen it with my own eyes.  People who consistently mismanage money never get fired, they get promoted.  Wasteful spending and programs are never made more efficient or eliminated, they are merely enlarged.  

Adjacent to my brother's farm, they recently tore up a perfectly good road and put down a new road.  Next to the road was a sign that proudly proclaimed this road construction was the result of the federal stimulous program or something to that effect.  Great use of funds.  

Federal deficit spending should in theory alleviate an economic downturn but that's assuming govt would somehow spend the money wisely.  It never happens, at least in my version of reality.  

I knew a lady in her 90's that lived during the Great Depression. During that era under the National Recovery Act there were price and production controls on just about everything, including food. Farmers were told what to grow, how much to grow and what price it could be sold.

She had an Uncle that was a farmer and he would secretly bring over excess crops that they would then use to barter with the neighbors for things they needed. If he was caught doing this he would have been fined and put in jail. Excess crops were to be destroyed under these laws and could not be sold for a price the farmer was happy having. They had to be sold for the controlled price which was higher.

Some farmers had to re-train mules to walk over crops and turn them over because they had grown too much and they had to be destroyed.

And people wonder why there were soup lines and extended hardship during the Great Depression? It's because of idiotic government management like this.

[stone]

Craigr, I think first hand day to day history like that is really important to remember. My dad has regularly been visiting China since the 1980s. He says back then in China, although there was full employment, what needed doing didn't get done. Everything was squalid and in shortage. The government was supposidly in charge of telling everyone what to do but that simply wasn't done effectively. I think it is extremely hard to fathom just how complex/impossible a task running a command economy is. The parallel proccessing power of every person empowered with the ability to buy what they want creates an extraordinary organizing force far beyond anything a government or oligarchy can acheive IMO.

[doug6zj9]

Wow.  Everyone here might be presumed to be a believer in the Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio.  But it is clear that many do not share Harry's basic beliefs about economics and governance.  Might I suggest  Why Government Doesn’t Work by Harry Browne?

[moda0306]

doug,

We're a diverse crowd.  I wouldn't have it any other way.  I wouldn't want this to be a bunch of libertarians agreeing with each other day after day.  

I do disagree with some of HB's assertions on government, but I think some of his observations and assertions about liberty, investing, and many other subjects are extremely well-thought-out, and his thinking has had a very large influence on how I view the world.

If you want a forum where everyone agrees on issues, you've come to the wrong place... but I think you'll find it 100x more interesting here for the intellectual diversity on display.