Gyroscopic Investing

TBV wrote: Neither Romney nor Ryan have to be libertarians or Austrians, though it would be great if they were.  They simply have to offer a level of competence that exceeds that of the current administration.  That shouldn't be hard.

After studying MMT/MMR, I'm pretty sure that a libertarian or Austrian economic policy would be the absolute worst thing you could do right now.  Europe is showing us what happens when you try austerity in the face of a depression.

Storm wrote:   Europe is showing us what happens when you try austerity in the face of a depression.

Has Europe really tried austerity i.e. spending less, or only the tax you more, but keep spending the same version of austerity?

Simonjester wrote:

Storm wrote:

TBV wrote: Neither Romney nor Ryan have to be libertarians or Austrians, though it would be great if they were.  They simply have to offer a level of competence that exceeds that of the current administration.  That shouldn't be hard.

After studying MMT/MMR, I'm pretty sure that a libertarian or Austrian economic policy would be the absolute worst thing you could do right now.  Europe is showing us what happens when you try austerity in the face of a depression.

austerity to a socialist seems to be cutting police, fire, emergency services, infrastructure upkeep and entitlements that anybody who has ever taken them now has a life long "right" to..
austerity to a libertarian or Austrian seems to be cutting corruption, waste,  boondoggles and spending on programs they feel the private sector could fill the need for better..

while all the mmr discussions have tempered my views about limiting government spending in a fiat monetary system, i still think there is a lot room for libertarian or Austrian type cuts to spending or at least cuts to bad and wasteful spending that can be made without tipping it over into depression..  

Austerity, or at least the disastrous European version of it, seems to be cutting government spending while keeping tax rates at astronomically high levels.  If you did this for a decade or so pretty soon the government would have all of the money and the private sector would have none, as 50% tax rates keep halving every dollar spent.  What it seems to be causing in Greece and other places is an underground all cash economy to proliferate and tax evasion to become widespread.

I'll give their plan kudos for having bold things in it like cutting capital gains tax to 0%.  But, what Ryan's career in congress has shown is that they do pretty well about talking about tax cuts, while at the same time spending like drunken sailors and adding more regulation.  In the end it's just smoke and mirrors to appease their conservative base while simultaneously handing out government spending to the people that are currently giving Karl Rove $1 billion to play attack ads in swing states.

One analogy I to the European austerity would be this:

A new college graduate has accumulated $100,000 in student loans.  He gets out of college and is lucky enough to get an entry level job at a large company.  He's paying off his student loans very slowly but not really making much progress.  All of a sudden he gets laid off and is on unemployment.

The bank goes to him and says "I know you're unemployed, but we think you need to pay off your student loan debt in full from your unemployment checks."

It just doesn't work; you can't balance the deficit in the face of depression.

Reub wrote: In the eyes of many socialist types, the very mention of words like austerity and fiscal sensibility brings about a gut wrenching reaction leading one to surmise that they have already felt it's effects.

Based on their track record I would say the same was true of the neo-Con Republicans who have been busily bankrupting this country over the last few decades.

Romney picked Paul Ryan to make sure that people like me (people who view Romney as a closet liberal) won't stay home on election day.  Basically, to shore up the Conservative base.  Yes, we don't like Obama-- but you can't win elections entirely by getting people to vote against someone.  You have to give them something to vote for.

Paul Ryan is that "something to vote for."

Benko wrote: Ryan is honest, ...

Another honest politician I suppose, just bad memory...

Presented With Letters, Ryan Admits Requesting Stimulus Cash

In Paul Ryan’s home state, he supported US energy funds while decrying stimulus program

Really, how long before everybody gets tired of this? There's a lot to be said for this: http://firecongress.org/

jmourik wrote:

Benko wrote: Ryan is honest, ...

Another honest politician I suppose, just bad memory...

Presented With Letters, Ryan Admits Requesting Stimulus Cash

In Paul Ryan’s home state, he supported US energy funds while decrying stimulus program

Really, how long before everybody gets tired of this? There's a lot to be said for this: http://firecongress.org/

Are you suggesting that a politician might be a hypocrite and that Paul Ryan is unremarkable in that regard?

MediumTex wrote: Are you suggesting that a politician might be a hypocrite and that Paul Ryan is unremarkable in that regard?

Ehhh.... :-)

I'm just wondering how people still manage to vote for these, ehhh, politicians...

jmourik wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Are you suggesting that a politician might be a hypocrite and that Paul Ryan is unremarkable in that regard?

Ehhh.... :-)

I'm just wondering how people still manage to vote for these, ehhh, politicians...

With the right kind of propaganda, I think that anyone can be made to look like a hero.

If I woke up one day and was a major politician, just for fun I might call a press conference and announce to my constituents how sorry I was that my colleagues and I had participated in a multi-generational conspiracy to steal their money and freedom.

A priceless piece on Paul Ryan, entitled "Satan, thy name is Paul Ryan....

http://takimag.com/article/satan_thy_na ... z23uUY5ewi

I think it will be an interesting experiment to see if the American people are smart enough to not fall for the logical fallacy of using Ad Hominem attacks in place of arguments. I tend to think they are not but it will be interesting to observe.

notsheigetz wrote: I think it will be an interesting experiment to see if the American people are smart enough to not fall for the logical fallacy of using Ad Hominem attacks in place of arguments. I tend to think they are not but it will be interesting to observe.

I'm disappointed that from all the fine details, Ryan turns out to be just another hypocritical Republican.  He sure talks a good game.

You have to look at their innate tendencies when they're not out campaigning. Romney believes in capitalism. Obama does not. Ryan has put forth a real plan to reduce the debt. Obama has not. Romney actually likes our allies. Obama does not. R/R believe in work, not welfare. The Big "O" does not.  R/R want smaller, less obtrusive govt. Big "O" does not. R/R believe in accessing real, useful forms of energy. Obama wants us all on bicycles with windmills on top. I won't even mention what Biden might or might not believe in because he is a joke.

Reub wrote: You have to look at their innate tendencies when they're not out campaigning. Romney believes in capitalism. Obama does not.

The form of Capitalism and Romney and Ryan believe in looks an awful like the kind that Obama believes in. All three supported TARP and most of the big bailouts of the era. The only real difference I can see is the kinds of institutions that they prefer: Obama bailed out the automakers while Romney and Ryan would have (rightfully) let them crash and burn, but I suspect that they'd be even more willing to bail out financial companies than Obama is.

Then let's see, there's the various big government subsidies to favored industries. Romney claims that he would end wind power subsidies, and Obama made some noise about ending farm subsidies, but couldn't get it done. Something makes me suspect that R/R wouldn't touch the money spigot either once the lobbyists start crowing about all the jobs that the federal payola is supporting.

Reub wrote: Ryan has put forth a real plan to reduce the debt. Obama has not.

The Ryan plan is a joke, so neither of them has. But this is actually a good thing, since balancing the budget would entail removing assets from the private sector. If they balanced the budget, where would we buy 30-year treasuries? In the crazy messed-up monetary system we seem to be stuck with, a balanced budget is the last thing people should want. The issue is the equitability of the distribution of printed, borrowed, deficit-spent dollars, not their mere existence to begin with.

Reub wrote:Romney actually likes our allies. Obama does not.

I'll agree with you there, but again I'm not sure how much of a difference it actually makes in practice. What we're really talking about here is the middle east, and let's be honest: our influence there is much smaller than we like to pretend it is. The rivalries in that area are old, and the people there are just going to do to each other what they're going to to, in my opinion.

Reub wrote:R/R believe in work, not welfare. The Big "O" does not.

This one is kind of debatable, but I see where you're coming from so I'll agree. But again, in practice I'm not sure how big of a difference it actually makes. Congress is the body that controls the purse strings of the welfare programs, not the president. All the president can really do is make noise about it, but congress has the actual power.

Reub wrote: R/R want smaller, less obtrusive govt.

From mittromney.com:

Mitt Romney will complete a high-tech fence to enhance border security.
Governor Romney will ensure that we have the officers on the ground we need to gain control of the border.
A Romney Administration will work to develop an efficient, effective system of exit verification to ensure people do not overstay their visas.

Now that doesn't sound intrusive at all

Reub wrote:R/R believe in accessing real, useful forms of energy. Obama wants us all on bicycles with windmills on top.

That's pretty much true, and his kowtowing to the anti-development, anti-human existence eco-nazis is a constant source of frustration to me as well. But again, it's really congress that has the power here, not the president.

MediumTex wrote:

jmourik wrote:

Benko wrote: Ryan is honest, ...

Another honest politician I suppose, just bad memory...

Presented With Letters, Ryan Admits Requesting Stimulus Cash

In Paul Ryan’s home state, he supported US energy funds while decrying stimulus program

Really, how long before everybody gets tired of this? There's a lot to be said for this: http://firecongress.org/

Are you suggesting that a politician might be a hypocrite and that Paul Ryan is unremarkable in that regard?

And I quote from the politics sticky in the main forum:

"If you want to bash on politicians you can go to a number of sites to do so. Politicians are liars, even your personal favorite. Screaming about it on an Internet forum isn't going to change this immutable law of the Universe."

Was Reagan a liar? Was Truman? Was Eisenhower? Was Lincoln? Was JFK? Were they all liars?

Reub wrote: Was Reagan a liar? Was Truman? Was Eisenhower? Was Lincoln? Was JFK? Were they all liars?

Yes, Not Sure, Yes, Yes and Yes.

As an addendum to my previous the fact that a president lied occasionally does not mean they weren't great presidents. The nature of the job in the modern world makes the occasional lie necessary. The question is did they lie rarely and only when necessary for a specific reason (Ike Lincoln)? Or did they make a habit out of it because it was a reflection of their character (JFK)?

Reub wrote: Was Reagan a liar? Was Truman? Was Eisenhower? Was Lincoln? Was JFK? Were they all liars?

Almost certainly. Just depends what they were lying about and the repercussions of the lies. It is all a matter of degrees.

Reub wrote: Was Reagan a liar? Was Truman? Was Eisenhower? Was Lincoln? Was JFK? Were they all liars?

Yes, absolutely. One cannot intentionally become politically successful in a democracy without being or becoming a liar, a panderer, or both. And the more power we're talking about, the truer this becomes. I suggest reading some more Hans-Hermann Hoppe, especially Democracy: The God That Failed.

This just in:  Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-0 ... able-.html

Who knew?

Pointedstick wrote:

Reub wrote: Was Reagan a liar? Was Truman? Was Eisenhower? Was Lincoln? Was JFK? Were they all liars?

Yes, absolutely. One cannot intentionally become politically successful in a democracy without being or becoming a liar, a panderer, or both. And the more power we're talking about, the truer this becomes. I suggest reading some more Hans-Hermann Hoppe, especially Democracy: The God That Failed.

This is an interesting topic.  I think that politicians lie in the way that fish swim--it's just a fundamental part of their basic existence.  There really isn't an ethical or moral dimension to politicians and lying, any more than there is an ethical or moral dimension to a fish swimming.

I don't mean that as an insult, any more than it would be an insult to say that something a snake did was "snake-like."

Pointedstick wrote:

Reub wrote: Was Reagan a liar? Was Truman? Was Eisenhower? Was Lincoln? Was JFK? Were they all liars?

Yes, absolutely. One cannot intentionally become politically successful in a democracy without being or becoming a liar, a panderer, or both. And the more power we're talking about, the truer this becomes. I suggest reading some more Hans-Hermann Hoppe, especially Democracy: The God That Failed.

This is interesting. Politics is the art of the possible, asking people to compromise. I suspect we all have principles that we would say are rigidly fixed, and others where we have wiggle room. Being a liar or panderer could apply to every person that has ever existed at one time or another, and while I have no great love for politicians, I am aware of the constraints in which they operate. I do have a genuine beef with their investment performance, compared to the average investor, but I do not want to derail this thread.

6 Iron wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Reub wrote: Was Reagan a liar? Was Truman? Was Eisenhower? Was Lincoln? Was JFK? Were they all liars?

Yes, absolutely. One cannot intentionally become politically successful in a democracy without being or becoming a liar, a panderer, or both. And the more power we're talking about, the truer this becomes. I suggest reading some more Hans-Hermann Hoppe, especially Democracy: The God That Failed.

This is interesting. Politics is the art of the possible, asking people to compromise. I suspect we all have principles that we would say are rigidly fixed, and others where we have wiggle room. Being a liar or panderer could apply to every person that has ever existed at one time or another, and while I have no great love for politicians, I am aware of the constraints in which they operate. I do have a genuine beef with their investment performance, compared to the average investor, but I do not want to derail this thread.

Having personally known a few politicians over the years, I'm pretty sure most of them would describe themelves as simply pragmatic public servants.

No one sees himself as anything but well-intentioned.

Politics is just an ugly business, and MANY people have a deep desire to be told what they want to hear.

MediumTex wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Reub wrote: Was Reagan a liar? Was Truman? Was Eisenhower? Was Lincoln? Was JFK? Were they all liars?

Yes, absolutely. One cannot intentionally become politically successful in a democracy without being or becoming a liar, a panderer, or both. And the more power we're talking about, the truer this becomes. I suggest reading some more Hans-Hermann Hoppe, especially Democracy: The God That Failed.

This is an interesting topic.  I think that politicians lie in the way that fish swim--it's just a fundamental part of their basic existence.  There really isn't an ethical or moral dimension to politicians and lying, any more than there is an ethical or moral dimension to a fish swimming.

I don't mean that as an insult, any more than it would be an insult to say that something a snake did was "snake-like."

Absolutely. This is actually one of Hoppe's central theses. Lying and pandering are career skills to politicians and essential traits for those who aspire to politics; even politicians who mean well must get elected and stay elected, and this will entail making promises they can't keep, tarring their opponents, or exaggerating the truth, especially if their opponent does it first and they feel they need to keep up. In this way, even well-meaning or aspiring politicians are corrupted by the nature of the institutions they aspire to as they must first commit immoral acts to reach the position of power they imagine they will use to commit moral acts.

The next problem is related to the length of their tenure. Elected politicians essentially own, control, and can profit from their guardianship of their territory only for the length of their terms. The shorter their terms, the shorter their time horizons must be. The nature of politicians' short-term control means they have a strong incentive to consume or redistribute the societal surplus--especially if it will aid their re-election chances--and little to no incentive to improve their territory's long-term capital stock.

Finally, we have to understand what it is that politicians actually do. They do not derive their living from producing goods or services, nor selling those that others have produced. Rather, they are paid to determine of the victims of the state's violence corps, otherwise known as the military and police forces. Should the violence corps be turned against perceived foreign enemies? Domestic terrorists? Pot growers? Wealthy businessmen? Women seeking abortions? Universities who admit too few minorities? People building their own houses without permission?

A politician's job is the creation of law, and every law is an order to do violence against a specified group. And a democratically-elected politician is one whose lawmaking powers will be skewed toward short-term gain for themselves and their voters.