Every new dollar printed, in theory, is either spent by the Fed buying bonds, or the Fed loaning it to a bank.
This is more debt overall. There is no real M1 here, just more debt.
Isn't debt what is causing the deflation to begin with?
I'd say what we need to combat it isn't loans, but grants; actually printing the money and either spending it on infrastructure or just giving it away; either method would create the hyperinflation we need to combat the deflation and kick start the recovery.
would be a good start. At least then 3rd and 4th parties would have a chance.
Of course Big Money will always get its say. Especially when so many people in this country still trust the government (Look! Over there! A terrorist!).
China and India are benefiting on all these bailouts and stimulus package. TaTa Consulting benefitted from Citigroup and AIG. What a shame. I just hope Obama really helps the american people, but based on his choices, Napolitano for DHS I think I regret that I voted for him. Even though the free trader McCain is more dangerous.
Save your cash as much as you can. Reduce your purchases to needs, not wants. When the real deflation hits, keep an eye on *any* major durable appliance purchase that has a >10 year lifespan, and buy when these are cheap.
In the stock market, I'd still wait- I consider it at least 20% overvalued still. When the DOW goes up over a 5 day period *or* hits 100, that's the time to buy stocks again. Until then, avoid all financial paper markets, they're just too little cash for too much risk during a depression.
Oh, and don't forget what the survivalists teach- a 2-3 year food supply in house is vital.
Ideally, find out what your children are good at, and turn those skills into products you can sell locally.
If you create an account you don't go to the moderation queue and get a host of features.
I was asking this question during the primaries, extensively and I argued for not endorsing candidates until it was assuredly those candidates had Progressive/Populist positions and would stand by them.
In terms of Obama, I never saw such brazen falsehoods, in the blogs, especially on his position on trade as well as falsehoods on Hillary's position. They constantly tried to turn her into Bill when I saw that the real Corporate Billites were in the Obama camp. I'm not saying Hillary was a Progressive but the idea that Obama was/is? To me, pure marketing hype, buying into slogan, "the hot new thing public relations frenzy" denial.
I watched the entire blogosphere turn into Obamanuts and even worse, anyone who pointed out policy positions, the money behind the scenes, white papers, economic advisers and their backgrounds was attacked. I never got into the blog wars like others did but all of this did prompt creation of EP. We needed a true economics community blog, focused on facts, focused on votes, on policy, on bills and not whatever this other stuff was.
I have no answers as to why the blogosphere just blindly endorses to the point they become a PR arm of the Democratic political machine.
I don't know why people would type trillions of bits, give their hard earned cash to candidates without being sure of real positions and I especially do not understand the partisanship over policy positions, except for the fact that Congress is really controlled by a few, the leadership and the Committee chairs. But still, Pelosi isn't a Progressive either and Harry Reid? Please.
I don't understand why they even use the term centrist when it should be corporatist.
and I finally don't understand why bloggers do not simply draft candidates themselves. Jim Webb was drafted by bloggers and it worked out well but it's like that time period is now forgotten.
"Until pols fear you, they won't respect you. Until you can successfully challenge at least a few of the most vulnerable, worst offenders in primaries, why should they?"
While I basically agree with this, it still begs the question. Why don't activists devote more of their energy to displacing incumbents who don't give a hoot about whatever their issue is? If they are, indeed, coopted (as Gary Null has claimed in the case of the environmental movement; BTW, I don't interpret his remarks as meaning every last environmental activist leader has been coopted), then it makes sense that they would avoid rocking any electoral boats, and instead get their followers involved in feel-good but accomplish-nothing demonstrations and actions.
But if they're not coopted, then why haven't they figured out your "simple answer to a simple question?"
It's a quick hit on Open Left and those Partisans are now blasting his post so it might get deleted, especially because it's in the quick hit (kind of like the Instapopulist here but with tighter rules)
On Obama, I sure tried to write many posts on real votes, money, policy and so on and the Obamatrons would blast and they even put out lies on Hillary, which I also confronted.
Didn't matter and now everyone is surprised. Not that Hillary is a real Progressive at all and due to Bill, I cannot blame people for confusing Hillary as Bill, but bottom line she had better positions and policy than Obama for working America and now she will be gagged and hog tied, out of the Domestic agenda way, as Sec. of State.
Now as I recall wasn't it her Iraq vote that had the left so upset?
So, what does that say about Obama when that was a major campaign difference.
I think they are shocked because supposedly Obama amassed that big money through small donors, yet so far at least on economics, the big money got their way.
I think 95% of those up for re-election won, mainly due to the house seats.
It's also who they pick, if anyone bothers to challenge in a primary. Ned Lamont, while really not that bad, simply did not have solid strong positions on a host of issues that are in the Populist majority.
In many house races either the other candidate has zero money or even worse they don't even bother to push for a debate. I'm thinking of Zoe Lofgren, a truly bought and paid for corporate representative in California, Silicon valley. She is pushing for more guest worker Visas and her opponent literally had zero campaign funds, never even got out once to even speak.
She is notorious as a corporate tool, yet gets the immigration subcommittee chair, ignores what is going on in tech labor 100%, just pushing the corporate agenda through that subcommittee.
She won with 75% or so of the vote.
Tons of these examples and then even worse, the real power in Congress is who chairs the committees, subcommittees since bills go there to basically die. These chairs refuse to bring them up for a vote to put them on the House/Senate floor and if that isn't enough the House and Senate leadership control the floor on which bills will even be brought up for a vote.
and if that is not enough, even when a bill passes both houses, it's possible the corporate lobbyists will get their conferees who are supposed to iron out the differences between House and Senate versions of bills but instead often slip in corporate lobbyist written agenda or remove something corporate lobbyist do not like.
They did this to Bernie Sanders scholarship for S&T by increasing H-1B fees amendment. No brainer right? Increase the fees by $1200 per Visa to fund a scholarship college program in the sciences. Passed overwhelmingly both houses and the conferees, doing the corporate lobbyist bidding, ripped it out of the bill.
Democracy in action when both houses can pass something overwhelmingly yet it is still ripped out of a bill before signing.
I think beyond the primaries, challenging the seniority, legislation system within Congress might help Democratize it. If a bill has 200 cosponsors in the house yet the house chair will not let that bill come up for a vote, something is very, very wrong. That's not Democracy in action, that's 1 or a few people dictating legislation.
On the other hand, Jim Webb was drafted and he has really strong credentials plus has truly Populist positions and it didn't hurt George Allen got busted in a racial slur. Another is John Tester, what I would say is another Populist. If one gets really good candidates with positions, representation that the people want, they can win.
But this year in the Oregon 5th, you had a corporate type Democrat, and I'm not kidding, he was more worried about 70,000 illegal immigrants losing their jobs than legal Oregon residents and some guy who dumped his girlfriend off with money in hand at an abortion clinic, while claiming he was "Pro life", plus went on a Cuban junket to party but claiming it was for humanitarian reasons. So of course no one checked out any 3rd parties, which often are even more whacked out and voted for least objectionable candidate, which was the corporate farming lobby, pharmaceutical lobby D candidate.
Yikes, pretty scary stuff, but get this - here in the UK with the oil price plummeting the price of gas at the pump here is still $8.00+ a gallon and it had gone up to as much as $12.00 a gallon last early summer.
To us on this side of the pond the whole thing looks like a desperately shakey pack of cards set to collapse the world over... unless you are in China of course. Buy gold I reckon, lots of it if you can... if you're not as debt ridden as much as everyone else that is.
Professor Michael Pillsbury delivered testimony on this topic to the U.S. China Commission on 3 August 2001, more than a month before 9/11. See page 439 (Page 55 of 115) in the transcript, which mentions the National Science Foundation providing crucial U.S. "dual use" technology to Communist China for free.
And we must not forget the massive theft of U.S. intellectual property from Los Alamos National Lab that allowed the Chinese Communists to build their first ultraminiature hydrogen bomb and detonate it around 1992. Wen Ho Lee, Ph.D. was one of the perpetrators, IMO.
Really is M1.
Every new dollar printed, in theory, is either spent by the Fed buying bonds, or the Fed loaning it to a bank.
This is more debt overall. There is no real M1 here, just more debt.
Isn't debt what is causing the deflation to begin with?
I'd say what we need to combat it isn't loans, but grants; actually printing the money and either spending it on infrastructure or just giving it away; either method would create the hyperinflation we need to combat the deflation and kick start the recovery.
NDD, and it's pretty damn tough to predict trends so congrats to you.
Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi?
Not good news indeed. I'm working on my latest update, and noticed that the latest ISM study is at historic lows.
Unemployment rates in Red States are generally lower.
I don't think that's a reflection of policies as much as voting patterns.
would be a good start. At least then 3rd and 4th parties would have a chance.
Of course Big Money will always get its say. Especially when so many people in this country still trust the government (Look! Over there! A terrorist!).
China and India are benefiting on all these bailouts and stimulus package. TaTa Consulting benefitted from Citigroup and AIG. What a shame. I just hope Obama really helps the american people, but based on his choices, Napolitano for DHS I think I regret that I voted for him. Even though the free trader McCain is more dangerous.
Great post...even though it tends to indicate that with Mr. Helicopter in charge we are truly doomed.
I'm ready to 'restructure' my home loan. Guess I'll read up on American Airlines.
move to Wyoming?
Cash, durable goods, and commodities.
Save your cash as much as you can. Reduce your purchases to needs, not wants. When the real deflation hits, keep an eye on *any* major durable appliance purchase that has a >10 year lifespan, and buy when these are cheap.
In the stock market, I'd still wait- I consider it at least 20% overvalued still. When the DOW goes up over a 5 day period *or* hits 100, that's the time to buy stocks again. Until then, avoid all financial paper markets, they're just too little cash for too much risk during a depression.
Oh, and don't forget what the survivalists teach- a 2-3 year food supply in house is vital.
Ideally, find out what your children are good at, and turn those skills into products you can sell locally.
If you create an account you don't go to the moderation queue and get a host of features.
I was asking this question during the primaries, extensively and I argued for not endorsing candidates until it was assuredly those candidates had Progressive/Populist positions and would stand by them.
In terms of Obama, I never saw such brazen falsehoods, in the blogs, especially on his position on trade as well as falsehoods on Hillary's position. They constantly tried to turn her into Bill when I saw that the real Corporate Billites were in the Obama camp. I'm not saying Hillary was a Progressive but the idea that Obama was/is? To me, pure marketing hype, buying into slogan, "the hot new thing public relations frenzy" denial.
I watched the entire blogosphere turn into Obamanuts and even worse, anyone who pointed out policy positions, the money behind the scenes, white papers, economic advisers and their backgrounds was attacked. I never got into the blog wars like others did but all of this did prompt creation of EP. We needed a true economics community blog, focused on facts, focused on votes, on policy, on bills and not whatever this other stuff was.
I have no answers as to why the blogosphere just blindly endorses to the point they become a PR arm of the Democratic political machine.
I don't know why people would type trillions of bits, give their hard earned cash to candidates without being sure of real positions and I especially do not understand the partisanship over policy positions, except for the fact that Congress is really controlled by a few, the leadership and the Committee chairs. But still, Pelosi isn't a Progressive either and Harry Reid? Please.
I don't understand why they even use the term centrist when it should be corporatist.
and I finally don't understand why bloggers do not simply draft candidates themselves. Jim Webb was drafted by bloggers and it worked out well but it's like that time period is now forgotten.
"Until pols fear you, they won't respect you. Until you can successfully challenge at least a few of the most vulnerable, worst offenders in primaries, why should they?"
While I basically agree with this, it still begs the question. Why don't activists devote more of their energy to displacing incumbents who don't give a hoot about whatever their issue is? If they are, indeed, coopted (as Gary Null has claimed in the case of the environmental movement; BTW, I don't interpret his remarks as meaning every last environmental activist leader has been coopted), then it makes sense that they would avoid rocking any electoral boats, and instead get their followers involved in feel-good but accomplish-nothing demonstrations and actions.
But if they're not coopted, then why haven't they figured out your "simple answer to a simple question?"
It's a quick hit on Open Left and those Partisans are now blasting his post so it might get deleted, especially because it's in the quick hit (kind of like the Instapopulist here but with tighter rules)
original post he's quoting.
On Obama, I sure tried to write many posts on real votes, money, policy and so on and the Obamatrons would blast and they even put out lies on Hillary, which I also confronted.
Didn't matter and now everyone is surprised. Not that Hillary is a real Progressive at all and due to Bill, I cannot blame people for confusing Hillary as Bill, but bottom line she had better positions and policy than Obama for working America and now she will be gagged and hog tied, out of the Domestic agenda way, as Sec. of State.
Now as I recall wasn't it her Iraq vote that had the left so upset?
So, what does that say about Obama when that was a major campaign difference.
I think they are shocked because supposedly Obama amassed that big money through small donors, yet so far at least on economics, the big money got their way.
I think 95% of those up for re-election won, mainly due to the house seats.
It's also who they pick, if anyone bothers to challenge in a primary. Ned Lamont, while really not that bad, simply did not have solid strong positions on a host of issues that are in the Populist majority.
In many house races either the other candidate has zero money or even worse they don't even bother to push for a debate. I'm thinking of Zoe Lofgren, a truly bought and paid for corporate representative in California, Silicon valley. She is pushing for more guest worker Visas and her opponent literally had zero campaign funds, never even got out once to even speak.
She is notorious as a corporate tool, yet gets the immigration subcommittee chair, ignores what is going on in tech labor 100%, just pushing the corporate agenda through that subcommittee.
She won with 75% or so of the vote.
Tons of these examples and then even worse, the real power in Congress is who chairs the committees, subcommittees since bills go there to basically die. These chairs refuse to bring them up for a vote to put them on the House/Senate floor and if that isn't enough the House and Senate leadership control the floor on which bills will even be brought up for a vote.
and if that is not enough, even when a bill passes both houses, it's possible the corporate lobbyists will get their conferees who are supposed to iron out the differences between House and Senate versions of bills but instead often slip in corporate lobbyist written agenda or remove something corporate lobbyist do not like.
They did this to Bernie Sanders scholarship for S&T by increasing H-1B fees amendment. No brainer right? Increase the fees by $1200 per Visa to fund a scholarship college program in the sciences. Passed overwhelmingly both houses and the conferees, doing the corporate lobbyist bidding, ripped it out of the bill.
Democracy in action when both houses can pass something overwhelmingly yet it is still ripped out of a bill before signing.
I think beyond the primaries, challenging the seniority, legislation system within Congress might help Democratize it. If a bill has 200 cosponsors in the house yet the house chair will not let that bill come up for a vote, something is very, very wrong. That's not Democracy in action, that's 1 or a few people dictating legislation.
On the other hand, Jim Webb was drafted and he has really strong credentials plus has truly Populist positions and it didn't hurt George Allen got busted in a racial slur. Another is John Tester, what I would say is another Populist. If one gets really good candidates with positions, representation that the people want, they can win.
But this year in the Oregon 5th, you had a corporate type Democrat, and I'm not kidding, he was more worried about 70,000 illegal immigrants losing their jobs than legal Oregon residents and some guy who dumped his girlfriend off with money in hand at an abortion clinic, while claiming he was "Pro life", plus went on a Cuban junket to party but claiming it was for humanitarian reasons. So of course no one checked out any 3rd parties, which often are even more whacked out and voted for least objectionable candidate, which was the corporate farming lobby, pharmaceutical lobby D candidate.
Yikes, pretty scary stuff, but get this - here in the UK with the oil price plummeting the price of gas at the pump here is still $8.00+ a gallon and it had gone up to as much as $12.00 a gallon last early summer.
To us on this side of the pond the whole thing looks like a desperately shakey pack of cards set to collapse the world over... unless you are in China of course. Buy gold I reckon, lots of it if you can... if you're not as debt ridden as much as everyone else that is.
Ollie
one of the best welfare programs you could utilize in the inner-city to boost people's fortunes is to introduce manufacturing jobs.
That far back and absolutely nothing is done. Our country seems to be hell bent on simply giving everything of value away to the competition.
Seriously, what comes after? How can I protect my children?
Professor Michael Pillsbury delivered testimony on this topic to the U.S. China Commission on 3 August 2001, more than a month before 9/11. See page 439 (Page 55 of 115) in the transcript, which mentions the National Science Foundation providing crucial U.S. "dual use" technology to Communist China for free.
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2001_02hearings/transcripts/01_08_03tran.pdf
And we must not forget the massive theft of U.S. intellectual property from Los Alamos National Lab that allowed the Chinese Communists to build their first ultraminiature hydrogen bomb and detonate it around 1992. Wen Ho Lee, Ph.D. was one of the perpetrators, IMO.
sorry I've been gone so long. We moved from the outer Virginia suburbs of DC to North Carolina a few months ago (no, I do not like it here).
Pages