16
   

The Michele Bachmann Watch

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2011 08:43 am
@Green Witch,
Green Witch wrote:

Sure High Seas, enjoy your lettuce at $9 lb.


HS is likely unaware of the current cost of lettuce, so she doesn't have the context to understand your point.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 02:59 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

YOU get what you pay for. (Demand always trumps anything else)

Of course it does - and that's exactly what the answer to your question on demand says. I'm not surprised it went over the heads of the salad-obsesssed here but you know enough to understand that we'll never get domestic demand going again until the unemployment / underemployment problem is solved.

Finally - your obsession with "trickle down" is puzzling, as there's no such thing in open economy macroeconomics. If it ever existed it was in some closed Keynesian economy - and we definitely don't live in one. We have free movement of financial capital, goods, services, and (up to a point) also labor.
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 05:14 am
Leaving aside that none of this tripe HS is posting has anything to do with Michelle Bachmann--not getting a living wage is being "underemployed" just as surely as if not getting full time work. HS is living in some ugly, selfish, capitalist La-la Land.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 05:32 am
@High Seas,
"trickle down" has al;ways been aided by dereugukation (my main catching point) . NO INDUSTRY will do what it oughta without regulation. ANd, as I said before, regulation spurs new industry to comply. Ill bet that your entire area of business somehow grew in response to a need for better information of mort tables etc.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 05:43 am
@plainoldme,
Polls show Bork Obunga losing to a "generic republican candidate". That means that Donald Duck and Daffy Duck, either one, would beat him.

Best yet, picture a Duck/Duck ticket with both Donald AND Daffy running against Obunga:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTPgmzFaMkmbm0fO73I06P3s2RTEslv0sQkyG_4QyugG4qDXgAwYA

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6cxB6XsqoiDgn2QVfB6sXlGNBHAvDk2TRCT3hzj5cJSiPD9MAEQ

That would create a 49-state landslide with just Maryland and D.C. voting for Bork as in 1980.

Now try picturing a Perry/Cain ticket running against Bork; I can't picture Bork even holding Md. or D.C. against that...
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2011 03:24 pm
Don't believe me?? Try this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/1/pruden-no-panic-yet-but-real-fear/

Quote:

The 2012 presidential marathon is on, and one mainstream pollster (Rasmussen) says a Republican apparition is opening up a lead on President Obama. (Any Republican 46 percent, Barack Obama 42 percent.) A growing number of Democrats figure that whoever can keep his head in the rattle and bang of unexpected events just doesn’t understand the situation.....


One analysis shows Daffy beating Bork Obunga by a lesser margin of forty states or so while Donald beats him in a total rout; that just means the pubbies need to ensure Donald is at the top of the ticket.

High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 06:03 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

"trickle down" has al;ways been aided by dereugukation (my main catching point) . NO INDUSTRY will do what it oughta without regulation. ANd, as I said before, regulation spurs new industry to comply.

Bad regulation is worse than no regulation.

Noplace is that clearer than the debacle caused by the Clinton-era deregulation that brought us the financial crisis. We're still picking up the pieces of that one domestically, neither the new financial law (which doesn't even mention Fannie Mae and the other quasi-public toxic asset collections bailed out by taxpayers and creates yet more incentives to protect "too big to fail" private insurers and banks) nor the Fed's mad money-printing racket have helped unemployment, and, since the new slow-motion euro disaster will eventually reach us too unless Germany can stop it in its tracks, calling for new regulation is daylight madness. To see exactly why, read the brief article by a very highly respected economist, Brad deLong, involved in the 1990s deregulation follies:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/delong115/English
Quote:
Confessions of a Financial Deregulator

BERKELEY – Back in the late 1990’s, in America at least, two schools of thought pushed for more financial deregulation – that is, for repealing the legal separation of investment banking from commercial banking, relaxing banks’ capital requirements, and encouraging more aggressive creation and use of derivatives. If deregulation looks like such a bad idea now, why didn’t it then?

The first school of thought, broadly that of the United States’ Republican Party, was that financial regulation was bad because all regulation was bad. The second, broadly that of the Democratic Party, was somewhat more complicated, and was based on four observations:

· In the global economy’s industrial core, at least, it had then been more than 60 years since financial disruption had had more than a minor impact on overall levels of production and employment. While modern central banks had difficulty in dealing with inflationary shocks, it had been generations since they had seen a deflationary shock that they could not handle.

· The profits of the investment-banking oligarchy (the handful of global investment banks, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan Chase, among others) were far in excess of what any competitive market ought to deliver, owing to these banks’ deep pockets and ability to maneuver through thickets of regulations.

· The long-run market-return gradient – by which those with deep pockets and the patience to take on real-estate, equity, derivative, and other risks reaped outsize returns – seemed to indicate that financial markets were awful at mobilizing society’s risk-bearing capacity.

· The poorer two-thirds of America’s population appeared to be shut out of the opportunities to borrow at reasonable interest rates and to invest at high returns that the top third – especially the rich – enjoyed.

These four observations suggested that some institutional experimentation was in order. Depression-era restrictions on risk seemed less urgent, given the US Federal Reserve’s proven ability to build firewalls between financial distress and aggregate demand. New ways to borrow and to spread risk seemed to have little downside. More competition for investment-banking oligarchs from commercial bankers and insurance companies with deep pockets seemed likely to reduce the investment banking industry’s unconscionable profits.

It seemed worth trying. It wasn’t.

Analytically, we are still picking through the wreckage of this experiment.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 06:15 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Ill bet that your entire area of business somehow grew in response to a need for better information of mort tables etc.

You lost that bet.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 06:50 am
We need to keep our focus on the undeniable fact that Bachmann is a deluded, stupid, uninformed and ignorant bitch. She looks goofy, too.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 06:57 am
@Setanta,
Oh c'mon Set.. You have to admit Bachmann is HOT in a deluded, stupid, uninformed and ignorant bitch kind of way.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 07:07 am
I guess i'm just gettin' old, Boss . . . for my part, not with your ----
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 07:21 am
@Setanta,
You're dang right not with mine.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 09:24 am
@High Seas,
Thats just you speaking with no information other than a denial. Cmon. fess up.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 09:53 am
@farmerman,
How much money are you willing to bet?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 10:15 am
@High Seas,
Hardly worth a bet since you already know the answer and that would make it somewhat suckerish ne? Why not fess up? you can divulge in generalities . However most career paths(even pure research) respond to some new direction in regulations or govt protocols.
Even my area of extraction exploration requires environmental controls that created entire new businesses in the last 30 years.
Would georgeob agree? I think so. One of his companies entire practices (Airp pollution control and design) is a response to clean air and more regs
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 10:21 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Hardly worth a bet since you already know the answer and that would make it somewhat suckerish ne?

Damn! I didn't think you would catch that one Smile Well OK, but this is far too public - if you're really interested will have to reply by PM later this week.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 01:16 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Tuesday, July 05, 2011

For the first time this year, a generic Republican candidate and President Obama are tied in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds a generic Republican candidate picking up 44% of the vote, while Obama receives identical 44% support. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and another eight percent (8%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)


source

Quote:
RCP Average 5/25 - 7/2 -- 44.0 Obama 41.3republican field

RCP
0 Replies
 
Oylok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 10:50 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

Oylok wrote:

High Seas wrote:

Deaf and blind dogs have to eat in order to stay alive - that's a minor detail eluding your otherwise brilliant financial analysis. Bachmann is right.


What makes you believe "staying alive" is the most meaningful thing to any human?............ destructive, asset-stripping variety that has been proposed here.

Destruction and asset stripping proposed here? By whom? How is a dead person (or dog for that matter) going to benefit from your "meaningful" policy?


I probably shouldn't drag this thread into the open again, but I may as well explain what my comments meant.

"Asset-stripping" was not meant literally. It was also the wrong phrase to use as a figure of speech. "Running down of assets" would have been more appropriate. When you pay people below-subsistence wages you wear them out as labour assets. You run them down both physically and mentally. What your country should do instead is develop those labour assets--those people. The rich should look on the poor as assets with long-term potential, rather than as things to use up in mc-jobs that add almost nothing to anyone's quality of life.

As far as my proposal goes that the poor should "starve themselves" rather than work at below-subsistence wages, I don't honestly believe that if the poor threatened that society would just let them die. (And if society DID respond by simply letting the poor die, then the poor would not have lost anything anyway, since their lives consist of pure misery and no real promise that that will change at any point in the future.)

In any case, thanks for taking my comments to be meaningful enough to respond to.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 05:29:13