Political Nihilism My Way
"Like the president, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch came with tin cups to Middle Eastern, Asian and American investors last week, for a combined total of nearly $19.1 billion, after the subprime mortgage debacle blew up their books.
"Citigroup, which raised $7.5 billion from Abu Dhabi in November, raised another $12.5 billion, including from Singapore, Kuwait and Saudi Prince Walid bin Talal. Merrill Lynch gave $6.6 billion in preferred stock to Kuwait, South Korea, a Japanese bank and others."
In reaction to Dowd's note on current beggar-banking practices by American financial institutions, trog69 astutely noted, "It occurred to me that while we complain about the neo-conservative scum driving [President Bush], the ones behind other candidates might deserve more scrutiny."
Yes, but who among the punditry has the intelligence to actually understand the background, the issues, the problems, and the possible "solutions" (such as they are)? In my professional role as an economist, I find little to gain from jumping into the current thunderstorm of opinion journalism about the economy: I'll end up being all wet like everyone else; I'll be swimming upstream no matter which way I try to tread water; and, with my luck, I'll attract lightning from the Right and from the Left.
Even the candidates have little if any grasp of what lies ahead. They are laboring under the generally appropriate assumption that they can talk in general terms and that, once in office, they'll figure out what to do by hiring "experts" to handle all the little-people kind of work. As a consultant, I dealt all the time with "big picture" people who wanted nothing other than to strut their command positions while shoveling off onto irrelevant "techies," "bean-counters," and assorted other slobs the gruelingly hard work of actually making things function properly.
The Bush Administration's variation on that fairly typical work ethic of the rich and powerful was somewhat innovative. Little exists in the way of evidence that the "big-picture" neo-con thinkers and movers cared even about getting relatively competent hired help: the emphasis was on loyalty and ideological compatibility, which are flamingly disastrous qualities for working the engine room of the ship of state.
With respect to the leading Democratic candidates, let me not mince words.
John Edwards is too detached and uneducated about finance and investments to understand the basics of his own business relationships, and he'll have no clue as to whether or not the people under him are truly capable of handling the financial and economic affairs of state. I do not want a vapid fool stepping into every pit he comes across on the perilous road ahead, and that's exactly what we'll get with a President John Edwards.
Barack Obama—and, here, I speak from some personal information and experience—is all about style, and he specifically relies upon his "people" to keep real, point-specific problems from ever vexing him. His people are masterful at doing just that, which indicates to me that their expertise lies in form, not in substance. I do not want a style-over-substance showman in the White House, and I certainly don't want another round of Administration officials who twist people and the media around, obfuscate, and play games instead of hitting hard questions and problems head-on. My own interactions with Sen. Obama's staff have left me with a sour taste in my professional mouth that tells me this product will be no more beneficial to the health of this nation than it was to my journalistic palate.
Hillary Clinton is infused of an entirely neo-Keynesian mentality when it comes to guidance in formulating economic relations among the federal government, industry, and the citizenry. This neo-Keynesian approach to prescriptive forward-looking policy used to work quite well, although it was never particularly beneficial (nor was it intended to be) for workers; but neo-Keynesianism is wholly inadequate in practical terms for the problems of real people—real citizens—in this era. Neo-Keynesianism had its last run of success in the 1990s; but even then, it was marginally failing, although the criticality of its prescriptive flaws would be felt only in the longer run. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton has no capacity to reach beyond what she knows as a politician facing economic problems, and that means she will try to apply old solutions that just aren't going to work in the 21st Century. I do not want a President locked into the politics of moving on, lashed to the cart of politics-as-usual, believing that supposedly tried-and-true technocratic methodology of the past is entirely relevant to complex problems of the future.
More to the point, the politics of just moving on will ultimately be a disaster in precisely the same way that it was for the Democrats in 1993. Bill Clinton's greatest failure as a President was that he and the emergent, so-called "centrist" Democrats in Congress somehow thought that letting by-gones be by-gones with respect to more than a decade of Reagan/Bush criminality and malfeasance was in the best interest of the country; but as the Republican Revolution—culminating as it did in two terms for George W. Bush—proved, the politics of appeasement was catastrophic not only for the Democratic Party, but also for the country and for many people who had tried to hand the Democrats mountains of evidence they could have used to utterly destroy the Republicans and their leadership. Bill Clinton's second greatest failure—and this is where Saint Al Gore gets his share of the blame—was thinking that "industrial policy," which for decades had been the love-child of the centrist neo-Keynesians, could keep on chugging along, continuing to erode the purchasing power of workers while allowing yet another round of near-monopolies—this time in the emerging telecommunications and computer software and hardware sectors—to arise to control the business landscape. Unlike during previous eras, however, there was no "countervailing power" (to appropriate economist John Kenneth Galbraith's terminology) on the labor side, even though that force had never been anything more than a union-driven showpiece for the working classes to think they had a power they never really did.
It's not as if President Eisenhower hadn't warned us about the military-industrial complex. It remains to be seen how long it will take informed citizens to determine that, like the marriage of government to military contractors, a union of that same government to high-technology companies and the healthcare industry will prove no more beneficial to the vast majority of people. (On the bright side, at least this marriage will ensure that, while people will still suffer economic hardships and their own mortality, at least they will die computer-literate and relatively pain-free.)
In summary, I have no use for any of the leading Democratic candidates. Paradoxically, though, I have more use for them than I do for any of the Republican candidates.
That leaves me with few options when I vote in November. I look forward to that problem because, as an economist with a healthy appreciation for free market capitalism, it's not a problem at all. Far too many people go to the store and buy Brand X knowing full well that it's simply awful; but they buy it anyway because they're convinced that it's better than Brand Y. Somehow, in that buying decision process they might even manage to get excited about going home with Brand X. The alternative—an alternative that a free market offers but no one contemplates as practical—is simply to walk out of the store empty-handed. If prospective buyers did that, the manufacturers of Brand X and/or Brand Y would eventually figure out that business survival depends upon offering either a better product or a better lie. Either way, consumers would be happier.
The reality, of course, is that consumers would prefer to walk out of the store with something—anything—rather than starve for a while until they were given better choices. To some extent, that's understandable: people don't like going shopping and returning home with nothing: surely, something is always better than nothing; and if this means that the rest of the consumers, those who would be willing to wait for a genuine deal, never get what they want, that's just too bad.
As much as free markets are capable of punishing the weak, the inefficient, and the low-quality, they are equally capable of delivering to the market merely enough to keep a flow of customers coming back, asking plaintively, "May I please have something in my hands when I leave the store on November 4, 2008?" Even if it's absolutely terrible, it's better than nothing, isn't it?
For my part, I plan to leave the store without asking for another slap in the face. If I want an insult to my intelligence, I'll read what the pundits are writing today about why the economy is headed to Hell in a foreign-made handbasket.
But that's just me.
The Dark Wraith certainly invites no one on his personal quest for self-actualized political nihilism.
Comments
Wrote trog69:
Wrote Dusty:
Good afternoon Darkest of Wraiths,
I guess I am a political nihilist too then.. since I came to the sad realization that the Democrats are just as big a bunch of liars and corporate-loving idiots as the Republicans. I trust no one at this point, and do not really see anyone on the horizon that will change my pov.
The only thing left for me is to figure out which of my cats I will honor by writing in their name on my ballot.
Wrote trog69:
From the sidebar of Ol' Grumpy McSnarlyPants: Has anyone else noticed the kids...
Yeah, we noticed. I think someone needs a nap.
Wrote Peter of Lone Tree:
Economic Armageddon news from the British Guardian:
"One of Britain's biggest property funds was forced to shut its doors to withdrawals yesterday after the slump in commercial prices triggered panic selling by small investors.
"The move prompted fears of a Northern Rock-style run on billions of pounds invested in once high-flying funds which many savers have seen as a safe haven for their pensions."
Wrote trog69:
Good evening, DW and D usty.
You realize you are now with the majority, right? HRC gets the highest ratings due to her efficient machine, but really; Nobody stands out as someone at least 1/2 the country would be comfortable with. Clinton wins only because the left will get out the vote due to fear of another 4 years of Bush.
Wrote Wild Clover:
DW:
I will have to take exception to your grocery store analogy. I have often walked out of a store having bought nothing, where the price/quality/availability meant that the purchase must be postponed. Now, I also am an individual, where my purchase or non purchase of a specific item has no real time constraint or effect on others. In an election, however, some choice WILL be foisted upon me, willing or not, and where large numbers of consumers of laundry soap could effect change by boycott, all a boycott of the major parties would achieve is the likelyhood of the winner being the moster, rather than the lesser of two evils.
On a tiny scale, my childhood pediatrition ended up on our town council through the expedient of himself and his wife writing him in on the democratic primary-where no one was running. I will write in candidates in races where the incumbent is unopposed. I will write in in local races where I don't have a clue about the candidates. I voted for Ross Perot in the presidential race solely because I did not care who got the WH and thought that if by some chance Perot had won, it would have been fun as hell.
If you want to analogize the current presidential race as grocery shopping, let's call the candidates laundry detergent. You MUST buy some, simply because you will be fired if you don't wash your clothes sometime this week, and cannot afford to simply replace your wardrobe or send it out to the cleaners. You have a choice of 6 brands in your town. 3 you know as being overpriced once you calculate the price per load, though the boxes are big and cheap. These same three have a heavy lye component, which is going to destroy some of your favorite clothing after a couple washes, as well as being full to the brim of environmentslly unsafe phosphates. One has a utlitarian look, no perfumes, but has more artificial chemicals than the others. One box evokes country living, but it's per load cost is literally astronomical, and the third is very slick, but the formulation and perfuming changes so often your would be kind of scared to use it. The other 3 are kind of pricey short term, but once the per load is calculated, the price is decent long term. One has a pretty package, is cheapest for the consumer, will get your whites whiter, but doesn't clean all that spectacularly overall. Another has a classy package, will keep your colors brighter, but is pricy. Overall, cleaning is no more than servicable. The third is a rather utilitarian package, over all cleans better than the other two, but has added artifical fragrance.
So, you come down to choices where 3 eventually degrade the quality of life, even though they will do a wonderful job of cleaning-until the cloth dissolves of course, or 3 that each has a weakness, but long term will do little harm. You MUST have the product tonight. It is not the case of being unwilling to do without, it is a case of cannot. So, do you run with the least amount you can spend, best value, best environmental choice, or prettiest packaging? I personally look for the best long term value, no matter what kind of package it is in. Ruining my clothes is not an option, so I'm down to three choices. Either brighter whites or better overall is what I'd go for, and perfume free is a plus. Did I get the best product, the one I'd want to walk in and get? No, because I'd prefer a meld of several of the attributes given, or that one detergent that smelled fresh, did the job well, and wasn't destructive or overpriced but was discontinued because the advertising buget was not good enough.
For the first time in recent memory, the Democrats have multiple decent candidates for president. Are any of them perfect? Hell no. Do I trust them? Not completely, but I trust them to act as honest corrupt politicians-do right by the country so you can keep going back to the well- something the new breed of corrupt republicans have forgotten how to do. It is not the choice between awful brand Y and horrid brand X. It is a choice between multiple brands and labels, all of which have drawbacks. But all of the choices that make long term sense also all have strengths to help balance the drawbacks.
As a final point-record numbers are out doing the primary thing. The number of politically awake and aware progressives now as compared to a year ago is by appearances staggering. Once awake, they won't go back to sleep, at least for a while. While the republicans have no problem with ignoring the people's will, the 'spineless' dems have to listen or lose therir membership cards. We will see a lot that is good happen, no matter which dem takes the presidency. And I personally don't give a damn if the good comes from conviction or from caluated pandering to the progressive/liberal base-results is all I care about.
Wrote Peter of Lone Tree:
"...all a boycott of the major parties would achieve is the likelyhood of the winner being the moster..." -- Wild Clover
WC, did you perhaps intend to type "mobster"?
Wrote Dusty:
Good Morning to all,
I will [not vote for the lesser of two evils. Personally, I am sick-to-friggin-death of the Democratic Party taken my vote for granted. I believe the margin of evil is paper thin between both parties that it doesn't matter which one is in power..the resulting policies will be the same, regardless of who is in charge.
It drives me up the wall when folks say that they will vote for Hillary just to keep from having another Republican President. I think its pathetic that we, the universal we, do that time and time again.
Because to me, there is no difference between the Rethugs and the Democraps. None, nada, zilch, zero. I believe they are liars each and every time they open their pieholes.
Kucinich is the only candidate that even comes close to my stand on most of the 'issues', and even he is a weak one at that. He stood by as his own state, Ohio, floundered around with voting problems and what I believe was the theft of their votes.
I think its time to put on my tinfoil hat as I have lost all faith in our system and the people that run this country.
If 'progressives' actually vote for Hillary they are not progressives to me any longer..they just give lip service to the progressive movement. Voting my conscience is more important to me than keeping another Rethug out of office.
And if Hillary wins you can bet your sweet behinds I will be there screaming "I TOLD YOU SO" when all the so-called progressives start bitching about her and her policies.
Wrote Dusty:
Also..I will not hold it against any of the so-called liberals for casting a vote for sHillary, but I will give them a world of shit about it when they come to the realization that the new boss is pretty much the same as the old boss, minus the inability to string two sentences together that make sense of course. ;p
Wrote kelley b:
Good afternoon Dark Wraith & colleagues
Although nihilism is understandable, generally anger is a more useful emotion than despair.
But don't waste it on the Wal-Mart hillbillies. You didn't bother getting angry about the skunk you encountered a few weeks ago, did you?
Wrote Minstrel Boy:
yeah, i got me little hope over the outcome of the next election. i also number among my "worst case scenarios" big democratic wins in the white house and both houses of congress. i am pretty much a "divided we might survive" political thinker these days. i figure if we can divide the government branches enough they will oppose and block any efforts at changing stuff and that inaction is to be valued above acting like idiots.
get it? divided we might survive.
Wrote trog69:
I don't think we can afford a standing still approach anymore. This is no longer elective surgery; The patient has massive internal and external bleeding, severe head injuries, impotency, and the worst case of ingrown toenail I've ever seen.
==================================
Edited 'cause I just thought of this.
MB, don't get me too wrong, I understand the concern when the surgeons, all three, who happen to be brothers, start scrubbing up. Nyuk nyuk nyuk!
Wrote trog69:
Good morning, Dusty.
Awesome point on K's absence in '04 and the Ohio travesty. Where the hell was he? I admit that it didn't occur to me; When Kerry slunked off back to his swamp(mansion) without a fairtheewell or kiss my ass, I was astounded. All his big talk was shown to be just that. Talk. "Just accept your circumstances, little people. Nothing to be done here...well, I'm off. Thanks for playing!"
Wrote Dusty:
Hello Trog, hope your listening to some good blues..if not lemme know and I will send you some more ok?
Kucinich was an elected rep at the time..and left it to the state Senator to deal with 'the problem'.
No one is perfect, and I realize that. But he fights so hard for other issues..and making sure the votes are counted correctly is a fundamental issue for me.
I did not vote for Kerry..he was worthless IMO, and my feline Scooter Lee got my Presidential vote that year.
Wrote blackdog:
When Kerry said at the DNC "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty" I was mesmerized.
With his military background and history of questioning the Vietnam debacle I was sold. Lock, stock and barrel.
I am wearing right now a tee-shirt that proclaims, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Kerry".
And it was more than obvious to me then that the shrub was anathema to this nation.
I will not waste my vote for any third-party candidate, maybe at some point in the future that will be worth considering, but now the goal should be to get dims back in at all costs.
It's been a long time since they screwed the pooch as bad as rethuglikans have.
One step at a time, and the correction of the problems we face may take a very long time, assuming that we can effect repairs at all.
Wrote trog69:
WC, did you perhaps intend to type "mobster"?
I was going with "monster"; Yours works as well.
Wrote LindiBee:
I do realize, sadly, that most of the people in the race presently are economic semi-literates at best, complete incompetents at worst. I'd like to ask our Host, what would be your dream Presidential ticket- is there anyone in the USA right now that would have the intelligence and political savvy to mitigate the damage as this oncoming recession unfolds?
Wrote Dark Wraith:
A Republican, LindiBee.
As Right-wing, as deeply religious, as supply-side, as nativist, as privacy-invading, and as hawkish as possible.
Let the American people see what their mythical "traditional American values" is worth when the survival of the republic is really on the line.
The Dark Wraith thinks that might straighten out more than a few citizens' values for a couple of election cycles.
Wrote trog69:
A Republican, LindiBee.
As Right-wing, as deeply religious, as supply-side, as nativist, as privacy-invading, and as hawkish as possible.
What, another one?
Wrote Wild Clover:
WC, did you perhaps intend to type "mobster"?
I was going with "monster"; Yours works as well.
I figured this was going to cause problems. You have the lesser of two evils, right? Well, of our two evils this coming November, the republican will be the moster of the two evils. Though maybe it should be morer (less, more...less.most... ehh).
Wrote trog69:
I caught yer drift the first time Wild Clover. I was jes playin'.
Wrote Brooke:
DW: I'd love to hear what you think of the Fed's 3/4 point rate cut, and the fall of stocks this morning.
Wrote trog69:
Me too! While your at it, please explain to us why you are pushing so hard for Giuliani for President? This NyTimes article on his vindictiveness to those big and small, should explain why I detest the man with the intensity of two supermassive black holes colliding. Why, sir, why? HEHEHE.
Wrote Father Tyme:
DW,
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. With the global selloff, who are the winners and how did they prepare?
Wrote Father Tyme:
Damn, first time in a couple of months that my browser let me on this site. Not that I was getting paranoid or nuttin"
Damn!
Wrote Weaseldog:
Cutting interest rates and taxes, is the cause and cure for all of life's problems.
Wrote trog69:
Cutting interest rates and taxes, is the cause and cure for all of life's problems.
Well, yes and no.
Wrote trog69:
Hi Padre. Glad you could make it.
Wrote Father Tyme:
trog69,
Talk about frustration. I can access just about every other one but for some reason FireFox would tell me I was logged in then when I hit enter the forum would tell me I had to be logged in to comment.
I was beginning to worry about my mouth wash!
Wrote Peter of Lone Tree:
As Right-wing, as deeply religious, as supply-side, as nativist, as privacy-invading, and as hawkish as possible.
Yup! We won't have "A chicken in every pot", "two cars in every garage", and "prosperity just around the corner", until there's a Blackwater mercenary on every street corner, spy cameras in every household, the complete outlawing of cigarettes and alcoholic beverages, compulsory church attendance, and the proper display of obeisance to the priveleged members of the community in which we live.
Wrote Father Tyme:
Peter,
Does that mean that the rent-a-cops we may be intent on becoming will be able to use our new-found powers to peek in on those privileged members in our spare time? Or didn't they think of that?
Wrote Dark Wraith:
Forgive my absence, today, good people. This is one of the head-banger days of the week for classes: start hollering at 8:00 a.m., stop hollering at 9:00 p.m.
Provided I don't return to my computer too fatigued to debate broccoli (or a neo-con, but I repeat myself), I'll make a brief pass at ranting here in comments about how the cooling water of liquidity, compliments of the Fed, becomes nothing but the gasoline on a fire of inflation.
The Federal Reserve has been the enabler of the Bush Administration's fiscal irresponsibility for nearly seven years; and now that the Fed could actually help the economy (although that's not its job), a loose monetary policy is completely useless against a recessionary downturn just like morphine is useless against pain to a hard-core morphine addict. The pour-money-into-the-economy gambit will not work: it was used with irresponsible discretion when it wasn't needed, so it has no power no influence outcomes favorably now that it really is needed. All this excess liquidity is going to do is create high-powered inflation, which will come fast and furious, and it will be up to the next President to deal with the ugliness of a howling recession lashed to the heavy horse of inflationary expectations that have been building into markets for years, now.
Thank a partisan Federal Reserve (and that includes the era before Bernanke) as much as a reckless White House and an obsequious Congress, both the Republican version we had for six years and this spineless Democratic one we've had more than long enough to have seen Bush get impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate.
Ah, it seems I couldn't keep that rant at bay for even a few more hours.
The Dark Wraith has to get back to class to yell about precisely this same matter.
Wrote Wild Clover:
...And yet another reason to be pissed off personally at the republican economy...My piddly 401K lost $424 this month so far. That's around 14% of the present value.
I actually did a rebalance tonight in hopes of my funds picking up a bunch of stuff on the cheap on the morrow. But this is precisely what private accounts vs/ SS would do...more than my whole year's profit wiped out in a month. This is what happens whan the US crashes badly enough to screw up my nice foreign stock fund. Grrrrr.
Wrote Dark Wraith:
Indeed, Wild Clover, but if it's any consolation to you, the wealthy were moving out of this market months ago. (They, as I, were expecting the heavy downturn somewhat prematurely).
It is worth a good feeling or two to know that the rich people are not going to suffer. It's almost enough to make one realize that there really is a god, and that god is neither partisan nor particularly interested in the newly impoverished.
One more note is in order: the longer the middle class and working poor hold on to their stocks that are tanking, the more they are the ones who eat the full brunt of the losses in a hurricane down market. Those who are now selling—thereby creating the downward spiral in stock prices—are the ones who are shifting the progressively deeper losses to those who are not selling.
And by the way, there's one more piece of good news: there is a floor on how much you can lose in your portfolio. A stock price cannot go below zero; hence, the worst you can lose is everything.
The Dark Wraith spreads joy and cheer at every available opportunity.
Wrote zipperhead:
"The Dark Wraith spreads joy and cheer at every available opportunity."
Yes, and thank goodness for that too. One would hate to imagine the opposite.
Now allow me to offer a little joy and cheer concerning a solution to the political nihilism issue. Hear me out. John Edwards may not be so bad afterall.
http://spacetimecurves.blogspot.com/2008/01/left-handed-endorsement-is-best-lefty.html#links
For one thing, he has managed to make a successful career as a trial lawyer. That would seem to indicate he at least has essential learning capacity and thinking skills. Any reservations about his econmic savvy can be allayed simply by offering to him your services as chief economic advisor. You might even find him a satisfying pupil. You could thereby continue in the noble profession of teaching, light a candle in the darkness of an otherwise hopeless election, rescue your country from economic ruin, and save yourself from descent into the abyss of nihilistic futility, and incidently address the issues of your own vocational uncertainties for at least the next 4 years, ALL IN ONE SWOOP. !!!
What are you waiting for?
Wrote zipperhead:
PS: plus, it woud put you in one heck of a position to proceed with your haircut schemes.
Wrote Weaseldog:
I had a number of people tell me a while back that their investments were safe because they weren't in real estate.
They'd look at me funny when I'd give some glib reply like, "That's good, because the real estate crash is going to affect 'Goods, Services and Finance'. If your money isn't in one of those, it is probably safe.
I'll be 45 on Thomas Paine's Birthday. I don't understand why other people my age haven't figured out that everything is connected. They still continue to believe that this time, things will be different.
Wrote kelley b:
Thanks for the link, zipperhead.
Not that I think Edwards stands a chance with the system or won't bend to the will of the robber barons if enough pre$$ure is sent his way.
But that's part of the problem of the American system of government in the 21st Century.
Anybody who's absolutely honest and sane can't get anywhere near the Oval Office, even if they wanted to do so.
Wrote trog69:
Mebbe it'll prove provident that I'm already locked into my pension.
Wrote zipperhead:
Barack Obama:
"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
John Edwards:
"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class, to the working people ...
He was openly -- openly-- intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country...He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment. I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."
Although John Edwards is not a wizard of finance, (as opposed to who? ... Alan Greenspan?) at least he is not vapid in his assessments of past political icons, and can recognize wreck and ruin when he sees it.
Wrote Wild Clover:
>> this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."<<
Which Obama actually didn't do. Well, he did but did not definre the change as good or bad. His phrasing was crappy for speaking to the sound bite crowd. Public sentiment DID feel something needed to be done about welfare, about union power, etc. Just instead of giving the system a tune-up like you would your car, the Reaganites did their best to junk it. Look at all the fairly simple solutions for the so-called social security crisis...remember when it was one of the burning crisis issues of George Bush and company? Has any one in the administration even mentioned it since they tried to gut it? Those simple solutions are becoming more complex the longer it is ignored. The neo-cons don't care-they on;y care to play if they make the rules.
Dw-
Since to lose money in the 401K it would have to eat 3 years of profit plus 50% of the contribution-my employer cash match- I'm fairly sanguine that I won't lose any of my own money. And,as the person on NPR mentioned today(or yesterday), right now my little $15 contribution is buying a lot more stock than it was a month ago, so when it hits the upswing, I'll be in a better position. This all assumes the optomistic premise that the market recovers in the next 15 years(before I retire) and isn't in the throes of this type of happy horseshit then too. I do love how the interest rate cut had the stocks falling further...
And if my 3 grand is wiped out completely? I won't be much worse off than before. I mean, what's 3 months of living expenses vs hopefully 20+ years of retirement?
Though I admit to some concern about my significant other's parents investments...you are looking at at least a mil, and if they don't spend ibefore they die, the leftovers would sure be nice.
Wrote Peter of Lone Tree:
Would The Wraith care to comment or provide a post on the wild swings experienced by the world's stock markets lately? I seem to recall some info from at least 30 years ago or more that when wild swings are encountered, that's the time to stock up on food and water.
Ms. Clow over at Conspiracy Planet says the big day will be Jan. 30.
Wrote trog69:
Wild Clover, I agree that O'Boy didn't imply that Reagan's driving was all that, just that a detour had become an option that he took. What I think he doesn't take into consideration is that Reagan was the real start of 'smoke and mirrors', bait and switch, and using the MSM as a tool, rather than just watchdogs.
So what's Bushy's swan song to RR gonna look like? It sure ain't gonna be the tax hikes Ronnie was forced to impose.
From Historical Perspective: One can't help but wonder: If Reagan were running for reelection this year, would the Club for Growth target him for defeat, decrying his embrace of three major tax hikes?
For some reason, the site wouldn't let me append the url.
Please don't use words of lengths higher than 90 in your comments?
Wrote trog69:
From the comments at Dispatches from the Culture Wars: "Prosperity Gospel" Victims~on the topic of critical thinking:
If you ask young children if Jack was right to sell his only cow for some "magic beans," the answer is always "Yes." The beans were magic. Point out that Jack couldn't know this, and only some older kids and adults will hesitate on whether Jack chose wisely. Young kids still look at how the story turned out and insist that of course Jack made the right choice. They can't separate consequences from method.
Wrote trog69:
Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda.
For those of us who thought ol' General Colin was just led astray during his rousing fact-free UN speech. I was surprised at how 2-faced his Gruppenfuhrer Wilkerson becomes when you factor how often Powell had to have lied to show that many instances in those 2 years. "Lowest point in my life", my ass you co-fucking-conspirator.
Add Comments
Log in
Become a Registered Commenter
« Return to the main page.
This blog offers Internet travelers a place where they can discuss economics, finance, politics, and other topics of scholarly and practical interest to thinking people. Your comments are always welcome, and your visits are most appreciated.
Your host of this Weblog is an award-winning college teacher and writer who specializes in economics, finance, mathematics, business administration, computer hardware and software skills, and English grammar and composition. His extensive writings on the history of the English language appeared on About.com in the avatar of the Selig Wraith in the 
Send a Secure Message to the Dark Wraith
![[Valid RSS]](http://dark-wraith.com/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Perhaps you'd like to start with this one on Ben Bernanke; My untrained eyes found it fairly fair. I'll leave it to others to decide whether it's balanced.