The BUSH Economy in 2012

[cybrsage]

It is the fault of a republican when things go bad, but not the fault of a dem when things go bad. When things go good, it is not caused by a republican but when things go good it IS caused by a democrat.

At least that is how Bonzai views things. He is a dem shill.

 

[nehalem256]

Too many Wall Street insiders during the Bush term placed their bets on a pending collapse about which the Bush administration seemed clueless. But, no! He couldn't compromise his "free market principles" to promote fresh regulatory legislation to head off the disaster before it occurred.

Which of course explains why Bear Sterns was sold off at firesale prices to JP Morgan
Why Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
Why Merryl Lynch had to sell itself to Bank of America
Why AIG required a $100 Billion+ in Government support
And why Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs had to convert to bank holding companies.

It was all because of their betting on a pending collapse of the housing bubble 😵

 

[CycloWizard]

Exactly, and oil is a perfectly good reason to go to war. One of the primary purposes of a military is to ensure the flow of resources which are vital to the survival of the nation...and oil certainly is vital to the survival of the nation.

Absolutely not. You cannot justify war, morally or even economically, simply for flow assurance purposes. You might want to check those calculations again.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

It is the fault of a republican when things go bad, but not the fault of a dem when things go bad. When things go good, it is not caused by a republican but when things go good it IS caused by a democrat.

At least that is how Bonzai views things. He is a dem shill.

You still aren't explaining WHY that theory might be wrong or even if its true.

You are calling him a name instead of trying to make a case for your position.

There is a term for that!

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Which of course explains why Bear Sterns was sold off at firesale prices to JP Morgan
Why Lehman Brothers went bankrupt.
Why Merryl Lynch had to sell itself to Bank of America
Why AIG required a $100 Billion+ in Government support
And why Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs had to convert to bank holding companies.

It was all because of their betting on a pending collapse of the housing bubble 😵

Gosh, I wonder how many at those firms pocketed bonuses despite knowing about that potential housing bubble eh?

Not sure you want to go down that path nehalem256.

 

[cybrsage]

Absolutely not. You cannot justify war, morally or even economically, simply for flow assurance purposes. You might want to check those calculations again.

Sure you can. The primary purpose of the military is to ensure the survival of the nation. The nation will collapse into anarchy and misery if the flow of oil is not assured. This is bad for the survival of the nation.

Hence, using basic logic, the military should be used to ensure the flow of oil.

Why do you think the military should NOT be used to ensure the nation does not collapse?

 

[cybrsage]

You still aren't explaining WHY that theory might be wrong or even if its true.

You are calling him a name instead of trying to make a case for your position.

There is a term for that!

Is an explaination even needed as to why saying republicans are always bad and democrats are always good is a bad theory? Seriously?

 

[nehalem256]

Gosh, I wonder how many at those firms pocketed bonuses despite knowing about that potential housing bubble eh?

Not sure you want to go down that path nehalem256.

How does Wall Street executives being greedy and corrupt and anyway refute the list of companies that failed to prepare for a collapse of the housing bubble?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Sure you can. The primary purpose of the military is to ensure the survival of the nation. The nation will collapse into anarchy and misery if the flow of oil is not assured. This is bad for the survival of the nation.

Hence, using basic logic, the military should be used to ensure the flow of oil.

Why do you think the military should NOT be used to ensure the nation does not collapse?

When Hitler invaded Russia, the Panzer divisions were split between Stalingrad and the Baku oil fields to the south. He had already overextended himself throwing Rommel into North Africa and the Middle East, and the oil imperative had already become common knowledge by the time the Brits had drawn lines with the Balfour declarations. He lost Stalingrad for more than one reason, but you have to throw the strategy into the mix. Without going back in history to look at national oil extraction statistics, it was reported recently that about 50,000 barrels of oil were produced in Germany last year.

Leaving aside the moral issues and troubles that began with the German election of 1932, this bears somewhat on the current dilemma. If you want to see a present-day analog to Siemens or I.G. Farben, look for headquarters in Houston and Dallas.

Ultimately, the point I will continue to make is this. You want free markets? You want a populist form of capitalism? Then why keep feeding tons of money to an industry that can only depend on government contracts (defense) with little controls, lax oversight? Why allow foreign policy to be influenced by an oil industry for which there is no practical "substitute good" (an oil alternative)? Do you vote for the main investors on the Exxon-Mobil board of directors when you vote in November? Is that a "free market" in a level playing field? Do you assume that those boards of directors will always make the best decisions for the country, or that those decisions aren't simply the head of a dog wagging a legislative and executive tail?

What are you willing to give up to assure a supply of gasoline and diesel for which the supply price can only go up in the long run?

If Obama happened to be LBJ, I'd be stuck between a rock and a hard place as a "shill for the Dems."

 

[Smoblikat]

Well P&N has died too, has to be Obama's fault as well.

No worries, Republicans and President Romney will save us.

Im a die-hard republican and that joke wasnt even funny to me. We are doomed if romney OR obama gets in office.

 

[CycloWizard]

Sure you can. The primary purpose of the military is to ensure the survival of the nation. The nation will collapse into anarchy and misery if the flow of oil is not assured. This is bad for the survival of the nation.

Hence, using basic logic, the military should be used to ensure the flow of oil.

Why do you think the military should NOT be used to ensure the nation does not collapse?

Your premise is flawed: a military exists to defend a nation from foreign aggression, not to perpetuate its survival using any means necessary. A corollary of your theory is that if I am rich enough to employ highly trained mercenaries with lots of nice weapons, I can take whatever resources I need. Just War Theory clearly states why this is not the case (specifically, Jus ad Bellum).

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Im a die-hard republican and that joke wasnt even funny to me. We are doomed if romney OR obama gets in office.

Every year, my UC dorm brothers schedule a luncheon in Arcadia near LA. So two weeks ago, I entered the banquet room, sat down to be greeted with the full attention of everyone, and asked a simple question: "What is your worst fear -- as if you were Winston in "1984" pointed toward "room 101" -- for the next five years." It was almost as if the answer had been rehearsed: "The Republicans win in November."

A few of my colleagues were registered Republicans.

Here's another question, after an observation. We always assume our elections are a "level playing field." And also -- my own assumption and posit: "Talent is not so unevenly distributed over demographic regions that certain statistics would show 'significance' in the question I'm about to ask.

So here's the question. Ignoring Eisenhower -- born in Texas and raised in Kansas and the world -- but paying heed to the farewell address of 1961 -- "Which two states combined claim the political origins of 55% of terms or 65% of presidential term years since 1960, when growth in those states left the number of congressional seats or population components at the same 19% (combined) between 1960 and 2004?"

And the next question: "What industries did those states have in common and in combination during most of that time?"

Or another question: "Which states in the lower 48 have the largest amount of paved highway miles?"

ADDENDUM:

Gosh, I wonder how many at those firms pocketed bonuses despite knowing about that potential housing bubble eh?

Not sure you want to go down that path nehalem256.

I was going to come back about that, but your point seems perfectly adequate. Certain traders saw it coming -- that became common knowledge in 2009. But there had also been one or more people working with Greenspan, Paulson, Geithner and others during the Clinton years -- who warned of it. Hindsight is always better vision, which would maybe buy you a dime and a cup of coffee. But how then did no one draw on the Depression-era reasons for passing Glass-Steagall in the first place?

Ultimately, we may find that leaders or prospective leaders flipping us platitudes of over-generalized "principles" drawn from classical economic models, the media which promotes that oversimplification and so forth, and a public which accepts it in a present-oriented haze -- take us toward history repeating itself. IF that's "hindsight," it may nevertheless be "golden." How many repetitions in history does it take before successive generations can begin to avoid unnecessary disaster?

 

[werepossum]

Every year, my UC dorm brothers schedule a luncheon in Arcadia near LA. So two weeks ago, I entered the banquet room, sat down to be greeted with the full attention of everyone, and asked a simple question: "What is your worst fear -- as if you were Winston in "1984" pointed toward "room 101" -- for the next five years." It was almost as if the answer had been rehearsed: "The Republicans win in November."

A few of my colleagues were registered Republicans.

Here's another question, after an observation. We always assume our elections are a "level playing field." And also -- my own assumption and posit: "Talent is not so unevenly distributed over demographic regions that certain statistics would show 'significance' in the question I'm about to ask.

So here's the question. Ignoring Eisenhower -- born in Texas and raised in Kansas and the world -- but paying heed to the farewell address of 1961 -- "Which two states combined claim the political origins of 55% of terms or 65% of presidential term years since 1960, when growth in those states left the number of congressional seats or population components at the same 19% (combined) between 1960 and 2004?"

And the next question: "What industries did those states have in common and in combination during most of that time?"

Or another question: "Which states in the lower 48 have the largest amount of paved highway miles?"

ADDENDUM:



I was going to come back about that, but your point seems perfectly adequate. Certain traders saw it coming -- that became common knowledge in 2009. But there had also been one or more people working with Greenspan, Paulson, Geithner and others during the Clinton years -- who warned of it. Hindsight is always better vision, which would maybe buy you a dime and a cup of coffee. But how then did no one draw on the Depression-era reasons for passing Glass-Steagall in the first place?

Ultimately, we may find that leaders or prospective leaders flipping us platitudes of over-generalized "principles" drawn from classical economic models, the media which promotes that oversimplification and so forth, and a public which accepts it in a present-oriented haze -- take us toward history repeating itself. IF that's "hindsight," it may nevertheless be "golden." How many repetitions in history does it take before successive generations can begin to avoid unnecessary disaster?

Wow, the next step in proggie evolution. It's no longer enough to drink the Kool-Aid, one must BE the Kool-Aid.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Wow, the next step in proggie evolution. It's no longer enough to drink the Kool-Aid, one must BE the Kool-Aid.

You didn't think it useful to answer the question(s) about presidential terms over the 50-year history, then? If "Past is Prologue," I don't see any . .. . Kool-Aid in it . . .

See . . . . some of the folks are just like Romney . . . . all blather, all bait and switch -- but no concrete plan for anything. That's the last thing I want in the White House -- "Let's take back 'power' and we'll tell you then, when and what." All because of a pile of trout-fly political issues that the teary-eyed hayseeds think are more important than the fundamentals. Or some half-baked idea that limiting Trillionaire-"freeeee-dom" has concrete and certain ramifications for any little cornpone with a 401(K) plan. I'll save my elaborations on that theme for later . . . .

 

[cybrsage]

Your premise is flawed: a military exists to defend a nation from foreign aggression, not to perpetuate its survival using any means necessary. A corollary of your theory is that if I am rich enough to employ highly trained mercenaries with lots of nice weapons, I can take whatever resources I need. Just War Theory clearly states why this is not the case (specifically, Jus ad Bellum).

If it was possible for a nation to stop the flow of oil to the US, it appears you say this is not a reason to attack that nation and allow the flow of oil to resume. You say this even though you know the nation will fall into chaos without oil, with riots in the streets and cities burning.

Your corollary does not work, as a rich man is not a nation. They are very different things.

 

[cybrsage]

When Hitler invaded Russia, the Panzer divisions were split between Stalingrad and the Baku oil fields to the south. He had already overextended himself throwing Rommel into North Africa and the Middle East, and the oil imperative had already become common knowledge by the time the Brits had drawn lines with the Balfour declarations. He lost Stalingrad for more than one reason, but you have to throw the strategy into the mix. Without going back in history to look at national oil extraction statistics, it was reported recently that about 50,000 barrels of oil were produced in Germany last year.

Yep, Germany understood the importance of vital natural resources to the survival of a nation. They used their military to attempt to control it so they could both prevent their enemies from having it and have it themselves. Just like tanks and fighter planes, cars, tractors, combines, trains, and buses rely on oil to operate.

 

[CycloWizard]

If it was possible for a nation to stop the flow of oil to the US, it appears you say this is not a reason to attack that nation and allow the flow of oil to resume. You say this even though you know the nation will fall into chaos without oil, with riots in the streets and cities burning.

Your corollary does not work, as a rich man is not a nation. They are very different things.

So our reliance on a foreign resource constitutes license to impose military force on the people producing that resource? I don't think so. You've confused "maintaining our current way of life" with "survival." Does the glutton have a right to shoot me if I am in line at the buffet?

 

[Jaskalas]

You know... instead of blaming a President for the economy I find it would be insanely useful if you could spell out the policies a President supported that lead us here.

 

[cybrsage]

So our reliance on a foreign resource constitutes license to impose military force on the people producing that resource? I don't think so. You've confused "maintaining our current way of life" with "survival."

You are pretending oil is not vital to the survival of a nation. Stop doing that, it makes you look silly.

Does the glutton have a right to shoot me if I am in line at the buffet?

Are you a nation?

 

[CycloWizard]

You are pretending oil is not vital to the survival of a nation. Stop doing that, it makes you look silly.

It's not vital to the survival of a nation. It's vital for maintaining our current standard of living. There's a huge difference.

Are you a nation?

It's a very accurate analogy which applies equally well to both personal and international ethics. A nation's gluttony does not give it license to attack other nations to feed itself.

 

[cybrsage]

It's not vital to the survival of a nation. It's vital for maintaining our current standard of living. There's a huge difference.

How will the tanks and planes that defend the US from invasion work if there is no gasoline for them? How will electricity be created for most of the nation if the oil fired plants have no oil? No electricity means no water for most Americans. How will plastic be made without oil? How will the food from the midwest farms make it to the East and West Coasts without gasoline for the trucks to transport them?

The nation will either be invaded and destroyed or we will rip ourselves apart due to the lack of basic supplies such as food and water...and heat in the winter and cooling in the summer.

It's a very accurate analogy which applies equally well to both personal and international ethics. A nation's gluttony does not give it license to attack other nations to feed itself.

It is only accurate if you are a nation. One individual and several million individuals are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. You confuse the micro with the macro.

 

[CycloWizard]

How will the tanks and planes that defend the US from invasion work if there is no gasoline for them? How will electricity be created for most of the nation if the oil fired plants have no oil? No electricity means no water for most Americans. How will plastic be made without oil? How will the food from the midwest farms make it to the East and West Coasts without gasoline for the trucks to transport them?

The nation will either be invaded and destroyed or we will rip ourselves apart due to the lack of basic supplies such as food and water...and heat in the winter and cooling in the summer.

I'm a chemical engineer living in Texas, so I'm well aware of the implications of the cessation of foreign imports. The US has taken many ethically palatable steps to avoid the doomsday scenario you've suggested: it imports from diverse nations, has substantial stores (e.g. Strategic Petroleum Reserve), and good diplomatic relations with most major oil exporters. If Saudi Arabia suddenly decided not to export oil to us, we would simply up our imports from other sources and you would never know the difference except for a temporary price spike while the markets equilibrated. Arguing that this justifies an invasion of Saudi Arabia is ridiculous in the extreme.

It is only accurate if you are a nation. One individual and several million individuals are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. You confuse the micro with the macro.

Your argument is that Nation X has the moral authority to attack Nation Y simply because Nation Y has some resource that Nation X needs to maintain its standard of living. This is exactly the same ethical "dilemma" (if you can even call it that) as I mentioned previously. While a nation does have moral authority to conduct military affairs under some circumstances, simple schoolyard bullying for lunch money is not one of them.

 

[piasabird]

Who is Bush?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I'm a chemical engineer living in Texas, so I'm well aware of the implications of the cessation of foreign imports. The US has taken many ethically palatable steps to avoid the doomsday scenario you've suggested: it imports from diverse nations, has substantial stores (e.g. Strategic Petroleum Reserve), and good diplomatic relations with most major oil exporters. If Saudi Arabia suddenly decided not to export oil to us, we would simply up our imports from other sources and you would never know the difference except for a temporary price spike while the markets equilibrated. Arguing that this justifies an invasion of Saudi Arabia is ridiculous in the extreme.

Your argument is that Nation X has the moral authority to attack Nation Y simply because Nation Y has some resource that Nation X needs to maintain its standard of living. This is exactly the same ethical "dilemma" (if you can even call it that) as I mentioned previously. While a nation does have moral authority to conduct military affairs under some circumstances, simple schoolyard bullying for lunch money is not one of them.

Generally, I think we stand together on this. But I had an epiphany on a less idealistic level. First, there are some flawed assumptions we might want to look at.

THE FALLACY OF LARGE NUMBERS AND MONEY AS A MEASURE OF HUMAN RELIABILITY

We assume that the more financially successful one or another person may be, then the wiser, smarter, more aggressive they may be in public leadership. Therefore, we are somehow supposed to pick wealthy leaders. If they are "successful" but not more than modestly prosperous, we denigrate their "community organizer" experience.

Instead, manipulators of elections, oligarchs willing to pay, and people who only work because their analysts told them it would support their mental health and self-esteem -- such people want an assurance that the leadership chosen by the electorate will also defend their property rights. So it is important to promote the fallacy that brains and competence equal wealth. But one could equally suggest that simply a focus on acquiring money to the exclusion of other things will also make someone more prosperous -- not necessarily wisdom.

This fallacy conveniently finds a place printed on our money. Perfectly innocent and worthwhile it seems, although it could also be juxtaposed with the parable of the money-changers in the Temple. In the case of the money, we've put the Temple on the money -- "In God We Trust." Has the medium become the message? And does it psychologically buttress our myths about success? One would have to devise some sort of test or survey instrument to somehow prove it. Here -- I suggest it as a kind of sardonic speculation.

Do wealthy tycoons make fewer mistakes than average folk? You would believe that they make fewer mistakes, but there is evidence that they don't. You could believe that they make fewer mistakes because -- in combination with luck -- they did a better job of counting cards. On the other hand, someone with a four-digit bank account or a five or six-digit portfolio must make fewer mistakes just to assure keeping body and soul together.

When the downturn mushroomed with AIG's default in 2008, AIG had provided financing for some big construction projects in my county. Suddenly, all those construction workers were laid-off without a job. I vaguely recall a number like 15,000 people, but the local unemployment rate soared to as much as 20 percent. A lot of wealthy money managers made mistakes which turned risk expectations of many thousands of wage-earners upside down.

Then there were Bush's mistakes. Or the silver bubble in the late '70s created by Nelson Bunker Hunt and William Herbert Hunt. Or the recent $2 billion boondoggle of JP Morgan. Or the BP, Macondo Prospect or DeepWater Horizon disaster. These types of mistakes can affect the lives of millions of other people.

So -- I don't buy the Kool-Aid. I don't read the money -- I just count it.

Suppose the government protects the corporate property rights of oil and defense companies. Is it necessary to elect them to high office? Or would you not want someone in the Oval Office who gave a dispassionate and critical focus in balancing "our" citizen interests with these concentrated industry interests? If you worry so much about gasoline and heating-oil, do you want to give the whole farm to the providers? Or do you want some assurance that they won't make mistakes, won't manipulate the public in their self-interest or profit from the misery of others?

It may be the case that strategic military operations are planned for the contingency of resource cutoffs. But -- like I quoted the PResident as saying before about weighing costs and benefits -- do these corporate interests have short-run focus and long-run myopia? Do they properly weigh the costs to diplomacy or the public interest when they influence the use of force in their corporate interest?

If we want to idolize a notion of free markets, then we should also beware of making one particular commodity essential to our well-being when there are not substitute goods. At least substitute goods mean we have options that take away the monopoly power of providers of the first commodity. If there are many refiners -- not just six or seven -- and if the refiners need not depend on a cartel like OPEC, then no citizen is hostage to those corporate interests.

I made my own political choices to assume that I can have it both ways: plentiful energy without an unwarranted influence over my political rights by the concentrated industrial interests of a few. More succinctly, I decided to make my choices as conditional only to the idea that we should and ought to have it both ways.

The writing was on the wall when Congressman Barton (Texas-R) stood up in Congress and accused the President of running a "shakedown" of corporations like BP. In my view, the government and the people should not be subordinate to corporate interets -- national or multi-national. And when their industry and market deviates significantly from classical "pure competition," the government should be all over them like flies on a dead bunny.

 

[cybrsage]

I'm a chemical engineer living in Texas, so I'm well aware of the implications of the cessation of foreign imports. The US has taken many ethically palatable steps to avoid the doomsday scenario you've suggested: it imports from diverse nations, has substantial stores (e.g. Strategic Petroleum Reserve), and good diplomatic relations with most major oil exporters. If Saudi Arabia suddenly decided not to export oil to us, we would simply up our imports from other sources and you would never know the difference except for a temporary price spike while the markets equilibrated. Arguing that this justifies an invasion of Saudi Arabia is ridiculous in the extreme.

You are correct in the steps we have taken. They are all so that we do not have to use our military very quickly. This is good.

But to argue that the purpose of the military is not to ensure the economic survival of a nation is silly.