Back in the U.S.S.A. 113 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Harry Browne, the former Libertarian Party candidate for president, used to say: “the government is great at breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and saying ‘You see, without me you couldn't walk.'” That maxim is clearly illustrated by the financial industry regulatory reforms proposed this week by the Obama Administration.
In seeking to undo the damage inflicted over the past decade by misguided government policies, the new regulatory regime would ensure that the problems underlying our financial system will only get worse. As was the case with the deeply flawed Sarbanes-Oxley legislation of 2002, or the misguided provisions of the Patriot Act of 2001, such as the torturous anti-money laundering requirements, the move will further burden the financial services industry with unnecessary regulation that will drive up costs, lower quality, and shelter the biggest and least innovative companies. Ultimately, the structure will put the entire U.S. financial industry at a global competitive disadvantage.
The underlying problem is that the excessive risk taking which brought about the crisis was not market-driven, but a direct consequence of government interference with risk-inhibiting market forces. Rather than learning from its mistakes and allowing market forces to once again control risks and efficiently allocate resources, the government is merely repeating its mistakes on a grander scale – thereby sowing the seeds for an even greater crisis in the future.
As is typical of government attempts to control economic outcomes, Obama's plans focuses on the symptoms of the disease and not the cause. The American financial system imploded for two reasons: cheap money and moral hazard – both of which were supplied by the government. Under the proposed new regulatory structures, these toxic ingredients will be combined in ever-increasing quantities.
The proposals most notably involve extra regulatory oversight of financial entities that the government deems “too big to fail.” This implies that it is desirable to have such entities in the first place, and that the government will continue to back those large organizations that fall under its protection. These “too big to fail” firms will enjoy a competitive advantage over smaller firms in attracting capital, as lenders will perceive zero risk in extending them credit. This will cause these firms to grow even larger, producing even greater systemic risks and larger losses when the next round of bailouts arrives. Meanwhile, smaller firms which seek to expand, and which propose no systemic risks, will face greater challenges as higher capital costs render them less competitive.
If the government did not provide these bailouts or guarantees, then the market itself would ensure organizations did not grow beyond their ability to attract capital. It is only when market discipline is overcome by government guarantees that systemic risks arise.
Obama proposes to entrust the critical job of “systemic risk regulator” to the Federal Reserve, the very organization that has proven most adept at creating systemic risk. This is like making Keith Richards the head of the DEA.
Given the Federal Reserve's disastrous monetary policy over the past decade, any attempt to expand the Fed's role should be vigorously opposed. Through decades of short-sighted interest rate decisions, the Fed has proven time and again that it is only able to close the barn door after the entire herd has escaped. If setting interest rates had been left to the free market, none of the excesses we have seen in the credit market would have been remotely possible.
The perverse result will be that our government and the Fed gain more power as a direct result of their own incompetence. Such was also the case with Freddie and Fannie, which should have been allowed to fail, but were nationalized instead, leaving them in a position to do even more damage. The new round of regulations ignores them completely. Along those lines, ratings agencies such as Standard and Poor's and Moody's that completely missed the mark were also spared. Perhaps this special treatment is a way of ensuring that Treasury debt maintains its bogus AAA rating.
Unfortunately, despite their intent, my guess is that the new regulations will most severely impact smaller firms, like my own, that never engaged in reckless behavior. This will further reward those “too big to fail” firms, whose economies of scale and cozy relationships with regulators leave them better positioned than their smaller rivals to absorb the costs of the added red tape.
With the transition now fully under way, I propose we end the pretense and rename our country: “The United Socialist States of America.” In fact, given all the czars already in Washington, we might as well go with the Russian theme completely: appoint a Politburo, move into dilapidated housing blocks, and parade our missiles in the streets. On the bright side, there's always the borscht.
Related Articles
|
This article has 113 comments:
We need you in The White House, Peter!
Okay, in the senate first. And White House in 2016.
While I generally agree with much of what you say I must disagree with you here and make the point that your (admitted) concern is with the additional costs and 'burdens' these programs will impose upon you.
As much of your advice seems to be to invest in stocks outside US perhaps its only logical that you move your business to a place that is more amenable to your ideas about regulation. From simply a business point of view of course. Survival of the firm is after all the most important consideration.
The cost and expense of living in any country are part and parcel of the benefits one enjoys for living there. If the costs exceed the benefit patriotism shouldn't skew the data.
It is not any lack of understanding of economics or mathematics (?) that makes governments, including Obama's so inept. Rather it is a fundamental misconception, as the author of the article is suggesting, about the role that the state and central banks should have in the conduct of business and finance.
It is much more of a philosophical issue (which needs to be debated) rather than a matter of having better mathematicians "running" the economy from Washington.
We have far too many financial technocrats already and not enough leadership from those with sound judgements and a historical perspective on the value of proper functioning markets.
I bet you're the first person to ever include The Fed, Keith Richards and the DEA in the same paragraph.
the ultimate banking cartel aka the fed is grinding forward right over the constitution, the people, and the pronciples of the founders. it makes one feel like an ant shaking his fist at a bulldozer. best to step aside and wait hoping for a chance to sting the driver. looks like the banksters are well on the way to owning everything of real value. obama and the federal statists are for this. third or fourth level servants of money that believe they are important.
last night the history channel ran a special on jackson. he was a true american servant of the people. he has been my hero for years but his pedestal was lifted higher last night. his belief that the federal govt. must live within its' means like any amercan family and his stand against the central bank scheme were truly heroic. the old general was truly a statesman and patriot.
As for the problem with Obama, the great fear of course is that he will clean up this mess before the next election. Clean it up before the next election and polish it up before the one after that. Then we might get the 12 or 16 years of honest government that the US needs- You know, governments that don't tell lies about weapons of mass destruction, and who will not remain passive when 'swift boat captains' tell lies about Americans who served in combat zones.
The big issue though is not that comparison but the absolute situation of the Grand Kids! It is shaping up to be pretty desperate.
On Jun 21 10:02 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
> Interesting. I read someplace that the average American is - on the
> average - 50 percent richer than his or her parents. If that is true,
> then I wonder why anyone with any intelligence at all would want
> to label the US the USSOA.
>
> As for the problem with Obama, the great fear of course is that he
> will clean up this mess before the next election. Clean it up before
> the next election and polish it up before the one after that. Then
> we might get the 12 or 16 years of honest government that the US
> needs- You know, governments that don't tell lies about weapons of
> mass destruction, and who will not remain passive when 'swift boat
> captains' tell lies about Americans who served in combat zones.
I hear this kind of statement frequently, and seems that the reasoning is to excuse our government for its stupidity, favoritism and incompetence.
And this excuse is usually offered to excuse yet another intrusion of the government into our lives... "It's a small price to pay."
I disagree with this premise TO MY CORE.
There is often little-to-no relationship- perhaps an INVERSE relationship between the stupidity, over-taxation and pointless regulation we endure and the benefits that we enjoy as a result of living here.
On Jun 21 10:37 AM Philly Jim wrote:
> But how would democrats get elected if they didn't keep people poor
> and dependent?
On Jun 21 10:57 AM rm wrote:
> [The cost and expense of living in any country are part and parcel
> of the benefits one enjoys for living there.]
>
> I hear this kind of statement frequently, and seems that the reasoning
> is to excuse our government for its stupidity, favoritism and incompetence.
>
>
> And this excuse is usually offered to excuse yet another intrusion
> of the government into our lives... "It's a small price to pay."
>
>
> I disagree with this premise TO MY CORE.
>
> There is often little-to-no relationship- perhaps an INVERSE relationship
> between the stupidity, over-taxation and pointless regulation we
> endure and the benefits that we enjoy as a result of living here.
And all the stimili/bailouts/guara... are just rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. The folks at the helm just plain don't get it.
On Jun 21 11:24 AM jkmac wrote:
> Yes there's always people that may be in need, and there will always
> be people there to voluntarily help them or donate time to help WITHOUT
> goverment or anyone else telling us, " it's our DUTY".
Unless I mssed something, you did not mention the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999. Returning to this act and simply prohibiting banks from speculating in financial markets and enforcing it would end the inherent financial conflict of interest that has contributed mightily to the dotcom, housing and credit bubbles.
On Jun 21 12:00 PM Market Sniper wrote:
> Well said, Peter. I maintain that government interference at EVERY
> level of society and with the individual from cradle to grave IS
> the final function of government. It is what government seeks to
> do. That is why The Founding Fathers crafted the US Constitution.
> However, Republics are extremely fragile historically as it takes
> constant individual vigilence to maintain them. Ours was lost almost
> 100 years ago. Liberty thrives where government doesn't.
On Jun 21 12:01 PM User 357705 wrote:
> Ask the Somalis if they agree.
On Jun 21 12:00 PM Market Sniper wrote:
> Liberty thrives where government doesn't.
Maybe (MAYBE) out of the insanity a Galt's Gulch will be formed.
But I doubt it.
On Jun 21 12:35 PM Hot Richard wrote:
> Socialist states don't fail. Instead they breed millions of slaves
> and lunacy. Many of you may have thought the world was crazy already,
> but you ain't seen nothing yet.
>
> Maybe (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) out of the insanity
> a Galt's Gulch will be formed.
>
> But I doubt it.
How much more subsidies to come, green cars would be the next round of subsidies for the autos- tax incentives to buy green cars - whenever US auto makers are finally ready to deliver them. Govt. distorted the home market with GSEs and tax incentives and CRA etc - now it is the turn of auto market.
Capitalism is all about correct allocation of capital thru markets - any distortion would be complete disaster. Yes we are headed towards total disaster - SELL SELL SELL. And take a grab bag and go to Washington – that is what the capitalists from Wall Street are doing.
That said its just more silliness to provide an appearance of doing something rather than actually doing it. All this is of course there is nothing they can do. Humpty-Dumpty can't be put back together again.
On Jun 21 01:38 PM Fighting Yoda wrote:
> CARS ( Consumer Assistance to
> Recycle and Save Act). It would further distort the auto market,
> auto companies were earlier selling cars taking the losses on their
> own balance sheets now the losses will simply be transferred to the
> balance sheet of the tax payer - nothing but socialism.
On Jun 21 10:02 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
> Interesting. I read someplace that the average American is - on the
> average - 50 percent richer than his or her parents. If that is true,
> then I wonder why anyone with any intelligence at all would want
> to label the US the USSOA.
>
> As for the problem with Obama, the great fear of course is that he
> will clean up this mess before the next election. Clean it up before
> the next election and polish it up before the one after that. Then
> we might get the 12 or 16 years of honest government that the US
> needs- You know, governments that don't tell lies about weapons of
> mass destruction, and who will not remain passive when 'swift boat
> captains' tell lies about Americans who served in combat zones.
Amerika is evolving from free enterprise to a fascist/socialist/comm... economic system (where the gubmint controls the ownership, possession, use and/or disposition of capital) under a political system that is evolving from a republic (rule of law) to democracy (mob rule) to an oligarchy (rule by the elite few) - hence the accurate USSA moniker. When Pravda warns us, Chavez congratulates us for joining the club and Chinese stupents laugh at the Fed's, er, our Treasury Secretary, start listening.
Now, fiat currency volatility and PPT manipulation/intervention in every market interfere with rational analysis of both fundamental supply/demand trends and trading charts. As a result, the only no-brainer investments for the poor sheeple (who are not traders with constant access to accurate information and cat-like reflexes) to preserve their remaining wealth are physical gold & silver bullion and steel & lead.
The international bankster cartel, through our privately-owned Federal Reserve money masters, continues to destroy and loot America in plain view. Finally, one of the few statesmen (Ron Paul) among the two(elephant & jackass)-headed ruling party gets a majority of the U.S. House to co-sponsor H.R. 1207, to put a scope up the Fed's @$$. In response, knowing the best defense is a good offense, the banksters' Kenyan usurper puppet boy proposes to give even more overwhelming, unconstitutional power to the Fed - the same gangsters who caused our current financial/economic collapse, claimed that nobody could see it coming, and are now making it worse by creating and giving trillions more "money" to insolvent zombie banks and enabling the continuing out-of-control federal gubmint by monetizing Treasury debt. This can only end badly.
When the sheeple finally wake up - under a bridge, homeless and starving on the continent their fathers conquered - the bankster cartel families, Fed boards of governors, Wall Street fraud kings and their political marionettes will get more than they bargained for, as warned in the March 2008 closed-door session of CONgress. If any of you traders and analysts out there can recommend a good double-long pitchforks, torches and hangin' rope ETF, please let me know...
These rural places have already suffered economic collapse and so life is basically just rolling along unchanged from two years ago.
And they are highy subsidized by governments, which keeps them poor but stable.
On Jun 21 04:48 AM capitalisthero.com wrote:
> Poor Obama. He didn't create this mess, but every step a misstep;
> every decision the wrong one. It's like being on the Titanic and
> finding out the captain is Homer Simpson. The guy just has no understanding
> of economics or basic mathematics.
Some of us believe in self-reliance. Wealth and poverty are often not accidental.
On Jun 21 10:58 AM User 357705 wrote:
> There will always be poor and dependent people. It is the duty of
> those of us who have much to raise all of us, ourselves included,
> higher than we could individually achieve by helping those less fortunate.
>
On Jun 21 11:55 AM Sunnsea wrote:
> Peter:
> Unless I mssed something, you did not mention the repeal of Glass-Steagall
> in 1999. Returning to this act and simply prohibiting banks from
> speculating in financial markets and enforcing it would end the inherent
> financial conflict of interest that has contributed mightily to the
> dotcom, housing and credit bubbles.
I cannot believe that the average American is worse off now than in the 1970s. I have lived through both as a fairly average American. We are richer today by a long shot. Everything we use (including, of course, the computers we are using to communicate now) are immensely better and cheaper and more accessible.
Who had microwaves in the 1970s? It was an era of toasters and Mr. Coffee. It was the era of the Gremlin, the Pacer and the Thing. Digital recording meant counting on your fingers.
On Jun 21 01:59 PM a5fung wrote:
> Thats not wat I read. I read that US weekly income peaked in the
> 70s even when using the government provided CPI. If you use real
> inflation (one that has not been altered over the years since), average
> income has been dropping dramatically since the 80s (using CPI shows
> more of a levelling off after a initial drop in the early 70s). Of
> course, with the flood of cheap credit in the past 30 years, it may
> be hard to tell between poverty and prosperity. Unlike parents of
> generations past, we now live in nice big houses with remodelled
> kitchens and drive two cars (at least pre-crisis) but with that also
> came the load of debt our parents never had. On top of the debt,
> this generation have also burned through the real savings of past
> generations, making this crisis that much harder to bear.
>
> On Jun 21 10:02 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
On Jun 21 02:32 PM milkchaser wrote:
> It is our duty? Our duty to whom? From whence does this duty arrive
> and at what cost? The cost is a meddlesome gov't.
>
> Some of us believe in self-reliance. Wealth and poverty are often
> not accidental.
On Jun 21 02:51 PM milkchaser wrote:
> Debt is not bad. It does not always crush. When someone loans me
> money for 30 years, I hope to be better off (depending on what I
> do with it, of course).
>
> I cannot believe that the average American is worse off now than
> in the 1970s. I have lived through both as a fairly average American.
> We are richer today by a long shot. Everything we use (including,
> of course, the computers we are using to communicate now) are immensely
> better and cheaper and more accessible.
>
> Who had microwaves in the 1970s? It was an era of toasters and Mr.
> Coffee. It was the era of the Gremlin, the Pacer and the Thing.
> Digital recording meant counting on your fingers.
>
> On Jun 21 01:59 PM a5fung wrote:
I'm not willing to give up my privacy, my freedoms (such as they are) *or* my damn money to support such a notion, not with the government making it obligatory. I'm not uncharatible, just damned independent. Whatever happened to the philosophy that made this country in the first place...the concept of *individual responsibility*? I see so much crap about people blaming everyone but themselves and expecting a hand up because they can't (read: won't) WORK! Why the hell should I support the agenda of wealth distribution to those who are parasites to one degree or another? The Federal Gov't is supposed to be there to do stuff like make sure states don't tarrif each other, execute foreign policy, common defense, stuff like that, NOT tell me I have to pay for some hairbrained welfare scheme in California!
On another note, why do so many people think of the Fed as part of the government? Why the hell is the Government fixing on handing them more power (rhetorical question, I know)? It is because there are waaaay too many people in this country who've voted themselves benefits (and yes, corporations who've lobbied themselves loopholes).
You wanna make me happy, Dems? Get rid of the dog-damned 69,000 page tax code, replace it with something I can figure out on the back of a NAPKIN, and I'll let you raise 'em...a bit...because I'll know at least everyone is paying a fair share. Something that ain't so now.
End Rant.
On Jun 21 12:22 PM User 357705 wrote:
> Again, ask the Somalis. Insult me if it makes you feel better. In
> Somalia there is no government and I don't see where the Somali people
> can claim they have liberty. I was there. I didn't look very good
> there to me.
Secondly, Its not the DEMs who fashioned a, in your words, 69000 page tax code. It was the BIZ party. Both factions. Wake up and smell the ink!
Lastly, the wealthy are not paying their fair share in USA. Why were there wealthy people who thought living in USA was pretty darn good when their tax rate was over 90%? Why can't you? Aren't you as rich as they were? Aren't you as good a businessman as they were? Are you merely moderately successful yet think all the toys and accouterments of wealth are your birthright?
On Jun 21 04:57 PM badScooter wrote:
>
> You wanna make me happy, Dems? Get rid of the dog-damned 69,000
> page tax code, replace it with something I can figure out on the
> back of a NAPKIN, and I'll let you raise 'em...a bit...because I'll
> know at least everyone is paying a fair share. Something that ain't
> so now.
>
On Jun 21 06:46 PM Vaporware wrote:
>
> With consumer deleveraging and credit crunch - we cannot have any
> quick recovery - L is best case scenario. Speculative stock buying
> and PPT euphoria is no substitute for anything.
>
> Credit is falling so much - private credit decreased by $1.8 Trillion
> is the first quarter,
>
> consumer credit by $90.7 billion (annualized). Household net worth
> down by $13.87 trillion.
>
> There is no trigger for recovery - new technology, new markets, demographics,
> new ideas.
>
> Green is just a boondoggle and BRICs can only do so much. JPM and
> GS etc are just trying to create another bubble - it suits their
> ends not yours.
>
> good articles: bacn.me/7gy
On Jun 21 07:15 PM Market Sniper wrote:
> Will these Cetin clones ever go away? Every article, every new item,
> there it is again. Always the same link. Add to the discussion, do
> not subtract from it!
You're correct, debt is not bad, nor is it good. It depends on what you do with the debt that matters. If you use to to consume, you are merely using up your future consumption, technically borrowing from your future. On the other hand, if you use it to increase your productivity and invest it wisely, than you can say debt is good.
Take a look at something like education. Can the average student afford his/her own education without a government subsidy these days? Most likely not. Working part-time or a summer job is just not enough to cover the costs college today. But of course, nothing some debt cannot solve right?
No doubt we have had a lot of technological advancements, but this does not necessarily translate to being richer (well, depends on how you want to define "rich"). We will most likely continue to have new technologies despite our economic conditions.
On Jun 21 02:51 PM milkchaser wrote:
> Debt is not bad. It does not always crush. When someone loans me
> money for 30 years, I hope to be better off (depending on what I
> do with it, of course).
>
> I cannot believe that the average American is worse off now than
> in the 1970s. I have lived through both as a fairly average American.
> We are richer today by a long shot. Everything we use (including,
> of course, the computers we are using to communicate now) are immensely
> better and cheaper and more accessible.
>
> Who had microwaves in the 1970s? It was an era of toasters and Mr.
> Coffee. It was the era of the Gremlin, the Pacer and the Thing.
> Digital recording meant counting on your fingers.
>
> On Jun 21 01:59 PM a5fung wrote:
"It is the duty of those of us who have much to raise all of us..."
"There is a right and proper place for government."
Now where did I put my "Tiger-Away" rock?
...Wake up and smell the ink! ... Lastly, the wealthy are not paying their fair share in USA. …
While the following may come as a surprise to you, this is culled from a time during which our current Vice CEO claims the people over $250K income level hadn't been participating as good citizens and need to pony up more in order to be considered “Patriotic”.
“The U.S. tax system is highly progressive. The top 1 percent of income earners paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes in 2006 , the top 10 percent paid 71 percent, while the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Further, 32 percent of all tax returns with positive adjusted gross income , 43 million total, filed in 2006 were from people who paid no federal income tax at all.”
Unfortunately, I had to obtain this information from the Heritage Foundation’s website because the only information available from the administration’s websites are skewed to reflect income levels of “the rich” rising instead of the contributions these people with higher incomes are making to the coffers of our country. The question I have to ask is of course, if the top 1% pay 40%, the top 10% paid 71% and that’s not enough, then what is ?
As so many have eluded to earlier, it appears this struggle is not so much about facts as much as it is stoking the embers of class warfare and unscrupulous “leaders” creating divisions that keep us weak and suspicious of one another when we should instead be honoring productive achievement. I am as wary of our government taking over a business as much as I would if the government were to assume ownership of a / the Church. That's where the seperation needs to be maintained. The church, government and business must have relationships, but they're independant of one another and must remain so. The church contributes moral fiber, government has the power of the sword and business owns the tools of production. We need all three to cooperate but they must remain seperate.
End of Rant.
Their 'data' doesn't disprove the fact that wealthy Americans don't pay their fair share. It doesn't disprove the fact that wealthy Americans don't benefit more from their taxes than do Americas middle class or poor do from theirs.
I realize my facts are at odds with your ideologies. As ideologies in America seem to be more important than facts I also realize this allows you to be absolutely certain you are right and therefore better and smarter than those who you disagree with.
On Jun 22 02:46 AM Boxed Merlot wrote:
>
>
> “The U.S. tax system is highly progressive. The top 1 percent of
> income earners paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes in 2006
> , the top 10 percent paid 71 percent, while the bottom 50 percent
> paid 3 percent. Further, 32 percent of all tax returns with positive
> adjusted gross income , 43 million total, filed in 2006 were from
> people who paid no federal income tax at all.”
>
> Unfortunately, I had to obtain this information from the Heritage
> Foundation’s website
Oh, and the class warfare thing certainly isn't working - just look at the comments...oh...wait... Never mind.
On Jun 22 10:27 AM Zmartmoney wrote:
>
> Oh, and the class warfare thing certainly isn't working - just look
> at the comments...oh...wait... Never mind.
"The duty comes from that place in the heart of non-sociopaths who recognize that when all are helped all are better off. Ya know, the things your grandmother taught you."
I gave almost 15% of my GROSS income to charities last year. When the prez and the veep-prez contribute anywhere even CLOSE to that much, then they may "perhaps" offer more seized money from the govt coffers, if the receivers aren't the ones to decide (good luck with that). It's amazing that people don't see that the govt taking over the role of charity makes them practically a god in dispensing aid and comfort. You feel like worshipping the govt? That's where we're headed, at a scary pace.
One wonders if there was a significant tax benefit to your largess? One further wonders whether that percentage would have been greater, or less, with different tax rules?
On Jun 22 10:37 AM Zmartmoney wrote:
> Oh, and BTW:
> "The duty comes from that place in the heart of non-sociopaths who
> recognize that when all are helped all are better off. Ya know, the
> things your grandmother taught you."
> I gave almost 15% of my GROSS income to charities last year. When
> the prez and the veep-prez contribute anywhere even CLOSE to that
> much, then they may "perhaps" offer more seized money from the govt
> coffers, if the receivers aren't the ones to decide (good luck with
> that). It's amazing that people don't see that the govt taking over
> the role of charity makes them practically a god in dispensing aid
> and comfort. You feel like worshipping the govt? That's where we're
> headed, at a scary pace.
On Jun 22 03:33 AM User 357705 wrote:
> Nice believable 'data' the Heritage folks produce, indeed.
>
> Their 'data' doesn't disprove the fact that wealthy Americans don't
> pay their fair share. It doesn't disprove the fact that wealthy Americans
> don't benefit more from their taxes than do Americas middle class
> or poor do from theirs.
>
> I realize my facts are at odds with your ideologies. As ideologies
> in America seem to be more important than facts I also realize this
> allows you to be absolutely certain you are right and therefore better
> and smarter than those who you disagree with.
“Better” and “Smarter” are evidently as elusive as a definition of “Fair” in this particular discussion. I make no claim to being “absolutely certain” of being “right”. I’m only offering an observation I’ve come to believe in regarding 3 distinct apparatuses at work in society. I happen to think they each benefit from one another but individuals stand to suffer when any one of the three, (kind of like our 3 systems of Gov’t), is left unchecked or left unbalanced by the other 2. Substitute “education” for “church” if you want. I only say “church” because what I’ve seen pass for education lately leaves little room for defining even simple terms like “fair”.
Government doesn't work in America because Americans don't want a functioning government. Americans are by nature and culture unruleable. That doesn't mean government can't work and does not work well. It certainly does in many countries. I fear it never will in the America that exists today. That is a great loss.
Current policies that discourage "polyculture" in our financial systems, will put us at even greater risk.
On Jun 22 11:26 AM User 357705 wrote:
> Does it ever occur to anyone that nothing has to be win-lose, '1'
> or '0', on - off, either or?
That's not what Matt Damon tells KGB when he recognizes and exploits his tell.
On a lighter note, I tend to agree on your take we are difficult to Govern. But I 'd like to think that's a virtue and something to be nurtured in context with morality / education and the ability to own personal property, i.e. tools of production.
On Jun 22 12:44 PM Boxed Merlot wrote:
> That's not what Matt Damon tells KGB when he recognizes and > exploits his tell.
And NO, it is NOT acceptable for the gov't to strip away 90% of ANYONE's legitimately obtained wealth. No, I'm not wealthy.
My point is, if the gov't expects me to pay more taxes (and I do believe they do), I better be able to understand 1) how much I'm paying - *without* an accountant, and 2) it isn't being pissed-away wasted lining the BIZ party's owner's pockets.
-- Ronald Reagan.
On Jun 22 01:45 PM ebschor wrote:
> The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm
> from the government and I'm here to help.'
>
> -- Ronald Reagan.
On Jun 22 01:52 PM sticktoitiveness wrote:
> Yes our country was founded on separation
> of powers, and that extends beyond executive, legislative, and judicial.
On Jun 22 02:13 PM sticktoitiveness wrote:
> Things do not have to be written it blunt language to be how they
> where structured.
On Jun 22 02:48 PM sticktoitiveness wrote:
> I will not be "refined" it is dishonest in this context. But the
> founders allowed for freedom of religion (I don't believe I need
> to provide evidence of this.) Government, well they set up one didn't
> they? And although they may not explicitly say this, people can leave,
> vote, or even rebel because of their pocketbooks. And everyone knows
> money can buy votes and/or congressmen.
On Jun 22 03:11 PM sticktoitiveness wrote:
> What part of "things do not have to be written it blunt language"
> don't you understand. Do congressmen have to pass a law saying they
> are corrupt for it to be true? Does it have to say in some text somewhere
> that fuel, air, and heat make fire to make fire? The first two are
> well documented, and the last, I can't believe they would be naive
> enough not to have known.
Kick?
On Jun 22 03:34 PM sticktoitiveness wrote:
> About "things do not have to be written it blunt language", a long
> time. About that there are nongovernmental powers at work, always.
> This particular threesome is a new and interesting thing. How long
> have you been on the "It is the duty of those of us who have much
> to raise all of us, ourselves included, higher than we could individually
> achieve by helping those less fortunate." kick?
Why do you think you feel this way?
On Jun 22 03:53 PM sticktoitiveness wrote:
> Kick? In this case, methodology and ideology punctuated by a single
> mindset rather than a mix of complimentary views, in other words
> more center of the extremes. ie. You should help people help themselves.
It is a complex world. Extremists always leave some piece of the puzzle in the box.
P.J. O'Rourke put it this way: hellotxt.com/l/jp7APb
"Collectivism doesn't work because it's based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person's 'fair share' of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless." -- P. J. O'Rourke,
On Jun 21 02:51 PM User 357705 wrote:
> The duty comes from that place in the heart of non-sociopaths who
> recognize that when all are helped all are better off. Ya know, the
> things your grandmother taught you.
On Jun 22 04:07 PM milkchaser wrote:
>
> The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless."
> -- P. J. O'Rourke,
The blood supply is safer. Surfboards, skis and skateboards are safer. The people of the world are safer (from nuclear war, from sickness, etc).
Moreover, having more women in the workplace is good for the country, for the family and for the women who are empowered. It increases GDP. It increases family income and makes families much less vulnerable during an economic downturn. Women work as much out of desire and opportunity as out of necessity and to begrudge them that opportunity is sexist and outdated.
Again, debt is not bad -- excessive debt is bad. I owe tens of thousands, but it is secured debt (a mortgage). Even that much unsecured debt is only bad if the prospect of repaying it is low. If it were spent on vacations and consumables, such debt is stupid. If it were used to start a successful business or a farm or to put a child through college, it is probably wise.
Moreover, I think the myth of the stay-at-home mom is overdone. My mom worked during the 50s and 60s. My wife stays at home with our kids. My grandparents were dirt poor. Maybe our experience is rare, but I think not.
On Jun 21 11:10 PM derryl wrote:
> In a typical 1970 household the husband worked and the wife raised
> the children. The house was about 1/2 the size of today's McMansions
> and wasn't filled with a lot of imported junk. But a single income
> could support a family in 1970. The only reason this typical household
> feels 'richer' today is that the wife is also working and the family
> has taken on tens of thousands of dollars of consumer debt.
I suppose it is a matter of perspective. If one's memory is no longer than the last 7 quarters, one sees no hope of future expansion. If one contemplates that current gov't policy mimics that of the stagflation years of the 1970s, one despairs of future expansion.
But if one hopes for an eventual return to sanity, the prospects of increased wealth is fairly good.
On Jun 22 04:23 PM User 357705 wrote:
> Events of the past year have proved him a poor prognosticator. Certainly
> found out the limit to corporate and bankster greed didn't we!<br/>
On Jun 22 04:37 PM User 357705 wrote:
> A bonifide true believer! Deacon of the 'Daddy Says Everything Is
> Just Great' Church of the Perpetually Deluded.
On Jun 21 10:02 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
> Interesting. I read someplace that the average American is - on the
> average - 50 percent richer than his or her parents. If that is true,
> then I wonder why anyone with any intelligence at all would want
> to label the US the USSOA.
>
> As for the problem with Obama, the great fear of course is that he
> will clean up this mess before the next election. Clean it up before
> the next election and polish it up before the one after that. Then
> we might get the 12 or 16 years of honest government that the US
> needs- You know, governments that don't tell lies about weapons of
> mass destruction, and who will not remain passive when 'swift boat
> captains' tell lies about Americans who served in combat zones.
On Jun 22 05:15 PM Ed fleckmusic@yahoo.com wrote:
> It is amazing how the criticism of Obama started almost immediately
> from the same people who screwed up the economy and foreign policy.
> I am a 56 year old middle class (whatever that is !) white man with
> a law degree who was not born into the humble beginings that Mr Obama
> was born into. Yet despite all odds this half white half black man
> became president in a country where 25% of the people are racists.
> True he was preceeded by a President who had the mentality of a ping
> pong ball but you have to respect Mr Obama's accomplishments. He
> is smart enough to surround himself with experts and listens to them
> and makes an informed decision. While Mr Schiff is not one of the
> experts it may account for his juvenile name calling and making an
> issue of the word czar. When the republicans appointed a drug czar
> I did not hear talk then like the juvenile bumper sticker mentality
> that is the Republican party. When Obama gave his Cairo speech and
> stated his desire to engage in dialogue with Iran it caused the glue
> that held the factions in Iran to come un-glued as the death to America
> crowd lost its rallying bumper sticker. Now the same morons like
> Bush and McCain want Obama to give the glue back to the death to
> America crowd by interfering in Iran's struggle and internal strife.
> These are the same morons who elected Bush and had control of all
> three branches of government and literally brought the world and
> the USA to the abyss. They should shut up and have sex with their
> interns or staff or prostitutes or with strangers in airport restrooms
> as that is they only thing they seem competent at. I believe that
> Mr Obama and his expert pool should be given a chance to turn this
> thing around.
>
> On Jun 21 10:02 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
I am not arguing my personal situation is better, nor how I feel. I am arguing that technology has improved life so much in the last 30 or 40 years that the comparison of mere income is insufficient. There was a time when poor people did not have TV or telephones. Now the percentage of households without one or both is small. Is that not a sign of affluence?
Cell phones used to be considered luxuries or affectations. Now they are common and disposable. Does this count for nothing?
Once long-distance calls cost $1-per-minute. Now they are too cheap to meter.
Joint disease used to leave people in wheelchairs. Now hip and knee replacement are commonplace. How many different body parts are now routinely and affordably treated with lasers? (eyes, teeth, fat and hair removal, etc). Arthroscopic surgery was the stuff of science fiction back in the 70s. How many heart attack victims died on the way to the hospital? Now paramedics carry portable defibrillators.
Is this factored into studies along with inflation-adjusted total family income? I suspect today's median income could support a 1970s era lifestyle if only people were willing as people actually lived back then.
On the issue of debt, apparently we agree.
On Jun 21 08:11 PM a5fung wrote:
> I am merely stating a piece of fact I have come across that suggests
> average prosperity have not increased; however, if you feel richer
> than more power to you.
>
> You're correct, debt is not bad, nor is it good. It depends on what
> you do with the debt that matters. If you use to to consume, you
> are merely using up your future consumption, technically borrowing
> from your future. On the other hand, if you use it to increase your
> productivity and invest it wisely, than you can say debt is good.
>
>
> Take a look at something like education. Can the average student
> afford his/her own education without a government subsidy these days?
> Most likely not. Working part-time or a summer job is just not enough
> to cover the costs college today. But of course, nothing some debt
> cannot solve right?
>
> No doubt we have had a lot of technological advancements, but this
> does not necessarily translate to being richer (well, depends on
> how you want to define "rich"). We will most likely continue to have
> new technologies despite our economic conditions.
>
> On Jun 21 02:51 PM milkchaser wrote:
2. How does one measure racism? What study can you find that measured the American population to be 25% racist?
3. The "ping pong ball" has a degree from Harvard and a higher GPA at Yale than his opponent in the 2004 race.
4. The expert he chose as Treasury Sec'y was either crooked or, by his own admission, confused by TurboTax. All Presidents surround themselves with experts. This is common practice and common knowledge.
5. As you point out, the term czar has been used for decades. The number of such positions is conspicuous in the Obama administration, however.
6. There are "bumper sticker" minds in both parties -- that would explain their popularity.
7. Obama may have inspired the Iranians with his Cairo speech. But then maybe having a democracy to their immediate east and west brought about by his predecessor contributed to their yearning to be free. Obama opposed much of that. One speech or the example of 40 million liberated, free-voting Muslims. I guess we will never know what did the trick.
8. You mis-characterize Bush and McCain supporters as morons. Do you find insulting those with whom you disagree to be an effective persuasive technique, or does it just make you feel good?
9. You distort the intention of those who advise Obama to speak out in support of the Iranian protesters. They merely point to the historic example of Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa and Natan Sharansky who benefited from words of support from leaders of existing democracies. They advocate words of support, not interference. Tyrants often portray such words of support as meddling or interference -- that is testimony to its effectiveness. Why do what tyrants ask of us?
10. Don't knock sex with interns, staff, prostitutes or strangers in airport restrooms unless you've tried it.
11. When Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, the nation was hardly at the abyss. That occurred with Democrats in Congress -- a situation that persists to this abyss-clinging day. If Democrats knew how to improve upon the poor record of their Republican predecessors, judging by the trend in the GDP, I would say they have yet to demonstrate it.
12. Obama has every chance to turn things around. Let us hope he succeeds. If he does not, be honest with yourself.
On Jun 22 05:15 PM Ed fleckmusic@yahoo.com wrote:
> It is amazing how the criticism of Obama started almost immediately
> from the same people who screwed up the economy and foreign policy.
> I am a 56 year old middle class (whatever that is !) white man with
> a law degree who was not born into the humble beginings that Mr Obama
> was born into. Yet despite all odds this half white half black man
> became president in a country where 25% of the people are racists.
> True he was preceeded by a President who had the mentality of a ping
> pong ball but you have to respect Mr Obama's accomplishments. He
> is smart enough to surround himself with experts and listens to them
> and makes an informed decision. While Mr Schiff is not one of the
> experts it may account for his juvenile name calling and making an
> issue of the word czar. When the republicans appointed a drug czar
> I did not hear talk then like the juvenile bumper sticker mentality
> that is the Republican party. When Obama gave his Cairo speech and
> stated his desire to engage in dialogue with Iran it caused the glue
> that held the factions in Iran to come un-glued as the death to America
> crowd lost its rallying bumper sticker. Now the same morons like
> Bush and McCain want Obama to give the glue back to the death to
> America crowd by interfering in Iran's struggle and internal strife.
> These are the same morons who elected Bush and had control of all
> three branches of government and literally brought the world and
> the USA to the abyss. They should shut up and have sex with their
> interns or staff or prostitutes or with strangers in airport restrooms
> as that is they only thing they seem competent at. I believe that
> Mr Obama and his expert pool should be given a chance to turn this
> thing around.
>
> On Jun 21 10:02 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
BTW, I second Mr. Schiff's approval of borshcht.
On Jun 22 04:47 PM User 357705 wrote:
> Whatever makes it easier for you to get out of bed and head to that
> no benefits no future job contractors job you are pretty sure you'll
> be sacked from in the fall.
The Centralization Continues To Destroy The Individual And Small Business Because Of The Mandates That Require Greater Bureaucracy And Compliance. All costs are passed on to the consumer - in big firms it is easier to increase "product output" that effectively spreads the "Non Value Costs" over a greater pool.
Jackson had some Divine Intervention in my opinion; in that when the "Bank Lobby Paid Assassin" drew to kill him BOTH pistols misfired.
Way to add salient information to the debate.
On Jun 21 09:15 AM fireball wrote:
> the largest corporations welcome regulation. they can afford it.
> the fines are negligable to them or they can afford liscence to avoid
> the regulations. it destroys the smaller more nimble competition.
>
> the ultimate banking cartel aka the fed is grinding forward right
> over the constitution, the people, and the pronciples of the founders.
> it makes one feel like an ant shaking his fist at a bulldozer. best
> to step aside and wait hoping for a chance to sting the driver. looks
> like the banksters are well on the way to owning everything of real
> value. obama and the federal statists are for this. third or fourth
> level servants of money that believe they are important.
> last night the history channel ran a special on jackson. he was a
> true american servant of the people. he has been my hero for years
> but his pedestal was lifted higher last night. his belief that the
> federal govt. must live within its' means like any amercan family
> and his stand against the central bank scheme were truly heroic.
> the old general was truly a statesman and patriot.
It is not supposed to be the for the interests of money. It Is supposed to be for the OPPORTUNITY TO ACHIEVE GREATNESS.
If the Constitution were the "Law Of The Land" we would still have the benefits you speak of; just not the burdensome and inefficient Federal Government.
America would not be as you say, "..a military whom you use with impunity to take those resources you are unwilling to give a fair price for." - This Would Be Impossible If It Were Not For The Erosion Of Our Founding Principles By Those Who Would Disregard The Warning Of The Founders And The Environment In Which They Lived.
When all aspects of life become "Regulated By Government" The World Turns To Grey. You Exist, But You Are Never Truly Allowed To Live.
On Jun 21 11:14 AM User 357705 wrote:
> You enjoy a judiciary that is set up to protect the interests of
> those with money. You enjoy Legislatures that overwhelmingly vote
> for the interests of those with money. You enjoy a system of airports,
> ports, roadways and railways that benefit those with money. You enjoy
> a police system who's sole purpose is to protect those with property
> and money. You enjoy fire protection and the bravery of firefighters
> who protect your property, money and lives. You enjoy a military
> whom you use with impunity to take those resources you are unwilling
> to give a fair price for. I'd say you're getting a pretty good deal
> for your minimal taxes.
> Were real life only so simple as a Matt Damon thriller. With all
> due respect: Americans are unduly influenced by their second largest
> industry.
There you go, saying something else I can agree with. But do you mean gambling or theatre? I suppose you could combine the two and just call it “entertainment”. Whatever way you mean, I can find room to agree with you on that.
It's funny because I also tend to see a win / lose scenario being played out in the minds of many investors these days. It seems many calls, puts and even ETFs get purchased much like WSP action where the last one at the table gets the bracelet. I liken that mentality to Keynesian and the producers of the shows that sell the advertising for these entertainments as Austrian. Not that they’re actually creating anything of “value” as your above referenced comment would likely include. But it will work for illustration purposes anyway, I think.
For those with a history of the good book, it seems the two brothers in the story of the prodigal son reflect the two economic philosophies pretty well too. The twist to that one however, is the Austrian ends up not being able to enjoy any of the things he’s worked so hard with. Here again, I’m not claiming to be “right”, I’m just killing time and trying to enjoy some of the fruits of my labors until my particular field picks back up again. Thanks for indulging me.
On Jun 22 05:54 PM milkchaser wrote:
> There was a time when poor people did not have TV or telephones.
> Now the percentage of households without one or both is small. Is
> that not a sign of affluence?
>
> Cell phones used to be considered luxuries or affectations. Now they
> are common and disposable. Does this count for nothing?
>
> Once long-distance calls cost $1-per-minute. Now they are too cheap
> to meter.
>
> Joint disease used to leave people in wheelchairs. Now hip and knee
> replacement are commonplace. How many different body parts are now
> routinely and affordably treated with lasers? (eyes, teeth, fat and
> hair removal, etc). Arthroscopic surgery was the stuff of science
> fiction back in the 70s. How many heart attack victims died on the
> way to the hospital? Now paramedics carry portable defibrillators.
>
>
> Is this factored into studies along with inflation-adjusted total
> family income? I suspect today's median income could support a 1970s
> era lifestyle if only people were willing as people actually lived
> back then.
>
> On the issue of debt, apparently we agree.
>
> On Jun 21 08:11 PM a5fung wrote:
On Jun 22 11:26 AM User 357705 wrote:
> Does it ever occur to anyone that nothing has to be win-lose, '1'
> or '0', on - off, either or?
>
> Government doesn't work in America because Americans don't want a
> functioning government. Americans are by nature and culture unruleable.
> That doesn't mean government can't work and does not work well. It
> certainly does in many countries. I fear it never will in the America
> that exists today. That is a great loss.
On Jun 21 02:51 PM milkchaser wrote:
> Debt is not bad. It does not always crush. When someone loans me
> money for 30 years, I hope to be better off (depending on what I
> do with it, of course).
>
> I cannot believe that the average American is worse off now than
> in the 1970s. I have lived through both as a fairly average American.
> We are richer today by a long shot. Everything we use (including,
> of course, the computers we are using to communicate now) are immensely
> better and cheaper and more accessible.
>
> Who had microwaves in the 1970s? It was an era of toasters and Mr.
> Coffee. It was the era of the Gremlin, the Pacer and the Thing. Digital
> recording meant counting on your fingers.
>
> On Jun 21 01:59 PM a5fung wrote:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
On Jun 21 02:06 PM Burticus wrote:
> use and/or disposition of capital) under a political system that
> is evolving from a republic (rule of law) to democracy (mob rule)
> to an oligarchy (rule by the elite few) -
Great article as usual. However, I tend to disagree with your assumption that these people are incompitent. Indeed, there are only two choices. One they really are incompitent or, as I believe, they are not. How else do you explain the fact that we have a great deal of recent history in this country regarding these very monetary policies which they are now trying? We already know they don't work in fact they never work! They have never worked and they never will. But never mind that, these people who now are in control believe somehow that these policies will work this time for them! I simply do not believe there is incompetence involved here. There is however recless disregard for the free market. The things being done by the Fed and the Federal Gov recently ought to be a loud wake up call. (ie. GM Chrysler, AIG & others). Alas, it appears most are unaware or are appathetic. Keep up the good work!
Obama will not save you or the country anymore than a potato at your local grocery store.
He's not a bad person, he's just naive and idealistic and is being played like a fiddle by the Washington establishment.
While the un-enlightened argue with each other, large corporations and career politicians push us further into indentured servitude.
The politicians and media are smoke and mirrors to cover the confiscation of basic rights and freedoms. Follow the money.
On Jun 21 10:02 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
> Interesting. I read someplace that the average American is - on the
> average - 50 percent richer than his or her parents. If that is true,
> then I wonder why anyone with any intelligence at all would want
> to label the US the USSOA.
>
> As for the problem with Obama, the great fear of course is that he
> will clean up this mess before the next election. Clean it up before
> the next election and polish it up before the one after that. Then
> we might get the 12 or 16 years of honest government that the US
> needs- You know, governments that don't tell lies about weapons of
> mass destruction, and who will not remain passive when 'swift boat
> captains' tell lies about Americans who served in combat zones.
A simple way to conceptualize the issue is that a two working parent family now provides the same level of living as a one parent did then . Note you also have the leverage effect (debt) which allows a linear increase to become a log increase. I consider this to be a sort of false statistic. It has also come at the cost of savings, and retirement.
I was reading something recently that return on assets without leverage is about 4%. This doesn't pay outlandish bonuses, so it gets jacked up, which gives systemic risk. Which isn't a worry to the CEO's or bankers because their ill gotten (leveraged) gains are never clawed back.
A simple visual of this concept of the effect of leverage is seen on a dow trend line. it becomes log after 82, right after volker got rid of leverage and we started to lever up again. that rise should be linear, and everything above linear is effectively leverage in the system.
On Jun 21 02:06 PM Burticus wrote:
> Peter Schiff is right again, same as when the talking heads on TV
> said the financials were cheap and buy Merrill, Bear, WaMu, etc.
> in 2007 and mocked Peter when he said to run like hell.
>
> Amerika is evolving from free enterprise to a fascist/socialist/comm...
> economic system (where the gubmint controls the ownership, possession,
> use and/or disposition of capital) under a political system that
> is evolving from a republic (rule of law) to democracy (mob rule)
> to an oligarchy (rule by the elite few) - hence the accurate USSA
> moniker. When Pravda warns us, Chavez congratulates us for joining
> the club and Chinese stupents laugh at the Fed's, er, our Treasury
> Secretary, start listening.
>
> Now, fiat currency volatility and PPT manipulation/intervention in
> every market interfere with rational analysis of both fundamental
> supply/demand trends and trading charts. As a result, the only no-brainer
> investments for the poor sheeple (who are not traders with constant
> access to accurate information and cat-like reflexes) to preserve
> their remaining wealth are physical gold & silver bullion and
> steel & lead.
>
> The international bankster cartel, through our privately-owned Federal
> Reserve money masters, continues to destroy and loot America in plain
> view. Finally, one of the few statesmen (Ron Paul) among the two(elephant
> & jackass)-headed ruling party gets a majority of the U.S. House
> to co-sponsor H.R. 1207, to put a scope up the Fed's @$$. In response,
> knowing the best defense is a good offense, the banksters' Kenyan
> usurper puppet boy proposes to give even more overwhelming, unconstitutional
> power to the Fed - the same gangsters who caused our current financial/economic
> collapse, claimed that nobody could see it coming, and are now making
> it worse by creating and giving trillions more "money" to insolvent
> zombie banks and enabling the continuing out-of-control federal gubmint
> by monetizing Treasury debt. This can only end badly.
>
> When the sheeple finally wake up - under a bridge, homeless and starving
> on the continent their fathers conquered - the bankster cartel families,
> Fed boards of governors, Wall Street fraud kings and their political
> marionettes will get more than they bargained for, as warned in the
> March 2008 closed-door session of CONgress. If any of you traders
> and analysts out there can recommend a good double-long pitchforks,
> torches and hangin' rope ETF, please let me know...
If a drug pusher offered me free drugs for life, I still wouldn't accept them because regardless of his own reasons for offering it, drugs are still bad for me!! Same reasoning should apply to the financial industry. They took the money and leveraged it because they were too greedy and short-sighted to say "no".
On Jun 21 09:46 AM jratl wrote:
> Unfortunately many on Wall Street were willing accomplices, willing
> to profit from misguided social and political practices urged on
> by Washington. Now the government has an easy job pointing the finger
> at the financial industry while pompously enacting "reforms" that
> will only inhibit recovery.
On Jun 21 10:02 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
> Interesting. I read someplace that the average American is - on the
> average - 50 percent richer than his or her parents. If that is true,
> then I wonder why anyone with any intelligence at all would want
> to label the US the USSOA.
>
> As for the problem with Obama, the great fear of course is that he
> will clean up this mess before the next election. Clean it up before
> the next election and polish it up before the one after that. Then
> we might get the 12 or 16 years of honest government that the US
> needs- You know, governments that don't tell lies about weapons of
> mass destruction, and who will not remain passive when 'swift boat
> captains' tell lies about Americans who served in combat zones.