Randy_H

http://capitalism2.org
Total Rating:
+4 / -5

23 Comments

    • Thu Nov 6th 12:10 PM | Rating: 0 -1
      Commented on:
      A Capitalist Reformation
      Seems it's very hard for some people to think in dynamic terms. Capitalism isn't some cookbook of a few commandments chiseled into stone. Apparently a lot of commenters learned their concepts of Capitalism from neolibertarians. Capitalism is "changing" like the Earth's biosphere is "changing". Change is the only constant. Sometimes that change is slow, other times it is fast. But it is ever present. It is essential. It is pragmatic.

      I'm appalled at the lack of historical perspective as well. Never once do we read in the knee jerk attacks on FDR anything that leads us to believe the authors have an appreciation for the historical context in which those events took place nearly a century ago. Viewing history through the lens of current society is less than wrong, it's foolish.

      Were we to take a poll requiring every person who utters "Socialism" to define that term, in specific terms, I'm certain we'd find that merely 1-in-10 are even using it correctly. And I'm as far from a Socialist as you'll find. But hear this, true Capitalists in the tradition of Rand are disgusted even more so by neolibertarian cranks than by democratic socialists. One group professes to pursue the greater good. It's just that people like me disagree about how to define "greater good". The other side, due to some serious impairment of sensibility, relishes in deluding themselves into thinking they are more clever than they are -- in reality not much more than cynical, self contradicting hypocrites. (paraphrased from Rand, whom I'm sure at least one neolibertarian whack-a-mole will call a "socialist" just to put a cherry on top of the irony).
      View article »
    • Thu Nov 6th 11:26 AM | Rating: +1 -1
      Commented on:
      A Capitalist Reformation
      What I missed in this articles is the contribution of innovation and non-linear growth. That Capitalism is changing is a truism. Capitalism is always changing. It is, at the core, Darwinistic. Species within the Capitalist system universe that fail to adapt, die. Eventually. Some are kept on preserves for a while. Some are kept in zoos for study and for spectacle. But only adaptive, progressive species survive and thrive.

      The government has a role in the Capitalist universe also. That's the failure of the free market fundamentalists and neolibertarians. Without the government as an arbitrator and referee, the Capitalist game of life degrades rapidly into a kleptocratic thugism.

      But the magic is that Capitalism is an emergent system. It is not a deterministic system, nor is it served well by negative utilitarianism (doing the least harm equals doing the greatest good). Capitalism instead is positively utilitarian. The least harm is not always the best outcome. At times, the greater good is indeed served by taking the path of the greater harm for a period. If that is the point of the author, then I agree wholly.

      But what's unstated in this article is that the fruits of a positively utilitarian, emergent Capitalist universe is explosive, revolutionary growth. One could have said the same things stated in this article during the periods prior to every "revolution"... The Industrial, the Information, the Communication... Odds are, using historical time series, we're approaching another seismic revolution. But, like a big earthquake, exactly when cannot be predicted.

      We know the odds are rising. Capitalism ensures that the ground will shake. And when it does, all the linear extrapolations about which services cost what and what opportunity lies where, give way to a new reality for which new equations must be formulated and old ones recalibrated.
      View article »
    • Wed Nov 5th 09:48 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Shallowest Generation
      Ron Paul is as disingenuous as those his supporters cry about. Proof: he continues to insist we should eliminate the Federal Reserve and the US Central Banking function.

      Supporting that is like supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament. We have a central bank because "they" have central banks. Encouraging elimination of our central bank is an open invitation to countries like China to manipulate our rates to their advantage.

      It is insanity. Much like the proponent of that policy and his supporters, most of whom advocate a "buy guns & gold & canned food" economic policy. I, for one, have had it with these ideological zealots. Perhaps we can give them a state, like Wyoming, where they're free to hunker down an lay in wait for whatever rapture they fantasize about.
      View article »
    • Tue Nov 4th 09:20 AM | Rating: +3 -3
      Commented on:
      The Shallowest Generation
      LordD, spoken like only a Boomer could: with arrogant narcissism and swagger. Boomers were the "first to create the politics of youth"? Or perhaps Boomers were the first to be woefully ignorant of even fairly recent history. You know, youth "bled in Chicago" long before your pompous arse was brought into the world. And only a Boomer could bemoan a slight on the fierce individuality of Boomers only to then proceed to refer to his own generation as if it were a uniform group of world changers.

      Sickening.

      You are correct, however. It is now up to the latter generations. And, for all our disorganization and genuine individuality to a fault, I strongly suspect that Gen X is about the business of throwing you and your ilk out of your seats of power, in government and industry, so that we might set about putting some order to this mess you've left us all.
      View article »
    • Sat Oct 25th 00:10 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Why Oil and Gold Are Headed Much Higher
      "you can bet that it, along with oil and real estate and any other hard assets, will skyrocket"

      I heard that before. Circa 2004. Real estate: buy now or be priced out forever. Give me a break.

      Do you guys even realize that you're just wishing and begging for yet another bubble? You disguise yourself in language of economic reformers, but in truth you just want the bubbles-R-us economy to rage on. You're just jealous you missed the last one and want the next to be in something you own.

      The rest of us are for no more bubbles. Period.
      View article »
    • Fri Oct 24th 09:27 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Physics of Money
      Actually, most Keynesians fault FDR for being too preoccupied with balancing the budget and not accumulating debt. Whether looser fiscal policy would have broken the deflation cycle faster is still an open question. We may, unfortunately, soon have a new data point in that research.

      As for all the self-described inflationists and even wackier hyperinflationists, all I can continue to wonder is where they think the nominal buying power will come from. Even if credit loosens to a point even looser than existed before the real estate bubble busted (highly unlikely if not impossible), for their scenario to play out we would have to see, literally, it become standard fare for people to pay for things like rent and discretionary, non-durables almost purely on credit. As in, you pay for your cable TV with your credit card every month, and for some inexplicable reason, you don't mind that it now costs over $1,000/month.

      Think it through. Not likely, even in the debt-happy US. Actually, the US has savings rates not too afar from Europe's if you normalize how rent & housing costs are considered in these various equations.

      The tragic, ironic, hypocrisy of the hyperinflationist cheer crowd who fantasize about $500 oil and $5000 gold is that they are, in fact, doing a cheerleader rain dance for a bubble to form. While they talk about the evils of bubbles, mostly the credit & real estate bubbles, they are so obviously invested in a different asset class which they hope ever so much will be the next to bubble up. One can't help but wonder if they're anything but a bunch of jealous folks who're pissed they missed out on the real estate mania and now are smirking, thinking those real estate bubble speculators will have to fork over their money to a new breed of oil & gold bubble speculators.

      [Un]fortunately for all of us, the free market is stubbornly reasserting itself despite all the distortions and greed. That is being seen as falling money velocity, broader and broader price deflation, and more recently a spike in normalized savings rates & savings behavior in the US consumer.
      View article »
    • Thu Oct 23rd 10:14 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Five Ways the Global Economy Is Rebounding
      Oh no! It's the bottom again already? I just got over the daily bottom called yesterday.
      View article »
    • Wed Oct 22nd 16:09 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      First Comes Deflation, Then Comes Inflation
      JasonC

      Good comment, though much of your argument could be equally applied to a pretty rough patch of deflation -- longer lasted than 6 months.
      View article »
    • Wed Oct 22nd 09:15 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      First Comes Deflation, Then Comes Inflation
      Bernanke says deflation is "not really possible" because that reflects his worst fears. I think what you're missing is the money supply destruction that occurs concordant with deflation. Right now deleveraging is destroying more money than all the worlds' horses and all the worlds' men can create.

      You also are not properly considering the two variables you simply cannot accurately predict: (1) how deep the deflation is during the deflationary period; (2) how long the deflationary period lasts.

      Those factors drastically affect the likelihood of inflation following a deflationary period. For example, if a cyclical deflation begins resembling anything like Japan's liquidity trap, then even very-high inflation in the following decade will still result in net deflation, not net inflation.

      It is that which keeps Helicopter Ben up at night.
      View article »
    • Tue Oct 21st 10:06 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      TED Spread: New Volatility Indicator
      Fair enough. However, much of that risk depends upon what's hidden in that 6 months. And whether deflation during that 6 months is mild, and whether that really is 6 months, is not "hardly controversial".

      A number of macro economists are vigorously debating whether the broad effects of current policy will be expressed as inflation or liquidity-trap induced deflation.

      I believe the Japanese predicted 6-12 months of deflation about a decade ago too. I'm not sure if they have TIPS equivalents, but what would those have ultimately yielded?
      View article »
    • Mon Oct 20th 15:52 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Why Oil and Gold Are Headed Much Higher
      --"When the ones on here that read this do not own any of either are crying I really, really do not want to hear you complain or even whine. You had a chance now before it just blows up like a bomb to get some and then you will just be wondering how to buy groceries and pay for bills."--

      Wow. Sounds just like every other bubble blowhard. If I had a double eagle for every time I heard a realtor tell me "buy now or be priced out forever!!!" The problem with being an extremist is you end up looking just like your enemies. I'm sure you're one of those who was beating up on real estate bubble cheerleaders, but you failed to see the pom poms you're shaking.

      --"I on the other hand will be able to take a vacation away from all the ones that are asking if I can spare a Silver dime...."--

      Good luck with that strategy. Even if you're right you're going to find out quite rudely why your precious metals are spendable in a Mad Max economy exactly once. Once and only once. After that, everyone will know you've got it, and trust me, guys like you and I who post on SeekingAlpha are not going to be the sort who can hold onto their gold against the sorts of Alpha-males who'll be running the show in your fanciful all-gold, barter economy.
      View article »
    • Mon Oct 20th 15:43 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      TED Spread: New Volatility Indicator
      The worst is behind? That from someone who a few days ago stated about TIPS, your words, "The risk is practically non-existent."

      Funny thing is, VAIPX is down almost 10% since you made that statement.

      I'd say that "anybody who does take the loans and go long those offered rates" might indeed be scared. Whether they're stupid or not depends upon your definition of risk being "practically non-existent".
      View article »
    • Wed Oct 15th 11:48 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      My Plan to Repair Housing in America
      Put it this way: 12 years ago one bought a house (a primary residence, not for investment or income) with a simple, 30 year fixed mortgage or one of the couple of simple ARM choices. Occasionally people would create piggy-back mortgages with a line of credit in order to escape the 20% PMI rule.

      Credit standards were tough. You had to show 20% cash downpayment. And you had to prove that cash was earned/saved of your own accord, not gifted by parents. Unless mommy and daddy cosigned, you couldn't use their money to count towards your creditworthiness. And people were buying between 3 and 3.5 times their incomes in housing, at about 28%-30% of their monthly gross income going towards principle+interest+tax...

      Oh, and rates were the better part of 9% for jumbo 30yr fixed.

      Given all that, which by today's prognosticators would foretell a housing apocalypse, it is amazing that all the above data occurred during _a housing recovery_. Listen, simply put, creating more goofy mortgages just to lower the monthly nut for Joe McDebtor isn't going to solve anything. It's just going to forestall everything.
      View article »
    • Wed Oct 15th 10:41 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      My Plan to Repair Housing in America
      Wow. I don't know where to begin -- so many straw man arguments and arguments from conclusion. For starters, the problem did not begin until the start of this decade, not the last. Just measure affordability based on income. HSBC did ("A Froth Finding Mission"). Even as late as the late 90s homes in the bubbliest of areas were still less than 4x income. In 97-98 they were still below 3x. Those price levels were easily fundamentally supportable.

      The problem with your plan is you dismiss the merits of simply allowing houses to return to their fundamental level with the justification that it will hurt the consumer-driven economy vis-a-vis confidence. You fail to make a case as to why that outcome is preferable.

      Rather than deconstruct your arguments -- which aren't all that different from various other proposals floating around, all of which have already been roundly criticized -- I'll refer to direct, specific empirical evidence. We have a model and data for a model which synthetically supports unsupportable housing/real-estate prices: Japan. Given that as I write this there is growing evidence of an emerging liquidity trap in the US, I would ask people to seriously consider the ultimate costs of resorting to a regime of price fixing in residential real estate.

      By the way, lot's of people _didn't_ miss it. Many of us knew exactly what was emerging. And many of us took steps to avoid the consequences. I'm sorry for those who didn't. Lots of folks were trying to warn them. But such is the way with bubbles.
      View article »
    • Mon Oct 6th 09:47 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Inflate, Deflate or Default
      PPP is not 2073% lower today than it was in 1913.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»