pearl2k

Why U.S. Government Should Cut Federal Workers' Lavish Compensation

Federal workers are only 1.5% of registered voters.


On Sep 08 08:50 AM long_on_oil wrote:

> With these numbers how can any politician campaign on the platform
> of cutting the pay of government workers. No matter the party they
> would not get a single government worker vote. The snow ball is
> rolling downhill and you better not get in its path.
> Articles like this make me sick for Americas future. Reagan said,
> government is not the solution, government is the problem.
> IMO the only way we can stop this is to elect reps and senators who
> will support term limits. Party is irrelevant, just elect reps that
> will support a constitutional amendment to limit terms. If we had
> term limits the reps could cut government workers pay without worring
> about not getting re elected. There is no other way to stop this
> snowball.

The Economy, And Why It's Taking So Long to Fix It

Love that. Made me laugh, thanks.

> 5. Don't repave the roads a million times and call it infrastructure
> improvements

Bank of America Nationalization Would Shock, Not Help, Economy

Wachovia became Wells Fargo without so much as a shudder. How would BOA be different? Please elaborate.

What would a BOA receivership look like to the average Joe in terms of the bank-run/shock/chaos scenario you're proposing. And hasn't the FDIC already extinguished that flame by raising the level of deposit insurance on 100% of the deposits in the industry?

Mainstream Media Misunderstands Job Loss Data

Agreed. And maybe we're all a little jaded by the fact that our former president wanted to reclassify fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs.

I don't think those formerly employed in domestic auto manufacturing, domestic programming, domestic call centers, etc. have a problem interpreting the complexities of a dynamic labor market. Neither do recently unemployed real estate agents, financial service workers, construction workers etc. I think mainstream media and the public are well aware of which way the wind is blowing.


On Feb 17 08:30 AM 2braincells wrote:

> Maybe people are factoring in what the future outlooks appears to
> be... there's a negative perception there... that's a problem.

>
>
> You don't need a weathervane to tell which way the wind blows.

Why 'Buy American' Hurts America

If there's a a PROFESSIONAL economist out there please chime in. I seem to remember the models I studied in International Trade were very simple, bi-lateral models, the results of which were entirely quantitative. Free trade means a bigger chocolate chip cookie for everyone to share, and more is better. That's it.

How about a free trader describe what America's piece of the cookie should like, according to the theory, and what it looks like in reality. To me it now seems smaller than promised, and that all the chocolate chips are in someone else's piece.

Geithner's Plan Ignores Mark-to-Market: Where's the Beef?

If you break the securitized instrument does that really mean you own the mortgages?


On Feb 12 10:27 AM kelm wrote:

> This is interesting. If I understand you correctly there is a distortion
> in the value of the assets because they have been securitized. As
> securitized assets the mark-to-market is under different reporting
> standards then if they were a collection of loans owned outright.
> If I have got that correct this is huge and something I have heard
> no one else discuss. The answer then would indeed be to break the
> securitized instruments up so banks go back to owning the loans (or
> crap) that they created in the first place and valuing those according
> to standard accounting practices. This would actually enhance transparency
> as it would eliminate the opacity caused by the securitization.

Economic Crisis Is Largely a Problem of Confidence

We have seen this before, actually. This is the 2nd "hundred year storm" in a decade. LTCM. Huge leverage, complex and flawed models based on historical data, that, surprise, didn't include the conditions of the then current crisis(how could they?), potential systemic risk, "unprecedented" Fed intervention.... sound familiar?

The crisis of confidence is whether the government has any will to do something about it to prevent the 3rd "hundred year storm" in as many decades.

Don't these storms own a calendar?


On Feb 12 10:43 AM antiquary wrote:

> I agree this is at least in part a crisis of confidence. We see
> these things which have rarely or never happened before and suddenly
> we come to think anything is possible; that nothing can be counted
> upon. The one thing we can be sure of is that if we freeze like
> a deer in the headlights, dithering, uncertain and terrified of losing
> anything by making a move, we're gonna get hit, and lose everything.
> We have to keep moving.

When Governments Go Wrong (and Cause Depressions)

A simple and wonderful point. Price supports in the housing market will only delay a necessary and fundamental correction: home values to income levels.

On Feb 10 10:59 PM John Lounsbury wrote:

> I have been doing quite a bit of reading about The Great Depression
> (history) lately. It appears that one of the two major mistakes
> made in the Roosevelt years was the attempt to artificially support
> some wages and some prices in 1937-38. This took what had been a
> three year recovery and (along with the other major mistake-raising
> taxes in 1937) pushed the economy right back into recession.
>
> This is why talk of supporting house prices makes me shudder. Throughout
> our history, supporting or restricting prices or wages has been a
> very negative influence on the economy.
>
> I know that housing prices was only mentioned in passing early in
> the quote, but I feel strongly that attempts to put an artificial
> floor under them would just delay the start of a recovery.

Risk of Long Term Deflation Is Low but Growing

EXCLUDING THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Deflation of asset prices, not including the Great Depression. Thanks.

Risk of Long Term Deflation Is Low but Growing

To the author, or anyone else, please explain why deflation, or the popping of a bubble, in real estate or stocks, or farmland or tulips or whatever (deflation to a historical mean: affordability indexes for houses, historical pre-bubble P/E ratios for equities), is a bad thing.

Hyper-inflation causes people to spend money as soon as they get it. Clearly. Deflation prompts people to save money, because they can buy something for less money by waiting? It sounds logical, but is that what's really happening right now? Isn't the American consumer plain tapped out? Isn't it worth the distinction, if we want to raise the spectre of deflation?

Deflation in Japan, I don't know much about that. But I do know that the Japanese have always been notorious savers. Hasn't their government always had a problem stimulating consumer spending? We don't have that problem here, in fact, we have the opposite problem.

Can anyone paint a real picture of what deflation in the US would look like, and why it would be disastrous, aside from deflation as the corollary to hyperinflation. The author refers to it..." The U.S. economy has experienced deflation in the past, but not in a very long time." Was it really that bad? I don't know, I was a kid then.

I live in Los Angeles. Home sales are up because prices are down. Something like 50% of homes sold were foreclosures last month. The market is moving. Sounds like deflation is working to me.

Seriously, anyone with a better explanation.

First Compare Today to the Early 1980s

I agree. Further, the real inflation numbers for for 2008, calculated by the 1980 method........... shadowstats.com


On Nov 26 02:49 PM Smarty_Pants wrote:

> USDebt:
>
> 1980 (2008 dollars): $2.44 Trillion
> 2008: $10.65 Trillion
>
> Seems like we are dragging around 4x as much government debt as we
> were in 1980. I couldn't find readily available numbers for private
> debt levels to compare, but I would guess that they are much higher
> today than they were in 1980 as well.
>
> Ditto for budget deficits and trade deficits.
>
> And how about banking sector reserve balances? Things are much worse
> now than ever before:
>
> 1980 (2008 dollars): +$52 Billion
> 2008: -$330 Billion
>
> So banks are over 6x further in the red than they were in the black
> in 1980.
>
> Things actually are different from 1980 and in areas where the differences
> matter. Your above comparison is superficial at best.

First Compare Today to the Early 1980s

I agree. Further, the real inflation numbers for for 2008, calculated by the 1980 method........... shadowstats.com


On Nov 26 02:49 PM Smarty_Pants wrote:

> USDebt:
>
> 1980 (2008 dollars): $2.44 Trillion
> 2008: $10.65 Trillion
>
> Seems like we are dragging around 4x as much government debt as we
> were in 1980. I couldn't find readily available numbers for private
> debt levels to compare, but I would guess that they are much higher
> today than they were in 1980 as well.
>
> Ditto for budget deficits and trade deficits.
>
> And how about banking sector reserve balances? Things are much worse
> now than ever before:
>
> 1980 (2008 dollars): +$52 Billion
> 2008: -$330 Billion
>
> So banks are over 6x further in the red than they were in the black
> in 1980.
>
> Things actually are different from 1980 and in areas where the differences
> matter. Your above comparison is superficial at best.

Mitt Romney's NY Times Op-Ed On the Automakers: Dead On

If the car companies go, that's it. We fully cede our manufacturing base to foreign countries. GM & Ford have spent BILLIONS retooling in the last couple years to bring great cars with great technology to the market this year and next. Let's hope they can hang on.

However, N American operations for both GM and Ford are completely out of touch. Both companies do outstanding in Europe, and are successfully penetrating China, Russia etc. Amazing cars in other countries which leaves you scratching your head, why don't we get these cars. Well, NA can only make a profit selling high margin trucks. The union/labor legacy issue has to be dealt with. Where else can you go to work at 18, retire after 40 years, then have someone pay you to do nothing for the next 25? We live longer and our health care costs more. Defined benefit plans all across the country are going to be in the same boat. They have to go. It's a raw deal for workers, but that's a holdover from another era.

On Nov 20 11:51 AM John D wrote:

> Now that it's getting down to the crunch can someone explain ONE
> thing to me, in a country where the government spends TRILLIONs on
> WAR in other countries (I realize it's to protect the US as well,
> but) why would the government not do as much at home to protect democracy
> & the industry that has been supporting a VERY large part of
> the country for a century now. Is it fair to bail out Wall St. (they
> finally found the weapons of mass destruction - right on Wall St.)
> and not the millions of citizens that will lose the taxpaying jobs
> that would help contribute to the taxes to cover the financial system
> failure. I find that much of the resistance is nothing more than
> the arrogance of certain senators who's states are not affected as
> much. If they feel that Toyota & Honda will contribute as much
> to their country than GM - Ford & Chrysler they are seriously
> mistaken - those profits SUPPORT their countries - Americans are
> just paying for it. Perhaps the question they should be asking is
> why North American Auto makers are not allowed to sell freely in
> Japan & Korea, maybe it's because those governments are not blinded
> by arrogance. If the North American governments had sought an EQUAL
> trade deal instead of a FREE trade - dump what ever you want here
> - deal, the Big 3 would have been sitting in a much different position
> now and actually be helping to pull the economy out of recession
> - "Buy an import and drive North America into DEPRESSION"

Mitt Romney's NY Times Op-Ed On the Automakers: Dead On

If the car companies go, that's it. We fully cede our manufacturing base to foreign countries. GM & Ford have spent BILLIONS retooling in the last couple years to bring great cars with great technology to the market this year and next. Let's hope they can hang on.

However, N American operations for both GM and Ford are completely out of touch. Both companies do outstanding in Europe, and are successfully penetrating China, Russia etc. Amazing cars in other countries which leaves you scratching your head, why don't we get these cars. Well, NA can only make a profit selling high margin trucks. The union/labor legacy issue has to be dealt with. Where else can you go to work at 18, retire after 40 years, then have someone pay you to do nothing for the next 25? We live longer and our health care costs more. Defined benefit plans all across the country are going to be in the same boat. They have to go. It's a raw deal for workers, but that's a holdover from another era.

On Nov 20 11:51 AM John D wrote:

> Now that it's getting down to the crunch can someone explain ONE
> thing to me, in a country where the government spends TRILLIONs on
> WAR in other countries (I realize it's to protect the US as well,
> but) why would the government not do as much at home to protect democracy
> & the industry that has been supporting a VERY large part of
> the country for a century now. Is it fair to bail out Wall St. (they
> finally found the weapons of mass destruction - right on Wall St.)
> and not the millions of citizens that will lose the taxpaying jobs
> that would help contribute to the taxes to cover the financial system
> failure. I find that much of the resistance is nothing more than
> the arrogance of certain senators who's states are not affected as
> much. If they feel that Toyota & Honda will contribute as much
> to their country than GM - Ford & Chrysler they are seriously
> mistaken - those profits SUPPORT their countries - Americans are
> just paying for it. Perhaps the question they should be asking is
> why North American Auto makers are not allowed to sell freely in
> Japan & Korea, maybe it's because those governments are not blinded
> by arrogance. If the North American governments had sought an EQUAL
> trade deal instead of a FREE trade - dump what ever you want here
> - deal, the Big 3 would have been sitting in a much different position
> now and actually be helping to pull the economy out of recession
> - "Buy an import and drive North America into DEPRESSION"

Death by a Thousand Rate Cuts

So the point of TARP is defending "OTC derivatives-based credit securities....Great Briatain." Where can I read more about this? You're the first person I've read to posit this. Thanks.