JohnAl's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/259934/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/169710-why-too-big-to-fail-shouldn-t-be-codified?source=feed#comment-735464 735464
Still another reason why institutionalizing "too big to fail" is a bad idea is because it will further legitimize political interference in these (and other?) institutions. In the long run, is that good for the economy?

And as the author points out, where's the proof that adding an additional layer of regulation will stop this from happening again? All it does is make someone (the regulators) accountable when it does happen again. Great. So there'll be somebody to blame and a head to lop off, but the taxpayers will still be on the hook, just as happened last year.

Back to the drawing board, Barney.]]> Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:49:58 -0400
Still another reason why institutionalizing "too big to fail" is a bad idea is because it will further legitimize political interference in these (and other?) institutions. In the long run, is that good for the economy?

And as the author points out, where's the proof that adding an additional layer of regulation will stop this from happening again? All it does is make someone (the regulators) accountable when it does happen again. Great. So there'll be somebody to blame and a head to lop off, but the taxpayers will still be on the hook, just as happened last year.

Back to the drawing board, Barney.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162995-defaulting-in-plain-sight?source=feed#comment-688262 688262
Apt description of where we are.

Those fiat "currency-thingies"... they're overdue for a run.]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:07:58 -0400
Apt description of where we are.

Those fiat "currency-thingies"... they're overdue for a run.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/239719-james-quinn/28547-meltdown?source=feed#comment-686483 686483 Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:34:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/158966-major-banks-now-much-too-big-to-fail?source=feed#comment-652971 652971
This should be unwound, but there seems to be little sentiment for that - at least not right now - and it would also be exceedingly difficult to do. So this seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

The current consensus is for additional government regulation and oversight. If we're lucky, the government will mismanage this to the point of regulating the too bigs out of existence, or at least to the extent that less regulated competitors can gain a foothold and in time can drive them out of business. But that's if we're lucky. More likely that the too bigs will plod along, hampered by the regulation but holding on, always complaining about over regulation while the government regulatory bureaucracies continue to expand.

A third alternative is status quo. Essentially, economic rule by the too big oligarchy. Economic fascism, where the too bigs enjoy private profits and losses continue to be socialized.]]> Sun, 30 Aug 2009 06:10:52 -0400
This should be unwound, but there seems to be little sentiment for that - at least not right now - and it would also be exceedingly difficult to do. So this seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

The current consensus is for additional government regulation and oversight. If we're lucky, the government will mismanage this to the point of regulating the too bigs out of existence, or at least to the extent that less regulated competitors can gain a foothold and in time can drive them out of business. But that's if we're lucky. More likely that the too bigs will plod along, hampered by the regulation but holding on, always complaining about over regulation while the government regulatory bureaucracies continue to expand.

A third alternative is status quo. Essentially, economic rule by the too big oligarchy. Economic fascism, where the too bigs enjoy private profits and losses continue to be socialized.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158540-bernanke-s-renomination-hold-the-applause?source=feed#comment-649148 649148
I find much to agree with in Mr. Roach's criticism of Dr. Bernanke, but the statement above strikes me as either ignorant or a poor attempt at newspeak. It's "libertarian" to be running a central bank manipulating interest rates and creating money out of thin air?

I doubt Mr. Roach is ignorant, so I can't help but think that he's attempting to blame the free market for the Fed's excesses here.

Not that the current system favors MS or anything...]]> Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:39:05 -0400
I find much to agree with in Mr. Roach's criticism of Dr. Bernanke, but the statement above strikes me as either ignorant or a poor attempt at newspeak. It's "libertarian" to be running a central bank manipulating interest rates and creating money out of thin air?

I doubt Mr. Roach is ignorant, so I can't help but think that he's attempting to blame the free market for the Fed's excesses here.

Not that the current system favors MS or anything...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155901-the-federal-reserve-is-immoral?source=feed#comment-628744 628744
It's heartening to see so many people starting to understand the damage that a centrally controlled monetary system continues to cause.

We're in desperate need of a sustainable economy and we'll never get there as long as savers, the suppliers of capital, are punished.

The interest rate needs to be allowed to float freely. Business expands when savings rates are high, because interest rates are low because consumers want to save. Likewise, businesses produce more for consumers when savings rates are low, because interest rates are higher because consumers want to spend. There is an equilibrium between business expansion and production and the consumer's desire to spend now or save for later spending. But this equilibrium can only be achieved if the interest rate (the cost of borrowing / the reward for saving) is allowed to float freely.

But that's not what our masters want. They think they can control the economy better than the free market. They think they need to force expansion and spending now, so they lower interest rates and punish saving at the very time when people feel the greatest need to save.

If they'd just get out of the way the economy would fix itself. It would take time - because of the size of the mess they've made - but equilibrium would eventually be reached. But they continue to make matters worse.

The Fed needs to be abolished - immediately.]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:01:26 -0400
It's heartening to see so many people starting to understand the damage that a centrally controlled monetary system continues to cause.

We're in desperate need of a sustainable economy and we'll never get there as long as savers, the suppliers of capital, are punished.

The interest rate needs to be allowed to float freely. Business expands when savings rates are high, because interest rates are low because consumers want to save. Likewise, businesses produce more for consumers when savings rates are low, because interest rates are higher because consumers want to spend. There is an equilibrium between business expansion and production and the consumer's desire to spend now or save for later spending. But this equilibrium can only be achieved if the interest rate (the cost of borrowing / the reward for saving) is allowed to float freely.

But that's not what our masters want. They think they can control the economy better than the free market. They think they need to force expansion and spending now, so they lower interest rates and punish saving at the very time when people feel the greatest need to save.

If they'd just get out of the way the economy would fix itself. It would take time - because of the size of the mess they've made - but equilibrium would eventually be reached. But they continue to make matters worse.

The Fed needs to be abolished - immediately.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154804-peter-schiff-vs-the-fed?source=feed#comment-623050 623050
Is it simple minded to think that monetary metals like gold and silver might retain their value better than fiat money, which can be created out of thin air?

You seem to understand that creating currency out of thin air devalues that currency and that this helps debtors. But you ignore the fact that doing this hurts holders and creditors of that currency.

When new money is created out of thin air, some people are helped, but others are hurt. Saving and lending are discouraged, while borrowing and spending is encouraged.

Is this what we want? Will this lead to a sustainable economy?

On Aug 09 09:20 PM Brian McMorris wrote:

> Puravi...you make sensible, well informed comments that reflect reality.
> But all the "goldheads" visiting this site can only spout their blind
> faith in colored dirt. I have no idea why people think gold and
> silver are their salvation. Are they all zombies?
>
> People should understand, like you do, that fiat currency represents
> the productive capacity and assets of the nation that issues that
> currency. America is not going away. Our national assets are fixed.
> The only thing that printing money does is make those assets equal
> to a larger number of dollars (devalues dollars).
>
> And here is where the mindless hoards really miss the point: when
> the country is faced with a massive Deflation (who can deny that
> houses and labor are worth less today than last year) due to a massive
> financial panic, a global psychological reaction, the best thing
> to do is Reflate the dollar back to where it was. This should pull
> the value of all those assets back closer to where they were and
> solve most of the credit problem. It is really simple math.
>
> But if you are drinking the Schiff / Roubini Koolaid, you can't think
> such simple thoughts and must instead come up with apocalytic scenarios.
> And you might even have your net worth in silver and gold, which
> of course, might influence how you argue this point.
>
> Keep up the good fight. But know that it is always the contrarians
> who win at the game of investing.]]> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:14:30 -0400
Is it simple minded to think that monetary metals like gold and silver might retain their value better than fiat money, which can be created out of thin air?

You seem to understand that creating currency out of thin air devalues that currency and that this helps debtors. But you ignore the fact that doing this hurts holders and creditors of that currency.

When new money is created out of thin air, some people are helped, but others are hurt. Saving and lending are discouraged, while borrowing and spending is encouraged.

Is this what we want? Will this lead to a sustainable economy?

On Aug 09 09:20 PM Brian McMorris wrote:

> Puravi...you make sensible, well informed comments that reflect reality.
> But all the "goldheads" visiting this site can only spout their blind
> faith in colored dirt. I have no idea why people think gold and
> silver are their salvation. Are they all zombies?
>
> People should understand, like you do, that fiat currency represents
> the productive capacity and assets of the nation that issues that
> currency. America is not going away. Our national assets are fixed.
> The only thing that printing money does is make those assets equal
> to a larger number of dollars (devalues dollars).
>
> And here is where the mindless hoards really miss the point: when
> the country is faced with a massive Deflation (who can deny that
> houses and labor are worth less today than last year) due to a massive
> financial panic, a global psychological reaction, the best thing
> to do is Reflate the dollar back to where it was. This should pull
> the value of all those assets back closer to where they were and
> solve most of the credit problem. It is really simple math.
>
> But if you are drinking the Schiff / Roubini Koolaid, you can't think
> such simple thoughts and must instead come up with apocalytic scenarios.
> And you might even have your net worth in silver and gold, which
> of course, might influence how you argue this point.
>
> Keep up the good fight. But know that it is always the contrarians
> who win at the game of investing.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154804-peter-schiff-vs-the-fed?source=feed#comment-621691 621691
www.youtube.com/watch?...]]> Sun, 09 Aug 2009 08:04:01 -0400
www.youtube.com/watch?...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/149574-forget-goldman-start-worrying-about-the-government?source=feed#comment-594641 594641
You don't blame JUST the government or JUST the corporation for fascism - at least not when they've both entered into the relationship without coercion, which is clearly the case here. You blame them both. The author is right to point out that there should be more focus on the government's role in this, but Goldman deserves every bit of ridicule they've been receiving as well.]]> Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:00:26 -0400
You don't blame JUST the government or JUST the corporation for fascism - at least not when they've both entered into the relationship without coercion, which is clearly the case here. You blame them both. The author is right to point out that there should be more focus on the government's role in this, but Goldman deserves every bit of ridicule they've been receiving as well.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/239719-james-quinn/13907-fed-secrecy?source=feed#comment-591344 591344
They're either incompetent, crooks, or a combination of the two.

Whichever, CLEARLY, the people's representatives need to be able to watch what they're doing. Go Representative Paul!]]> Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:05:44 -0400
They're either incompetent, crooks, or a combination of the two.

Whichever, CLEARLY, the people's representatives need to be able to watch what they're doing. Go Representative Paul!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146754-in-economic-no-man-s-land?source=feed#comment-572082 572082
The main problem now is that the government is doing everything in it's power to slow the correction. The bad decisions made during the boom need to be liquidated. Resources need to be reallocated. In a true market economy prices would now be falling, which would allow people to save more. As savings increased, interest rates would drop and new business opportunities would emerge. Employment would follow.

We're lucky some of this (greater savings, at least) is actually happening, given everything the government is doing wrong.

We no longer have a market economy. Government now determines resource allocation. The Fed determines interest rates and the money supply. The government is spending like there's no tomorrow and the Fed is making money free. But it doesn't matter. People still need to save - they need to get out from underwater. Except now it will take longer since prices aren't dropping as much as they should and as fast as they would were the Fed not inflating.

And since the government, not the market, is now in charge of resource allocation - who knows if the new economy, once one eventually emerges, will be sustainable?]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:07:41 -0400
The main problem now is that the government is doing everything in it's power to slow the correction. The bad decisions made during the boom need to be liquidated. Resources need to be reallocated. In a true market economy prices would now be falling, which would allow people to save more. As savings increased, interest rates would drop and new business opportunities would emerge. Employment would follow.

We're lucky some of this (greater savings, at least) is actually happening, given everything the government is doing wrong.

We no longer have a market economy. Government now determines resource allocation. The Fed determines interest rates and the money supply. The government is spending like there's no tomorrow and the Fed is making money free. But it doesn't matter. People still need to save - they need to get out from underwater. Except now it will take longer since prices aren't dropping as much as they should and as fast as they would were the Fed not inflating.

And since the government, not the market, is now in charge of resource allocation - who knows if the new economy, once one eventually emerges, will be sustainable?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146545-is-inflation-a-fact-or-just-an-opinion-part-i?source=feed#comment-570851 570851
Clearly, the credit bubble is still deflating. Clearly, the monetary base has expanded. But expansion of the monetary base isn't enough to fuel price inflation. Price inflation requires credit expansion, and that isn't happening. Lenders aren't lending and borrowers aren't borrowing.

Has the game changed? I think so, at least temporarily, Last fall was ugly and what has happened since has been even uglier. Lenders and borrows are scared. Money holders are scared. The result? Stagnation. Everybody waits to see what is going to happen.

And what IS going to happen? Eventually, inflation will win out. It has to. Politicians won't stop spending (until the printing press is taken away.) Stagnation may go on for years though. Like the 30's. The longer it goes on the more likely we'll see hyperinflation in the end because the Fed won't want to stop the spree once it starts. Unless there's a political (i.e. free market) revolution - which IS a possibility.

Today's strategy... wait, and watch. Watch carefully. ]]> Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:38:16 -0400
Clearly, the credit bubble is still deflating. Clearly, the monetary base has expanded. But expansion of the monetary base isn't enough to fuel price inflation. Price inflation requires credit expansion, and that isn't happening. Lenders aren't lending and borrowers aren't borrowing.

Has the game changed? I think so, at least temporarily, Last fall was ugly and what has happened since has been even uglier. Lenders and borrows are scared. Money holders are scared. The result? Stagnation. Everybody waits to see what is going to happen.

And what IS going to happen? Eventually, inflation will win out. It has to. Politicians won't stop spending (until the printing press is taken away.) Stagnation may go on for years though. Like the 30's. The longer it goes on the more likely we'll see hyperinflation in the end because the Fed won't want to stop the spree once it starts. Unless there's a political (i.e. free market) revolution - which IS a possibility.

Today's strategy... wait, and watch. Watch carefully. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/164535-mike-stathis/10623-obama-wrong-on-the-economy-wrong-on-healthcare-part-1?source=feed#comment-567969 567969
You have nightmares too? Every night I dream that I have to get up at 3 AM in order to just stay current on the latest government/central bank/crony capitalist scam to steal my savings and destroy my children's future.]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:41:26 -0400
You have nightmares too? Every night I dream that I have to get up at 3 AM in order to just stay current on the latest government/central bank/crony capitalist scam to steal my savings and destroy my children's future.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144958-from-free-markets-to-absolute-power-the-warped-views-of-bank-speak?source=feed#comment-560932 560932
Very few historians understand economics. In fact, very few "economists" do either. If you're interested in the truth about the cause of the great depression, check out Thomas Woods' new book, Meltdown, or if you really want the details, ready Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression.]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:59:59 -0400
Very few historians understand economics. In fact, very few "economists" do either. If you're interested in the truth about the cause of the great depression, check out Thomas Woods' new book, Meltdown, or if you really want the details, ready Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144102-the-dollar-ain-t-picture-perfect-but-what-s-better?source=feed#comment-553615 553615
It's a complete pipe dream of course, but in the best of all possible modern worlds, money would be privatized. As long as they maintain control governments won't let it happen, but there's no reason that privatized, electronic, PM or commodity backed currencies couldn't work as the world's reserve currency(s). All users of such a currency would need would be trust in it's future value, trust which could be built over time through regular audits by trusted entities.

The current problem with the dollar (and to an extent it's always there with every government fiat currency) is that there is a growing lack of trust in it's future value. With good reason.

Oh, and a privatized money would have one other effect. Some of us think it would a quite positive effect on most everyone's wealth. It would reduce government's ability to borrow, and without the ability to borrow government would be forced to downsize to a size that the citizenry were willing to support through current taxation.]]> Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:38:19 -0400
It's a complete pipe dream of course, but in the best of all possible modern worlds, money would be privatized. As long as they maintain control governments won't let it happen, but there's no reason that privatized, electronic, PM or commodity backed currencies couldn't work as the world's reserve currency(s). All users of such a currency would need would be trust in it's future value, trust which could be built over time through regular audits by trusted entities.

The current problem with the dollar (and to an extent it's always there with every government fiat currency) is that there is a growing lack of trust in it's future value. With good reason.

Oh, and a privatized money would have one other effect. Some of us think it would a quite positive effect on most everyone's wealth. It would reduce government's ability to borrow, and without the ability to borrow government would be forced to downsize to a size that the citizenry were willing to support through current taxation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144102-the-dollar-ain-t-picture-perfect-but-what-s-better?source=feed#comment-553381 553381
Real money would be better. Gold.]]> Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:09:23 -0400
Real money would be better. Gold.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/239719-james-quinn/8741-fascist-america-here-now?source=feed#comment-551526 551526
Not a sophisticated investor, a few years ago he evidently took a good portion of his meager retirement savings and bought what he considered some of the safest bonds out there. GM. After all, having lived through the depression he knew better than to take excessive risks with his hard earned money.

I don't know why he held on, but he did. He reads the newspaper. He knew GM was going bankrupt. Guess he thought they'd come back. Guess he just watched 'em go down but thought, "the bonds are down so much now, what do I have to lose?" Maybe he just thought that they'd be okay since they were still paying interest. I dunno.

I was surprised to learn of this "investment" of my father-in-laws. I tend to think of the bondholders as speculators who don't deserve all that much sympathy. I thought all the original bondholders sold out earlier, of course. Took their haircuts but mostly got out with just with trims.

Now I wonder though... how many guys out there like my father-in-law?

How many unsophisticated investors now sporting shaved heads, courtesy of their own government?]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:32:38 -0400
Not a sophisticated investor, a few years ago he evidently took a good portion of his meager retirement savings and bought what he considered some of the safest bonds out there. GM. After all, having lived through the depression he knew better than to take excessive risks with his hard earned money.

I don't know why he held on, but he did. He reads the newspaper. He knew GM was going bankrupt. Guess he thought they'd come back. Guess he just watched 'em go down but thought, "the bonds are down so much now, what do I have to lose?" Maybe he just thought that they'd be okay since they were still paying interest. I dunno.

I was surprised to learn of this "investment" of my father-in-laws. I tend to think of the bondholders as speculators who don't deserve all that much sympathy. I thought all the original bondholders sold out earlier, of course. Took their haircuts but mostly got out with just with trims.

Now I wonder though... how many guys out there like my father-in-law?

How many unsophisticated investors now sporting shaved heads, courtesy of their own government?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/143033-the-debt-conundrum-part-2?source=feed#comment-545900 545900
Education isn't really something "received", it must be pursued. It's driven by an inner fire, a desire to learn, a fire that can be lit in most people by a good teacher.

The problem with the US public education system is that there are too few good teachers, because the system itself is horribly flawed and most smart people who enter it as teachers leave quickly after they discern it's flaws.

Here's how the system currently "works":

The federal government says there must be "accountability", and they force it's nature on state governments via NCLB, and the funding that accompanies that legislation.

Next, state governments define "Standards Of Learnings", (appropriately referred to as "SOLs") which provide course content road maps to local school divisions.

Finally, local public school divisions add the details to the SOL road maps, defining what will be taught at every grade level during every minute of every school day.

The students are then tested regularly, and decisions about the quality of the schools are made based on these test results.

Of course, just like much of what government tries to do, this system, while well intentioned, is horribly flawed.

1. In most cases, students aren't held accountable for their SOL test results. Some just draw patterns in the bubbles on the test sheets.

2. Holding individual teachers and even schools accountable for the performance of their students on these tests is incredibly unfair, not only because students aren't held accountable (and thus many don't care) but because there is no attempt to measure where the students were academically BEFORE the teacher (or school) received them. Only performance on the specific grade level tests are measured, not "value added" by the specific teachers and schools.

3. Measuring schools based on the performance of their students ignores the greater importance of parental influence. A school full of children of uneducated parents who don't value education is always going to perform more poorly than a school full of children of parents who do value education.

Now, imagine you're a teacher in this system and you see how your performance is going to be measured. It's just like being a manager whose performance is based on the performance of his charges, only that he is given no authority over his charges.

So, most good teachers leave the system after a year or two.

The only students who are going to succeed in this system are those who have their fires lit by the few good teachers who do stick it out, or by parents or others outside of the system.

Readers, take it from somebody who knows the system well... send your children to private schools or home school them.]]> Sun, 14 Jun 2009 05:41:49 -0400
Education isn't really something "received", it must be pursued. It's driven by an inner fire, a desire to learn, a fire that can be lit in most people by a good teacher.

The problem with the US public education system is that there are too few good teachers, because the system itself is horribly flawed and most smart people who enter it as teachers leave quickly after they discern it's flaws.

Here's how the system currently "works":

The federal government says there must be "accountability", and they force it's nature on state governments via NCLB, and the funding that accompanies that legislation.

Next, state governments define "Standards Of Learnings", (appropriately referred to as "SOLs") which provide course content road maps to local school divisions.

Finally, local public school divisions add the details to the SOL road maps, defining what will be taught at every grade level during every minute of every school day.

The students are then tested regularly, and decisions about the quality of the schools are made based on these test results.

Of course, just like much of what government tries to do, this system, while well intentioned, is horribly flawed.

1. In most cases, students aren't held accountable for their SOL test results. Some just draw patterns in the bubbles on the test sheets.

2. Holding individual teachers and even schools accountable for the performance of their students on these tests is incredibly unfair, not only because students aren't held accountable (and thus many don't care) but because there is no attempt to measure where the students were academically BEFORE the teacher (or school) received them. Only performance on the specific grade level tests are measured, not "value added" by the specific teachers and schools.

3. Measuring schools based on the performance of their students ignores the greater importance of parental influence. A school full of children of uneducated parents who don't value education is always going to perform more poorly than a school full of children of parents who do value education.

Now, imagine you're a teacher in this system and you see how your performance is going to be measured. It's just like being a manager whose performance is based on the performance of his charges, only that he is given no authority over his charges.

So, most good teachers leave the system after a year or two.

The only students who are going to succeed in this system are those who have their fires lit by the few good teachers who do stick it out, or by parents or others outside of the system.

Readers, take it from somebody who knows the system well... send your children to private schools or home school them.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/25902?source=feed#comment-545890 545890
The federal government says there must be "accountability", and they force it's nature on state governments via NCLB, and the funding that accompanies that legislation.

Next, state governments define "Standards Of Learnings", (appropriately referred as "SOLs") which provide course content road maps to local school divisions.

Finally, local public school divisions add the details to the SOL road maps, defining what will be taught at every grade level during every minute of every school day.

The students are then tested regularly, and decisions about the quality of the schools are made based on these test results.

Of course, just like much of what government tries to do, this system, while well intentioned, is horribly flawed.

1. In most cases, students aren't held accountable for their SOL test results. Some just draw patterns in the bubbles on the test sheets.

2. Holding individual teachers and even schools accountable for the performance of their students on these tests is incredibly unfair, not only because students aren't held accountable (and thus many don't care) but because there is no attempt to measure where the students were academically BEFORE the teacher (or school) received them. Only performance on the specific grade level tests are measured, not "value added" by the specific teachers and schools.

3. Measuring schools based on the performance of their students ignores the greater importance of parental influence. A school full of children of uneducated parents who don't value education is always going to perform more poorly than a school full of children of parents who do value education.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. More government is NOT the answer to the US education problem.]]> Sun, 14 Jun 2009 05:10:11 -0400
The federal government says there must be "accountability", and they force it's nature on state governments via NCLB, and the funding that accompanies that legislation.

Next, state governments define "Standards Of Learnings", (appropriately referred as "SOLs") which provide course content road maps to local school divisions.

Finally, local public school divisions add the details to the SOL road maps, defining what will be taught at every grade level during every minute of every school day.

The students are then tested regularly, and decisions about the quality of the schools are made based on these test results.

Of course, just like much of what government tries to do, this system, while well intentioned, is horribly flawed.

1. In most cases, students aren't held accountable for their SOL test results. Some just draw patterns in the bubbles on the test sheets.

2. Holding individual teachers and even schools accountable for the performance of their students on these tests is incredibly unfair, not only because students aren't held accountable (and thus many don't care) but because there is no attempt to measure where the students were academically BEFORE the teacher (or school) received them. Only performance on the specific grade level tests are measured, not "value added" by the specific teachers and schools.

3. Measuring schools based on the performance of their students ignores the greater importance of parental influence. A school full of children of uneducated parents who don't value education is always going to perform more poorly than a school full of children of parents who do value education.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. More government is NOT the answer to the US education problem.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141381-the-foundations-of-the-current-crisis-don-t-shoot-the-messenger?source=feed#comment-532743 532743
During the 80's and 90's I was a Greenspan fan, and thought of him as a free marketer. But then, I was fairly ignorant back then.

Greenspan certainly understands markets and economics. No doubt about that, so he clearly is NOT a free marketer. If he were, he would not have ever taken the job of Fed chair. In so doing, he bought into the system that feeds the growth of FedGov. Without the Fed, there is NO way the federal government could have accumulated it's level of debt, and without that debt, there is NO way the politicians could have grown FedGov to it's current, smothering size.

Greenspan enabled it, and he knew what he was doing. Bernanke is doing the same.

Neither of these men are free marketers.]]> Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:50:21 -0400
During the 80's and 90's I was a Greenspan fan, and thought of him as a free marketer. But then, I was fairly ignorant back then.

Greenspan certainly understands markets and economics. No doubt about that, so he clearly is NOT a free marketer. If he were, he would not have ever taken the job of Fed chair. In so doing, he bought into the system that feeds the growth of FedGov. Without the Fed, there is NO way the federal government could have accumulated it's level of debt, and without that debt, there is NO way the politicians could have grown FedGov to it's current, smothering size.

Greenspan enabled it, and he knew what he was doing. Bernanke is doing the same.

Neither of these men are free marketers.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141438-bond-expert-thursday-wrap?source=feed#comment-532650 532650
The sheer amount of debt to be financed is SO great that there is no longer safety in long bonds.

There will be stops and starts, but the trend for the long bond is down.]]> Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:21:06 -0400
The sheer amount of debt to be financed is SO great that there is no longer safety in long bonds.

There will be stops and starts, but the trend for the long bond is down.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141381-the-foundations-of-the-current-crisis-don-t-shoot-the-messenger?source=feed#comment-532040 532040
As for questions about your patriotism, there's nothing unpatriotic about trading on the expectation that the future value of the FRN will drop when the government and the fed are doing what they're doing to my grandchildren.

Unless, that is, it's now unpatriotic to display common sense.]]> Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:29:06 -0400
As for questions about your patriotism, there's nothing unpatriotic about trading on the expectation that the future value of the FRN will drop when the government and the fed are doing what they're doing to my grandchildren.

Unless, that is, it's now unpatriotic to display common sense.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141006-as-goes-gm-so-goes-the-country?source=feed#comment-529381 529381
It remains to be seen how GM will fare after it's bailout bankruptcy. The crony capitalist manner in which this went down has also disturbed many potential buyers. I wonder how many will now swear off GM, and how that sentiment may damage their future.]]> Wed, 03 Jun 2009 05:36:55 -0400
It remains to be seen how GM will fare after it's bailout bankruptcy. The crony capitalist manner in which this went down has also disturbed many potential buyers. I wonder how many will now swear off GM, and how that sentiment may damage their future.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140475-the-curious-problem-of-gold-and-silver-coins-as-legal-u-s-tender?source=feed#comment-524855 524855
Unfortunately and sadly though, Kahre has absolutely no chance of winning his court battle.]]> Sun, 31 May 2009 06:12:20 -0400
Unfortunately and sadly though, Kahre has absolutely no chance of winning his court battle.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/139055-will-china-end-its-co-dependent-relationship-with-the-u-s?source=feed#comment-513616 513616
Americans underestimate the Chinese. We've been on top so long, and we ignore history. The west hasn't always ruled but not one in one hundred Americans appreciates this. If we don't change our profligate ways soon, we WILL come to appreciate this.

As you point out, there is solid evidence that the Chinese are decoupling. Americans need to understand this.... It is they, not us, who hold the cards in this game. They produce. We consume. ]]> Thu, 21 May 2009 19:22:52 -0400
Americans underestimate the Chinese. We've been on top so long, and we ignore history. The west hasn't always ruled but not one in one hundred Americans appreciates this. If we don't change our profligate ways soon, we WILL come to appreciate this.

As you point out, there is solid evidence that the Chinese are decoupling. Americans need to understand this.... It is they, not us, who hold the cards in this game. They produce. We consume. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/134234-nothing-about-this-economy-is-surprising?source=feed#comment-483687 483687 - Benjamin Franklin

Our problem is that we are not being led by wise men.

We're being led by men and women who think that they are smarter and more knowledgeable than our ancestors, and thus that history cannot teach us anything.

If there is even one among us today who possesses the insights of Thomas Jefferson, then he is staying well hidden. Yet even the average Joes, not to mention the arrogant politicians, dismiss Jefferson's warnings about central banking as quaint. "Things are different now", they rationalize.

But things are actually the same. People will always try to find ways to exert power over others and steal from them. When you get right down to it, while we walk around in well tailored clothing and put men on the moon, we're just a bunch of well dressed uberchimps with the ability to build things.

History tells us that human liberty to the degree experienced in this country only comes around rarely. I count myself fortunate to have experienced it, even if only at the tail end of the run.

I'm afraid it's gone though, and won't be seen again in this country for a very long time.

]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:19:16 -0400 - Benjamin Franklin

Our problem is that we are not being led by wise men.

We're being led by men and women who think that they are smarter and more knowledgeable than our ancestors, and thus that history cannot teach us anything.

If there is even one among us today who possesses the insights of Thomas Jefferson, then he is staying well hidden. Yet even the average Joes, not to mention the arrogant politicians, dismiss Jefferson's warnings about central banking as quaint. "Things are different now", they rationalize.

But things are actually the same. People will always try to find ways to exert power over others and steal from them. When you get right down to it, while we walk around in well tailored clothing and put men on the moon, we're just a bunch of well dressed uberchimps with the ability to build things.

History tells us that human liberty to the degree experienced in this country only comes around rarely. I count myself fortunate to have experienced it, even if only at the tail end of the run.

I'm afraid it's gone though, and won't be seen again in this country for a very long time.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/132539-gold-should-be-at-the-heart-of-a-new-global-reserve-currency?source=feed#comment-474338 474338 Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:23:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/132282-what-will-this-crisis-lead-to?source=feed#comment-472953 472953
F.E.B., you seem to see the world, as so many amazingly still do, as strictly D vs R. Anyone critical of D must be a proponent of R and vise versa, when in fact, many of us critical of Obama recognize that both McCain and Obama were terrible choices because both are big government proponents neither of whom has ever seen a problem that he didn't think the federal government should attempt to solve.

I may be way wrong, but I sense that there is a true political realignment taking place. The D v R alignment is being replaced by Big v Small federal government political sides. The big banker bailout last fall was the shock that many of us on both the right and left needed in order to clearly see the US federal government for what it truly has become - an oligarchy controlled by large, favored corporations.

The tea parties and future like protests are in large part reactions to this 21st century fascism.]]> Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:43:33 -0400
F.E.B., you seem to see the world, as so many amazingly still do, as strictly D vs R. Anyone critical of D must be a proponent of R and vise versa, when in fact, many of us critical of Obama recognize that both McCain and Obama were terrible choices because both are big government proponents neither of whom has ever seen a problem that he didn't think the federal government should attempt to solve.

I may be way wrong, but I sense that there is a true political realignment taking place. The D v R alignment is being replaced by Big v Small federal government political sides. The big banker bailout last fall was the shock that many of us on both the right and left needed in order to clearly see the US federal government for what it truly has become - an oligarchy controlled by large, favored corporations.

The tea parties and future like protests are in large part reactions to this 21st century fascism.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131725-are-we-at-the-beginning-of-the-next-bull-market-probably-not?source=feed#comment-470468 470468
toobad41, you really need to reread your history. Looking at this as a Democrat vs Republican issue is missing reality entirely. Hoover wasn't the free marketer that he's made out to be by history teachers in the gubmint schools, he was a classic economic interventionist. In an attempt to spend the country out of the depression Hoover increased federal spending and the deficit so dramatically that FDR railed against it in the 1932 campaign. He also pressured business to prop up wage rates and it was he, not FDR, who started the depression era public works programs.

The Hoover/FDR to Bush/Obama parallels are astounding. Just as Bush was no free marketer, neither was Hoover. And just as FDR turned out to be Hoover on steroids, so it appears that Obama is Bush on steroids.

The Hoover/FDR interventionism stifled the recovery and kept the country in depression for a decade and a half. Let's just hope America comes to it's senses and we don't suffer the same fate in today's Bush/Obama depression.]]> Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:05:26 -0400
toobad41, you really need to reread your history. Looking at this as a Democrat vs Republican issue is missing reality entirely. Hoover wasn't the free marketer that he's made out to be by history teachers in the gubmint schools, he was a classic economic interventionist. In an attempt to spend the country out of the depression Hoover increased federal spending and the deficit so dramatically that FDR railed against it in the 1932 campaign. He also pressured business to prop up wage rates and it was he, not FDR, who started the depression era public works programs.

The Hoover/FDR to Bush/Obama parallels are astounding. Just as Bush was no free marketer, neither was Hoover. And just as FDR turned out to be Hoover on steroids, so it appears that Obama is Bush on steroids.

The Hoover/FDR interventionism stifled the recovery and kept the country in depression for a decade and a half. Let's just hope America comes to it's senses and we don't suffer the same fate in today's Bush/Obama depression.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/130712-are-the-banks-telling-us-the-truth?source=feed#comment-462050 462050 Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:57:53 -0400