sean.parmelee's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/985620/comments http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/961851?source=feed#comment-18048921 18048921 Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:47:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/961851?source=feed#comment-18030021 18030021 Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:29:13 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/858911?source=feed#comment-15646171 15646171 Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:20:38 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/662951?source=feed#comment-15483411 15483411 Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:24:04 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1165431/comments?source=feed#comment-14721821 14721821 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:20:34 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/780601?source=feed#comment-14143021 14143021 Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:23:11 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1129651/comments?source=feed#comment-14097491 14097491 Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:25:44 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/706881?source=feed#comment-12379131 12379131
The sad reality is that people with degrees in "environmental sustainability" will find ample employment, either in the EPA itself, or in the compliance departments of any number of corporations and institutions.]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 17:24:23 -0500
The sad reality is that people with degrees in "environmental sustainability" will find ample employment, either in the EPA itself, or in the compliance departments of any number of corporations and institutions.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/706881?source=feed#comment-12377841 12377841 Fri, 07 Dec 2012 16:33:47 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/706881?source=feed#comment-12359721 12359721
By working longer, these relatively high-wage employees are contributing to higher unemployment among those just entering the workforce, who are relatively cheaper to employ. Rising food prices, loss of home equity, loss of retirement savings are all forcing the near-retirement age to postpone their plans and stay in the labor force.

Moreover, the average duration of unemployment (40 weeks) remains approximately double that of the previous record (21 weeks in 1983), and is a post-war high. The participation rate among those aged 16 to 19 is the lowest ever recorded in the post-war era, meaning that the current generation of future laborers has the least work experience of any generation in history. These are terrible precedents.]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:29:01 -0500
By working longer, these relatively high-wage employees are contributing to higher unemployment among those just entering the workforce, who are relatively cheaper to employ. Rising food prices, loss of home equity, loss of retirement savings are all forcing the near-retirement age to postpone their plans and stay in the labor force.

Moreover, the average duration of unemployment (40 weeks) remains approximately double that of the previous record (21 weeks in 1983), and is a post-war high. The participation rate among those aged 16 to 19 is the lowest ever recorded in the post-war era, meaning that the current generation of future laborers has the least work experience of any generation in history. These are terrible precedents.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/691541?source=feed#comment-12091321 12091321 Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:58:48 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/662951?source=feed#comment-11567811 11567811 Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:42:03 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/656621?source=feed#comment-11435971 11435971 Fri, 09 Nov 2012 16:46:45 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/613861?source=feed#comment-10931391 10931391 Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:32:55 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/613861?source=feed#comment-10928151 10928151 Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:30:51 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/613861?source=feed#comment-10906781 10906781 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:55:04 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/613861?source=feed#comment-10906221 10906221 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:47:29 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/613861?source=feed#comment-10906091 10906091 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:46:01 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/613861?source=feed#comment-10905631 10905631 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:39:13 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/613331?source=feed#comment-10903131 10903131 http://seekingalpha.co...]]> Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:43:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.co...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/612951?source=feed#comment-10902571 10902571
I think you're right on all counts.]]> Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:29:26 -0400
I think you're right on all counts.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/612951?source=feed#comment-10900521 10900521 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:43:04 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/612951?source=feed#comment-10898701 10898701 Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:09:20 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/612951?source=feed#comment-10896531 10896531
While it is true that you can switch to desktop mode for some tasks, the start menu has been completely eliminated. That tile screen IS the start menu. Like many things on the computer, people who are very particular about the way they want to accomplish common tasks will simply need to do a lot of work arranging the tiles on that screen in a way that makes them happy. In desktop mode, they can also add a Quick Launch toolbar to the taskbar.]]> Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:24:39 -0400
While it is true that you can switch to desktop mode for some tasks, the start menu has been completely eliminated. That tile screen IS the start menu. Like many things on the computer, people who are very particular about the way they want to accomplish common tasks will simply need to do a lot of work arranging the tiles on that screen in a way that makes them happy. In desktop mode, they can also add a Quick Launch toolbar to the taskbar.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/612951?source=feed#comment-10895381 10895381
I would also disagree with the assertion that because it has been optimized for touch, desktop users are getting the shaft. It took time to get used to the new ways of navigating the operating system, but there were very few things that were really annoying on my desktop PC.]]> Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:04:00 -0400
I would also disagree with the assertion that because it has been optimized for touch, desktop users are getting the shaft. It took time to get used to the new ways of navigating the operating system, but there were very few things that were really annoying on my desktop PC.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/930231/comments?source=feed#comment-10635241 10635241
How do the "throwback" sodas, which use white sugar, fit into Pepsi or Coke's business model? When I first saw these in stores I assumed they would be short-lived promotional items, but here they are, what, five or six years later?]]> Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:46:32 -0400
How do the "throwback" sodas, which use white sugar, fit into Pepsi or Coke's business model? When I first saw these in stores I assumed they would be short-lived promotional items, but here they are, what, five or six years later?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/572701?source=feed#comment-10221871 10221871
Agreed that McCain was a terrible candidate and deserved to lose.

I've already answered your question about how Obama has engendered socialism in America. His biggest failure as a president has been his total unwillingness to reduce spending in any meaningful way. It's to the point that I genuinely believe that Obama does not consider federal spending at 23% of GDP to be a problem, and that the only thing the federal budget really needs at this point is more tax revenue. By crowding out the private economy, Obama is slowly but surely pushing us down the path to European-style soft socialism, where half of GDP is government spending on social programs and the vast majority of the population receives some form of welfare services.

As another specific example, consider the case of college tuition. Everyone knows that college tuition is exploding, year after year, despite no matching explosion in the quality of education. This money is going into a black hole of bloated compensation packages, bureaucracy, and fancy new buildings and classroom equipment. Even the part-time jobs the universities offer to students have absurd compensation--$10/hour for the kid who swipes meal cards in dining halls is perfectly normal. To pay for it all, most students now attending universities in the U.S. are receiving federal student loans for the majority of their tuition costs. College tuition is exploding because these students are told that their loans are not a big deal, that they don't have to pay them off for a long time (and may never have to, since student loan forgiveness is a topic that never seems to go away), and that everyone needs a four-year liberal arts degree from a prestigious university to succeed in the working world. As with healthcare--where people with employer-sponsored insurance have no idea how much the services they're receiving cost--these students have no idea whether the education they're receiving is a good value or not, compared to community colleges, to splitting two years at a community college and two years at a four-year university, to not going to college at all, or to going to a different college. Kids (and their parents) just pick a school they like and take out a loan for it. Where I'm going with all of this is that there's no real college education market (just as there's no real health care market) because most people in it are, however temporarily, having someone else foot the bill. Obama's solution to this has been to say that the lenders are the problem, and nationalized the student loan business so that he could write more loans. Let's be honest, if it were up to him, there would be a guaranteed college education for everyone. (On the healthcare front, Obama demagogues the idea of eliminating tax breaks for employer-sponsored health insurance. ObamaCare also basically eliminated the concept of high-deductible health savings account-type insurance, which also encourages people to become aware of the costs of health services. And of course Obama completely rejects the Medicare Advantage model.) On every issue involving exploding costs--federal social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; college tuition; private health insurance--Obama's approach has been to say, "Even though there is no market, the market has failed. The private corporations involved are to blame. Therefore, I would like to put those corporations out of business and provide their services to everyone for free." Still looking for specific examples? How about the illegal and unnecessary government takeover of GM? An orderly bankruptcy proceeding would have sufficed there, but Obama preferred to use his "false choice" rhetoric, proclaiming that the choice was either to nationalize GM or to liquidate the entire apparatus. How about the stimulus itself, which rather than stimulate anything in the private sector, went largely to bail out irresponsible state governments so that huge unionized worker compensation structures would not have to be re-negotiated. As Romney has repeatedly pointed out, Obama believes that the solution to all of America's problems is government. Or, as the Democrats in Charlotte put it, "Government is the only thing we all belong to." The socialist utopia is a society where the space between the government and the individual--which for the great bulk of American history has been filled by the family, the community, private enterprises, religious groups, etc.--is made as small as possible. Hence "The Life of Julia." I could go on like this forever, but I think more is probably less at this point.]]> Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:53:20 -0400
Agreed that McCain was a terrible candidate and deserved to lose.

I've already answered your question about how Obama has engendered socialism in America. His biggest failure as a president has been his total unwillingness to reduce spending in any meaningful way. It's to the point that I genuinely believe that Obama does not consider federal spending at 23% of GDP to be a problem, and that the only thing the federal budget really needs at this point is more tax revenue. By crowding out the private economy, Obama is slowly but surely pushing us down the path to European-style soft socialism, where half of GDP is government spending on social programs and the vast majority of the population receives some form of welfare services.

As another specific example, consider the case of college tuition. Everyone knows that college tuition is exploding, year after year, despite no matching explosion in the quality of education. This money is going into a black hole of bloated compensation packages, bureaucracy, and fancy new buildings and classroom equipment. Even the part-time jobs the universities offer to students have absurd compensation--$10/hour for the kid who swipes meal cards in dining halls is perfectly normal. To pay for it all, most students now attending universities in the U.S. are receiving federal student loans for the majority of their tuition costs. College tuition is exploding because these students are told that their loans are not a big deal, that they don't have to pay them off for a long time (and may never have to, since student loan forgiveness is a topic that never seems to go away), and that everyone needs a four-year liberal arts degree from a prestigious university to succeed in the working world. As with healthcare--where people with employer-sponsored insurance have no idea how much the services they're receiving cost--these students have no idea whether the education they're receiving is a good value or not, compared to community colleges, to splitting two years at a community college and two years at a four-year university, to not going to college at all, or to going to a different college. Kids (and their parents) just pick a school they like and take out a loan for it. Where I'm going with all of this is that there's no real college education market (just as there's no real health care market) because most people in it are, however temporarily, having someone else foot the bill. Obama's solution to this has been to say that the lenders are the problem, and nationalized the student loan business so that he could write more loans. Let's be honest, if it were up to him, there would be a guaranteed college education for everyone. (On the healthcare front, Obama demagogues the idea of eliminating tax breaks for employer-sponsored health insurance. ObamaCare also basically eliminated the concept of high-deductible health savings account-type insurance, which also encourages people to become aware of the costs of health services. And of course Obama completely rejects the Medicare Advantage model.) On every issue involving exploding costs--federal social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; college tuition; private health insurance--Obama's approach has been to say, "Even though there is no market, the market has failed. The private corporations involved are to blame. Therefore, I would like to put those corporations out of business and provide their services to everyone for free." Still looking for specific examples? How about the illegal and unnecessary government takeover of GM? An orderly bankruptcy proceeding would have sufficed there, but Obama preferred to use his "false choice" rhetoric, proclaiming that the choice was either to nationalize GM or to liquidate the entire apparatus. How about the stimulus itself, which rather than stimulate anything in the private sector, went largely to bail out irresponsible state governments so that huge unionized worker compensation structures would not have to be re-negotiated. As Romney has repeatedly pointed out, Obama believes that the solution to all of America's problems is government. Or, as the Democrats in Charlotte put it, "Government is the only thing we all belong to." The socialist utopia is a society where the space between the government and the individual--which for the great bulk of American history has been filled by the family, the community, private enterprises, religious groups, etc.--is made as small as possible. Hence "The Life of Julia." I could go on like this forever, but I think more is probably less at this point.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/572701?source=feed#comment-10211991 10211991
I don't find Romney's "leave it up to the states" argument to be a bad one, considering the unconstitutionality of the ACA is irrelevant on a state level, where governments explicitly have plenary powers. The only real issue is why he decided to pursue an ACA-style policy as governor. I have no idea. He said in the debate that he likes it.

As I've made clear, I don't think the notion of "fundamentally altering the country" (an argument which is made by both parties, by the way) is helpful or accurate. It is a continuum, and the issue is how far to the left or right we as a nation want to be. You and I may dislike the rhetoric that's been used, but I wholeheartedly support the continued gridlock in Washington and extended debate about the role of government that it entails. It's a good thing.

To answer your question of how Obama has pushed the needle in favor of socialism is very simple: all you have to do is look at what percentage of GDP he would like to be devoted to government social services. If a 100% socialist society would spend 100% of GDP on social services, because the government controls 100% of the means of production, then the % of GDP spent by the federal government on social services in a mixed economy is a very rough measure of how far to the left or right we lie on that continuum we've discussed. It is plain as day that Obama's solution to chronic deficits is increased taxes, to make permanent current levels of spending. (His oft-repeated "$1 of new taxes for every $2.5 of spending cuts" is a farce and is more like $10 of new taxes for every $1 of spending cuts, when the budgetary gimmicks are stripped out.) It is equally clear that Romney's (and in particular, Ryan's) solution is decreased spending. (I should also point out that only a fool can't figure out that Romney intends to eliminate or restrict a number of popular tax deductions, including mortgage interest. He's not stupid enough to come out and say it, because Democrats' demagoguery and fear-mongering on this issue has blinded most people to the necessity of reform.) The feasibility of either man's proposal is irrelevant: one man wants current spending levels to continue or even accelerate, while the other wants to restore historical spending levels.]]> Fri, 05 Oct 2012 13:56:51 -0400
I don't find Romney's "leave it up to the states" argument to be a bad one, considering the unconstitutionality of the ACA is irrelevant on a state level, where governments explicitly have plenary powers. The only real issue is why he decided to pursue an ACA-style policy as governor. I have no idea. He said in the debate that he likes it.

As I've made clear, I don't think the notion of "fundamentally altering the country" (an argument which is made by both parties, by the way) is helpful or accurate. It is a continuum, and the issue is how far to the left or right we as a nation want to be. You and I may dislike the rhetoric that's been used, but I wholeheartedly support the continued gridlock in Washington and extended debate about the role of government that it entails. It's a good thing.

To answer your question of how Obama has pushed the needle in favor of socialism is very simple: all you have to do is look at what percentage of GDP he would like to be devoted to government social services. If a 100% socialist society would spend 100% of GDP on social services, because the government controls 100% of the means of production, then the % of GDP spent by the federal government on social services in a mixed economy is a very rough measure of how far to the left or right we lie on that continuum we've discussed. It is plain as day that Obama's solution to chronic deficits is increased taxes, to make permanent current levels of spending. (His oft-repeated "$1 of new taxes for every $2.5 of spending cuts" is a farce and is more like $10 of new taxes for every $1 of spending cuts, when the budgetary gimmicks are stripped out.) It is equally clear that Romney's (and in particular, Ryan's) solution is decreased spending. (I should also point out that only a fool can't figure out that Romney intends to eliminate or restrict a number of popular tax deductions, including mortgage interest. He's not stupid enough to come out and say it, because Democrats' demagoguery and fear-mongering on this issue has blinded most people to the necessity of reform.) The feasibility of either man's proposal is irrelevant: one man wants current spending levels to continue or even accelerate, while the other wants to restore historical spending levels.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/572701?source=feed#comment-10209371 10209371
The reality is likely the exact opposite of the "boomers" argument: older workers are postponing retirement to try to regain the losses they sustained to their 401(k)s and property values, preventing younger employees from finding work. Moreover, because older workers command higher wages, this decreases the number of employees companies can hire, driving down employment among the entire population, not just the youngest cohort.]]> Fri, 05 Oct 2012 12:57:31 -0400
The reality is likely the exact opposite of the "boomers" argument: older workers are postponing retirement to try to regain the losses they sustained to their 401(k)s and property values, preventing younger employees from finding work. Moreover, because older workers command higher wages, this decreases the number of employees companies can hire, driving down employment among the entire population, not just the youngest cohort.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/572701?source=feed#comment-10208711 10208711
All three of your arguments are classic examples of false-choice fallacies. 2MuchDebt and I have clearly explained how real economies are always mixed economies, wherein the degree to which socialism has creeped in is variable. This is what the real debate is about. The choice is not between social safety nets or nothing, nor between regulations or nothing, nor between the old status quo or ObamaCare. Such is exactly the campaign rhetoric of Democrats this election season: voters must choose between our regulations and another financial crisis, between our regulations and dirty air and water, between our social programs and throwing the poor, elderly, and disabled to the wolves, et cetera, ad nauseum.

The real reason these debates and broader political system have become so poisonous lately is because of absurd mischaracterizations of the other party's policy proposals. If you declare loudly and repeatedly to the American people that there is no common ground between you and your opponents, you just might create a reality in which that is true. Case in point: http://usat.ly/VFoJHA]]> Fri, 05 Oct 2012 12:44:40 -0400
All three of your arguments are classic examples of false-choice fallacies. 2MuchDebt and I have clearly explained how real economies are always mixed economies, wherein the degree to which socialism has creeped in is variable. This is what the real debate is about. The choice is not between social safety nets or nothing, nor between regulations or nothing, nor between the old status quo or ObamaCare. Such is exactly the campaign rhetoric of Democrats this election season: voters must choose between our regulations and another financial crisis, between our regulations and dirty air and water, between our social programs and throwing the poor, elderly, and disabled to the wolves, et cetera, ad nauseum.

The real reason these debates and broader political system have become so poisonous lately is because of absurd mischaracterizations of the other party's policy proposals. If you declare loudly and repeatedly to the American people that there is no common ground between you and your opponents, you just might create a reality in which that is true. Case in point: http://usat.ly/VFoJHA]]>