OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

A homerun.

He did it several times on the campaign trail but he did it today
for the first time as President. Obama delivered a major economic
speech at Georgetown University and he knocked it out of the
ballpark. *WAY* out of the ballpark. Wow.

I'm going to call it the "House on the Rock" speech and this one
was one for the history books. If you haven't read it or heard it
yet hie thee to the Internet and behold. We have a President who
gets it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

yea, right...whay do you hate america ?




On Apr 14, 12:35*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
A homerun.

He did it several times on the campaign trail but he did it today
for the first time as President. Obama delivered a major economic
speech at Georgetown University and he knocked it out of the
ballpark. *WAY* out of the ballpark. Wow.

I'm going to call it the "House on the Rock" speech and this one
was one for the history books. If you haven't read it or heard it
yet hie thee to the Internet and behold. We have a President who
gets it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Apr 14, 11:40*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
yea, right...whay do you hate america ?


Jebus, can't you get anything right. Its "Why do you hate America so
much?" Practice it.

Dave

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

yea, right...whay do you hate america ?

Classic. HOMERIC!
Frank Reid

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

yea, right...why do you hate america ?

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Apr 14, 2:47*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
yea, right...why do you hate america ?

Too late, you've been quoted, tagged and reviewed.
Frank Reid

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

petty...and kinda sad..........oh well.......i am pretty
busy today doing tax returns........




On Apr 14, 2:00*pm, Frank Reid wrote:
On Apr 14, 2:47*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:

yea, right...why do you hate america ?

Too late, you've been quoted, tagged and reviewed.
Frank Reid

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

petty...and kinda sad..........

Petty, funny. Not half as good as some of my typos.

oh well.......i am pretty busy today doing tax returns........

Thank you for doing your part to support the current administration.
Frank Reid

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
A homerun.

He did it several times on the campaign trail but he did it today
for the first time as President. Obama delivered a major economic
speech at Georgetown University and he knocked it out of the
ballpark. *WAY* out of the ballpark. Wow.

I'm going to call it the "House on the Rock" speech and this one
was one for the history books. If you haven't read it or heard it
yet hie thee to the Internet and behold. We have a President who
gets it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Damned fine speech....

John

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:35:04 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

A homerun.

He did it several times on the campaign trail but he did it today
for the first time as President. Obama delivered a major economic
speech at Georgetown University and he knocked it out of the
ballpark. *WAY* out of the ballpark. Wow.

I'm going to call it the "House on the Rock" speech and this one
was one for the history books. If you haven't read it or heard it
yet hie thee to the Internet and behold. We have a President who
gets it.

I haven't _heard_ the speech - I have only skimmed/sorta-read the "as prepared
for delivery" copy and seen commentary about it (oddly, the general
business-press slant seems to be either that Obama thinks things are turning
around OR that he thinks the worst is yet to come, and from what I skimmed,
there was only a couple of lines either way, but...???).

OTOH, WH Press Secretary Gibbs said, when asked about how the speech "contained
nothing new," that "we have already bitten off more than we can chew," so
"anything new would have been met by skepticism..." I've gotta say, after
having read this thread, hearing that was surprising.

So, whoever - please sum it up - what made this speech so wonderful (or not)?

TIA,
R

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:40:09 -0700 (PDT), "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:

yea, right...whay do you hate america ?

He's probably a curd...

HTH,
R




On Apr 14, 12:35*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
A homerun.

He did it several times on the campaign trail but he did it today
for the first time as President. Obama delivered a major economic
speech at Georgetown University and he knocked it out of the
ballpark. *WAY* out of the ballpark. Wow.

I'm going to call it the "House on the Rock" speech and this one
was one for the history books. If you haven't read it or heard it
yet hie thee to the Internet and behold. We have a President who
gets it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:50:50 -0700 (PDT), "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:

petty...and kinda sad..........oh well.......i am pretty
busy today doing tax returns........

Then good news - the Obama Administration has said it would support leniency for
those with tax problems...well, at least it's good news for those whose tax
returns you are doing...

Sheesh,
R




On Apr 14, 2:00*pm, Frank Reid wrote:
On Apr 14, 2:47*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:

yea, right...why do you hate america ?

Too late, you've been quoted, tagged and reviewed.
Frank Reid

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:57:11 -0700, "asadi"
wrote:


"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
. ..
A homerun.

He did it several times on the campaign trail but he did it today
for the first time as President. Obama delivered a major economic
speech at Georgetown University and he knocked it out of the
ballpark. *WAY* out of the ballpark. Wow.

I'm going to call it the "House on the Rock" speech and this one
was one for the history books. If you haven't read it or heard it
yet hie thee to the Internet and behold. We have a President who
gets it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Damned fine speech....

I'm honestly asking - why?

TIA,
R

John

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Apr 15, 9:02*am, wrote:
Ken Fortenberry

Damned fine speech....

I'm honestly asking - why?

TIA,
R


Because considering the **** storm WE are in, it was kind of hopeful
in a "steady as she goes" kind of way. Rick, NO one, KNOWS exactly how
to steer the course because NO ONE knows exactly how the effects of
the macroeconomic tools, and monetary tools are calibrated at the
levels being used. When Mariner Eccles, Roosevelt's banker/advisor,
(and fellow UTAH alum ;0))) pulled the levers to save capitalism the
last time capitalist greed almost pushed this country into communism,
the economic systems were much simpler. But even then there was a high
degree of uncertainty.

This situation is even more uncertain now. For example, the old
equations defining the relationships between consumer spending and
employment, domestic manufacturing orders, capital goods orders, etc
no longer hold. And economists across the political spectrum, were
caught short. So anyone saying they know that a consumer driven
recovery from this recession will occur with this or that
characteristic is talking thru their ass, Rs or Ds. And there are lots
of other relationships that are no longer well understood or stable in
the bull**** "financial services," debtor state economy we became
addicted to in the last decade.

Politics wise, history seems to be repeating itself. When Republican
Herbert Hoover went into denial and did nothing effective after the
crash of 1929, the country spiraled into Depression. The capitalist
system itself failed and the nation drifted toward communism as
suffering took its toll on working and middle class Americans. The
Republicans did the same kind of hyena-like harassing **** as they are
doing today. . . ironically it was the Democrats who saved the
capitalist system from itself.

Then, as Fascism and Communism grew in Europe, the Republicans flirted
with Fascism, running around in fascist uniforms, Sam Brown belts,
Bund rallies, and jack boots, playing stiff little American style
Nazis. And some lefties became enamoured with Bolshevism. If history
keeps repeating itself can we expect to see the RNC decked out in
slouch hats and riding pants by the end of Obama's first term? Will
Dennis Kucinisch be cuddling up in China's Central Committee?

Dave
If I am still around my bet will still be on the USA.

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

only cause they realize how much $$ it costs to collect....


" Then good news - the Obama Administration has said it
would support leniency for those with tax problems."

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

wrote in message
...
Damned fine speech....

I'm honestly asking - why?

TIA,
R

and, this time, I can't bash you for nitpicking. It was a decent,
politically targeted, Presidential speech. As one who worked to get Obama
elected, and is overall well pleased by his early performance, I still am a
bit uneasy with the 'swoon' level generated by some who support him and the
Democratic Party. I'm sort of made to think of the line by Mr.Wolf in 'Pulp
Fiction' in which he admonishes the two hit men about getting too
self-congratulatory. There, it's funny, but this sort of gushing over
routine speeches and such elevates both the public expectations and the odor
of bull**** to dangerous levels, IMO. Good speech, well delivered. Great?
One to be given a cute Pet Name in the history books? Get a grip, and leave
history to be written with the clarity of distance.
Tom

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
For example, the old
equations defining the relationships between consumer spending and
employment, domestic manufacturing orders, capital goods orders, etc
no longer hold.


Really? Explain your thinking, if you could, because I doubt that many of
those relationships have changed greatly.



Politics wise, history seems to be repeating itself.

it'll do that. History of all sorts generally repeats itself. Economic
history is a notable example.....


Tom

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

what's barrack hussein obama hiding & why?

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

"asadi" wrote in message
...
Okay, I'll rephrase that. It was the best presidential speech I have heard
eight years....

that would be fair enough!
Tom

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:39:05 -0700, "asadi"
wrote:


"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Damned fine speech....

I'm honestly asking - why?

TIA,
R

and, this time, I can't bash you for nitpicking. It was a decent,
politically targeted, Presidential speech. As one who worked to get Obama
elected, and is overall well pleased by his early performance, I still am
a bit uneasy with the 'swoon' level generated by some who support him and
the Democratic Party. I'm sort of made to think of the line by Mr.Wolf in
'Pulp Fiction' in which he admonishes the two hit men about getting too
self-congratulatory. There, it's funny, but this sort of gushing over
routine speeches and such elevates both the public expectations and the
odor of bull**** to dangerous levels, IMO. Good speech, well delivered.
Great? One to be given a cute Pet Name in the history books? Get a grip,
and leave history to be written with the clarity of distance.
Tom


Okay, I'll rephrase that. It was the best presidential speech I have heard
eight years....

john

Um, "nitpicking?" By asking why it was so special? I didn't see it, I only
read the copy of the speech _as intended_ (IOW, not even a transcript as given,
if it varied - and no, no "teleprompter" swipe intended - sometimes the delivery
can make so-so speech copy special and Obama is genuinely skilled at doing so).
And if it was 45 minutes long, I won't see it until at least the weekend.

Here's my confusion: Tom seems to indicate it was fair, Ken is having multiple
orgasms, John is apparently pretty impressed, and I've haven't read what
"beancounter" opined, but I'm pretty sure it's something asinine and
Limpdickesque. The coverage of it I've seen - all from the business press -
seemed to take two single sentences about whether the economy is getter better
or not and wind up with diametrically opposed takes on what he said. Top it off
with the WH Press Secretary openly stating it contained "nothing new." I'm not
bashing anyone, just observing that there sure seems to be a lot of differing
opinions about this speech, even from Obama supporters and staff.

TC,
R

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Damned fine speech....

I'm honestly asking - why?

TIA,
R

and, this time, I can't bash you for nitpicking. It was a decent,
politically targeted, Presidential speech. As one who worked to get Obama
elected, and is overall well pleased by his early performance, I still am
a bit uneasy with the 'swoon' level generated by some who support him and
the Democratic Party. I'm sort of made to think of the line by Mr.Wolf in
'Pulp Fiction' in which he admonishes the two hit men about getting too
self-congratulatory. There, it's funny, but this sort of gushing over
routine speeches and such elevates both the public expectations and the
odor of bull**** to dangerous levels, IMO. Good speech, well delivered.
Great? One to be given a cute Pet Name in the history books? Get a grip,
and leave history to be written with the clarity of distance.
Tom


Okay, I'll rephrase that. It was the best presidential speech I have heard
eight years....

john

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

SNIP

The coverage of it I've seen - all from the business press -
seemed to take two single sentences about whether the economy is getter
better
or not and wind up with diametrically opposed takes on what he said. Top
it off
with the WH Press Secretary openly stating it contained "nothing new."
I'm not
bashing anyone, just observing that there sure seems to be a lot of
differing
opinions about this speech, even from Obama supporters and staff.

TC,
R

Precisely my point!...Here!...Have a beer on me!

Can we posit it as a truth that American thinks voting is some kind of TV
game show? That, If they don't vote for who they think is going to be the
winner - their vote is wasted?

that America, to a large degree, no longer thinks but listens to the 30
second blurb and agrees with whatever sounds good depending on their mood...

Even this was touched on...implying that for far too long American has lived
in the present never giving thought beyond thirty seconds in the future.

Now this does not mean you and our investments, but the general public (and
POLITICIANS) can no longer delay moving to renewable energy, making proper
in vestments in our infrastructure...meeting the health care crisis head on
... We...or rather everybody else, has preferred short term profits over
long term future benefit...

I remember once reading an article about a Japanese business man who bought
a failing business. He was questioned and asked why would he do that? Did
he think he could make any money on it? He Replied, "No, but my children
will."

I found the speech to be intelligent, outlining the broader issues that we
have so long ignored, the faults of our channel surfing/survivor/american
idol mentality.

But Hey....who am I? I'm just an old fisherman who put a new roof on his
house instead of buying a new car, paid his credit cards in full every month
to get the points (and my rates STILL went up) and put in a new high
efficiency furnace/ac unit instead of a flat screen TV....hell what do I
know?

Now let me pour you a shot and you break out some of the fine Cuban cigars
you got stashed while I throw another log on the fire....

(insert smiley face) john

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

wrote in message
...
I'm not
bashing anyone, just observing that there sure seems to be a lot of
differing
opinions about this speech, even from Obama supporters and staff.

and that was what I noted......on other threads, I stated that I felt you
were a bit nit-picky, but on this one I sense an over-gush from the
Pro-Obama folks.
Tom

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:35:20 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
I'm not
bashing anyone, just observing that there sure seems to be a lot of
differing
opinions about this speech, even from Obama supporters and staff.

and that was what I noted......on other threads, I stated that I felt you
were a bit nit-picky, but on this one I sense an over-gush from the
Pro-Obama folks.
Tom

Ah, OK. And I've noticed that yet again, when asked specific questions "the
Pro-Obama folks" doing the over-gushing offer no specifics as to why he is so
marvelous, even when politely and directly asked...

TC,
R

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Apr 16, 5:03*am, wrote:

And why didn't the 58 year old school teacher think to lever her
mortgage 31 times, 3000 percent, like the derivative hucksters did,
and sell so many levels of "tronches" to each other so no could
untangle the mess? But of course that school teacher and her great
grand children are the only ones who can pay to buy the "toxic assets"
because the fat cats are "too big to fail." And that starts the cycle
all over again, if of course the proper "bonuses' are paid to keep the
actual thieves who created the mess in the first place, on the job.

Fact: over 85% of the revenues of a typical thieves den like Goldman
Saks . . . is paid out in salaries, commissions, and bonuses. Do you
think it goes to the clerical staff, or the back office staff in
Manila or Bangalore? Do you think these guys pay income taxes on the
derivative income? Nope, they paid lower capital gains, that is they
paid little on the income that was not shuttled thru off-shore
accounts. Lets not talk about how many of these fat cats hold dual
citizenship, and work visas. Wouldn't be prudent.

Oh, and by the way, Goldman Saks wants to "pay back" the TARP loans
from the Govt, with the $17 billion Goldman got from AIG. Remember
when AIG wouldn't say where the money THEY got from the BUSHIES went?
Well $17 billion was scooted thru the fat cat network to Goldman. Oh,
do we want to look to see if some of the same names appear on both
rosters? Nope. Wouldn't be prudent.

Rick, I am fully expecting one of your upcoming screeds to blame this
whole thing on some old black lady down the lane who got a loan to fix
her roof back in '01. Just give you the time and the fiction will
surely get fluffed out. Sheeeeez

Dave
These banks are trusts
Trusts do not add real value as this fiasco proves.
Trusts and monopolies smother enterprise and real investment.
Teddy Roosevelt knew what to do with Trusts and monopolies.
Break em up and you unleash American enterprise.

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Apr 15, 2:27*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"DaveS" wrote in message

... For example, the old

equations defining the relationships between consumer spending and
employment, domestic manufacturing orders, capital goods orders, etc

no longer hold.

Really? Explain your thinking, if you could, because I doubt that many of
those relationships have changed greatly.


Simply put, the amount of domestic manufacturing (USA) labor in
imported goods is very small. When a high proportion of manufactured
goods consumed in the country are imported, the old labor input
coefficients in the equations used in the econometric models overstate
the effect of consumption on the size and composition of employment.
Consumer driven recovery from a recession in the USA may be a thing of
the past.

I am fairly sure that the econometric models still take the basic
input-output form they have had for the last half century. Essentially
they are matrices and are manipulated as Markov Chains. But each cell
in the labor sub matrices, requires a labor coefficient which defines
the level of relationship to other key cells. For example, take
employment in a basic industry like autos. Cells for employment in
rubber, steel, electronics, etc.., would all be related to the level
of employment in manufacturing autos, and the number of jobs in autos
would be related to the number of cars produced. (Holding productivity
etc constant for example sake). Cars produced has a relationship to
sales, and sales is related in turn to national incomes and lots else.

Anyway, import the goods and the models all need to be re-calibrated.
Speed up the rates of change in the markets, the origins of goods,
technology etc and the models become very difficult to keep current.
So then the forecasters start treating larger and larger parts of the
models as "black boxes" and . . . well thats enough. Bottomline is
that the detail is lost and the relationships are lost and the models
become less and less valid.

Dave
I am retired. my book is almost 30 yo and out of print, and besides
its only my ...IMHO.

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
Simply put, the amount of domestic manufacturing (USA) labor in
imported goods is very small. When a high proportion of manufactured
goods consumed in the country are imported, the old labor input
coefficients in the equations used in the econometric models overstate
the effect of consumption on the size and composition of employment.
Consumer driven recovery from a recession in the USA may be a thing of
the past.

OK, I can accept that. Still, the basic rules of economics apply....what you
say has changed is the position we have left ourselves in, collectively. My
view of a lot of the current mess is that a lot of folks managing assets in
this country forgot or chose to ignore the basic rules. They felt that
historical models were not accurate guideposts and that 'everything is
different today'. They were wrong. While on the economic subject, IMO what
RDean and some others suggest is valid as well. We have developed a broad,
national culture of overconsumption and self-absorbed feelings of
entitlement, without the corresponding need to actually earn and pay for
stuff. A lot of very irresponsible consumers did their part to inflate some
of the recent bubbles. Avoiding the prospect of those folks taking a hit for
their foolishness is avoiding the very real possibility that we go through
the same nonsense all over again. Simply blaming those in business who were
irresponsible leaves half of the equation unsolved......
Tom

..

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Apr 16, 3:35*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
SNIP .

Tom, I hope you are excluding the millions of low wage workers from
your conclusions. And the 45-55 million uninsured people who consume
few health services. And where do the undocumented workers and their
families fit who constitute a third to a fifth of all workers in some
major industries like construction, and the majority in seasonal
agriculture. I have some relatives in Michigan who come from places
that don't look like folks are over consuming. So my guess is that
your analysis doesn't account for the Flints and Youngstowns too,
right? Been to many VA hospitals or Vets employment programs? Get
around much in the rust belt? You've been to small town New Mexico
right? Northern New England? The Iowa and Nebraska meat packing towns?
The Florida veg patches? And you are aware that the minimum wage laws
are seldom enforced in Southern California right? I guess rusty Penn
and upstate NY must be lots more prosperous than I remember.

Sorry I cannot agree that WE ALL are into the culture of over-
consumption, and therefore WE ALL share the blame for whatever. When I
was still working I was involved in helping clean up maybe a dozen
mill closures. When I started in the business 30 odd years before I
was involved in a smelter closure and the closure of 3-4 mines
(Kennecott included). Ive worked in almost every state and most of the
hell holes in this capitalist paradise. I am sorry. I cannot agree
with your broad WE when it comes to who does all this over-consumption
that you see as half the problem.

Do some people over-consume? Sure. But its not that half of the
country that lives hand to mouth. It is mostly a problem for the
coddled elite, the Coasts, and the well trained, the well educated,
the hard working and lucky, and the many who forgot where they came
from and what those of us who have done well, owe to our fellow
Americans.

I think we have an under production problem, a fair trade problem, a
greed problem, and an immoral fat cat problem.

Dave
Teddy Roosevelt knew what to do with the trusts and the monopolies

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
Tom, I hope you are excluding the millions of low wage workers from
your conclusions. And the 45-55 million uninsured people who consume
few health services. And where do the undocumented workers and their
families fit who constitute a third to a fifth of all workers in some
major industries like construction, and the majority in seasonal
agriculture. I have some relatives in Michigan who come from places
that don't look like folks are over consuming. So my guess is that
your analysis doesn't account for the Flints and Youngstowns too,
right? Been to many VA hospitals or Vets employment programs? Get
around much in the rust belt? You've been to small town New Mexico
right? Northern New England? The Iowa and Nebraska meat packing towns?
The Florida veg patches? And you are aware that the minimum wage laws
are seldom enforced in Southern California right? I guess rusty Penn
and upstate NY must be lots more prosperous than I remember.

Sorry I cannot agree that WE ALL are into the culture of over-
consumption, and therefore WE ALL share the blame for whatever. When I
was still working I was involved in helping clean up maybe a dozen
mill closures. When I started in the business 30 odd years before I
was involved in a smelter closure and the closure of 3-4 mines
(Kennecott included). Ive worked in almost every state and most of the
hell holes in this capitalist paradise. I am sorry. I cannot agree
with your broad WE when it comes to who does all this over-consumption
that you see as half the problem.

Do some people over-consume? Sure. But its not that half of the
country that lives hand to mouth. It is mostly a problem for the
coddled elite, the Coasts, and the well trained, the well educated,
the hard working and lucky, and the many who forgot where they came
from and what those of us who have done well, owe to our fellow
Americans.



I am not excluding anyone, nor including specific individuals. Yes, I do get
out a fair bit, and Reading can be considered "rust belt". Still, I see
plenty of decent, hardworking folks WAY outspending their realistic means.
And yes, I realize there are lots of folks who don't. Still, as I said, we
have pushed a culture, and expectations, that are unrealistic and
materialistic, so in a sense there is a collective issue here.
Tom

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

Tom Littleton wrote:

... Still, as I said, we
have pushed a culture, and expectations, that are unrealistic and
materialistic, so in a sense there is a collective issue here.

That's like saying after being hit with nuclear bombs, "well, we
have a culture that plays with firecrackers, so in a sense there's
a collective issue here."

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:22:03 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:

On Apr 16, 3:35*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
SNIP .

Tom, I hope you are excluding the millions of low wage workers from
your conclusions. And the 45-55 million uninsured people who consume
few health services. And where do the undocumented workers and their
families fit who constitute a third to a fifth of all workers in some
major industries like construction, and the majority in seasonal
agriculture. I have some relatives in Michigan who come from places
that don't look like folks are over consuming. So my guess is that
your analysis doesn't account for the Flints and Youngstowns too,
right? Been to many VA hospitals or Vets employment programs? Get
around much in the rust belt? You've been to small town New Mexico
right? Northern New England? The Iowa and Nebraska meat packing towns?
The Florida veg patches? And you are aware that the minimum wage laws
are seldom enforced in Southern California right? I guess rusty Penn
and upstate NY must be lots more prosperous than I remember.

Sorry I cannot agree that WE ALL are into the culture of over-
consumption, and therefore WE ALL share the blame for whatever. When I
was still working I was involved in helping clean up maybe a dozen
mill closures. When I started in the business 30 odd years before I
was involved in a smelter closure and the closure of 3-4 mines
(Kennecott included). Ive worked in almost every state and most of the
hell holes in this capitalist paradise. I am sorry. I cannot agree
with your broad WE when it comes to who does all this over-consumption
that you see as half the problem.

Do some people over-consume? Sure. But its not that half of the
country that lives hand to mouth. It is mostly a problem for the
coddled elite, the Coasts, and the well trained, the well educated,
the hard working and lucky, and the many who forgot where they came
from and what those of us who have done well, owe to our fellow
Americans.

Wrong. It is the majority of the consumers - in the case of those to whom this
discussion has turned to center upon, the US population, the vast majority of
them "over-consume" (when "over-consume" is defined, generally, "as living
beyond their means"). I'll put my anecdotal info up against yours any time, but
one need not use such to show that the bulk of the US population
"over-consumes." Look to sales at Wal-Mart, McDonald's and other "fast food"
joints, sales of auto accessories like goofy wheels and tires and loud stereos,
video games, etc., etc. If you believe that it is only "the coddled elite, the
Coasts, and the well trained, the well educated, the hard working and lucky, and
the many who forgot where they came from and what those of us who have done
well" fueling such over-consumption, then, bluntly, you don't have a clue about
the situation. And no, that is not to say that _every single person_ in the US
is an over-consumer, but I suspect what you are doing is the typical mistake of
thinking of "over-consumption" as suburbanites buying too much house, too many
Tommy Pulmyfinger shirts, too many plasma TVs, too many Lexus', etc., when in
fact, a $8.50 an hour person (or one on "welfare") can over-consume just as
easily _within their financial bracket_ as a $250K a year earner. IOW, if a
budget will only support the basics of life sustenance, but the person buys a
small flat-screen, has a cell-phone, etc., then they are "over-consuming" just
as surely as one who makes $50 mil a year and spends $51 mil.

And many people need to get past the idea that everyone is _entitled_ to this or
that, much beyond the right not to be actively harmed by others. This includes
those who feel themselves entitled as well as those who would encourage or
defend that thinking. Unfortunately, in the real world, some people simply
aren't prepared to do the hard work it takes to _earn_ many of life's luxuries,
large or small. And any attempt to extract the means of acquiring them for
those that are not prepared to do that work from those that are so prepared will
end badly. And if for no other reason than, even if the prepared were willing
to subsidize the unprepared, eventually the numbers will not work out.

Now, the above is not to say that good public policy may well and often does
indicate that the general welfare of the populace is best served by providing
certain things - a basic education, basic healthcare, a minimal safety net for
those truly unable to support or care for themselves (part. children and the
elderly), etc. But the recipients of such are not _entitled_ to that receipt,
nor should it be evolved, as it often has been, into more than the minimums
required to achieve the public policy goals inherent in them. For example, the
idea that "food stamps" can be used to buy anything but basic, wholesome
foodstuffs is ridiculous. It fact, it is _against_ good public policy to allow
otherwise - a diet of things like sweets, chips/crisps, heavily-processed foods,
soft drinks, etc. are detrimental to health, which drives up healthcare costs,
which is also provided/subsidized, and if the research is correct, makes it
harder for kids to learn, which then makes subsidized education either
less-effective or more expensive (in the cases where problems are created by
students not seeking to learn).

..
I think we have an under production problem,

Yeah, what we need is more production of goods...that according to you, no one
is actually buying...

a fair trade problem,

Right - if we can't produce consumer goods, let's trade for 'em...

a greed problem,

Um, how is there a "greed problem" if no one is being "greedy?"

and an immoral fat cat problem.

Er, no. We have a people problem - a lot of people who want to blame everyone
and anyone else for the problems they created for themselves, a lot of people
who think they are entitled to things they are not, and a lot of people who have
created and encouraged that belief...

Dave
Teddy Roosevelt knew what to do with the trusts and the monopolies

Right - take them from his enemies and give them to his friends...and 1000s of
years of history is replete with examples of how poorly that works out...

HTH,
R

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:11:54 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:

... Still, as I said, we
have pushed a culture, and expectations, that are unrealistic and
materialistic, so in a sense there is a collective issue here.

That's like saying after being hit with nuclear bombs, "well, we
have a culture that plays with firecrackers, so in a sense there's
a collective issue here."

Er, no. Complete logical disconnect aside, such an example implies innocence on
the part of those playing with firecrackers, at least insofar as someone else
attacking them with the bomb, and pure guilt on the part of the attacker.

Your example would be much more accurate if those playing with the firecrackers
had bought some company's designer firecrackers with another company's credit
card and held them in their hand, completely disregarding the package that said
"DON'T HOLD THESE IN YOUR ****ING HAND!!!"...and then, tried to sue both
companies for providing a means of making the firecrackers available AND
accusing them of ripping them off by selling them over-priced designer
firecrackers and charging them interest when they didn't pay the bill when it
arrived...

HTH,
R

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:26:29 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:
... Still, as I said, we
have pushed a culture, and expectations, that are unrealistic and
materialistic, so in a sense there is a collective issue here.
That's like saying after being hit with nuclear bombs, "well, we
have a culture that plays with firecrackers, so in a sense there's
a collective issue here."

Er, no. Complete logical disconnect aside, such an example implies innocence on
the part of those playing with firecrackers, at least insofar as someone else
attacking them with the bomb, and pure guilt on the part of the attacker.

And that's a fairly accurate account of what happened.

No, it isn't.

The people
were attacked by a well coordinated pack of unregulated financial
wizards

Name one of these supposed pack members who forced a consumer to do anything?

who sent the world economy right straight into the ****ter.
It is beyond absurd to blame this ****storm on the folks who bought
too much crappy Chinese garbage at Wal Mart.

Oops, nope - I'm not, nor have I, blamed "the situation" on consumers - what I
have blamed, correctly and properly assigning 100% of the fault (or 100% of the
credit) on the individuals, is _their_ situation. If someone making 30K a year
bought a 300K house and now are about to lose it, it is their fault, not the
fault of the lender, regardless of how "predatory" individuals working for it
might or might not have been. If you don't know that $2500 month, pre-tax,
can't afford $3000 a month of housing costs, that's on you, and if your excuse
is that, "well, someone told me 2 plus 2 equals 1207...," well, it's bull**** -
these people are just looking for ways to dodge their own screw-up in trying to
get something for nothing. And even if they were that gulli...no, let's call it
plain - even if they were that stupid, why should those who weren't so stupid
have to bail out those that were?

Bad debt didn't get us into this mess. Bad debt leveraged twenty or
even thirty times its value did. And you can't blame that on Joe
Wal Mart.

All of it? No. And it wasn't "bad debt leveraged twenty or even thirty times"
that did much of anything. If that were the case, we'd be talking 100s and 100s
of trillions of dollars. Here's a hint - where did the alleged "money" go -
IOW, what person(s) and/or entity(s) do you allege now has all this alleged
"money?"

IAC, "Joe Wal Mart" aided, abetted and took advantage of the situation, and
failed to protect himself from the results. Even assuming that you are correct
in that some unknown person or entity leveraged all this debt, it still does not
excuse Joe from having over-bought, over-spent, over-charged, and
under-saved/prepared. And it most certainly doesn't make Sam, who did things
"right," (or at least better) responsible to bail out Joe...

HTH,
R

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:31:15 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:
... Still, as I said, we
have pushed a culture, and expectations, that are unrealistic and
materialistic, so in a sense there is a collective issue here.
That's like saying after being hit with nuclear bombs, "well, we
have a culture that plays with firecrackers, so in a sense there's
a collective issue here."
Er, no. Complete logical disconnect aside, such an example implies innocence on
the part of those playing with firecrackers, at least insofar as someone else
attacking them with the bomb, and pure guilt on the part of the attacker.
And that's a fairly accurate account of what happened.

No, it isn't.

The people
were attacked by a well coordinated pack of unregulated financial
wizards

Name one of these supposed pack members who forced a consumer to do anything?

who sent the world economy right straight into the ****ter.
It is beyond absurd to blame this ****storm on the folks who bought
too much crappy Chinese garbage at Wal Mart.

Oops, nope - I'm not, nor have I, blamed "the situation" on consumers - what I
have blamed, correctly and properly assigning 100% of the fault (or 100% of the
credit) on the individuals, is _their_ situation.

Sure, I agree with that. Consumers are responsible for their own
personal situations but you can't blame consumers for the worldwide
economic downturn. That you can blame squarely on unregulated
financial "instruments". Trying to blame it on consumers is silly.

And I haven't. What I've said is basically the opposite - that the bitching
from "the public" is mostly about their own situation, and it is a situation
that they created, good or bad, for themselves. IOW, consumers who made stupid
decisions when they should have known better do not deserve a "bailout" any more
than "higher-tier" consumers/"wizards" who made stupid decisions when they
should have known better. Banks, investment firms, etc. are merely legal
fictions run by people and those people are nothing more than the aforementioned
"higher-tier" consumers, many of whom lost much of their wealth (and deservedly
so) in the mess.

Bad debt didn't get us into this mess. Bad debt leveraged twenty or
even thirty times its value did. And you can't blame that on Joe
Wal Mart.

All of it? No. And it wasn't "bad debt leveraged twenty or even thirty times"
that did much of anything. If that were the case, we'd be talking 100s and 100s
of trillions of dollars. Here's a hint - where did the alleged "money" go -
IOW, what person(s) and/or entity(s) do you allege now has all this alleged
"money?"

The "money" never existed. It was all smoke and mirrors designed to
look like "money". That's sort of the problem. Duh.

Again, you're confusing "money" with "wealth."

Simply put, money - let's use "dollars" - generally have the same value to
everyone at any given time - Bill Gate's dollar buys exactly the same amount of,
say, flour at Wal Mart as yours, mine, or Joe Wal Mart's. Wealth, OTOH, is
largely perception of the parties to the exchange of it, even if "money" is part
of the transaction. For example, if you buy a house from John Doe for $250K in
"money," lent by a bank for which you give a mortgage interest, John has $250K
in wealth in the form of money/dollars, you have what you perceive as "wealth"
in the form of the house, minus the cost of the debt, and the bank has what it
perceives as "wealth" in the form of a profitable loan. If the real estate
market goes up 10%, no one has any more money, but you have what you perceive to
be 25K more in wealth. If you are correct, and are able and willing to exchange
that "wealth" with another who perceives similarly (sell the house for $275K to
Sam Smith, who uses a mortgage, and you pay off your mortgage), you now have
$25K-costs in money from Sam's bank, your bank has made a profit, and Sam's bank
has what it perceives as wealth in Sam's profitable loan. If Sam then goes tits
up, John, you, and your bank are all just ducky, Sam has lost some _money_
(assuming he paid any costs), and his bank has "wealth" in the form of the
house. If another, similar house in the immediate area, that once sold for
$250-$275 sells for $125K today, and the bank sells this house for that, it has
lost money, but if it hangs on to it, it has lost no money or wealth _until_ it
sells it at a loss OR someone forces the bank to value it at $125K, at which
point, it has lost perceived wealth, but still no money. "Of course," says
someone, "it's only worth $125K, that's the proper value." Well, _maybe_ , if
it were sold at that moment (but perhaps not - it could bring any amount, higher
or lower) - but it wasn't, so what it is it worth, "wealth-wise?"

IAC, "Joe Wal Mart," if he didn't get himself into a jam, would notice very
little, if any, major effect of the "worldwide economic downturn." Consumer
prices are stable or down, gas is back to being relatively cheap, unemployment
is up, but not to scary-bad levels, inflation is fairly low, home ownership -
within reason - is attainable, etc., etc. Is it all milk and honey? No, of
course not, but it ain't the Great Depression, either; the vast majority of US
public can easily survive the cycle, albeit not with the spendthrift ways of the
last 10-15 years, and certainly not of those from about 2001-2005/6.

Unfortunately, the repeated demands of the public to "FIX IT NOW!!!" (meaning
"make me comfortable without requiring me to work for it") could make things
much, much worse, and it appears that many leaders, from Obama on down,
including both sides of the Congressional aisle, are fully prepared listen to
and answer the selfish public demand in an attempt to secure their place at the
trough for a few more years.

TC,
R

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The "money" never existed. It was all smoke and mirrors designed to
look like "money". That's sort of the problem. Duh.

Again, you're confusing "money" with "wealth." ...
the usual bull**** from Perfesser Dean snipped

OK Perfesser, enough with the lectures. When the bull**** threatens
to go over the top of my waders it's time to cut you off.


Hey, buster, don't look now, but the bull**** is coming over the top of
your waders from the inside.

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Apr 17, 1:42*pm, Richard Pearson
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The "money" never existed. It was all smoke and mirrors designed to
look like "money". That's sort of the problem. Duh.

Again, you're confusing "money" with "wealth." ...
the usual bull**** from Perfesser Dean snipped

OK Perfesser, enough with the lectures. When the bull**** threatens
to go over the top of my waders it's time to cut you off.

Hey, buster, don't look now, but the bull**** is coming over the top of
your waders from the inside.

No, actually since you didn't add ANY SUBSTANCE to the discussion, its
bull**** eminating from your piehole. Got a point somewhere in that
noggin or what Buster? See, first you make your point, or even just
say what you agree with or disagree with, THEN you get to call
bull****. Thats how big boys play, you Weenie. Other than that,
Welcommen til ROFF.

Dave

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

DaveS wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:42 pm, Richard Pearson
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The "money" never existed. It was all smoke and mirrors designed to
look like "money". That's sort of the problem. Duh.
Again, you're confusing "money" with "wealth." ...
the usual bull**** from Perfesser Dean snipped
OK Perfesser, enough with the lectures. When the bull**** threatens
to go over the top of my waders it's time to cut you off.
Hey, buster, don't look now, but the bull**** is coming over the top of
your waders from the inside.

No, actually since you didn't add ANY SUBSTANCE to the discussion, its
bull**** eminating from your piehole. Got a point somewhere in that
noggin or what Buster? See, first you make your point, or even just
say what you agree with or disagree with, THEN you get to call
bull****. Thats how big boys play, you Weenie. Other than that,
Welcommen til ROFF.

Dave


I followed the thread. KF is just spouting all the party line drivel as
you seem to be. You're both fully and completely saturated with the
same bull****.

Get a life and wake up.