That's Dr. Duh to you.
But I thought the Fed was committed to "stable prices", not rising prices. Like it says in their mission statement and, well, the law.
- Nemo
"The futures are flat:"
Yeah, that sounds about right. I expect the market to go horizontal for about 1.5 more months and then, look out below.
Thanks CR! I think tax receipts (or lack thereof) are going to be a big part of the story over the next year. Thank Glod we have Ben to make up the diff. Who will drink to that??? 
Matt Trivisonno has a great withholding taxes chart.
Very good and revealing article :
The Magnificent Seven and the Public Private Partnership
http://www.financialsense.com/Market/wrapup.htm
So, the top six banking institutions that report to the OCC along with AIG [The Magnificent Seven] comprised approximately 18.5 Trillion worth [33.5%] of an industry reported to be 55 trillion in aggregate. The Federal Reserve's proxy bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, possessed 8.39 Trillion worth of these derivatives or 15.25% of the global total of outstanding notional.
---------------------------------------
It is becoming clearer that the bailouts were initiated to aid only a handful of banks. And once realization dawns on the general public, i think there will be hell to pay.
What's ridiculous is that these OTC derivatives are still being manufactured and now probably funded with tax payer funds involved! It is not a matter of what CEO must be fired or put in place, the system itself has imploded and is not viable anymore. That means no more astounding profits and growth for financial institutions.
Matt chart here: http://www.trivisonno.com/withholding-taxes-chart
Inflation expectations-always had a problem with that term. The fed is simply trying to make people think assets will become more expensive in the long term so better buy now. Prices can only go up so better buy now! Seems to me the fed is just trying to sucker more people into a depreciating economic environment. How sad.
Rose colored view.
"Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of Economic Cycle Research Institute, said the economy could be as close to four months away from a recovery.
He says his firms' readings on long-term and short-term economic indicators give him significantly more hope that the economy is closer to a turnaround than he had thought even a month ago. Among the more than dozen different things his firm looks at are home prices, the jobs picture and stock prices."
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/06/news/economy/recovery/index.htm?section=...
and
The doomer hero who says "don't believe the hype". The national economy as a going out of business sale.
"My guess is it will first take the form, sometime after Memorial Day (but maybe sooner) of wholesale liquidations of everything under the North American sun: companies, households, chattels, US Treasury paper of all kinds, and, of course, the S & P 500. We'll soon find out whether an organism the size of the United States can run an economy based on one family selling the contents of its garage to the family next door. My guess is that this type of economy won't support the standards of living previously enjoyed in places like Dallas and Minneapolis."
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/
Spring time is always good for optimism but the numbers do not lie.
Hmmm, the Cleveland Fed dropped their inflation expectations based on the TIPS-treasury spreads (5 year I believe) due to the sudden massive spike in the liquidity premium associated with Nominals in late 2008, which is still present to some degree
TIPS were a screaming retail buy last fall when the hedgies dumped them in adverse selection, now not so much, but the point is, the 10 yr TIPS-treasuries spread inflation expectation derivation is 1.) generally rather poor at forecasting 2.) completely opacified by the liquidity premium between TIPS and nominals of late
Just want to comment that the "inflation expectations" measured by TIPS are only those measured by the Consumer Price Index -- as reported by the same people who really don't want to pay a lot of interest on the TIPS.
Inflation from 2000-2008 was significantly higher than was rewarded by the TIPS...
My site: http://ic4mg.com
sorry link was supposed to be in my last comment
http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/data/TIPS/index.cfm?DCS.nav=Local
Hey CR --
Nemo, the Fed thinks stable prices means inflation of 1.7% to 2.0% per year.
So stable = rising?
They may well think that -- in fact, they almost certainly do. But have they said so explicitly (and formally)?
- Nemo
The reason expectations are so important is because price makers need to make capital budgeting decisions. Obviously, this will impact their capital allocations in the near term.
Short form: "Fuzzy budgets suck."
The fed is simply trying to make people think assets will become more expensive in the long term so better buy now.
Or, are they just making up for missing revenue?
Nemo - true that the Fed is supposed to achieve a stable price level (i.e., first derivative = 0 ), but due to their added goal of achieving full employment (different from the old German Central banking counterpart), it has recently been argued that the goal is to keep inflation at a low level, but with no acceleration (second derivative =0 )
I'm just channeling my inner Roubini - for the chicks, you know
Nemo wrote:
....So stable = rising?
They may well think that -- in fact, they almost certainly do. But have they said so explicitly (and formally)?
From the SF Fed's web site
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/federalreserve/monetary/goals.html
...So should the Fed try to get the inflation rate to zero?
Actually, there's a lot of debate about that. While some economists have suggested zero inflation as a target, others argue that an inflation rate that's too low can be a problem. For example, if inflation is very low or close to zero, then short-term interest rates also are likely to be very close to zero. In that case, the Fed might not have enough room to lower short-term interest rates if it needed to stimulate the economy. Of course, the Fed could conduct policy using more unconventional methods (such as trying to reduce long-term interest rates), but it's not clear that those methods would be as easy to use or as effective. Another problem is that, when inflation is very close to zero, there's a bigger risk of deflation.
OTC=OTB (off-track betting)
Terminat hora diem; Terminat auctor opus.
Berserker
I just got back from taking my "legacy assets" out--what'd I miss?
BTW- since we compost organics and recycle glass and metal, we aren't generating much in the way of legacy assets,... just our way of extending the life of the landfills.
more who diatribe at the end of the last now-dead-thread for those who care
Good tax links W T F, and tg bear (earlier)
That 'who' was EHP before stupid autocorrect as you mash the screen feature
Yes, I know that particular Fed members (and regional banks) have suggested lately that the proper target is above zero. But to my knowledge, Bernanke and the FRB have not made this explicit. Certainly not with a specific numerical target; I am sure that would have been big news.
I am also of the opinion that federal agencies and quasi-government institutions do not get to decide that the laws governing them do not really mean what they say. I guess I am just old fashioned that way; you have to go back at least, what, eight years or more to understand where I am coming from.
On a related topic, anybody know off-hand where Dr. Duy got the numbers for his TIPS-based inflation expectations chart? I ask because the U.S. Treasury stopped incorporating the data for "off-the-run" TIPS on Dec 1. This had the convenient side-effect of eliminating any deflation expectations from that data series...
- Nemo
Inflation is only necessary if reward-risk is negative (gotta pay banker, broker, exchange, tax)
which eats into reward
EHP-- since you were playing the big meanie to hong konger, maybe you should be a little more careful about using imaginary,...unless of course you're referring to complex numbers. (I see yogi said something similar on the last thread.)
Nemo, re:TIPS
what about CME futures?
I ask because the U.S. Treasury stopped incorporating the data for "off-the-run" TIPS on Dec 1. This had the convenient side-effect of eliminating any deflation expectations from that data series...
-- now I know that no one reads my links...
(sorry link was supposed to be in my last comment
http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/data/TIPS/index.cfm?DCS.nav=Local )
I was wondering the same thing Nemo, as I noted above, the liquidity premium, always difficult to deal with, has basically negated any attempt to use the TIPS treasury spreads - so I'm not sure where Dr. Duy got his data, and more importantly, whether it is reliable (though I would argue even before the 'crisis' these spreads were not reliable)
sdtfs, I was exactly referring to real/imaginary/complex numbers
"Dr. Duy argues the Fed has had some success in anchoring inflation expectations."
In related news, Captain Edward John Smith has had some success using thimbles to bail the forward compartments.
Nostrovia,
Yogi-
Yeah, I was using "imaginary" to try and make the joke more colorful. "Undefined" is technically correct.
Interestingly, one can divide anything by zero to (mathematically) prove anything they want. I think that's where the FED's heading...
EHP-
Your idea is thought provoking.
EHP,
"
Inflation is only necessary if reward-risk is negative (gotta pay banker, broker, exchange, tax)...
which eats into reward"
Is eating a negative something the same as regurgitating?
Nostrovia,
whats goin up: the number of math jokes that fly over my head
whats goin down: value of cnbc
Misean
Negative risk-reward means the big fat bully is eating your lunch
From a Reuters article a month and a half ago...
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE51H5FW20090218?feedTy...
In a speech to the National Press Club...
..."The longer-term projections of inflation may be interpreted ... as the rate of inflation that FOMC participants see as most consistent with the dual mandate given to it by Congress -- that is the rate of inflation that promotes maximum sustainable employment while also delivering reasonable price stability," Bernanke said.
As to your issue of the laws governing the Fed, I am sure you know about the dual
mandate. Now you may believe that monetary policy can or is likely to stabilize the business cycle under most circumstances, but enough of the econonomics profession, the public and the political elite do that it seems to me that the Fed has *legal* authority to deviate some from a policy of stable prices if, according to conventional economic thinking, it promotes maxim sustainable employment.
Furthermore, reasonable people can disagree on "stable". Is an inflation rate with mean 0.0 and standard deviation 2.1 over time more stable than one with a mean of 2.0 and a standard deviation of 1.9? (Again, I imagine you will disagree that the Fed has the ability to effect the latter; but are the economic theories believe by commenters in finance blogs a more valid basis for interpreting the law than the economic theories published in the economic textbooks assigned to undergraduates?)
gelboak-
..."but are the economic theories believe by commenters in finance blogs a more valid basis for interpreting the law than the economic theories published in the economic textbooks assigned to undergraduates?)"
I don't know, but's it's a heck of a lot more fun talking "shop" here than it was in class.
Why?, No one's vying for an 'A' here and, most of us have extensive real world experience to temper the models with.
This is a particularly interesting month, because 35 years ago, the United States returned to its free market roots. Of course, I am talking about this -
'The wage and price controls were mostly dismantled by April, 1974. By that time, the U.S. inflation rate had reached double digits.'
How quickly we forget while hyperventilating about some figure on the TV, but this was America, back when a Republican had finally returned to the White House after 8 years of Democratic domination -
'August 15, 1971. In a move widely applauded by the public and a fair number of (but by no means all) economists, President Nixon imposed wage and price controls. The 90 day freeze was unprecedented in peacetime, but such drastic measures were thought necessary. Inflation had been raging, exceeding 6% briefly in 1970 and persisting above 4% in 1971. By the prevailing historical standards, such inflation rates were thought to be completely intolerable.
The 90 day freeze turned into nearly 1,000 days of measures known as Phases One, Two, Three, and Four. The initial attempt to dampen inflation by calming inflationary expectations was a monumental failure.'
http://www.econreview.com/events/wageprice1971b.htm
Yes, yes, we don't like to talk about how Nixon, a man whose proven record of respect for the Constitution he swore to uphold should never be forgotten, was involved in the sort of economic policy that today would be considered an outrage against all that is good and right.
Did Nixon search his copy of the Constitution for the powers necessary to impose a 1,000 days of wage and price controls? Did any of the commenters old enough to read a newspaper complain bitterly about how Nixon's economic policies would be the doom of America, and how the Republic would crumble and fall? And to think it only took 35 years - and counting - until it came to pass.
Or do presidents that resign in dishonor get a pass for their economic policies?
35 years ago this month, the Republican imposed tyranny of wage and price controls was lifted - anyone want to celebrate?
Or at least hold a meat boycott? Because that seemed to be a way to get a bit of political response from the powers that be -
'"I am ordering a freeze on prices. This freeze will hold prices at levels no higher than those charged during the first eight days of June. It will cover all prices paid by consumers. The only prices not covered will be those of unprocessed agricultural-processed products at the farm levels and rents. Wages, interest, dividend, will remain under their present control systems during the freeze." Of course, those are Nixon's words.
And here are some bonus points for remembering those days of Nixonian paradise, before that nage Carter showed up -
'President Richard M. Nixon: "Consistent with safety and economic considerations, I am also asking Governors to take steps to reduce highway speed limits to 50 miles per hour. This action alone, if it is adopted on a nationwide basis, could save over 200 thousand barrels of oil a day, just reducing the speed limit to 50 miles per hour."
'President Richard M. Nixon: "To be sure that there is enough oil to go around for the entire winter all over the country, it will be essential for all of us to live and work in lower temperatures. We must ask everyone to lower the thermostat in your home by at least 6 degrees so that we can achieve a national daytime average of 68 degrees. Incidentally, my doctor tells me that in a temperature of 66 to 68 degrees, you're really more healthy than when it's 75 to 78, if that's any comfort."'
http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1973/Oil-and-Economic-...
How quickly we forget what it was like in the good old days, back when our president was a man who could be trusted to do what was best for the common man, when being a Republican meant being part of the silent majority.
Unlke today, where it all too often seems to mean being part of the ranting fringe.
"most of us have extensive real world experience to temper the models with. "
And my mind drops right into the gutter.....
http://www.vegasinsider.com/models/
"but are the economic theories believe by commenters in finance blogs a more valid basis for interpreting the law than the economic theories published in the economic textbooks assigned to undergraduates?)"
Considering that most of those books are all written by two schools of thought that differ only on which group of technocrats ought to be pulling the great wizard's levers....probably.
But now back to tempering models....
Nostrovia,
Comrade Misean:
When Tricky Dick said "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore,", I bet he didn't know how ironic that was going to be going forward....
Nostrovia,
Misean-
When you figure out a way to de-temper a beautiful woman, let me know.
All I get is a lot of "temper" 
The Obama Bank Rescue Program (PPIP) Is Already Failing
Mark-to-whatever beats the hell out of sell at a loss. Whistling by the graveyard is preferable to almost anything that puts an undertaker's shovel in your hands.
It's looking more and more like another non-starter. Buyers and sellers are both staying away. Don't misunderstand, the program will still launch and there will be players and gaming, but participation will not be broad and losses to taxpayers will likely be in the hundreds of billions and not trillions as first imagined. The inevitable will not be assuaged, however, and eventually we can still expect failed bank receivership and a discussion of losses for bondholders.
gelboak,
It's not Ad-Hominem. It's a claim without a warrant. I'm suggesting that a vast majority of econ text books are written by monetarists and keynsians, and I don't feel like showing supporting evidence...
I then say that it is "probably" beneficial discussing things outside those bounds. Whilst I may be somewhat caustically sarcastic, I hardly think my statement is along the lines of saying that monetarist/keynsians are wrong because they have an unhealthy penchant for small fury animals. (Even though they do....)
Nostrovia,
"When you figure out a way to de-temper a beautiful woman, let me know."
------------
Although this creates the opposite reaction, it isolates the user so as to produce the illusion of de-tempering.
re: Federal Reserve, dual mandate
That's backwards looking. The Fed lost independence the day the balance sheet went from $700bn to $800bn to $2000bn...
Imagine a child in suburbia with an allowance, all roads and sidewalks have tolls, and that kid has the same independence as the Fed. They can do the same limited set of things over and over, expecting a different result each time... or ask for money from their parents for which they must accept whatever strings attached.
re: Undergraduate economics textbooks
How do I put this. Yes, I had some textbooks with had great insight ... although they were usually treating economics as a secondary topic. Most of the pure economics ones were junk. Loaded with invalid undisclosed assumptions. Bernanke's included. That's because most economics is junk in that it looks at momentary positions and the vectors over a short period for which there is data. You don't know the system until you have hit the boundaries of the various regions. Econometrics has become an abused version of statistics. It's like trying to determine the location of fish under the water by noting where the sea birds are, and when they dive their head underwater, and then assuming that fits a gaussian distribution. Knowing how a school of fish move, and by using more intelligent math you could do a better job of guessing all the details of the hidden fish with the given data. Instead we get gaussian distributions because the linear algebra works out nicer
They don't do better, because they don't know better. Look at all the real substantial breakthroughs in economics. Game theory. Localized economies. Basic stuff a 10 year old should be able to figure out. I'm sure I could teach a 10 year old to flesh them out using a stats package and providing them the dataset.
There are better ways.
Furthermore, furthermore! Economics itself is not a science. It is the meeting of math and psychology. Well it should be at least. The whole discipline has been embroiled in politics and profits
Whatever else we might have lost, we still have free speech.
One good side effect of this recession/depression for me personally is that i understand a lot more economics than before (which was'nt much). Mostly from reading this blog, it's comments and Krugman's blog.
Hopefully we'll come out of this in a year or ten. In the meantime, there is always CR and the accompanying comments to read. On some days the quality of discourse here is amazing.
"The whole discipline has been embroiled in politics and profits"
--------------
I don't think that's the true reason.
I think people don't want to know the truth about their own motives and actions.
We see lots of talk about details but virtually no mention of the real issue - too much debt.
Americans make, and continue to make, promises which they have no intention of honoring.
Purge the banks all you like, the real cause is dishonest culture which deludes itself as to its true intentions.
This won't get fixed.
EHP,
"It's like trying to determine the location of fish under the water by noting where the sea birds are, and when they dive their head underwater, and then assuming that fits a gaussian distribution."
Nice. My analogy is that it's like trying to to determine where a balistic projectile is going to land when, after every time you fire it, your measurement system (pounds, inches, degrees) change by some small unknowable amount (+ or - ) and the cannon moves some small unknown amount as well.
My argument was more precisely about using monetary values in differential equations....
Ah well....
Nostrovia,
'I bet he didn't know how ironic that was going to be going forward'
Sure he did -
'But as I leave you I want you to know - just think how much you're going to be missing. You won't have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference and it will be one in which I have welcomed the opportunity to test wits with you.'
Press conference after losing the election for Governor of California, (7 November 1962)
Notice that date - it wasn't Nixon's last press conference, and it wasn't the last time he was kicked around, either. Though he did manage to avoid getting kicked out, so I guess he wins on points.
All the hyperventilating here about current economic news takes place in a seeming vacuum, or a convenient form of amnesia. But many of the posters here are old enough to have experienced wage and price controls, ordered by presidential fiat, and they managed to survive the experience, going on to get jobs, raise families, etc. And yet, whatever fleeting expression is used by some minor figure on a TV screen is taken as definitive proof of the end of the Republic as we know it.
This is especially true of the crowd that continue to exalt the 'Constitution' in ways that would have appeared bizarre to an American in the 1950s, where government intervention in any number of ways (whether it be strike breaking as in the case of such industries as coal or railroads) or rationing (remember WWII? - Americans in the 1950s certainly did) was considered part of the proper role of government, even if citizens disagreed about the details or politics.
But that was then, when Americans were citizens of a republic (well, most of them - but let's avoid that subject), not consumers interested in their 'equity.'
Misean is dope
How about they're hellbent on learning economics through real world finite element analysis (does that hurt... ok, does that hurt... ok, does that hurt.. no? ...oh, I guess it just took a while for you to feel the pain, ok... does that hurt)
The whole discipline has been embroiled in politics and profits
Showing a complete lack of discipline, eh? Economics can never be an exact science since it is trumped by politics. What chance does a rational view have against institutionalized irrationality? And although math is suitably ancient, psychology is young, and so as regards Economics, we're still at the stage where we still think that phlogiston might be the answer to the burning question of the day.
sdtfs
If I were a doctor, I might say you were of choleric humour (that's what you get for making me look up phlogiston)
test
LOL EHP, stdfs...
Nytol
Nostrovia,
"This is especially true of the crowd that continue to exalt the 'Constitution' in ways that would have appeared bizarre to an American in the 1950s, where government intervention in any number of ways (whether it be strike breaking as in the case of such industries as coal or railroads) or rationing (remember WWII? - Americans in the 1950s certainly did) was considered part of the proper role of government, even if citizens disagreed about the details or politics."
The Constitution's bill of rights exists to protect the few, from the tyranny of the many, by limiting the powers of government. Just because leaders of the past have been able to fool most of the people, for some of the time, via fear mongering or greed, into accepting those abuses, does not make it's relevance any less poignant.
choler or yellow bile-
color: yellow
season: summer
taste: bitter
body organ: spleen
signs: Aries, Leo, Sagittarius
pretty good guess Doc.
C. Misean
"...vast majority of econ text books are written by monetarists and keynsians"
I agree *that* statement.
My interpretation of your comment, which may be mistaken on my part, was something along the
lines of...since monetarists and Keynesians believe in their own ability to guide monetary (or fiscal)
policy to the benefit of society, and because their doctrines are "respectable", they (or their most
prominent exponents) are eager to take powerful positions in government. Such careerist and
powerseeking motives are suspect or improper, so we should be suspicious of the economic
theories that they rationalize.
It was this imputation of mine from your 10:56 comment that I believed was, at least in part, ad hominem.
sdtfs
You must be careful about astrology. Your symbol is determined by which house of the zodiac (constellation) the moon was in when you were born. If you take an astronomy software package that can simulate the night sky on any given day, you might find that you are off by one symbol. I myself am supposed to be Sagittarius, but I am in fact a Scorpio. Astrology is bunk, but it's a fun fact. Goes over much better than waiting for 4 other people to enter an elevator and tell them that 1 in 5 people have a mental disorder before looking at the ceiling and whistling
also, the humour reference was just one to the belief in classical medicine of 4 humours. Reminds me of the current state of economics. Hopefully we do not have hundreds of years to go before they give up the ghost
EHP, thanks for the feedback. Yes, iPhones and the live update don't mix. I've got that on my list.
Interesting pawn shop commentary =
http://www.voy.com/64855/1071386618.html
"TODAY, alone, we bought 6-7K worth of SCRAP GOLD JEWELRY..
It's been 'averaging' 12-13K a week with my biggest week
pushing 35K a few weeks ago....for years, downtown, we were
lucky to SEE 4-5K worth of scrap gold in a month"
Evening. Hope everyone is well. Here's a fair bit of comedy from 2 days ago. Don't know if CR has posted it.
http://dailybail.com/home/bailout-comedy-snl-obama-takes-a-break-from-th...
SNL: Obama Takes A Break From The G-20 To Decide The Fate Of American Companies (Hulu Video)
http://dailybail.com/home/jose-cassano-whatcha-gonna-do-when-they-come-f...
Jose Cassano: Whatcha Gonna Do When They Come For You
'Just because leaders of the past have been able to fool most of the people, for some of the time, via fear mongering or greed, into accepting those abuses...'
Yeah, Lincoln didn't save the Republic, he destroyed it.
And Roosevelt, after Pearl Harbor? What a disaster, with his War Price and Rationing Boards in every county of the 48 states.
The point I am trying to make is maybe not explicit enough - the current hysterical atmosphere is based neither on reality, nor on anything resembling even a hint of historical awareness beyond the last fad to seize the public imagination.
None of this is new, of course, but the uses of fear and hysteria have become embedded in American society to an extent unknown in other industrial societies (though a couple of them certainly have that in their background - which is a frightening thought, to be honest), and in a way which seems impossible to actually keep from growing.
What is even more disturbing is how the Constitution has become subject to a sort of rarefied form of divide and conquer - some individuals place one amendment on a pedestal, while completely ignoring others.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact, which is an interesting point to explore, for example, in this case -
'Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Thomas Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote: "[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact
We seem to have lost the the clarity which used to mark Americans as being different. This is most clearly seen in the system of jury by trial, the right to be judged by your peers, and the right of the jury to decide what is just, not merely what is illegal.
I'll stop here, before mentioning anything about 'maggots,' though that would still be a great tag line.
And let's face it - the purchase of the Louisiana territory was a smart move for the young Republic, even it was possibly the first true abuse of presidential powers as conceived by the Founders - Jefferson, in this case, being in a position to know what the Founders actually believed they had founded.
An incongruous sermon about fear and hysteria from an anonymous poster.
Equating the Louisiana purchase to $12.8 trillion of new,unbacked debt seems... incongruous as well.
The culture is delusional and distracted, drifting further out each day.
Carry on, then.
"An incongruous sermon about fear and hysteria from an anonymous poster."
Yeah, I have trouble reconciling winning an unprecedented, global war and enriching the nation by >100%, with impoverishing the nation to save a few bankers. And something tells me that Roosevelt's complaints with regard to German and Irish Americans, putting the German and Irish ahead of the American, showed some level of dissent.
Jefferson's misgivings with regard to the constitutionality of the Louisiana purchase, resulting in a more than doubling of the territory of the USA seems at odds with today's Supreme Court seeming to think that it is up to them, to rule on any interpretation of constitutionality.
As to the idea of "suicidally" embracing the tenants of the USC, it entails a mechanism for flexibility in the event that long term inadequacies arise, which we have taken advantage in the past for both better and worse.
"Yeah, Lincoln didn't save the Republic, he destroyed it."
For a period of time, he surely did. To some, over the pesky issues of states rights vs. individual constitutional rights.
"The point I am trying to make is maybe not explicit enough - the current hysterical atmosphere is based neither on reality, nor on anything resembling even a hint of historical awareness beyond the last fad to seize the public imagination."
So which reality is this? The hysteria around giving good money to bad banks? If solvent, why do we keep giving them money? If not, why do we not FDIC or S&L them. To mix metaphors, the admin is talking out of both sides of their ass. Too big to fail, is just too big, and now is surely a convenient time, for bankers, to start worrying about systemic risk.
"The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation."
Bullshit. The Constitution is the law of the land, and we should revile and oppose anyone in government who would choose to circumvent it, because "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -TJ and "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -PH
I want my transparency dammit! After 8 years of secret prisons, assassination squads, illegal internments, irresponsible deregulation, and FISAless wiretaps, it is about F'n time!
Well, I wasn't writing about military convoys on America's highways, admittedly. You do remember that episode of fear and hysteria, don't you? I will leave it to others to judge just how 'incongruous' such comments were, in terms of a 'delusional and distracted' culture.
Nonetheless, there are some posters here deeply, deeply concerned about current presidential actions, insisting that said actions are deeply against all traditions of Constitutional powers and thinking.
Oh, and Broward - we bought the land using debt.
'In 1803 the Louisiana purchase doubled the size of the United States for $15,000,000 paid to France. The western boundary leaped from the Mississippi to the Pacific. We bought more than half a billion acres for about $.04 each even when the cost of financing the 6% loan from European bankers is included.'
http://blog.tomevslin.com/2005/02/the_louisiana_p.html
Even better Broward, read the press release from some of those bankers, marking the bicentennial of that purchase -
'Financed Landmark Real Estate Transaction
Fortis Bank and ING Group ING Groep N.V. celebrate the 200th anniversary of the historic bond transaction that financed the United States' purchase of the Territory of Louisiana from France, in honor of the firms' shared legacy as underwriters of one of the most famous transactions in United States history.
"With international finance in its infancy, this was the first US issuance targeted to the international markets and was the most complex and largest transaction the markets had yet absorbed," said Tim Schantz, ING, Head of Corporate Financial Services, Americas. "While virtually unknown compared to the historical Louisiana Purchase, the capital markets transaction that financed it served to consolidate US credit-worthiness in the international markets. The government's servicing of the Louisiana bonds was impeccable and the debt was repaid ahead of schedule. It presents a fascinating picture of international high finance in the early 1800s, and has equal historical importance in setting the stage for the global, liquid, regulated markets we enjoy today."
The Louisiana Territory was sold to the United States by France in April 1803 for US$15 million, a sum representing a 19% increase in the nation's public debt of about US$80 million. The Purchase was primarily financed by the issue of US$11.25 million US government six percent bonds in the Amsterdam and London markets in early 1804. (The additional US$3.75 million of the purchase price was financed through the US government's payment of French debts owed to US citizens.) The bond issue was underwritten by predecessor firms of Fortis and ING: Baring Brothers of London and Hope & Co. of Amsterdam, the most powerful financial institutions participating in the world's capital markets in the early 1800s."'
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Fortis+Bank+&+ING+Group+Celebrate+Bicenten...
That's right, Jefferson jumped the public debt 19% in one fell swoop, against his own judgment of what was constitutionally correct. I think that such high handed presidential actions set the tone for America=FAIL, didn't it, Broward? More than 205 years worth, if the banker's (oops - 'banksters') press release dating is to be trusted.
'today's Supreme Court seeming to think that it is up to them, to rule on any interpretation of constitutionality.'
Boy, what are they teaching in schools today?
Back to the brave days of 1803 -
'Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.
This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.
Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.'
Sorry - as noted in the response to Broward, you too have to look at 206 years of America=FAIL by your view of the role of the Supreme Court in our form of government.
As for Lincoln - I always thought that the seceding states were the ones responsible for the Civil War, especially when firing on federal troops. But then, I grew up in Virginia, so maybe my history is a bit biased compared to the version you learned.
I'm not trying to be unfair, but '"The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation." is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, who is also the man you cite to support the following - 'The Constitution is the law of the land, and we should revile and oppose anyone in government who would choose to circumvent it, because "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -TJ'
I wil admit, TJ is a bit of a contradiction and I worried about citing him, but they were pretty fitting in context. Quoting TJ's words supporting his actions as president ande then citing his words to oppose his actions is maybe a bit of a problem in logic. Of course, you can do the same with his evolving beliefs in terms of revolution after what happened in France. A bloodbath can have that effect, after all, especially a bloodbath that occurred after a bankrupt state run for the benefit of a very select few was overthrown.
Ooops - forgot the link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
A bloodbath can have that effect, after all, especially a bloodbath that occurred after a bankrupt state run for the benefit of a very select few was overthrown.
Sure. So why not help yourself to some excuses in advance.
........The Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, and the Swiss National Bank announce swap arrangement........
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20090406a.htm
........to prepare further commercial real estate price decrease? ........
"Quoting TJ's words supporting his actions as president ande then citing his words to oppose his actions is maybe a bit of a problem in logic."
Seems particularly fitting to me, when you argue against what some see as righteous indignation over the administration continuing the trend of taking liberties, with regard to the role of the executive.
"Boy, what are they teaching in schools today?"
Apparently not detection of sarcasm, as the point I was trying to illustrate, was that using Jefferson's waffling over the constitutionality of the Louisiana purchase is kind of moot BECAUSE of M vs M. That was then, and this is now.
"As for Lincoln - I always thought that the seceding states were the ones responsible for the Civil War, especially when firing on federal troops. But then, I grew up in Virginia, so maybe my history is a bit biased compared to the version you learned."
Wow, that is quite the adventure in literalism. It is odd that you reference Lincoln as he was a pretty consistent fellow, a lawyer who respected the rule of law, and a strict constitutionalist.
"I was losing interest in politics, when the repeal of the Missouri Compromise aroused me again. What I have done since then is pretty well known." - AL
"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." - AL
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." - AL
I was raised in Illinois, not far from Springfield, where Lincoln was considered a pretty big deal. There, it was widely accepted that Lincoln intentionally brought the issues to a crossroads that had a fairly well expected outcome. The union may not have fired the first shot, but they cast the deciding vote, with the South in absentia.
Also, given O's perchance to model himself a modern Lincoln, he should take care.
"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties." - AL"
"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people." - AL
CNBC, CNN, Fox. Step aside Mr. Ed, we have plenty of talking jackasses on tv today.
Good morning, not to sure about Stocks, but I will say this, many are bargain shopping for metals over at APMEX and other places inventory is becoming depleted. Yes there are a few things still available, but in short quantity.
Thank you to the powers that be for the PM's After BS sale....us Metal freaks enjoy a good bargain!
And its obvious many are on board.
"Ukraine's gross domestic product (GDP) decline outlook has been downgraded by the World Bank from -4 percent to -9 percent in 2009, finchannel.com reported April 7."
Pavel Chichikov
Pavel:
"Ukraine's gross domestic product (GDP) decline outlook has been downgraded by the World Bank from -4 percent to -9 percent in 2009, finchannel.com reported April 7."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aBxWJ.qKLWsM&refer=home
April 7 (Bloomberg) -- Ireland's government, reeling from the loss of its top credit rating by Standard & Poor's, may increase taxes and cut spending in an emergency budget today aimed at stemming the biggest deficit among euro-area nations.
Finance Minister Brian Lenihan, who is making his second budget speech in six months, says the country faces a "very grave national crisis" as the deficit heads for 13 percent of gross domestic product, four times the European Union limit. He may also announce plans to remove toxic property loans from the nation's biggest banks.
Ireland's fiscal woes are another symptom of the global economic crisis that brought the nation's 14-year boom to a halt, leaving the government with a 23 billion-euro ($31 billion) hole in the public finances. The economy, set to shrink the most of any euro area country this year, last month became the fourth member of the region to be downgraded this year.
Some financially squeezed borrowers have begun paying their credit card and car bills before their mortgages, according to Experian and Equifax credit bureaus. That's because some consumers owe more on their home than it's worth, so they may be giving up on their mortgage and paying their credit card and car loan to get by, says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.
Foreclosure is no longer necessarily a shameful event. We don't know yet the impact of that secular change in attitude.
"Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc. on Friday said it received demands for information from the U.S. Justice Department and other government agencies investigating the company's activities in reselling concert tickets."
Rock and roll!
Still looking for the ones to AIG/GS/BoA/Citi/Fannie/Freddie/ratings agencies/assorted mortgage lenders and GE. But maybe I just missed them.
"Foreclosure is no longer necessarily a shameful event. We don't know yet the impact of that secular change in attitude. "
Yeah, but we CAN see some blow-back from the change to BK law vis a vis recourse vs. non-recourse. Some banks will get a heads, you lose, tails, you still lose.
There's a reason I used the word "unbacked" debt.
What I'm reading is somebody desperate to convince themselves that what they know is true... isn't true.
It's amazing how many people in the US have an "R" or "D' flag hardwired into their head to rationalize the same behavior from different candidates.
Foreclosure is no longer necessarily a shameful event. We don't know yet the impact of that secular change in attitude.
-------------
Why should it be a shameful event, its only renting, unless you buy outright, which at these current prices for many is nearly impossible. So in a sence your renting. So like renting you want to leave you leave. That is my take on walk aways.
'a strict constitutionalist' Lincoln?
Mr. Emancipation Proclamation in all states in rebellion, but not in the Union?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
Though I will grant, by retaining slavery in the Union, it is possible to argue that Lincoln did not overstep his constitutional authority in those states not in a state of insurrection. Though, of course, Lincoln's claim to ensuring those states in rebellion return to the Union was that actually, there was no such entity as the Confederate States of America, as noted here - 'The United States of America (The Union) held secession illegal and refused recognition of the Confederacy.'
Mr. 'we don't need no stinking habeas corpus' Lincoln?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Suspension_during_the_Civil_W...
Lincoln was concerned with something called the Union, in the sense of the United States of America - the Constitution was a bit lower on the scale. In this sense, Jefferson and Lincoln were both politicians acting as president in the interests of the nation as they saw it when they making decisions, dedicated to more practical matters than the Constitution.
Neither of them let their principles overrule making necessary decisions for the good of the nation, not the good of the Constitution.
Yeah, but we CAN see some blow-back from the change to BK law vis a vis recourse vs. non-recourse. Some banks will get a heads, you lose, tails, you still lose.
----------------
Not even, you can't get nothing from nothing....ever hear that saying ' You can't get blood from a stone "....you just herd it.
The scheme is over....check m8
Oh, I should add since some people here seem to have read something not written - I think Obama is simply continuing to follow the road to fiscal hell that the U.S. was placed on by our former torturer in chief.
'It's amazing how many people in the US have an "R" or "D' flag hardwired into their head to rationalize the same behavior from different candidates.'
What is even more amazing is how some people think everyone has R or D as a binary switch.
Especially since I have never voted for either party - ever - and have as little problem calling our former liar in chief Clinton a draft dodger as I do calling our former torturer in chief Bush an alcoholic cokehead. Though I will admit, what a darling pair of boomers they make, the true pinnacle of American achievement as represented by those elected to the presidency.
Americans delude themselves into thinking parties matter. They don't - the goal of power is power. If the only way to power is through parties, then parties exist to serve the goals of those seeking power, simultaneously hiding the levers of power while providing public entertainment.
Nonetheless, where is the celebration for the freeing of America's markets, 35 years after 1,000 days of price controls were lifted?
Krugman more pessimistic than Roubini now, thinks this is only 1930.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...
"e I have never voted for either party - ever - and have as little problem calling our former liar in chief Clinton a draft dodger as I do calling our former torturer in chief Bush an alcoholic cokehead"
-------
Oh, good, then you'll have no problem calling out the Manufactured President from MobWorld as such.
I eagerly await your admission.
Without holding my breath, however.
thinks could be worse.... look at last place in Yahoo's Movie Box, at # 105 (the previous week is was 102) we have something called Super Capers distributed by
Roadside Attractions, it has been in release for 3 weeks with a total gross of $30,881 this includes the $8 it brought in last week...
guess it's safe to say it didn't have much word of mouth!
"Mr. 'we don't need no stinking habeas corpus' Lincoln?"
Wha? Did you even READ your link?
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
HaHa ... since I'm on it I hope you know that The Magnificent Seven was based on a Kurosawa film 'The Seven Samurai' that in itself was loosely connected to
the myth The Seven Against Thebes
trying to get caught up on the comments... what's the deal with that entity LawyerLiz? the word 'needy' doesn't quite seem to cover it
Byz:
"The United Kingdom's Office for National Statistics released figures April 7 showing that industrial production-manufacturing, utilities and mining-was down 12.5 percent in February from a year ago, the largest annual fall since records began in 1968, The Guardian reported. Industrial production was down 1.0 percent from January, less than expected. Manufacturing output alone was down 0.9 percent in February from January, marking the twelfth month of decline, the longest slump since the recession of 1980."
Pavel Chichikov
Lincoln was concerned with something called the Union, in the sense of the United States of America - the Constitution was a bit lower on the scale. In this sense, Jefferson and Lincoln were both politicians acting as president in the interests of the nation as they saw it when they making decisions, dedicated to more practical matters than the Constitution.
There is no more practical matter than the charter. It is the continuity of the state.
Neither of them let their principles overrule making necessary decisions for the good of the nation, not the good of the Constitution.
So the rule of a ruthless prince is the ideal state?
I'm kind of curious if you'd like to articulate a thesis about the role of the rule of law in the governance of nation. Maybe there's a reason that people don't run their countries strictly by administrative fiat. Maybe you could explain to me how you feel the precedent of administrative fiat rule is compatible with the idea of the transmission of institutions and the maintenance of the state over multigenerational time periods.
I certainly can't disagree with you that good policy can't defend itself from an autocrat who chooses not to enforce it, but I think you are a technocrat with a lot of unexamined assumptions.
I think one thing particularly you need to do is start thinking more about the analytic bounds you are applying, particularly timeframe. Linclon was often used as a fig leaf for Bush II, for example. So to what degree does Lincoln bear the guilt of having provided a historical justification for maladministration and contempt for the rule of law? I see to recall FDR pointed to him a lot too, like when he stripped the Nissei of their property and interned them without process?
From this distance, having enabled so much of what later turned out to be fatal centralization and disregard for the charter, Lincoln looks like an idiot to me. Awesome, he won the civil war and preserved the territory of the Republic at the cost of the integrity of the charter. Poor choice, you can always reconquer provinces. Reclaiming your founding principles is much harder.
Obviously this is just wasted -- you're really here because you want to shit on someone and whatever you can crap on, is gonna have your shit all over it, but anyway; I think arguments to expediency and practicality in the rule of nations almost always seek to conceal an agenda that trades short term advantage for long term compromise of the essential character and soundness of the state's administrative mechanism. The assertion of "necessity" or "emergency" can be held a rough proxy for announcing an attack on the administrative fabric of the state.
"William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! "
-- A Man For All Seasons
Pavel Chichikov
A Man For All Seasons is by Robert Bolt
Pavel Chichikov
I have been wondering for months if there is anybody looking out for the taxpayer as the government engineers bailout after bailout.
Here's the guy: James Lambright. Wonderful puff piece in the WSJ to take the heat off Geithner.
"An incongruous sermon about fear and hysteria from an anonymous poster."
"Anonymous wrote on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 5:17am. " - how about get a name or go home to bed. It's like listening to someone scream from atop a 5-gallon bucket with his pants down around his ankles - tough to take seriously.
- - - - -
Black 
Ranch
"Anonymous wrote on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 5:17am. " - how about get a name or go home to bed. It's like listening to someone scream from atop a 5-gallon bucket with his pants down around his ankles - tough to take seriously.
Sexy Derivative™ is available for the right price.
Byzantine_ruins,
Well articulated.
--bh
CR - good decision in getting Ken to deal with the "Comments Monster" that had grown to be a challenge. BTW, is there a "keystroke" that will do the same thing as "clicking" SAVE?
- - - - -
Black Ranch
'how about get a name or go home to bed' would be a great tag line.
Byzantine_Ruins,
not long ago you posted the names of three or four chinese philosophers who had influenced your political views.
I recall Sun Tzu among them, but I can not recall the others, nor can I recall the date you posted.
I was intrigued by the reference and would like to know more. Would you kindly repost their names?
Thx in advance.
Byzantine_ruins,
Well articulated.
Thanks.
This is a flaw that I think is just one of those pitfalls that captures everyone who studies / practices this -- god knows I was as much a victim as anyone at earlier parts of my life. It captures educated people, smart people, all kinds of people.
To be "practical" sounds very good and logical. the problem is, is that nations are not people, and decisions that would be good for people are terrible to nations, because people have only one life to live, while be definition, nations have the lives of multitudes and a potentially indefinite lifespan. For people, "what" you are doing is what really matters. You have to preserve yourself and obtain resources. This is rather a natural process for nations. For people, "why" is mostly a gateway to quixotic simian petulance. For states, it's the only identity they have. Without a why, you could probably argue that the steate doesn't exist at all, and is just an now-accidental assembly of components awaiting a fatal disruption.
There's certainly room for disagreement, and I'm obviously just articulating a cartoon of the idea.
hey BSR
if you're going to go with Black Star don't you think you should use a black star... that looks like the flag of Vietnam to me for a Semper Fi and all that bs, I would think
yellow and red not to be good choices
Default Rate Surges to Highest Since Depression, Moody's Says
By John Glover
April 7 (Bloomberg) -- Thirty-five companies defaulted in March, the highest number in a single month since the Great Depression, according to Moody's Investors Service.
The rate at which speculative-grade corporate borrowers worldwide failed to meet their obligations rose to 7 percent from 4.1 percent at the end of last year, Moody's said in a report today. So far this year, 79 companies rated by Moody's have defaulted, the New York-based ratings firm said.
Almost $1.3 trillion of losses and writedowns at financial institutions worldwide, combined with the deepest economic slowdown since World War II, have weakened companies' finances, reducing their ability to pay debt. The global default rate will peak at 14.6 percent in the final quarter of the year, Moody's predicted, lower than last month's 15.3 percent forecast.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=afIlin8GVb6c
I love you BZ
Hun Fei Tzu was one, no Lao Tzu, Mencius and hmm
Broward wrote:
"It's amazing how many people in the US have an "R" or "D' flag hardwired into their head to rationalize the same behavior from different candidates."
Ideologues cant help it Broward. Their fascist tendencies are basal and human. Deep down, everybody tries to derive the upper hand in relationships by associating with those in power, or those striving to get it back.
Most of these people can't help themselves, they lack the independence of thought. These people need, absolutely must have, someone telling them how to act, feel, etc. I think it is a survival strategy for the weakest of us, when living in caves and teamwork was a life or death issue. Unfortunately the weakest of us is looking more and more like 80% of the population.
Very sad, really.
.......I've been trying to get Ken to change that star to black - to no avail yet.
- - - - -
Black Ranch
Why not green? Maybe he can do a camo star...Or a long horn head
Ho Lee Kow wrote on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 6:07am.
Byzantine_Ruins,
not long ago you posted the names of three or four chinese philosophers who had influenced your political views.
I recall Sun Tzu
... I think it was Han Fei Tzu (legalist school, see Mao '49), Lao Tzu, Mencius ... as for Sun Tzu my professors at Columbia
didn't him the time of day, as I remember (Theodore De Bary, et al)
'It is the continuity of the state.'
Not really - some day the U.S. will be gone, but the people living there will in all likelihood be members of a state, if European or Asian history is any guide. Sort of like the English - Catholic monarchy, Protestant monarchy, Cromwell, imported monarchy, etc.
'So the rule of a ruthless prince is the ideal state?'
Absolutely not - but to continue to search for the ideal, whether in some celebrity figure or some piece of parchment (ours enshrined slavery as an institution, remember), is a mistake.
The rule of law is one of those curious artifacts that was supposed to distinguish a nation where the rich and powerful ruled with impunity, often using torture and secret imprisonment along with directed hatred against those groups deemed to be illegal or dangerous from those nations that don't. And remember, don't go around taking any pictures of train stations or airports in the land of the free and home of the brave - and please, provide your fingerprints before applying for a REAL ID to enter a federal building. America is ruled by a number of laws at this point, but to call it the rule of law may be stretching the point to breaking.
'Lincoln looks like an idiot to me'
Lincoln was faced with choices that none of us are likely to ever face, and he met them squarely, with an awareness of his responsibility that remains far too rare in human affairs. He was not living in an abstract world, but one where the only one to make decisions, for good and ill, was himself. And he made them clearly, for purposes that were never hidden or for lack of a better word, self-serving. Admittedly, his being murdered at the end of the Civil War makes a discussion of his future role in ruling the Union he preserved impossible to know.
'...preserved the territory of the Republic at the cost of the integrity of the charter.'
Well, he also destroyed the institution of slavery in the U.S., which was part of that charter. I think it takes a pretty abstract view of that basic fact to dismiss it so casually. Not everything in the Constitution was worthy of defense, though as a charter, its ability to be changed is certainly a major reason it has survived so well, even if slowly - it took the U.S. considerably longer to give women the right to vote than comparable European nations, and let's be honest, Prohibition was a disaster.
'...arguments to expediency and practicality in the rule of nations almost always seek to conceal an agenda that trades short term advantage for long term compromise of the essential character and soundness of the state's administrative mechanism.'
Just for fun, since you mentioned not worrying about territory, how about we sell what Jefferson bought back to the French, assuming they are interested in buying it? Or would all the Americans living in that area object to be sold as a matter of principle, seeing that such a return to essential character would actually seem like being sold out in the interests of principle..
Life is gray, not the black and write so often represented by words read on paper or a screen.
But it has been fascinating, truly fascinating, to see what people read into fairly banal and mundane historical anecdotes, showing that all of the current outrages being so hotly debated are easily topped by the outrages that made America what it is. And how people see this in a partisan way, depending on their own perspectives. Even more interesting has been seeing how most people simply find rejecting or categorizing such historical information is more important than understanding the threads that make up the tapestry of the nation we live in.
And as for complaints about remaining Anonymous - please, tell the authors of the Federalist Papers that really, 'how about get a name or go home to bed.' I'm sure that Publius would completely understand why it is so essential in public debate to have a public presence, especially in terms of everyone being able to know who writes what. This doesn't mean that Anonymous is somehow a great tag - it certainly hinders conversation in terms of having multiple people under one name - but why does someone have to justify their desire to simply not call themselves something like Lefty?
As a final thought - compromise may lead to the road to hell, but it is fanatics that built it.
"Lawmakers squeamish about prostitution tax"
The height of hypocrisy. You have a budget problem, a legal business type, an agreeable industry ("please tax us") and no one wants to touch it! What a bunch of fools.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30029405/
"Legislators don't want to deal with it," said Guy Rocha, a Nevada historian and former state archivist. "It's so charged politically, they just want it to go away." "Religious conservatives will line up with liberals and feminists who see this as demeaning to women," Rocha said. "Some don't want to give prostitution any legitimacy, even though it's legal in many rural counties."
- - - - -
Black Ranch
Han Fei Tze
Chuang Tze
Lao Tze
Xun Tze (Hsun Tze) -- Not the same as Sun Tze. Confucian with a generally upbeat yet Hobbesian bent. We all start off hungry selfish and ignorant, but clearly you can get past it.
Anon,
tl;dr
as for Sun Tzu my professors at Columbia didn't him the time of day, as I remember
He is awesome as a military theoretician, father of the game, hands down all time pro.
There's no doubt he comes from a culture that has a Taoist model of thought. It may be educational to see it applied if you have never read Tao of Pooh or Lao Tze or even if you just know the Taoist method as pure philosophy.
But as a political philosopher, he has neither merit nor interest. He thinks wars should be swift and decisive and fought for a narrow, well-defined reason, and that the king shouldn't meddle in wars once he pushes the "go" button. That's about the extent of it.
Thanks, Byz_Ruins.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus augue urna, varius id, mollis ut, congue ut, velit. Curabitur laoreet rutrum nulla. Quisque rhoncus. Sed mattis aliquam dui.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus augue urna, varius id, mollis ut, congue ut, velit. Curabitur laoreet rutrum nulla. Quisque rhoncus. Sed mattis aliquam dui.
test
It can't be