Michael Wolraich's picture

    Persecution Politics: Beck Predicts Dollar Collapse, American Land Sold to China and Russia, Polar Bears Executed by 'Ivan'

    Last month, Glenn Beck accused the Obama administration of deliberately instigating a national emergency in order to justify a totalitarian revolution. No disrespect to Mr. Beck's investigative skills, but his account was short on details. He had not determined what kind of emergency would occur, when it would happen, or whether the revolution would be communist, fascist, or some monstrous hybrid of the two. (Fascmunism?)

    Fortunately for America, FOX News' indefatigable conspiracy hunter has continued to the sniff out the plot, and as of this evening, we have a few more details. First, the emergency will be economic. According to Beck, the U.S. will not be able to pay its mounting debts, and the government be forced to print money in order to fulfill the nation's obligations, as Germany's Weimar Republic did in the 1920s. The value of the dollar will subsequently collapse, and the U.S. will again emulate the Weimar Republic by introducing a new currency backed by real estate, which the government will obtain in several ways:

    Between Fannie and Freddie, the federal government already owns 55 percent of the mortgages in this country. And coupled with all the federal land grabs for parks, polar bears who are crowded but endangered and all the oil we're not drilling for or coal we're not mining, you might be able to base a currency on all that.

    But then it gets a bit foggy. Beck predicts that we will need some kind of help to create the new currency, some allies in the endeavor, and he wonders aloud, "Who would the new regime responsible for this new system of currency...after they've destroyed our future and your children's future, who would they have on their side?" Beck then answers his own question. Our new currency buddies will be international all-stars, Russia, China, and Venezuela. The astute viewer can imagine what happens next. Our "helpers" will help themselves to our houses and national parks. That's bad enough for the American people, but it will be disastrous for the poor polar bears:

    Do you really think Russia and China will be better protectors of the planet than we have been? Will Russians cordon off 200,000 square miles of extra space for polar bear roaming or will they shoot them in the head to get a barrel of oil that used to belong to you? I know I would. Surely, Ivan will.*

    OK, so Beck clearly has some homework to do, but it's coming together. Will he get to the bottom of the plot in time? Will Americans be able to stop the the Obama administration's diabolical plan before it's too late? Stay tuned to Persecution Politics to find out.

    * For the young and stupid: Ivan means "evil Russian dude who hates polar bears."

    Topics: 

    Comments

    I'll be spending a week with my in-laws during Thanksgiving, and at least one of them (my mother-in-law) is a firm Beck-believer. You can imagine the difficulties…


    Did anyone actually listen to the facts that Beck presented?  Take away your distaste for the man, the personality, or the p.o.v.  What do the facts tell you?  Think about it.  I have educated myself over the last year to listen to ALL points of view, left, right, conservative, liberal, R, D, L, and then I melt down what is said to get to just the facts.  If you do that to many of things Glenn Beck presents it is hard to prove he is off-base with his facts.  The facts:  the U.S. has printed an obscene amount of money in the last year, inflation does lag the actual printing, higher interest rates are the method for controlling inflation, the U.S. deficit & debts (domestic & foreign) are reaching unimaginable levels, and on and on and on.   Does Beck "war game" and hype the worst case scenarios, absolutely! But look at what his hypotheticals are based on and it's truly evident our country has some very serious issues that almost NO ONE, the POTUS, R's,D's, liberals or conservatives, will address.  Think about it.   


    If I tell you the sky is blue so therefore an asteroid is going to hit the Earth tomorrow, and you tell me I'm crazy, can I prove I'm right by pointing out that my fact (that the sky is blue) is correct?

    Crazy isn't less crazy even if it occasionally cites correct facts to back up its story. Almost all crazy conspiracy theories have quite a few of their basic facts correct. It's the conclusions that are hilarious. In Beck's case, the logic is so flawed (as in my example above) that it doesn't matter how correct the facts are.


    As for your "facts", a quick Google search suggests that the US government has been printing more money, and it was doing so in September of 2007 (two years ago, meaning more than a year prior to the biggest melt-down). So, sure, feel free to be concerned about it, but using that "fact" as the basis for arguing about Obama's agenda seems quite far-fetched unless the man has a time-machine.


    So Beck lays out facts and using historical events with similar facts and causes/effects he paints worst case scenarios. Wow, that is outrageous.


    Fact #1: Hitler drove a car.

    Fact #2: You (presumably) drive a car.

    Face #3: Hitler became a megalomaniacal mass-murderer.

    Worst case scenario: you'll become a megalomaniacal mass-murderer.

    That's about how rigorous Glen Beck's logic is. Come back with a specific example you wish to defend, and I'll demonstrate exactly where the stupid is.


    Look, I am not trying to defend Glenn Beck I just think it would be great to hear more solutions whether through illustrations (whether like Back’s over the top or not) on how the mess our government has created can be resolved.  I would prefer solutions that involve the principles that helped build this country, but any ideas are better than none, and much more preferred than just attacking points of view (mine, the R's, the D's, Mr.Beck’s, or others).  I realize with this p.o.v. I may be in the proverbial hornets nest on this site, but it never hurts to listen to both sides. 

    I do have to say Glenn Beck did not mention "Obama's agenda" in his most recent illustration ... in fact, Beck in the past has actually criticized Pres. Bush's and both the “R’s” and the “D’s” spending policies and he did in his monologue leading up the illustration that this article is based on.   video link below that contains example of Beck’s favorite criticism of Pres. Bush policy i.e. the post 9/11 "go shopping for your country" theory.   

    Your "blue sky" and impending asteroid collision might be a pretty spot on analogy of how most Americans think, "it could never happen to us" ,  "my home value has gone up for the last 20 years" and then "BOOM", “9/11 attacks”….or… “uh, what happened,  I can't pay my mortgage"… “where’s my retirement”.    Found this little gem with a “google” search.   “…The uncertainties in an asteroid's orbit are greatest in the hours just after its discovery, and thus the calculated probability of an impact also tends to be the highest at these times. As we monitor an asteroid over the course of the weeks or months that follow, its orbit becomes more and more certain, and we become more knowledgeable about its position at a given date in the future. We can then rule out many possible paths it may take. In most cases, monitoring the asteroid over a few weeks quickly leads to an impact probability of very nearly zero”

    Like Glenn Beck said, we all hope the dollar collapse doesn’t lead to a worst-case scenario, but shame on our country if we continue to think worst-case scenarios could never happen to us.  

    Here's a link to another CRAZY Beck video (video link found via “google” search not from my "favorites" folder).  from October 2008, including a video with commentary by Peter Schiff from November 2007. Notice at 1:30 of the video  Beck mentions Fed, politicians, and banks.  http://dprogram.net/2008/10/10/video-msm-peter-schiff-on-glenn-beck-dollar-collapse/


    Really? Do you seriously think that skies being blue have any bearing on asteroid collisions? Are you familiar with post hoc ergo prompter hoc? It's not the exact same thing, but it follows from a very similar faulty chain of reasoning.


    With that "Hitler" reference why don't you just use my name from now on.

    You place assumptions on facts, at least Crazy Glenn Beck places assumptions of what may come based on facts.

    I don't need to provide anything else because I am still waiting for you to show everyone the "stupid" behind the many possibilities for the future of the U.S. economy, you can start from the unlikely scenario of singing we are the world with the U.N. all the way to a China-Russia takeover of the U.S. National Parks!    

    Fact #1: Hitler drove a car.

    Did he?  You sure about that?

    Fact #2: You (presumably) drive a car. 

    presumably.

    Face #3: Hitler became a megalomaniacal mass-murderer.

    Worst case scenario: you'll become a megalomaniacal mass-murderer.

    Nah, you are right, Glenn Beck is the crazy one.  


    That was meant to be a parody of Glenn Beck. That you found it crazy was the point. That you missed the obviousness of the fact that you were supposed to find it crazy suggests more about you than it does about me.

    Whether or not Hitler (or you) drove a car was most definitely not the point. If I actually knew you, do you doubt for a second that I could find at least one parallel between you and Hitler?

    My point is that this is faulty logic of the highest degree:

    1) A did X.

    2) B did X.

    3) A did Y.

    4) Ergo, B will do Y.

    No matter how true 1, 2, and 3 are, #4 does not follow. In some cases reasoned arguments can be made for why #4 will, in fact, follow (I point this out because I dread the next piece of faulty reasoning coming to support this), but 1, 2, and 3 do not guarantee or even significantly suggest #4. Yikes.


    It just occured to me: is this A-man trying to be funny?


    Dude. You're arguing with someone named CRAZY, and that's ok... unless of course it's A-man, just playin' with you? Hmmmm.

    If it is A-man, I hope he keeps going. I want to see Neb's head spin around, like in the cartoons.


    That's OK, I know just the stake to drive through A-man's heart: Hitler references.


    Nebton, I think that your astroid example misses the mark. The problem is not faulty logic. Beck has proposed an admittedly speculative hypothesis to explain current events, what your friend Crazy calls a "war game." The problem is that Beck does not evaluate the plausibility of his hypothesis, for instance by considering the many differences between the U.S. and Weimar Germany, and he does not examine more likely hypotheses. He simply dismisses the alternatives, either by saying a shrug that no one from the administration has denied his accusations (and so they must be true) or else stating that his research has revealed no alternative. Thus, the "speculation" becomes the "reality" of gullible listeners like Crazy.

    But there is one more piece that pushes the believers along, a piece that is absent from the stark astroid analogy. Beck is a storyteller. He weaves current events into a potent horror story about an evil plot inside the government. Listeners accept the hypothesis as fact because of the power of the narrative.


    The lack of narrative was deliberate, as I was attempting to strip the argument down to its fundamentals. Of course, that presupposes the argument has any fundamentals. Initially, it seemed that crazy recognized the faulty logic of Beck, but thought that was perfectly fine because the faulty logic was built on top of solid facts. I was attempting to give examples of other faulty logic systems built on top of solid facts to demonstrate just how idiotic such an argument was. After which, "crazy" (or was it A-man?) only took away that my example was idiotic without realizing that, by extension, so are Glenn Beck's creations.


    Fair enough, and the exchange was entertaining to boot. I'm sure that crazy is not a-man (though a-man may be crazy).


    So with all the narrative over, where does everyone stand on the future of the U.S. dollar?  Seriously, I am interested.  Beyond the Glenn Beck "war gaming" or "storytelling" what do you think will happen?  Inflation?  High taxes?   

    Good chatting and debating with everyone.

    not really CRAZY


    A falling US dollar will probably be good for us, as it should lower our trade deficit thus helping us with jobs. (I have an excellent narrative for this, but I'll save it for later.)

    Of course, IANAE. (I Am Not An Economist.)


    The dollar is fine.  No serious economist, and let's be clear that Beck isn't even an economist, much less serious about what he says, thinks there is any imminent danger of a dollar "collapse", whatever that means.  If we mean something like, say, Iceland, that's not going to happen.

    Debt levels are high, but historically egregious.  We're not even at post-WWII levels.  The dollar probably will, and should, decline in value, but this means the foreign exchange value of the dollar.  This is good because it will be accompanied by more balanced trade, ie more American exports.  That's good for the American worker.

    Inflation is a tricky subject.  When American economists are talking about inflation, they're usually talking about the CPI, the Consumer Price Index, or the CPI-U, which has prices for certain goods taken out because short-term volatility of these goods creates statistical noise.  The CPI-U has actually declined 1.3 percent over the last year, not risen.

    That's the foreign side, but what about the domestic side?  Let's think about some mistakes people make when they discuss inflation.  First is the mistaken assumption that there's a 1:1 relationship between money creation and inflation.  This is simply false.  The easiest way to understand why is to look at the quantity theory equation, MV=PQ, where M is the money supply, V is monetary velocity (basically how often money is changing hands), P is the overall price level (increases here, ceteris paribus, are called inflation) and Q is productive output.

    In order for the common assumption that all money creation equates to inflation to be true, V and Q have to stay constant.  In this case, if M increases then P will increase in direct proportion.  However, this isn't necessarily the case.  If M increases and Q increases an equal amount, there will be no increase in P if we assume V to hold constant.  This is essentially the goal of monetarism: Target low levels of inflation by allowing the money supply to increase with productive output.

    Interest rates are at the zero bound due to exhaustive efforts on the part of monetary policy.  They will rise in the future, but that's okay.  We've been there before just like we've had much more debt as a share of GDP before.  Times are tough, but the dollar is not in imminent danger of collapse.

    Beck has described himself as a rodeo clown.  He wasn't lying.  Beck has as much credibility on these issues as Hulk Hogan would have on an Olympic wrestling team.


    A) I'm nothing close to an economist (although probably closer to one than Beck), so when I look at MV=PQ, I look at it as a physicist would. Here's what I don't like about it: it seems to imply that if P and Q are constant, then V is inversely proportional to M, and it seems very counterintuitive to me that making more money would cause it to changes hands more slowly. Then again, I'm a horrible student of human nature.

    B) First with the

    MEGA-SHARK!!!!, and now with the Hulk Hogan bashing? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?


    Well, to be clear, I'm providing an argument that is very sympathetic to the monetarist view.  Indeed, there are dissenting views that the relationship between money creation and inflation isn't nearly as clear.  However, for those who contend that this is what we face, I've provided the most favorable view that is still grounded in economic theory.

    Beck's view is pure hackneyed alarmism on its face.  It has no relationship to economic theory or even to basic facts, either historical or contemporary.

    It's an equation, so it's fair to look at is a physicist.  To be honest, most of the econ math I see reminds me of mechanics.  Maybe not econometrics, but certainly the foundational micro stuff.  What you say is true.  If you held P and Q constant and let M increase, then V would have to decrease proportionally.  This does seem counter-intuitive, but not so much if we think it through.  If productive output and the price level are held constant, then we can come up with a constant value for the entire economy, literally P*Q.  If we were to increase the money supply under these circumstances, we should not expect that it will change hands.  There already existed enough money to buy everything in the economy.  We just added more money, but there's nothing to spend it on.  So, we would expect velocity to decrease proportionally.

    Now, I don't know of any real world example where that's happened off the top of my head.  In reality, V is pretty volatile, so we would expect an increase in M to be accompanied by anincrease P, unless Q is increasing.  At least that's the theory.  In practice, neither inflation or deflation is a big concern right now and this is reflected in the markets.

    For the record, I have nothing against the Hulkster or his 24" pythons.


    DF and Nebton thanks for your input, looks like my reply about no responses overlapped each of yours and fell on a different thread.  I appreciate the p.o.v's.  

    Couple of thoughts... "...more American exports.  That's good for the American worker...."  what exports?  what workers?   Our economy is much different today than it was at other comparable points of economic downturns, ie. service oriented, multi-national corporations, and much much more consumer / consumption oriented.   Looking back a deficit levels and comparing them to post WWII is flawed don't you think?  Considering we are not currently in peacetime and none in site for the near future, plus the "GD" preceeded WWII.

    Just for the record... I was not the one to apply "false equivalancy" or "faulty logic", I will leave that to the talking heads on both sides of the aisle.  I was simply looking for thoughts and opinions on the "meat of the sandwich" on the commentary of the Beck commentary if you will, albeit from real people.  You are real people, right?  Wink  


    This is why economists use numbers.  People decry the loss of manufacturing in America left and right.  It's true that it has declined, but not true that it's disappeared.  The fact is, we're still the number three exporter in the world after Germany and China.  Think about this.  We export almost as much as China with a population less than 1/4 the size.  And tiny Germany exports even more.  Yes, Virginia, Americans still work and make things, but if you listen to people like Beck you'll hear that manufacturing was left back in the dust of the 20th century somewhere.

    Comparing debt levels to WWII isn't any more flawed than comparing them to nothing.  That's what people do when they wring their hands over the debt levels and proclaim that we're on the brink of collapse.  They're peddling fear, not analysis.  The bottom line is that we've historically serviced much higher levels of debt.  If you've got something better to compare our current debt to than the historical record, I'd like to hear it.

    Something else to consider: Historically, Democrats pay down the debt, Republicans run it up.  If the lessons of recent history hold, we should expect to see the national debt decline under Obama, not increase.

    Now, we'd get there faster if people weren't mindlessly running from their own shadows.  3rd quarter growth was good, but unemployment is still in the toilet.  It hasn't even turned the corner yet.  We'd recover faster if we could employ fiscal policy appropriately, but we can't seem to do that in this country.  Why?  Because of irrational, ahistorical fear of debt and deficit.


    Something else to consider: Historically, Democrats pay down the debt, Republicans run it up.  If the lessons of recent history hold, we should expect to see the national debt decline under Obama, not increase.

    Although you're right about the history, I doubt we'll see Obama follow this trend. There's just too much working against him.


    We'll see.  Clinton pretty much scrapped his first term domestic agenda because of what seemed like insurmountable economic conditions.  Overall, he did better on debt than any President in recent memory.

    We also don't know exactly why things correlate this way, even though the correlation is strong.  Perhaps it's because the GOP puts on their meanest debt hawk face when they're not in power.

    Another interesting fact is that Republicans seem to have very good economic conditions in election years.  You'll get three crappy years, then year four, when voters are really paying attention, will be an improvement.  Didn't happen for the GOP in 2008 though.  Whether this is just dumb luck or something they engineer remains a mystery.


    "Working against him", like what, his policies, his party , ie stimulus & healthcare reform?  Hey, I am all for the right kind of Healthcare reform, but right now is simply the wrong time to do it.  The two parties that screwed this up, D's & R's

    I wish people would quit referencing Glenn Beck...I did not, nor do I currently believe, Glenn Beck is anything other than a talking head.


    That "anonymous" post was me, my bad, unintentional.  The unfinished thought about R's and D's was simply that BOTH parties and existing D.C. elements (special interests & lobbyists) are the problem and have played an equal part in the current economic downturn and yet we have to rely on the ones who screwed it up to fix it.   I am so NOT a party person (don't believe me, here's a hint: what's in a name?) and really wish we had options and most of all term limits for those politicians in the two existing parties!   


    There's certainly deplorable amounts of corruption among both parties, but to claim that they have equal share in the current economic quandary is an exercise in false equivalence.  It's a partisan move.


    If right now is the wrong time, when is the right time?  We're spending approximately two times per capita what the rest of the world spends on healthcare.  Over the last decade, healthcare costs have outpaced inflation by a factor of 5.  Studies show that 45k people are dying annually in America due to a lack of insurance.  The insured don't do much better, with two-thirds of bankruptcies due to medical bills, despite over 75% of those people being insured.  To top it off, we're lagging behind other countries in key outcomes like life expectancy and infant mortality.

    The healthcare sector is now fully one sixth of the economy.  Should we wait until people are literally dying in the streets and the economy has been strangled by the healthcare sector before we address this?  I can understand disagreement on what the right reforms are, but how anyone can say that this is anything other than the right time for reform is beyond me.

    Seriously, you're concerned about the dollar, but think this can wait?  I'm baffled.


    Then be baffled. Our government has yet to truly reform the current healthcare system, but instead wants to implement a whole new system, which by the way, any way you slice it, will have it's own set of problems,   How about we fix the problems with our current system?  More importantly how about fixing the problems that caused this economic downturn first?  Dig a little deeper outside of one p.ov. or one side or another and you will find those problems with GSE securities for example have not been fixed.    It's not partisan to say that both parties had major roles in the economic problems, in fact, it's partisan to claim otherwise.

    Cheers.


    A whole new system? How do you figure? Almost all of the bills being floated now barely change the existing system. Their biggest flaw is that they don't do enough, not that they do too much. It's a freakin' insurance option. Let me stress both of those words. Insurance. Option. It's not medical treatment, it's insurance. It's not required, it's an option.

    Very importantly, the more we can improve the healthcare system, the healthier our economy will be as a result. Sick workers are unproductive workers. You keep urging us to look outside our POV, but you don't seem to be doing that yourself. I'll give you credit for sticking around here and being civil, but open yourself up to what we're saying.

    Everyone here will admit that both parties have major roles in the economic problems, but that doesn't make both parties equally responsible. That's the false equivalency thing we keep going on about.


    An "option" yet it includes mandates, "freakin'" mandates. Let me stress both of these words.  Option.  Mandates.  One of these things is not like the other, weird, huh? 

    And these reforms are supposed to improve competition with those "evil" insurance companies right?  YThe gov't option as insurance competition is such a lie.  That's like competing with a patrol car in a street race.  The patrol car can pull you over and slap a ticket on you at any time.  How dumb do those using the "competition" argument think we, Americans, are?   

    I am not one of those dumb Americans that doesn't understand what the Obama administration meant by "fundamentally transform" America.   But those elements that are "barely change" are critical elements to transforming healthcare into a different system! 

    Yes, you can argue that I misspoke when I said "equal parts" when referring to R's, D's, special interest and lobbyist and their role in the economic downturn, but I also said played major roles.  Maybe I was being non-confrontational because like some on this board have done I could argue with opinions that one party or the other had more responsibility than the other, but that would only lead to a back and forth that can not be solved or proved.   

    And earlier when referring to fixing the problems with our economy you said " ...we have improved on them a little. (I'd say we did about 5% as much as we should have.) "   And so you are o.k. with only fixing it 5% and let's move on to the next problem?   Look at the healthcare system and all the times that only a %, or partisan element,  of a problem was fix or done over the years, by both parties (maybe not equally) , but is it any wonder that the government is still trying to reform that system?   

     


    Some of the plans do contain mandates – mandates that require you to have some insurance, just as you're currently required to have some car insurance if you drive. In those cases, the option is which insurance package you'll choose. It's also worth noting that the plan that will finally get through Congress will almost definitely not contain mandates. So, that's a bit of a red herring, IMNSHO.

    As far as your racecar analogy goes, you're absolutely spot on. After all, look at the way that the USPS drove out UPS and FedEx through similar practices. Oh wait, they didn't. So, that raises the question: what evidence do you have that the gov't option would do that? The only discussion I've seen even similar requires insurance companies to actually abide by the contracts that they themselves drew up. Oh, the horror!

    As for your equal parts discussion, the real problem isn't the disagreement about whether one party is more repsonsible than the other, but that it doesn't matter who is more responsible. What matters is who has the better plan now. Of course, one could say that historical issues can help us to gauge track records. If you were to do so objectively, the results might surprise you: every study I've seen on economic issues have shown Democratic administrations to be more fiscally responsible (i.e., run up less of a debt). On the other hand, if I were to think back over the major skirmishes, it seems that Republicans have actually been (historically) less involved in wars. That's not a study, just me thinking of a few examples. (We entered both WWI and WWII under Democratic presidents, for example.) Perhaps this reflects on the expression "only Nixon could go to China." As we're seeing now, Democrats have a tendency to overcompensate for their perceived liberalness. (In case it's not clear, most of us here don't think they're liberal enough.)

    And so you are o.k. with only fixing it 5% and let's move on to the next problem?

    No, but it's better than 0%. What makes you think I am OK with only fixing it 5%?

    Look at the healthcare system and all the times that only a %, or partisan element,  of a problem was fix or done over the years, by both parties (maybe not equally) , but is it any wonder that the government is still trying to reform that system?

    Yes, it seems the only time true transformation takes place is when it benefits the wealthy. E.g., Nixon and HMOs. This was the single biggest step backwards in the healthcare system. The current plan won't fix all of that, but a little improvement is better than none.


    Congress will almost definitely not contain mandates. So, that's a bit of a red herring, IMNSHO.

    So you know there will be no mandates?  Then could you tell me who will win the SuperBowl this year, so I can place a bet? 

    "...the USPS drove out UPS and FedEx through similar practices..."

    Your USPS comparison is completely flawed and off-base, but useful.  Do you even know why we have the USPS?  There is a clause for it in the U.S. Constitution.   The USPS and Fedex/UPS DO NOT COMPETE directly for universal service , ie. the mail in your mailbox.    Do you know why that is the case?   The USPS has a monopoly.  Do you know why they have a monopoly?  The federal GOVERNMENT interpreted the constitutional clause to grant it.  You actually have to pay more "when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight".  So, one you are wrong and you proved my point about competition with your flawed USPS example.  Do you really want a “USPS” style health “insurance” when it comes to your health, you know, like when it absolutely, postively has to be there? 

    As for your equal parts discussion, the real problem isn't the disagreement about whether one party is more repsonsible than the other, but that it doesn't matter who is more responsible. What matters is who has the better plan now. ...............Democrats have a tendency to overcompensate for their perceived liberalness. (In case it's not clear, most of us here don't think they're liberal enough.)

    Yes, it seems the only time true transformation takes place is when it benefits the wealthy. E.g., Nixon and HMOs. This was the single biggest step backwards in the healthcare system. The current plan won't fix all of that, but a little improvement is better than none.

    You mean the plan to only fix "5%" of the problems with our economy and move on to healthcare, is that the better plan, is 5% overcompensating?  My point was that the fundamental problems that caused the economic downturn were not fixed and government is moving on to the next problem without fixing the foundation.  I am not sure if you are in fact ok with only 5%, but it sure sounds that way  when you argue for this healthcare reform and for it to take place now with the uncertainty of the economy still up in the air and the problems that caused it still present.    


    Here’s another  “true transformation” that took place in the midst of an economic downturn. E.g., FDR and Social Security.  Those damn old "wealthy" people!  How’s that working out?     The debates that took place regarding the funding and future of SS were very similar to those taking place today on healthcare.   Unfortunately, it appears those pushing certain types of reform are using the same arguments and unfortunately it appears will employ similar methods for funding.    


    that was CRAZY not "CRAY", my bad. 


    Yes, the 5% is due to overcompensating and selling out their ideals. They've so watered down the original plan in order to please the Republicans and Blue Dogs that they've drastically reduced the plans effectiveness.

    Yet, 5% is better than 0%. That concept seems to elude you.


    I'm not sure what you mean by a whole new system.  I've heard of nothing but modest reforms to the existing system.  You'll have to be more specific on that and on what problems you believe caused the economic downturn as well.  What is the problem with GSE securities?  Just mentioning them doesn't tell me much.

    When I made the comment about partisanship, what I meant was that it's not necessarily non-partisan to spread the blame around.  If one party really is to blame, then you're carrying water for that party if you try and say otherwise.  That's a partisan move.

    Having that said, the Democrats have certainly have some blame.  Clinton kicked the can on a few issues, left Greenspan to do his thing and signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal on the way out the door.  However, Bush was tight with Phil Gramm, so this was probably inevitable in any case.  Under Bush, the tax structure was radically altered.  Income inequality increased, wages stagnated, we spent buckets of money on a unnecessary war.

    Oh, and there was that whole thing about letting the housing bubble inflate underneath them.

    Now, the Dems could have been a much better opposition party in many respects, but the Bush team was warned about this just like he was warned about 9/11.  He doesn't really get the blame for that either, but he deserves it.  The Dems deserve some blame, but most of the blame goes to the GOP if you want to break it out along party lines.  I contend that to claim otherwise is objectively partisan and in favor of the GOP.


    Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it. -Flannery O'Connor, writer (1925-1964)


    Yeah, I know.  That's my point.  I'm not a Democrat, BTW.  Did you assume that I was?

    You do understand that blame is not afforded equally to two parties in all cases merely because there are two parties, right?  That they can have varying degrees of responsibility for certain outcomes depending on the circumstances?  I've given you my notes on why I think the GOP is more at fault.  All you've done is to mention GSE securities.  That tells me nothing about A) why you think the economy failed or B) why you think both parties share equally in the blame for this failure.

    Nearly everyone that I know of seems to understand that the GOP advocated for the policies that were the most damaging.  You've done nothing to describe any alternative case.  In fact, the only group I think of that think that's the Fannie and Freddie, which were being run as private corporations BTW, were entirely to blame for the mess are in fact the right-wing Republicans that don't want to be blamed for what they did.

    So, you can make your case for how you think the blame breaks out.  Or, you can post quotes that you seem to understand no better than the logical fallacies you employ in your arguments.


    Below is my reply, the “Anonymous” post and your reply to it were interesting though.  And no I didn't think you were a D, I am betting you are about as left as left can get.   

    I'm not sure what you mean by a whole new system.  I've heard of nothing but modest reforms to the existing system. 

    “Modest reforms”, seriously?  The reforms being proposed set the stage and open some doors that if utilized can lead to a totally different system and it’s obvious that is what many in Congress, the WH, and in this blogosphere want whether they will say it or not or put it in the bill or not. 

    If the U.S. government entities can’t administer their current public health programs in an efficient manner ( I do not agree with everything presented in the linked document, however, on page 2 , there is some interesting commentary on “financing structure related to this discusion point)   I don’t think our government has ever proven to be efficient and would argue they will continue their inefficient administration when those programs drastically increase in size.  Reform the cost structure in both existing public and private programs and add reforms to reduce the cost. ).  Other points in that linked paper that could be considered as well would be a public effort with incentives to make Americans healthier (rather than just providing medical care for treatable diseases like obesity), educating on consumption efficiencies for the services currently provided & available.  Again,  I would argue against many of the other points in the linked document, but I believe all of these mentioned would go a long ways in driving down costs.   

      

    You'll have to be more specific on that and on what problems you believe caused the economic downturn as well.  What is the problem with GSE securities?  Just mentioning them doesn't tell me much.

    For some reason you are hung up on my example of GSE securities.  I presented GSE’s as one example of problems that have yet to be fixed.   But since you are either uninformed (which I doubt), in denial or simply sticking to ideals (more likely)  here’s are some of the problems with GSE securities.The biggest problems, the makeup of the securities (largely sub-prime) and the implied guarantee behind them through the federal charter.  Without that implied guarantee from our government I would argue the Chinese and rest of the world would have been a lot less likely to poor trillions of dollars into GSE’s and would not have needed a bailout at the U.S. taxpayers' expense.  Again, many problems have not been fixed, but to argue that the problem with Fannie and Freddie was fixed with last year's regulatory reform bill is a mistake.

    When I made the comment about partisanship, what I meant was that it's not necessarily non-partisan to spread the blame around.  If one party really is to blame, then you're carrying water for that party if you try and say otherwise.  That's a partisan move.

    Having that said, the Democrats have certainly have some blame.  Clinton kicked the can on a few issues, left Greenspan to do his thing and on the way out the door. 

    Yeah, uh,”kicked the can on a few issues” and  “signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal on the way out the door”, then I guess in the future R’s defending Pres. Bush could just say he “kicked the can on a few issues” and that the financial collapse happened while Pres. Bush was “on the way out the door”.  Like I said, plenty of blame to go around. 

    However, Bush was tight with Phil Gramm, so this was probably inevitable in any case. 

    You know what they say about those who assume, right?  I am not sure why you chose to even play a “what if” kind of game, but I won’t be going there.   

    Under Bush, the tax structure was radically altered.  Income inequality increased, wages stagnated, we spent buckets of money on a unnecessary war.

    I am well aware that liberals blame Pres. Bush for everything that has gone wrong in the last ten years.

    Oh, and there was that whole thing about letting the housing bubble inflate underneath them.

    Why didn’t that “bubble”  happen to the same degree in every state?  Here’s a different  p.o.v.   

    Now, the Dems could have been a much better opposition party in many respects, but the Bush team was warned about this just like he was warned about 9/11. He doesn't really get the blame for that either, but he deserves it.   

    Again with the blame!  I am not even going there (9/11) because that’s not what this thread is about, however, by doing so your strong partisan nature is very obvious. 

    The Dems deserve some blame, but most of the blame goes to the GOP if you want to break it out along party lines.  I contend that to claim otherwise is objectively partisan and in favor of the GOP.

    Again this argument of blame could just go around and around.  My statement was “R's and D's was simply that BOTH parties and existing D.C. elements (special interests & lobbyists) are the problem and have played an equal part in the current economic downturn and yet we have to rely on the ones who screwed it up to fix it.   I was not attempting to apply blame, but simply state there is plenty of blame to go around and again when I made that statement I said R’s, D’s, “special interest” and lobbyist.  There is no way to objectively lay the blame and to claim otherwise is ridiculous.  In the end, I don’t really care where the blame lies, just that the problems get resolved.    


    So basically you're saying that no compromise is possible because any compromise "opens doors" to what we really want, is that it?

    It's funny how the Democrats are painted as being the intransigent ones in that equation…


    No I didn't say that at all.  All compromise is not created equal.   It's funny that dissent aimed at certain viewpoints automatically garners the label of a political party.  I actually believe a two party system and the lack of term limits for all elected officials, are major flaws of our political system.  Just because many in this forum have labeled me with a "R" doesn't make it true.  I may in fact hold much different opinions or viewpoints than others, if not most, in this forum, but that doesn't mean I hold the same values as one party or another. 


    I never labeled you with an "R". I'm merely referring to this (in your own words):

    The reforms being proposed set the stage and open some doors that if utilized can lead to a totally different system and it’s obvious that is what many in Congress, the WH, and in this blogosphere want whether they will say it or not or put it in the bill or not.

    That suggests quite strongly to me that any compromise would be viewed unfavorably by you, since any compromise can be argued to be opening "some doors". That statement right there is why I think you're a partisan. In this case, you're not clearly an "R", but you are very clearly an anti-"D". (E.g., you could easily be a Libertarian or "Conservative".)


    And I didn't say that YOU did, here's what I said,

    Just because many in this forum have labeled me with a "R" doesn't make it true.  I may in fact hold much different opinions or viewpoints than others, if not most, in this forum, but that doesn't mean I hold the same values as one party or another. 

    It is interesting that for the most part you avoid the real topics and debate on this thread, but instead chose to polarize certain aspects an argument and/or p.o.v.  I would bet that is by accident, but in this particular forum one can not be sure.


    What real issue have I supposedly avoided? I've definitely addressed the 5% one, twice, although I'm still not sure you got it.


    Neb Neb Neb Neb Neb.

    Crazy don't rest. Crazy don't sleep.

    KRAZEE JES' KEEP COMIN'.

    FER EVUH.

    Run away, Neb. Run Run Run Run Run.


    Speaking of crazy, I just wrote some satire on Desi's post over at TPM. How many people will not realize it's satire (I do realize I'm on a thinner line than usual for me)? Will Desi himself not realize it's satire?

    OK, yes, I'm bored and I like poking things sometimes when I'm bored. Tongue out


    Speaking of thin lines...


    You're betting that I'm as left as left can get, but then you deride me for making assumptions?  This is why you aren't worth communicating with.  You cannot maintain coherence even within a single comment, much less several comments.  You are curiously obsessed with judging others as being biased, but completely fail to recognize any of your own.  What might be a better approach is to stop trying to insist that you have rightfully claimed the unbiased center, which in fact doesn't exist, and to simply acknowledge and justify your own bias.

    Yes, modest reforms, at least if you allow your "p.o.v." to include the facts of the healthcare systems of other industrialized democracies.  You can understand this or not.  Whether you do or don't is not something that I care about at this point.

    Did you even read the policy paper you linked?  Hands down, bar none, the assessment is that per capita healthcare costs in the private sector are growing unsustainably and are the source of the majority of inefficiencies in the system.  Trying to blame all of the inefficiencies on government alone is factual unsupportable and typically right-wing.  Yes, there are inefficiencies in government programs, but anyone who has actually looked at the data knows where the most glaring inefficiencies are in the case of healthcare.

    What, exactly, is your solution to these problems?  Can you offer anything specific beyond vague suggestions like incentivizing healthier behavior or "educating on consumption efficiencies"?  What, exactly, does this mean?  What specific incentives?  What specific behavior?  Do you mean to imply that all you need for a more efficient system is to tell people to make more efficient decisions?  I've no more time for your generalities.  Be specific or I won't be reading what you have to say or responding to you any further.

    I'm not hung up on GSE securities.  You are.  You keep insisting they are a problem that has yet to be fixed.  You are simply wrong when you say that they are largely sub-prime.  I know this because, once again, I have actually looked at the facts:

    CRA assessment-area lending accounted for only nine percent of higher-priced loans to lower-income borrowers and neighborhoods, while independent mortgage companies accounted for the majority.

    So, when you say "largely subprime" you are either grossly uninformed or willfully deceitful.  Which is it?

    I never said that "the problem with Fannie and Freddie was fixed with last year's regulatory reform bill."  But I'm not the one who keeps insisting that Fannie and Freddie should be the focus of the discussion.  That's the rag of the right-wing and is not supported by the facts.  If you think government guarantees on government sponsored securities is the problem, what do you think of government guarantees of wholly private entities?  That's where most of the money has gone.

    I'm totally uninterested in going any further down the "blame" discussion with you.  It's gone beyond silly.  You don't seem to understand the difference between acknowledging responsibility and allocating blame according to actual accountability on these issues.  I don't find the GOP to be more to blame because they're the GOP.  I find them to be to blame because that's what the facts say.  It is undeniable that the housing bubble inflated and deflated under Bush.  It is undeniable that the Bush administration was warned about this as early as 2002.

    It is undeniable that, as was the case with 9/11, they effectively ignored these warnings until it was too late.  You can say that this illustrates my partisanship, but I contend that your reluctance to "go there" illustrates that you are, in fact and despite your denials, being utterly partisan here.  9/11 happened on Bush's watch.  He and Cheney both claimed credit for supposedly keeping us safe in the subequent years.  They cannot claim this and simultaneously avoid the blame for not keeping us safe in their first year.  You are either responsible for what happens on your watch or you are not.  All I'm doing is following the logic of the GOP here.  There's nothing partisan about it.  They set the standard.

    Conversely, I can only begin to imagine what the GOP would have said about the Democrats had they let the same things happen.

    You say you are well aware that "liberals blame Pres. Bush for everything that has gone wrong."  Are you well aware that he is, in fact, to blame for many of these things?  Blaming Bush for things that he was supposedly responsible isn't liberal or conservative.  It's just honest.

    Your Cato link is a bit of a tangent.  The author flatly asserts that the whole cause of the bubble is land use regulation, but offers little to no empircal backing for this statement.  Land use regulation might well be an issue to address, but certain aspects of the author's take are incredibly suspect, including his read of the 2005 Krugman column he links.  If you actually read the Krugman column he links, Krugman briefly draws a distinction between high population areas that have stricter zoning regulations and less populated areas that can simply sprawl out.

    The Cato fellow takes this brief comment by Krugman far too literally and as confirmation of his own, biased point of view.  Reading the author's bio reveals easily that he's been grinding the land use de-regulation axe for many years.  He might have some good points on that issue, but this op-ed falls well short of proving that his take is correct as a matter of economic study.

    And, of course, the Cato point of view is predictable: Simply de-regulate all land use!  Nevermind the complicating factors in highly populated coastal areas that lead to these regulations in the first place.

    Your summary of all this, that the bubble didn't happen equally in all locales, is only superficially true.  The Gaussian risk distribution models that CDOs are based on assumed two facts.  One is that housing prices generally go up over time (historically, they've essentially matched inflation when you look at the long-run trend).  The other assumption was that even when there were declines, they would be localized.

    This second assumption is important because while it had historically been true, it failed to remain true in this decade.  This is exactly the definition of the bubble bursting.  The fact that you don't seem to think so shows that you are confused by the difference between variable declines in regional markets across the nation and a general decline nationwide.

    I want to be perfectly clear about this: If you do not think that the housing market declined nationwide, then you cannot possibly think that the housing bubble bursted. These ideas are absolutely synonomous.  If you don't think that the housing bubble bursted, then why would you possibly think there is some kind of major financial problem, whether with GSE securities or any other security?  Why did trillions in CDOs suddenly become "toxic assets" across the board?  So much so that the five giant investment banks of last year no longer even exist in their current form?

    I agree with you that there isn't a purely objective way to assess the blame.  However, you can base your assessment on facts or not.  I have no interest in blatantly ideological false equivalance that tries to maintain that two parties means equal blame.  If you can't understand why that is silly, then I can't help you.  Do you realize how improbable it would be for both parties to always share equal blame in all cases, regardless of their actual involvement with any particular issue?

    Likewise, I agree with your assessment that there are systemic issues with special interests on both sides, issues that go to the level of corruption in some cases.  Your insistence that Democrats are blamable is utterly uncontroversial to me.  Democrats are responsible for their actions as is anyone.  What I absolutely deny is that the Democrats and GOP are equally blamable for all problems and in all cases.  It's a notion so boneheaded that I can hardly believe anyone would need to expend this much energy to draw the distinction.

    Finally, you say that you don't care where the blame lies.  Well, you do.  You've expended many words on insisting where you think the distribution of blame is.  Your denial that your allocation is partisan is really beside the point here.  You're highly invested in perceptions of blame, as evidenced by your many comments here.

    Furthermore, you say that you only care that the problem gets solved, but problems must first be understood to be solved.  If, in that understanding, you come to discover that one person or group is more responsible than the other, then that realization must be accounted for in crafting a solution.  Avoiding laying the blame simply for its own sake might very well preclude someone from understanding a problem and, as such, from crafting an effective solution.

    Which really brings us back to where this all started: Glenn Beck.  You do exactly what Glenn Beck does.  You insist upon your independence.  So does Beck.  You insist that you are not interested in the partisan battles.  So does Beck.  Then you go on arguing right-wing talking points right down the line: Woe for the weak dollar, run for the hills from hyperinflation, healthcare reform is a slippery slope, Fannie and Freddie caused the housing bubble (which might not have even happened apparently), de-regulation is the answer to everything, etc.  Chapter and verse right-wing talking points all.

    It's really this simple: If you have a point of view, you have bias.  You are partisan.  It doesn't matter whether you try to draw that point of view as distinct from one of the dominant American political parties or not.  This is the farce of the American political "independent."  If you have a point of view, if you are advocating a point of view, then you are a partisan on behalf of that point of view.

    I say: Make your point of view transparent and argue for it on the basis of facts and in good faith.  Anything else is a waste of time.


    Wow, that rebuttal was worth the read, and that's saying something!


    I didn't listen to Glenn Beck talk about the collapse of the dollar, but I did watch the video... a very good story. 

    True true about faulty logic... https://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/135/FaultyLogic.html

    Can't a man just wake up in the a.m. read some news,  stumble upon a related story on an interesting blog and even though said blog contains a different p.o.v than his own strike a good healthy debate without being labeled CRAZY, a megalomaniac, or a Glenn Beck follower/believer?   


    Uh, I don't mean to quibble, but you kind of labeled yourself crazy. By, you know, naming yourself "Crazy."


    Quibbling allowed.   Are you calling me LOCO?   It was said by another on an earlier reply in this thread,  "...You're arguing with someone named CRAZY..." , I for one would not want to argue with a crazy person!  

     


    The problem is that Beck does not evaluate the plausibility of his hypothesis, for instance by considering the many differences between the U.S. and Weimar Germany, and he does not examine more likely hypotheses.

    This bears repeating.  Anyone who thinks that there are enough similarites between modern day America and the Weimar republic to equate the two clearly hasn't done a very thorough analysis.


    It's easy to dismiss p.o.v.'s like Glenn Beck that draw illustrations that go over the top, but I have yet to see one response on this thread that actually disputes the fact that the U.S. currency is in a troubled state.   If facts are only facts and can be bent this way or that way (which I agree with)  have no bearing on what may come, then pray tell, what do you (thread readers & contributors) think may come?  The best conclusion I have come to (not by listening to/watching Glenn Beck) is that we are in unfamilar times and no one who SHOULD know actually knows what will happen and therefore really has NO IDEA on WHAT to do about it.


    OK, now I know you're not A-man, because I don't think he could even pretend to do the kind of false equivalency (he hates that almost as much as Hitler references) you're doing here. Sure, there's uncertainty, but DF has given you a pretty good explanation for what we can expect with regards to the US currency. Just because no one can be truly sure what will happen next doesn't make all viewpoints equally valid.


    DFand Nebton thanks for your input, looks like my reply about no responses overlapped yours.  I appreciate the p.o.v's.  Couple of thoughts... "...more American exports.  That's good for the American worker...."  what exports?  what workers?   Our economy is much different today than it was at other comparable points of economic downturns, ie. service oriented, multi-national corporations, and much much more consumer / consumption oriented.  

    Just for the record... I never did "false equivalancy" or "failed logic", I will leave that to the talking heads on both sides of the aisle and debate.  I was simply looking for thoughts and opinions on the "meat of the sandwich" if you will albeit from real people.  You are real people, right?  Wink  


    Here's a link to a PDF that contains information on our exports. The workers I'm referring to are the ones that make those products, as well as the service-oriented workers that provide them service.


    Ditto.  I linked some export data above.  Yes, our economy has changed in some ways, but we still manufacture and export.


    While I appreciate the documents and sources I raised those questions (what workers, what exports?") as more thought provoking than in effort to gain knowledge.  As many pointed out earlier, facts are only facts and historical comparisons have their flaws.  My point was to provoke thought on where our economic foundation is today versus where it has been historically during economic downturns. 


    So, begging the question is now thought provoking?  You discover what our economic foundation is today by looking at the facts, not by assuming it's unsound in an effort to prove it so.


    Bonus points to DF for using the term "begging the question" correctly. It's so rarely used correctly it brings a tear of joy to my eye when it is.


    Navigating the intricacies of linguistic prescription is quite the feat, applying it correctly outside is a different skill. 

    Cheers. 


    Are we not still recovering from a recession or is it an assumption that our economy is unsound?  Do you really believe our government fixed the problems that caused the economic situation that our country is currently facing?   Has the economy and the supposed fixes for it not bring stress on the U.S. dollar?  Have questions been raised questions about the risk of the U.S. currency and it's ability to recover?     By the way if you think those questions are "begging the question" then I can probably guess your answer the questions listed above.

    Cheers.


    Yes, we are still recovering from a recession. Our government has not fixed the fundamental problems that caused the economic situation, but we have improved on them a little. (I'd say we did about 5% as much as we should have.) What do you mean by "stress on the US dollar"? The recession is fairly global, so the US dollar is not stressed much more than other currencies. What currency/economy do you think is doing so much better than our own? (And, why do you think that economy is doing better?) It seems to me that you're asking a question that you fundamentally don't understand. So, I'll ask again, what do you mean by "stress on the US dollar"? Specifically, stress with respect to what measure?


    Are we not still recovering from a recession or is it an assumption that our economy is unsound?

    The recession is technically over, but job losses have not turned the corner.  I think that's probably of greater concern that the marginally negative growth rate of GDP over the past year, but YMMV.  There's also the question of how much consumer spending has been boosted by the housing tax credit and cash for clunkers.  This is why we have to keep an eye on jobs.  With unemployment as high as it is, there will continue to be problems.

    Do you really believe our government fixed the problems that caused the economic situation that our country is currently facing?

    Somewhat, but there are still serious issues.  Not enough has been done on jobs.  America's safety net needs to be improved.  It also needs to deal with the rampant speculation and leverage in finance.

    We're in a bind because we're hung up on the myth of the free market.  Markets aren't "free" or some state of nature.  They're contrived.  Invented.  We try and understand how the world works and how our choices connect with outcomes, but that's the best you can do.  People got drunk on the myth that all roads lead to Friedman and Reagan.  America is experiencing the hangover of this myth right now.

    This isn't a left/right thing.  It's about trade-offs.  Do you want a few people to be able to take very big risks with a lot of other people's money?  If that's your idea of freedom, that's fine, but this is the consequence.  We have the option of seeing past the allure of short-term growth, accepting some marginally stricter ground rules and reducing some of that risk.

    In some cases, it's even worse than just accepting large risks because we're actually incentivizing them.  If you're going to pay someone to keep rolling the dice for you, they're going to keep rolling.

    Healthcare is a key piece of this as well.  The healthcare sector is $2.2T annually.  1/6th of the economy.  Costs have grown 5x inflation over the last decade.  We can't sustain that.  It's horribly inefficient.  Productive capacity is simply being wasted here.

    Has the economy and the supposed fixes for it not bring stress on the U.S. dollar?

    I'm not sure what you're asking here.  I already gave my impressions of the foreign and domestic sides of the dollar upthread.  Like most developed countries these days, we have a fractional reserve banking system and a floating currency.  By stress, do you mean downward pressure on the foreign exchange rate?  If not, what is your concern exactly?

    Have questions been raised questions about the risk of the U.S. currency and it's ability to recover?

    I'm guessing they have.  Anyone can raise questions about anything.  What are those questions?  Is there something wrong with the dollar presently?  At what point would it recover from whatever is wrong with it?

    By the way if you think those questions are "begging the question" then I can probably guess your answer the questions listed above.

    How did you do?


    Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it. -Flannery O'Connor, writer (1925-1964)


    You would do well to consider what this person is saying.  I'll take it that you have nothing else to say about why you seem to believe what you believe, only that you're certain that you are the holder of the truth.  You see, I'm not certain of that.  I never am.  That's why I'm willing to discuss and attempt to justify my point of view.


    I have a mornic relative that was expousing Beckian thought like how the government was going to break into her house and enslave her and yada yada. Even my hyper-conservative Dad was like, "uh, no, none of that is going to happen."


    Just FYI, I just broke into your relative's house and enslaved her. Thing is, I work for Toys R Us, not the Government. She's gotta be kickin' herself today, eh? To be so close to the truth, and then to miss it... by thaaaaat much.

    Didn't Toys R Us already take over the government, so isn't that a distinction without a difference?


    You'll be singing a different song once Chatty Cathy's through with you.

    Wait, did I miss a Hitler reference thread?  Damn.


    I was trying to conjure up A-man, but unfortunately, it missed its mark…


    Hey, with Hitler references that can happen.  Trust me, I know.  Maybe use Pol Pot or Stalin next time!Laughing


    Latest Comments