Let's Talk Politics and the Economy...(basically an essay)

[Axel]

Say what you like about Mr. Shane, his economics are pretty sound.

Our gas prices have been going up along with everything else in large part because the Fed keeps pumping money into the economy by buying up treasury bonds. Of course, I am not just pinning it on the Fed. The middle east oil cartel has to share some of the blame here.

I am just waiting for all of this monetary policy to finally work. I am sick of paying over $3 for gas.

[Matthew]

I said that to defer comments like Matthew's and yours (well, yours kind of). I wanted to keep this a discussion about the topic. I assumed the intelligence level of the board had gone up since I had last posted, as the ones who remained from way back when should be more mature, intelligent, and interested in the world. It turns out I was wrong

You're the one that hasn't changed. ZOMG. You asked a question, I answered it and now you're playing the old "I'm smarter then everyone here because I like to rave on" card.

(L)

Again, see the first full paragraph of the post. Was the book deal comment referring to me? I didn't even bring that up, and that was two or three years ago now. If it doesn't interest, then leave it alone. Don't post. I see tons of posts on here that don't interest me, and guess what I do? I don't post. I leave it alone. I let people that want to have the discussions have the discussions. I don't butt in and throw in my two cents just to be a prick.

And what did our "history" have to do with it? If Jackal brings up something irrelevant, you act shocked and say "why did you bring it up". But when you bring up unrelated (our "history"), it's a.o.k.

It's a global issue, really. If anything, non-US dwellers should know more about it than the American people - the world news is much more informative. The US economy is strongly tied to the world economy, so large slumps in the US will eventually trickle down/up to all the other world economies. You should be concerned.

Uh oh, Shane Hefty said you should be concerned. What makes you so sure he isn't already? Maybe, just maybe, he is concerned but doesn't see the value in posting those feelings to you? You're not the most receptive person on here, look at your posts to anyone that disagrees with you:

Do you work in the finance industry, have a degree in economics, or know anything about the economy aside from what you found on Google and Wikipedia?

Hmmm...that's two consecutive quarters of decreased profits of over $100 billion in two quarters. Guess what? There were huge corporate losses in the first quarter of this year, and I believe the second quarter of last year also recorded losses. That's the economy retracting. Do you live in the US? Unemployment is increasing. Citi is laying off something like 40,000 employees, Merrill 4000. That's two companies and around 50,000 people. They aren't the only ones. If people don't have jobs, they don't buy things. If they don't buy things, companies don't make money. Do you see where I'm going with this?

And you wonder why people simply don't bother in engaging in conversation with you...

That's a generalization? Thank you! If you hadn't pointed that out, I never would have known what I was doing! Rolling Eyes Your possible explanation was exactly the type of post that I wanted to avoid: juvenile, ignorant, arrogant, and prickish. I wanted a discussion, not a debate over semantics and and whether or not people should care; if they don't care, then they don't post, simple as that. You don't care, don't post.

And you were questioning why people weren't posting. And I was unaware that caring was apart of the posting guidelines but hmmkay.

As for our history, every time I post - no matter what it's about - you attack me. And we go through this same thing every time. Who starts it every time? You.

Where did I attack you prior to you bringing up our "history"?

My "long" post in response to your one sentence is simply saying that you're ruining my discussion. I don't care what you say, and I don't care about your trite and insecure comments. What irks me is that you turned a potentially serious and enlightening debate into nothing more than a flame war.

You own a discussion now? Nice! And all I did was say one sentence, answering a question for you and you went on some silly little rant about me and what a bad person I am (:proud:) and I'm the one that starts the flame war?

Andrew, why is Matthew on the staff of this board? Because he's been around for 10 years? He's certainly not contributing to a welcoming environment that facilities intelligent discussion. Apparently, he does this all the time (which he always has), judging by cyanide's post...

Because, , sorry I'm still laughing at you Shane Hefty

You ask why people aren't posting.
You get an answer.
You rave on and on about how insecure I am for answering your question.
You then talk down to people who attempt to offer an opinion that is different to yours.
You then blame me for starting a "flame war" because you can't handle what you've started.

We've missed you, Shane. You should be VP hahaha

[benji]

You can thank the Fed for the gas prices. When they lowered the rates of the Fed Fund rate (overnight borrowing to banks) to increase the amount of money banks could, in turn, lend to customers, they increased inflation. Put that together with the oil stockpiling the US government is doing, and that is going to jack up the price of oil to it's $115 a barrel.

Um, I think the ever increasing consumption by China and India has far more to do with rising oil prices than the historically minor amount of inflation the Fed has induced in the last year. Has there really been almost 200% inflation on the dollar, enough to raise the oil price from $60 to $115? Why haven't consumer goods prices (outside of food, which we know the ethanol scam has caused) increased?

I'd also think the lack of new refineries, and the misjudgment by the oil companies on price changes due to Eastern growth play a large part in the gas prices.

It's far more interesting if people talk about solutions than just whine about problems.

We have a few solutions being offered:
-Raise taxes, enact new tariffs, nationalize the health care industry. Create "promise neighborhoods," promote "responsible fatherhood," designate companies to be "patriotic" or provide those with tax breaks, increase CAFE standards, eliminate 80+% of carbon output.
-Create wage insurance, so if you lose your $50,000 job and find one at $30,000, the government will give you half of the difference for a few years.
-A new New Deal:

"You can't just say to people: Here is a $1,000 tax cut; now go take on all those Chinese by yourself," Emanuel says. "That is why I think you need a new New Deal.... Not big government—big solutions."

[Wall St. Peon]

with cost of borrowing quite high here (variable interest rates on home loans are a shade about 9%, so business loan rates are even higher), you can see the writing on the wall

Wow, and I was pissed about my 12% on my Discover card...that's crazy. Our mortgage is around 5 1/2%, 30 year fixed. Business loans are around 8%, depending on the business (sometimes less and how you set it up).

I guess the good thing in the accountancy/business services line of work is that there is work for us whether the economy is good or bad, probably one of reasons I'm in it, so not bad from my side....although I never like to see clients struggling....we help where we can....

Yeah, I'm lucky where I'm at - I'm the only operations/compliance person in our office, so my job security is set; our production is too great (we lead our district) to close us down, so my job is secure. It would be anyway, as we're wealth management (financial advisors), and we had record profits last year.

It's never good to see clients struggling. We have a number of real estate clients, and they're living a little more fruggally (not the people with rentals, though - they're doign great!).

I'd like to work for Goldman Sachs - they handed out 23 billion in bonuses in December and were the only Wall Street firm that was smart enough to not over leverage themselves and not buying CDOs like there's no tomorrow.

Nope. Orange County is still pretty crazy as far as housing goes. I think you'll find more abandoned houses out in less desirable areas to live, like in the desert. I tihnk there will always be a high demand for housing in Southern California, especially in the coastal cities. I heard Henderson, Nevada (outside of Vegas) used to be a hot spot for people to live 3-4 years ago, but most the houses they built are all empty now.

I have a friend whose uncle flips houses on a large scale in California. He was a real estate wholesaler, but he actually bought the properties and then found investors, as opposed to buying them on contract. Last I heard, it's costing him around $2m a month in carrying costs due to the exhorbantly high housing prices. He had a surplus and lots of capital, but I'm sure that's dwindling.

The local media is trying to act like the foreclosures are bad around here, but a very, very nice home is around $500,000 here; that same house would be 2-3m in California, Vegas, etc. Most of the foreclosures are in the poorer neighborhoods here ($90-125,000 homes) and the middle-class suburbs ($200,000+). The middle class foreclosures are people in my income category who took out ARMs in the hopes they'd get a big raise with one of the insurance companies; then their rates reset, and they couldn't refinance because they bought two new cars, a flat screen tv, etc. As I said earlier, the foreclosures aren't bad, its' the property values that are killing them.

We rented till we had 10% and we bought a row house on the edge of town - it was cheap, and it's nice. I wanted to buy a loft downtown near my office and my wife's office, but she wanted a yard...

Say what you like about Mr. Shane, his economics are pretty sound.

Thanks! I'm assuming that's Chapel Hill, UNC? I almost went there for college but balked at the 30k out of state tuition...hehe. I'll be vacationing at the Outer Banks this summer for a week. and I can't wait - it's beautiful out there.

Our gas prices have been going up along with everything else in large part because the Fed keeps pumping money into the economy by buying up treasury bonds. Of course, I am not just pinning it on the Fed. The middle east oil cartel has to share some of the blame here.

Buying the treasury bonds would be OK, IMO, it's that coupled with the rate cuts that are killing us. The rediculous thing is, they're cutting the rates, but credit companies are raising rates. My private student loans were going to reset to 11 1/2% from 8% (!) for no reason, and I had the choice to go with the LIBOR rate +3.5%, which I took of course (it's 6%ish now). It makes sense, as the banks and lenders are losing more and more money on defaults, but I pay my bills on time. That's where it's killing people.

I don't think pumping money is the answer. I think the Fed should not do anything else and let the market correct itself. What they're doing is destroying bond prices/yields, raising prices of day to day items, and coddling a system that probably would be in the middle of a market correction as opposed to terrified of a market correction...if that makes sense.

Anyone want to touch the presidential elections? This might have even less interest, but I'm curious about what the world (not the press) is thinking about the current primaries and candidates. If not, that's fine.

[benji]

They want and love Obama and hate Bush. Just like with Kerry and Gore, unless those two were elected, in which case they'd still hate America but we wouldn't hear about it from our media.

[Wall St. Peon]

What makes you so sure he isn't already? Maybe, just maybe, he is concerned but doesn't see the value in posting those feelings to you? You're not the most receptive person on here, look at your posts to anyone that disagrees with you

He gets facts from Wikipedia and a sit that supported what I was saying. He obviously just googled it and posted the first thing he found. His opinion/whatever it was is the only thing I lambasted, aside from you...

And you were questioning why people weren't posting. And I was unaware that caring was apart of the posting guidelines but hmmkay.

They are posting, in case you didn't notice. It's not part of the guidelines, but you're part of the site, for christ's sake. Why don't you facilitate discussion instead of trying to destroy it?

You own a discussion now? Nice!

Lets see...I created it, picked the topic...that would make it "my" post...this is a discussion board...so "my" topic on a "discussion" board might make it "my discussion"...

You ask why people aren't posting.
You get an answer.
You rave on and on about how insecure I am for answering your question.
You then talk down to people who attempt to offer an opinion that is different to yours.
You then blame me for starting a "flame war" because you can't handle what you've started.

There's a bunch of problems with those statements...people are posting and discussing.

You ARE insecure. Anyone with an inkling of psychology background can see that you feel the need to berate and tease people through the relative annoymnity of a message board as that of an insecure person.

I "talked down" to one person who was just regurgitating incorrect, uneducated information. If I wanted that, I'd go post on CNN blogs.

Speaking of talking down to people, you do that to everyone, it seems...what makes you better than everyone else? You have over 5000 posts?

[Wall St. Peon]

Um, I think the ever increasing consumption by China and India has far more to do with rising oil prices than the historically minor amount of inflation the Fed has induced in the last year. Has there really been almost 200% inflation on the dollar, enough to raise the oil price from $60 to $115? Why haven't consumer goods prices (outside of food, which we know the ethanol scam has caused) increased?

I always forget about China and India in regards to consumption...I usually think of them only in terms of how they're buying the US and "taking" manufacturing and other jobs through outsourcing due to rediculous corporate taxes...very true, though. Consumer goods are going up in price, but not at the same rate as oil and food.

I'd also think the lack of new refineries, and the misjudgment by the oil companies on price changes due to Eastern growth play a large part in the gas prices.

It's far more interesting if people talk about solutions than just whine about problems.

Again, very true. I agree. solutions are very interesting, although I believe that figuring out the "why" will help to create the solution.

We have a few solutions being offered:
-Raise taxes, enact new tariffs, nationalize the health care industry. Create "promise neighborhoods," promote "responsible fatherhood," designate companies to be "patriotic" or provide those with tax breaks, increase CAFE standards, eliminate 80+% of carbon output.
-Create wage insurance, so if you lose your $50,000 job and find one at $30,000, the government will give you half of the difference for a few years.
-A new New Deal:
Quote:
"You can't just say to people: Here is a $1,000 tax cut; now go take on all those Chinese by yourself," Emanuel says. "That is why I think you need a new New Deal.... Not big government—big solutions."

I don't care for either of the first two, but I agree with the quote: we don't need big government, we need less government. The government needs to contract...

[benji]

Rahm Emanuel isn't talking about less government, he's talking about a "new New Deal."

[Matthew]

He gets facts from Wikipedia and a sit that supported what I was saying. He obviously just googled it and posted the first thing he found. His opinion/whatever it was is the only thing I lambasted, aside from you...

Uh oh I endured the wrath of Shane Hefty

They are posting, in case you didn't notice. It's not part of the guidelines, but you're part of the site, for christ's sake. Why don't you facilitate discussion instead of trying to destroy it?

I wonder who said this "Hrm...apparently no one else has any opinions. That makes me sad..."

And you're the one who tried to destroy "your" discussion ( ). You asked a question, I answered it and then you went completely off topic with it.

There's a bunch of problems with those statements...people are posting and discussing.

Now they are. They weren't when you were bitching about it.

Lets see...I created it, picked the topic...that would make it "my" post...this is a discussion board...so "my" topic on a "discussion" board might make it "my discussion"...

You own your post(s), not the thread. Sorry

Uh oh there I go making fun of people again! BAD MATTHEW!

You ARE insecure. Anyone with an inkling of psychology background can see that you feel the need to berate and tease people through the relative annoymnity of a message board as that of an insecure person.

Answering a question is teasing them? I have to add that to the forum guidelines yah yah. And you think you know what my needs are? Get the fuck out of here.

I "talked down" to one person who was just regurgitating incorrect, uneducated information. If I wanted that, I'd go post on CNN blogs.

But instead you came to a video game website

Speaking of talking down to people, you do that to everyone, it seems...what makes you better than everyone else? You have over 5000 posts?

Insecure much (again)? You bring up the most irrelevant points and then cry about "your" discussion turning into a flame war.

[Jackal]

Wait, so you said anyone who is bored should not read...but then asked why no one is discussing the topic? (Probably because they were bored?)

So you basically answered your own question. (Matthew just helped.)

You're totally right Shane, I should be very concerned about the US economy. That's priority numero uno right now for me, not where I'll pay this months bill from, nah...US Economy it is.

[Wall St. Peon]

Uh oh I endured the wrath of Shane Hefty

I'd hardly call this "wrath." If your statement was even remotely correct, you'd be "enduring my wrath" - I'm not done yet.

I wonder who said this "Hrm...apparently no one else has any opinions. That makes me sad..." Dancing

And you're the one who tried to destroy "your" discussion ( Laughing). You asked a question, I answered it and then you went completely off topic with it.

What question did you answer? My question was in regards to the topic...what are your thoughts, opinions...you didn't answer that question.

Now they are. They weren't when you were bitching about it.

Where was I bitching?

You own your post(s), not the thread. Sorry Crazy

Uh oh there I go making fun of people again! BAD MATTHEW!

That was making fun of me? How? That's not even clever...you're losing your touch!

Answering a question is teasing them? I have to add that to the forum guidelines yah yah. And you think you know what my needs are? Laughing Get the fuck out of here.

Again, which of my questions did you answer? The teasing was a general statement, due to sentiment that was expressed to me through private communications. As for the berating, that's what you're currently doing. I don't need to know what your needs are, they're pretty obvious by the way you're acting. I can assume what I want, just as you are.

But instead you came to a video game website

Oh...my mistake, I thought this was the "general" discussion board on a video game website where any topic can be discussed...perhaps you better update the forum rules to reflect that all topics are welcome except those regarding the economy and politics.

Insecure much (again)? You bring up the most irrelevant points and then cry about "your" discussion turning into a flame war.

Insecure? No, not one bit. You're the one coming off as insecure, not me. In case you haven't noticed, I've continued the discussion around this...sidebar. I have no problem keeping this up, either, as the post seems to be getting more views now because of this.

Wait, so you said anyone who is bored should not read...but then asked why no one is discussing the topic? (Probably because they were bored?)

I never asked why no one was discussing the topic...

So you basically answered your own question. (Matthew just helped.)

It wasn't a question...you guys need to pay attention and stop planning what to say over MSN...

You're totally right Shane, I should be very concerned about the US economy. That's priority numero uno right now for me, not where I'll pay this months bill from, nah...US Economy it is.

Nice...you're trying to discredit the validity of this discussion with the very thing that US citizens are concerned about: how they will pay their bills. What's the economy like in your country? Are you facing similar issues as the US, or is your economy booming? Are prices of things going up, going down, or staying steady? Is real estate declining in value? Are you banks writing down losses on their balance sheets? Are your major corporations laying off employees, and you're one of them, and that's why you're worried about how you're going to pay your bills?

This can be about any country, not just the US. In case people haven't noticed, we have a WORLD economy now and everything is interconnected. You probably didn't read it, Jackal, but I was discussing these very things with a fellow from Australia...

[Wall St. Peon]

Rahm Emanuel isn't talking about less government, he's talking about a "new New Deal."

I see...

I believe in less government, but that's me. What's his new New Deal? If you don't feel like paraphrasing, post a link.

[Matthew]

I'd hardly call this "wrath." If your statement was even remotely correct, you'd be "enduring my wrath" - I'm not done yet.

This HAS to be in the Hardwood Classics for that line alone. Priceless!

Insecure? No, not one bit. You're the one coming off as insecure, not me. In case you haven't noticed, I've continued the discussion around this...sidebar. I have no problem keeping this up, either, as the post seems to be getting more views now because of this.

And you're doing such a fine job of it. Look at your last two posts, and how much time and effort you put into the replies to myself and Jackal and the time you put into keeping "you" discussion going.

It wasn't a question...you guys need to pay attention and stop planning what to say over MSN...

aw isn't that sweet. Pity I don't use msn anymore

[benji]

I believe in less government, but that's me. What's his new New Deal? If you don't feel like paraphrasing, post a link.

There isn't really one, he's just saying we need one, hoping to impart the image of something "great" to back anything he eventually comes up with. The New Deal, Progressive Era, and Great Society didn't impart enough fascism so we need more I would assume would be the paraphrase.

EDIT: Found his WSJ article:

I propose a New Deal for the New Economy — a plan that helps address Americans’ economic anxieties and prepares workers for the future.

First, we must reform the way we educate the next generation of workers to ensure that our nation stays competitive. In an era in which you earn what you learn, Americans should no longer be allowed to drop out of school at age 16. We should require all students to receive one year of training and education after high school — be it at a community college, technical school, or a four year university. And we should make higher education less costly, by expanding the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits to make going to community college affordable again. Previous investments, such as the GI Bill and universal high school education, have proven that investing in human capital yields large dividends.

Second, we should ensure that all Americans have quality, affordable health care. We should start on the road to coverage for all by building on the success of Medicare, Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip), guaranteeing universal health care to the two groups most at risk: children and older Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 (who are not yet eligible for Medicare). Schip should be for children what Medicare is for the elderly — a universal health-care program. Covering every child is a moral responsibility, and will address working parents’ greatest worry. Helping older workers and employers manage the health costs of early retirees will make it possible for entire sectors of the U.S. economy to get back on their feet.

Third, we must support the development of new, energy-efficient technologies that will make energy less expensive for consumers and businesses, help protect the environment, create millions of green-collar jobs, and make our nation energy independent. We should create a new institute — funded at the same level as the National Institutes of Health — that will support critical research into energy technologies for the future. These new energy technologies have the potential to do what the information-technology boom has done for our economy during the past 20 years.

Finally, we must become a nation of savers again with a universal savings plan. Currently, 75 million full-time workers don’t have a savings or retirement plan beyond Social Security. Universal savings accounts would give workers more control over their economic future and their retirement. Like 401(k) plans, these accounts would supplement, not supplant, Social Security. Employers and employees would contribute 1% of their paychecks on a tax-deductible basis, and workers could make additional contributions if they chose.

If we put in place a New Deal for the New Economy, we can finally put the Nafta debate behind us. But here’s the best part — and the greatest challenge — of renegotiating a new social contract for America’s workers: The only government we’ll have to negotiate with is our own.

[The X]

with cost of borrowing quite high here (variable interest rates on home loans are a shade about 9%, so business loan rates are even higher), you can see the writing on the wall

Wow, and I was pissed about my 12% on my Discover card...that's crazy. Our mortgage is around 5 1/2%, 30 year fixed. Business loans are around 8%, depending on the business (sometimes less and how you set it up).

yeah, I think business interest rates are about 2% above variable borrowing rates....as for me, 80% my mortgage is locked in at about 7 1/3% for next year & a half....I left 20% of my mortgage variable so that I had added flexibility to pump additional payments in & reduce term of loan via reverse compound interest, which as we all know is better than having it in an interest bearing account....interest rates are starting to plateau here as they've gone up like 1 1/2% in last year or so, with the country's CPI being at around 4% being the main culprit....I'd say by the time my rate turns variable, the interest rates should have eased slightly & be heading down to a more reasonable figure....

[benji]

Does Aussieland have an equivalent to a Fed who decides interest rates? (I ask knowing I can wiki or at least google to find out)

[The X]

Does Aussieland have an equivalent to a Fed who decides interest rates? (I ask knowing I can wiki or at least google to find out)

I'm not 100% sure what Fed is, but I'm assuming it's similar to what we have here, which is called the Reserve Bank of Australia. This is our centralised bank, which is independent from the Government & one of its main roles is controlling the country's monetary policies (ie. trying to keep inflation between 2-3%, which is why we've had so many rate rises over last year or so as we're at about 4% inflation). In layman's terms, they more or less try to smooth the economy by using monetary policy (ie. interest rates on borrowings) to minimise the highs & lows, in an effort to keep economy out of recessions & constantly growing at a sustainable rate.

I know New Zealand also has a centralised bank called the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.

[benji]

Sorry, thought someone had used the full name of "Federal Reserve Bank" earlier in the thread. That is basically the same thing as you described.

[Wall St. Peon]

heh, I'll reply when I have more time...I'm on my way to a meeting...

[Matthew]

heh, I'll reply when I have more time...I'm on my way to a meeting...

nobody gives a fuck

[Wall St. Peon]

Rahm wrote:
I propose a New Deal for the New Economy — a plan that helps address Americans’ economic anxieties and prepares workers for the future.

First, we must reform the way we educate the next generation of workers to ensure that our nation stays competitive. In an era in which you earn what you learn, Americans should no longer be allowed to drop out of school at age 16. We should require all students to receive one year of training and education after high school — be it at a community college, technical school, or a four year university. And we should make higher education less costly, by expanding the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits to make going to community college affordable again. Previous investments, such as the GI Bill and universal high school education, have proven that investing in human capital yields large dividends.

I agree with this, to a point; not everyone can succeed in college or technical schools - it's a better version of No Child Left Behind (which leaves lots of people behind). Kids shouldn't be able to drop out, period. However, unless education is completely government controlled, this couldn't be enforced due to homeschooling.

Higher education should be less costly, but I don't think the way to do that is to expand tax credits. I think a better way would be to try to get those who donates millions and millions of dollars to colleges to make the use of that money less explicit (i.e. donating $25 million to the Drake University and saying that it can only be used for the law school). Colleges have tons of money at their disposal, but they can only use it in one place.

Second, we should ensure that all Americans have quality, affordable health care. We should start on the road to coverage for all by building on the success of Medicare, Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (Schip), guaranteeing universal health care to the two groups most at risk: children and older Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 (who are not yet eligible for Medicare). Schip should be for children what Medicare is for the elderly — a universal health-care program. Covering every child is a moral responsibility, and will address working parents’ greatest worry. Helping older workers and employers manage the health costs of early retirees will make it possible for entire sectors of the U.S. economy to get back on their feet.

Success of Medicare and Medicaid? What is he talking about? I would hardly call those, and any other government funded "welfare" program, a success. They're all a miserable failure. I don't think the government should be responsible for health care - that is not a right, it's a luxury that is gained through hard work. I have wonderful healthcare, and I paid $60,000 for a college education to work for a company with good health care - I don't feel I should pay more taxes to cover someone else's kids (or grandparents, for that matter). I have no issues with Medicare and Medicaid, as the individuals receiving treatment pay premiums, I believe, but I don't think the parents of kids without health insurance will be able pay small premiums for the insurance. If they can't pay, that passes the burden on to other tax payers. Considering loads of people avoid child support (and financial independence) by staying on welfare themselves, I highly doubt this will work.

I don't work for the lazy and inept - I work for myself and my family. Universal Health Care doesn't, from what i understand, work very well (those of you with universal health care, do share your experience with it).

Third, we must support the development of new, energy-efficient technologies that will make energy less expensive for consumers and businesses, help protect the environment, create millions of green-collar jobs, and make our nation energy independent. We should create a new institute — funded at the same level as the National Institutes of Health — that will support critical research into energy technologies for the future. These new energy technologies have the potential to do what the information-technology boom has done for our economy during the past 20 years.

I agree, but it shouldn't be government driven. It should be in the private sector - that is where all of the advancements are coming, not from the government.

Finally, we must become a nation of savers again with a universal savings plan. Currently, 75 million full-time workers don’t have a savings or retirement plan beyond Social Security. Universal savings accounts would give workers more control over their economic future and their retirement. Like 401(k) plans, these accounts would supplement, not supplant, Social Security. Employers and employees would contribute 1% of their paychecks on a tax-deductible basis, and workers could make additional contributions if they chose.

I whole heartedly agree with this, although I think Social Security should just be done away with when it runs out (with some sort of plan in place to take care of those already dependent). That probably won't happen, so this works. This is a very good idea, but it'd be better if social security didn't exist and instead of social security taxes being taken out of paychecks, money was required to be put into a retirement account. For teenage workers with their first jobs, that money would go into state 529 college accounts, and once they've graduated college, it goes into a retirement account. From age 14 until they retire they will be automatically contributing to retirement. I like this because it is the right kind of government welfare: it's encouraging people to support themselves. The more money they make and the harder they work, the more they'll save and the more they'll be able to retire on, especially if they open other accounts.

If we put in place a New Deal for the New Economy, we can finally put the Nafta debate behind us. But here’s the best part — and the greatest challenge — of renegotiating a new social contract for America’s workers: The only government we’ll have to negotiate with is our own.

The NAFTA debate will never be behind us because the Democrats will never let us forget it. The new social contract shouldn't be negotiated with the government - I don't want the government determining my fate. I like determining my own fate, and, while I agree with everything he said to some extent, I think a better route would be to do these things in the private sector (even education).

Thoughts? Benji, what're your opinions on the "new new deal?"

Matthew wrote:
nobody gives a fuck

If you don't "give a fuck," then why post?

[benji]

I will now say stupid things while still mildly buzzed...I may or may not attempt in the future to defend claims that follow:

We should require

That's my problem with it.

There's only three ways to solve Social Security that I see.
A) It needs to take over everything and the tax needs to be tripled and applicable to all income (I'm not actually opposed to eliminating the cap on it, it's already a tax on the young minority poor for rich old whites.)
B) An end date for benefits is to be set, with anyone who joins the program after that date is not to receive anything, but will be required to pay the tax. While the program would also not be allowed to be raided for general funds. Two generations or so would have to pay the tax to fund us already in it while getting nothing in return. With the program ending at that point. Ideally, the tax would be made extra-special deductable and slowly drop.
C) Something along Bush's proposal to begin the gradual weaning off of the program. Allowance of new or recent entrants to defer half/quarter to a private account, with that increasing as benchmarks for the overall program are met.

Considering there is no way someone just outright ends the program and returns the "pay-in" to everyone still alive, something like a combo of B/C is probably my favor. Ability to "half opt out" and keep the rest in tax-free private account, but receive none of the regular benefits. Until the major pay-offs are done, and then allow full opt-out. Not that I like much for creation of government owned private retirement accounts.

I just watched some talking heads whining about China, comparing it to Japan in the 80's, etc. I think instead of cutting them off from trade, harming us more than them, we should look to China, Vietnam, etc. as neo-economic models. They're discovering capitalism and rolling back the state dominated industries because they don't care if people are "hurt" as long as it benefits the country. There's a good documentary I can't remember the name of about the "pain" caused by Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms. All the state run industries were losing money like crazy, because they were state run and didn't have to keep real accounting books. He made them act like real businesses, lots of people lost jobs, but we're now seeing the eventual result of that as China becomes an economic power with its free market zones and even state industries that act like real businesses.

A similar mentality would be prudent towards our entitlements and corporate welfare. Especially with the latest media "crisis" over food due to our fetish for ethanol.

I'm merely talking about economic mentality, Eastern government mentality is still pretty authoritarian or fascistic. The West isn't any better, we want government to do everything for us. I blame that cripple with polio. And the badass Texan who stole an election. The one that died forty years ago, and held policy meetings in his bed or bathroom.

[Matthew]

Matthew wrote:
nobody gives a fuck

If you don't "give a fuck," then why post?

I didn't know I had to give a fuck to post.

BTW nice meeting. What was it, 5 days long? Hahaha

heh I'll reply when I have more time... I'm on my way to masturbating over myself in front of the mirror...

[cyanide]

Matthew, quit being a troll.

[Matthew]

Don't interrupt! I'm in a very important meeting. My god....

And I never knew responding to something is being a troll.