Brown Shirts?

[Bogart]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

True. Molotov Cocktails work much better.

Although honestly I don't see civilian political extremism necessarily as bad as long as it doesn't go too far. They are the ones that will actually get shit done compared to moderates. It's when political extremism gets into the government that we get a problem. Civilians can only push politics one way or another, elected officials can do some real damage.

I cheer both sides, as long as someone is getting up and doing something, anything.... But I don't agree, or understand the hypocritical action of ganging up and shouting down someone countering your exercise of free speech. I guess that's what happens when frustration sets due to a lack of leadership and an inability to be clever with a calm head.

It was a despicable act. One lone voice amongst a sea of supporters and (possibly) the organizer decides it is a good idea to stomp their head? WTF? I'm sure the other 364 days he's a normal guy, but there's seriously something unresolved in his personality.

Extremism is effective because it involves goals and a clear vision. Induce a dose of altruism into your subjects and you are good to go with a rabid mob ahead of you. No politician has risen up yet which can seem to muster that kind of support, so we continue into the abyss. With all that has occurred, and is still happening, you'd think someone could rally a little righteous indignation amongst the people.

....and I don't mean by pitting them against each other.

Anarchy is effective too, but it always ends the same way. Some leader rises from the ashes and ends up a dictator.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Bogart

Extremism is effective because it involves goals and a clear vision. Induce a dose of altruism into your subjects and you are good to go with a rabid mob ahead of you. No politician has risen up yet which can seem to muster that kind of support, so we continue into the abyss. With all that has occurred, and is still happening, you'd think someone could rally a little righteous indignation amongst the people.

....and I don't mean by pitting them against each other.

I don't think Americans will get too violent even if a leaders tries that route. Palin and Obama have gotten a lot of support and I don't think anyone more extreme will be able to accomplish what they have. Americans are very good at complaining but I see very few actually resorting to violence unless it gets REALLY bad economically.

[Bogart]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I don't think Americans will get too unruly just yet. Palin and Obama have gotten a lot of support and I don't think anyone more extreme will be able to accomplish what they did. Americans are very good at complaining but I see very few actually resorting to violence unless it gets REALLY bad economically.

I see the majority as easily placated and led along by the nose. People are afraid of violence, people are afraid of change, people just want to go on living the American Dream; even if it's been placed more out of reach. Threaten that with some indistinct boogeyman and you have a war which has no borders. Threaten that by pointing at a viable candidate who is espousing real change and he/she will be branded a threat, or a kook.

So no, unless they are looking at starving, or shivering in the cold, you won't find much civil unrest. But, how much longer can the handouts go on? I don't see any clear plan for a recovery and I see a general misunderstanding of the monetary system among our politicians. The majority of the people don't have a clue how it all works either, but then you would think it would pique their interest when shown the amortization sheet for their mortgage.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Bogart

I cheer both sides, as long as someone is getting up and doing something, anything.... No politician has risen up yet which can seem to muster that kind of support, so we continue into the abyss.

People who are the problem have you successfully confused and deceived.

For example, the bailouts - ie $700billion - was George Jr; not Obama.

Business means companies constantly loaning money - short term loans and long term loans - to each other. Without those constant equity transfers, then business cannot happen.

Spread sheets were intentionally perverted especially during that decade. But when economic pressures created by overt fiscal irresponsibility caused caution and mistrust, well, eventually nobody could trust anyone else's spread sheets. Enron accounting continues and accelerated long after Enron. Nobody dared loan money to anyone. And they were right. Companies such as GM were essentially bankrupt for almost 20 years. When only four hours from bankruptcy in 1991, GM instead aggressively used spread sheet games to mask reality.

GM even owed their pension funds tens of $billion. To claim ten and hundred $million profits, GM simply stopped funding the pension funds. And that was legal. Or did your sources forget to inform you?

Before Obama came into office, Congressmen and Senators were briefed. Their white faces when leaving that meeting scared the shit out of reporters who were just beginning to grasp that the entire American economy was literally on a cliff.

Did you know how close we came to 40+% unemployment? Why things are now so spectacularly good compared to what should have happened?

Bridge loans - what the naive call bailouts - literally forced companies to have cash - to continue business deals. To purchase each other's products. You should be praying to every god you ever knew that those loans were provided. People such as Bernanke did not make the same mistake made on and after 1929.

Those who want you to hate do not say how desperate economic conditions were when Obama took office. And will not also admit that we have only just begun to start paying off the debts incurred in the 2000s. Never forget, we have just started to pay for Mission Accomplished. That is how economics works. And just another in so many reasons why the recession was inevitable, necessary. Debts even predicted here by some in 2003 when that disaster was being created. But nobody - not even the worst estimates - expected the disaster to be this severe. The $2 billion Mission Accomplished is at least $1trillion. $600 billion above even the worst estimates. $1 trillion to killed 4,400 valuable Americans for no purpose.

Where did Fox News discuss any of this? For example, did you know GM was essentially bankrupt 20 years ago? Probably not. All top GM executives - in classic bean counter tradition - told the government last February that GM was in the best condition it has ever been in. That GM's only problems were due to unions, unfair foreign competition, tax laws, and government obstructions. GM is only one of so many corporate icons in the 2000s that created this mess.

Why do so many not save every four letter word even used to label these people? Because propaganda is not telling you why we have this mess. You have no idea how healthy this economy is compared to where it should have gone. Propaganda has, instead, got you inspired in hate and myths. For example, most of the so called bailouts will probably result in good profits for the government.

To be blunt – the American economy is in the best state anyone could have expected especially due to massive fiscal mismanagement in the 2000s. Bean counters doing the damage that only bean counters can do.

We have not even begun to deal with another scam. Large blocks of Americans are now massive debtors. In the greatest debt they have even been in when they should have been starting to approach creditor status. As was discussed in another thread, your entire purpose for working is to go from debtor to creditor. Large blocks of the American economy are now underwater. Owe more money on their house then the house is worth.

Why is that part of the American economy not collapsing? We are using cash flow games to avoid paying all debts at once. We have no choice. Banks, et al have chosen to ignore these massive debts - to not foreclose. Eventually the spread sheets will reflect reality. But never for one minute forget this reality. Spread sheets do not reflect current economic conditions. Spread sheets will not report how disastrous our real estate markets are for many years. IOW we have yet to start paying for that part intentionally created by the bean counter mentalities mostly during the mid 2000s.

We will be paying for this fiscal disaster for at least a decade. As a result, American GDP (growth) will probably drop to something between 1% and 1.5%. The debts incurred with the Chinese to pay for Mission Accomplished will eventually paid with 8% interest. So where were you when this was so obvious in 2003? If you did not see the problem, then you remain part of the problem. You should know what happened through the entire 2000s. And you should know why so many of those debts have yet to appear on profit and loss statements. The average American income DROPPED 2% from 2000 through 2008. If your information sources do not emphasis this, then your information sources should be accused of lying. This has only happened once in the entire American history - the Great Depression.

Also troubling is another problem directly traceable a 'welfare to the rich' program. Most of America's wealth moved from those who create most jobs and products to those who once did and no longer do - the richest. This also has only happened once previously in American history - the Great Depression.

For example, over the past decades, the richest among us have now seen their taxes drop below 16% whereas average Americans are paying something exceeding 22%. Warren Buffet and other richest leaders have been complaining loudly about this unhealthy fiscal mismanagement for at least a decade. As Buffet said, he pays less taxes than his receptionist. But again, did wacko extremist propaganda discuss any of this? Or course not.

Obama's biggest failing has been to not explain this to a public. Obviously reality can never appear in a soundbyte. Most in the public are reciting Limbaugh, Beck, and Fox News myths rather than dealing with what is now so much better than anyone could have expected. Much of the $700 billion will come back with profits. Extremists even forget that George Jr – not Obama – created the $700 billion fund. Conveniently forget such facts so as to hype hate and fear.

We will be paying for disasters from Mission Accomplished to Constellation, et al for maybe a next decade. We have yet to see the biggest bills from Afghanistan because George Jr virtually surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban in 2003. Of course, we do not yet know what are already pre-ordained results in Afghanistan. Welcome to another unknown and how reality really works. We will not know if we have already lost this war for many more years.

Nobody yet knows how much more American wealth was lost in real estate scams. We are only just beginning to address that disaster that was created on Wall Street.

And finally, you should also know something obvious. Wall Street does not create jobs, national wealth, or long term American growth. So many of America's most productive and growing companies could not get financing from traditional Wall Street. This Wall Street cannot invest in anything innovative. Because innovation does not appear on spread sheets until long after the innovation is no longer innovative. But again, a reality you will not hear from the major propaganda sources that are also blaming everything on Obama.

Bogart. Read more about this as was known even in 2008 in: How the GAME is played.

What should be obvious. The worst is over. Things are finally starting to improve. Which is why so many more of the 2000's created disasters can now being addressed - ie mortgage foreclosures are just beginning. It will take ten years to undo the mess created by overt fiscal mismanagement mostly from (but not limited to) the years after 2000. No soundbytes that can explain any of this. Welcome to hard reality.

[Bogart]

Originally Posted by tw

People who are the problem have you successfully confused and deceived.

For example, the bailouts - ie $700billion - was George Jr; not Obama.

Well, if you wish to play partisan politics, then I should point out that Bush sought to create an agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003. As for the bailouts/bridge loans, it doesn't really matter who initiated them; the relevant fact is that they were implemented. I don't doubt that among the choices on the table this was the least destructive, but I'm not certain this was the best that could be done. Either of what could have been done, or what should have been done.

I don't know who you think I have been listening to, but you're mistaken. I also don't disagree with anything you've written. But, I don't believe that the current system needs fixing; it needs dismantling.

I saw Reagan implement changes in the eighties which seemed to work. That of giving corporations huge tax breaks to get the economy going and create jobs. Unfortunately, once the economy got going, they should have been rescinded. The result was that large corporations gobbled up smaller until competition dropped and power was centralized. Things are grossly out of balance on who is now carrying the greatest tax burden compared to before enacting those tax breaks.

I have a problem with the current monetary system. If someone makes money, pays their taxes, etc., then the money which they place into savings should increase in interest accordingly. No IRAs should be necessary. If one loses money, then it is a hidden tax and the government isn't doing its job because they are devaluing the dollar.

I won't pretend to understand fully economic theory. I have a friend who is a professor and co-authored a few textbooks, while he'll listen and give feedback, he's least interested in discussing economics. He does enjoy discussing the porn industry, but likewise, it's something I'll give feedback on and listen, but have no interest in discussing. Go figure.

Economics was a subject I avoided completely until about 8 years ago. I'll admit I've been fairly heavily influenced by Murray Rothbard's writings, as well as that of G. Edward Griffin. While I can understand the fear that basing the dollar on gold has its limitations, I don't think it would stagnate the level of growth that many would imply. I think the system of fiat currency is prone to both fraud and failure. Even Hitler managed to pull out a post-Weimer, debt-ridden economy by basing the currency on something seemingly as intangible as labour.

The whole of our society is about profit at any cost. They cite the same reasons manufacturing has been moved overseas as they do for why we utilize illegal labour for harvesting crops and building homes; because American workers want too much money for the job. But why is this so now? They would like me to believe that it is because we are greedy, but the truth is, I believe that it is because of the devaluation of the dollar. As long as we can buy our trinkets, have affordable housing and feed ourselves, we think we we're doing ok. It's the veneer over what is rotten underneath.

Oh well, I didn't come here to discuss politics or religion, but it always ends up that way.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Bogart

I saw Reagan implement changes in the eighties which seemed to work. That of giving corporations huge tax breaks to get the economy going and create jobs. Unfortunately, once the economy got going, they should have been rescinded. The result was that large corporations gobbled up smaller until competition dropped and power was centralized. Things are grossly out of balance on who is now carrying the greatest tax burden compared to before enacting those tax breaks. ...

The whole of our society is about profit at any cost. They cite the same reasons manufacturing has been moved overseas as they do for why we utilize illegal labour for harvesting crops and building homes; because American workers want too much money for the job. But why is this so now? They would like me to believe that it is because we are greedy, but the truth is, I believe that it is because of the devaluation of the dollar. As long as we can buy our trinkets, have affordable housing and feed ourselves, we think we we're doing ok. It's the veneer over what is rotten underneath.

Reagan's economy prospered because the solution was implemented so many years earlier. Volker stopped the 'fix the problem with money games'. He ran interest rates up approaching 20%. A resulting and necessary economic pain finally started fixing the economy three and more years later. That is how economics works. What finally appears in spread sheet numbers must be implemented so many years earlier.

To appreciate why so many jobs go overseas, well, appreciate what engineers see. Anything a product persons does will not appear on spread sheets for four to ten years. Example. William Clay Ford replaced Jacque Nasser in 2000. So bean counters were demoted. Finally Ford engineers started designing again. In 2000, Ford engineers finally started the design of the 70 Hp/liter engine that was originally developed by GM in 1975. Therefore resulting profits finally started appearing in Ford in 2008. It takes that long for innovation to appear on any spread sheet.

Engineers are not an asset. Engineers are an expense according to bean counters. What engineers do never appears for 4 to 10 years later. Example. Engineers started designing Taurus in 1981. When did those profits finally appear in Ford? 1990.

If jobs go to China, then what appears as costs on the domestic spread sheet today also result in sales today. On spread sheets, moving jobs to China means no more costs four and ten years earlier. That 'spread sheet' mentality is why, for example, every engineer I graduated with quit within ten years. American engineers are poorly respected. To business school graduates, designers and innovators are only an expense; do not create profits. More American engineering today is done by tech school graduates - not engineers. Another money game to cut costs. A reality too complex for tea partiers educated only in soundbytes who would rather blame China. The resulting economic downturn will begin to be apparent on spread sheets (ie GDP) in 20 years.

Clinton gave the auto companies $100million to build a hybrid in 1994. In 2010, GM's first hybrid (the Volt in America, the Ampera in Europe) still are not selling. Productive companies introduce massive new innovations sometimes in as little as four years - ie Nissan Maxima. GM takes 16 years? Why? Due to bean counters, engineers could not design it right the first time. So who does Wagoner blame? Japanese. Government. Unions. All the typical soundbytes. All the same reasoning that passes for intelligence in the tea party.

Sound bytes cannot explain reality. Sound byte promoters often do not remember relevant facts from four years ago. Therefore have no idea why economics today is due to actions four and ten years ago.

Was the BP oil spill an accident? Of course not. It was the inevitable result of cost controls. When the purpose of a company is profits - not its products. A philosophy implemented more than ten years earlier in all BP operations. For those not in America, the Frontline piece can be found in The Spill first aired 26 Oct 2010.

Another example of how actual costs and profits do not appear on spread sheets for so many years or decades later. And why tea party activision preaches sound bytes logic - what happened today is due to what occurred yesterday. Nonsense. This is not and never was about partisan politics. This is about what is productive and when the numbers finally report it. Reagan's economic upturn is directly traceable to what Volker, et al did in the late 1970s.

Debts from Mission Accomplished are just beginning to punish us today. That is how economics works. The debts from lies about Vietnam in 1968 and 1970 appeared in the American economy in 1975 and 1979. That is how economics really works. Profits that only innovation can create appear four to ten years after an innovation was created. Again, that is how economics really works. But that requires tea partiers to remember realities four and ten years ago. Those educated in sound bytes quickly forget what happened even two years ago. Those same people and their soundbyte reasoning are why we are driving innovation overseas.

Who owns the Bell Labs? The French. Basic research does not appear on spread sheets for at least ten years. So business school types cut costs. They eliminated R&D first at AT&T; then at Lucent that also generated another ignorant business school pervert - Carly Fiorina. That is not politics. She is dumb because (and I was in the meeting) she insisted productive activities today result in profits this year. She is not an exception. This dumbest people are widespread when business school types use the exact same 'sound byte' reasoning. Same 'spread sheet' reasoning is also used to educate tea partiers.

Where our society remains productive, it is not about profits. It is 100% about the product. Companies that thought profits were more important (BP, GM, AT&T, IBM, Xerox) ended up having no profits. In an America that works, products (not profits) are the most important aspect. What did William Clay Ford change in Ford Motor? He stopped all programs to maximize profits. IOW Ford did not even have one new car in development. Nasser had cut costs. William Clay simply went back to the only thing that made America great. A productive America worries first and foremost always about the product - not about money games. About things that will never appear as profits on spread sheets for four to ten years.

Of course, this is too complicated for tea partiers who are educated only in sound bytes. Same people who cannot think through problems will also resort to hate and violence. Ie a mosque in Manhattan must be attacked. To see why economic (and decreased standards of living) problems exist, start at four and more years earlier. Do what business schools fear. And what economics often fails to measure. The most productive people in America cause no profits (and often increased costs) for at least four or ten years on the spread sheets. Innovations typically create profits after the innovation is no longer innovative. Economics and sound byte logic cannot grasp that.