What’s Wrong with the World

Awesome and inspiring. Very well done.

Thanks, Lydia!

Lydia,

Who's the troll? Has he/she been here before? Is this the best we can expect from the Left? I find their shallow-as-a-puddle responses tiring.

He's banned, Gina. That's why your comment now appears to have no referent. Poof.

In my state, two of the biggest slimeballs in the political arena - pathological liar Alan Grayson and moral and cultural chameleon Charlie Crist - went down. They were trounced. That's almost victory enough for me, though I hope for more.

Amen, Bill. And good riddance.

Also, Allen West won his race for a House seat. He's without a doubt the best national politician around on the subject of Islam.

As Auster said today re. West, at least we do now have an outspoken Islam critic in Congress. West would be the kind of person who would speak out about something like the outrageous "report" the government came out with on Nidal Hasan.

California finally got rid of the idiotic two-thirds rule to pass a budget and the voters showed more wisdom then the Board of Directors of Hewlett-Packard in choosing not to hire Fiorina in the first place. Whitman doesn't get to run for president, is $140 million poorer but still wealthy.

Last week i took a side road on a whim and visited Manhattan, Nevada (pop. 46) in northern Nye County. At 7000 feet and sort of a ghost town I was surprised to find most of the houses sporting Reid and Obama signs. This is as rural as it gets so I figured Harry had a good chance.

Going up U.S. 95 from Phoenix to Tonopah reminded me how information challenged large parts of the country actually are. The radio was basically all Limbaugh all the time with even crazier hosts as filler. Basic cable in Tonopah has Fox but not MSNBC.

Anyway, the left coast remains a pocket of reason. I'm sure Mr. West would know how to extract information from Mr. Hasan.

I would settle for condemning Hasan to death for his murders and not telling lies to the American people about his motives, not talking about "workplace violence," forsooth. Oh, and deliberately changing the military culture so that Muslim crazies like Hasan are not retained out of fear of PC reprisals.

(In case you didn't know, Al, you're commenting at a known anti-torture site, in terms of the majority of the contributors.)

al,

I can't wait how your "pocket of reason" handles California's budget. As Vox Day recently commented about your State eventually coming hat in hand to the Feds for bailout money, "If the bipartisan Republican-led bank bailouts were enough to inspire the Tea Party, who can imagine what effect a bipartisan, Democrat-led state bailout will have on the electorate? Rick Santelli asked us if we wanted to pay for our neighbor's mortgages, but most Americans would much rather do that than pay for California's teachers unions, prison guards, and imported Mexicans."

In my state...

Mr. Luse, is it mere coincidence that so many of us handsome intelligent Catholics males live in Fl?

I voted for Rick Scott, btw, (I prefer private sector criminals, like Scott, over public servant criminals, like Sink) but I was so happy that the unctuous Russ Feingold lost that I felt a tingle shoot up my leg

"I would settle for condemning Hasan to death for his murders..."

No problem here, perhaps when the military stops wasting its time hunting gays, it will focus on actual threats. I know most of you all are anti-torture which is why I am surprised at the support for the likes of West.

Jeff, repeal of the two-thirds provision gives us a opportunity to get serious on the budget. Your two examples are telling. You may not like unions but it's their members who get paid and we do need schools and teachers. If we didn't have the idiotic war on drugs, voters stopped doing insane things like the three strikes laws, and legislators stopped pandering to the voters by over-incarcerating we wouldn't have so many prisons and so many guards. This is a bi-partisan problem and hardly limited to California. I always marvel at the number of prisons one encounters roaming around the west.

As is often the case you mis-state the order of things. The Tea Party resulted from low information voters getting bad information filtered through their economic ignorance. Mr. Santelli is one of the offenders and a hack and shill for his corporate masters. His invoking moral hazard for the little guy while the malefactors who made the loans skate make him a hypocrite and a hack. Fox and some very rich people invested quite a bit in getting the Tea Party ball rolling.

Now, should the folks who caused the crisis have been ruined and made to spend the rest of their lives wandering lower Manhattan barefoot and in sack cloth with a bell around their neck? Should the fools who bought the junk have been given a haircut? Should the banks have been nationalized, reorganized, and re-sold? Of course, but that happened in an alternate universe; ours is prone to bad decisions.

Had the Tea Party folks had their way, we would likely now be in a world wide depression. That you invoke Santelli with approval is sad. Failing to resolve the foreclosure situation with things like cram-down ultimately will hurt the very folks who listen to shills like Santelli. Foreclosures lower the value of all the homes in the area, eating into their equity.

Likewise, the Republican and Blue Dog insistence on not aiding the states has prolonged the downturn (this was strategy by the Reps and cowardliness by the BDs). Again, moral hazard as a metric makes for bad policy. If California were to default, the nation would suffer. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Congress soon needs to raise the debt ceiling.

Speaking of Allen West and Islam, I have been pestering my local COSTCO (Wellington, Fl) to begin labeling their lamb for what it is; meat that is Halal, slaughtered accrd to Sharia Law.

The Islamic Butcher points the lamb towards Mecca, then slits its throat, and sacrifices it to Allah with a prayer.

This is one Christian Catholic who wants Halal meat identified for what it is.

BTW, ALL COSTCO Companies sell Halal lamb

http://www.examiner.com/muslim-in-san-francisco/costco-sells-halal-lamb

Sharia Law Slaughtering

http://ae.imcode.com/en/1136?template=ReferenceText

You may not like unions but it's their members who get paid and we do need schools and teachers...The Tea Party resulted from low information voters getting bad information filtered through their economic ignorance

Dear Al. I agree with you. Teachers Unions are responsible for economic ignorance

Lydia " would settle for condemning Hasan to death for his murders..."

No problem here, perhaps when the military stops wasting its time hunting gays,

Do we know that Major Hasan isn't a homosexual?

I know American Troops in Afghanistan have to deal with many Muslim Men and their catamites and I do know that The Islamic Paradise includes pretty young boys available for the men, not just Houris, so, ya never know.

"This is one Christian Catholic who wants Halal meat identified for what it is."

"BTW, ALL COSTCO Companies sell Halal lamb"

So? This is what all this leads to, I guess. Dude, there's this thing called a market. With lamb, it likely means Australia (the folks down the road have some sheep and I've considered getting Lennie a couple of personal sheep to herd, but the economics pencils out for the Aussies and makes a fun hobby here).

If the lamb isn't in the original packaging (i.e. no labeling apparent, although just the stamp isn't enough) it apparently is no longer halal anyway. If that is the case then if you can't tell, it isn't.

As Islamic countries buy huge amounts of lamb from the Aussies, it likely makes economic sense to just make everything halal. Here is a list for those of you who are fussy about where you shop.

http://www.australian-lamb.com/where-to-buy-lamb

Had the Tea Party folks had their way, we would likely now be in a world wide depression.

Although it didn't live up to all the expectations, the total range of government policy actions certainly averted a depression.

http://www.dismal.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf

Likewise, the Republican and Blue Dog insistence on not aiding the states has prolonged the downturn...

One great thing about the election is the number of Blue Dogs was cut in half.

I'm all for contrarians, but I have to admit that after reading a bit of this blog, al, you're difficult to read. For instance, you stated that the Tea Party movement was entirely the product of bad information and ignorance, that the military "hunts" gays, that had the Tea Party had their way we'd be in a worldwide depression, and basically dismiss the entire Midwest as unreasonable.

The arrogance is mindboggling. You don't even present any reasons why these things are true (which they aren't), but just rattle them off as though they were facts. Everyone else I've seen on here speaks with intelligence and respect, even in arguments, except you. Instead, you come to a mostly conservative blog where you call people names and dismiss some one hundred million Americans as complete idiots simply because they have different views.

I know I'm a newcomer, but I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way. Either act differently or go away.

"Although it didn't live up to all the expectations..."

Not all, recall that Romer came up with a 1.4 T number and folks like the despised Krugman warned it wasn't enough. Not trying for a larger stimulus with less tax cuts and then, assuming compromise was necessary, not asserting that a stimulus you had good reason to believe was inadequate, was going to work was a huge mistake.

Now, should the folks who caused the crisis have been ruined and made to spend the rest of their lives wandering lower Manhattan barefoot and in sack cloth with a bell around their neck? Should the fools who bought the junk have been given a haircut? Should the banks have been nationalized, reorganized, and re-sold? Of course, but that happened in an alternate universe; ours is prone to bad decisions.

Yep. All that should have happened. But there are several ironies here. One is that no one wanted liquidation more fervently than the Tea Party folks. The other is that the window for bank nationalization was in early 2009, under Geithner, not in the fall of 2008 under the lame duck Paulson in the heat of the acute crisis. Nor can anyone say with any confidence that, even by early 2009 under more stable conditions, a massive bank nationalization could have been accomplished without provoking precisely the "world wide depression" you say would have come from a liquidationist policy.

Put another way, there is not much difference between banks being liquidated and banks being "nationalized, reorganized, and re-sold." There is certainly not enough difference to say haughtily that the former would have certainly laid waste to the entire world economy while the latter would have certainly worked out just fine.

As for Allen West, are you referring to that incident in Iraq in 2003? Because deception is not the same as torture.

I'm not handsome anymore, Vermont. But Marco Rubio will take up the slack.

@d_senti - The incoherent sophistry written by "al" is not necessarily meant to be comprehended. His rhapsodizing on the brilliance of Krugman is your first hint, and others will surely follow. As best as I can tell, "al" is a hard left liberal. I am not entirely sure of this, as it is also quite possible that he could be:

- A rotation of poli-sci students coerced into posting this for a grade.
- A devil's advocate / false-flag identity for an otherwise conservative poster.
- A Mr. Hyde personality of the sane Edward Feser. This was perhaps caused by a thought experiment gone horribly, horribly wrong.

As for Wisconsin, there is not a state in the Union that didn't witness such a bloodbath. Also, please note that incumbents here usually either retire or die in office.

Governor's race: Jim Doyle (D) retired from office after leaving us in a $2 billion shortfall even after the largest tax hike in state history, raiding various funds, and forcing us to build a choo-choo train just for him and his liberal buddies. Scott Walker has been elected to replace him, and once in office will be perhaps one of the top five, if not the most conservative governor in the US. Combined with the vast powers granted to the governor, including a nearly insurmountable line-item veto, liberals will be powerless against aggressive austerity measures.

Senate race: Ron Johnson defeated Russ Feingold. Enough said.

Congressional races: Two more seats have been added to the Republican delegation, bringing the total of 5/8. Of these five, Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner return with huge majorities. Ryan is to become Chairman of the Budget committee.

State Legislature: Republicans turn a minority into a massive lead in both houses, completely eviscerating the Democratic leadership in the process.

Summary: Democrats literally have no leadership left on the state level. November 2, 2010 has no rival as the "-worst day ever for the Wisconsin Democratic Party."

Dude, there's this thing called a market

Dear Dude. How can the market operate efficiently,effectively, and equitably if what is sold there is not labeled accurately?

Do you think American Christians would purchase Halal Lamb if they knew it had been, cruelly, slaughtered as an offering to Allah?

Might an American Lamb farmer be enticed into the market if he saw an opportunity to sell to Christians who wanted to avoid buying Lamb slaughtered accrd to Sharia Law?

Patrick,

I vote for the third option ;-)

You brought a smile to my morning!

Very good Patrick.

"For instance, you stated that the Tea Party movement was entirely the product of bad information and ignorance..."

Now, d_senti, the link limitations hereabouts are somewhat limiting but I'll try to help you out.

Here is an item.

"To follow up, tea partiers were asked how much they think a typical family making $50,000 per year pays in federal income taxes. The average response was $12,710 and the median was $10,000. In percentage terms, this means a tax burden of between 20% and 25% of income.

Of course, it's hard to know what any particular individual or family pays in taxes, but according to the IRS tax tables, a single person with $50,000 in taxable income last year would owe $8,694 in federal income taxes, and a married couple filing jointly would owe $6,669.

But these numbers are high because to have a taxable income of $50,000, one's gross income would be higher by at least the personal exemption, which is $3,650, and the standard deduction, which is $5,700 for single people and $11,400 for married couples. Owning a home or having children would reduce one's tax burden further.

According to calculations by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional committee, tax filers with adjusted gross incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average federal income tax burden of just 1.7%. Those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 have an average burden of 4.2%.

Even though the tea partiers were specifically asked about federal income taxes, it's possible that they were thinking about other federal taxes as well, such as payroll and excise taxes. According to the JCT, when all federal taxes are included, those earning between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average tax rate of 12.3%, and those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay a rate of 14.5%."

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1592/ignorance-bliss-tea-party-crowd

There's my one link but a little googling
outside the confines of the right side of the innertubes will give you other examples consistently demonstrating ignorance of our history, the Constitution, etc.

Recall the comparisons of the federal budget to a family sitting around the kitchen table having to make ends meet - pure ignorance. Remember the consistent "keep the government out of my Medicare" from the summer before last - pure ignorance. Death panels? - a lie that gullible tea party folks bought into. And (I hope you are following along Paul) allowing oneself to be conned into voting for a party that exists to make the already wealthy even moreso. Just found this on Cowan's blog:

"Mr Bachus told the FT that he would go “page by page  [through Dodd-Frank]. . . to identify job-killing provisions or lending-killing provisions”. He highlighted new rules pushing over-the-counter derivatives trading through clearing houses and on to exchanges as a problem for non-financial corporate users.

“The derivatives provisions in Dodd-Frank alone... as they stand now they’re going to take a trillion dollars out of our economy. Think how many jobs that’s going to kill,” he said.

It is difficult to fathom how that last pararaph (article here) can make any sense, other than as fabrication. What is the public choice factor here? Ag producers who trade customized swaps and who wish to keep doing so? Or is it financial institutions, including the trading branches of commodities firms, which earn money trading the spread? How about traders which don't want to deal with the potentially onerous margin requirements at a newly established clearinghouse? All of the above?"

Read that penultimate paragraph again please. The likely chap the Tea Party just helped put in charge of Barney Frank's committee is either corrupt or a fool or possibly both. He is clearly determined to serve his real masters - the financial sector who so recently screwed us over. Anyway, a little unblinkered searching will provide numerous examples. As I find examples and should a suitable thread be available, i'll be happy to help.

"One is that no one wanted liquidation more fervently than the Tea Party folks. The other is that the window for bank nationalization was in early 2009, under Geithner, not in the fall of 2008 under the lame duck Paulson in the heat of the acute crisis."

Not really and liquidation would have been a disaster - remember Lehman? What was need was an orderly resolution that wiped out the shareholders, gave the bond holders a haircut, put the malefactors on the street with their precious equity and options worth nada, and protected the innocent. That is, we needed a better TARP. Fin Reg would have had to be done by the new administration, as they in fact did, and as the new guys are now promising to undo.

"Put another way, there is not much difference between banks being liquidated and banks being "nationalized, reorganized, and re-sold."

Sure there is, the FDIC does it almost every week and it's hard;y noticed because it's an orderly process. As long as the only folks getting hurt are the ones who deserve it, the effects would be positive. I'd file you concerns over the psychological impact in the same drawer with the invisible bond vigilantes. Worrying about hurting the poor bankers feelings has not led to good policy and is one of the reasons the Obama administration's policies have been less effective then they could have been.

"There is certainly not enough difference to say haughtily that the former would have certainly laid waste to the entire world economy while the latter would have certainly worked out just fine."

Another Lehman would have been enough. Think of the auto industry. Beyond some ideological and partisan boilerplate, who really cared that they took Wagner out and shot him (so to speak)? What people cared about was a reasonable certainty of solvency and continuity. Once that was evident, it was business as usual. Sweden did their banks and the world didn't end.

Nationalization as a word is problematic for some of you all, I realize but what we had was a situation where, for a time, no one had a handle on asset valuation. As long as a creditable entity steps in with creditable guarantees, markets will fall into line and, as interest rates on 5 - 30 year debt clearly shows, the United States is such an entity.

Mock executions are a staple of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes and are a clear violation of the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. Actions like West's made things worse. Whatever drove him to what he did is irrelevant. he was in a stressful situation and he blew it. We don't need more moral lightweights in the Congress.

Al-

You're judging an intellectual movement by its average follower's misconceptions. Go ahead and ask the average Democrat, Republican, Green, Independent...heck, AMERICAN what the average tax rate is, and you'll get the same answer. Not to mention that you left out any state and local taxes, hidden taxes, inflation (which is a form of tax), one time taxes like those on certain purchases or the return of the "death tax," and so on.

My point is that Joe Sixpack, regardless of his political affiliation, doesn't know what he's talking about. To judge whether a movement came from ignorance, as you so claim, means one has to assess whether the foundational principles are based on ignorance. Feel free to argue with Mises or any number of towering intellects (not the least of which were the Founding Fathers) who held those same ideas. I exclude Rand because I think she's a hack.

Now there are quite a few problems with your economic speculation, not the least of which is that it's speculation. But such is the nature of debating economics. The main flaw, however, is that you fail to realize the root cause of the crisis, which was, very simply, a PROPER assessment of risk. Most people would think that it was an improper assessment, but not so.

The banksters knew that they would get paid multi-million dollar bonuses for their so-called "triple AAA" securities, largely composed of NINJA loans and backed by faulty or nonexistent paperwork. Meanwhile, they (correctly) believed that, should things go badly, the federal govt would bail them out. All upside, no downside. Al, meet moral hazard.

But worst of all, any speculations you make on the market are based on the assumption that, without the recent round of obscene govt intervention, we would have a (relatively) free market system operating right now. We don't. Regardless of any regulations, the Federal Reserve guarantees a non-free system. Their level of control over currency totally distorts the system, and their actions today are yet again setting us up for a massive disaster in the near-term.

Long story short: you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, and one last thing: their actions by no means saved the system. They made things worse. Had we allowed the collapse to take place, there would have been a total mess, without a doubt, but after a few years (that is, by now) things would be on their way up again and quite a bit healthier. We can't and won't have a healthy economy until massive deleveraging takes place, and the Fed/govt's actions guaranteed that it won't for the time being.

Instead we're now looking at a deflationary collapse, hyperinflation, or a drawn out process of deleveraging taking place exclusively through defaults. People don't get that the crisis didn't start in 2008. This HAD to happen; it was in the cards for almost a decade, or around 3 decades if you look at it another way. No one, not even the govt, can stop this. You can't fight the market, not long term. You can only distort it temporarily.

Al, some of what you say is valid, and shines a light on exactly why I did not go out and Tea-Party all day and all night. That movement had some real issues. Nevertheless:

To follow up, tea partiers were asked how much they think a typical family making $50,000 per year pays in federal income taxes. The average response was $12,710 and the median was $10,000. In percentage terms, this means a tax burden of between 20% and 25% of income.

I can guarantee you that any random group of liberals are a good deal more disconnected from reality than THAT. Ask them what percentage of the total tax burden falls on the lowest 10% of the population, and they will say something completely off the wall. Then ask them about the total tax burden of the middle class, and again their answer will be far, far away from reality. So, I suppose that liberals are ALSO basing their theories on bad information and ignorance. I guess that in this case 2 wrongs do make a right (vote, that is).

Think of the auto industry.

"Take my wife...please" Boy, what a straight line that is. OK, let's think of the auto industry: instead of letting Chrysler be bought up and re-structured by other entities, and letting the unions scramble back to a supportable benefit structure, the Gov takes over. First thing they do is a big hand-out to unions (boy, talk about glad-handing for votes!). This makes SENSE? This helps improve matters? Not in any universe connected to Detroit or anywhere else in America.

Had we allowed the collapse to take place, there would have been a total mess, without a doubt, but after a few years (that is, by now) things would be on their way up again and quite a bit healthier.

From the link I provided above:
In the scenario that excludes all the extraordinary policies, the downturn continues into 2011. Real GDP falls a stunning 7.4% in 2009 and another 3.7% in 2010 (see Table 3). The peak-to-trough decline in GDP is therefore close to 12%, compared to an actual decline of about 4%. By the time employment hits bottom, some 16.6 million jobs are lost in this scenario—about twice as many as actually were lost. The unemployment rate peaks at 16.5%, and although not determined in this analysis, it would not be surprising if the underemployment rate approached one-fourth of the labor force. The federal budget deficit surges to over $2 trillion in fiscal year 2010, $2.6 trillion in fiscal year 2011, and $2.25 trillion in FY 2012. Remember, this is with no policy response. With outright deflation in prices and wages in 2009-2011, this dark scenario constitutes a 1930s-like depression.

Until we stop allowing it to be profitable to outsource jobs, keeping the financial vultures away from their disgusting joy at destroying unions as well as a major part of our manufacturing base is the least the government should do.
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/19-iconic-products-that-america-doesn%27t-make-anymore-535569.html

Al --

I knew the Swedish example would make an appearance at some point. Look, if our banking crisis were confined to a community the size of, say, north Georgia (a rough equivalent to Sweden in terms of population), no doubt nationalization would have been eminently workable. But the crisis was not so confined.

The comparison to the FDIC's regular activities with local and regional banks is absurd. The FDIC does fine work, but it is not dealing with global securities firms holding assets in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions. You also seem to be unfamiliar with the reporting by James Stewart and others on Paulson and Bernanke's desperate search for an orderly sale of Lehman. No buyer could be found, and there is even some indication that UK regulators nixed a possible deal with Barclays.

Which points to another problem -- that this mess was emphatically global in character. The compressed yields, the global race for more yield -- all this was in part a function of the flood of capital from outside the US into US housing and other debt assets. I am willing to entertain the possibility that Hank Paulson (no doubt with the full and unqualified support of liberals like Al) could have effected a massive nationalization of all of American investment banking, but how he could have done that for foreign securities firms is a question that maybe Paulson's newfound friends on the Left can answer for us.

In other words I think you're operating with pretty complacent advantage of hindsight.

All that disputation aside, I would ask, Al, in all seriousness, what you think of the idea of gradually forcing the i-banks back into private partnerships. It seems to me that one of the big missteps along the way to the usury crisis was the push to take the big securities firms public. This provided a crucial level of detachment or abstraction, which facilitated the rapid expansion into various forms of usury.

Finally, this veiled insult -- "And (I hope you are following along Paul) allowing oneself to be conned into voting for a party that exists to make the already wealthy even moreso" -- can be answered rather easily. I will never vote for a pro-choice party. I will never support a candidate who would vote to allow abortion. Full stop.

Many times I have wished that a pro-life Left would emerge, so that the option for the pro-life voter to punish the facilitators of usury and plutocracy would be made available. Alas, it is not. There is no level of plutocratic imposture than will induce me to vote for a man or woman who will countenance the dismemberment of infants in the womb. It could be added that the number of pro-life usurers on Wall Street could probably be counted on one hand, so those SOBs too can rot for all I care. Perhaps the most principled position is that of our esteemed former colleague Zippy, who simply attends Mass rather than voting in elections. But on that I hesitate: a huge number of solidly pro-life people were elected to office on Tuesday, to Congress, to governorships, to state legislatures -- and that is a great thing. Between a savvy and principled opponent of abortion who is dead wrong on usury, and a savvy and principled opponent of usury who is dead wrong on abortion, there is no moral comparison.

At the moral level, if a candidate will endorse a legal regime that permits demonic doctors to suck the brains out of viable infants, said candidate, strictly speaking, will permit anything under the right circumstances; and I refuse to imperil my own immortal soul by giving succor to such wickedness.

"You're judging an intellectual movement by its average follower's misconceptions."

The TP thing is a populist movement which, by definition, means it is devoid of intellect. Folks get scared and fear is usually followed by anger if the fear is the result of things beyond the understanding of the scared. The TP is driven by the same dynamics that fueled McCarthy and before him Coughlin and Long and before that Palmer and the Klan resurgence and before that ... It's part of our history and the impulses are about as far from our Enlightenment inspired Founders vision of how things would work as one can get. I'm not sure what dead Austrians have to do with anything.

Beware, there is a certain Trotskyist feel to much of contemporary American conservatism; seeing oneself as part of a vanguard is a snare and a delusion.

"Instead we're now looking at a deflationary collapse, hyperinflation, or a drawn out process of deleveraging taking place exclusively through defaults."

"Or" in the above sentence doesn't make sense. A prolonged orderly deleveraging would likely result in disinflation a la japan, A series of defaults would give us deflation and depression and lots of misery. Vanilla inflation is unlikely with near 10% unemployment. I have yet to see a convincing mechanism that gets us to hyperinflation. You are new here; one question I often have is, "show me the path". All you have done is conflated an underlying factor with two outcomes.

Your description of moral hazard show a lack of understanding of how moral hazard relates to current corporate structure. There is no relation. In China if management sufficiently screws up, they can literally be shot. Here a Roger Smith or Carly Fiorina can fail and walk away with many millions and even aspire to high public office.

We have created a system in which failure becomes near impossible past a certain career point. One need only make 7 - 10 figures for one to five years and one becomes indifferent to the fate of the firm one heads.

Paul's point on partnerships is apt here. A partner has all of his equity continually at risk. The problem is the experience with Long Term Capital Management where the principals lost, as I recall, close to two billion. `There is simply no substitute for adequate regulation. I would also severely limit or possibly eliminate off exchange hedging past a certain point.

And, once again, i would suggest that it should be impossible to acquire great wealth in a short period of time through employment. Marginal tax rates should be structured to channel executive compensation past a modest amount into restricted (say 10 year) equity.

de_santi wrote,

"Now there are quite a few problems with your economic speculation, not the least of which is that it's speculation."

And then he wrote,

"Oh, and one last thing: their actions by no means saved the system. They made things worse. Had we allowed the collapse to take place, there would have been a total mess, without a doubt, but after a few years (that is, by now) things would be on their way up again and quite a bit healthier."

OK, you just saw and raised me on speculation.

"We can't and won't have a healthy economy until massive deleveraging takes place, and the Fed/govt's actions guaranteed that it won't for the time being."

The deleveraging is taking place and too many micro solutions are resulting in a macro problem. Your solution is to have us stew in our juices for a decade or so. Mine is to replace the lost spending until the micro balance sheets recover. According to Cato we could build a national high speed rail system for about a trillion. Thirty year rates are about four and change. We could easily do this and employ a lot of people.

Tony, I remember the auto situation somewhat differently but you failed to mention the big dog. Had GM gone down the effects would have been terrible.

Paul, I've mentioned Sweden before but I also could have mentioned AIG and the S&L resolution. At any rate, Sweden isn't north Georgia, it's a sovereign entity in control of its own currency. (Btw, I don't know how it breaks down intrastate but the GSP for the state as a whole is nothing to sneeze at.)

Your global comments are besides the point. As TARP worked, we know how much was needed. A Sweden-like or FDIC resolution mode would have cost about the same. TARP provided for equity that wasn't exercised in an ownership mode. It also provided for limits on executive compensation. What counts for the markets is the lender of last resort stepping up. You seem to be freaked by the word "nationalization". Peace, we've done it before.

"In other words I think you're operating with pretty complacent advantage of hindsight."

I believe, if we mine the archives, i was suggested then that which I suggest now.

I like the idea of partnerships for the i-banks but that is not sufficient as I indicated above. We also have to deal with shadow banking.

"Between a savvy and principled opponent of abortion who is dead wrong on usury, and a savvy and principled opponent of usury who is dead wrong on abortion, there is no moral comparison."

First, no insult intended. The issue isn't being right or wrong on usury. That implies honest differences. While the unwashed actually believe nonsense like free markets and tax cuts pay for themselves and the like, the folks you vote for like Mr. Bachus are some combination of dumb and corrupt. Voting to put the economy (a first tier issue) in the hands of the stupid and crooked because they agree with one on an unrelated, second tier issue seems rather suicidal to me.

(The "second tier" reference no doubt galls you but I call em like I see them and folks have to eat - recall my timing references on the recession. Also I don't see how you achieve you goals with a politically dysfunctional, economically stagnant nation.)

"At the moral level, if a candidate will endorse a legal regime that permits demonic doctors to suck the brains out of viable infants, said candidate, strictly speaking, will permit anything under the right circumstances..."

This, of course, is nonsense (and whats with all the brain-sucking, anyway; demonic, really? - consider moving, no hell mouths in MY neighborhood) and the implicit calculus leaves you with some real problems.

For argument's sake I'll agree with your concoction and raise you.

(Just heard Patty Murray won in Washington, really Paul, walk into the light, come join us in our Western redoubt of sanity.)

But I digress, I don't see how you can assert that allowing individuals wide personal autonomy with their bodies is "demonic" and that voting for someone who agreed with you economically while differing with you on other issues risks your very soul (as opposed to merely being an example of double effect) without also agreeing that voting for a party that is not only fiscally irresponsible and corrupt but also stands for wars of aggression and institutionalized torture isn't likewise demonic and soul-risking. Perhaps the good Zippy has a point?

Al,

you clipped the part of my comment where I said "but such is the nature of debating economics." Speculation can't be avoided, and I wasn't faulting you for it, merely pointing out that that is what we are engaging in.

I said "or" drawn-out deleveraging because under certain circumstances it may hypothetically be possible to avoid a deflationary depression in those circumstances and have instead a "disinflationary stagnation," to coin a phrase. It wouldn't be easy though.

The deflationary scenario is easy to spot, obviously. Banks just don't lend, self-reinforcing cycle, yada yada yada, you get the idea it seems. The hyperinflationary scenario, however, is a real possibility. In fact, the only reason we haven't had a great deal of inflation already is on account of tanking money velocity.

Let's say the economy does recover, and lending/velocity returns to normal. Bank reserves are already over 1 trillion at the moment, and QE2 will increase that by 50% or more. Via fractional reserves, we could end up with another 15 trillion dollars floating around. And that's just what's already in the cards. Increasing the money supply from 860 billion (in 2007) to 2.3 trillion (today) has consequences. But that's all dependent upon velocity returning. Unless the Fed can carefully manage the situation - a virtual impossibility, since that kind of skill has never been shown by central bankers - we will have high-to-hyper-inflation when velocity reaches normal levels.

The deleveraging currently taking place is of the most painful sort. The claims that consumers have begun the process is entirely false: of the 800 billion or so of deleveraging that's taken place so far, 95% of that has been from bank write-offs (mostly people defaulting on mortgages). One can deleverage the hard way or the easy way, and we're taking the hard way.

You said: "Your description of moral hazard show a lack of understanding of how moral hazard relates to current corporate structure. There is no relation. In China if management sufficiently screws up, they can literally be shot. Here a Roger Smith or Carly Fiorina can fail and walk away with many millions and even aspire to high public office."

That makes no sense at all. That IS moral hazard, namely that one can take obscene risks with no downside (aka privatized profits, socialized losses). They gain everything if it goes well, and lose nothing if it doesn't. Why wouldn't they take that risk, if they have no moral qualms with it? The govt's actions have allowed these people and corporations, who preyed upon, robbed, and broke the system, to get away with golden parachutes and bailouts.

The problem with your position is that you aren't looking into the future at all; you're acting as though the consequences of the government's actions have worked their way through the system entirely. That is not the case. Because of what they've done - and I by no means place the blame only upon Obama, but upon the Fed and Bush - we are guaranteed another, worse situation in the future.

Finally, the Tea Party's foundational principles are those of reducing govt deficits and size and ending the Federal Reserve system. If you wish to argue the value of those points, then by all means do so, but simply saying "all Tea Partiers are idiots" and washing your hands of it is ridiculous and insulting. By your argument, ANY popular movement, no matter what its foundation, is stupid. Is that how you feel about the American Revolution, etc.?

If you want to learn more about this stuff, I strongly suggest reading Zero Hedge. Google it if you're interested in seeing hard stats and graphs. Fair warning: it has a good number of whackos, but the economic info is solid. I'd also suggest the Financial Sense Newshour.

Step2,

I would argue that 1. the govt numbers we hear don't actually reflect the situation in the economy anymore, and haven't for some time, and 2. unemployment, even U3 which is a poor measure, is quite a bit higher than we're told.

The "growth" we've had in GDP since the "recession ended" has been almost entirely the product of ZIRP and a sort of t-note carry trade. Factor in the amount of money spent/printed by the federal govt, the Fed, and loaned out at zero interest rates or QE'd into existence, and it totals far more than our "growth" has been. When a bank borrows from the Fed at zero, buys ten year treasuries for 3%, and then sells them to the Fed (via QE) for a profit, that's not economic growth.

This month was the first in which we've had job growth above 150k, which is stagnation. Any growth below 150k (or GDP below 1.5%) is actually a falling economy, since it doesn't make up for population growth. Yet, somehow, the unemployment rate has "declined" from 10 to 9.5%. That's because, since the recession began, 8 million people have magically "disappeared" from the workforce even though they are willing and able to work. Unemployment benefit applications have decreased solely because the people without jobs largely can't qualify for them anymore.

Add the disappearance of the workforce into the official unemployment numbers, and you DO have 16 million unemployed. Remove the t-note nonsense and inflated MBS valuations and you DO have something like a 10% decline in GDP. Count those who are written off in the U6, and it would be at 22% right now. Oh, and wages HAVE decreased for all but the top 1% of Americans.

Today, 45 million Americans are on food stamps, 1 in 6 receive government benefits, 1 in 8 mortgages are underwater, 1 in 5 workers are without a job, the government is running trillion dollar deficits, the fed funds rate is at zero and has been for two years, the Fed increased their balance sheet to 2.3 trillion dollars (and counting), we had a 700 billion dollar stimulus package (with 300b in tax cuts and a 700b TARP program).

This is an utter mess, a worst-case scenario. This is a depression. And the government didn't help one bit; instead, things are just as bad as they would be, but with a whole heck of a lot more government debt.

Sorry, 1 in 8 mortgages are delinquent or in foreclosure. 1 in 4 are underwater.

I don't see how you can assert that allowing individuals wide personal autonomy with their bodies is "demonic"

That's a pretty amusing elision of all that I said was demonic.

Look, how about I say, with the neo-Confederates, that slavery was a second-tier issue, then apologize for galling you, and finally carry on as if nothing has happened? Would you allow that elision? Would Al vote for Confederates because they have the best social democratic policy and understand the evil of finance capitalism better than the opponents of slavery?

Yeah, neither would I.

So there we are. If it suits your conscience you can pretend my dilemma is unreal, just like many millions of Southerners, even many who did not even own slaves, did with their dilemma; but the dilemma is quite real, and poor Patty Murray is as corrupted by evil as Jefferson Davis.

As for the wars, I opposed Iraq as a matter of public record in March of 2003, before the adventure started. I did and do support the mission in Afghanistan, though I have profound doubts about it chance for success, given that we're under this self-imposed ignorance about the Jihad. Do you oppose Obama and the Dems on this policy? On the matter of terrorist interrogation, battlefield captives, torture, etc., my record speaks for itself. See here, from June of 2002.

Finally, I can't quite understand your ill-will and suspicion. I never proposed private partnerships as a complete solution. I have other ideas too. But I guess you'd rather hector me on the subject of an Alabama Representative whom I've never voted for who wants to undo Obama's financial regulation law. Good luck with that, Mr. Bachus.

Use your illusions, Al.

d_senti,

First and foremost, if you are going to assert some sort of unofficial numbers, you are going to have to provide a link. I'm far too skeptical to let you just assert numbers from unnamed sources.

Second, GDP is not simply a measure of banks padding their balance sheets with Fed money, it is a combination of all sorts of business metrics from every sector of economic activity.

Third, complaining about a methodology of counting the unemployed that nobody complained about before the recession is unconvincing to say the least. Of course there are going to be more long-term unemployed, and more people on welfare, it was a recession.

Fourth, a few seconds on the Google brought up this chart which should cure some of the hyperventilating:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13282170/Unemployment-1930s-vs-Today

Oh, and wages HAVE decreased for all but the top 1% of Americans.

It sure is a good thing that Republicans will make sure those 1% don't pay a penny more in taxes.

This is an utter mess, a worst-case scenario. This is a depression. And the government didn't help one bit; instead, things are just as bad as they would be, but with a whole heck of a lot more government debt.

Wrong on all counts. Seriously, what are they putting in that tea?

In any event, I don't believe Paul supports Obamacare or some other policies that would be considered fiscally liberal (Paul can correct me if I'm wrong), so I don't think, Al, that you should get the idea that if a strongly fiscal left that was also strongly pro-life were to emerge (if such a thing could _ever_ happen in America), Paul would be jumping right on it as the party he'd been waiting for to represent his views most perfectly.

Step2 -

4. The google link you sent me (and any numbers from the Great Depression) are reconstructions of data that wasn't gathered at the time, and prone to some degree of error. Moreover, looking at non-farm payrolls at a time when a third of the citizens were farmers is disingenuous. At the height of the Depression, in 33, total unemployment was 25%. John Williams at Shadowstats reconstructs the unemployment numbers the way they were constructed before modern govt manipulation, and his numbers show the unemployment rate at 21.5%.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

3. People complained about the way the government calculates numbers since the Johnson administration. Sheesh. They started all sorts of fun statistical padding that got progressively worse over time (hedonics for one, their birth-death model for another, substitution, etc.) There is statistical proof that the government manipulates these stats. Check this out for one:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/visualizing-propaganda-error-term-behind-bureau-labor-statistics

2. GDP is an estimate of the combined value of assets for the nation. If you add more money to the banks' coffers (which the Fed did, to the tune of trillions), then the banks have greater value/buy more equities and bonds/run up the stock market/increase valuations/increase GDP. Add in govt spending via stimulus, TARP, the BS valuations of MBS, and the false inflation numbers and you have a GDP increase that is a small fraction of what it should be from these efforts.

Trillions of dollars thrown at the economy and we get an 80 billion increase in GDP last quarter. Whoopee. The Fed bought more than that in its POMOs last quarter (~100 billion). Long story short: the GDP numbers no longer have any real connection to the health of the economy unless and until they factor out these elements.

1. I directed you to Zero Hedge and Financial Sense, which has much of this information. Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis, the Automatic Earth blog, and a thousand other sites could easily show you this info if you care to look.

Oh and, for the record, I neither support the renewed tax breaks for the wealthy nor am a Tea Party member. I just care about facts, unlike some.

Oh, one last thing: every statistic I quoted in my previous posts are well-known and easily verifiable. I just didn't want to linkstorm you in the comments. But do a google search and you'll see that all of them are correct.

It does seem like a truly alternate universe, where a Leftist party would actually stand firmly in the defense of this most vulnerable but most dismissed class, the unborn, doesn't it?

But if such a unicorn, by some wild twist if providence, did emerged, I think Christian pro-lifers would flock to it in serious numbers, forcing an unpredictable realignment of American politics.

As you intuit, there are plenty of others areas where the modern Left is completely unpalatable to these folks, not least the undercurrent of disrespect for Christianity (Al has not joined in this, to my recollection, which is to his credit, though he has routinely sneered at moral concerns) which is not shown for, oh, say, Islam. But abortion is still the dealbreaker par excellence.

Not to mention the fact that there are other life issues besides abortion. A truly pro-life party would also stand firmly in the defense of those at risk of suicide, of unimplanted embryos, and of those at risk of being dehydrated to death. All of this would have relevance for any "left" party's doubtless desire to nationalize healthcare at least as much as President Obama, which would make it all the harder for them to stick to a pro-life agenda.

But leaving that aside, and speaking only for myself, I have already compromised my fiscal conservatism again and again voting *for Republicans" (such as, inter alia, George W. Bush). Yet the leftists continue to give us the tired line that the GOP is the party of the rich, blah, blah. It's not as though the Republican party, or anyone, really, in D.C., is actually fiscally conservative anyway. Enough, already. I'm not at all interested in proving anything to anybody by supporting _further_ social programs, _expansion_ of government control over X, Y, and Z, and more wealth transfers. Obamacare is a disgrace and should be repealed. Our economy is in a shambles, and printing money and more government spending aren't the way out of the mess. What we should be hoping for is not a pro-life economic and welfare left but rather a right with some spine--on many issues, including but *by no means limited to* life issues. Go Boehner. (I refer here to his recent comments apropos of Obamacare.)

A pro-life left would be very unlikely to...

--oppose a gigantic amnesty bill

--block cap and trade

--block attempts to increase federal control of education and force all children into "community service."

That's just for starters.

Not to mention the fact that there are other life issues besides abortion. A truly pro-life party would also stand firmly in the defense of those at risk of suicide, of unimplanted embryos, and of those at risk of being dehydrated to death. All of this would have relevance for any "left" party's doubtless desire to nationalize healthcare at least as much as President Obama, which would make it all the harder for them to stick to a pro-life agenda.

All true.

For the record, though, it was Democrats who prevented Obama and the hard Left's desired immigration amnesty in the Congress set to complete its term. Also, one of the Democrats elected to the Senate on Tuesday takes the cake for the best campaign ad of the midterms: Joe Manchin literally had himself filmed putting a few rifle rounds into the actual cap and trade bill.

A pro-life pro-family Left, that is one that can endure for even as long as a single generation without collapsing into hedonism and Keynesian folly, would indeed be an impressive unicorn. Would it exist, alongside a pro-life right, would force the right to behave themselves, which would be of great relief to principled right wingers. Furthermore, it would force that same left-leaning party to oppose its fiending addiction to OPM. I suppose I can bask in such a utopian dream for a while....

..,and I'm back. I didn't get to see Joe's commercial, but it does warm my heart that some Democrats realize that AGW is a greater hoax than the mythos of the "Children's Crusade".

Of course, what warmed my heart even more is knowing that pro-abortion absolutist Democrat Russ Feingold will no longer represent me. I can only hope that Reince Priebus can scout out a candidate that can also remove Herb Kohl (also pro-abortion).

d_senti,
I wasn't disputing all of your statistics, just the ones where you claimed the official numbers were false. After looking into your suggestions, I'd say that the hedonic regression seems fairly reasonable, but the birth-death model has nothing substantial to support it. I'm not sure why it is supposedly disingenuous to compare similar groups, the unemployment for non-farm payroll during the Depression was 37%. I'm also not going to dismiss every official economic statistic since the Johnson administration. I mean why stop there, let's go back to colonial England and poke holes in their statistics. The link for zerohedge only stated that the initial report was optimistic, the revised report is realistic. Last but not least, your definition/description of GDP is exceedingly odd. I guess you could look at it that way, but it would be like looking at a film negative to admire a photo.

I'm glad you care about the facts and I appreciate you providing some links.

Paul,
But abortion is still the dealbreaker par excellence.

When I asked Zippy months ago if it should be permissible for a woman who was legally required to carry her baby to term to walk out of the hospital after giving birth and never look back, his reaction was that it would be unacceptable for a mother to abandon her child like that and she would have to raise it or find a worthy couple to adopt the baby. The problem is that reaction undermines all the reasoned arguments that pro-lifers use to show that they "only want the woman to share her body for nine months so that another person can live". If conservatives are going to be adamant about the personhood of the fetus, which scores of debates on this blog have consistently demonstrated is grounded on religious assumptions, at a minimum any pro-life Left would have to accept the woman's autonomy after giving birth.

Not that it really matters, because Lydia and Patrick have already qualified pro-life to mean socially conservative. So I guess there isn't any point to compromise.

Look at this way, Step2: every act of sexual congress (every last one) includes the possibility of an 18-25 year commitment to raising the child which is the product of that congress. This fact is imposed upon us from without.

That said, numerous Catholic bishops (who control a considerable array of resources) have said that any child brought to term may be delivered to their diocese, no questions asked, to be raised. Protestants churches have made similar commitments. There are millions of American couples who cannot, by accident of biology, conceive natural children but who are prepared to give their time and effort and heart to the task the unwanted children.

In a word, I don't think your autonomy argument is persuasive. The nature of sex is what it is. No policy of government can change it.

Step2-

Hedonics are not reasonable, nor is substitution. I suggest you look into them both more closely, and you'll see that they are quite ridiculous. The birth-death model is meant to reflect real conditions, but the overall effect tends to be that of moderating anything negative, giving a falsely optimistic view.

The reason it is disingenuous is because in the 30s, total unemployment (including farm) was a real reflection of the employment status of the people as a whole. If someone doesn't have a non-farm job, but does have a farm job, then they aren't unemployed.

The same would apply today, except that there are so few farmers that the effect is negligible. But it would be the equivalent of looking solely at public sector employees today; it's a fragment of the overall employment situation. When only .1% of people are farmers, it doesn't matter, but when 35% of people were farmers, it matters a great deal.

I'm not saying that you should dismiss every govt statistic since the Johnson administration; my point was that the govt has been engaging in statistical trickery since then to make numbers look rosier than they are. You had stated that these were issues no one was concerned about before the recession, and I was pointing out that that isn't by any means true. For instance, when it comes to the federal govt's deficit spending, they don't follow GAAP standards, but their own made-up ones.

If they ran their numbers like every other business in the country is required to, the deficit/natl debt would be substantially higher. If you remove hedonics and substitution from inflation numbers and used an overall inflation metric instead of core inflation for entitlement payouts, then social security checks would be 70% larger today. And so on.

The link to Zero Hedge was meant to demonstrate a point, namely that the government engages in these tactics I had mentioned, and we have statistical proof of them doing so even by their own standards. This is very damaging to their credibility; if we know for a fact that they lie about the initial jobs report, why on earth would we assume they're telling the truth in their revisions? Just as strong evidence exists for manipulation beyond this one example.

There is substantial proof of more lying and manipulations in govt numbers today, but as I said before, I didn't want to barrage you with links (especially since this conversation is somewhat off-topic and has been dragging out). Those sources I mentioned have a great deal of info on them, if you want to search more in-depth. I also have a rather large collection of graphs and data on it, but it's not online so I can't easily share it.

Lastly, your point about GDP is precisely what I'm getting at. The GDP is meant to reflect the overall economy, its growth and value, etc. However, by dumping money into the system (and not counting it as inflation, since it hasn't worked its way through yet), you increase valuations of assets, which distorts the numbers. Any measure of GDP that intends to reflect the health and worth of the economy overall MUST take those issues into consideration and factor them out.

The effect would be similar to ignoring inflation altogether when calculating GDP - it makes things look a lot better than they are. I'm sure you'd agree that any analysis of GDP that doesn't consider inflation at all would be almost entirely worthless and reflect very little on the actual state of the economy. The same applies for the other forms of manipulation that goes into it: increased govt spending, QE, inflated asset values, bubbles, ZIRP, underestimated inflation rates, and so on. We don't remove their effects when assessing GDP, so the number no longer reflects reality.

But I think we've gone on a bit too long on this, so feel free to respond if you like, but I'll be done now.

Step2,

Pro-life does not necessarily mean socially conservative, though they are often conflated. Heaven knows many people who pray to end abortion are often themselves socially liberal, at least in context to natural law. Even so, often even these pro-life individuals are indeed opposed to the newest perversions of the decadent Left.

Even so, these fellow travelers are no less quick to establish hedonistic reasoning for supporting their position as the pro-abortionists. Simply put, the difference between these two is that one party accounts for the dignity of the child, while the other cares solely for the woman's convenience. I am no less proud for those that do witness to the truth of the unborn, even in spite of their ignorance, as I am rather fond of spoiling my nephews. Sadly, this reliance upon hedonism as a moral framework is exactly why some pro-lifers are prone to dithering when it really counts.

As it stands, however, a political party lives and dies by the coherence of its message. A pro-life party that is also libertine is incoherent, inasmuch as it damages the credibility of the latter while complicating and multiplying the difficulties of the former. Furthermore, by adding economic freedom from consequence onto this contradiction, and it is the pro-life element that will necessarily be ejected.

As for the rest, Paul has not only beaten me to it, but has also stated it better than I could. I should also mention, however, that in some states, pro-lifers have successfully agitated for baby drops. It is important to note that while it is unacceptably reptilian to abandon the child without so much as a thought at the hospital, it is infinitely better than murder.

"Not to mention the fact that there are other life issues besides abortion. A truly pro-life party would also stand firmly in the defense of those at risk of suicide, of unimplanted embryos, and of those at risk of being dehydrated to death. All of this would have relevance for any "left" party's doubtless desire to nationalize healthcare at least as much as President Obama, which would make it all the harder for them to stick to a pro-life agenda."

Golly Lydia, you just can't let those death panels go, can you? You were lied to; the folks on whom you relied on the matter are liars, they can't be trusted. Hard to accept, I understand but the truth often is.

There are no death panels; there never were death panels; no one wants death panels. Oops, my apologies. We actually do have death panels. They are in Arizona and the Congress and they are manned by conservatives. When are you going to write about the conservative Republican death panels in Arizona anyway?

Also, HCR, as passed and signed into law didn't nationalize healthcare; the reality is that it tilted way too far in the favor of private sector insurance companies because of the need to appease the blue dogs.

I don't know of anyone who opposes suicide hot lines and HCR will aid those at risk by making health care available to them. Your other items are ideological niche issues.

We have two "nationalized" systems of health care delivery; The Veterans Administration which is socialized medicine and Medicare which a hybrid single payer/private insurance system. Both, unless one is somewhat wealthy, are superior to private insurance especially if one is in the individual or small employer sector.

"Look at this way, Step2: every act of sexual congress (every last one) includes the possibility of an 18-25 year commitment to raising the child which is the product of that congress. This fact is imposed upon us from without."

"In a word, I don't think your autonomy argument is persuasive. The nature of sex is what it is. No policy of government can change it."

Of course it can. It's the law in California and forty six other states..

"Under the SSB law, a parent or person with lawful custody can safely surrender a baby confidentially and without fear of prosecution within 72 hours of birth.
The SSB law requires the baby be taken to a public or private hospital, designated fire station or other safe surrender site. No questions will be asked."

http://www.babysafe.ca.gov/res/pdf/SSBFactSheet.pdf

The law was written by a conservative Republican, passed by a liberal Democratic legislature, signed by a liberal Democratic governor and enhanced by a moderate Republican governor.

I don't see how a person can consider themselves "pro-life" and oppose such humane and practical legislation. This perhaps is what separates those social conservatives who have drifted into ideology from the rest of us who are truly concerned with preserving human freedom while maximizing human welfare.

"A pro-life left would be very unlikely to...
--oppose a gigantic amnesty bill"

As Bush and Rove actually had realistic views on immigration along with folks like Teddy Kennedy and John McCain (prior to terror induced flip-flopping) I would imagine a "pro-life" left would have views on immigration that you would dislike.

--block cap and trade

Again, cap and trade was once a conservative solution, one that worked. As a mark of the left is its willingness to recognize and adopt things that work, I would be interested in you rationale here.

No one is going to be elected from WV who favors policies deemed anti-coal. This is not a feature; it's a bug that is inevitable with our corporate dominated politics. It also demonstrates the Constitutional error of the Senate and the states as sovereign entities.

Climate change skeptics have made a decision (should they prevail) to have a somewhat depopulated earth with greatly enhanced human misery. How that is "pro-life" is curious.

"--block attempts to increase federal control of education and force all children into "community service."

Not likely. I don't understand what's "pro-life" about producing an ill-educated populace. It certainly has nothing to do with the 'left".

"That's just for starters."

Which is another way of indicating a commitment to contemporary conservatism that any left movement is going to reject.

Paul, we aren't going to pass Central American type anti-abortion legislation in this country. The most you will get are laws that create serious problems for the poor and rural while symbolically inconveniencing everyone else (said inconvenience having an inverse relationship to ones means).

As your support for those who seek gain at the expense of most of the rest us will likely lead to marginally more or less abortions (as well as delayed family formation) your commitment and passion seems misplaced.

As for your new "pro-life-Republicans,

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/03/the-demise-of-pro-life-democrats-be-careful-what-you-pray-for/

Now about our corrupt/ignorant Alabama congressman. When you (if you) vote in a way that would lead to a Republican majority, you are complicit in putting a corporate tool in charge of a critical congressional committee. How you hope to further life by impoverishing the nation escapes me.

While the Democrats are hardly perfect, they are miles better than the Reps and besides we are talking about a left, not Democratic Party, movement that would presumably put pressure on the Dems. If you pro-lifers who haven't drunk the market kool-aide all joined or created a movement on the left it would be a real game changer.

Remaining mere enablers of the economic royalists that have always and will always control the Republican Party and most all of conservatism (see Lydia's comments) in hope of a morsel here and there is a waste. Walk into the light.

Again no insult was intended on the partnership matter. You asked my opinion and I gave my views. I certainly didn't mean to imply that partnerships were all the ammo you had on this matter.

Paul,
I wasn't making an argument so much as I was trying to show a point of differences between a pro-life Left and the pro-life Right. I'm granting for the sake of argument that there could be a secular reason that conclusively proves the personhood of the fetus from the moment of conception. I hope you aren't suggesting that a pro-life Left would have the same assumptions and expectations that the pro-life Right has.

To an extent I agree that the efforts of churches and adopting couples would cover the huge increases in numbers of abandoned infants if abortion was outlawed, but only for a few years. After that, assuming only 10% of women who would have had an abortion decide not to raise the infant, it would quickly overwhelm the current foster care system.

d_senti,
I’m all for contrariness, but it gets a bit frustrating. The Depression was also the time of the Dust Bowl, so the people working the fields were frequently making starvation wages and the farmers themselves were struggling. In short, farm payroll at that time would be considered the same as underemployment today, since full time farm employment was no assurance against living at or below subsistence levels.

However, by dumping money into the system (and not counting it as inflation, since it hasn't worked its way through yet), you increase valuations of assets, which distorts the numbers.

In a way that is true, but having massive bank failures that freeze up liquidity would also have a distorting effect on the numbers. As in, many companies and individuals would have their credit lines disrupted, which would also have a major negative impact on valuations. I guess you need to determine what the value of credit continuity is to GDP, if any.

Step2,

I am not entirely sure that such frozen liquidity and disrupted credit would be as bad in the long run as a rolling continuation of booms and bailouts. The human mind is rather keen upon the considerations of risk and consequence, from navigating through traffic to the abstracts of high finance. By proving to the gambling banker that he will be bailed out, he is all the more resolute in seeking out the biggest payouts from the steepest risk. This ensures that in roughly a decade there is going to be another egregious bailout as the banking system crashes upon itself yet again.

Al -- fair enough on the SSB law. I stand corrected. But this is just more heckling -- "I don't see how a person can consider themselves 'pro-life' and oppose such humane and practical legislation." It presupposes that I oppose the law. It presupposes that saying "mothers should not abandon their children" as general matter means "every last mother shall be compelled by law to raise her every last child, no matter what circumstances." Do you suppose that I oppose adoption laws too?

The point is that human sexuality (even in our hi-tech advanced age) can and will result in the conception of new human beings, new immortal souls; and that the subject of subject of sex cannot be separated from the subject of motherhood and fatherhood.

The following statement is also so packed with presuppositions convenient to your view as to be unworthy of thoughtful observers -- "How you hope to further life by impoverishing the nation escapes me." It presupposes that the Democrats have the policies that will avoid impoverishment. It presupposes that poverty and life are commensurable is some linear way. It simply ignores all my objections to the idea that life must be secondary to prosperity, which have formed the bulk of my comments.

Now then, losing some pro-life Democrats in the House is a small price to pay for (in the vast majority of cases) replacing them with pro-life Republicans who will not get suckered by, for instance, the Executive signing statement charade that Stupak accepted (the pro-choicers seemed to notice an important distinction between that and the stronger statutory language, so why shouldn't we?), and small price to pay for the aggregate removal from power of a bunch of stridently pro-abortion committee chairs. Again, I can concede completely, arguendo, to your idea that "generic pro-life Republican" is worse on matters of finance and usury than "generic pro-choice Democrat," and my own argument is not affected at all. That you persist in repeating a point I have conceded suggests a strong reluctance to engage the actual argument.

I really wish you had the magnanimity to take your opponents' moral views seriously, Al, because you're clearly a smart guy with whom even horrible Christianists like us could find common ground sometimes. I note with interest that you have also made no effort to even wrestle with the dilemmas I presented using slavery as the analogy.

To wit: would it be okay, according to Al, to support a party that embraced slavery (either as a positive good like the despicable pro-choice organizations, or, more sympathetically, as a tragic necessity) if said party advanced a more compassionate and humane vision of political economy?

Al, did you ever read the Wannsee Protocols? If you haven't, look them up and read them. Then tell us if the words "Death Camps" appear within them. Then tell us that the Third Reich had no "Death Camps".

Al, a policy doesn't have to use plain language to describe it's effect. If the effect is there, then the words used to describe the effect are true. A government panel deciding whether or not to allow life saving medical care to be given to a person is a "Death Panel". Palin nailed it.

David,
Try again. This is what Palin falsely called a death panel-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Affordable_Health_Choices_Act_of_2009#Reimbursement_for_counseling_about_living_wills

David, I will mercifully not invoke Godwin's law on your post. My friend Eric, termed the first paragraph as weak and I'll agree.

"Al, a policy doesn't have to use plain language to describe it's effect. If the effect is there, then the words used to describe the effect are true."

Duh, thank you, now that someone has admitted that there is no language in the health care bill, as passed and signed into law, that creates death panels, perhaps others hereabouts will see the light.

If any agency is breaking the law and setting up a rogue death panel, I'm sure you will let us and the Department of Justice know all about it.

"A government panel deciding whether or not to allow life saving medical care to be given to a person is a "Death Panel"."

Maybe, but we need to know more. For example, would you term this a death panel:

"The former armored-truck guard with leukemia would normally receive a transplant within a few weeks if tests of the donors and Price's continuing therapy go well, said Dr. Jeffrey Schriber."

"Unfortunately we can't do that now," said Schriber, director of the Blood and Marrow Transplant Program at Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center."

"The benefit cuts implemented Friday by the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, known as AHCCCS, were included in the budget the Legislature and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer approved last spring."

And:

Many states are choosing to cut Medicaid services due to the recession. There was an attempt to increase federal aid to the states. It passed the house but was cut in the Senate due to Republican (and conservative Democratic) opposition. That medicaid would be cut by the states was easily foreseeable. Does that make the Republican caucus and the Blue Dogs a death panel?

If, as often happens, a private insurance company denies life saving care to someone or has a department that searches for some pretext to rescind coverage to someone with a serious illness, are we dealing with death panels?

"Palin nailed it."

If you followed Step2's link you are now aware that Palin lied. How do you feel about someone who lies to you?

Al. I don't hold a brief for insurance companies. I object to insurance companies acting as 'Death Panels'. I don't like insurance companies. In a world run by me, there wouldn't be any insurance companies. There would be the patient (and family) and the doctor. I gather that you don't like insurance companies either. Why then would you want to replace private market competition between the existing insurance companies with ONE BIG INSURANCE COMPANY WITH GUNS? Which is exactly what a one payor government system is.

Palin told no lies. The bill allows for the government to determine if a medical procedure is cost effective and appropriate. In other words, why should we spend 80K on a hip replacement if you are going to die in a couple of years anyway?
In my opinion, these are decisions which should be made by the patient (and family) and the doctor. No insurance company nor government intervention is warranted.

How do I feel about someone who lies to me? I'll tell you Al. I don't like them. And I don't like you.

And Al, take your anti-nausea meds and read this:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434

Hi Paul, I picked your quote but there were several including a reference to Zippy that sounded somewhat harsh. My reply was omnidirectional. While I would prefer the term "parenthood" for practical reasons, you are, of course, correct on that point. I view good parenting as unenforceable and view any parent/parents that are capable of doing the job as better for the child then foster care.

"It presupposes that the Democrats have the policies that will avoid impoverishment. It presupposes that poverty and life are commensurable is some linear way. It simply ignores all my objections to the idea that life must be secondary to prosperity,"

A number of years ago, should one attend meetings on sundry liberal/left type issues, one could usually count on at least one person taking the floor and holding forth that attempting to do X was in vain unless "WE DID SOMETHING ABOUT OVER-POPULATION". Being tolerant types (unless it went on a tad too long), they would be heard and then the topic would return to more achievable goals.

I don't know if you are aware of the vote last week in Colorado on Amendment 62. It was an anti-abortion, personhood from conception amendment to the state constitution. It lost statewide 70/30. The closest it came to passing was 45.2% in Conejos County which borders New Mexico and has a population of about 8,500. It only got 40.5% in El Paso County which includes Colorado Springs! In many counties it lost by over 70% and that went into the 80s in several counties.

Ken Buck carried the county as did Tom Tancredo. The local Congressman, Doug Lamborn carried the county easily with 66.4% of the vote. This is from his website:

"Human life begins at fertilization and should end in natural death. Congressman Lamborn’s legislative record reflects his unwavering dedication to protecting the sanctity of human life from the unborn to the elderly, the terminally ill, and all whose lives are threatened by euthanasia."

I point this out because in a year when turnout favored a measure like 62 and in a state where the Democratic Senator and Governor were barely elected, it lost big, even in one of the most socially conservative strongholds in the nation. 26% of the folks voting for a socially conservative Congressman who supports personhoond from conception voted against that concept. I've always been suspicious by polling results on abortion. My theory is that it is easy to oppose abortion when it is has been a constitutionally protected right for a generation or more - sort of a then there arose a pharaoh who knew not Joseph sort of effect.

What we have here is a judgment call that has nothing to do with first principles and everything to do with doing the good we can. As I see it, and leaving aside for the moment my personal views, you all are unlikely to ever get a truly effective anti-abortion law in the United States while you are far more likely to get social policies that reduce it. Those policies will never come from the right.

"To wit: would it be okay, according to Al, to support a party that embraced slavery (either as a positive good like the despicable pro-choice organizations, or, more sympathetically, as a tragic necessity) if said party advanced a more compassionate and humane vision of political economy."

That is an impossibility as chattel slavery is first and foremost an economic institution. It is part of the same continuum that includes serfdom, Pinkertons, script, and the company store. Slavery is only one obstacle on road to social justice. The notion that a party could allow for the theft of the fruits of a man's labor, steal his freedom, and seek a compassionate and humane political economy seems impossible to me.

The law leaves individuals, within limits, free to choose when it comes to abortion. Economic policy leaves individuals at the mercy of the financial sector. I am only pointing out that you are aligning yourself and supporting those who will get away with as much as they can; back in the day we had fetters of iron, today we have fetters forged from debt.

I would also point out that prior to incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment, the states weren't bound by the First Amendment and the slave states had all sorts of laws limiting the freedom of expression and association in matters concerning slavery. You all are free to lawfully advocate and persuade as you will.

Distributism seem to recognize that there is a problem but also seems to lack the analytical tools to provide realistic solutions. For example, any left analysis would have instantly seen the impossibility of slavery and economic justice. If those tools existed, the dangers inherent in your present collaboration would be obvious. It's your priorities, not your moral views that are the problem.

Recall that I indicated a pro-life left, not a formal alliance with the Democratic Party. The recent experience with the Obama administration shows why. This may be useful,

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/11/05/obamas-problem-simply-defined-it-was-the-banks-26159/

The Dems, in general, are going to be better and more importantly, in the context of the current power of the financial sector, are less likely to do serious harm. More folks on the left seeking social justice can only be helpful.

Hope this is coherent enough to help as I have to lay out a couple of new buildings and get the concrete poured before the rains get serious and am running back and forth as a result.

"To wit: would it be okay, according to Al, to support a party that embraced slavery (either as a positive good like the despicable pro-choice organizations, or, more sympathetically, as a tragic necessity) if said party advanced a more compassionate and humane vision of political economy."

That is an impossibility as chattel slavery is first and foremost an economic institution. It is part of the same continuum that includes serfdom, Pinkertons, script, and the company store. Slavery is only one obstacle on road to social justice. The notion that a party could allow for the theft of the fruits of a man's labor, steal his freedom, and seek a compassionate and humane political economy seems impossible to me.

Well, it probably won't matter, since no one is watching this thread anymore, but I totally nailed you on this one, Al. Simply compare the antebellum Democratic Party, which was agrarian, communitarian and (in the North) rapidly gravitating toward trade unionism, with the business-friendly and rapidly industrializing GOP. The latter was already filling up with laissez faire men, Manchester School theorists, and corporatists.

Your "impossibility" is actually a historical fact. The Democrats defended slavery and resisted plutocracy -- at the same time. So according to your own notion of priorities, the antebellum American should have favored the pro-slavery Democrats over the plutocratic Republicans for reasons of political economy.

My notion of priority says that basic moral principle must come first. Thus, no matter how effectively they opposed plutocracy, a vote for the pro-slavery party would be indefensible.

Since the 60's the Left has wedded (or perhaps I should say welded) "social justice" matters to the issue of sexual liberation so called. Hence to them, slavery, having no sexual component, is a moral slam dunk. When it gets to abortion, however, because of the sexual connection liberals will necessarily see the issue as cloudy. Since the sexual will always trump the social, political or economic, the left will view the right to abortion as a non-negotiable. This is why abortion rights have so much support from homosexuals: they (rightly) see these sexual issues as all tied up together, even though they personally have no stake in the issue whatsoever.

Paul is correct when he writes that "the Democrats defended slavery and resisted plutocracy -- at the same time." What today's liberals cannot do is defend sexual liberation and social justice w/r/t the unborn at the same time.

Probably won't be seen given the rate of posting the whole let's do something bad to Muslims series is generating but I would be remiss in not replying.

"The Democrats defended slavery and resisted plutocracy -- at the same time."

Which sort of oversimplifies what was going on in the decade before the Civil War. I wouldn't use this as an example as it was of short duration, ignores the internal contradictions which resulted in a split party, and culminated in a civil war. Southern Democrats had a choice and for them the maintenance and expansion of slavery was of greater importance then any other value and they split the party. Northern Democrats voted for Douglas; Southern democrats for Breckinridge

"Thus, no matter how effectively they opposed plutocracy, a vote for the pro-slavery party would be indefensible."

Which makes my point except, of course, there is no comparison with the issues. Folks were forced into slavery; no one is compelled, by law, to get an abortion. Which gets us to the point you all simply can't handle so you ignore it -
Colorado.

Also, in order for your comparison to hold, it has to be the case that voting for Lincoln was the same as voting for McKinley was the same as voting for T.R. was the same asvoting for Eisenhower was the same as voting for Reagan was the same as voting for McCain would be the same as voting for the Republican Party of Palin. Not the same issues, not the same party.

You have three choices.

1. Swallow your principles on economic justice, hold your nose and continue to vote Republican as long as they give lip service (and occasional actions on the periphery) to your "life" issues.

2. Come on over to the left where you really belong and make your case for your social issues there and vote the economic ones.

3. Resolve, at minimum, to do no harm and stop voting.

What Colorado demonstrates is that, arguably, your social goals are unattainable. A significant plurality of the folks who say they oppose abortion, when push comes to shove, come down on the other side. About a third of the voters in the Colorado Springs area who voted for a Congressman who openly and boldly favors personhood from conception voted against that notion when they had the choice.

At the same time the social policies that would discourage abortion - family allowances, easy to get contraception, and universal health care - are opposed by your party of choice.

You have chosen to seek the impossible perfect rather than the possible good.

In any case, it helps to have a nation in which regular folks are able to do things and the plutocracy you support with your vote isn't going to let that happen. One other thing you might want to consider is dangers inherent in the manner in which our parties have evolved. Jack Balkin has post that nails it (I have some quibbles but basically agree).

"But parliamentary parties are not well designed for the particular forms of give and take that are generally required in a presidential system. In a presidential system, members of different parties are expected to regularly cross party lines to form coalitions on particular questions (rather than on the formation of a government as a whole). Ideologically coherent and politically polarized parties do not perform these functions particularly well. Indeed, the most recent example of the rise of parliamentary parties in the United States is the party system shortly before the Civil War, in which political compromise increasingly became impossible."

"If the polarization of parties continues, we can expect persistent forms of political pathology. Here is why..."

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/11/parliamentary-parties-in-presidential.html

I'm inclined to believe that, with that evolution and the "Wall Street Coup", we've reached a tipping point as a nation. The Civil War and the Depression resolved in the Republic's favor. Not so much this time.

no one is compelled, by law, to get an abortion

Well, except the infant that is executed in the womb. It all works out for you, logically (as it did for the slavery defenders), if a class of human being is defined as not-human being. Once that is done, it all falls into place.