The Farce Forum

[Guest David Guyatt]

Cheers David,

Unsurprisingly I'm lost here. What does US debt actually mean or even matter? Gates wants $20+ billion more attack money from congress and unless granted he's pulling troops because he believes the US can't fight/sustain Oil work in both Iraq and Afghanistan. How does this work? He'll get his money, likley the Fed will print on treasury demand (I think???).

What is your prognosis on the whole sub-prime (derived from cattle days I'm led to believe) market and effect in UK? I see King says there will likely be rate decreases, ostensibly so The BOE doesn't get blamed on the recession.

I'm very interested in any commentary you may have.

Thanks

Gary

You're right Gary, debt no longer appears to matter in regard to the governing elite - in one sense anyway. Of course, it matters greatly to the citizens of those nations whose tax money is siphoned off to pay the interest on the accumulated national debt and personal debt. It is that, I think, where debt is still important. Let's call it selective micro debt as I am sure, that you, like most people in the civilised world, have some debt and must pay it. But at the Macro level - Sovereign debt between nations now appears to be treated differently and is (in my view) a mechanism for shifting wealth (mineral or otherwise) into the hands of an ever decreasing circle of ultra wealthy elitists.

On the sub-prime market I cannot speak with any great knowledge or clarity because I haven't really followed it. To me it has that smell of just another phase of "boom and bust" that happens every decade or so, which my cynicism tells me is just another mechanism for wealth shifting from the majority to the few. Lending vast amounts of dosh to people who cannot afford to repay it (which is what this particular "boom & bust" episode is about), simply places the less well off in debt bondage and means they will have to spend a portion of their working lives working for the banks. Some, perhaps even many, will as a result be in perpetual debt and thus placed in a sort of feudal serfdom.

I suppose I should add that economic warfare is part of (has it ever been not?) "full spectrum" warfare.

David

David

Edited November 16, 2007 by David Guyatt

[Guest David Guyatt]

David, there was once a brilliant (?) economist who argued that the U.S. national debt did not matter because we owed it "to ourselves". Unfortunately, that may no longer be true.

I remember the quote Tim, but don't think (although I'm not absolutely certain) it wasn't an economist, but rather a famous figure of immense wealth. And if I am right about that attribution, then I shouldn't wonder if by "ourselves" he didn't mean to infer citizens of the United States but, rather, the class of the super wealthy elite. "They owe it to us" would be more appropriate in that case.

David

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Several members posted details of the plight of the poor in the United States. Tim replies by pointing out that the US has 740 television sets per 1,000 people.

I was refering to a post by Mark Stapleton who most know is from Australia. I used not only television sets but other indicia of consumptiom, as you know I did John. In addition, you purposely ignored the fact that I was comparing the data from the US with data from Australia. My point was simply that using such criteria as indicative of people living above the level of poverty, there are more poor in Australia than in the United States. Thus Mark's remark about poverty in the US was at a minimum misplaced.

That is, I submit, a logical response.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

John wrote:

Several members posted details of the plight of the poor in the United States. Tim replies by pointing out that the US has 740 television sets per 1,000 people.

I was refering to a post by Mark Stapleton who most know is from Australia. I used not only television sets but other indicia of consumptiom, as you know I did John. In addition, you purposely ignored the fact that I was comparing the data from the US with data from Australia. My point was simply that using such criteria as indicative of people living above the level of poverty, there are more poor in Australia than in the United States. Thus Mark's remark about poverty in the US was at a minimum misplaced.

That is, I submit, a logical response.

"A logical response?" Oh, dear boy, there you go again.....

There are multiple indices for determining poverty amongst the general population, poverty among children, etc. None of these indices determine poverty based upon possession of TV sets [plasma flat screens or 1956 Zeniths?] or radios [sirius and XM or Radio Shack transistors?]. For clearcut examples of how the US fares among "developed" nations, one could look at either of these two sites [though there are many, many others] and realize that poverty in the US outstrips all other "developed" nations, certainly Australia.

http://www.epinet.org/books/swa2004/news/s...ternational.pdf

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp...iew&id=6062

However, it is far easier to simply make up xxxxe as one goes along, which is Tim's stock in trade.

Little wonder, then, that as John Simkin so accurately pointed out: "It clearly is impossible to have a logical debate with this man."

Or as Tim claimed about another, more respected member's posts, yet seems unaware is far more true of his own posts, "His posts are either ridiculous or risible, and usually both."

[Pat Speer]

About Reagan and the economy, etc.

The income of the upper class grew greatly under Reagan, at the expense of the middle and lower class. This continued even under Clinton. During the 90's, in part fueled by the dotcom explosion, corporate CEOs decided they were the rock stars of today, and began pushing companies to reward them with HUGE payments and stock options, REGARDLESS of their long-term performance. The income of the average CEO to average worker grew from 20 to one to 400 to one, if memory serves. This unparraleled parade of greed put the pressure on these CEOs to justify their "rewards". To demonstrate their "skills" and earn their inflated rewards, they embarked on needless down-sizing and ridiculous mergers, excessive diversification, etc. The majority of these moves were a waste of time and money, but they looked good to Wall Street investors. The one move that DID guarantee short-term growth, that became the standard play of every Harvard Business grad, was to lay off workers and re-hire them as private contractors, or lay off full-time workers and re-hire them as part-time workers. All these moves were designed to shift the responsibilities of the employer, e.g. health care, onto society as a whole. For every dollar saved by these ploys, the CEOs took out 2 for themselves via stock options, etc. When this bubble market finally collapsed during the first years of George I's reign, many former middle-class investors, weary from their losses by the criminal CEOs, and the basic con of Wall Street, decided to invest in real estate instead, as the real estate market seemed more stable. Desperate for the APPEARANCE of a stable economy, Bush pressured Greenspan and others into keeping interest levels low. Now, even this stunt has run its course, and the housing market is collapsing from the number of home owners unable to keep up with the rising interest rates. This is hitting banks HARD but not as hard as one might think. Due to globalization...many U.S. banks have passed their bad notes onto foreign banks.

That's right. A class of corporate criminals conducted a 20 year rape-fest on the American economy, while kneeling before the altar of of St. Reagan and voodoo economics, and now the rest of he world has to pay.

Have a nice day.

Edited November 17, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Courtney Redd]

It is illogical to state that the weight of the great majority of historians from across the political spectrum demonstrates the shallowness of the criticisms rendered by your left-wing group?

The vast majority of historians also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK by firing three shots from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. So are they correct in that also?

Because a "great majority of historians" say something is true, we should believe it? Without question, I should believe that Ronald Reagan, a man who gave far less consideration for the homeless and poor than he did his friends in the military and so-called Moral Majority? I thought caring for the homeless and poor were Christian values.

[Courtney Redd]

Pat wrote:

Cell phones and Internet cafes; who could ask for more?

How about electricity and running water all the time, not just whenever it happens to work? How about an end to the civil war that's started since we illegally (and under false pretense, I might add) invaded another sovereign nation?

I'm willing to bet those are just a couple of the things the people of Iraq are asking for right now.

[John Simkin]

It is illogical to state that the weight of the great majority of historians from across the political spectrum demonstrates the shallowness of the criticisms rendered by your left-wing group?

The vast majority of historians also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK by firing three shots from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. So are they correct in that also?

Because a "great majority of historians" say something is true, we should believe it? Without question, I should believe that Ronald Reagan, a man who gave far less consideration for the homeless and poor than he did his friends in the military and so-called Moral Majority? I thought caring for the homeless and poor were Christian values.

It is probably true that right-wing historians in the United States are so subjective that they would rate Reagan as one of the best American presidents. However, even right-wing historians in Europe would not rate him high. Nor would any respectable historian say what you did that "Reagan won the Cold War". The statement is ridiculous. No one person won the Cold War. Added to that, China remains a communist state. So does your close neighbour Cuba. If Reagan was so clever in his fight against communism, how is it he was not able to remove Castro?

[John Simkin]

I hope members will consider placing some of their posts on these two threads:

End of the Cold War: Gorbachev or Reagan?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=907

Ronald Reagan and the Cold War

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=896

Ronald Reagan's Campaign Funds

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8489

The Removal of Jimmy Carter from Office

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8635

Jeane Kirkpatrick and Ronald Reagan's Foreign Policy

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8800

Project for a New American Century

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8807

[Tim Gratz]

John, a day or so ago you had the unmitigated gall to accuse me of being "poilitically illiterate".

The meaning of illiterate means lacking the ability to read or not being well-read.

I asked you to identify what books you had read extolling the Reagan presidency and so far you have named not one. I think we can reasonably infer from that failure that you have not read a single one.

And now you say in response to the polls I cited that "It is probably true that right-wing historians in the United States are so subjective that they would rate Reagan as one of the best American presidents." This statement shows you failed to do the most fundamental research on the polls I cited. Wikipedia says this about the two WSJ polls I cited (the bold is my emphasis):

A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey, as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other, but never balanced. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities, and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were "remarkably similar" to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy, and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan at #8. Franklin Roosevelt still ranked in the top three.

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society. [9] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving President George W. Bush a split-decision rating of "average".

I certainly agree that no one person won the Cold War. Of course we need to give credit, for instance, to the work of David Atlee Phillips and E Howard Hunt in Guatemala--hey, just kidding there. But the collapse of Communism was primarily the result of RR and his determination that he could induce the Soviets to spend themselves into financial ruin. In addition, RR's handling of Gorachev helped. Also one must credit the efforts of the Pope and Margaret Thatcher. But no American president was more responsible for the end of the Cold War than was RR.

Edited November 17, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Guest David Guyatt]

John, a day or so ago you had the unmitigated gall to accuse me of being "poilitically illiterate".

The meaning of illiterate means lacking the ability to read or not being well-read.

I asked you to identify what books you had read extolling the Reagan presidency and so far you have named not one. I think we can reasonably infer from that failure that you have not read a single one.

And now you say in response to the polls I cited that "It is probably true that right-wing historians in the United States are so subjective that they would rate Reagan as one of the best American presidents." This statement shows you failed to do the most fundamental research on the polls I cited. Wikipedia says this about the two WSJ polls I cited (the bold is my emphasis):

A 2000 survey by The Wall Street Journal consisted of an "ideologically balanced group of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science". This poll sought to include an equal number of liberals and conservatives in the survey, as the editors argued that previous polls were dominated by either one group or the other, but never balanced. According to the editors, this poll included responses from more women, minorities, and young professors than the 1996 Schlesinger poll. The editors noted that the results of their poll were "remarkably similar" to the 1996 Schlesinger poll, with the main difference in the 2000 poll being the lower rankings for the 1960s presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy, and higher ranking of President Ronald Reagan at #8. Franklin Roosevelt still ranked in the top three.

Another presidential poll was conducted by The Wall Street Journal in 2005, with James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School for the Federalist Society. [9] As in the 2000 survey, the editors sought to balance the opinions of liberals and conservatives, adjusting the results "to give Democratic- and Republican-leaning scholars equal weight." Franklin D. Roosevelt still ranked in the top-three, but editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time, while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving President George W. Bush a split-decision rating of "average".

I certainly agree that no one person won the Cold War. Of course we need to give credit, for instance, to the work of David Atlee Phillips and E Howard Hunt in Guatemala--hey, just kidding there. But the collapse of Communism was primarily the result of RR and his determination that he could induce the Soviets to spend themselves into financial ruin. In addition, RR's handling of Gorachev helped. Also one must credit the efforts of the Pope and Margaret Thatcher. But no American president was more responsible for the end of the Cold War than was RR.

The Wall Street Journal, Tim? Balanced?

The two words do not marry at all well, I think.

I also think it worth reading (or if you have already read it, perhaps re-reading) Ed Herman’s and Naom Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent – the Political Economy of the Mass Media”, which demonstrates with devastating clarity and scholarship how the major media reflect the political and economic interests of large corporations and conglomaerates (because they are owned by them).

Who owns the Wall Street Journal? Dow Jones. Who owns Dow Jones? The Bancroft family, Boston Brahmin’s to the very core, had maintained a controlling (64%) interest in it for decades. That is until they sold it to Rupert Murdoch during this summer past.

David

[Charles Drago]

It is illogical to state that the weight of the great majority of historians from across the political spectrum demonstrates the shallowness of the criticisms rendered by your left-wing group?

The vast majority of historians also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK by firing three shots from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. So are they correct in that also?

Because a "great majority of historians" say something is true, we should believe it? Without question, I should believe that Ronald Reagan, a man who gave far less consideration for the homeless and poor than he did his friends in the military and so-called Moral Majority? I thought caring for the homeless and poor were Christian values.

Beautifully reasoned, Courtney.

[Tim Gratz]

Sorry, Charles, not as beautifully reasoned as it may at first appear.

The issue whether there was a lone assassin is a question of disputed fact, albeit a hotly contested one. That many historians accept the conclusions of the WC is hard for many of us to understand. One possible explanation is that they have only read the official reports and have paid too little attention to the other side of the debate. Another explanation for the widespread acceptance of the WC is peer pressure.

The question of a president's "greatness" and ranking in history is really a question of opinion but it is an opinion based on facts. To the extent the opinions are based on facts the facts, unlike those of the assassination, are not disputed. In one of the earlier polls the historians polled were asked to consider the following five criteria: leadership qualities, accomplishments & crisis management, political skill, appointments, character & integrity.

Also one cannot necessarily correlate the judgment of the historians who participated in the polls I menioned (all of the significant polls that I could find by the way) with the judgment of historians who accept the WC. For all we know, a significant number of people participating in the poll do not believe the WC.

Finally, one cannot equate rightness/wrongness on the conspiracy question with rightness/wrongness on other political issues. As you and most others know, there are many thinkers whose opinions are as left oriented as most members of this Forum yet they accept the findings of the WC. Should their political view be discounted merely because they are wrong on the conspiracy issue? Would you accept my political views over theirs (I think not) simply because I agree with you re the existence of a conspiracy even if we disagree on issues such as the mechanics of the assassination.

So we are talking big red apples versus ripe yellow bananas,

[Pat Speer]

The polls mentioned by Tim are not indicative of the world. Many American historians rate "likability" and the president's ability to pull the American people into his corner as signs he was a good president. As a result, Reagan is held high more for being liked than for anything he actually accomplished. When compared to recent republican failures like GWB, GHWB, GF, and RN, it's no wonder he seems so "great."

When it comes to actual policy, the American people were much more in tune with Walter Mondale than they were with Reagan. The Reagan/Mondale debate in 1984 was the most lopsided battle in recent history. Mondale destroyed Reagan on every point. Made him look silly. He beat Reagan so bad that, when Reagan barely survived the second debate, through gimmicks "Now, there you go again", the people breathed a collective sigh of relief that ole Ronnie was still on the ball. (Of course, he wasn't.) This is Reagan's true legacy. He was the triumph of style over substance. He misled people into voting for him, and then charmed them with his aw-shucks folksiness, so much that they voted for him again, as if he was a KING and deserved to reign as long as he made the people feel good about themselves. In this manner, he was truly a throwback to Ike: the President as mascot and lapdog for the MIC. The one difference being that Ike finally bit back.

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, Reagan never said "There he goes again" to Walter Mondale.

If a President is not to be judged by how well he leads the American people (in large part due to his "likeability") how is he to be judged?

It seems to be your argument that RR duped the American people and then because he fooled the electorate the historians, poli sci professors, etc. erred in their own evaluations.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the fact that RR was widely admired and respected by Americans across the political spectrum and is judged in the top tier of presidents by the "professionals" ought to cause you to re-evaluate your own opinion.

Later (a day or two) I will publish information that the rate of absolute poverty decreased during the RR years.