PatsFanInVa

They'd certainly have their concerns, as a bloc, that are against our interests, and those of other developed nations. But at least these rough groupings allow state actors to compromise and trade off to get to solutions. And now that the significant blocs are much more likely to be within the G20 than to be NATO vs Warsaw Pact, there's much less that can be phrased as easily as "zero sum."

For example, India's one of the BRICS. You don't think they see danger in Islamic extremism? Pakistan is not in this rough grouping -- yet they are sometimes less than enthusiastic partners in the US "war on terror..." because they think their real problem is India.

But even so, if the Pakistani state sees itself as threatened by non-state actors (which could very quickly happen,) that too can move. Even securing the state against non-state actors provides the rationale for some cooperation (just never enough, in the U.S.'s opinion.)

We'll see how long it takes for the cuts to get us to the border of "deteriorating/improving."

I think part of what you're seeing is that the financial crisis radiated out from the U.S., and the propping of the economy in the U.S. has been more concerted and more prolonged than elsewhere. It's also been subject to US politics, which involves giving something to the very wealthy with no accompanying gift to the middle, then following up with a package for the middle, and of course balancing it with another giveaway to the well-off. But that's too granular for the main point, which is that there's a reason the U.S. response was more concerted and more prolonged.

As in, liabilities that are on the books, and will not be realized by '20, but will be owed at that time? (I.e., the future promises as well as the actual spending as part of the total debt)?

Could be. I wonder what they're using as their interest factor? Most interest numbers are very low, which increases present value of future liabilities.

Could also be that other numbers I read were from early in the crisis or before the crisis (like Patters' 07 numbers, which at least on that site, are called the "most recent.")

Regrettably, being the epicenter of the financial crisis, we got whacked hardest, followed by those most fluidly linked to us (Europe/Japan,) and those who were not big players in the financial markets were most unscathed. That much is obvious from the growth rate in the developing world (although I wouldn't bet the collective farm against a parallel bubble bursting in China at some point.)

The big fella's.

I'm glad we started down the IMF road before the speech. I'd be tempted to go after him from the left, although he did strongly urge that we vaguely protect a bunch of the good things we all do for one another. Looks to me like he's clean even if he raises the social security and medicare eligibility ages and reduces benefits in a non-progressive way -- so long as he also gets those damn bush cuts for the wealthy to go away. He says we have to do these things, but he also says these things are within the 5/6ths of the budget we have not been talking about. He says "reform" as the usual code we use for "cuts," then appeals to our modern version of "Magical gold-spinning elves," i.e., better technology, to make no cuts okay. I'm tired of people vaguely saying we'll be smarter later, so really we don't have to fix things. But Obama did leave room to say "What? I SAID we wouldn't turn social security into a betting parlor with everybody's favorite investment bankers reaping fees, and we didn't... I SAID we wouldn't destroy medicare, and we didn't..."

All in all, as the GOP complains, he's saying "here's what to do, now send me a bill." He's leaving it to them to play the heavy... and if they're going to play the heavy, they're going to REALLY play the heavy. They're going to give him bills that tell you to get your blood pressure taken at walgreens and consider a hot tip on the trifecta at belmont to be your retirement plan.

So what can I say... more popcorn until June.

I wanted to stay away from the right here/right now news issues on this thread, but the timing made me do it.

PFnV

Nikolai

Hmmm, missed this one earlier on. Well, I'll hazard a response on those matters for which I can speak intelligently.

I need to think about this one some more, but my initial thought is to say "yes" but not without some reservation. The question is at point does private enterprise and American interest intersect, and at what point are those interests divergent?

Oy. This could be a thesis from me. I don't have the time to give the answer I'd like to give, but I do think there should be a government.

The question is what role the government plays as a protector of our rights? Our rights are not given by the government, but we entrust the government to protect them from foreign enemies, domestic enemies (heh, define that one), and even from itself. I think people are still stuck in the feudal concept that the government grants us rights, when the government actually regulates or curtails the rights every human should have.

Does the government protect our interest? Our collective interest? Our personal interest? That's the dicier question, and the reason I think concentrating too much power in the federal position is a mistake. There are the easily defined collective interests; such as protection from foreign enemies and assistance in times of disaster. There are the more nebulously defined collective interests; such as prosperity and safety. These types of interest can vary by region.


A great point here, and one of the things I was lamenting to my wife the other day. America used to be far more community minded, and the reasons we've moved away from that aren't clear. Could it be the need for both spouses to work to support a family? Longer work hours?

Whatever it is, we're a far more insular society. It's a much more pronounced phenomenon in the Northeast, but the trend is growing across the entire country.

Of course not, at least not from the goodness of their hearts. If the American middle class and poor have value to give to a corporation, they will receive some sort of compensation for it. Whether or not corporate interests align with American interests is at the heart of the issue, which I opined about above.

You've got two separate questions here. To the first question, the answer is "not really". I would flip it a little to try and get to the root of the problem. If a man works hard and makes millions of dollars, has he not earned the right to give it to his children, in order to give them a head start?

Like you said, this question hits on the others, particularly point 3, because does someone who inherits wealth also inherit the responsibility to use it to help others? Perhaps the more philanthropic among us would do so.

To the second question. If a man squanders his life, has sex with a prostitute who carries the baby to term for whatever reason, and gives birth to a baby with significant health issues, this child's destiny has been significantly altered. It is certainly different from the one born with the silver spoon. It's going to be a fight to give that child the opportunities of the silver spoon baby.

Can we force everyone to meet at some central point to start their life? Should we?

One last point. My wife watched a nature program last night, and these turtles were being born on some beach. They hatched from their eggs and were making their way to the sea. Along the way, birds, alligators, and other animals ate them, sometimes right as they emerged from the eggs. They had no chance, and it was a harsh reminder that no matter how hard we try, there will be people in this world who similarly have no chance. How do we fight that? Can we?

I wish I could write more, but time...as always is the issue. PFinV, you know how often I'm able to commit to these kinds of discussions. I'm much better in person with this stuff. Writing takes too long.

__________________
We get what we deserve.

------------------
“On a day when they could have had impact players David Terrell or Koren Robinson..they took Georgia defensive tackle Richard Seymour, who had 1 sacks last season in the pass-happy SEC and is too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end. This genius move was followed by trading out of a spot where they could have gotten the last decent receiver in Robert Ferguson and settled for tackle Matt Light, who will not help any time soon.”

PatsFanInVa

Then we need to get a beer Nik, you're relatively local. Funny you mention the hatchlings running up the beach. Yesterday, I sh1t you not, me & my wife were discussing the effects some family health stuff had on my own viewpoint. I told her the one thing people needed to "get" was how vulnerable we each are, and how much I was appreciating what I had -- the ability to walk and talk and eat my own food, for example (this last I excel in, actually.) In any event, religion and God and public policy and stuff came into the conversation, and I tried to explain how religious quesitons were much easier when we just thought some animals were predators and some prey... before we realized there are those 10,000 hatchlings to 1 survivor stories to think about. Weird conversation, not easily recounted. But it's interesting we had pretty much exactly the same one you guys had, if for different reasons.

I don't feel great about putting a silver spoon in any kid's mouth, and I don't feel great about any kid doomed to poverty, with only the long odds to ever "make it." I don't think we need that.

If my father squandered his life, knocked up a prostitute and didn't stick around, how is that my fault? More importantly, what use is it to a society to foster a sins-of-the-father economy? Not much, if you ask Adam Smith or Thomas Jefferson. Their notions of inherited wealth would make them commies in our current political debate climate.

I'd flip your flip: If a man works hard and makes millions of dollars, he has not acquired any further rights. He has acquired property. He can dispose of it as he likes while he lives and breathes. Otherwise, by what ledgerdemain do we ascribe the same right to a man who does not work hard but acquires a fortune at birth, and still has some to pass on at death?

Your point to the government proscribing, rather than granting, rights, is a good one.

You have the right to do whatever the hell you want, as long as you don't break the law. The law, in a perfect world, is the state's expression of the rights of others via a social compact that we're all responsible to uphold. You accept that your rights aren't absolute, as do I, so we can both enjoy the benefits of a lawful yet not tyrannical society.

Yet it is increasingly difficult for me to see the large-scale transfer of wealth from the general maggotry such as ourselves to the very wealthy, and to believe that they have "earned" this transfer, particularly when the corporations caught in the same wave that wiped out personal wealth, were bailed out by... wait for it... the same middle class that's supposed to pay for the tax gifts to the rich.

I've come to the conclusion that there are many corporate "rights" that need to be watched more carefully LOL.

Until the beer,

PFnV

The Brandon Five

Interesting way of putting it. I know we had this discussion elsewhere, but I don't recall that particular angle. Can't say that I have a big argument with that, although it raises the question of whether such a man can transfer any assets to his family while he is alive.

As for the corporate welfare/bailout stuff. I'm agin' it. You don't have a right not to fail and if you are too big to fail, how exactly did you manage to do it? That kind of thing needs to stop (although most of the damage has already been done).

Nikolai

Preemptive apologies for a brainstorm that may or may not make much sense...

I'm not even talking about policy so much, but more wondering if there is anything we can do to save those who slip to the underbelly of society, because whether we like it or not, their children will suffer at least somewhat regardless of the policies we put in place. Is it a course of nature, and such, is what I'm wondering. I think compassion compels us to want to reach out, and I don't think we shouldn't just because we may suspect it's hopeless, but how do we approach this problem realistically? Defining the problem and assessing its causes is a good first step, I suppose.

I see what you're saying here, but what is the alternative? Redistribution? To whom and by what means? If it is to go to the poor, I'm not sure I trust the government as a middle man. Money does funny things when around those in power, like disappear.

Yep, I'm with you.

You won't get even one argument from me here. That whole episode reeked of Putin-style cronyism to me.

I'm coming around to the idea that not only can we not regard corporations as arbiters of American interest, but that it may be in the American interest to regard corporations as potentially liabilities to our national interest. I'd put them in the Turkish realm of liability. They can be useful allies, but they can bite you in the ass at the earliest opportunity. It doesn't help that we've let them grab us by the cojones and then hold them hostage.

Heh, I'll shoot you a PM before my next business trip down there.

__________________
We get what we deserve.

------------------
“On a day when they could have had impact players David Terrell or Koren Robinson..they took Georgia defensive tackle Richard Seymour, who had 1 sacks last season in the pass-happy SEC and is too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end. This genius move was followed by trading out of a spot where they could have gotten the last decent receiver in Robert Ferguson and settled for tackle Matt Light, who will not help any time soon.”

PatsFanInVa

Well Nik, B5 and I already started the conversation about inheritance in another thread. I'll bring down the howls of the committed cons, but the thinkers at the time of America's founding, and those they based their thinking on -- including icons of libertarian property rights theory -- basically said inheritance is a bad idea.

But then they thought it was okay to leave enough so your minor children and/or widow wouldn't go hungry.

But they were against the idea that you could set them up in luxury for life, with plenty left over. They were talking about enough so they could eat & had a roof over their heads until the kids made it on their own. Certainly no heirs that were heirs for a living, for their whole lives.

So some limited inheritance concept was okay.

B5 has pointed out that people would just hide their assets, as they do to make make themselves poor on paper by passing assets to their children, then leech off the medicaid system, a system specifically for the indigent.

To the question, "what would you do [with dead peoples' wealth], redistribute it?"...

I think our founding fathers would say yes. I think Adam Smith -- Adam Smith -- would say yes. I think Locke would say yes.

In their time, that might mean leave the home while the widow is alive and the children are chidren, and leave them some decent stipend to live on. It doesn't take a genius to realize that most common people wouldn't have to worry about the government getting their hard-earned bucks... it would be the big earners who would have to worry.

In our time, "redistribution" is not even at issue. Were you to tax inheritance after, say, the first 500K (starting at some low percentage,) with the percentage growing to, say, 70% at 10 million, you could just apply that money to debt for quite some time before the question of "redistribution" even comes into play.

But it's the same principle, right?

So is that principle horrible? That is, that those who grew and thrived and lived wonderful lives within the American society, would at death leave much of their wealth to that society -- to their workers, to their consumers, to their neighbors and their countrymen?

Why's it horrible? Their children earned it no more than their countrymen (yet we will leave a quite valuable advantage to them... just not an even better advantage.)

And assuming one can find the asset hiders (seems like it's simple enough to suss out gigantic gifts and transfers,) what exactly would be wrong with that?

I know I'm about to hear from rightists telling me there's no reason to make 5 million and 1 dollars if you can't give it to your child at the end, but for some reason guys like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are pledging to leave one half their money to charity... so I don't get that.

I guess my conclusion on this one, is that our notion of unlimited inheritance is inherently unfair, inherently inimical to any principle of self-reliance and personal responsibility, and deeply anti-democratic. It reeks of aristocracy and priviledge.

I'm not a wide-eyed radical. I don't want stormtroopers to stomp into the family estate the afternoon of the funeral, kick the widow out in the street, and move a bunch of homeless people into the kids' bedrooms.

But I do think as a nation we've totally missed the boat on this one. We've forgotten our roots and where we came from. We think we're protecting ourselves from the big bad government if really rich people can perpetuate their wealth generation after generation without working and contributing, or while only doing a little of each, and that at the best jobs.

I say screw that.

Now about the kid that's the equivalent of the hatchling on the beach: I guess my reaction is that we shouldn't have beaches full of hatchlings. We should have something a little more human as an expectation... if that just doesn't exist for some, well, the world ain't perfect. You keep trying (you don't give up, and just rest on the hatchling/beach metaphor, right? I mean, they're people, not turtles.)

But I don't want to come up with the latest greatest theory about saving the poor. Right now I'm thinking we have a hard enough time preserving a middle class in this country. Sure I want to alleviate the pain of poverty, but it seems like where we are now, it's just as important to keep more people from slipping into poverty from the middle class. Otherwise we'll end up with more "new poor" than we have "chronic poor."

Okay, just shooting from the hip again, answering a couple of questions, bringing down the rightwing if not righteous wrath of my fellow posters, etc.

PFnV

The Brandon Five

I'm not so sure that the phenomenon of multiple generations living off the wealth of their grand-parents is as common as you think.

By the Numbers: Recipe for Riches - Forbes.com

PatsFanInVa

Gee. I wonder whether these numbers are reported with impeccable rigor, or perhaps self-reported...? And for that matter, I wonder how one counts it if one receives "nothing but" one's home and position in a family business, while one's parents are alive, then strikes some brilliant deal to not only perpetuate but to add to the family fortune, devolving into one's own coffers as well as the family biz?

Dad owns two stores, you have had a job at the top of that little world for life -- but you increase the success of the business ten-fold. Are you self-made? But of course you are. After all, you made your fortune while the old man was still alive. You were rich on your own. Then he kicked off somewhere down the road and left some unimportant pittance when you were rich already, right?

I hear ya, B5, but I'm pretty sure the "Self-made man" reading Fortune likes to see others like himself in that magazine's pages. And each of them likes to think he was born in a log cabin, unless it is demonstrably not the case.

Do we really think that some 3/4 of the 400 wealthiest Americans went from penurious orphanhood to their present state of wealth? If not, a very different mix is involved in reality, in terms of "inherited a portion" of their fortunes.

Most likely, it seems that the 'rents would confer advantages while still alive, then die, and after the kids are enormously wealthy, leave them an inheritance. The kid reports that he did not inherit his fortune in any appreciable way -- ohhhhhh let's say maybe the last 10 million of a fortune of a billion bucks.

Decimal dust, right?

PFnV

The Brandon Five

So your idea of a "level playing field" is for everyone to start in "penurious orphanhood"? Do those with less than 10 million don't get a leg up from their parents as well, or is that the cutoff where we can assume that there they had certain advantages (education, health care, etc)?

State

Ah, you blew it on this one, buddy.

It's marriage.

In a hypersexualized world of MTV slut videos and porn dog nation, the institution of marriage, at least in the minds of 82% of 13- to 18-year-olds according to a recent survey, should be as intended.

You know, traditional, one-man, one-woman. For. Life. That's amazing to me.

How this will play out--and society's outcome in the process--is as fundamental as it gets.

Source: Fox News on the Love and Fidelity Network True Love Revolution

Keynesianism has already been effectively debunked by B.M. Anderson and Henry Hazlitt in their books, which I have read. But I'm a nerd.