In my youth in the fifties American cars were the sexiest things on the planet, and each year the car companies fought to make them even sexier.
Nowadays the only sex appeal the car makers can think of is to make huge ugly trucks and SUVs. Macho is the only kind of sexy. If the car is intended to be small, efficient and economical, they hate this and go into a kind of furious suicide wish. They make them as boring and ugly as possible. Remember Emma Peel's cars? Small cars can still be sexy. All that's required is for you to believe.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Bipartisanship
Bipartisanship isn't really to be expected. Politics is about getting elected, so the best thing to do when your side is out is to lay back and wait for the in party to fall on its ass. Inevitably. You snipe from the sidelines and try really hard to make it look like the other side is to blame for everything that goes on. This isn't rocket science.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Setting Goals
Logically life should proceed by
a. setting goals
b. trying to achieve them.
Do I have to mention that this is not the normal course of events?
The problem with modern day economic policy lies in step a. What is the goal of economic policy? Is it
a. maximizing global product or
b. maximizing domestic income?
I am definitely on the side of b. I could give a shit that China and India are thriving under free trade policy. The only thing I care about is
a. the maximum number of Americans are employed and
b. they are receiving the maximum possible salaries.
That's it. When those two things are achieved, I'm done. In order to evaluate the effects of free trade, I need to see that my two goals are in any way served by it.
As far as I am concerned, other countries are entirely on their own.
a. setting goals
b. trying to achieve them.
Do I have to mention that this is not the normal course of events?
The problem with modern day economic policy lies in step a. What is the goal of economic policy? Is it
a. maximizing global product or
b. maximizing domestic income?
I am definitely on the side of b. I could give a shit that China and India are thriving under free trade policy. The only thing I care about is
a. the maximum number of Americans are employed and
b. they are receiving the maximum possible salaries.
That's it. When those two things are achieved, I'm done. In order to evaluate the effects of free trade, I need to see that my two goals are in any way served by it.
As far as I am concerned, other countries are entirely on their own.
Monday, February 9, 2009
From Huffpo
Here is the link. This is so much what I think that I have copied it to here. We have been systematically looting the ordinary citizens of American to support the global economy. It's time for serious rebellion:
Commentators like to beat up on ordinary Americans. They're accused of borrowing mindlessly, of greed and materialism. Yet high levels of debt and consumption were not the result of millions of individual decisions by consumers. They were the result of a deliberate economic 'regime change' in the 1970s -- that transformed the US economy, and cut American incomes as a share of GDP.
The Great Depression 2.0 is just beginning to unfold. Bankers are bailed out while making a grab for bonuses. Ordinary Americans by contrast, are already being bankrupted, made jobless, homeless and hungry -- in huge numbers. But until recently it was these Americans that were heroically driving the global economy forward.
They did this by borrowing and spending. But they were not 'naturally' inclined to borrow. They were driven to it. By stagnating incomes, and by the deliberate policies of government, regulators and bankers.
While wages and salaries shrank as a share of the economy -- to the lowest level since the government began recording data in 1947 -- banks showered Americans with credit cards. 'Easy money' was spread around like confetti. And government urged Americans to spend. George Bush famously said "Shopping is patriotic" in late September, 2001.
Then Bush-Cheney doubled the deficit, bankers gambled and Americans borrowed and shopped. Consumers maxed out on their credit cards and mortgages and worked harder and longer -- squeezed by the demand for higher productivity. By so doing, they played a gallant role in driving forward the engine of US economic growth.
They did more. They powered global economic growth. China owes a great deal to American consumers -- as does Europe.
Today these same consumers are punished mercilessly for their heroism.
Take the latest jobless numbers. A rise of nearly 600,000 in January. Electrifying. The highest in the US for 27 years -- and we're just at the beginning of Depression 2.0 -- courtesy of George Bush, the Federal Reserve and the reckless finance sector. There are now about 13 million Americans unemployed or under-employed. That's an awful lot of people. And a frightening level of individual and household stress, isolation and anger.
But it is worse than that. Not only have Americans lost jobs, income, health care and self-esteem -- they've lost their homes too. Last year there were 3,157,806 foreclosure filings -- an 81 percent increase from 2007 and a 225 percent increase from 2006. That's millions of Americans losing their family life, their comforts, their investments and their security. RealtyTrac projects another 2 million homes will be lost in this way over 2009.
And it gets even worse. By November, 2008, 31 million Americans needed government help for the most basic necessity of life -- food. This is an increase of 14% in just one year. And as the data is slow to catch up with layoffs, hundreds of thousands more will have joined the food stamps queue by now.
From 1945 to the 1970s Americans produced and manufactured food, goods and services -- in the post-war period called 'the golden age'.
They were dull but prosperous times. Sundays were Sundays. 24/7 was a distant reality. People had jobs. Companies made profits. Bank managers talked to their customers. And there were no financial crises -- at all -- between 1945 and the 1970s.
But this 'golden age' was to be overturned. The revolution was launched by a highly ideological group of economists -- mainly of the Chicago School.
Decision-makers in government and at the Fed, seduced by their economic theories -- decided that it would be better and more profitable if Americans stopped producing and making things. They argued that there was no harm in the United States relocating 4.5 million jobs abroad -- mainly to China -- between 2001 and 2009. US workers could switch to service jobs such as hairdressing, retail and real estate -- with long working hours.
The revolution was started by Chicago's first convert -- Richard Nixon in 1971. It was carried forward by the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Soon it became more profitable to grow money from money than to grow maize, textiles or steel.
Building up debts and deficits became acceptable. During the Bush-Cheney years the national debt doubled from $5.7 trillion to $10.7 trillion. 'Reagan proved ...deficits don't matter' said Dick Cheney in 2001.
Making money from money became the aim of economic policy. Chicago economists argued that private bankers could be trusted to create and distribute credit. That the US economy could safely be held aloft by a credit-fueled shopping spree. Shopping became the major economic activity.
Today the finance sector grabs more than 30% of domestic corporate profits -- double its share 25 years ago. And fully 75% of US GDP is down to personal consumption expenditures -- up from around 60% in the 1960s.
Today millions are jobless, homeless and hungry.
Their discontent threatens social upheaval and radical change. Another economic transformation will no doubt take root. But will the architects of America's financial collapse be identified and held to account for the suffering inflicted on millions of heroic and innocent American consumers? Or will it be the victims, once again, that will be blamed?
Commentators like to beat up on ordinary Americans. They're accused of borrowing mindlessly, of greed and materialism. Yet high levels of debt and consumption were not the result of millions of individual decisions by consumers. They were the result of a deliberate economic 'regime change' in the 1970s -- that transformed the US economy, and cut American incomes as a share of GDP.
The Great Depression 2.0 is just beginning to unfold. Bankers are bailed out while making a grab for bonuses. Ordinary Americans by contrast, are already being bankrupted, made jobless, homeless and hungry -- in huge numbers. But until recently it was these Americans that were heroically driving the global economy forward.
They did this by borrowing and spending. But they were not 'naturally' inclined to borrow. They were driven to it. By stagnating incomes, and by the deliberate policies of government, regulators and bankers.
While wages and salaries shrank as a share of the economy -- to the lowest level since the government began recording data in 1947 -- banks showered Americans with credit cards. 'Easy money' was spread around like confetti. And government urged Americans to spend. George Bush famously said "Shopping is patriotic" in late September, 2001.
Then Bush-Cheney doubled the deficit, bankers gambled and Americans borrowed and shopped. Consumers maxed out on their credit cards and mortgages and worked harder and longer -- squeezed by the demand for higher productivity. By so doing, they played a gallant role in driving forward the engine of US economic growth.
They did more. They powered global economic growth. China owes a great deal to American consumers -- as does Europe.
Today these same consumers are punished mercilessly for their heroism.
Take the latest jobless numbers. A rise of nearly 600,000 in January. Electrifying. The highest in the US for 27 years -- and we're just at the beginning of Depression 2.0 -- courtesy of George Bush, the Federal Reserve and the reckless finance sector. There are now about 13 million Americans unemployed or under-employed. That's an awful lot of people. And a frightening level of individual and household stress, isolation and anger.
But it is worse than that. Not only have Americans lost jobs, income, health care and self-esteem -- they've lost their homes too. Last year there were 3,157,806 foreclosure filings -- an 81 percent increase from 2007 and a 225 percent increase from 2006. That's millions of Americans losing their family life, their comforts, their investments and their security. RealtyTrac projects another 2 million homes will be lost in this way over 2009.
And it gets even worse. By November, 2008, 31 million Americans needed government help for the most basic necessity of life -- food. This is an increase of 14% in just one year. And as the data is slow to catch up with layoffs, hundreds of thousands more will have joined the food stamps queue by now.
From 1945 to the 1970s Americans produced and manufactured food, goods and services -- in the post-war period called 'the golden age'.
They were dull but prosperous times. Sundays were Sundays. 24/7 was a distant reality. People had jobs. Companies made profits. Bank managers talked to their customers. And there were no financial crises -- at all -- between 1945 and the 1970s.
But this 'golden age' was to be overturned. The revolution was launched by a highly ideological group of economists -- mainly of the Chicago School.
Decision-makers in government and at the Fed, seduced by their economic theories -- decided that it would be better and more profitable if Americans stopped producing and making things. They argued that there was no harm in the United States relocating 4.5 million jobs abroad -- mainly to China -- between 2001 and 2009. US workers could switch to service jobs such as hairdressing, retail and real estate -- with long working hours.
The revolution was started by Chicago's first convert -- Richard Nixon in 1971. It was carried forward by the Reagan and Clinton administrations. Soon it became more profitable to grow money from money than to grow maize, textiles or steel.
Building up debts and deficits became acceptable. During the Bush-Cheney years the national debt doubled from $5.7 trillion to $10.7 trillion. 'Reagan proved ...deficits don't matter' said Dick Cheney in 2001.
Making money from money became the aim of economic policy. Chicago economists argued that private bankers could be trusted to create and distribute credit. That the US economy could safely be held aloft by a credit-fueled shopping spree. Shopping became the major economic activity.
Today the finance sector grabs more than 30% of domestic corporate profits -- double its share 25 years ago. And fully 75% of US GDP is down to personal consumption expenditures -- up from around 60% in the 1960s.
Today millions are jobless, homeless and hungry.
Their discontent threatens social upheaval and radical change. Another economic transformation will no doubt take root. But will the architects of America's financial collapse be identified and held to account for the suffering inflicted on millions of heroic and innocent American consumers? Or will it be the victims, once again, that will be blamed?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Economics
I think when I am reading about economics that I see a lack of focus, a lack of standing back and looking at the big picture.
Why did America become an economic powerhouse in the first place? This was the result of the American state of mind, a place where it is believed that anything is possible. The American economy has always been extremely volatile. Businesses come and go. A store front might say "Since 1965," for instance. That's because in American terms that's a long time for a business to stay in the same location. In Italy one could imagine a sign that said "Since 1465." That would be something to brag about in old world terms.
I am writing these things because I am not seeing any sense in the media treatment of this subject.
In the larger picture volatility is good. If a business isn't cutting it, it is best for everyone if it fails and makes room for someone else. This logically includes General Motors.
I confess I am not comfortable extending this volatility to banks. Is it good for everyone if Bank of America fails? I'm honestly not sure. But then I am also not sure the government should extend loans so they can buy Merrill Lynch.
The superiority of the American economy derives from the individual American. We invent freely. We embrace the new. We both make and consume innovation with great enthusiasm. This is what makes us strong.
It is now almost 30 years since Ronald Reagan began the by now conventional wisdom that all economic objectives can be obtained by cutting taxes. This has resulted in huge growth by large corporations whose taxes have been cut and very little growth in the welfare of ordinary Americans whose taxes have generally not been cut.
I judge economic success solely on the basis of how well off the individual American is. I see the ordinary American trying to retain the sense of prosperity through increasing emphasis on borrowing. We want the illusion of prosperity and achieve it on credit. In the past people borrowed to purchase houses and cars. Now they borrow to purchase everything.
I think current free trade low taxes economic theory ignores the importance of the individual. We the ordinary American consumers are what drives the global economy. If our needs are perpetually ignored in favor of the needs of large multi-national corporations, can the global prosperity survive?
Why did America become an economic powerhouse in the first place? This was the result of the American state of mind, a place where it is believed that anything is possible. The American economy has always been extremely volatile. Businesses come and go. A store front might say "Since 1965," for instance. That's because in American terms that's a long time for a business to stay in the same location. In Italy one could imagine a sign that said "Since 1465." That would be something to brag about in old world terms.
I am writing these things because I am not seeing any sense in the media treatment of this subject.
In the larger picture volatility is good. If a business isn't cutting it, it is best for everyone if it fails and makes room for someone else. This logically includes General Motors.
I confess I am not comfortable extending this volatility to banks. Is it good for everyone if Bank of America fails? I'm honestly not sure. But then I am also not sure the government should extend loans so they can buy Merrill Lynch.
The superiority of the American economy derives from the individual American. We invent freely. We embrace the new. We both make and consume innovation with great enthusiasm. This is what makes us strong.
It is now almost 30 years since Ronald Reagan began the by now conventional wisdom that all economic objectives can be obtained by cutting taxes. This has resulted in huge growth by large corporations whose taxes have been cut and very little growth in the welfare of ordinary Americans whose taxes have generally not been cut.
I judge economic success solely on the basis of how well off the individual American is. I see the ordinary American trying to retain the sense of prosperity through increasing emphasis on borrowing. We want the illusion of prosperity and achieve it on credit. In the past people borrowed to purchase houses and cars. Now they borrow to purchase everything.
I think current free trade low taxes economic theory ignores the importance of the individual. We the ordinary American consumers are what drives the global economy. If our needs are perpetually ignored in favor of the needs of large multi-national corporations, can the global prosperity survive?
Friday, February 6, 2009
Unrequited Love
While I am thinking about it, one or two of my unrequited loves became something nice.
With me it was the requited ones that generally got me into trouble.
- There is D whom I adore and go to visit as often as I can.
- There is U who likes to sit in cafes and talk about the opera.
With me it was the requited ones that generally got me into trouble.
The current state of economics
I was listening to the radio to commentators on economics, and one of them was claiming that government regulation was bad and offered as proof the fact that credit swaps were not traded on a stock exchange. Trading them outside the stock exchange was called regulation and placing them for trade on the stock exchange was called deregulation. Well, guess what? Stock exchanges are regulated. In fact it was their regulated qualities that were sited for why they were desirable. (I'm for outlawing credit swaps altogether.)
One despairs. Listening to people talk about economics could make you cry and pull out your hair. I'm convinced whether or not things go well is just a coincidence.
I would like to propose a criterion for judgment. How will the product or behavior act in a bear market?
Think worst case scenario. I think it would be best to consider these things in advance.
In the conversation of these radio economists regulation seems to be equated with all government action by the public sector. We aren't proposing that all people appointed to government office are wise, or that decisions by government employees are naturally superior to those made in the private sector. Think Alan Greenspan.
I'm sure the average person has in mind that logical rules for economic activity will be set up and enforced, such as one assumes occurs at the SEC, and that this is what one means by regulation.
One begins to wonder if it is possible to know anything at all about economics.
One despairs. Listening to people talk about economics could make you cry and pull out your hair. I'm convinced whether or not things go well is just a coincidence.
I would like to propose a criterion for judgment. How will the product or behavior act in a bear market?
- How will we feel about all these dicey mortgages when the unemployment rate is rising?
- How desirable will credit swaps be when they are called upon to actually do something when businesses start to fail?
Think worst case scenario. I think it would be best to consider these things in advance.
In the conversation of these radio economists regulation seems to be equated with all government action by the public sector. We aren't proposing that all people appointed to government office are wise, or that decisions by government employees are naturally superior to those made in the private sector. Think Alan Greenspan.
I'm sure the average person has in mind that logical rules for economic activity will be set up and enforced, such as one assumes occurs at the SEC, and that this is what one means by regulation.
One begins to wonder if it is possible to know anything at all about economics.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Love
OC has this quote:
Anonymous: "Love that we cannot have is the one that lasts the longest, hurts the deepest and feels the strongest..."
Does it count that you had it and then lost it? I have had the habit of unrequited loves all my life, but I feel and regret none of them today.
Anonymous: "Love that we cannot have is the one that lasts the longest, hurts the deepest and feels the strongest..."
Does it count that you had it and then lost it? I have had the habit of unrequited loves all my life, but I feel and regret none of them today.
Denying the Holocaust
Every now and then people come on the scene who want to believe the holocaust didn't happen.
All I know is what I have experienced personally.
In Ulm in Germany where I lived in the middle seventies there was a sign on the side of one of the department stores telling that this is where the synagogue had stood and what year it had been burned down.
Now there is no synagogue because there is no one to go there. Why is there no Jewish subculture in modern Germany as there was in the past? If there was no holocaust, where did they all go?
All I know is what I have experienced personally.
In Ulm in Germany where I lived in the middle seventies there was a sign on the side of one of the department stores telling that this is where the synagogue had stood and what year it had been burned down.
Now there is no synagogue because there is no one to go there. Why is there no Jewish subculture in modern Germany as there was in the past? If there was no holocaust, where did they all go?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)