Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhen the G-20 meets in Pittsburgh next week, French President Sarkozy will urge world leaders to make two moves -- one immediate and one long-term -- that have the potential to temper capitalism's worst abuses and reassert human values at the national and international levels.
Sarkozy's aides say he will walk out of the summit of presidents and prime ministers from the world's most developed countries if the leaders fail to endorse a plan to curb bonuses for bankers.
That's the immediate demand. And it is an important one, as it could put the G-20 in the unusual position of trying to tame -- rather than cheer on -- the banksters and corporate CEOS that have so unsettled the global economy.
But even more important will be the French president's push to "revolutionize" international definitions of development, progress and achievement.
In recent decades, those measures have pretty much begun and ended with the bottom-line details of economic growth and wealth accumulation.
But Sarkozy says he wants to use the G-20 gathering as the launching point for a "fight" against what he describes as the "cult of figures" and the "cult of the market."
"A great revolution is waiting for us. For years, people said that finance was a formidable creator of wealth, only to discover one day that it accumulated so many risks that the world almost plunged into chaos," argues the French leader. "The crisis doesn't only make us free to imagine other models, another future, another world. It obliges us to do so."
Sarkozy's "revolution" would still use measures of economic growth and contraction in the analysis of a nation's success. But the definition would be expanded beyond traditional gross domestic product (GDP) models to include measures of well-being and what Sarkozy describes as "the politics of civilization." These include environmental sustainability, the quality of public services and the amount of time citizens of a country have to meet family responsibilities -- which the French leader values as "personal services provided within a family circle."
Sarkozy, a conservative who was elected on a platform that promised to make the French economy more efficient and workers more productive, is not proposing some new-age fix for what ails the global economy. Rather, he is arguing that it is time to "refound" capitalism within what he describes as "moral" parameters in response to the now year-old global economic downturn and an equally serious decline in public confidence about the direction of nation states.
The broader measures are outlined in a report Sarkozy commissioned almost two years ago from a team of Nobel Prize-winning economists who have been critical of standard approaches to measuring the progress of nations, including American Joseph Stiglitz and Indian Amartya Sen, as well as Jean-Paul Fitoussi, the internationally-respected president of the French Observatoire des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
The report from France's Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress proposes a global "statistical system which goes beyond commercial activity to measure personal well-being..."
That's what Sarkozy will be talking about in Pittsburgh next week, as the G-20 gathers. And he won't be alone. Stiglitz will be in the city, as well, joining civil-society leaders and activists to discuss the development models and measures at a September 23 forum sponsored by The Nation, the Institute for Policy Studies and a coalition of grassroots groups.
Says Stiglitz, "GDP is an attempt to measure one part of what is going on in our society which is market production. It is what I call GDP fetishism to think success in that part is success for the economy and for society."
Stiglitz, the former chief economist of the World Bank, argues that, "While there is no single indicator that can capture something as complex as our society, the metrics commonly used, such as gross domestic product, suggest a trade-off: one can improve the environment only by sacrificing growth. But if we had a comprehensive measure of well-being, perhaps we would see this as a false choice."
Getting beyond false choices, contends the winner of the 2001 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, will allow for sounder policy-making on the parts of governments and global groupings such as the G-20.
"What we measure affects what we do," explains Stiglitz. "If we have the wrong metrics, we will strive for the wrong things."
Using sounder measures will also increase the legitimacy of governments in the eyes of citizens, says Sarkozy.
That's a message that could resonate with at least some G-20 leaders, especially if the French president delivers it in the terms he used in Paris Monday.
"For years, the official figures have boasted of more and more economic growth," Sarkozy said at the Sorbonne. "It now appears that this growth, by placing the future of the planet in danger, destroys more than it creates? All over the world, people are convinced that we are lying to them, that the figures are false, or worse, faked. Nothing could be more damaging to democracy."
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
I wouldn't mind being more harmonious with a woman that looks like Carla Bruni!
but seriously...JakobFabian was absolutely correct on another thread...bring back regulations that work...we don't need to "reinvent the wheel"
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 12:21pm
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/09/murder-suicide-in-chimerica.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/15/2009 @ 12:26pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/15/2009 @ 12:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--If Obama putting tariffs on tires leads to serious economic problems for the U.S.--just don't blame Obama, whatever you do!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 12:30pm
TAKE A LOOK AT THIS PICTURE:
Revealed: The ghost fleet of the recession
By SIMON PARRY
Last updated at 6:34 PM on 13th September 2009
The biggest and most secretive gathering of ships in maritime history lies at anchor east of Singapore. Never before photographed, it is bigger than the U.S. and British navies combined but has no crew, no cargo and no destination - and is why your Christmas stocking may be on the light side this year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article- 1212013/Revealed-The-ghost-fleet-recession.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/15/2009 @ 12:38pm
the link doesn't work frosty...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 12:43pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 12:43pm |
Yeah it does...just gotta strip out the instances of %20 in the URL.
Chartering an entire freighter dropping from $300k to $10k...egads.
Rent them out as floating hotels!
Posted by snowball777 at 09/15/2009 @ 12:58pm
Of course Johnny Nichols cheers any attempt to end capitalism and implement socialism-no surprise.
Fortunately, Sarkozy doesn't run the US.
I would hope Obama would have more sense. However, having just listened to him engage in the worst kind of leftist class warfare in his speech to autoworkers, we cannot be too hopeful. I think he is beginning to show more and more that he does not wish to be president of all of the United States. He only wants to appeal to those who do not recognize his current speech for what it is, hate speech. Pitting one class against another has always been popular with a segment of the left. After all, that's the training that marxism provides.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 1:00pm
bring back regulations that work...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 12:21pm
Does a hammer work?
For pounding a nail? Yes. For fixing a watch? No. What is the goal of the regulation?
There are some here who believe the goal of regulation is to prevent any person from being too successful.
The Libertarians want only to prevent force and fraud.
Anybody else willing to opine on what the goal(s) should be?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/15/2009 @ 1:00pm
snowball777: "Yeah it does...just gotta strip out the instances of %20 in the URL."
muchas gracias!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 1:02pm
bring back regulations that work...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 12:21pm
darin: "Does a hammer work? For pounding a nail? Yes. For fixing a watch? No."
--right! so ditch the hammer and BRING BACK the tools that were in place to fix the watch. see JakobFabian's post in "The No Shame Zone"--a well thought out and well put defense that strong regulations that could have avoided this mess were in place, then taken away, should be put back in force.
darin: "What is the goal of the regulation?"
-to prevent what happened! recession happened when the "watch fixing" regulations were taken away...
darin: "There are some here who believe the goal of regulation is to prevent any person from being too successful."
--the "hammer" regulations didn't successfully prevent a recession...and, sadly, the governmental powers-that-be simply bailed out the companies who "hammered" them into getting rid of the "watch fixing" regs!
darin: "The Libertarians want only to prevent force and fraud."
--so they should be against bailouts, especially for those who helped create the recession.
darin: "Anybody else willing to opine on what the goal(s) should be?"
--to prevent recession (and no more bailouts)
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 1:10pm
Illustrative once again that the center right in Europe would be very leftish here.
However wasn't Sarkozy calling for French workers to work longer hours & take fewer benefits? Even if employed by a bunch of benevolent capitalists, this would be disagreeable.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 1:15pm
Rent them out as floating hotels!
Posted by snowball777 at 09/15/2009 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Great idea. 40 foot containers are already a big hit for housing.
Now what is this going to do the traditional Asian relationship of capital flows?
US buys Chinese goods, sends dollars to China.
China buys US Treasury debt with dollars, sends dollars back to US.
Posted by OneVote at 09/15/2009 @ 1:16pm
re: Sarkozy, from wikipedia:
"Personal wealth"
"Sarkozy declared to the Constitutional Council a net worth of 2 million, most of the assets being in the form of life insurance policies.[31] As the French President, one of his first actions was to give himself a raise: his yearly salary went from 101,000 to 240,000 (to match his European/French peers)[citation needed]. He is also entitled to a mayoral pension as a former mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine. He also receives a yearly council pension as a former member of the council of the Hauts-de-Seine department."
--if only we could all have big life insurance policies, give ourselves huge raises, and have multiple pensions! ... we'd all be set!
--or, we could all be like his wife--make boat loads of money as a model and singer/songwriter! --- surely our concerns would turn to the more "holistic" rather than be about money!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 1:21pm
Sarkozy will get heat about making the French finance industry noncompetitive in a global financial marketplace if he insists on stringent regulation.
Personally, I don't think I really care about regulating investment bankers and hedge funds. My objection is to bailing them and, by extension, their investors when they make bad decisions.
Let em gamble. And let them live with their losses. Just keep them away from taxpayer money. And when they destroy the economy, it should be built back up with direct support to taxpayers, not to supply side losers.
Posted by Buddy33 at 09/15/2009 @ 1:29pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 1:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I think you've nailed it.
In other words, make do with less, and be happy about it, and don't forget to pay your taxes. These characters will be sitting on some sunny island gettaway beach sipping martinis while we are being grateful for food on our plate.
Posted by OneVote at 09/15/2009 @ 1:30pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 1:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I think you've nailed it.
In other words, make do with less, and be happy about it, and don't forget to pay your taxes. These characters will be sitting on some sunny island gettaway beach sipping martinis while we are being grateful for food on our plate.
Posted by OneVote at 09/15/2009 @ 1:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--be careful agreeing with me OneVote--Mask and others don't like me/find me annoying because I "complain" (read: speak my mind!) too much! heheh!
--your post reminds me of the (very few) rich/wealthy people I know (plus how rich people are often harpooned--I think accurately--in popular culture): when you have money, you don't talk about it!--it's "rude"!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 1:38pm
Buddy33: "Personally, I don't think I really care about regulating investment bankers and hedge funds. My objection is to bailing them and, by extension, their investors when they make bad decisions. Let em gamble. And let them live with their losses. Just keep them away from taxpayer money."
--Hedge funds are barely regulated as is. I have a buddy who works in South Boston (not to be confused with "Southie") for a computer/software company that helps Hedge Fund companies track their investments and make sure they are in "compliance" with regulations...but it's truly quite minimal as he tells the story. As far as investment bankers: I disagree wholeheartedly that they shouldn't be regulated. People's 401ks, etc are placed in mutual funds, etc...and most people don't know much about investing...yet the investment bankers need these people's money to get rich (reminds me of when WEEI--a local sports radio station, holds it's Jimmy Fund telethon--the vast majority (probably 85-90%) of pledges are $20 or less---same with most investment banks: without "relatively" small contributions from many, many small guys; the big guys can't get rich...and the little guy needs to be protected.
Buddy33: "And when they destroy the economy, it should be built back up with direct support to taxpayers, not to supply side losers."
--this makes me ponder the "trickle-down" theory of economics...if it's incorrect (or at least a poor theory) then why should investment banks, automakers, etc. be bailed out? seems any lawmaker who voted for bailouts w/ the rationale that these companies are "too big too fail" is impliedly admitting the veracity of "trickle-down" economics (in that they give the line that the big guy needs to be saved for the little guy to not feel it)
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 1:50pm
--be careful agreeing with me OneVote--Mask and others don't like me/find me annoying because I "complain" (read: speak my mind!) too much! heheh!---Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 1:38pm |
No...it's the odd "selectivity" of your complaints, I find...interesting.
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2009 @ 1:59pm
Posted by OneVote at 09/15/2009 @ 1:16pm |
Highly dependent on the experiment to increase domestic demand in China.
If it works, they won't need to sell to us (at least not for the bargain basement prices of the last two decades) and we'll get price inflation (and more jobs lost at Wal-Fart).
If it doesn't, then the game continues and we'll have monetary inflation instead.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/15/2009 @ 2:07pm
Posted by snowball777 at 09/15/2009 @ 2:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It will be interesting to watch. China free float of Yuan will be killer.
We may have to invade, er....bring democracy to China.
Posted by OneVote at 09/15/2009 @ 2:23pm
--be careful agreeing with me OneVote--Mask and others don't like me/find me annoying because I "complain" (read: speak my mind!) too much! heheh!---
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 1:38pm |
No...it's the odd "selectivity" of your complaints, I find...interesting.
Posted by Mask at 09/15/2009 @ 1:59pm | ignore this person |
--like frosty zoom essentially having the same complaints about Obama that I do but you never getting your panties in a twist about his posts?!...heheh!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 2:30pm
don't like me/find me annoying because I "complain" (read: speak my mind!) too much! heheh!
--your post reminds me of the (very few) rich/wealthy people I know (plus how rich people are often harpooned--I think accurately--in popular culture): when you have money, you don't talk about it!--it's "rude"!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 1:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Maskie really has a big heart, he is just a "little" misguided. He reads too much Third Way stuff from the progressive policy institute.
Found an article that is basically verbatim on Maskie's election take.
'But before the party's presidential candidates start channeling the neo-populist muse, they may want to take a closer look at the last two national elections. A comparison of exit polls from 2004 and 2006 suggests that Democrats may have won in 2006 in spite of their economic appeals, not because of them. And if that's true, they should be wary of running on a stridently populist message in 2008'
PPI | Front & Center | September 28, 2007 Does Populism Win Elections? By Michael Miller - Excerpt
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=127&subsecID=171 &contentID=254451
What the article means to say is that Obama was not electable with populist messages that Corporate Fascists (the puppet masters) don't like. See Healthcare Debate. Obama wouldn't have made it past the primaries without populist appeal.
Maskie is centrist, but that centristism is really another name for status quo.
PPI is the Progressive Policy Institute, but they are really the Centrist Corporatist Policy Institute. PPI is the former propanganda arm of the DLC.
As to "don't talk about money" - Limo Liberals like Nancy Pelosi for instance?
Posted by OneVote at 09/15/2009 @ 2:37pm
OneVote: "Maskie really has a big heart, he is just a "little" misguided."
--define "little"...heheh. Oh, and I bet (maybe $100--heheh) that Mask responds to my response to you rather than to you!
OneVote: "He reads too much Third Way stuff from the progressive policy institute. Found an article that is basically verbatim on Maskie's election take."
--More OWNERSHIP of Mask! Yikes!
OneVote: "Maskie is centrist, but that centristism is really another name for status quo."
--exactly correct (about that centrism and Mask)
OneVote: "As to "don't talk about money" - Limo Liberals like Nancy Pelosi for instance?"
--her too!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 2:41pm
OneVote: "As to "don't talk about money" - Limo Liberals like Nancy Pelosi for instance?"
--her too!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 2:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"We are going to clean up the swamp and get out of Iraq and hold Bush accountable" [sound pretty populist to me]
says the gal who is worth:
'The Pelosi family has a net worth of nearly $19 million as of 2007, largely from investments. In addition to their large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, the couple also owns a vineyard in St. Helena, California, valued between $5 million to $25 million. Pelosi's husband also owns stock, including $5 million in Apple Computer. Pelosi continues to be among the richest members of Congress'
Wiki
Posted by OneVote at 09/15/2009 @ 2:54pm
However wasn't Sarkozy calling for French workers to work longer hours & take fewer benefits? Even if employed by a bunch of benevolent capitalists, this would be disagreeable. Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 1:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
do you know how many hours a week the French typically work?
35 hours. so making it 40 hours sounds hardly like a tragedy.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 3:00pm
OneVote: ""We are going to clean up the swamp and get out of Iraq and hold Bush accountable" [sound pretty populist to me]"
--I recall! Bush hasn't been held accountable. And the wars (plural) rage on...
--Guess once they got in power they forgot about what they promised.
OneVote: "says the gal who is worth: 'The Pelosi family has a net worth of nearly $19 million as of 2007, largely from investments. In addition to their large portfolio of jointly owned San Francisco Bay Area real estate, the couple also owns a vineyard in St. Helena, California, valued between $5 million to $25 million. Pelosi's husband also owns stock, including $5 million in Apple Computer. Pelosi continues to be among the richest members of Congress' Wiki"
--must be nice! glad she's looking out for all those soldiers, giving them a chance to come home and make a life of their own someday...I know at least a dozen guys (and two women) from my hometown area who are in the National Guard and have done 3, 4, and even 5 four-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan! A cousin of mine is an E-9 in the AirForce, he's a career military man so he doesn't have the same right to complain as someone in the National Guard (plus he's a supply guy; so he doesn't see combat); but he's been in Afghanistan 6 different tours! 6! With Obama (and Pelosi, et al) not living up to their promises to get us out of there...he'll probably go another 6 times!
I wonder if Pelosi's kids or nieces and nephews are over there? (RHETORICAL QUESTION!)
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 3:00pm
However wasn't Sarkozy calling for French workers to work longer hours & take fewer benefits? Even if employed by a bunch of benevolent capitalists, this would be disagreeable. Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 1:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person do you know how many hours a week the French typically work? 35 hours. so making it 40 hours sounds hardly like a tragedy. Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 3:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--so bumping up 40 to 45 here wouldn't be a "tragedy" either, right? heheh.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 3:09pm
Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/09 @3:00pm
Not everybody is in a swivel chair. Some are toting barges & lifting bales.
I had a small biz myself. You know what I did when I found it hard to get someone to do some shitwork that required about a weeks labor? I did it myself.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 3:25pm
sorelish: "Not everybody is in a swivel chair. Some are toting barges & lifting bales."
--you mean an extra 20 hours a month, 240 hours a year, for the same pay, when you're doing physical labor, is something laborers should just accept?! heheh
sorelish: "I had a small biz myself. You know what I did when I found it hard to get someone to do some shitwork that required about a weeks labor? I did it myself."
--good work! although not every business is small, and not all small business owners have the time or are able...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 3:30pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/15/2009 @ 12:26pm
Thanks for sharing the link to that article Frosty. It doesn't paint a pretty picture, but it's spot on.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/15/2009 @ 3:32pm
'The problem with capitalism is that capitalists are so greedy.' -- Herbert Hoover
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/15/2009 @ 3:34pm
The G-20 needs more capitalism, not less....
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/15/2009 @ 3:35pm
AND...a huge does of common sense.
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/15/2009 @ 3:36pm
'The problem with capitalism is that capitalists are so greedy.' -- Herbert Hoover Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/15/2009 @ 3:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
...and the people elected to regulate them are spineless!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 3:37pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 3:30pm
Buy cheap & Sell high (top)
Work less & Make more (bottom)
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 3:39pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 3:30pm Buy cheap & Sell high (top) Work less & Make more (bottom) Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--translate to complete sentences and tell me what part of a post you're referring to...that would be nice!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 3:42pm
do you know how many hours a week the French typically work? 35 hours. so making it 40 hours sounds hardly like a tragedy. Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 3:00pm |
And if you count the time they're out on strike, the average drops below 30!
Posted by snowball777 at 09/15/2009 @ 3:55pm
'The problem with capitalism is that capitalists are so greedy.' -- Herbert Hoover
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/15/2009 @ 3:34pm
Indeed, and then after the crash the Lenins (1917) and the Hitlers (1933) get on the soapbox with their "solutions" to the problem. Thank goodness the worst we've seen has been the demagogery of Andrew Jackson and William Jennings Bryan.
Posted by Mistral at 09/15/2009 @ 4:00pm
do you know how many hours a week the French typically work? 35 hours. so making it 40 hours sounds hardly like a tragedy. Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 3:00pm | And if you count the time they're out on strike, the average drops below 30! Posted by snowball777 at 09/15/2009 @ 3:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--nice!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 4:01pm
I wonder if Pelosi's kids or nieces and nephews are over there? (RHETORICAL QUESTION!)
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 3:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Support our Troops...whatta a laugh.
Posted by OneVote at 09/15/2009 @ 4:03pm
someone to do some shitwork
they have immigrant labor for this, just like we do.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 4:04pm
There is no rationale to massively revert back to the age of fairly SIMPLE banking (commercial & investment) just as there is no rationale for the masses to go back to living on the farm to reduce carbon footprint.
There is one very, very simple proposal to bring risks back down to a more earthly level, and it has been floated on numerous occasions and BOTH parties have opposed; though mostly the Dems in the recent 9 years!
That is, to make the originator of any financial product, say a $1 Billion of whatever (mortgages, commercial paper, lease payments, bonds...), to retain liability for a good portion of the original-issue amount, for say the half-life of that security.
This would be akin to a car maker providing a 6-yr, 72-k mile bumper-to-bumper warranty regardless of how many owners there will be.
He who makes the products must be made to stand behind it for a reasonable period of time! Accountability solved!
Posted by Happy at 09/15/2009 @ 4:06pm
AND...a huge does of common sense. Posted by YourJomamma at 09/15/2009 @ 3:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
as do you.
have you seen France?
in German we have an expression :
er lebt wie Gott in Frankreich.
it's still true. living like god in France.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 4:07pm
Sarkozy is right - the way we measure a society's success is skewed. American society in general, and our "health care system" in particular, put relentless pressure on American workers to work more hours/household. It should be obvious to everyone by now that there are alot of traditional household functions that cannot be successfully outsourced, at least on a reasonable budget.
Less stuff, more time to read (to your kids at least).
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 4:14pm
true. the trade off is money vs free time. I haven't had a wage job in over 30 years. my furniture is found on the street, I rent an apartment, AND I have over 1,000 books.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 4:20pm
I wonder if Pelosi's kids or nieces and nephews are over there? (RHETORICAL QUESTION!) Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 3:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person Support our Troops...whatta a laugh. Posted by OneVote at 09/15/2009 @ 4:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--precisely!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 4:27pm
He who makes the products must be made to stand behind it for a reasonable period of time! Accountability solved! Posted by Happy at 09/15/2009 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person |
--I don't know about "solved"...if our gov't "leaders" are willing to bail them out b/c they're too big!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 4:29pm
true. the trade off is money vs free time. I haven't had a wage job in over 30 years. my furniture is found on the street, I rent an apartment, AND I have over 1,000 books. Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 4:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--except for the aforementioned "immigrant labor" right?...heheh
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 4:32pm
Emile,
Though there is a trade-off, as you say, I think there is also pressure for families to get a minimal level of security - health insurance & a house (though I'm a renter too). For people not in the upper class this means that (for a two-adult household) one parent's job provides the living expenses and the other's job pays for health insurance & child care with maybe a little left over. Heaven help single parent households.
Single payer health care would make it possible for many more of those family-values conservatives to actually have a traditional family where parents spend time with their children. It's interesting that they are so willing to sacrifice their core values to a bogus economic ideology.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 4:41pm
I've had health insurance and I've not had health insurance. having health insurance is much better, if expensive.
I currently pay $600 a month for two, and that is a subsidized rate for low income people.
fortunately my son is smart enough to get his college paid for with federal and state grants. he was also offered a full scholarship at another public college.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 4:49pm
I'm not sure what security owning a house offers, in light of recent events, that renting does not offer. unless you own it free and clear.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 4:51pm
Completely agree - it seems to be a perceived security - but you are more or less renting from the bank until you're several years into it.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 4:58pm
Though there is a trade-off, as you say, I think there is also pressure for families to get a minimal level of security - health insurance & a house (though I'm a renter too). For people not in the upper class this means that (for a two-adult household) one parent's job provides the living expenses and the other's job pays for health insurance & child care with maybe a little left over. Heaven help single parent households.
Single payer health care would make it possible for many more of those family-values conservatives to actually have a traditional family where parents spend time with their children. It's interesting that they are so willing to sacrifice their core values to a bogus economic ideology.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 4:41pm
Your premise is simply incorrect. Many middle class families do well with just one income. My oldest son is a good example. He makes less than 6 figures living in the same duplex that he has rented for more than 15 years in the South Bay area of Los Angeles (no low cost of living there). My daughter-in-law (a RN) stays at home because they have a 3 year old and a 10 month old. What it takes is a recognition that you must be disciplined with your money; you don't go out being a consumer junkie. And I know many others like them. It's all about choices.
When I was a young parent, I worked two jobs, plus drawing the GI bill while going to school so that my wife could stay home with the children. She did so until they were in school.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 4:59pm
in NYC we have rent stabilization. here's what that means.
when I moved into my apartment 19 years ago, way uptown, where most folks feared to tread, my rent was $750 a month, market level, for a very large pre war two bedroom.
today, when folks no longer fear the nabe, my rent is $1,200. that is the exact same amount of money. now that's stable. market level now is twice as much.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 5:05pm
A short time ago, I read that the richest man in Europe was a Swede. And since nearly everyone in Sweden is quite comfortable, who gives a shit!
My father-in-law lived in Sweden for many years. When his son received a selective service registration notice back in the 60s. he put his son, daughter & wife on a plane & sent them back to Sweden.
His son got his education in Sweden & returned to the US and now works here. His daughter, now a nurse, when asked by her dad why she didn't return with her brother, said, "Dad, I don't like the capitalist system."
His son is very prosperous here, but he's most proud of his daughter. As a sailor & blue collar working man with years of experience in both Sweden & the US (he's seen the world), he believes the Swedish system is hands down the best. He's still here because he's retired & remarried to my wife's mother who doesn't want to move to Europe.
I don't consider this off topic because there are many similarities between France & Sweden in what people want & demand out of life.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 5:21pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 4:59pm
antisocialist, I knew I'd get a personal anecdote from you. Yes, it's possible to make it with one parent working. For many people it's extremely difficult. And I think the way health insurance is structured makes it doubly difficult. Also, the way health insurance and jobs are structured tends to make it difficult for both parents to spend some time with the family - you typically don't get health insurance with a part-time job, so if both parents wanted to work, say 30 hours a week apiece so the family total would be 60 hours, but each parent would share in the household & childrearing tasks, it would make it difficult to get reasonable health insurance. I agree that there are people who choose more consumer goods or an oversize house over family time.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 5:23pm
I'm not sure what security owning a house offers, in light of recent events, that renting does not offer. unless you own it free and clear.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 4:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--you're kidding, right? if you buy a house (and get a mortgage) that you can ACTUALLY AFFORD ... when you finally pay it off, even if your taxes, upkeep, etc is the same or more than what a renter in your neighborhood would pay...you still get to sell the house later....EQUITY...ever heard of it?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 5:27pm
e kidding, right? if you buy a house (and get a mortgage) that you can ACTUALLY AFFORD ... when you finally pay it off, even if your taxes, upkeep, etc is the same or more than what a renter in your neighborhood would pay...you still get to sell the house later....EQUITY...ever heard of it?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 5:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And then you move into what after cashing out & claiming your EQUITY?
A home is NOT a freaking investment!
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 5:40pm
A home is NOT a freaking investment!
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 5:40pm
And maybe if we rejected the "cult of the market" we'd figure that out.
The "house as investment" is another good example of how seriously awry "conservative" values are.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 5:49pm
Now THAT is some seriously funny shit!
Why can't we just take the rest of our lives off....
for family....
for the environment....
for WTF ever.
Direct deposit baby, send me my check.
We're just printin' money anyhow.
Posted by bleedingheart at 09/15/2009 @ 5:49pm
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 5:49pm
Think that maybe LFTO isn't the only basement dweller posting on this site.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 6:00pm
e kidding, right? if you buy a house (and get a mortgage) that you can ACTUALLY AFFORD ... when you finally pay it off, even if your taxes, upkeep, etc is the same or more than what a renter in your neighborhood would pay...you still get to sell the house later....EQUITY...ever heard of it? Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 5:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And then you move into what after cashing out & claiming your EQUITY? A home is NOT a freaking investment!
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 5:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--if the example is "move into what" -- a renter and buyer, if everything else is equal (same salary at their job; same savings, paying close to the same for rent vs. mortgage [+insurance+taxes])---the renter will have to continue to pay for rent through his salary or dip into savings; the owner can sell his house and pay for rent (probably for a good long time--depending on sale price--w/out paying for it with his salary or dipping into savings)
--I mean, you have to be kidding that it's not more beneficial to be a homeowner, right? That's the whole premise behind Chris Dodd and Barney Frank WANTING financial instiutitions to give favorable loans to poor people--to "level the playing field"
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:03pm
A home is NOT a freaking investment! Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 5:40pm And maybe if we rejected the "cult of the market" we'd figure that out. The "house as investment" is another good example of how seriously awry "conservative" values are. Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 5:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--so people who own apartments and rent them out--that's not an "investment" for them either, right? I mean, by your logic, they're doing the work of upkeeping/maintaining a place just to break even. And if a house isn't an investment, why does anyone want to own a house?
--I agree that people who buy a house hoping to "flip" it shouldn't be bailed out. They're treating it like a business venture, and if they fail (if the market goes south on them)...boohoo. But people who buy a house, and spend 20, 25, 30+ years in it--you really think they won't sell for a profit? (I mean, maybe not for incredible 200+ profits, but they will still, more times than not, make money)-- or that they're not better off than someone who rented that whole time and can't use the proceeds from a house sale to pay for where they will live?
My grandfather and grandmother bought a big duplex when my dad was five (he has 3 sisters). They raised my dad and aunts on one side; and rented out the other. Thankfully my grandfather never got seriously sick and he died there at 94. If he had gotten so sick to the point where he needed to go in a nursing home (or a full time nurse needed to be hired)...that house could have been sold and paid for it and then some....
you think a renter has that same luxury?
GET A CLUE PEOPLE!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:16pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:03pm
Who the hell said it's not more beneficial to be a home owner? You're the one who implied the investment angle.
Maybe you should be a little more specific in what you state.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 6:19pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:03pm
You forgot to mention the big fat tax break, which even people with second homes get (if they have a mortgage on them).
I'm not speaking for Sorelish (obviously) - but you are right that if you hang in there and actually build up equity or buy your home outright, it is wonderful to own a home. However, many, many people have played the real estate market as an investment market (and recently, alot of people lost on that). This kind of negates the whole idea of owning a home. Guess who benefits.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 6:22pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:03pm Who the hell said it's not more beneficial to be a home owner? You're the one who implied the investment angle. Maybe you should be a little more specific in what you state. Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 6:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I "implied" the investment angle? You're kidding, right? My 5:27pm post is the first time I chimed in on this and I didn't use the word "investment" once...I talked about "EQUITY"
and this is how you responded: "A home is NOT a freaking investment!"
cdlepthien also agreed with you.
And, again, by the way, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank COMPLETELY DISAGREE with both of you. They want banks to make favorable loans to poor people to "level the playing field"...it's because owning a home is far more advantageous, in the long run, to renting...it's called EQUITY!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:24pm
cdlepthien: "I'm not speaking for Sorelish (obviously) - but you are right that if you hang in there and actually build up equity or buy your home outright, it is wonderful to own a home. However, many, many people have played the real estate market as an investment market (and recently, alot of people lost on that). This kind of negates the whole idea of owning a home. Guess who benefits."
--I shed no tears for "flippers" or for people who buy huge houses and extend themselves (or the banks that take the risks that people will be stretched way thin but be able to afford a long mortgage)...and I'm against the gov't bailing the banks or those people out
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:30pm
You forgot to mention the big fat tax break, which even people with second homes get (if they have a mortgage on them).
this is a gov't subsidy, socialism for the middle class and the rich, that second home part is for the rich.
them that gots, get.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 6:32pm
them that gots, get.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 6:32pm
Yeah, the second home mortgage deduction just really pisses me off. I find it odd that in all the agonizing about the budget deficit it never, ever comes up.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 6:41pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:24pm
Take out a second mortgage or better yet if you're of age, a reverse mortgage & go shopping!
You've got equity, man!
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 6:42pm
You forgot to mention the big fat tax break, which even people with second homes get (if they have a mortgage on them). this is a gov't subsidy, socialism for the middle class and the rich, that second home part is for the rich. them that gots, get. Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 6:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--as you already mentioned; the gov't keeps your rent affordable.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:43pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:24pm Take out a second mortgage or better yet if you're of age, a reverse mortgage & go shopping! You've got equity, man! Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 6:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I'm 30. I have very little savings; and don't make much...renting is what I've got!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:44pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:16pm |
Your entire post is based on the assumption that values always rise (thus making your 'equity' worth more than your wallpaper), but we've just seen that this is not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination.
There are legion buyers who are underwater and CAN'T just sell their house to pay bills or rent.
Liquidity: heard of it?
As a renter who came into the workforce as this bubble was going into hyperinflation, I count myself lucky not to have any outstanding mortgage debt.
Until the Case/Shiller started flattening out, the prices on the houses I've been looking at were dropping by more than my rent each and every month. In the meantime, the money that will one day be my downpayment was invested in....equities.
And, unlike your Grandad's duplex, I can sell my shares on a whim.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/15/2009 @ 6:53pm
Lots of cheap houses, and I mean cheap, right here in Detroit.
We've got a new mayor and everything!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/15/2009 @ 7:00pm
snowball777: "Your entire post is based on the assumption that values always rise (thus making your 'equity' worth more than your wallpaper), but we've just seen that this is not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination."
--my folks bought their house for a little less than $20k in 1980. It maxed out (so far) in the early 2000s at around $250,000. Today they could sell it for about $175,000 .... if you want to compare the max price to now?...sure, you're correct...but you own a house long enough, you will be hard pressed to not see it's value rise. And even if they sold it today for what they bought it for in 1980 ($20k); that's still $20k the renter doesn't make.
snowball777: "There are legion buyers who are underwater and CAN'T just sell their house to pay bills or rent."
--I'd like stats on people who've owned their house for at least 20 years who are underwater.
snowball777: "Liquidity: heard of it?"
--you mean, do I feel sorry about "flippers" or people who overextended themselves not being able to make back what they paid originally? not even a little.
snowball777: "As a renter who came into the workforce as this bubble was going into hyperinflation, I count myself lucky not to have any outstanding mortgage debt."
--if someone bought their house within the last few years and is upset because it's not worth what they paid for it; they can relax; breathe, and realize in 15-20 years their house will most likely be worth considerably more. what it's "worth" now is just a number if you're not looking to sell it. if you can't afford your mortgage payments; well, I don't feel sorry for you if you overextended yourself. And if they want to sell it and don't want to take a loss --- boohoo!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 7:03pm
snowball777: "Until the Case/Shiller started flattening out, the prices on the houses I've been looking at were dropping by more than my rent each and every month."
--yes, it's a good time to buy. That's what happens in a market. Later it will be a good time to sell. Then later a good time to buy...
--my brother bought a few months ago a 2000 square foot ranch for just over $100,000. The buyers were "motivated." Good time to buy.
--it was a GREAT time to sell just a few years ago. one of my uncles got "piggish" (as my father puts it) and kept saying no to tremendous offers on his house (they had a cottage on a lake they were in the process of rebuilding to make into their full time home)...he waited about 6 months too long...sold it for about $150,000 less than what ended out being his highest offer just the previous year. Them's the breaks.
snowball777: "In the meantime, the money that will one day be my downpayment was invested in....equities."
--good for you! aren't choices grand!
snowball777: "And, unlike your Grandad's duplex, I can sell my shares on a whim."
--is that supposed to mean it's "better"? equities aren't guarantees!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 7:08pm
--as you already mentioned; the gov't keeps your rent affordable.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:43pm
I think when you rent a house out, it's under a completely different set of tax rules. The second home mortgage deduction is pure gravy for the rich.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 7:14pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:44pm
I live in an antique ( mostly original) by Pacific Northwest standards (1860's) with additions in the 1920s. Nothing to marvel at from an age standpoint by your New England standards.
All the best in securing your piece of the rock.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 7:16pm
--as you already mentioned; the gov't keeps your rent affordable. Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:43pm I think when you rent a house out, it's under a completely different set of tax rules. The second home mortgage deduction is pure gravy for the rich. Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 7:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I must admit I'm not familiar with this law...could you provide a link so I could check it out? thanks man.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 7:20pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 6:44pm
I live in an antique ( mostly original) by Pacific Northwest standards (1860's) with additions in the 1920s. Nothing to marvel at from an age standpoint by your New England standards. All the best in securing your piece of the rock.
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 7:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--your place sounds lovely (and just as old as most homes people live in here).
--thank you for your well-wishes (although, quite frankly, I'm quite ok with renting!)
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 7:23pm
correction to my above post..."and just as old as most OLD homes people live in here"
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 7:24pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 7:20pm
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html#en_US_publink100037152
ualified Home For you to take a home mortgage interest deduction, your debt must be secured by a qualified home. This means your main home or your second home. A home includes a house, condominium, cooperative, mobile home, house trailer, boat, or similar property that has sleeping, cooking, and toilet facilities.
A house you own and rent out is treated differently, unless you reside their part of the year. I once was a landlord, and remember this part. If you want to peruse the tax code, go ahead.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 7:47pm
I think when you rent a house out, it's under a completely different set of tax rules. The second home mortgage deduction is pure gravy for the rich.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 7:14pm
Actually, a large number of the middle class partake in this benefit.
RV's qualify for the home or 2nd home mortgage deduction. As do time shares and trailers (if fully equipped with kitchen and bathroom).
And I know a lot of middle class families with vacation cabins and the like that all qualify for the 2nd home deduction
Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 7:48pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 7:20pm http://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html#en_US_publink100037152 ualified Home For you to take a home mortgage interest deduction, your debt must be secured by a qualified home. This means your main home or your second home. A home includes a house, condominium, cooperative, mobile home, house trailer, boat, or similar property that has sleeping, cooking, and toilet facilities. A house you own and rent out is treated differently, unless you reside their part of the year. I once was a landlord, and remember this part. If you want to peruse the tax code, go ahead. Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 7:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--i haven't checked the link yet, perhaps you can save me some time--what's teh tax break for the second home under this law?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 8:01pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/15/2009 @ 7:48pm
You are probably right that there are middle class people taking advantage of this - I didn't realize it included boats & rv's 'til I copied that piece of irs explanation for urmygyro. In fact, I'll bet my brother is taking advantage of it (he's alot richer than I am, but definitely middle class).
I tend to think of second homes as the $million++ monstrosities that infest the valley I live in.
Anyway, I still think that in a country running huge deficits, it's inappropriate to give people big tax breaks for luxuries. I also know that because of the role of the construction industry in the economy, it's unlikely that they will do away with the deduction anytime soon.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 8:02pm
Anyway, I still think that in a country running huge deficits, it's inappropriate to give people big tax breaks for luxuries. I also know that because of the role of the construction industry in the economy, it's unlikely that they will do away with the deduction anytime soon. Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 8:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--seems to be a "stimulus" law for the very purpose you wrote above...
still like to know the actual break (how much?)
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 8:08pm
still like to know the actual break (how much?)
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 8:08pm
It's the same break you get on your first home, i.e., you can deduct the interest on your mortgage from your income when you go to pay your taxes. What country are you from?
This is a permanent rule that is in place whether the economy needs stimulating or not, and it is probably at least partly responsible for the stupid housing bubble.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 8:26pm
still like to know the actual break (how much?) Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 8:08pm It's the same break you get on your first home, i.e., you can deduct the interest on your mortgage from your income when you go to pay your taxes. What country are you from? This is a permanent rule that is in place whether the economy needs stimulating or not, and it is probably at least partly responsible for the stupid housing bubble. Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 8:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I've never owned. Why do you have a problem explaining this to me?
--I don't get what you wrote; so I'll go read the link. thanks.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 8:33pm
I'm sorry, urmy.
If you get a mortgage, you can subtract the interest that you paid on the mortgage from your income, each year, on your income tax form, which means you pay less in taxes.
So how big the deduction is depends on how big the mortgage is. Since most mortgages are structured so that you pay a higher proportion of the interest in the early years, and more of the principal as time goes on, you typically get a bigger tax break in the early years of your mortgage.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 8:48pm
Mr. Nichols, above, said (about the French president).
"...........Sarkozy, a conservative who was elected on a platform that promised to make the French economy more efficient and workers more productive......."
Some bloggers above have mentioned the short work week in France. Others have mentioned the strikes.
Added to that are also the periods of time when French workers are on vacation!
Now, back to Sarkozy's promise......talk about a promise for which there would be no possibility of being able to deliver! He must have been drinking too much French wine when he made that promise!
Posted by sjchermak at 09/15/2009 @ 8:49pm
I'm sorry, urmy. If you get a mortgage, you can subtract the interest that you paid on the mortgage from your income, each year, on your income tax form, which means you pay less in taxes. So how big the deduction is depends on how big the mortgage is. Since most mortgages are structured so that you pay a higher proportion of the interest in the early years, and more of the principal as time goes on, you typically get a bigger tax break in the early years of your mortgage. Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 8:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--this is normal procedure for owning one home?...or this is how it works on the 2nd home for the law you were talking about?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 8:52pm
--this is normal procedure for owning one home?...or this is how it works on the 2nd home for the law you were talking about?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 8:52pm
This is normal procedure for your first home, and for your second home, if you have one.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 8:57pm
With regard to the G-20 summit next month, the attendees will be in the proper location to learn about success.
NONE of the world leaders at this summit should be allowed to speak. NOT ONE!
Instead, people who should speak and tell the leaders the path to success would be people who have worked successfully at the location where the summit will be held.
So, I propose some of the following speakers for the G-20 summit.
Chuck Noll Franco Harris Jerome Bettis Rocky Blier Terry Bradshaw Mike Tomlin Lynn Swann Tony Dungy (was a coach for the Steelers) Bill Cowher Mean Joe Greene
Just a suggestion, it makes sense to me.
Each world leader could receive a souvenir Terrible Towel and tickets to the next Super Bowl where the six time winner Steelers will become seven time winner Steelers.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/15/2009 @ 8:58pm
them that gots, get.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/15/2009 @ 6:32pm
billie!
Them thats got shall get Them thats not shall lose So the Bible said and it still is news Mama may have, papa may have But God bless the child thats got his own Thats got his own
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/15/2009 @ 9:04pm
--this is normal procedure for owning one home?...or this is how it works on the 2nd home for the law you were talking about? Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 8:52pm This is normal procedure for your first home, and for your second home, if you have one. Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 8:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I'm not trying to play devil's advocate, i'm just trying to understand--what's the problem with being able to deduct the interest payments on your mortgage for your 2nd home (from your income) if you can do it with your 1st home?
is your argument that people should be limited to deducting interest on mortgage payments from their income ONLY on 1 home?
It doesn't seem unreasonable...I mean, people will have to pay property taxes on their 2nd home, still have to fill it with furniture, and appliances, and all the stuff people need to live--pay heating bills, hot water bills, electric bills, etc...pay gas money to get to that second house; they will put more into the economy of the town wherever that 2nd home is...etc...there's a lot that "society" will get back...
plus, how much income are people generally deducting using this part of the tax code?...what's the average amount for people who use this rule?
and how much is the IRS losing out on collecting each year b/c of this part of the tax code?
If anything, this gives less money to the federal gov't and more money to local gov't, no?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 9:06pm
Sarkozy knows his rhetoric will go nowhere internationally. It's aimed at French domestic opinion, to polish his fading image at home.
Posted by sloper at 09/15/2009 @ 9:37pm
The richest man in Europe may well be a Swede, Ingvar Kamprad, owner & founder of IKEA (name based on his initials), mulitibillionaire & former backer of a neonazi movement. He hasn't paid personal taxes in Sweden for decades, as he lives in the Vaud, Switzerland, where he simply negotiates a flat tax fee with local authorities, never having to declare actual income & assets.
Sweden's longtime richest family, the Wallenbergs, are personally sheltered behind a myriad of foundations & trusts, all unavailable to average Swedish taxpayers. The extremely rich do not have it hard in Sweden ... or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter.
Posted by sloper at 09/15/2009 @ 9:43pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 9:06pm
You could probably find the answers to those questions somewhere.
I don't have a problem with the mortgage interest deduction for a first home.
I believe that they abolished the deduction for credit card interest - someone correct me if I'm wrong - so if I go buy a horse, for instance, for personal use, and put it on my credit card, I won't be able to deduct the interest. Nonetheless, my horse will to contribute plenty of local economic activity -vets, farriers, hay farmers, etc. My argument is that while there is a case for special status for people's primary dwellings, there isn't a case for a special status for their toys, which second homes, boats & rv's are.
I don't think Americans need extra encouragement to borrow money. I also think the tax code has distorted the real estate market, though possibly not as much now as it did when interest rates were higher.
The valid argument for interest deductions generally would be that the lender is taxed on the interest income - so the borrower maybe shouldn't be taxed on the money that is interest outgo, so to speak. I have no idea how this plays out in the world of creative financial instruments - I expect the banks have managed to sleaze out of alot of the taxes on the interest income anyway.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 10:11pm
Lotsa dirt under the Swiss "neutral" rug. I'd never invest in Swiss gold, coin or bullion. But then I don't invest in anything. Takes every nickel I've got to live.
I've got my pride. After all I'm in the top 80th percentile in accumulated wealth & earnings!
Posted by Sorelish at 09/15/2009 @ 10:42pm
cdlephthien--how much the IRS is losing is a big question...this could be a mountain out of a molehill question.
plus, local gov't is collecting property taxes; it's not as if the rule let's people off scot-free.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 10:44pm
cdlephthien--how much the IRS is losing is a big question...this could be a mountain out of a molehill question.
plus, local gov't is collecting property taxes; it's not as if the rule let's people off scot-free.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 10:44pm
I'm not sure if that's the most important question - I think it's more a matter of fairness.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 10:51pm
all the ways discussed about how society still benefits (local property taxes, utilities, etc)...
if more is spent on that than is saved by the taxpayer who can deduct the interest on the mortgage from his income...
would it still be "unfair"?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 10:56pm
Oh, mercy, workers believe in the "Cult of the Market"! What's good for Boeing, is good for America!
From Post & Courrier
Boeing Co. employees vote to disband union
Monday, September 14, 2009
Boeing's newly acquired and now union-free plant in North Charleston makes aft fuselage sections for the aerospace company's new 787 Dreamliner jet out of lightweight composite materials.
Boeing Co. workers in North Charleston voted overwhelmingly to disband their union in a move that could give the region an edge in landing an aircraft plant the company is looking to build.
Of the 267 ballots cast, 199 were in favor of decertifying the election that made them members of the International Association of Machinists. The company was pleased; the union was disappointed.
The local plant makes rear fuselage sections for Boeing's 787, a new fast-selling lightweight jet that has been delayed by snags with suppliers and an eight-week strike last year by the IAM.
Boeing has said it would consider North Charleston and its manufacturing hub....A decision is expected by the end of the year.....
Posted by Happy at 09/15/2009 @ 11:03pm
Urmy, my friend, you REALLY need to find something else to do with your time that doesn't involve this blog.
Seriously the amount of time you spend posting here is downright alarming. I think you need some help.
Or perhaps to be gainfully employed?
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/15/2009 @ 11:06pm
Urmy, my friend, you REALLY need to find something else to do with your time that doesn't involve this blog. Seriously the amount of time you spend posting here is downright alarming. I think you need some help. Or perhaps to be gainfully employed? Posted by TexasFlood at 09/15/2009 @ 11:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--I have a job; that often allows me to spend much time on the interweb. I've been commenting at The Nation since 2003 or 4...I post a lot for a few months, then disappear...there was a while I didn't show up here for a couple years...
your concern is unnecessary, but thank you!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 11:09pm
all the ways discussed about how society still benefits (local property taxes, utilities, etc)...
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 10:56pm
How the hell does people using more utilities benefit society? The opposite is true. The planet is finite, which is why economic discussions drift off into never-never land, which was exactly Sarkozy's point.
Anyway, to partially answer your question
Had the federal government not allowed the mortgage interest deduction or employer-provide health insurance exemption, the Treasury would have seen about $184 billion (67.0 and 116.8, respectively) in more revenues in 2008 than it did. (This is from OMB Watch)
I don't know what proportion of the $67 billion was attributable to second homes. There are plenty of people who think the whole home mortgage interest deduction thing is a subsidy to the wealthy, but I haven't seen the breakdown.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 11:14pm
it's money being spent, hello!
how does the federal gov't collecting more income taxes guaranteed to help society? if it's spent on what I want...then sure, collect it...but it's being spent on 2 wasteful wars, bailouts, etc...I'd rather towns collect the money rather than Big Brother at this point.
how long would $184 billion last in Iraq?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 11:21pm
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 11:21pm
What are you talking about? yes, money being spent "stimulates the economy", but after a certain point we just run out of resources, hence my comment about purely economic discussions always ending up in never-never land. What did you think I meant?
I think government spending, and these tax deductions are a form of spending, should be targeted at socially desirable ends. Primary residence ownership might be socially desirable, but second home ownership is socially neutral or just self-indulgence, & the tax deduction for it is a sop to the wealthy & the real estate industry.
I don't like the military-industrial complex or stupid wars, either.
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 11:33pm
And, unlike your Grandad's duplex, I can sell my shares on a whim.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/15/2009 @ 6:53pm
The difference between owning a home (which is on more valuable than gold) and stocks is that stocks may become completely useless. Property, on the other hand, will never be useless. If you doubt that, take a look at the increasing population in the world. If you own your own sliver of the earth, you've done pretty well for yourself. Can't say the same for your stocks if the stock market crashes can you?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 05:51am
(which is on more valuable than gold)...whoops, should be, which is on terra firma, is more valuable than gold.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 05:55am
gold is useless.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 07:30am
Posted by Mistral at 09/15/2009 @ 4:00pm
How did the 1929 Stock Market Crash...
bring V.I. Lenin to power??!??!????
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 07:37am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 05:51am |
Depends on how you managed your stocks...I made money during the Nov '08 crash by shorting far and wide (pretty damn easy when there's no up-tick rule).
I agree that property has intrinsic value that my shares do not (I wouldn't be looking for a house otherwise), but I reject the idea that people should try to buy a house by any means necessary because "it's an investment".
It is an investment, over the long timeline, but it's not always a GOOD investment, depending on your situation, along the short timeline.
And I don't have to pay prop taxes on my portfolio in perpetuity either. :p
Posted by snowball777 at 09/16/2009 @ 07:54am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 7:03pm |
--my folks bought their house for a little less than $20k in 1980...
But they didn't pay $20k for the house...unless they bought it for cash. They took out a loan and, given the interest rates in 1980, probably paid at least $60-80k for the privilege over the 30 year span.
If they had rented and saved/invested the $20k instead, they'd probably have considerably more than $175k (~$220k assuming 8% returns).
--I'd like stats on people who've owned their house for at least 20 years who are underwater.
You'd have to tease out the people who tapped their equity first; no sympathy for those idiots.
--you mean, do I feel sorry about "flippers" or people who overextended themselves not being able to make back what they paid originally? not even a little.
Lack of liquidity hurts more than flippers though.
Anyone who needs to move (perhaps for a new job) will have to sell at a steep (20%) loss through no fault of their own. The days when someone could buy a home and live in it for decades are long gone.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/16/2009 @ 08:07am
how is the mortgage interest deduction fair, if it only goes to home owners? it is not given to an entire class of people , renters?
Posted by emile duBois at 09/16/2009 @ 08:09am
gold is useless. Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 07:30am |
Not true; it has many industrial uses!
Posted by snowball777 at 09/16/2009 @ 08:09am
of course it does, snowster.
but as a store of "wealth", it is useless.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 08:19am
gold is useless.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 07:30am
Tell that to the wealthiest people in the world. I agree, it's useless in a very practical sense. It's a decent conductor of current....copper is better.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 08:19am
this is cool:
http://www.pniok.de/hauptteil.htm
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 08:24am
Anyone who needs to move (perhaps for a new job) will have to sell at a steep (20%) loss through no fault of their own. The days when someone could buy a home and live in it for decades are long gone.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/16/2009 @ 08:07am
I was on the other end of that luckily. My wife and I bought a home in Seattle just for a place to stay versus paying rent and getting nothing back out of it other than a place to stay. We doubled and tripled up on our house payments and when we sold it 6 years later, we had more than 90% equity in the house. We sold the house for more than double what we paid for it.....but like I said, we were lucky.
Now, the house I live in has depreciated in value, but I don't care. I am not in the market to sell the house and don't intend to. 20 years from now, if I'm still alive, I'd bet the property the house is on will be worth significantly more than it is today.
But, people shouldn't buy homes to try to make money. Your home is where you live, plant your garden, let your kids play etc. That's the value in your home whether it's rented or outright owned.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 08:30am
CHANGE!
HOPE!
PATRIOT ACT!
Obama supports extending Patriot Act provisions
By DEVLIN BARRETT Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.
Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law's authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called "lone wolf" terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.
The provision on business records was long criticized by rights groups as giving the government access to citizens' library records, and a coalition of liberal and conservative groups complained that the Patriot Act gives the government too much authority to snoop into Americans' private lives.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 08:36am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 08:19am |
There's the potential for oxidation to be considered...which is where gold pulls into the lead (pun intended).
http://www.pniok.de/hauptteil.htm Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 08:24am |
Takes me back to my misspent youth swiping samples from the highschool chemlab. It's a minor miracle that I still have ten fingers.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/16/2009 @ 08:37am
chew on this, snowbert:
03 September 2009
Diebold Sells U.S. Elections Systems Business to ES&S NORTH CANTON, Ohio, Sept. 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/
-- Diebold, Incorporated (NYSE: DBD) announced today that it has sold its U.S. election systems business, primarily consisting of its Allen, Texas-based subsidiary, Premier Election Solutions, Inc., to Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S), a leading company in the election systems industry. The sale was consummated on September 2.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/US-Map-pre-merger.png
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/US-Map-post-merger.png
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 08:51am
sarkozy - a real conservative, not one of these crazy satano-aynrando anarcho-rightwing nuts we americans call "conservative".
vive sarkozy! if only the american rupublican party would take a deep breath and spit out all the ideological bugs they've swallowed over the years...
pump that stomach of the stupid, evil philosphy! PURGE STUPIDITY AND WICKEDNESS!!!
or not.
oh, and eff baucus - slave to the parasites? PARASITE!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 09:01am
I seem to recall Mask and others talking about Sarkozy as a big win for the "right" in France. Maybe "conservatives" and the Republicans can learn something from this form of "rightism" and import it.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/16/2009 @ 09:01am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 08:51am |
Yup. Probably the last place you'd want to see 'consolidation' taking root.
There've been some interesting papers by comp sci folks that analyzed the security and trustability of voting machines that were pretty damning...I'll post them later, if I can hunt down the links again.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/16/2009 @ 09:04am
SO THE GRAND HIGH SENATORIAL PARASITE SLAVE, BAUCUS, WANTS TO FORCE PEOPLE TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE PARASITES. THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!!
PROGRESS BABY, PROGRESS!!!!
BAUCUS AND YOUR LIKEMINDED PARASITE ADVOCATES - SHAME ON YOU...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 09:05am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/16/2009 @ 09:01am
I did???
Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 09:10am
snowball777: "But they didn't pay $20k for the house...unless they bought it for cash. They took out a loan and, given the interest rates in 1980, probably paid at least $60-80k for the privilege over the 30 year span. If they had rented and saved/invested the $20k instead, they'd probably have considerably more than $175k (~$220k assuming 8% returns)."
--they had already owned in Dallas before they moved up here. They paid for it up front. And don't be so sure that investing would have been more fruitful; my mother's 401k lost $30k last year.
snowball777: "Anyone who needs to move (perhaps for a new job) will have to sell at a steep (20%) loss through no fault of their own. The days when someone could buy a home and live in it for decades are long gone."
--those days aren't long gone...people who work for companies that move them around, again, boohoo!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 09:11am
how is the mortgage interest deduction fair, if it only goes to home owners? it is not given to an entire class of people , renters?
Posted by emile duBois at 09/16/2009 @ 08:09am | ignore this person | warn this person
--renters have many programs too...like your rent stabilization.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 09:12am
for decades parasitical health insurance companies have spent BUZILLIONS of their EXHORBITANT profits on buying YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND ORDERING THEM TO VOTE AGAINST YOU THE SCHMUK AND THE WELFARE OF THE COUNTRY.
they have CHOSEN to retard progress and profit off of needless misery and suffering in order to survive.
they are the very definition of "parasite". they have propagated the most wasteful, bloated, inefficient system in the civilised world for their own exhorbitant profit.
i believe in capitalism, but i do not believe EVERYTHING is better run for profit. the evidence backs me up.
i know how the insurance industry has behaved over the last few decades and they do not have my best interest in mind - nor anybody elses - and when it comes to healthcare, like security, thats scary...
PARASITES
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 09:13am
CHANGE!
HOPE!
PATRIOT ACT!
Obama supports extending Patriot Act provisions
By DEVLIN BARRETT Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.
Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law's authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called "lone wolf" terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.
The provision on business records was long criticized by rights groups as giving the government access to citizens' library records, and a coalition of liberal and conservative groups complained that the Patriot Act gives the government too much authority to snoop into Americans' private lives.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 08:36am | ignore this person | warn this person
--you can't criticize obama here! it's too "right-wing"!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 09:14am
Posted by urmygyro at 09/15/2009 @ 8:08pm
Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 8:26pm
Both of you are under a false understanding of the mortgage deduction and the limits that Congress has placed on it. Contrary to your beliefs, the wealth DO NOT deduct all of their mortgage interest expense, even on their primary residence.
Here is the IRS rule from Publication 936
<Fully deductible interest. In most cases, you can deduct all of your home mortgage interest. How much you can deduct depends on the date of the mortgage, the amount of the mortgage, and how you use the mortgage proceeds.
If all of your mortgages fit into one or more of the following three categories at all times during the year, you can deduct all of the interest on those mortgages. (If any one mortgage fits into more than one category, add the debt that fits in each category to your other debt in the same category.) If one or more of your mortgages does not fit into any of these categories, use Part II of this publication to figure the amount of interest you can deduct.
The three categories are as follows.
1.Mortgages you took out on or before October 13, 1987 (called grandfathered debt).
2.Mortgages you took out after October 13, 1987, to buy, build, or improve your home (called home acquisition debt), but only if throughout 2008 these mortgages plus any grandfathered debt totaled $1 million or less ($500,000 or less if married filing separately).
The dollar limits for the second and third categories apply to the combined mortgages on your main home and second home. >
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p936.pdf
As you can see, 1 million is the dollar limit on home value for the deduction I'm not listing category 3 because almost no one fits into it.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 09:16am
for decades parasitical health insurance companies have spent BUZILLIONS of their EXHORBITANT profits on buying YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND ORDERING THEM TO VOTE AGAINST YOU THE SCHMUK AND THE WELFARE OF THE COUNTRY.
they have CHOSEN to retard progress and profit off of needless misery and suffering in order to survive.
they are the very definition of "parasite". they have propagated the most wasteful, bloated, inefficient system in the civilised world for their own exhorbitant profit.
i believe in capitalism, but i do not believe EVERYTHING is better run for profit. the evidence backs me up.
i know how the insurance industry has behaved over the last few decades and they do not have my best interest in mind - nor anybody elses - and when it comes to healthcare, like security, thats scary...
PARASITES
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 09:13am | ignore this person | warn this person
--Barack Obama, President of the United States, is NOT looking to put insurance companies out of business.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 09:18am
antisocialist: "Both of you are under a false understanding of the mortgage deduction and the limits that Congress has placed on it. Contrary to your beliefs, the wealth DO NOT deduct all of their mortgage interest expense, even on their primary residence"
--I wasn't aware of this deduction before yesterday, so all my "knowledge" is from cdlepthian.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 09:19am
I seem to recall Mask and others talking about Sarkozy as a big win for the "right" in France. Maybe "conservatives" and the Republicans can learn something from this form of "rightism" and import it.
Posted by srjenkins at 09/16/2009 @ 09:01am
No thank you. He is more like the Clinton form of 3rd way Democrats.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 09:21am
Single payer health care would make it possible for many more of those family-values conservatives to actually have a traditional family where parents spend time with their children. It's interesting that they are so willing to sacrifice their core values to a bogus economic ideology. Posted by cdlepthien at 09/15/2009 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Actualy, in a two parent home where both work, the lessor of the two incomes in reality... And almost completely goes into......
Taxes.
It does for the middle class.........
And my wife took a job recently, not for the money ,but we are trying out the health care policy..... Complete coverage for only 20 hrs a month. .......
So keep drinking that $ 9 a cup crap!!
Posted by YourJomamma at 09/16/2009 @ 09:25am
'There is no rationale to massively revert back to the age of fairly SIMPLE banking (commercial & investment) just as there is no rationale for the masses to go back to living on the farm to reduce carbon footprint.'
"Happy," I see no reason whatsoever why we need newfangled funny paper like "credit default swaps." Nobody has explained why these things are good for us, and I believe nobody can. These are not real goods and services. They are false products with no real value. Get rid of them!
There can be no comparison between the deceitful financial schemes invented by the bankers and rubber-stamped by Congress in the last four decades and any useful or beneficial technology. All the bankers' recent inventions help them do is dupe their customers and each other, while avoiding oversight and accountability.
I repeat: Undo the entire deregulatory scheme of the last 45 years. Give us the New Deal back. It was never broken, and it didn't need to be fixed.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 09:32am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/16/2009 @ 09:01am | ignore this person | warn this person
the american "conservative" "brain trust" is all hepped up on some krazy koolaid - cynical, anarchic, elitist, rightwing, aynrandian fantasy...but coservatism?
perhaps a warped reactionary sense of nostalgia for a past that never quite was amongst the shock troops of poor voting dupe luddites and teabaggers, but conservatism????
i would posit that much of europe's success in social balance is the result of progressive CONSERVATISM, more than democratic socialism, and as mr. Bismark showed - a true conservative is pragmatic and capable of stealig a good idea here and there in order to help maintain long term societal order and cohesion without destroying initiative and drive.
the struggle of real conservativism is to simultaneously respect the past while navigating the future. this involves many things, including maintaining and encouraging a meritocracy while resisting the urge to soak the wealthy i the name of fairess - beyond basic social insurance.
but however u define conservatism i find it hard to think of this bizarre, antinomian, satanic lunacy we have here in america as "conservative"
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 09:38am
As a Cultist of the Market.....update for those following my misc. blurbs about one "Market" stock:
September 16, 2009 10:33 AM ET
Emerging Stock Report Initiates Independent Research Coverage On Cell Therapeutics, Inc.
Sep 16, 2009 09:31:18 (ET)
CALGARY, Alberta, Sep 16, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Emerging Stock Report, a leading provider of sector specific independent investment research, today initiated coverage on Cell Therapeutics, Inc. (CTIC, Trade )....
About ESR:
Emerging Stock Report is a leading provider....
About Cell Therapeutics, Inc.:
Cell Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops, acquires, and commercializes oncology products for cancer treatment. Its development portfolio includes....
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 09:39am
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 09:39am | ignore this person | warn this person
any tips on renewable energy companies? gubbament is offering to pony up 30% of initial cost of solar panel installation. no tax breaks later, but the equipment saves long term.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 09:44am
....tips on renewable energy companies?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 09:44am
Most of the Gubber subsidies will head outside of the US, like China, Spain and Germany....call that Magic's `foreign aid/apology payments' to make up for tariffs on Chinese tires and Buy American provisions of the Pork Bill.
Look into Applied Materials (AMAT).....it's best known for supplying chip-making capital equipments to Intel and Taiwan Semiconductors....but it's growing its cap-equip biz in solar. It sells the factory equipments to the actual end-product panel makers. Look to hold it for 2~4 years.....I expect it to double, maybe more!
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 09:56am
but however u define conservatism i find it hard to think of this bizarre, antinomian, satanic lunacy we have here in america as "conservative"
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 09:38am
It just the label the right wing has wrapped themselves in....stupid would be the more correct term. You are correct, they are anything but conservative. Take a look at W's tenure of "compassionate conservatism" and we see that our country is under a mountain of debt it may never be able to get out of.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 10:40am
It just the label the right wing has wrapped themselves in....stupid would be the more correct term. You are correct, they are anything but conservative. Take a look at W's tenure of "compassionate conservatism" and we see that our country is under a mountain of debt it may never be able to get out of.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 10:40am
That is Obama/Democrat debt.
<Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.
On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.>
http://tinyurl.com/cod629
Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 10:58am
expect it to double, maybe more!
Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 09:56am | ignore this person | warn this person
amat, eh? yeah - and i'm thinking all sorts of advanced materiel producers are good bets...
but no, hap - money has been allocated in the recovery act specifically to encourage installation of all sorts of RE (renewable energy) generation, including on-site distributed power generation.
it depends on the mode of generation (hydro turbine only gets u a 10% up front gubby give-back, for example, while PV - photovoltaic - gets a big fat 30% gubby givey).
in general the gubby givey is more supportive of the more highly developed technologies. our company plans to "buy american" as much as possible, since there are some fetal (as opposed to embryonic) stage producers here who are ready to expand en masse with proper encouragement from public and far seeing private initial support.
it IS a large part of the answer to our economic future.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 11:41am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 10:40am | ignore this person | warn this person
they were also masters of the confusion generating industry...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 11:42am
Maybe Sarkozy can write an article for the Nation?
Posted by pjcasey at 09/16/2009 @ 4:25pm
Posted by pjcasey at 09/16/2009 @ 4:25pm |
Oui, mais je ne desire jamais ιcriver pour des infants terribles.
Posted by snowball777 at 09/17/2009 @ 12:00am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article- 1212013/Revealed-The-ghost-fleet-recession.html
Posted by frosty zoom
In re: this article...
I wonder how much of that merchant fleet is insured by AIG. All those ships sitting in one spot. One typhoon and the US taxpayers will be on the hook for billions.
Posted by koroviev at 09/17/2009 @ 02:41am