US Politics: OBAMAGATE - An American Story

[ants]

Ok, I've cut up your post into the above sections, Let's see how this goes, it was a LONG post.

49 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sorry to intrude, but I see a lot of things wrong in very few sentences.

The idea that business owners are "risk-takers" is an interesting one. I assume, for starters that we are here talking about new businesses, since obviously businesses that are already successful imply no risk.

I would disagree with the "no risk", but completely agree on "less risk".  But then, I also believe in high corporate taxes, high capital gains taxes, and wealth taxes.  So if the business is successful, they pay a lot in.  In the absence of these, I believe in high inheritance tax.

I did say I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcomes.  If you've built the business into a success, I believe you deserve a lot of rewards.  I also believe society will have helped you, and you need to pay a lot back in.  I'm less of a fan of rich kids getting a hand up.  

49 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Person? This is an odd choice of words, and I wonder how deliberate it is.
We all know that in 2020 corporations make loans. Generally private banks (at least in my country ^^), sometimes not (but I'll leave other cases aside, since we quicly get into "capitalism" itself).
So, sticking with banks... The reason it's important is that banks create money. They don't lend the money from deposits, nor do they lend the money from their own profits*. They are corporations that have the right to create credit and profit from it. They want guarantees, yes, but mostly because they want to protect their profits. The other things limiting money creation are linked to notions of value and trust.
To make it simple you can only create money as long as there is trust in its value, so there must be ways to protect trust and value. From a collective perspective, that's what private banks are supposed to be for. We trust the value of money because we trust the banks not to create too much money.
And of course, we are wrong on both counts.

*see for instance: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-banks-dont-need-your-money-make-loans.asp
Not the best reference obviously, but I'm a bit lazy today.

I don't really see the difference between a person or a bank lending.  Both will want a return commensurate with their perception of the risk they're taking (unless there are personal reasons to lend separate from financial).  Banks don't create money (other than Federal reserve banks).  Its why they get into trouble when their loans in and out have different maturity terms.  Yes, there is fractional reserve banking - but the money lended is still held against money either loaned by the bank, capital, or deposits.  Its why banks with higher deposit rates have a tactical advantage (in Australia) as it is a cheaper source of funding.  

Now, the Reserve Bank certainly can create money.  The USA's has been doing this since the GFC, by buying back federal bonds.  They've effectively been printing money.  But local banks still have a balance sheet, which has to be balanced, and prudential regulations setting out capital requirements.  

49 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yes, the banker conducts interviews.

It is wrong however to think that personal assets as collateral or exorbitant interest are necessary. In fact, in many cases there is neither. The fact that there are interviews to assess the quality of the project and the character of the borrower should be sufficient to protect trust.
But if you think about it both are also problematic because both are meant to protect the lender, i.e. the bank, and place the risk on the borrower. While this is meant to protect trust, it only works by assuming the banks are more responsible than borrowers (ha ha!).

Anyway... to come back to the "risk-taking" part. The mechanisms are well understood by people in high places, which is why regulations and practices vary from country to country. I'm not clear on the specifics but from what I know what you presented as fact is not true everywhere. The entrepreneurs that I now neither had to offer collateral nor take on exorbitant interest (this would be a "ridiculous" system, to use your term). Instead the state has a role in protecting the entrepreneur ; it offers both complementary loans and very generous fiscal terms to stimulate innovation. In the one area that I know of relatively well, electronics-IT, the state ensures that an engineer become entrepreneur gets not just a low-interest loan (we're talking under 1%, and quite often 0) to buy material necessities but two full years of -modest but decent- salary.
There is no risk-taking, none whatsoever.

All this is a long-winded way of saying that behind your assertions is actually an ideological choice. If what you say is true in Australia (and it no doubt is), it is because some people want this to be the case, so that "entrepreneurs" are seen as risk-takers and everyone thinks that they are owed something.
Something like exorbitant wealth for instance.

You think banks use interviews to decide business loans?  WTF are you Americans doing?????  For small business loans it depends on things like business plans, collateral, and the type of business.  For large business loans, it gets a lot more complicated.  

Which state are you referring to?  I know of some places where the Government will subsidise particular areas because they want an industry there (e.g. cinema filming in Australia), but I'm not aware of any government who subsidises across the board.  

Certainly I agree if there is no risk, there shouldn't be higher returns (ignoring skills and level of working).  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are you willing to accept, a minimum of (God only knows what he’ll try if he wins), 4 more years of Trump as the price to keep Biden out of the Oval Office?

That’s real question you have to answer with you advocacy against Biden.

God is suppose to treat us like an ant farm. To say he knows means he's willing to shake it rather than just watching it. 

I suspect God is in human form, angrier than all of us over the plague because he can't sleep with random people now. 

[Rippounet]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Marx’s comments on the necessity for the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and his definitions of its powers.

And does it matter?  Are you claiming there aren’t socialists who dislike this model because they want broad centralized powers for the State?

It matters a great deal, because it confuses the ends with the means.
And we all know that the ends don't always justify the means. Therefore, to associate Marxism with its -potential- means rather than it ends is a way of discrediting it entirely.

Marx himself did struggle with the problem, to be fair, and wasn't entirely 100% consistent about this. But it is, I think, the terrible result of propaganda that his thought is often associated with "broad centralized powers" when this is really Leninism.
Marx wanted the "dictatorship of the proletariat" yes, but he also wanted the proletariat to be ready to exercise power directly ; he thought the Paris Commune (a democratic institution) was the ideal example of this, and envisioned the workers developing political consciousness.
He did concede that force or revolutionary action would be necessary at times, but the point was not to establish a permanent centralized state; the state was but the means.

[OldGimletEye]

54 minutes ago, ants said:

I don't really see the difference between a person or a bank lending. 

The difference is that banks are better at collecting information about a loan than private persons.

54 minutes ago, ants said:

Banks don't create money (other than Federal reserve banks).  

Banks do create money. It's the reason why we often talk about outside money and inside money. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Dude, whatever makes you feel good about it.

Just call it freedom.

But yes, reading the last few pages, it is absolutely a form of socialism. All these governing and economy philosophies work on a spectrum, and Americans are absolutely socialists in some regards, even if they don't want to accept it.

Then again, welfare queens *cough* black women *cough* are evil leeches on society. Meanwhile that corporation over there that's state funded in many ways and robbing the people blind, please don't be too judgy about the titans of capitalism. 

When you divide and conquer for too long, and people wake up, well, you French know how that plays out. The guillotine was a nice touch, by the way. 

I prefer baseball though.

(My Dinos are now 9-1, with a late comeback victory. Because I was clearly an expert in the KBO, before ever learning about it a few weeks ago when I picked by team. We. Are. The. Dinos!)

 

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Americans are absolutely socialists in some regards, even if they don't want to accept it.

Once again, Americans often love socialism. Just don't call it socialism. You probably could convince a lot of Americans that the ownership of all the means of production by the state was a good idea as long as you called libertarian fairy dust.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Once again, Americans often love socialism. Just don't call it socialism. You probably could convince a lot of Americans that the ownership of all the means of production by the state was a good idea as long as you called libertarian fairy dust.

You forgot to wrap it in bacon.

With little flags all over it, of course, kind of like the umbrellas you get in some drinks.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

51 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It matters a great deal, because it confuses the ends with the means.
And we all know that the ends don't always justify the means. Therefore, to associate Marxism with its -potential- means rather than it ends is a way of discrediting it entirely.

Marx himself did struggle with the problem, to be fair, and wasn't entirely 100% consistent about this. But it is, I think, the terrible result of propaganda that his thought is often associated with "broad centralized powers" when this is really Leninism.
Marx wanted the "dictatorship of the proletariat" yes, but he also wanted the proletariat to be ready to exercise power directly ; he thought the Paris Commune (a democratic institution) was the ideal example of this, and envisioned the workers developing political consciousness.
He did concede that force or revolutionary action would be necessary at times, but the point was not to establish a permanent centralized state; the state was but the means.

What heavily centralized State has ever, voluntarily, surrendered power?

I’m happy to concede that what we are discussing is a form of socialism.  What I dislike is heavily centralized State managed socialism.

[Martell Spy]

Steve Linick: State Department official investigating Pompeo is fired
Latest move against independent executive branch watchdogs who have found fault with Trump administration

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/16/steve-linick-state-department-official-investigating-pompeo-is-fired

Quote

 

The Trump administration has fired the state department’s inspector general who is reported to have been investigating the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, for a potential abuse of office.

The inspector general, Steve Linick, was given notice of his dismissal late on Friday night and is to be replaced by Stephen Akard, a close ally of the vice-president, Mike Pence, from his home state of Indiana. A state department spokesperson said that Akard, who has been running the office for foreign missions, would take over immediately as acting inspector general.

According to a Democratic congressional aide, just before his abrupt dismissal Linick had opened an investigation into allegations that Pompeo had been using a political appointee at the state department to run personal errands for him and his wife, Susan.

 

 

[teej6]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Aren't you trotting out many of the well worn tropes that are used against women who make allegations of sexual assault?

Nope. I’m trying to analyze the events objectively instead of blindly believing an allegation. I heard her version of events and his denial. Since it’s a she said, he said account with no actual evidence, I’d rather analyze the facts and make a reasoned judgment than just join the mob and tarr and feather someone. The PBS reporters do exactly that. They tried to find the place she described where Biden assaulted her. They couldn’t. There can only be so much space between the 10 min route from Biden’s office to the Capitol where it could have happened.  Now, even if I can’t be certain of events based on this information, it does make me suspicious of her story. If this was argued in a court of law, Biden’s defense attorney would have a great argument — the place of the assault as the victim describes doesn’t exist. A jury would have reasonable doubt in this instance and that is the point of the article. And btw, I take offense to your implication that I’m against believing women who are assaulted. You know nothing about me. so please refrain from making judgments on my character.

[teej6]

53 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Once again, Americans often love socialism. Just don't call it socialism. You probably could convince a lot of Americans that the ownership of all the means of production by the state was a good idea as long as you called libertarian fairy dust.

I find it odd and hypocritical that many of these people who protest the welfare system, have no qualms about availing of the benefits of this system. There is a huge disconnect in their way of thinking. The biggest example of this hypocrisy was Ayn Rand, who collected social security checks. Her argument was that as long as it’s being offered, she might as well take it. Obamacare was the epitome of socialism for many of them, now a lot of them get their health care through this system. The most recent example of this hypocrisy was Mitch Mcconnell stating that blue state governments like NY should go bankrupt because they are mismanaged. Nevermind that tax dollars from people like me in these states keep Mcconnell’s state of Kentucky afloat. NY, in terms of federal tax dollars, is a net giver and Kentucky is a net taker. I don’t mind a system of redistribution of wealth in some form and will happily go on paying taxes so that the government can provide social services to the needy, even the needy in Kentucky. But when some of these very people then turn around and march with weapons to state houses, that’s when you fully realize the depths of their depravity and ignorance.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, teej6 said:

I find it odd and hypocritical that many of these people who protest the welfare system, have no qualms about availing of the benefits of this system. There is a huge disconnect in their way of thinking. The biggest example of this hypocrisy was Ayn Rand, who collected social security checks. Her argument was that as long as it’s being offered, she might as well take it. Obamacare was the epitome of socialism for many of them, now a lot of them get their health care through this system. The most recent example of this hypocrisy was Mitch Mcconnell stating that blue state governments like NY should go bankrupt because they are mismanaged. Nevermind that tax dollars from people like me in these states keep Mcconnell’s state of Kentucky afloat. NY, in terms of federal tax dollars, is a net giver and Kentucky is a net taker. I don’t mind a system of redistribution of wealth in some form and will happily go on paying taxes so that the government can provide social services to the needy, even the needy in Kentucky. But when some of these very people then turn around and march with weapons to state houses, that’s when you fully realize the depths of their depravity and ignorance.

Isn't one of the depressing things about growing up is learning that people are just often flat full of shit?

Anyway, as I've repeatedly harped about, the problem with the word "socialism" is that it's meaning changes so much in US political discussion it's hard to know what they hell is even being talked about. It's hard to argue the pro and cons of something when you don't even really know what is being talked about. The fact that its definition changes so often is obviously not often done in good faith.

 

[Zorral]

Whatever the perceived need is to vote for Biden, the fact remains that he's a shit candidate, embodying all the worst of the bankrupt DNC political establishment when it comes even to an idea: he just twitted an attempted attack from the right, on Trump, on being too soft on ... get this boyz and girlz ... Cuba.  Sigh.

The best response to that tweet was short and sweet: "Cuba is a better country than the USA by far and the whole world knows it."

The idea that Dems can keep trying to show how hard they are by using little Cuba ... for the very reason they believe there is no political downside to that ... well there is NO political upside to it either, and shows to many an undecided voter how utterly without ideas the Dems of those generations are.

It's watching Hillary all over again at the Dem Nom Con in PA, while in a Lancaster hotel room, and seeing absolutely no outreach to anybody -- not to the multiples of latino communities, to any other community either -- while our trip up into coal country showed the massive support already there for Trump and the massive hatred for her.  Knew she was going to LOSE.  Voted for her, but knew she'd lose.  And lose she did.

Now, if he was tweeting about how he and his team and the Dems are already making plans on how to actually take power when they beat Trump and Trump refuses to accept that, now that would be SOMETHING! But something - anything is just what the Dems are unable to do.

 

 

[dbunting]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Since the thread is locked and it was off-topic anyways,

@dbunting,

Gross negligence is a crime, and it's time we held white collar criminals accountable. Pretending the virus isn't real while leading to tens of thousands of needless deaths is absolutely a crime in my book.

He caused more people to die than OJ did, after all. Accountability matters. 

But OJ was criminally innocent, (at least the court of law says so), so you may have chosen your comparison more wisely! 

Unfortunately there is no way to measure or guarantee how many more/less would or will die due to his lack of action early on, so how do you decide guilt? IMO the only thing that would have truly minimized this would have been to lock the borders immediately, including locking out Americans who were abroad at the time. At the same time closing all airports, trains and buses nationally. We all know that had he done that he would have been vilified as a dictator. The disease would likely have impacted us less and his detractors would use that fact to say he over stepped his powers, similar to what we see playing out in states where governors locked down early. Sort of a no win situation. 

They probably took some appropriate measures early on but he is so bad at speaking publicly unless he follows a script that he undermines all of his own peoples efforts. 

The bad part is this is all going to have a huge impact on the upcoming election and we may be stuck with four more years of him. I can imagine that if he wins reelection that he will be even more brazen and just become more of a caricature of himself than he already is.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Now, I agree that right wingers often over play there hand on this, and suggest that capital owners need to be constantly coddled, have a glass of warm milk made for them while having their feet rubbed. And in the real world, it seems that the main determinant on whether a business makes an investment seems to be projected sales growth and not so much capital cost. And in the real world many businesses have a degree of monopoly power, meaning they are often earning returns above what would be required for them to make the next investment. But, even established businesses do consider potential risk when making investments.

Ah, but we're already talking about two different things.

I focused on the entrepreneur, the business creator, the one who may be factually described as "risk-taker" because -among other things- his income depends on his success AND he may be putting his personal assets at risk.

If you're talking about how a company or a capitalist might invest, you're already talking about something very different.
And for today, I'd rather underline the fact that the two are in fact very different: if we oversimplify a bit, the capitalist is only risking money.
And if we start looking at how things actually work today we quickly end up talking about "privatised profits and socialised risks," among other things because, quite obviously, everything is done to limit the risks taken by the capitalists.

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'll dissent somewhat over this. Bank lending can be thought of like healthcare markets, in the sense there are informational asymmetry problems. One party has more private information about their own state of affairs then another party. This can lead to adverse selection problems. During financial crises, these adverse selection problems can get amplified as fear and panic spread.

I am not sure I understand your point here exactly.

1 hour ago, ants said:

I don't really see the difference between a person or a bank lending.  Both will want a return commensurate with their perception of the risk they're taking

I do not have the knowledge or the vocabulary of the heterodox economists whose works I read, but the problem is precisely to think of the bank as if it were a person, when it is really not.
[The same is true of governments btw, there is a known fallacy of comparing the government to a household]

A person has a very limited amount of funds and may use these funds for personal consumption, or conversely risk their personal assets. A person puts at risk elements of their own life.

A bank is just an imaginary entity, an institution which -ideally- has a specific role to fulfill for the good of the community. A bank cannot take risks beyond its own existence and it can be argued that, as of now at least, some of its functions are guaranteed by the state.

1 hour ago, ants said:

Banks don't create money (other than Federal reserve banks).  Its why they get into trouble when their loans in and out have different maturity terms.  Yes, there is fractional reserve banking - but the money lended is still held against money either loaned by the bank, capital, or deposits.  Its why banks with higher deposit rates have a tactical advantage (in Australia) as it is a cheaper source of funding.  

Now, the Reserve Bank certainly can create money.  The USA's has been doing this since the GFC, by buying back federal bonds.  They've effectively been printing money.  But local banks still have a balance sheet, which has to be balanced, and prudential regulations setting out capital requirements. 

A few observations here:
- "Local banks still have a balanced sheet, which has to be balanced."

Except they are NOT balanced. To quote Mariana Mazzucato:

Quote

[In the UK] the customer funding gap (the difference between loans advanced and deposits from households) widened from zero in 2001 to more than 900 billion £ pounds in 2008, before the crisis cut it to less than 300 billion in 2011. (in the UK)

- It is traditional to think of the central banks as creating the money. But in today's structure all the decisions have been taken by the pivate banks. For all intents and purposes, the private banks are the ones that create the money.

To quote Ann Pettifor:

Quote

While it is true that central banks are responsible for both the issue and the maintenance of the value of the currency, they are not responsible for "printing" the nation's money supply. As the then-governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King once explained, it is the private commercial banking system that "prints" 95 percent of broad money (money in any form including bank or other deposits as well as notes and coins) while the central bank issues only about 5 percent or less.

 

1 hour ago, ants said:

You think banks use interviews to decide business loans?  WTF are you Americans doing?????  For small business loans it depends on things like business plans, collateral, and the type of business.  For large business loans, it gets a lot more complicated. 

Obviously you're supposed to bring a shitload of documents (business plans and all that) to the interview.

What, you have no personal contact with the banker in Australia?

1 hour ago, ants said:

Which state are you referring to?  

In this instance, France.

1 hour ago, ants said:

Certainly I agree if there is no risk, there shouldn't be higher returns (ignoring skills and level of working).

I'm going even further than that: that the idea that risk entails higher returns is also problematic.

Ideally, a healthy economy rests on Keynesian principles: low risks and low rates of interest. Which means a heavily regulated banking and financial sector.
In a nutshell, the complete opposite of what we have today.

 

[Zorral]

Biden's tweet also just distanced himself from one of the glorious achievement's of Obama's presidency.  That's how fucking stupid he is.

 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What heavily centralized State has ever, voluntarily, surrendered power?

This is a non-sequitur.

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

I am not sure I understand your point here exactly.

Probably would be helpful to understand the usual example of lemons in the used car market. Should be easy to google. But, in a nutshell, the market for used cars breaks down because the buyer of used cars doesn't know the quality of the used cars. The seller knows, that is he has private information about the state of the used car he is selling.

Think of people or firms looking for a loan as sellers of debt. Buyers of debt are banks. In this case, the sellers of debt have private information about themselves that the bank doesn't know, but tries to discover.

[Zorral]

Further, a WaPo journalist subscribed to each of trump's and biden's voter supporters' apps.  Trump's is engaging him all day long with something or other; Biden's? o ho hum, maybe here's something, once in a while.  He's just the fracking worst reflection of what the Dems are.

 

[King Ned Stark]

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Nope. I’m trying to analyze the events objectively instead of blindly believing an allegation. I heard her version of events and his denial. Since it’s a she said, he said account with no actual evidence, I’d rather analyze the facts and make a reasoned judgment than just join the mob and tarr and feather someone...

I agree.  The problem is that this is not a belief the Democrats ascribed to when accusations were cast on there political opponents.  Joe Biden being one, as a champion of #BelieveAllWomen and Title ix.