Pepper sprayed for public safety.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bite your tongue. The Allmans have never had a Confederate flag on any of their stuff. I recall an interview with Gregg Allman in which he joked about marketers trying to get the band to use the flag, and him having to remind them one of their drummers was black.

I like Skynrd fine (Second Helping is a brilliant, Al Kooper-produced record), but Skynrd and the Allmans are not interchangeable. I've seen the Allmans numerous times, and I think it'd be accurate to say 75% of their fan base wouldn't be caught anywhere near a Skynrd concert.

2. The Allmans are the Target to Skynard's Wal-Mart. No contest.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The notion building a highway magically creates tons of new, long term activity on the basis, "Build a paved road and they will come," is lunacy. It's the kind of idiot-think only a govt-planner or policy wonk, who never worked in an actual business, would advocate.

Actually, if you build highways, they will come. That doesn't mean that you should just build highways, but it does work that way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

2. Homes need to drop 10-20% to bring more first time buyers into the market in non-FHA products. The Dow needs to drop 2000 points, to bring individual investors back into the game, rather than allowing the hedge fund high-speed trading quant gambling circus we currently have to persist. We need an acute drop that ends the discussion, "Is this the bottom?" with a resounding, "Yes." Which would then be followed with, "So get in now. Invest while it's cheap. Buy because you'll never see a better deal."

If you think this is the solution, you're looking at the wrong problem.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Those people already have less money. Nobody save the wealthy is living like they have the money their portfolios, or their bloated home values, suggest. Everybody knows it's a lie - that it's all propped values. That's the essential weakness of the Fed's efforts. All they've done is create speculation at the margins because nobody thinks the current monetary fix will work. Nobody thinks another Stimulus will work. Everybody with a brain is simply trying to maximize returns and park as much as they can in safe havens in fear of the next imminent slump (wall of worry, etc.). All I'm advocating is a recognition of the truth that assets are really worth 75% of their current value. The sooner we recognize that, out loud, the sooner investors will say, "This is the bottom," and start investing in things that will help to bring back sustained economic growth.

It's hard to blame you for this blinkered confusing the state of the financial markets with the state of the economy, since we have an entire business press and political discourse that has completely forgotten that there is any sort of citizen other than the investor.

When people say that there is a problem with demand, they are saying that there is a problem with the economy that is entirely different from the whole paradigm that you're stuck in -- a problem that cannot be solved by figuring out how to get people off the sidelines and back to investing. The problem right now is not with a lack of investment. All of this supply-side crap that tries to spur investment is not going to help right now. I'm not saying it will never help. I'm saying it's not where we are right now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Yes, stimulus was the best course early on, when we were confronted with high unemployment, lack of job creation in the private sector, flagging consumer demand, and high rates of debt brought on by the housing crisis. Now that we're no longer confronted by those things, of course, we should certainly try laying off a whole lot more public sector workers and cutting taxes some more while we wait for the Job Kreators to create jobs with all that leftover cash. It's gotta happen sometime, right?

A few million more jobs, give or take.

A disinterested, ignorant, bought-off public will seek no changes until a true crisis is at hand. No politician will take any of the steps needed to start remedying some of our problems so long as punting-and-pretending keeps the status quo afloat. We need a real nadir or we risk muddling through a horrible decade of softened landings in which our quality of life and freedoms are eroded far beyond where they would have been had we agreed to accept the pain more acutely.

We'll have austerity of a sort one way or another. Do we have it openly, so people are made aware of what's going and markets can respond, and perhaps we can get a resurgence of these alleged "animal spirits" that will lead to growth? Or do we boil slowly like a frog in a tea kettle - maneuvered and bullshitted by the corporatists running our govt into giving everything up in tiny increments? I say let reality happen on a natural timetable and see if we've got one more reinvention in us. If not, well, all we'll have done is accelerated the inevitable.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree Stimulus is the best course early on, and it did save us from dire consequences at the outset of the crisis. But we're past that point now. We're at the point where need need something to trigger growth and employment. The evidence to date shows loose monetary policy and govt spending have not, and cannot, do either.

Why do you think we're past that? Obviously, we're not.

And the evidence to date showed that stimulus did trigger growth and employment. If you look at the work of reputable private-sector economists -- not political hacks scoring their own points -- you will see that they were unanimous in crediting the federal stimulus with working. But it wasn't enough, and it has been undercut by massive austerity at the state and local level.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. Bullshit. The govt cannot spur sustained economic activity. Markets, investors, businesses - they all see right through it. Sure, there's a limited bump from govt infrastructure building, but no one but a fool assumes it will continue once the project is completed. Transient activity surrounds a project for a while, then it is completed, then that activity disappears. The notion building a highway magically creates tons of new, long term activity on the basis, "Build a paved road and they will come," is lunacy. It's the kind of idiot-think only a govt-planner or policy wonk, who never worked in an actual business, would advocate.

I'll say it again: Govt spending can only provide a bridge loan to the next economic uptick. It cannot create sustained economic growth. Why you can't understand the difference between a patch and cure I can't understand. (You probably think the New Deal brought us out of the Depression, as well.)

You continue to struggle with how changes on the margins impact the whole.

2. Homes need to drop 10-20% to bring more first time buyers into the market in non-FHA products. The Dow needs to drop 2000 points, to bring individual investors back into the game, rather than allowing the hedge fund high-speed trading quant gambling circus we currently have to persist. We need an acute drop that ends the discussion, "Is this the bottom?" with a resounding, "Yes." Which would then be followed with, "So get in now. Invest while it's cheap. Buy because you'll never see a better deal."

I thought you said only the truly wealthy have any money to invest?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's hard to blame you for this blinkered confusing the state of the financial markets with the state of the economy, since we have an entire business press and political discourse that has completely forgotten that there is any sort of citizen other than the investor.

When people say that there is a problem with demand, they are saying that there is a problem with the economy that is entirely different from the whole paradigm that you're stuck in -- a problem that cannot be solved by figuring out how to get people off the sidelines and back to investing. The problem right now is not with a lack of investment. All of this supply-side crap that tries to spur investment is not going to help right now. I'm not saying it will never help. I'm saying it's not where we are right now.

Don't tell me what I wrote. I'm the person who has written over and over, "All lending is essentiallly consumer lending." I understand demand starts with the purchaser, not the investor. But the purchaser has no fucking money right now. Logically, in that vacuum, one looks to the next closest form of energizing capital: Investors. Growth requires both demand and investment. I only focused on one because the other is pretty much extinct. I don't know where else to look. (You say "the govt," but this is a canard for the reasons we discussed yesterday.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A disinterested, ignorant, bought-off public will seek no changes until a true crisis is at hand. No politician will take any of the steps needed to start remedying some of our problems so long as punting-and-pretending keeps the status quo afloat. We need a real nadir or we risk muddling through a horrible decade of softened landings in which our quality of life and freedoms are eroded far beyond where they would have been had we agreed to accept the pain more acutely.

How much worse do things have to get? We have massive unemployment by this country's standards, and our politicians have proven that they can blink and look away and hope that things will get better on their own. In particular, Republicans have rationally decided that their political class will be rewarded if the economy is in bad shape, and that they have absolutely zero incentive to cooperate with Democrats. If anything, they are speeding the crisis by playing Russian Roulette with the debt ceiling. Do you see any sign that voters will hold it against them?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you think this is the solution, you're looking at the wrong problem.

No, I'm discounting a consumer-initiated recovery. Even the upper middle class consumer is showing weakness: http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowat...er-struggling/

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The evidence to date shows loose monetary policy and govt spending have not, and cannot, do either.

Considering that we've had neither loose monetary policy nor significant net stimulus spending (the latter, btw, can only be effective if the Fed accommodates it with the former), I don't see how you could reach that conclusion.

It's now time to think, "Hey, maybe we should try the opposite and see if that works."

The opposite has been tried. See the Baltics, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy and heck, even Germany lately. There's plenty of evidence for the effects of hard money and austerity policies over the last four years, and it isn't pretty.

The damage can't be any worse than what's going on already.

Saying that ignores the very real long-term costs of leaving labor idle, which is bad for both those who are idle and the economy as a whole.

Personally, I think mass break-ups of large telecomms, TBTF banks, media corps, energy companies, and numerous other benefactors of our corporatist system would do wonders for employment, innovation, and wage growth. But that's another debate entirely.

It is another debate entirely. Personally, I'm skeptical that it would to much for employment and innovation, even if it has other merits, but it isn't happening anyway.

ETA: Btw, you really sound like you're stuck in the economics of the inter-war years.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You continue to struggle with how changes on the margins impact the whole.

I thought you said only the truly wealthy have any money to invest?

You are such a tool.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No politician will take any of the steps needed to start remedying some of our problems so long as punting-and-pretending keeps the status quo afloat.

You mean no politician with an R after his/her name, unless maybe they happen to control both houses and the white house.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You are such a tool.

You are a scholar and a gentleman, but I don't understand what money you think is waiting in the wings to invest once stock prices get back to where they were a few years ago and once housing prices fall yet further.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The opposition has been tried. See the Baltics, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy and heck, even Germany lately. There's plenty of evidence for the effects of hard money and austerity policies over the last four years, and it isn't pretty.

Read about Ireland lately?

Saying that ignores the very real long-term costs of leaving labor idle, which is bad for both those who are idle and the economy as a whole.

They're going to be left idle either way. You want them to be so for longer than necessary? Have at it. I say, we tried propping - didn't work. Let it crater. As it does, the rest of the world craters with us. Out of the ashes we get a grand rebuild.

It is another debate entirely. Personally, I'm skeptical that it would to much for employment and innovation, even if it has other merits, but it isn't happening anyway.

True. But I disagree. These global monstrosities crowd out competition and are way too cozy with the govt. This is not good economically or in terms of the Republic's civic health.