As Newark Mayor Booker pointed out, the major public employee pension funds of the US gave been making money from Bain Capital for years. They were not bothered.by any of Bains business practices, and the proceeds are distributed to public employees all over tne country. That is easy to understand. Romney should point that out every chance he gets.

“And Volcker told the man who told the story I related. Argue you point with them. I think they’ll prevail, as they were the players.” Who cares who anyone thinks “prevails?” Theodore Sorenson went to his grave lying about what happened in the Excom meetings during the Cuban Missile Crisis – and that was despite audio tape evidence that contradicted his story! What I can see is that, in a year with double digit inflation (1980) the Fed funds rate and the prime interest date were both lower in August 1980 than the previous August when Volcker was first appointed as Fed Chairman. You can track the U that those two interest rates make from the late Spring onward and they both stay well below their early-Spring 1980 peaks until after the November election when both reached new peaks. I did include one wrong link http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/FEDFUNDS.txt

“And yes, Friedman did do as you say. He did it reluctantly, though, knowing his views (on laissez faire style economics) would never carry the day, any day.” Substitute Friedman and “laissez faire style economics” and with the name of the incumbent president and some other label (and the president before that and…) and you could say the same thing. Pretty much every political actor ends up making suggestions for the institutions that exist rather than from the position of their optimal policy preferences in a different institutional context. It is a non sequitur when discussing Friedman’s policy suggestions for the Great Depression and the Sorta Great Inflation. They either pointed to better policy in the contexts of the then-existing institutions or they didn’t. If you have a bone to pick with Friedman about the regulation of derivatives, or abortion, or drugs, or whatever, I don’t really see it as my business.

Dr. I also don’t have the strength to go into my critique of that little wanker, Madison. You forget, sir, that the gentlemen of the convention were instructed by their state legislatures to alter and tweak the Articles of Confederation, not lay the ground work for the elite consolidators and monied interests. And, Mr. Madison, that draft dodger, was the leader of that clique of opportunists.

Like the Jews of Samuel’s day, they had to have a king, even when God told them what will happen.

Kate, I didn’t read your point about Staples. It wasn’t in what I read, only an article which didn’t make your point, evidently. I responded to Andy Kessler’s point about Staples. (I looked back at your posts and didn’t find any mention of even the word Staples until later. Correct me if I’m wrong.)

Thanks for clearing up the matter of the young, Marxist communist who hadn’t been mentioned before.

The mention of corporate personhood was a reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. It has nothing to do with corporations actually being made up of individual people, as those individuals cannot possibly individually direct the corporation’s political spending, except those individuals at the top. But that’s a different topic.

Robert, Jefferson’s notions on healthy revolution have absolutely nothing to do with why my son went to Afghanistan. Jefferson believed that the people of a nation should hold their government to account, and not be afraid to act up when government needed correction. He was wrong about what is a healthy way to accomplish this. Holding our government to account is not why we’re in Afghanistan, now is it?

No one is saying war/revolution isn’t horrific. I believe I mentioned that. However, are we to meekily and mildly allow the rise of consolidated regime intent on destroying liberty because dismembered bodies and terrible wounds should be avoided at all costs? Hell, it’s happening to our soldiers in Afghanistan NOW, and I don’t see you shying away from their suffering as a result of foreign adventurism. Yet, you won’t stand with Jefferson?

Faux?

A business is never too big to fail. The best deal for employees of a big company is when it is broken up and sold. The pieces of the corporation that are profitable and useful can continue operations. The parts that are failing or flailing can be sort of sold for parts. Instead of thinking of a corporation like one body, like and animal body, think of it like a hosta or some other plant that is united at root. You can break it up and remove the dead and diseased parts, treat the healthier sections and the plant still has life because it wants to live. We cannot break you up in the same way.

Some economists I have read say that the real problem with GM was about the pensions. The federal government had guaranteed the pensions of all of the union employees and no one was going to want to accept that liability with the purchase of the parts of the corporation. Where would that liability go? What’s cheaper, a bailout or pension liability for the union employees of GM? Hence, the problem is in the federal regulations regarding pensions.

You missed my point about Staples which is that is so successful and competitors have to keep their prices lower than Staples to compete. Hence, prices might be lower elsewhere in your town (not mine) but that is as a response to Staples, not despite it. Like Walmart, Staples is setting a new standard for pricing. In my town, we go to the remaining Mom & Pop business supply store because we like them (our kids were in Little League together) and they offer service. For those things, we suffer their slightly higher prices.

Greenspan can afford to be generous.

When did I say you are a Marxist? I mentioned a young man I met recently who might have been paraphrasing Karl Marx and didn’t know it. He said communism is the way of the future. I never said you did. My point was that people often don’t know the source of their political principles. Some 10 years ago, I knew John Locke and Adam Smith existed, but hadn’t read them and didn’t know how sympathetic I was to what they wrote. Read Marx. You might like him.

I know what a bottom feeder is and that’s not what Romney is. It is not what a stock broker is, either. Again, read Marx. You’ll find him sympathetic.

Your last I don’t get at all. Corporations are made of people. Buildings and/or machines don’t need legal protections. People do. People in corporations need legal protections because you and people who think like you want to kill them. That’s ugly, but I don’t see how it is logic.

@Pete, I agree with your conclusion:

“It does indicate that powerful narratives dealing with political identity and the foundation myths of political coalitions are interfering with our perspective.”

On the other hand I think this is misleading: “In late 2008, the Federal Reserve loaned out 9 trillion dollars during the financial crisis.”

It is misleading for a reason that would not escape a bottom feeding victim (a slot machine player). You put $100 in and you pull the lever(hit the button)… you “win” $20 on a $5 bet. You can play thru the $100, and potentially end up getting several hundred button pushes. At the end of the day you bet $5 a hundred times. So maybe you bet a total of $500… Still misleading math. On a transaction in which $100 leads to $400 in winnings the casino can claim 80% payout, even if you just lost $100.

In a similar matter the 9 trillion is basically more like 2.3 trillion. I mean almost a trillion was loaned to Bear Stearns. But this was paid back.

My conceptual understanding of this isn’t perfect, but this $9 trillion for simplification sake actually reduced the money supply, when all is said an done… but by less than 5 billion. These were low interest loans to prevent a chain of contract defaults. Some of these loans were carried for less than a day.

I would say that the very low interest rate charged by the Fed was actually a “tax”…so analytically this decreases the money supply long term (albeit obviously the narrative is Keynesian in so far as in the long run we are all dead… so this did increase the money supply short term(damn you complications!) If the Fed had actually not been paid back…then this would have increased the money supply. But the Fed was paid back with interest… so this decreased the money supply.

The real story is that this is still just a horizontal transaction, that doesn’t impact the money supply.

The “boldest ignorant” thing I can say is that only “taxes” and “spending” by the federal government are vertical additions to the money supply. I do have some good reasons (american legal exceptionalism…if you bring up Canada!) for thinking this, and as it turns out if I know what M3 is I know what the Outstanding public deficit is and vice versa.

So again I challenge you Pete to maintain that questions of taxation, spending do not directly impact the money supply. In point of fact I will have you know that the TT&L program exists to complicate my position. If it did not exist my position would be more materially obvious.

While I am not a respectable economist, it is interesting to see articles like this one in Forbes essentially agreeing with me on what was originally a sort of blog post rant/devils advocate position on NLT.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/07/18/why-you-should-love-government-deficits/

What is also interesting, is that the critique of the Bush tax cuts sort of belong to Friedman. Appart from sophistication, what is the difference between the permanent income hypothesis, and this statement by Daniel: “It did put money back into the pockets of taxpayers, but it also created a record debt and had no stimulative effect.”

I tend to believe it did have a stimulative effect, if only because it increased the money supply. Friedman who believes in a ballanced budget would say that the stimulative effect is muted… On the other hand if the tax cuts(spending) didn’t end up in the pockets of those who would use it to soak up inventory, then it really did not stimulate the economy, on a subjective level for middle class entrepreneurs like Daniel.

On the other hand arguably team Bush did sort of target its spending(tax cuts and incentives) to direct consumers into education and housing.

The legendary Friedman was wrong!, again.

Kate, I’m glad you’re smiling. It’s too bad you seem to believe you’re every opinion is the only one without flaw, so long as a scarce few others on a silly blog come somewhat close to argreement each time you venture one. I thought those on the right and extreme left were the only ones hardened of heart in a wrong-minded kinda way. Please continue to show pity and mercy upon the rest of us. A compassionate conservative I hope you are, though the term seems ever increasingly to be an oxymoron.

You appear to be stating that GM is not repaying the TARP loan. They are, and early. That, by definition, even for conservatives, makes it an investment, absolutely not corporate welfare. (I despise corporate welfare, by the way.) The money which is not being repaid is the bailout money orchestrated by that liberal 43rd (the Shrub).

You happen to be completely ignoring the truth about the GM story. You claim the money is gone. You wonder about how the American people could possibly be happy about their taxpayer money being used that way. Perhaps you should open your windows and let in some light, and stop watching the Faux entertainment channel so much, unless of course, you write for Faux. (Did you hear about all the trouble Rupe and son are getting into for their lying ways? Does Faux report anything on the subject?)

The auto industry affects a greater number of American jobs (aka taxpayers) directly and indirectly than any other industry in this country, bar none. How in the world do you figure these, and the rest of us who share this economy, shouldn’t be happy that GM didn’t shutter it’s doors? Is it just the fact that it wasn’t allowed to happen, so maybe there’s a possibility it really wouldn’t have happened, that allows you to ignore the overwhelming likelihood that it would have happened?

O.K. Name any economist who says that the stimulus or TARP was bad. Let’s dumb it down and find the lowest comon denominator. Pull some nut from Faux if you like. Then defend his notions.

My point about Staples was a response to the article that you suggested. The author fantasized the creation of millions of jobs specifically on the premise that Staples has low prices, so businesses have more money left in their pockets to hire millions of employees. Maybe where your’e from, but not around here. They’re the high price leader. Bad premise in, wrong conclusion out. Logic.

Pete, even Greenspan has publicly stated that it was Volcker’s leadership, not his own, that was of most importance in the 80s. And Volcker told the man who told the story I related. Argue you point with them. I think they’ll prevail, as they were the players.

And yes, Friedman did do as you say. He did it reluctantly, though, knowing his views (on laissez faire style economics) would never carry the day, any day. He was a believer in it. Greenspan liked those same views, and openly advocated going more in that direction. And yes, ultimately he did testify before Congress that his beliefs in a more relaxed regulatory involvement in the markets, as he had learned from his hero Friedman, were indeed wrong, or in some areas of the market, only “partially wrong.”

Kate, bringing this up doesn’t at all make me a Marxist. I’m not. And you have never seen my writing proclaim me to be a conservative; I don’t know from where you imagined that. Nor am I that young. I am retired from one job and have 3 grandchildren. And who said anything about communism being the way of the future?

And the last thing you clearly don’t understand, Kate, is what a bottom feeder is. Maybe folks don’t use the term where you live. A bottom feeder, in the truest definition is an aquatic animal, like a catfish, which eats crap off the bottom of a body of water. In society, a bottom feeder is a person who leeches off others, unable to provide for his own income through honest employment, i.e. a stockbroker or a hedge fund manager, even a banker or a lawyer. You can tell bottom feeders by the skin they have in the game, or lack thereof. When the deal goes sour all the bottom feeders profit just as well, sometimes better, than had the deal panned out. Romney, for example, is a bottom feeder, by the urban definition. Thats’ not capitalism. That’s robber baron economics, and is a corruption of capitalism.

I’d be all for lassez faire economics if the investors, including the affected employees (they make the greatest investment after all), were allowed to mete out appropriate punishment on the unscrupulous. And if you people really want to believe that “corporations are people, too”, then let’s have the death penalty apply to them just as you people enjoy applying it to real people. Can that be done, or that just silly? If it’s silly, then why isn’t it sill to call corporations people? There’s that darn logic getting in the way again. Sorry.