How do we fix the economy???

biochem wrote:The paper had an excellent example of the excessive bureaucracy today. From the time a decision is made to build a road, it takes an average of 6 years for all of the permissions & lawsuits (usually by environmentalists, many of the more extreme ones believe all development is bad and file lawsuits against all projects) to be resolved and final approval to be given.

And here, where it is so often punned about how much bureaucracy there is and how slow things are to happen, yet the average time here is less than a fifth.

But then, lawsuits for this kind of thing is rare here.

Somewhere else I mentioned the book, "Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. It is well worth reading. Those interested might also take a look at:

http://whynationsfail.com/

A recent quote:

"Instead, it appears that though the state is often an instrument of repression and extraction in the hands of economic or political elites, there are at times important benefits from state centralization (as we have also argued in Why Nations Fail), and the state can even be a useful instrument for the disadvantaged in their struggles against the local elites."

One weakness, as Jared Diamond points out, is that they emphasize the role of institutions, while other factors also enter into the results.

In other words, it is important to test all your theories against details: often a theory is partly correct, but different circumstances produce results outside the theory's predictions.

An analysis I read covering a thirteen year study of how well experts did at predicting political results came up with:

1) experts from different political persuasions did better than non-experts or random results.

2) experts from different political persuasions made roughly the same percentages of being correct or wrong. The differences showed up in where, rather than how often.

3) Some purely mathematical statistical methods showed up better than the experts.

It would be nice if we got someone like Hari Seldon of Asimov's Foundation series. Of course, he aimed at a result that would put the psychohistorians in control. A perfectly honest, capable, and compassionate elite would not be bad. The best we seem to get is approximations of these things. Too often their successors fail at one or more of them. In the US, some non-establishment candidates are doing well because we are sick of our current elite group which seems to fail on most of these. We may be getting what we have earned by our actions.

"There ARE checks and balances; they are articulated in our Constitution and the government established by it. However, as Benjamin Franklin once said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”"


Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd
ddhviste@drtel.net

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!

DDHvi wrote:Somewhere else I mentioned the book, "Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. It is well worth reading. Those interested might also take a look at:

http://whynationsfail.com/

A recent quote:

"Instead, it appears that though the state is often an instrument of repression and extraction in the hands of economic or political elites, there are at times important benefits from state centralization (as we have also argued in Why Nations Fail), and the state can even be a useful instrument for the disadvantaged in their struggles against the local elites."

One weakness, as Jared Diamond points out, is that they emphasize the role of institutions, while other factors also enter into the results.

In other words, it is important to test all your theories against details: often a theory is partly correct, but different circumstances produce results outside the theory's predictions.

An analysis I read covering a thirteen year study of how well experts did at predicting political results came up with:

1) experts from different political persuasions did better than non-experts or random results.

2) experts from different political persuasions made roughly the same percentages of being correct or wrong. The differences showed up in where, rather than how often.

3) Some purely mathematical statistical methods showed up better than the experts.

It would be nice if we got someone like Hari Seldon of Asimov's Foundation series. Of course, he aimed at a result that would put the psychohistorians in control. A perfectly honest, capable, and compassionate elite would not be bad. The best we seem to get is approximations of these things. Too often their successors fail at one or more of them. In the US, some non-establishment candidates are doing well because we are sick of our current elite group which seems to fail on most of these. We may be getting what we have earned by our actions.

"There ARE checks and balances; they are articulated in our Constitution and the government established by it. However, as Benjamin Franklin once said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”"


Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd
ddhviste@drtel.net

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!

I tend to think it works best if the government is controlled by the middle. When the disadvantaged control the government you tend to get a great deal of seizure of assets, redistribution of wealth etc etc which winds up wrecking the economy in the long term. And when the elites have control of the government you tend to get barriers to upward mobility, crony capitalism, predatory behavior etc etc. However with the middle in charge, you get balance. In common with the disadvantaged they need protection from the elites, so you get protections from the negative behaviors of the elites. But in common with the elites they also have assets, maybe not as many assets as the elites but still assets and in common with the elites they don't want their assets seized, so you get protection from excessive redistribution of wealth schemes.

When the disadvantaged control the government you tend to get a great deal of seizure of assets, redistribution of wealth etc etc

Really... Maybe you should test that wild claim against history?

However with the middle in charge, you get balance.

Or you get the worst of all extremes.

elites

Elite? People don´t become better because they´re rich. More often the opposite.

Tenshinai wrote:

When the disadvantaged control the government you tend to get a great deal of seizure of assets, redistribution of wealth etc etc

Really... Maybe you should test that wild claim against history?

However with the middle in charge, you get balance.

Or you get the worst of all extremes.

Oh we've already got the worst of all extremes - leftist politicians pandering to both the Dolists and their elite leftist cronies. Where did most of that $700 billion "bailout" go, again? How many of the shitheads that caused the "financial crisis" got raises and bonuses? And, oh so coincidentally, gave lots of money to certain politicians?

elites

Elite? People don´t become better because they´re rich. More often the opposite.

It mostly depends on how they got rich. If they worked hard, invested wisely, and actually built something, they tend to be pretty decent people, and largely unnoticed. If they got rich by sucking up to the rich and powerful or being related to the right families, they tend to be...other than decent, and quite noticeable.
----------------------
Why is it considered "progressive" to punish success and reward failure? I'd call that the opposite of progress.

International analysis indicates that the strongest economies are those with middle of the road democracies that have comprehensive welfare and health care nets. China and the US have the largest economies, but both are for different reasons not as strong and secure as others in their economic fundamentals.

Denmark in particular and the other Scandinavian countries, along with Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the better Europeans like Germany and the UK; all have strong economies with low state and private debt, and generally good economic fundamentals.

Along with many here (especially those on the right) I fear what will happen when the USA just can't keep kicking the can down the road regarding its national debt anymore.

Daryl wrote:Along with many here (especially those on the right) I fear what will happen when the USA just can't keep kicking the can down the road regarding its national debt anymore.

That worries us a lot too. Unfortunately, the politicians only care about the next election and enough of the voters only care about the now that they can get away with it. So when they finally can't get away with it anymore...

Possibilities

1. A miracle occurs and saves the day. It can happen. Something like fracking is discovered and does for the US economy what fracking has done for South Dakota's. Possible yes, probable no.



The other possibilities are all bad.

2. They play games with the money system behind the scenes. Print more money, have payments not keep up with inflation, restructure calculations for taxes/payouts to increase the money to government in difficult to detect ways.

3. Refuse to pay debt owned by some foreign entities. Come up with some plausible sounding reason to refuse payment. China would be a likely target. It's unpopular with US voters for stealing jobs, hacking intellectual property etc etc. So a sufficiently effective propaganda campaign could convince US voters that it's perfectly OK not to honor US Treasury bonds held by them.

4. Wag the dog. (US slang for start a war as a distraction to domestic political problems).

5. Seize stuff owned by other countries. Targeting Iran, China etc etc. All those frozen bank accounts, property etc could be seized. Again a sufficiently effective propaganda campaign would work.

6. Austerity programs, most likely targeting whatever the politically unpopular groups of the day are.

7. Invade other countries and seize their stuff. Hey we've got a big army, Republic of Haven here we come!


Of course those "solutions" only work in the short term, then the long term consequences of any of the above trigger a worldwide depression and economic collapse. Sorry rest of the world, the USA economy is "too big it fail" and if it collapses so does the worldwide economic system.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Oh we've already got the worst of all extremes - leftist politicians pandering to both the Dolists and their elite leftist cronies. Where did most of that $700 billion "bailout" go, again? How many of the shitheads that caused the "financial crisis" got raises and bonuses? And, oh so coincidentally, gave lots of money to certain politicians?

Ah yes, the bailout GW Bush wrote up so neatly that Obama had little choice but to sign up on it ASAP when becoming president.

Sooo very leftist.

biochem wrote:7. Invade other countries and seize their stuff. Hey we've got a big army, Republic of Haven here we come!

Oh goodness, you´ve already been there.
Started in the 19th century, aquiring suitable outposts like Hawaii, then starting the war against Spain to aquire a nice little colonial empire, then carried on with many dozens of military and covert interventions in many nations for economic reasons.

It´s amazing how many people have been killed over pineapple and banana plantations.

Sheesh man, USA is even the only "democratic" nation known to use it´s national intelligence services to support national business on a regular basis.

And i still recall the initial statements during the invasion of Iraq 2003, statements that quickly disappeared and never were seen again, about how the place was going to be "fixed up" and democratized etc etc and in return USA would "only" tax its oil sales a tiiny little bit.

biochem wrote:5. Seize stuff owned by other countries. Targeting Iran, China etc etc. All those frozen bank accounts, property etc could be seized. Again a sufficiently effective propaganda campaign would work.

Could be? All frozen bank accounts effectively HAVE been seized. As long as the banks KNOW that there wont be a reversal anytime soon, they can play with the money as much as they like. And they often, surprisingly, like to buy US bonds. Despite the "print money at insane rates" schemes.

Any other nation trying that, their bonds would barely be worth the paper they were written on.

biochem wrote:4. Wag the dog. (US slang for start a war as a distraction to domestic political problems).

I think we can safely say, been there, done that.

biochem wrote:3. Refuse to pay debt owned by some foreign entities. Come up with some plausible sounding reason to refuse payment. China would be a likely target. It's unpopular with US voters for stealing jobs, hacking intellectual property etc etc. So a sufficiently effective propaganda campaign could convince US voters that it's perfectly OK not to honor US Treasury bonds held by them.

Ongoing.

biochem wrote:2. They play games with the money system behind the scenes. Print more money, have payments not keep up with inflation, restructure calculations for taxes/payouts to increase the money to government in difficult to detect ways.

Already happening.

biochem wrote:1. A miracle occurs and saves the day. It can happen. Something like fracking is discovered and does for the US economy what fracking has done for South Dakota's. Possible yes, probable no.

Extremely unlikely, simply because there isn´t really any one single thing that could put so much extra money into the economy that it would be enough.

USA already sold out too much of its industry, which in turn got rid of generations of know-how, making it very questionable if anything found, the benefits of which could be made to remain.

Once again showing selective memory of recent history.

TARP was what passed a democratic congress and signed by President Bush.

American Recovery and Reivestment was passed by democratic congress and sig ed by Obama in the late summer. Like he promised in his campaign.

How is that President Bush's write up?

Whatever,
T2M

Tenshinai wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:Oh we've already got the worst of all extremes - leftist politicians pandering to both the Dolists and their elite leftist cronies. Where did most of that $700 billion "bailout" go, again? How many of the shitheads that caused the "financial crisis" got raises and bonuses? And, oh so coincidentally, gave lots of money to certain politicians?

Ah yes, the bailout GW Bush wrote up so neatly that Obama had little choice but to sign up on it ASAP when becoming president.

Sooo very leftist.