great NON ELECTION aritcle about the financial mess.

[thesightless]

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/NowGreenspanDoesntLikeBailouts.aspx

read that. very informative. read his links as well. trust me.

[thesightless]

Re: great NON ELECTION aritcle about the financial mess.

O'S FAIRY-TALE ECONOMICS





Posted: 4:04 am
August 25, 2008
Barack Obama has made his economic thinking excrucia tingly clear, so it also is clear that his running mate should've been not Joe Biden, but Rumpelstiltskin - who spun straw into gold, a skill an Obama administration will need in order to fulfill its fairy-tale promises.
Obama recently said he would "require that 10 percent of our energy comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term - more than double what we have now."
Note the verb "require" and the adjective "renewable." By 2012 he would "require" the economy's huge energy sector to - here things become comic - supply half as much energy from renewable sources as already is being supplied by just one potentially renewable source: About 20 percent of America's energy comes from nuclear energy produced using fuel rods, which, when spent, can be reprocessed into fresh fuel.
Obama is leery of nuclear power. He also distrusts the safety of Nevada's Yucca Mountain for storage of radioactive waste. Evidently he prefers today's situation - nuclear waste stored at 126 inherently insecure above-ground sites in 39 states, within 75 miles of where more than 161 million Americans live.
But back to requiring this or that quota of energy from renewable sources. What will that involve? Details to follow, sometime after noon, Jan. 20, 2009.
Obama has also promised: "We will get 1 million 150-mile-per- gallon plug-in hybrids on our roads within six years." What a tranquilizing verb "get" is. This senator, who's never run so much as a Dairy Queen, is going to get a huge, complex industry to produce, and get a million consumers to buy, these cars. How? Almost certainly by federal financial incentives for both - billions in tax subsidies for automakers, and billions more to bribe customers to buy these cars they otherwise would spurn.
Conservatives are sometimes justly accused of ascribing magic powers to markets: Increase the monetary demand for anything and the supply of it will expand. But it is liberals like Obama who think that any new social delight can be summoned into existence by a sufficient appropriation. (Once they thought "model cities" could be, too.)
Where will the electricity for these million cars come from? Not nuclear power - and not anywhere else, if Obama means this: "I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming - an 80 percent reduction by 2050." No, he won't. The American Enterprise Institute's Steven Hayward notes that in 2050 there will be 420 million Americans - 40 million more households. So Obama's cap would require reducing per-capita carbon emissions to levels probably below even those "in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood."
On taxes, Obama says "we don't want to return to marginal rates of 60 or 70 percent." The top federal rate was 70 percent until the Reagan cuts of 1981. It has since ranged between 50 in 1982 and today's 35. Obama promises that expiration of the Bush tax cuts will restore the 39.6 rate. He also favors a payroll tax of up to 4 percent on earnings above $250,000 (today, only the first $102,000 is taxed), most of which also are subject to the highest state income-tax rates.
When the top federal rate was set at 28 under Reagan, payroll taxes weren't levied on income over $42,000, so the top effective rate of combined taxes was under 35. Obama's policies would bring it to the mid-50s for many Americans - close to the 60 percent Obama considers excessive.
Has there ever been solemn silliness comparable to today's politicians tarting up their agendas as things designed for, and necessary to, "saving the planet," and promising edicts to "require" entire industries to reorder themselves?
In 1996, Bob Dole, citing the Clinton campaign's scabrous fund-raising, exclaimed: "Where's the outrage?" In this year's campaign - soggy with environmental messianism, deranged self-importance and delusional economics - the question is: Where is the derisive laughter?

[thesightless]

Re: great NON ELECTION aritcle about the financial mess.

also, at the point of fairness i will be posting a scathing articel on johnny boy. its saved to my home comp.

[runningman]

Re: great NON ELECTION aritcle about the financial mess.

I have already read "financial Armageddon" by Mike Panzner..

http://www.financialarmageddon.com

I am now reading "The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crash of 2008 and What It Means" by George Soros.

If either of these guys are even kind of right it is going to be ouch time for quite a while.

[thesightless]

Re: great NON ELECTION aritcle about the financial mess.

uhg,,,soros.... smart, but manipulative to a negative. his hedge funds are brilliant though. but he is evil and as much a part of this breakdown as anyone. i honestly put all the blame on the SEC and greenspan. alan let things go overboard because they were good without asking questions, and the SEC let these loans be turned into bonds under their very eyes here in NY (they are HQ'd here and the market floor for mtgbonds is here).

there is a lot of shit thrown into the mix here and everyone wants ONE thing to fix. there are so many factors from president clinton to bush, from labor groups raising wages too quickly to other industries claiming NOT ME, while they hold thier prices up.