Kamala Harris: Balancing Loyalty and Change in Her Bid for the Presidency

[morrobay]

In an Al-Jazerra interview with Professor Galbraith they showed a flow chart on quantitative easing in the U.S. and in China

The first level receivers of the money the U.S. Fed prints to buy bonds is going to banks and corporations.

In China the QE money went to construction and infrastructure projects. In the case of China this most definetely improves the environment for business expansion

and job creation for the benafit of the country.

In the U.S.the money the banks and corporations receive is not being lent out to help the economy. The money is going into the stock market like a sugar high.

It is just fattening up balance sheets and flooding into emerging markets in Asia as foreign direct investment .

This investment in bonds and other assets can create bubbles and is driving up Asian currencies.

So where is the benifit to the U.S.?

How can this be allowed to happen?

Obama talked so much about infrastructure projects, where are they ?

There is something very wrong here- What it is aint exactly clear.

[flying]

Obama talked so much about infrastructure projects, where are they ?

There is something very wrong here- What it is aint exactly clear.

Yeah I guess what he meant was the census taker jobs that came & went

There's a man with a gun over there

Telling me I got to beware

[Jingthing]

Thanks to the "wisdom" of the American people, they just voted in a bunch of right wing people who don't want the government to spend anything except for the military and entitlement programs (most of the current spending anyway). They think massive tax cuts along with no cuts to military or entitlements will magically create enough jobs while reducing the deficit (math skills aren't up to par in the US, here is a consequence). That leaves room to cut things like education, so we can look forward to even poorer math skills in future. They think this is what Reagan did but actually that was only rhetoric, Reagan actually RAISED taxes significantly and of course wasn't dealing with a global economic crisis anything like the current situation. The point I am making is that Obama no longer has the power to spend for infrastructure jobs as the only things he may be able to pass are things that are OK with the new crop of right wing no spend people.

The fed, though, can still act in the arena they have power to do so (which does not include spending on infrastructure jobs). However, these same right wingers would like to reign in the fed with new oversight laws. The more radical ones even talk of abolishing the fed.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Jingthing

[flying]

Thanks to the "wisdom" of the American people, they just voted in a bunch of right wing people who don't want the government to spend anything except for the military and entitlement programs (most of the current spending anyway). They magically think massive tax cuts along with no cuts to military or entitlements will magically create enough jobs while reducing the deficit (math skills aren't up to par in the US, here is a consequence). That leaves room to cut things like education, so we can look forward to even poorer math skills in future. They think this is what Reagan did but actually that was only rhetoric, Reagan actually RAISED taxes significantly and of course wasn't dealing with a global economic crisis anything like the current situation. The point I am making is that Obama no longer has the power to spend for infrastructure jobs as the only things he may be able to pass are things that are OK with the new crop of right wing no spend people.

Nah they didnt vote in they voted out.

That is how it is done.......

The same was done in Reagan's time but in reverse with the Dems coming in & Reagan giving the speech Obama had to give. (funny you mention Reagan as an example)

Same happened with Clinton repubs in & he had to give the speech

Same happened with Bush Dems in & he had to give the speech

Are you seeing a pattern yet?

If anything I hope it helps folks realize....left...right....all the same.

The system is beautifully broken...always was but now is clearly visible to all....hopefully

The above lists spans a large amount of time.....What has changed....NOTHING

What will change?.....Come now I know you know

Edited November 6, 2010 by flying

[Jingthing]

Regardless of whether its called voted in or voted out, this is a really bad time for the US to be stuck with a gridlocked government that for political bickering reasons can't practically pass anything of significance.

It now appears the decline of the US is going to be more rapid, and if people want to blame Obama for that, that's small comfort.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Jingthing

[flying]

Regardless of whether its called voted in or voted out, this is a really bad time for the US to be stuck with a gridlocked government that for political bickering reasons can't practically pass anything of significance.

Read the rest of the post...Same as it ever was....Same as it ever was.....Under both Repub & Dem rule

[Jingthing]

I can read but these times, no, these times are not the same. This won't do.

[flying]

I can read but these times, no, these times are not the same. This won't do.

Agreed but these times are cumulative. We are seeing cause & effect...Not from one side or the other.

Racing forward with the FED ponzi throwing more cause into it will not mean less effect....Sorry I wish it wasn't true but buying their own IOU's with more IOU's is just not acceptable.....

PS....

they just voted in a bunch of right wing people who don't want the government to spend anything except for the military and entitlement programs

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Obama appoint the very same secretary of defense as Bush? Who dreams up the military entitlement programs? Which I agree should all be slashed toot sweet

Edited November 6, 2010 by flying

[Canada]

Thanks to the "wisdom" of the American people, they just voted in a bunch of right wing people who don't want the government to spend anything except for the military and entitlement programs (most of the current spending anyway). They magically think massive tax cuts along with no cuts to military or entitlements will magically create enough jobs while reducing the deficit (math skills aren't up to par in the US, here is a consequence). That leaves room to cut things like education, so we can look forward to even poorer math skills in future. They think this is what Reagan did but actually that was only rhetoric, Reagan actually RAISED taxes significantly and of course wasn't dealing with a global economic crisis anything like the current situation. The point I am making is that Obama no longer has the power to spend for infrastructure jobs as the only things he may be able to pass are things that are OK with the new crop of right wing no spend people.

Nah they didnt vote in they voted out.

That is how it is done.......

The same was done in Reagan's time but in reverse with the Dems coming in & Reagan giving the speech Obama had to give. (funny you mention Reagan as an example)

Same happened with Clinton repubs in & he had to give the speech

Same happened with Bush Dems in & he had to give the speech

Are you seeing a pattern yet?

If anything I hope it helps folks realize....left...right....all the same.

The system is beautifully broken...always was but now is clearly visible to all....hopefully

The above lists spans a large amount of time.....What has changed....NOTHING

What will change?.....Come now I know you know

This is the crux of the issue. Nothing will change. The system is not designed to change. Anything that could change it would be outlawed before it got out of hand. There is a saying......"if voting could change things, it would be illegal". It's rather humorous that people still believe that through voting for the next idiot, something will change. Wake up guys......

I guess voting, then bitching and complaining about someone else that lied and cheated, just like the last thousand idiots before him, is easier than taking responsibility and having to actually do something about it.

The sheep are being guarded by the wolves.

Sorry, just about lost myself there......

[cloudhopper]

"The first level receivers of the money the U.S. Fed prints to buy bonds is going to banks and corporations.

In China the QE money went to construction and infrastructure projects. In the case of China this most definetely improves the environment for business expansion

and job creation for the benafit of the country."

Same in China. Building empty cities for real estate speculators fueled by bank loans will end the same way in China as it has and will everywhere in the world. Short term credit high ends in misery and long term credit addiction ends in great misery. All of these QE programs have fueled massive mal-investment in non productive assets. The German finance minister actually (and correctly IMO) called the US policy "clueless" and the Chinese are even more clueless.

[Naam]

...the Chinese are even more clueless

i can't think of too many countries who's politicians do not wish to be as clueless as the Chinese, id est negligible external debt and huge foreign currency reserves. that notwithstanding the fact that the "empty cities" are a fairy tale invented by professional clueless gloom&doomers who can't see things in relation, do not acknowledge the macroeconomic effect that China has a "sealed" domestic economy and a currency which can and is manipulated. any drawn parallels are based on lack of facts and/or ignoring the facts.

[cloudhopper]

huge foreign currency reserves. that notwithstanding the fact that the "empty cities" are a fairy tale invented by professional clueless gloom&doomers

Here is one example of many fairy tales-

Do they have actual foreign currency or only foreign debt instruments?

[Naam]

huge foreign currency reserves. that notwithstanding the fact that the "empty cities" are a fairy tale invented by professional clueless gloom&doomers

Here is one example of many fairy tales-

Do they have actual foreign currency or only foreign debt instruments?

it is a fairy tale because it does not consider any relation to the size of the country.

yes, they also have forex cash galore which is however not needed to meet/solve any internal debt problem.

[cloudhopper]

it does not consider any relation to the size of the country.

As in "the bigger they are the harder they fall"?

IMO no country that embarks on QE as a solution to problems created by reckless credit will avoid financial disaster. I would be interested in your opinion re why China can avoid this fate (or if you think the US will too) if it continues it's current monetary policy.

[chainarong]

Nothing changes it remains the same , checkout how much the fat cats on wall street and in the banking sector are earning this year, not a thing has been learned from 2008, the US is in big trouble, sorry to say.

[Naam]

it does not consider any relation to the size of the country.

As in "the bigger they are the harder they fall"?

IMO no country that embarks on QE as a solution to problems created by reckless credit will avoid financial disaster. I would be interested in your opinion re why China can avoid this fate (or if you think the US will too) if it continues it's current monetary policy.

i am not wasting time trying to explain why an apple tastes like an apple and a potato like a potato.

[Wrong Turn]

Morribay:

The first level receivers of the money the U.S. Fed prints to buy bonds is going to banks and corporations.

In China the QE money went to construction and infrastructure projects. In the case of China this most definetely improves the environment for business expansion

and job creation for the benafit of the country.

In the U.S.the money the banks and corporations receive is not being lent out to help the economy. The money is going into the stock market like a sugar high.

It is just fattening up balance sheets and flooding into emerging markets in Asia as foreign direct investment .

This investment in bonds and other assets can create bubbles and is driving up Asian currencies.

So where is the benifit to the U.S.?

How can this be allowed to happen?

Obama talked so much about infrastructure projects, where are they ?

There is something very wrong here- What it is aint exactly clear.

So, if the QE(2) money is going to banks to fatten up their balance sheets, and these banks still aren't lending, then the aim is to keep inflation low?

If, or if not, how does the QE2 beenfit the US economy?

[gregb]

Morribay:

The first level receivers of the money the U.S. Fed prints to buy bonds is going to banks and corporations.

In China the QE money went to construction and infrastructure projects. In the case of China this most definetely improves the environment for business expansion

and job creation for the benafit of the country.

In the U.S.the money the banks and corporations receive is not being lent out to help the economy. The money is going into the stock market like a sugar high.

It is just fattening up balance sheets and flooding into emerging markets in Asia as foreign direct investment .

This investment in bonds and other assets can create bubbles and is driving up Asian currencies.

So where is the benifit to the U.S.?

How can this be allowed to happen?

Obama talked so much about infrastructure projects, where are they ?

There is something very wrong here- What it is aint exactly clear.

So, if the QE(2) money is going to banks to fatten up their balance sheets, and these banks still aren't lending, then the aim is to keep inflation low?

If, or if not, how does the QE2 beenfit the US economy?

QE2 doesn't benefit the US economy. It simply postpones the inevitable for a short while longer. Some people might call that a benefit. I call it a crime against the people.

In a twisted sort of way, what the respective positions of the US and China actually make sense. The only industry the US still has is its financial sector, so they prop that up to make the numbers look better. China meanwhile, is concentrating on industrial capacity, so they print money to prop up that sector. Neither of them really have a long term view, they are both just living for the moment and playing to their respective strengths. You are trying to over analyze the situation if you think anyone is considering the long term ramifications of their actions, like inflation. Everyone knows the music is about to stop and there aren't enough chairs. Nobody is considering anything beyond the immediate issues.

Truly, the best thing for the US is a total collapse, and the sooner the better. The quicker Americans lose their entitlement mindset and become willing to head out in the fields and pick lettuce alongside Juan and Jose the better off everyone will be. The American way of life most definitely *IS* negotiable, and QE2 is a first step towards making sure everyone realizes this.

There is nothing that can be done to save the current economy. It is condemned. The only questions remaining are exactly when it will collapse and what will be the trigger(s). I am glad we now have gone back politically to a status quo arrangement. The last 2 years have been terrifying. The last thing we needed was more change. Governments rarely fix problems. They only make things worse, whether it be Republicans or Democrats. The optimal situation is making sure neither of them can do anything so that collapse will come quickly and we can get on with reordering our civilization at a lower level of complexity.

I pity those who don't realize how bad things are going to get. My brother is still talking about a recovery and how that will improve the job market. I feel sorry for him. He doesn't stand a chance. His optimal strategy is to pray for a fast collapse and innovate a new, low complexity business that can thrive in the ashes. Example, the US uses $100,000 catering trucks for portable food with a menu pages long. Thais use a converted $1000 motorcycle and sell one or 2 things. Which one is more practical once people are poor?

Americans will change, and Bernacke and QE2 will make sure the new standard in the states closely resembles the Thai solutions of decades past.

[WarpSpeed]

You know I hate to seemingly take this topic in a different direction but it really is relevant. Does anyone remember when a certain notable cretin of a terrorist pronounced that he was going to bankrupt the United States and the rest of the world with our impossible fight against them??

That's why they attacked the World Trade Centers initially and that in turn shut down Wall Street and it's been all down hill since then ....

So how does that figure into all of this you gather?? Seems pretty undeniable the current result we're seeing doesn't it?? Like we've been led right down the path laid for us like sheep even in spite of an advanced warning of strategy ..

Edited November 8, 2010 by WarpSpeed