Letters to the Editor
David Larry D
Published Letters: 216 Editor's Choice: 17
-
re: Had_Enough's post
[Read the article: The odds for a U.S. recession just went up]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are spot on. Interesting to note, the first described occurence of the dreadful "stagflation" phenomenon took place during the run-up to the Vietnam War during LBJ's tenure.
The increased defense spending was largely buried or concealed from the public & budget hacks in the legistlature.
The result should not be surprising: the increased spending results in inflation. But the odd factor is why there is continued high unemployment? Why isn't the increased spending stimulating economic growth? Well, generally, $1000 toilet seats and $500 screwdrivers don't require more labor because of the cost; the higher costs just go to enrich a few select contractors and their buddies in the Pentagon getting the kickbacks to steer the contracts. So the increased spending doesn't benefit the economy; it's not more tanks and planes and hence more employees making them. It's simply a matter of more expensive tanks and planes.
I think the policies during the run-up to Vietnam are despicably similar to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. You don't have to look far to find out how costly the occupation really is, just a quick Google. I've read countless articles on how this is day-by-day the most expensive "war" America has ever been involved in, and the costs are far underestimated.
They learned their lesson from Vietnam: No Draft, and the public will not be motivated enough to complain. Hence the increased reliance on Blackwater, et. al. for manpower. Apparently the vast majority of Americans could care less about the wasteful cost of the war and the corruption. They won't know it until the economy totally collapses into a recession. By then the bandits are long gone, out-of-office, and some other poor sap takes their place. The Perfect Crime!
I took a lot of the facts on stagflation from Alan Greenspan's recent book. The link between 1967 and 2003, and the correlation between stagflation and increased "defense" spending is my hypothesis, however. It makes sense to me, but I haven't really delved into any numbers on it. Just a couple budding thoughts.
-
Whoever has the biggest guns on the moon owns the moon.
[Read the article: Who owns the moon?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree this article is complete garbage. She's just trying to make a story out of nothing. Same thing could be written saying "Who owns the future?" and interviewing a bunch of fortune tellers. It would have just as much relevence as this article.
This Hope guy is definitely a scam artist, and his "legal arguments" are ridiculous, as pointed out several times by quicker posters than myself. Yet she attempts to give them some sort of validity (perhaps to justify the article), rather than calling them for what they are: a total farce.
As with all human endeavors, the issue of control will be settled by who has the biggest guns. Getting to the moon first and setting up shop will be meaningless if the U.S., Russia, or the Chinese have the ability to simply nuke you off it (no question they all have the will). Your spurious legal arguments aren't going to make much of a difference if you can't defend yourself. And you can bet once there's money to be made out there, all spacefaring nations will suddenly make quantum leaps into militarizing outer-space.
The author also makes it sound like getting to the moon and mining helium isotopes is the whole battle... never mind the fact that no one has found a way to create an energy efficient, controlled fusion reaction yet. If they did, our energy problems would be solved even without going to the moon.
All in all a poor excuse for journalism. This kind of tripe belongs in TIME or PARADE.
-
I disagree there was a 60 year boom...
[Read the article: The gloomy gospel according to George Soros]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The recession of the early 80's was pretty steep. Double digit unemployment and interest rates in the teens... I don't think people realize how bad things were, and they didn't end until oil prices tanked in 1983, I think it was. So therefore, I don't see this as one continuous 60 year boom.
I see the recent troubles as being caused more with a total unloosening of government oversight of the economy, and runaway inflation caused by defense spending (we really have no idea exactly what this occupation of Iraq is costing us).
The panicked 0.75 interest rate cut shows just how incompetent and politicized the current administration is, compared even to Reagan's adminstration. Greenspan's trial by fire was the 1987 crash, and he handled it with relative aplomb; the Fed was still politically independent. The current, hyper-politicized government has no interest in taking a serious approach to governance, and we're not going to see exactly how bad things are until they are gone. In Bernanke they've got a Fed chairman they can bully; we're not going to see any real medicine until these jokers are out of office.
There have been a couple reports that the Treas. Dept., and the Labor Dept. have skewed a lot of the recent data to make the economy appear more rosy than it really is. If we have been adding jobs, I certainly don't see where (maybe a few thousand contractors in Iraq, here and there). And I wouldn't be surprised if the true inflation rates are far higher than the numbers the Bush-appointee gov't economists have been cranking out.
I'm guessing people like Soros with their vast economic resources have a much better grasp of where things stand.
If I'm wrong I just don't see where Soros thinks constant political intervention over the last 60's years has averted economic corrections. Unless he's referring to all monetary policy as executed by the Fed... but if these policies simply delay true market correction, then what is the alternative? Do nothing and suffer through the insanely destructive booms and busts like those seen throughout the 19th century?