about dcliberal82: Your well reasoned note has unleashed...

Now I see my problem: inability to recognize a well-reasoned note. Hence my problems appreciating the Mazzeti article in the NYT.

I think many corporations are run for the short term interests of the management. With fragmented ownership, management has less oversight than it needs.

The Mazzeti and Cooper article you refer to was in the OLNYT early yesterday evening and this morning still carries yesterday's date (March 11). The objectionable aspects (that Ondelette referred to in a comment on UT yesterday, for example) were quickly modified!

Look, both the interviewer and the interviewee know what they are doing. Both know that the reason reported news carries weight is because a supposedly competent, legitimate, and principled professional is staking his reputation, in part, on the accuracy and honesty of the story. Otherwise, politicians, etc. could just use their web pages. So if the process is not conducted as it should be, complaints have some effect. That is, keep it up; maybe it is possible to beat down this anonymous crap to some extent.

wrote:

How can they remain quiet when they have published material directly from Block and then read Block actively denying involvement in the propaganda campaign?

Part of the job description these days involves the ability to act as a journalist rather than a stenographer only when caught. Now, you claim you caught them. But unless that claim is heard loud and clear, it does not matter. So keep shouting.

I do not think your anonymity here at UT is anything like that of an "important government official" or "the leader of an influential Jewish organization", or what ever such folks are called. For all I know, you may be an important government official, but you are not claiming that here. The weight you carry here depends on your ability rather than your position.

wrote:

This doesn’t justify coaches cheating to get the players they need to be competitive- but it certainly explains it. Substitute “journalists” for coaches and you get the idea.

OK, so let's suppose it begins with competition among journalists.

The interviewees realize what is happening, and use this competition to spin anonymously. The journalists know they are being used, but they keep on doing it anyway. Conspiracy might not be the right word, but it is not as innocent as you seem to imply.

For your sports analogy to work, you would need the high school kids taking advantage of the coaches need for more and better recruits. By spinning their ability? OK, recruiters can make mistakes, but the system is self-correcting. If you do not have the ability, you will not be around for long.

Did you say that 6 out of 15 is greater than 50%? I must have misunderstood.

(Bernbart):

waits until it has the facts, the accusations and investigates them, before printing a story. What is wrong with blogs is the immediacy of it's reporting (cutting and pasting) excerpts out of context.

Then how do you explain the Mazetti article yesterday that did not have the facts and the later Mazseti and Cooper article which had more of the facts, but still not all of them?

(I hope you had a good vacation.)

in particular wrote: I'd rather have someone err even majorly like Cramer and come to his senses...

I agree with Bamage. Cramer could be the stupid, but he would still have to know what he was doing. You see, as long as it did not crash he was fine. And now that it has crashed, why, he will still be fine as long as he continues to play the game right. And it is a game. If he were serious, he could have resigned. He does not want to do that, and he does not have to do that because, at least for now, his show is still popular. Being outed as an enabler of scumbags who have caused trillions in losses cannot be easy, but, hey, some weeks are tougher than others.

Your economic analysis treats growth as if it just happens, or not, independent of all else. It does not.

wrote:I merely stated that our economies will stop growing, which would lead to financial collapse.

One might just as well state that financial collapse causes the economy to stop growing. Cause and effect are entangled.

Also, you wrote that inflation can be used to create debt obligation. Perhaps it is more accurate to view the response to the current financial troubles as creating a future debt obligation in order to pay off a current one with the hope that some long term inflation can partially relieve the effect of the future debt.

wrote:

However, the natural resources of the planet are now stretched thin and overexploited, which puts an upper bound on economic activity. This means that there will be no lasting recovery, no return to the growth era.

Some resources are now scarce. There is plenty of energy, with appropriate technology. And with enough energy, ways can be found to use what is available. So I would not give up on growth yet. But I would be in favor of a more carefully managed earth.

OK. I think the beginning of your quote of Cramer is just plain wrong. Obama did not do that.

1.) With the caveat that we do not have the technology to use it now, we have plenty of energy from solar nuclear fusion. By this I mean that if we stopped burning oil now, growth, or even maintenance, would be over because we have no way to use solar on a really large scale yet. But I do not think that the eventual change to solar means the end of growth.

2.) Someday, when you least expect it, terrestrial nuclear fusion will be practical. It will not be perfectly clean, and there will be plenty of problems, but it will be usable.

Misspelling "Cramer" should get out out for free.