Fair and Balanced

Years ago, probably in the early 90's (before a lot of efficiency gains in office work from new computer power!) a magazine called the Washington Monthly had a very interesting article.

First, you have to have some background about the Washington Monthly.  It was and perhaps still is run by a liberal named Charles Peters who was unusually honest.  The Washington Monthly ran an article in which they polled federal government workers and asked them (paraphrasing here) "How many of your co-workers' jobs  could be eliminated without diminishing the functioning of your agency?"

The answer, iirc, turned out to be not a wide range of responses but a very strong consensus of 25%.  The Washington Monthly reported this (remember, this was and is a solidly left wing publication) not to attack the federal government but because Charles Peters wanted the bloated government bureaucracy to be thinned out so that the money could be used in other ways.

So, back before a lot of the increase in productivity possible in office work that came through advances in computing power, increased flexibility and communication in the mid 90's through the present, federal workers, themselves, not icky conservatives or libertarians thought that there were 25% more people in every federal gov't office than necessary.

Before one fucking dime of social security or anything else is touched, for sales signs ought to bloom like flowers outside of D.C, Virginia and Maryland suburbs.

The DC real estate market cruised blissfully, unaffected through the real estate crash experienced by the rest of the country.  I would diminish the staff of every gov't agency by 25%.  

I think most of the closing of the gap should be reductions in spending and that most of the increases in revenues should be on the corporate side and from eliminating loopholes.  Apple and GE and others cannot be allowed to make hundreds of millions or billions of dollars through transactions in the U.S. and pay nothing on them.  

For additional spending reductions, I would eliminate 95% of the risible department of homeland security.  

And I would diminish defense spending by 50% over a couple years.  

And I would eliminate the department of education and remove 90% of the funding to the departments of energy and commerce.

I would lower the corporate tax rate but eliminate every loophole, every special provision.  We have a very high corporate tax rate right now but the couple who own three dry cleaning stores pay it while General Electric pays next to nothing.  No fucking more.  General Electric needs to pay billions more.  Fred and Sue's Dry Cleaning needs to pay thousands less.

I would change the rules for "nonprofit" corporations.  An organization would not qualify if any of its employees made more than 3 times the average wage in its city.  The poverty industry grandees and others would claim that this won't let these organizations keep wonderful people like . . . themselves.  We'll all just have to get along somehow.   The rules would also be tightened so that only a certain percentage of money spent could be on total wages as compared to actually delivering the services that are the supposed reason for the entity's being.  (Yes, this is somewhat beside the main point here but some of these "nonprofit" organizations exist to hire people not to actually do much of anything.) 

The other big money out there is in the fraudulent social security disability filings and medicare.  I'd make an exception and hire investigators to check on some of these supposedly disabled folks.  I don't know enough to know the best way to reform medicare.  I've read some interesting pieces by Karl Denninger over at Market-Ticker.com and he seems to believe that unreasonable restrictions on freedom of action in the marketplace promoted by pharmaceutical companies and rampant cost shifting are the biggest causes of nearly continuous and nearly insane rises in medicare costs.  I'd probably follow his recommendations for changing things.  

It's late at night and I'll stop there for now.

Because you want to be "Fair and Balanced" ... even though these silly Keynesan's are full of doo-doo.

I would NOT be shocked if commodities are red tomorrow and everything else is green. That includes JPM, which I'm sure will catch a miraculous bid and somehow turn green. Can you imagine?! It may not be so far-fetched...

that allows the destruction of our country AS CONSTITUTIONALLY FOUNDED.
The Two Party system is the DIVERSION from the reality. (We were warned of the dangers of the two party system by our founders) It is the most important compotent of attaining absolute control. POLARIZATION. Divide and create conflict.
This diversion BLINDS! We are a very few that are enlightened. Many know something is wrong, but few understand the real problem. If they did understand, the polarization would end.

Question: How many converts have each of you personally witnessed? If like me, not many.

History witnessed our initial colonization attempts fail. They worked off a communal system where everyone worked for the common good of the group. This meant that Joe worked very hard, while Jerry did little in comparison. We know how this story ended. (Property rights btw, created the successful colony)

The reality is you are dealing with multiple human emotions coupled with physical realities.
If we all want to have equality where does one begin. I think that is the battlefield. The colonist found that success was stymied by differences in individuals. How does society address equality and difference(individuality) at the same time?
How does society address everyone wanting everything?

Today many want to take from those that have. And many want to keep what they have toiled long for.
A recent test was where students at a college were asked to give their "A's" to students that had very low grades, and accept the lower grades in return. None took the deal. What a surprise.

The problem I see with the current movement towards equality is that it can never be "Legislated" ...ever. The list of laws would never end.

Today we see the elite cheerleading change they view as not pertaining to them. When change came, their "A's" would be difficult to remove from their grasp. Very difficult.

I do not understand it either. Thing is - if it really is piddly and small. Why do they need to mention it at all? Look what it just did to their share price!

I can only think that there are implications to this that trigger something bigger.

Or they are deliberately driving markets lower for their own ends.

We will find out soon enough. 

Even though metals have drifted lower. I still cannot imagine buying anything else. Seems to me like there is some gathering of the chaos momentum. How long can these jokers keep on smiling.

Thing is - if they are making all these massive profits - who are taking the massive losses? Something has to give.

Always miss out on the good stuff....some times it sucks being in the Pacific time zone.

Not much left to say about Caroline, except it would have given me great pleasure to bitch slap her if I'd had to endure her propaganda in person.   Get rid of everything except national defense (sans R&D) and the FAA and let us go back to being sovereign states.  One-time cash out payment for everyone when they reach their SS max benefit age.  Cancel Medicare for anyone not already on it.  (I will never sign up for it.)  Means test anyone already on SS using a percentage of the average from their last ten years of income and cut back or cancel their payments if warranted.  Let Big Brown, UPS, FedEx, or any other entity bid on the USPS assets and take it over.  Break the damn union contracts while they're at it, too.  Why does the government need to protect our mail anyway?  Turn all those fat cat politicians to part-time employees....they'd only be in D.C. long enough to ratify a puny FAA /defense budget, and write declarations for National Goat Herd Day. 

And for all the people underwater on their mortgages, adjust their payments every 5 years to a fixed percentage of their incomes.  If the mortgage ends up taking 38 or 47 years to pay off, so be it.  I'm not too interested in bailing out a bunch of people who went out and bought the most expensive house they could find. 

My husband and I did the math on what it actually cost for me to keep the job I had....second car (payment, maintenance, fuel, car washes & insurance), wardrobe (nice suits, nice blouses, nice shoes, nice handbags, jewelry appropriate for the job, stockings), extra meals out when I was too whipped to cook, dry cleaning, and then the state and federal income taxes.  The true cost of my job was mind-blowing, and we decided it was better for me to stay home.  I do almost all of the repair work we once hired people to do for us (NO roof repairs!), grow and put up our food, cook food from scratch, and make every penny scream for mercy.  Just got done reupholstering two chairs.  I do the mowing and landscape maintenance, too....we used to hire someone to do that. We have more discretionary income and more time together now than we did before.

And, the biggest upside....less revenue for you-know-who!  Yeah!

Great discussion.  A thought from long ago.  I've been reading a book with the kids called Little Britches by Ralph Moody.  It tells the story of starting a ranch in Colorado in 1906.  The story is told from the perspective of a 7-9 year old boy.  It shows family life as it should be; something often lost today.  The area of Colorado became Littleton (think of the irony with Columbine).  A gem from the book as father talks to son:

"Son," he said, "I had hoped you wouldn't run into anything like this till you were older, but maybe it's just as well.  There are only two kinds of men in this world: Honest men and dishonest men.  There are black men and white men and yellow men and red men, but nothing counts except whether they're honest men or dishonest men.

"Some men work almost entirely with their brains; some almost entirely with their hands; though most of us have to use both.  But we all fall into one of the two classes--honest and dishonest.

"Any man who says the world owes him a living is dishonest.  The same God that made you and me made this earth.  And He planned it so that it would yield every single thing that the people on it need.  But He was careful to plan it so that it would only yield up its wealth in exchange for the labor of man.  Any man who tries to share in that wealth without contributing the work of his brain or his hands is dishonest."

"Son, this is a long sermon for a boy of your age, but I want so much for you to be an honest man that I had to explain it to you."

Proponents of the Natural Law tradition believe that true law comes from a higher source.  Whether that is God, Shiva, the music of the spheres or the tooth fairy, there is a universal level of truth that supersedes the positive laws we follow today.  The American Founders certainly believed it and wrote of "Nature's God", and "unalienable rights".  Today people follow what is legal (some don't even do that) but not always what is right.  Entitlement may be perceived as legal, but that does not always make it right.  

It is said that to change a paradigm it takes 5-10% of the individuals to stand up.  Whether that should be the producers stopping the engine of the world, or the synergy of the producers effecting positive change on others, I do not know.  I do know that we should all be honest men and women as Ralph Moody would define it.

I realize that this is the tail of the thread and only 3 people will read this.  It has been a busy day in the ER and this is the first chance I have had to write.  If I angered any fellow Turdites with this, please forgive.  My intent was just to express a few thoughts.

Couldn't stand it any more, so I had to plunk down a little more fiat for a few more shiny rounds.  didn't back the truck up though, but trying to do my share for JPMorgue.

1576 and 28 and change as of typing. This is awesome.

The live stream I'm watching keeps bouncing off of $28.50

1Ozt Buffalos as low as $29.74 so far at Provident.

Silver again testing 78,6 % retracement from Dec-Mar uptrend, this time more forcefully. Probably will brake it. However, drop is getting so steep that it must soon end. It is like a bubble crash, just in the opposite direction. Last top before final acceleration down was at April 30th, 31,12. With such speed, there are few days left before it hits the bottom ( if it breaks through 28,60 decisively-otherwise it can also stop today-tomorrow) .

Me too:)

Unless I missed them - not one post/comment referring to this being a bottom (i think ivars came closest!). As far as I can tell, the disinfos are gone (or I just can't spot them in the crowd), job done. What better time to cover some shorts.

Annoying part tho (which stops me jumping in) - I'm right in the crowd too. GS came out bull(ish) so I expect a nasty 'surprise' in the next week and I concur that everything needs to be lower before overt QE is 'justified' so can't see the metals escaping another across the board sell off (and surely they wouldn't pass up this opportunity to take the PMs/commodities in general out to the cow shed).

Just me or is EVERYTHING and EVERYONE saying lower (aaargh...mind...tearing...in...two........screaming...BUY!!!!).

Finger quivering....hovering over the buy button....must....have.....discipline.....

This will be my second all nighter this week. Looks like the first decision to wait was a good one. Weighing the possibilities heavily tonight. Might take a couple hour nap and gamble on a COMEX beat-down. Hoping like hell patience will be rewarded but it's damned tough tonight. This would certainly help the old DCA!

Hope it's not scooting away right now, looks to be making a move.