This is TM Lutas's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following TM Lutas's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
TM Lutas
Recent Activity
Since this article was written, excess reserves have taken another sharp up leg and now are over $2.4T and counting.
1 reply
They won't be able to penalize doctors for noncompliance. Justice Roberts will force them to call it a tax.
Before you decide, you probably want to download icloud control panel for Windows http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1455
Russia desperately wants to keep Iran's current regime in power but also weak, dependent on them, and too isolated to make pipeline deals to get central asian hydrocarbons to world markets outside of Russia's network. What you're seeing is Russia's puppet imams having their strings pulled. Russia has to do this to safeguard its entire EU political strategy which is based on energy dominance there. It's disgusting, but not really the sort of disgusting you're expecting. The type of scandalous behavior also changes the policy we should adopt.
Since Ive seen several real world examples of this phenomenon, I think that your message is the propaganda one. Just because there is an oligarchy (and there is) does not mean that there is not also a genuine fight between big and small government solutions to problems. The world is more complicated than that.
Organizations that are split in this fashion almost universally tilt towards big government/socialism over time. I see no reason why this trend is not going to continue.
The difference is that war communism and the following NEP period quickly exposed the disaster of communist economic pretensions. The closer you got to "book communism" the worse the economy performed. Capitalism has proven over the long haul much the opposite. In large measure the closer you got to "book capitalism" the better off things got. Currently we are straying far from capitalist orthodoxy in the US and our results have been less than stellar.
Just because someone is a priest or a nun or even has a wooden ruler or a thimble does not make them infallible. "The Church" is the most frequent self-label, with "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" being second and relatively distant third most common self-labels. The difficulty of labels includes the fact that beyond the Universal Church, there is a sub-category also called the Roman Catholic Church which consists that part of The Church that adheres to the Roman Rite. There are better than 20 other Rites, of equal dignity within The Church, besides the Roman. None of them are false. All are recognized by the Pope who heads both the Universal Church sometimes called Roman Catholic and the Roman Catholic Church within it. And if your priests and your nuns disagreed, you had the most unfortunate experience of being taught Catholicism by schismatics. These distinctions are subtle but important. Even for atheists, if you are interested in geopolitics, the subtle dynamics of the Great Schism still echo over the geopolitical stage. Putin, for example, is not only a political player, but also a religious one. His role in the recent unification of Russian Orthodoxy's red and white factions is instructive.
You've got the Pope wrong and that part's going to seriously annoy a lot of Catholics (including me) but I'm much more interested in exploring what is the Church of Capitalism? What are its doctrines and who are its competitors? I find the comparison to royalty much more apt to Bernanke's corporatist role. Economic royalism indeed. I'm less impressed with Bernanke as Ideologue in Chief. I don't think that Bernanke's really pushing doctrine development in any particular way, just rehashing a lot of old policy choices and pushing them to their limits.
If you are so big that we can't let you fail, that means that we don't have the insurance funds necessary to handle your potential failure. That is practically the definition of TBTF. An institution that is insufficiently insured should be an immediate death sentence for any government contract, financial deposit, or anything else. Such entities should be declared too risky for the government to deal with. The rich fear hungry upstarts entering into the markets they are profiting from and arbitraging away all excess profits. So they set up regulations (for the children, of course) that keep the upstarts out. Those regulations need to be ruthlessly deleted from our legal codes, from the town all the way up to the federal government. Technology in the 21st century is poised to empower the little guy as never before and turn out a crop of garish nouveau riche knocking on the entrances of polite society in numbers not seen for over a century. The salvation of the country, frankly, lies in the US reforming its rules to enlarge and encourage the formation of these new upstarts.
The fundamental problem of communism is that it's method to calculate a price simply does not work. Ultimately, that makes it unsalvageable. Capitalism can calculate a price. In fact, it does it better than any competing systems available. That is a feature that is worth retaining, worth fighting for because prices are what make decentralized, widespread decision making even possible. Wealth stratification is something that occurs when the rich are protected from the effects of their foolishness while the poor are not. This is not a fundamental feature of capitalism. It is fixable by removing the legal protections against failure and exposing the rich to the full force of competition. TBTF is a consequence of underinsurance. If you have a sufficiently large insurance fund, any size enterprise is not TBTF. At a certain point, the insurance premiums exceed the profitability of just about any enterprise so you shed units to simplify the risks. Congratulations, a solution for TBTF. Btw, the FDIC has supposed risk based premiums. Do you know what the published extra risk premium is for highly complex financial institutions? It is currently assessed at 0%. Right there, that is the TBTF problem and you can fully lay it at the feet of government. You're going to have to explain why derivatives per se are a problem instead of any of a number of derivative market weaknesses causing actual problems for actual people. Your complaint sounds like somebody railing on about fractional reserve banking.
National Socialism failed prior to the first tank rolling into Poland. The covering up of that failure by looting conquered lands is one of the less appreciated important narratives of WW II.
You're glossing over a couple of very pertinent facts. The brittle version of Islam that really cannot adjust to the modern world has already been falsified by the archeologists. The discoveries in Yemen of alternate Koranic texts (trivially alternate) can be accommodated by the more flexible brands of Islam who are least likely to join in the modern jihadi movement but the Al Queda types are doomed by their own theological rigidity. All that awaits is for the archeologists to grow as much of a pair as the cartoonists and be willing to be on the run for the rest of their lives. Alternately, a non-islamic government could publish and promote the information as a psychological operation. The mass conversions out of Islam of the baseline muslim population that is not Al Queda yet but is a prime recruiting ground for them is going to hold the record of biggest systempunkt disruption for quite a long time, I predict.
$150 oil *in combination with* other measures that keep alternative sources of fuel off the market like FT plants will set up the cycle you predict. But FT plants can be profitable at a lot lower than $150/bbl oil equivalent and they *are* being built.
Toggle Commented May 6, 2011 on D2 SCENARIO at Global Guerrillas
It always astonishes me the superficial level of analysis on the left about how the big bad capitalists tilt the system to nefariously aid their interests. Of course they do, but how? Dig deep into the details and you will find, time after time, the use of big government to pass rules and regulations that hinder their upstart competitors (direct and indirect) and leave themselves largely free to continue making disproportionate profits. The solution seems obvious, to enumerate all the regulations, sift through them, get rid of the ones who give the rich an unfair advantage, and maintain the structure as a regular counter to the inevitable attempts the well off will sponsor to put in a new crop in future. But looking at the mechanics of getting rid of the unfair privileges of the upper classes and you find yourself looking at a process that is a lot more like a tea party Republican's platform than a progressive Democrat's. So put your shoulder to the grindstone and enumerate all the governments, enumerate all their laws, rules, and regulations. Identify in each what is upholding unfair privilege for the rich and you'll find a large cadre of tea party people right there supporting the repeal. I don't believe for a minute that the left will actually do this because their anti-corporatism is a sham, a shakedown, an appeal for a check written to shut the leadership up. I would be pleasantly surprised to be wrong and more than happy to collaborate on freeing up our economy from welfare for the rich which is another thing that is choking this country.
1 reply
From your first link: In fact, Olmsted said he had "recently learned that many other violations . . . have been taking place at" facilities operated by Catholic Healthcare West, which owns St. Joseph's, including the provision of birth-control pills and other forms of contraception, sterilizations and abortions "due to the mental or physical health of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest." It's a bit much to think that a hospital can do sterilizations and continue to call itself Catholic. From that bit, it's clear that this is about an institution that liked the association with the Catholic Church far more than it liked the actual policies of the Catholic Church that it would have to follow to maintain that association. Its association was dishonest and the bishop was right to terminate. And let's be clear about what the penalty is. Priests won't come over and do liturgies in the chapel and they won't store consecrated hosts on site. Oh the injustice!
1 reply
I'm doing my bit on the Hollywood front over at Declaration Entertainment. You might consider it.
Toggle Commented Aug 19, 2010 on The End of OIF at BLACKFIVE
1 reply
You revalidate because, among other reasons, you are a scientist and scientists are open to the idea that what they think they know might not actually be right so it's important double check every once in awhile. There are many, many instances where data necessary to revalidate has been denied. That should give every reasonable pro-science person a bad feeling. The amount of revalidation by people outside the climate science echo chamber is very much less than normal. Until that revalidation, that double checking, is done on widely available data which includes data and methods (code) we simply don't know whether the data are seriously flawed. We just know that claims are being made and in a number of cases where the data has been gotten out with a FOI crowbar claims have had to be revised and muted if not abandoned. How many other cases await falsification in the upcoming revalidations? Nobody knows. One problem is that every time one support for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is knocked out, the cry comes out that all the other ones remain intact and therefore a debunking is irrelevant. It is simply not true. The case is weakened and each hole punched into 'the consensus' makes it more important to get a move on with freeing up the data so that normal scientific rechecking can happen on all of the data that has been refused release.
1 reply
So, drewzer, how's that Polish and Czech based missile defense system that Obama's continuing? Oh, he's not continuing that? The US is, belatedly executing its national strategy of being able to fight 1.5 regional wars. As we draw down in Iraq, we expand what had been a holding force in Afghanistan. Obama deserves credit for sticking with the broad outlines of the plan which was drawn up in the Clinton admin I believe. Obama is not an unmitigated disaster. But with this nuclear posture shift he is certainly weakening our security.
Toggle Commented Apr 7, 2010 on Nuclear Posture Review -- Roundtable at BLACKFIVE
1 reply
Obama's base is at the center of the drive to never develop, never deploy the ballistic missile defense systems that Ronald Reagan championed. Reagan was perfectly willing to go out on a limb for a sustainable defense posture without nuclear weapons so long as the US and its allies would actually be defended. I have no evidence and certainly no confidence in the present administration to maintain our defenses so that our net security will not dip as we move away from reliance on nuclear deterrent.
Toggle Commented Apr 7, 2010 on Nuclear Posture Review -- Roundtable at BLACKFIVE
1 reply
The better response is not a direct tit for tat between lawyers hiring but rather clients boycotting. I would not consider it a wise investment to retain a law firm that blackballs conservative lawyers. I have no doubt that there are plenty of excellent law firms who do not. The problem is that there is something of a conspiracy of silence here. Who is going to shoot off that so and so partner is blackballing conservatives to potential and/or actual clients?
This type of problem won't get fixed until the voters stop voting for Waxman type legislators or they get punished in some way that they personally feel for violating the US Constitution. Right now there's a culture of impunity on violating the Constitution. A working majority of legislators do not feel there's a separate obligation not to pass unconstitutional legislation. That's a much larger problem than Waxman advocating unconstitutional press legislation.
JR - I see the dynamics of "global villagers (with the long memories and hatreds entrenched) not a global village" but I don't see how that breaks down nationalism. I don't think that internal hates inside a nation state are being strongly affected by globalization. Why would they be? Ultimately, the loyalties are going to break down to the people who can supply armed men to keep you safe. I'm not quite sure how that's going to pass out of the hands of the nation-state. I agree that control systems are being weakened. I just don't view that as being irreversible, but rather to global geurillas being first movers and nation-states being later adopters of control system modifying technology. So who wins, the first movers (gg) or the second movers (nation states). The topic of first mover advantage v second mover advantage is long and complex and you can come out on either side but it is *arguable* that one or the other will win. It is not inevitable.
I'd agree that it's in decline but I'm not so sure about the inexorable part. Loyalty, popularity, all of these things tend to ping pong back and forth depending on external events that drive people one way or another. I could see the development of structures that would shore up national loyalties vis a vis tribal ones at least as a theoretical. What makes you believe that nothing new could arise?
I think that Detroit getting its charter pulled and forcing it to reincorporate would be more interesting. Some of it might end up being farmland but it is far more likely that you're going to end up with a lot of different entities, some of which will be wildly more successful and all of which can be handled more easily in case of future failure.
Toggle Commented Nov 9, 2009 on LINKS: 9 NOV 09 at Global Guerrillas