Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong: my point isn’t corporation-bashing, but describes the problem of ordoliberalism where the government provides industrial subsidies not based on merit, but rather due to the specific lobbying efforts of companies who live off these subsidies. I never said that all companies are like this, but rather that it is a problem of implementing ordoliberal policies.

Nothing more, nothing less.

If anybody is ruining Washington, it’s been the Democrats for the last 40 years. If not longer.

Me, I’m anything but liberal: I want the repeal of any and all capital gains taxes to get the economy back on the road, not the pork we got. If you’d have bothered to actually read what I wrote, rather than knee-jerk respond to what you thought I said, and perhaps even read my blog, you’d realize that I’m about as far from being liberal as any other poster here.

Work on the reading recognition skills, okay?

if they state a value, then everyone will use that value

few will try to find out if there is a better value..

and even the few that do, cant go against the many who cant..

i know those points.. and have no idea of the real complexity…

what i was speaking more to was the psychology of a number and what it does to people.

want to have a lot of accidents? post a speed sign way to fast for a curve… the people will follow the sign, not their own judgement.

the point of the example was that the one with 50, would suddenly be able to write more loans that 30 and 40 combined!!!! under the new rule amount…

so what happens is psychological.

its not as simple as a regulation or not a regulation..

for certain regulations will have psychological actions in and of themselves… on our ability and faculties to actually judge a situation after the regulation…(we were made to function in a real world with real rules that dont change cause god dont twiddle with atomic forces).

forgetting too much or too little… and go straight to the point that by setting a figure, you also set many people in different categories along argumentative paths with given outcomes!!
and none of those outcomes are the stated intent of the law… they may even be belittled or put down (but one would be surprised how often they are right if one had the memory to do so)

the bank person who would be able to stand up and argue that they shouldnt use the 30 points in reserves to bring it to the level the state has would be out of work… the conservative factors who would want to run the business for the long run, could not win against the young guys who would be arguing that they are not taking advantage of a 30 point spread, and all that businesss….

once this starts… then the beast gets a life of its own, and everyone involved sinks to the level that the state set arbitrarily, because there are enouhg people in any functioning group that are not smart enough to actually work out the solutution, so they feel their way, and then go with that.

an army of people who think the state is right will force the person who says the state is wrong, to comply. so if the state sets an arbitrary number having no bearing on reality (as they dont know operating expenses, financial vehicle mixes, what different lines they are in, etc).

just as i cant reason someone from a position they did not reason themselves into… the competent few would never be able to stand up to the incompetent many who think the state is competent, and will team up to push what they FEEL is right… he cant win, as the people cant understand his point any more than the feminsts did summers point (sorry stuck in my head from last post).

Here is my point: when such laws were enacted, child labor was already mostly a thing of the past. The one major exception was farm labor, but child farm labor was allowed by the labor laws.

Most people are not going to send their children off to do hard labor. The fact that this was once done suggests necessity, not preference. Starvation is not preferable to hard labor.

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2009/03/alex-balwin-supply-side-economist.html

That one???

Or ones for home owners?

Gotta love Dr. Helen 🙂

From Powerline blogspot:
When Canadian Member of Parliament Belinda Stronach, who had denounced a two-tier health care system for Canadians, needed breast cancer surgery herself in 2007, she headed to a California hospital and paid out of pocket.

he he

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/headline_news/article.jsp?content=b0227147A

It was specific enough for me.

John wrote, “Canada’s banking system has survived, even prospered”

John also wrote, “but we avoided the sea of red ink now afflicting the American economy.”

You can see by my links….

John lied.

As it is, he has two points; one about banks in the early 90’s and another about the impact of non-deductability of home mortgage interest from a debate in the 1980’s. How you draw a line from those points to current Canadian bank performance is beyond me–those aren’t the only rules, conditions, and practices that have applied to Canadian banking in the last 25 years, and they certainly aren’t a basis for a comparative analysis of financial systems.

So I don’t see the need to get worked up.