The TEA Party Was Caused By The Hiss Case, Really?

[GIThruster]

For example, the U.S. spends 17.6% GDP on health and an employer has to worry about getting sued by employees more than anywhere else in the world.

I think someone has misled you on this point. In fact, disability insurance exists to protect the employer from employee lawsuits and employees are not allowed to sue employers for injuries gotten on the job, unless one can clearly demonstrate an unusual circumstance. Disability benefits are horridly small--I forget just how bad, but something like $5k for the loss of an eye or hand and $10k for the loss of one's legs--and this absolves the employer from all further legal responsibility. It's a law that needs to be updated. Likewise, it is not especially easy to sue for sexual harassment. You have to have evidence, not just claims. Really, it is not easy to sue one's employer in the US.

[Schneibster]

For example, the U.S. spends 17.6% GDP on health and an employer has to worry about getting sued by employees more than anywhere else in the world.

I think someone has misled you on this point somehow. In fact, disability insurance exists to protect the employer from employee lawsuits and employees are not allowed to sue employers for injuries gotten on the job, unless one can clearly demonstrate an unusual circumstance. Disability benefits are horridly small--I forget just how bad, but something like $5k for the loss of an eye or hand and $10k for the lsoso of ones legs--and this absolved the employer form all further legal action. Its a law that needs to be updated.

You can give away some of your salary for something a bit more reasonable in the case of maiming, and for better long-term disability, but it's a joke unless you can show it's your job's fault in which case they pay all the medical. Otherwise you get hosed.

[Teahive]

If there was a decent shot at profiting by it, they'd lend the money, thereby producing non-necessarily inflationary economic activity.

The more concentrated wealth gets the fewer people are left to profit off. That is, if you only consider monetary ROI, which may be indicative of an addiction.

[horsewithnonick]

But they're not lending it.

And that's holding the velocity of money down.

And the reason they're not lending it is there's not enough economic activity to justify it.

And the reason there's not enough economic activity to justify it is because there's not enough money.

And the reason there's not enough money is the rich people and banksters are all holding onto it instead of spending or investing it.

And the reason they're holding onto it is because the government opened up too many easy ways to steal when they repealed Glass-Steagall. And those ways have been used. And they started all the rich hoarding.

Although I agree with you that Glass-Steagal should be reinstated with extreme prejudice, I disagree that its reinstatement would restart loans - the reason private debt is falling is because homeowners, businessmen, etc are leveraged to the gills already, and in a shaky economy, those who can avoid debt will do so.

Again, hoarded money isn't earning anything at all. Money loaned out is. Banks are not Scrooge McDuck, swimming in a cavernous vault full of gold coins - they are businesses, who exist to earn more money. Some of those banks do so in ways that are literally criminal - but stuffing money into their mattresses is not the problem.

The first thing to do is break up insurance, commercial (i.e. ordinary depositor and small/medium company) banking, and investment (i.e. stock and bond services for the ultra rich) banking, and create a new division, retirement banking, heavily regulated to prevent theft and protect the personal safety net folks are supposed to have above the social one. I'm not even sure insurance should be for-profit; in fact, I'm absolutely certain health insurance shouldn't be, it's unethical on its face, due to the conflict of interest.

Then things will be back to before 2008, and 2008 can't happen again, now that we know it was caused by repealing Glass-Steagall and all the greedy banksters crowding around the trough with the excuse everyone else was doing it.

Simple as that.

[GIThruster]

Please stop feeding the troll.

[Schneibster]

Although I agree with you that Glass-Steagal should be reinstated with extreme prejudice, I disagree that its reinstatement would restart loans - the reason private debt is falling is because homeowners, businessmen, etc are leveraged to the gills already, and in a shaky economy, those who can avoid debt will do so.

Again, hoarded money isn't earning anything at all. Money loaned out is. Banks are not Scrooge McDuck, swimming in a cavernous vault full of gold coins - they are businesses, who exist to earn more money. Some of those banks do so in ways that are literally criminal - but stuffing money into their mattresses is not the problem.

But the commercial banks don't have most of the money any more. And what they do have they're not loaning because it will just wind up in the investment banksters' pockets. Until Glass-Steagall is fixed they won't be loaning.

It has nothing to do with them being some caricature or other. Their motivations are perfectly sane and obvious. Apparently I didn't explain them well enough.

[Schneibster]

If there was a decent shot at profiting by it, they'd lend the money, thereby producing non-necessarily inflationary economic activity.

The more concentrated wealth gets the fewer people are left to profit off. That is, if you only consider monetary ROI, which may be indicative of an addiction.

Certainly it's the problem here. We're in a zero-bound liquidity trap because of how much money the ultra rich and the investment banksters are holding. And they're all holding it until Glass-Steagall is reinstated and they can't be ripped off.

[Teahive]

More lending at best gives temporary relief and creates another debt bubble. The best thing the wealthy could do to improve both their own and other people's quality of life would be to spend.

[Schneibster]

More lending at best gives temporary relief and creates another debt bubble. The best thing the wealthy could do to improve both their own and other people's quality of life would be to spend.

Yep. I think they should be required to spend it and we should take it away from them and spend it if they don't.

Simply accumulating money for the sake of money is psychopathic. Now, if you intend to vaccinate Africa with it, I can see that. Don't just sit and watch TV and eat potato chips with caviar and Dom and pig's knuckles.

Or invest it in good ideas. The more science we learn the more likely good ideas are to actually work. There are quite a few ideas that given a billion dollars would change the world and earn ten billion among everyone involved, if you're fair.

Cool, they've done good, now go do it again.

All their kids still get enough they'll never have to work unless they want to. More than enough.

From those to whom much is given, much is expected. The ultra rich are failing their part of the equation. They need to be reminded they cannot avoid their social duty. At the ends of firearms if necessary.

[Diogenes]

More lending at best gives temporary relief and creates another debt bubble. The best thing the wealthy could do to improve both their own and other people's quality of life would be to spend.

And what should they spend it on?


I think all attempts to improve conditions in the third world are ill conceived (except perhaps for disease eradication) because the biggest problem with the third world is attitude.


Spending money on advancing space technology seems like something that might profit humanity beyond it's cost.

[hanelyp]

American prosperity was built on a foundation of property rights and rule of law. A foundation missing in the 3rd world and under assault by the DC occupying regime.

[Teahive]

And what should they spend it on?

Anything they want, really. Ideally something that creates a lasting legacy for them and helps the rest of society. But that's not a requirement.

It could be space tech, Polywell, cancer research, an art gallery, scholarships, prizes, or any number of worthwhile things. It could be a ridiculous monument, a collection of supercars, or a giant private paintball arena, too.

The important part is spending as opposed to investment. By that I don't mean consumption, but giving up the expectation of a direct monetary profit following the transaction. Long term trade imbalances are a problem on the individual level just as they are on the country level.

The problem in the first world is attitude, too.

[Diogenes]

American prosperity was built on a foundation of property rights and rule of law. A foundation missing in the 3rd world and under assault by the DC occupying regime.

The Lockean concept of the rights of man, which was heavily influenced by Christianity. The third world has no such philosophical underpinnings and is therefore not fertile ground for the advancement of the human condition.

[Diogenes]

And what should they spend it on?

The important part is spending as opposed to investment. By that I don't mean consumption, but giving up the expectation of a direct monetary profit following the transaction. Long term trade imbalances are a problem on the individual level just as they are on the country level.

The problem in the first world is attitude, too.

It is now, but then we are slowly devolving into a third world. We even now have a tin pot dictator.

[Jccarlton]

Jonah Goldberg on Sunstein:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/36 ... h-goldberg