LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:44 pm In this instance I recommend abstinence.

+1

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:15 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:22 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:50 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:25 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:20 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:16 am Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Huzzah. I wouldn't change a single word.

You can then take it down to the common denominator that the political ideology of fiscal conservatism is dead and buried. The fact is both parties took turns with the shovel to bury the newly deceased. I bet the burial was done extra deep.

Well, let's just say that one group is immensely hypocritical, the other is pretty darn out front about their preferences.

And the interesting thing about the hyper partisanship is that the GOP has lost any real leverage when the Dems have control because of an unwillingness to compromise at all, so the best restraints on the Dems in spending come from the moderates in their own party and the desire to attract swing voters.

Seems to me this is what comes from supporting hyper partisans instead of those who debate, but compromise to get things done.

My own view is that deficits aren't really a serious problem (for the US) as long as the 'equity' value of the country continues to rise as fast or faster than the deficits. That equity or 'capital value' should be understood as much more than bricks and mortar, certainly extending into human capital.

So, when deficits rise because we are increasing the value of America through that 'equity' and "capital" value, then that's just fine. But increasing deficits inefficiently, wasting resources rather than actually building American capital value, that's quite another issue.

And failure to invest can actually decrease 'capital value', as competitive positioning slips.

If we could simply debate the merits of various proposals within that construct, I think we'd find that we would make better choices.

Stuck on the whole comparing deficits to funding losses. The country has a much longer terminal date and value but the assets, what you’re talking about are largely intangible, need to be able to be converted to some incremental cash flow (GDP/tax inflows) at a future date that’s foreseeable. There’s a lot of deficit spending in place and certainly proposed that cannot be evaluated tightly enough to even qualify as a intangible asset in that regard.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:15 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:22 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:50 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:25 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:20 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:16 am Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Huzzah. I wouldn't change a single word.

You can then take it down to the common denominator that the political ideology of fiscal conservatism is dead and buried. The fact is both parties took turns with the shovel to bury the newly deceased. I bet the burial was done extra deep.

Well, let's just say that one group is immensely hypocritical, the other is pretty darn out front about their preferences.

And the interesting thing about the hyper partisanship is that the GOP has lost any real leverage when the Dems have control because of an unwillingness to compromise at all, so the best restraints on the Dems in spending come from the moderates in their own party and the desire to attract swing voters.

Seems to me this is what comes from supporting hyper partisans instead of those who debate, but compromise to get things done.

My own view is that deficits aren't really a serious problem (for the US) as long as the 'equity' value of the country continues to rise as fast or faster than the deficits. That equity or 'capital value' should be understood as much more than bricks and mortar, certainly extending into human capital.

So, when deficits rise because we are increasing the value of America through that 'equity' and "capital" value, then that's just fine. But increasing deficits inefficiently, wasting resources rather than actually building American capital value, that's quite another issue.

And failure to invest can actually decrease 'capital value', as competitive positioning slips.

If we could simply debate the merits of various proposals within that construct, I think we'd find that we would make better choices.

Stuck on the whole comparing deficits to funding losses. The country has a much longer terminal date and value but the assets, what you’re talking about are largely intangible, need to be able to be converted to some incremental cash flow (GDP/tax inflows) at a future date that’s foreseeable. There’s a lot of deficit spending in place and certainly proposed that cannot be evaluated tightly enough to even qualify as a intangible asset in that regard.

I'm not saying this is remotely an exact science, simply that the concept of productive capacity, including the benefits of competitive advantage, should be the construct through which we think about "spending" and "investments" and "deficits".

It should not be "deficits bad" as the construct, if they are due to increases in productive capacity and securing competitive advantage.

Not all spending on wars are necessarily a waste, as failure in some situations could greatly reduce the "equity" or capital" even more than what is spent to achieve success, but unnecessary wars can, and certainly often do burn much more than they achieve.

By comparison to say, education of the populace. Or high speed transportation systems. Or...

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:58 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:15 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:22 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:50 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:25 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:20 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:16 am Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Huzzah. I wouldn't change a single word.

You can then take it down to the common denominator that the political ideology of fiscal conservatism is dead and buried. The fact is both parties took turns with the shovel to bury the newly deceased. I bet the burial was done extra deep.

Well, let's just say that one group is immensely hypocritical, the other is pretty darn out front about their preferences.

And the interesting thing about the hyper partisanship is that the GOP has lost any real leverage when the Dems have control because of an unwillingness to compromise at all, so the best restraints on the Dems in spending come from the moderates in their own party and the desire to attract swing voters.

Seems to me this is what comes from supporting hyper partisans instead of those who debate, but compromise to get things done.

My own view is that deficits aren't really a serious problem (for the US) as long as the 'equity' value of the country continues to rise as fast or faster than the deficits. That equity or 'capital value' should be understood as much more than bricks and mortar, certainly extending into human capital.

So, when deficits rise because we are increasing the value of America through that 'equity' and "capital" value, then that's just fine. But increasing deficits inefficiently, wasting resources rather than actually building American capital value, that's quite another issue.

And failure to invest can actually decrease 'capital value', as competitive positioning slips.

If we could simply debate the merits of various proposals within that construct, I think we'd find that we would make better choices.

Stuck on the whole comparing deficits to funding losses. The country has a much longer terminal date and value but the assets, what you’re talking about are largely intangible, need to be able to be converted to some incremental cash flow (GDP/tax inflows) at a future date that’s foreseeable. There’s a lot of deficit spending in place and certainly proposed that cannot be evaluated tightly enough to even qualify as a intangible asset in that regard.

I'm not saying this is remotely an exact science, simply that the concept of productive capacity, including the benefits of competitive advantage, should be the construct through which we think about "spending" and "investments" and "deficits".

It should not be "deficits bad" as the construct, if they are due to increases in productive capacity and securing competitive advantage.

Not all spending on wars are necessarily a waste, as failure in some situations could greatly reduce the "equity" or capital" even more than what is spent to achieve success, but unnecessary wars can, and certainly often do burn much more than they achieve.

By comparison to say, education of the populace. Or high speed transportation systems. Or...

I get it but push back on the idea of perpetual deficit spending which seems to be picking up steam in certain academic circles the past couple of years and I think needs to be strongly rejected (academic circles generally skewed/biased towards a perspective that does tend to lean in one direction from political orientation).

Using the analogy, fine invest > revenue but then we have to take a hard look at and write down/off a lot of prior spending and investment altogether, acknowledge the waste, whether that includes allocation blame/responsibility or not, and also set population growth policies and keep the working class healthy and about 600 other things but we are playing the same game with the same rules and just financing it with deficit spending and this new approach of “deficits are cool” while continuing to do the same stuff is just excuse making and mortgaging or selling off every asset like Enron did to pay for today before they got totally fraudulent when it started with some creative financing and ended up a spectacular failure for the ages. And that includes a lot of plans in the two proposals the Dems have put out.

So yes I agree that doing something is important and necessary. Not ready to award brownie points to the Dems for trying while continuing to concern themselves overly with form over function (messaging being one example which they’ve been talking about for 25yrs and continue to fail at). And yes I think my party where the adults have given up and gone back to the home office to work on their business stuff while the children “f**k s**t up in the living room” has abrogated all responsibilities to the citizens of this country.

But that still doesn’t mean we can waive in any and all spending with a “deficits don’t matter” frame of thinking which is what each and every conversation that includes this commentary moves us closer to.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:36 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:58 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:15 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:22 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:50 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:25 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:20 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:16 am Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Huzzah. I wouldn't change a single word.

You can then take it down to the common denominator that the political ideology of fiscal conservatism is dead and buried. The fact is both parties took turns with the shovel to bury the newly deceased. I bet the burial was done extra deep.

Well, let's just say that one group is immensely hypocritical, the other is pretty darn out front about their preferences.

And the interesting thing about the hyper partisanship is that the GOP has lost any real leverage when the Dems have control because of an unwillingness to compromise at all, so the best restraints on the Dems in spending come from the moderates in their own party and the desire to attract swing voters.

Seems to me this is what comes from supporting hyper partisans instead of those who debate, but compromise to get things done.

My own view is that deficits aren't really a serious problem (for the US) as long as the 'equity' value of the country continues to rise as fast or faster than the deficits. That equity or 'capital value' should be understood as much more than bricks and mortar, certainly extending into human capital.

So, when deficits rise because we are increasing the value of America through that 'equity' and "capital" value, then that's just fine. But increasing deficits inefficiently, wasting resources rather than actually building American capital value, that's quite another issue.

And failure to invest can actually decrease 'capital value', as competitive positioning slips.

If we could simply debate the merits of various proposals within that construct, I think we'd find that we would make better choices.

Stuck on the whole comparing deficits to funding losses. The country has a much longer terminal date and value but the assets, what you’re talking about are largely intangible, need to be able to be converted to some incremental cash flow (GDP/tax inflows) at a future date that’s foreseeable. There’s a lot of deficit spending in place and certainly proposed that cannot be evaluated tightly enough to even qualify as a intangible asset in that regard.

I'm not saying this is remotely an exact science, simply that the concept of productive capacity, including the benefits of competitive advantage, should be the construct through which we think about "spending" and "investments" and "deficits".

It should not be "deficits bad" as the construct, if they are due to increases in productive capacity and securing competitive advantage.

Not all spending on wars are necessarily a waste, as failure in some situations could greatly reduce the "equity" or capital" even more than what is spent to achieve success, but unnecessary wars can, and certainly often do burn much more than they achieve.

By comparison to say, education of the populace. Or high speed transportation systems. Or...

I get it but push back on the idea of perpetual deficit spending which seems to be picking up steam in certain academic circles the past couple of years and I think needs to be strongly rejected (academic circles generally skewed/biased towards a perspective that does tend to lean in one direction from political orientation).

Using the analogy, fine invest > revenue but then we have to take a hard look at and write down/off a lot of prior spending and investment altogether, acknowledge the waste, whether that includes allocation blame/responsibility or not, and also set population growth policies and keep the working class healthy and about 600 other things but we are playing the same game with the same rules and just financing it with deficit spending and this new approach of “deficits are cool” while continuing to do the same stuff is just excuse making and mortgaging or selling off every asset like Enron did to pay for today before they got totally fraudulent when it started with some creative financing and ended up a spectacular failure for the ages. And that includes a lot of plans in the two proposals the Dems have put out.

So yes I agree that doing something is important and necessary. Not ready to award brownie points to the Dems for trying while continuing to concern themselves overly with form over function (messaging being one example which they’ve been talking about for 25yrs and continue to fail at). And yes I think my party where the adults have given up and gone back to the home office to work on their business stuff while the children “f**k s**t up in the living room” has abrogated all responsibilities to the citizens of this country.

But that still doesn’t mean we can waive in any and all spending with a “deficits don’t matter” frame of thinking which is what each and every conversation that includes this commentary moves us closer to.

Agreed, there's a big difference between smart, productive investments ("spending" and inefficient, unproductive such.

We'd have to discuss specifics to determine what each think of what's been good and what's been a waste, but I'm simply saying that the construct should be about building real capacities and productivity as the way to evaluate priorities, not the "deficit".

For instance, a plan to dramatically raise taxes on the working class while simultaneously spending those funds on the proverbial bridge to nowhere would not be attractive under my construct... though not creating a "deficit". Nope, it would likely actually reduce the capital value of the country, not increase it.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:16 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:36 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:58 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:15 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:22 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:50 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:25 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:20 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:16 am Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Huzzah. I wouldn't change a single word.

You can then take it down to the common denominator that the political ideology of fiscal conservatism is dead and buried. The fact is both parties took turns with the shovel to bury the newly deceased. I bet the burial was done extra deep.

Well, let's just say that one group is immensely hypocritical, the other is pretty darn out front about their preferences.

And the interesting thing about the hyper partisanship is that the GOP has lost any real leverage when the Dems have control because of an unwillingness to compromise at all, so the best restraints on the Dems in spending come from the moderates in their own party and the desire to attract swing voters.

Seems to me this is what comes from supporting hyper partisans instead of those who debate, but compromise to get things done.

My own view is that deficits aren't really a serious problem (for the US) as long as the 'equity' value of the country continues to rise as fast or faster than the deficits. That equity or 'capital value' should be understood as much more than bricks and mortar, certainly extending into human capital.

So, when deficits rise because we are increasing the value of America through that 'equity' and "capital" value, then that's just fine. But increasing deficits inefficiently, wasting resources rather than actually building American capital value, that's quite another issue.

And failure to invest can actually decrease 'capital value', as competitive positioning slips.

If we could simply debate the merits of various proposals within that construct, I think we'd find that we would make better choices.

Stuck on the whole comparing deficits to funding losses. The country has a much longer terminal date and value but the assets, what you’re talking about are largely intangible, need to be able to be converted to some incremental cash flow (GDP/tax inflows) at a future date that’s foreseeable. There’s a lot of deficit spending in place and certainly proposed that cannot be evaluated tightly enough to even qualify as a intangible asset in that regard.

I'm not saying this is remotely an exact science, simply that the concept of productive capacity, including the benefits of competitive advantage, should be the construct through which we think about "spending" and "investments" and "deficits".

It should not be "deficits bad" as the construct, if they are due to increases in productive capacity and securing competitive advantage.

Not all spending on wars are necessarily a waste, as failure in some situations could greatly reduce the "equity" or capital" even more than what is spent to achieve success, but unnecessary wars can, and certainly often do burn much more than they achieve.

By comparison to say, education of the populace. Or high speed transportation systems. Or...

I get it but push back on the idea of perpetual deficit spending which seems to be picking up steam in certain academic circles the past couple of years and I think needs to be strongly rejected (academic circles generally skewed/biased towards a perspective that does tend to lean in one direction from political orientation).

Using the analogy, fine invest > revenue but then we have to take a hard look at and write down/off a lot of prior spending and investment altogether, acknowledge the waste, whether that includes allocation blame/responsibility or not, and also set population growth policies and keep the working class healthy and about 600 other things but we are playing the same game with the same rules and just financing it with deficit spending and this new approach of “deficits are cool” while continuing to do the same stuff is just excuse making and mortgaging or selling off every asset like Enron did to pay for today before they got totally fraudulent when it started with some creative financing and ended up a spectacular failure for the ages. And that includes a lot of plans in the two proposals the Dems have put out.

So yes I agree that doing something is important and necessary. Not ready to award brownie points to the Dems for trying while continuing to concern themselves overly with form over function (messaging being one example which they’ve been talking about for 25yrs and continue to fail at). And yes I think my party where the adults have given up and gone back to the home office to work on their business stuff while the children “f**k s**t up in the living room” has abrogated all responsibilities to the citizens of this country.

But that still doesn’t mean we can waive in any and all spending with a “deficits don’t matter” frame of thinking which is what each and every conversation that includes this commentary moves us closer to.

Agreed, there's a big difference between smart, productive investments ("spending" and inefficient, unproductive such.

We'd have to discuss specifics to determine what each think of what's been good and what's been a waste, but I'm simply saying that the construct should be about building real capacities and productivity as the way to evaluate priorities, not the "deficit".

For instance, a plan to dramatically raise taxes on the working class while simultaneously spending those funds on the proverbial bridge to nowhere would not be attractive under my construct... though not creating a "deficit". Nope, it would likely actually reduce the capital value of the country, not increase it.

Understood and agree. I’m discussing this with you not the “oh god deficits” or the “who cares about spending money or how we get it if it might make one life marginally better on some abstract and undefinable terms at any cost” crowds, so while I’m not ready to discuss each and every line here and now I think we can move past that aspect and leave it to the people who want to toss around worthless heuristics.

But, time horizons matter too. Don’t mean shovel ready but I fear that we get sold on some hypothetical payoff 30-50yrs down the road and then find in 15-25 we have to write off the goodwill as worthless. Doesn’t mean do nothing but I may have a higher threshold for the payoff to justify the expenditure. Particularly because I don’t give any politician the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Fair enough.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:10 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 4:11 pm Biden to warn Putin (via skype) about economic pain if he invades Ukraine:

https://apnews.com/article/biden-putin- ... d5ccb31268

Care to expand/explain?

Sure- just reporting more Biden news and happenings.

He’s handling things.

This week he’s gonna uncluster Trump’s Russia stance, and give Putin a stern talking to, via Zoom.

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:17 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:10 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 4:11 pm Biden to warn Putin (via skype) about economic pain if he invades Ukraine:

https://apnews.com/article/biden-putin- ... d5ccb31268

Care to expand/explain?

Sure- just reporting more Biden news and happenings.

He’s handling things.

This week he’s gonna uncluster Trump’s Russia stance, and give Putin a stern talking to, via Zoom.

Sounds like a snide or sneering or dismissive way to say that...is that your intent?

Dude think's he's got some gotcha, but he's just playing himself off.

Presidents talked to other presidents and PMs and dictators via phone for decades, including issuing ultimatums and sanctions. Now it's still phone or video phone / video conference if they want video. Trump video-conferenced. Zoom / Skype it ain't.

Wah wah brandon or something. Sad, honestly.

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:24 am Dude think's he's got some gotcha, but he's just playing himself off.

Presidents talked to other presidents and PMs and dictators via phone for decades, including issuing ultimatums and sanctions. Now it's video phone / conference. Trump video-conferenced. Zoom / Skype it ain't.

Wah wah brandon or something. Sad, honestly.

“Playing himself off”

I’m going to start using that euphemistically for another favorite leisure activity of mine. Thanks!

Man, I was enjoying the show and decided to do a solo and play myself off.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:26 am

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:24 am Dude think's he's got some gotcha, but he's just playing himself off.

Presidents talked to other presidents and PMs and dictators via phone for decades, including issuing ultimatums and sanctions. Now it's video phone / conference. Trump video-conferenced. Zoom / Skype it ain't.

Wah wah brandon or something. Sad, honestly.

“Playing himself off”

I’m going to start using that euphemistically for another favorite leisure activity of mine. Thanks!

Man, I was enjoying the show and decided to do a solo and play myself off.

There's a joke about pussycats or something there too

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:58 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:15 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:22 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:50 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 12:25 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:20 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:16 am Facts on the ground, environment under which choices and priorities are made, evolve and change. Not all time on the timeline of US history is equivalent on all levels and facets. Applying any rigid overlay doesn’t work over time.

Its not a rigid overlay at all. Quite the opposite.

I think your assumptions are quite interesting...but wrongheaded, IMO.
I'll try to explain why I think that.

You wrote:

Democrats are inherently trying to grow government, and Republicans are trying to keep it in check. They both do that by going to the extreme and landing in the middle, hopefully. My point was that it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct.
The US is a constitutional democratic republic. Republican democracy is built upon dissent, disagreement, and fierce battles. The Ratification Debates our founding fathers had over the basic legal infrastructure of our country were PERSONAL. It was always the extremes to form the more perfect union. I think we're still having that. IMO, it's a natural balance. R's and Ds are a symbiotic relationship. A yin and yang to make the whole. It's why there is always the pendulum swing after whatever party is in office. If the democrats were left to their own devices to get whatever they wanted, they would have killed the country years ago. They have no self control.

First, the GOP has definitely not been concerned with constraining the size of government, when they are in power. Rather, they have consistently been only interested (for the past 4 decades) in constraining certain kinds of "social" spending, while also consistently expanding the overall size of government, primarily defense spending. Likewise, in contrast with much of the rhetoric of the GOP, the party leaders, when in a position to do so, have consistently increased deficits by lowering tax rates and reducing tax enforcement while simultaneously increasing the overall size of the federal budget.

You only need to look at the actual actions when the GOP has been in control of the levers of power, whether Presidential or Congress, to see what I'm saying is true.

So, I think the consistent debate has in reality not been about size of government or deficits, but rather on what priorities deserve spending and what do not. Guns or butter sorts of debate...and who pays...

And those can be reasonable debates. Indeed they should be debated.
And can lead to swings back and forth in power, each constraining the other's inclinations to excess.

But that never previously meant that the only role for either party was to "obstruct"...or as you say, "...it's not the job of Republicans to govern, it is their absolute only job to obstruct." That's only become the tactic of the GOP since 2008.

For instance, it's not been the historical tactic to vote against infrastructure. At any scale. Heck, the largest infrastructure spending in American history was under Republican leadership, Eisenhower. And infrastructure bills typically got 90+% votes.

Likewise, it had never before been the tactic to block any nominee, no matter how reasonable and moderate, to federal court appointments. Rather most such received 98+ votes in the Senate. Only the most extreme situations resulted in blockage, and they were rare.

Nor had there ever before 2008 been this unwillingness to increase the federal debt limit, enabling payment of obligations committed to previously.

None of this stupidity had characterized the GOP as a governing philosophy in decades past the last one.

Indeed, the best argument the GOP had for being given the reins of governance is that they would be more competent in managing the economy and national defense...not absolute obstructionists, but actual governing.

That's still a valid argument for the handful of GOP Governors in otherwise blue or purple states. They govern, not obstruct.

Here's where I come out on the binary choice of who to give the reins to...as long as the GOP keeps rewarding and putting forth the most extreme of candidates and, in contrast, the Dems offer up someone moderate on their ideological preference scale, I'll vote for the moderate. If the GOP doesn't decide to be a party that governs, and supports governing, then they can't get my vote back.

Now, the Dems could put up the most extremes in their party for POTUS, and if that's who they chose, it'd make it much harder to decide between two awful choices, but as long as the choice is between Trumpist types and a Joe Biden, it's really, really easy.

Conversely, on a state level like Maryland, if the GOP puts forth candidates like Hogan, my vote will be with them. I like two party rule, but want it to be a functioning relationship with good governance as priority #1.

Huzzah. I wouldn't change a single word.

You can then take it down to the common denominator that the political ideology of fiscal conservatism is dead and buried. The fact is both parties took turns with the shovel to bury the newly deceased. I bet the burial was done extra deep.

Well, let's just say that one group is immensely hypocritical, the other is pretty darn out front about their preferences.

And the interesting thing about the hyper partisanship is that the GOP has lost any real leverage when the Dems have control because of an unwillingness to compromise at all, so the best restraints on the Dems in spending come from the moderates in their own party and the desire to attract swing voters.

Seems to me this is what comes from supporting hyper partisans instead of those who debate, but compromise to get things done.

My own view is that deficits aren't really a serious problem (for the US) as long as the 'equity' value of the country continues to rise as fast or faster than the deficits. That equity or 'capital value' should be understood as much more than bricks and mortar, certainly extending into human capital.

So, when deficits rise because we are increasing the value of America through that 'equity' and "capital" value, then that's just fine. But increasing deficits inefficiently, wasting resources rather than actually building American capital value, that's quite another issue.

And failure to invest can actually decrease 'capital value', as competitive positioning slips.

If we could simply debate the merits of various proposals within that construct, I think we'd find that we would make better choices.

Stuck on the whole comparing deficits to funding losses. The country has a much longer terminal date and value but the assets, what you’re talking about are largely intangible, need to be able to be converted to some incremental cash flow (GDP/tax inflows) at a future date that’s foreseeable. There’s a lot of deficit spending in place and certainly proposed that cannot be evaluated tightly enough to even qualify as a intangible asset in that regard.

I'm not saying this is remotely an exact science, simply that the concept of productive capacity, including the benefits of competitive advantage, should be the construct through which we think about "spending" and "investments" and "deficits".

It should not be "deficits bad" as the construct, if they are due to increases in productive capacity and securing competitive advantage.

Not all spending on wars are necessarily a waste, as failure in some situations could greatly reduce the "equity" or capital" even more than what is spent to achieve success, but unnecessary wars can, and certainly often do burn much more than they achieve.

By comparison to say, education of the populace. Or high speed transportation systems. Or...

https://seekingalpha.com/article/425851 ... deral-debt

This is always a topic that bothers me. We are spending 250 billion dollars just to maintain the debt. When i google search this topic the result is always the same. There are economists who say it is no big deal and economist who consider our debt a ticking time bomb. It seems to boil down to your political ideology as to which economists are correct.

They’re bad now because we’re paying for underfunded long term obligations made ages ago. However we got here (not enough taxes, too much spending on opex/waste) the deficits are fueled by Medicare/Medicaid and SSI. Arguing about marginal deficit spending is ridiculous when we have this hanging over our head and it’s only going to get worse as a greater proportion of the population is retirement age vs working age and overall population potentially shrinking due to HH replacement rate deficiency + our tightening of immigration (even the legal kind has been getting squeezed for 20yrs before some maniac starts talking about “border control”).

I find it pointless to talk about it on the margin or incrementally with this overhang and therefor default to it being a problem. In abstraction and starting at a zero point in the timeline then yes deficit spending is fine. Even in earlier years of say the first century. But now with where we are at to ignore that existing gap and call deficit spending “investment” when it’s at best deferred maintenance is objectionable on many levels to me. If we need a reset then let’s call it that and jam who we need to jam to do so. It’s tough medicine but that’s the more honesty and transparent way to fix the problems we’ve created IMO.

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:17 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:10 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 4:11 pm Biden to warn Putin (via skype) about economic pain if he invades Ukraine:

https://apnews.com/article/biden-putin- ... d5ccb31268

Care to expand/explain?

Sure- just reporting more Biden news and happenings.

He’s handling things.

This week he’s gonna uncluster Trump’s Russia stance, and give Putin a stern talking to, via Zoom.

What do you think he should be doing with Putin? Or is this more of your vacuous "Biden Bad," without even bothering with a critique?

seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:42 am What do you think he should be doing with Putin? Or is this more of your vacuous "Biden Bad," without even bothering with a critique?

While we wait for kramer's reply, what are your thoughts?

youthathletics wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:48 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:42 am What do you think he should be doing with Putin? Or is this more of your vacuous "Biden Bad," without even bothering with a critique?

While we wait for kramer's reply, what are your thoughts?

Poison his tea then come out like Black Bush to declare victory.

Idiots want Biden to be just like 2XIMPOTUS o d was with Putin in Helsinki.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:48 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:42 am What do you think he should be doing with Putin? Or is this more of your vacuous "Biden Bad," without even bothering with a critique?

While we wait for kramer's reply, what are your thoughts?

Way above my pay grade. Ask Fiona Hill, one of the experts that Old Salt mocks from his dog walks. But some things to note:

Ukraine is in an awkward location; our fleet cannot be mobilized in the manner we could if, say, Taiwan was being threatened. Supply and logistics lines to locations on the Black Sea are impossibly long and difficult. And there are the issues arising from Europe's energy dependencies on Russian natural gas.

Ukraine is not a NATO member, so Article 5 doesn't come explicitly into the picture. So even putting aside the issue of "political will," the military options are seemingly insuperable.

This seems to me to leave two or three broad categories of "action" -- note the quotes. First, the US must enlist the great European powers, Germany, Britain and France, to act in concert against Russian interference in the sovereignty of Ukraine. At least one of those actions must be economic sanctions on Russia and its allies in the financial marketplace, including sanctions against state-owned (read "oligarch") companies. Here's a list from an article in the Guardian:

"The bond market
In April, the US issued a ban on US financial institutions buying new issues of Russian government bonds, which had negligible effect. Washington could go much further and sanction the secondary market in Russian bonds, where they are resold and packaged with other investments.

Nord Stream 2
The gas pipeline from Russia to northern Europe has been completed, but it has not been certified for use by the German energy regulator. Members of the new German government coalition have expressed scepticism about the project, and it is possible it would be cancelled altogether in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Sanctions on Russian corporations and banks
“The Biden administration could impose full-blocking sanctions on large Russian banks, energy companies, or defense firms … or impose sweeping prohibitions on investment and provision of services to conventional Russian oil projects,” Fishman said. Two possible financial targets are the huge VTB Bank, and Gazprombank.

Sanctions on oligarchs and their families
The US treasury has been hesitant to impose sanctions on Russian oligarchs, after measures taken against Oleg Deripaska had an impact on the activities of his aluminum company, Rusal, in Ireland, causing a major rift with Dublin. In the wake of an invasion, Congress is likely to add more Putin-friendly oligarchs to a blacklist to be appended to the defence budget. Family members of Putin’s circle could also be more extensively targeted.

Swift
The biggest stick in Biden’s arsenal is the threat to have Russia excluded from the global electronic payment system, Swift, based in Belgium. It was one of the most crippling measures used against Iran, and would make Russia a pariah in international finance. Åslund described the weapon as “the sledge hammer”, possibly to be used as a last resort."

Putin's regime requires cash; oligarchs have to be satisfied. The military has to maintain itself and its sense of purpose in support of the regime. Iran-like sanctions are on the table. Multilateralism is essential. All stuff Trump would never have countenanced against his hero.

I think it'll be harder for Putin to use the pipelines as hostage-taking in Europe. Again, Putin's regime needs Western cash payments; the level of withholding gas in the coming winter will be difficult to sustain.

Kramer just posts for the purpose of propping up his "both sides are terrible," "nobody is getting things done" and "Biden is bad, infirm, etc." narrative. He's essentially the Lou Dobbs here.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:42 am

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:17 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:10 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 4:11 pm Biden to warn Putin (via skype) about economic pain if he invades Ukraine:

https://apnews.com/article/biden-putin- ... d5ccb31268

Care to expand/explain?

Sure- just reporting more Biden news and happenings.

He’s handling things.

This week he’s gonna uncluster Trump’s Russia stance, and give Putin a stern talking to, via Zoom.

What do you think he should be doing with Putin? Or is this more of your vacuous "Biden Bad," without even bothering with a critique?

The critique is simple. It's the approach. We all know Putin's ego. It's just like business. If he's truly serious with Biden and cares about improving things with Russia especially over Ukraine, he should have done a face to face. That's when real deals get done and real compromise happens with people like Vlad. If you're closing on any important business deal, you show your real face. Covid or not. Busy schedule or not. The level of respect shown and earnestness shown in a f2f is real and something you don't get with video meetings. That tells me there won't be much change unless these meetings are just the start of a bigger plan and just part of something much more frequent.

The AP story laid it out well. Putin wants NATO gone. And the diplomatic sanctions including the ones outlined above, won't prevent anything and will just be reactionary. Biden needs to be the good cop re: NATO, build a relationship, and cross his fingers diplomacy works.

As an aside, let's hope Biden's evacuation plan for US citizens in Ukraine is better than the last ordeal.