Neo

Well, let's make sure we elect a tech savvy commander in chief .... One that will wipe servers, like, with a cloth .... Or, just carry convenient blackberries, or clear the subject line before printing and faxing ... I mean, what could go wrong .... I had to, I had to .... forgive me, Father, I know not what I do ... I am guilty, even before the charges are levied!

You immortalized my typo.

I believe so? Am I too sensitive? I'm trying to hear those words in the context of a man, at work.

More musings. If we balanced the budget today, we could grow to an 80% debt/GDP level in ten years at 2% growth. That's hard (assumes balanced budget today) and ugly (80%, meh, after a decade). Do you see why 2% growth troubles me? We celebrate that. Our debt's growing faster. We stay "America" with 3 or 3.5% growth and balanced budgets. Simple Neo - stop spending and grow, or let your kids inherit Europe. I've been to Europe. It's nice. Sorta like your aunt's parlor. You can look at truly beautiful old stuff. It's not gonna beat anyone to Mars, cure cancer, defend Taiwan, mass produce Corvettes, fill its houses with high def televisions, export food to the world, provide eleven different kinds of milk at 7 different supermarkets, etc. It's nice. I love it. I respect it deeply. Its awesomeness stems from its yesterday. It's not America. Now, maybe that's fine with everyone ... Education - talk about a worthwhile investment. We've tried that one here! Everyone agrees it's under appreciated in the dialogue. Not everyone agrees on the approach.

"Controlling personality" - what everyone says about a boss who wants to see more or different. "Not as sweet as she seems" - what every unthoughtful person says when describing a woman he or she couldn't control. Just when I'm prepared to make another "there are no bogeymen" point, someone proves to me there are. I don't know the Pegulas from Adam. I do know language that's offensive.

Two issues, for me (I'm not an economist): 1). Absolute debt is less important than proportional debt (say to GDP, or earning ability). We're not in a great neighborhood at 100%. Add consumer debt, it gets uglier, as our re-payers are already strapped. We leverage at two levels. 2). The availability of debt is important. You can live on the gravy train as long as someone brings the gravy. This is our savior, to date. More debt hides the pain of existing debt. Sorta like heroin. US debt is still attractive worldwide. The ability to confiscate your wages is still attractive to investors. Tallest midget, to be politically incorrect. Tick tock, tick tock. See above. We have already squandered our standard of living by borrowing. You got benefits, yesterday, with money you promised to pay, tomorrow. The question is when you recognize it; now, while you can address it, or later, when the gravy stops coming here. Your terms, or your creditors, will apply. I'd stop spending now. We live today on money you, and Liger, and Hoss, and many others will repay. You (D4r) have a $60 thousand dollar balance on your credit card. It's $120 thousand if you consider that roughly half of us pay. Are you looking for a house? BTW, the curve is upward sloping and accelerating. It was $30 thousand a few years ago. I didn't include interest. US debt as a percentage of GDP bounced around at 30% to 35% in the seventies and eighties. It climbed to 60% to 65% in the nineties until 2010. It's now approximately 100%. Soul baring confession that's meaningful - I'm informed, but on thin expertise ice. This is tricky voodoo stuff. I'd welcome correction or opinion. I do, though, understand debt and the consequence of its lack of availability and implications for tomorrow. My figures (Worldbank, US Fed) aren't partisan. Debt/GDP OR how much you spend/how much you can repay, is a ratio. We have no will to shrink the numerator. Our great chance is GROW the denominator. Drill, baby, drill. Grow, de-regulate, lower taxes. I'm not trying to bend you over and protect Rockefellers wth top hats. I'm trying to maintain your standard of living and improve that of others. I'd balance the budget and grow into lesser debt/GDP proportions. Growth and modest spending can ease a hangover. Free everything today for all is the porcelain bowl, albeit later on. Fiscal Conservatives aren't mean. They see children. I will mention him a 15th time - Drunkard reminded us of Clinton's balanced budgets. This is not entirely a Dem/Rep issue. One party says it doesn't matter, and one gives lip service. I align with the lip service team, hoping others join me and the party gets earnest. Fiscal conservatives are the designated driver at the frat party. If you wake up, you don't remember him. If you don't, you should've listened. In my most humble opinion.

I've giggled whenever I've read "too big to fail" in the context of a government here to fix things. Regulatory budgets grew significantly for the ten or so years preceding the great recession. We got lousy, ineffective, regulation and said "we need more". Health care, you're on deck ... All I can think to ensure is availability ... and a government that allows people a landscape to individually take the necessary actions to acquire it. Like everything. In my well known view, this works best for most. It isn't perfect, but it's fiscally responsible, avoids dangerously misunderstood and threatening debts, and is better than anything else. But, given that I'm not king, and that no one wants me to be ... TO your question. I'd consider a dedicated tax, but it'd be huge (no huger than it already is, mind you, just transparent enough that a politician would have to say it out loud and not call "free" in a 30 second sound bite designed to attract the support of the snoozing). Alas, there's no dedicated fund government doesn't eventually raid "but only for a little while", giggle snicker. My healthcare "thoughts/plan" ... is really a plan for the dialogue i'd like to hear, given that I am NO HEALTHCARE expert (although I've run medical specialty groups focusing on the economics of physicians in another industry). It follows ... Private sector medical providers with market based costs. This will be controversial although I have no idea why it's more so than "bending cost curves" is controversial (and impossible). Tort reform (trial lawyers; you'd be amazed at what portion of your overall health cost goes to "protect" agains lawsuits). Some national insurance availability (Super Medicaid for all, all ages) which is subsidized by income taxes, IF AND ONLY IFF there is a recognition that this $100s of billions of dollars in new taxes has to come with some corresponding $100s of billions of spending reduction elsewhere. After the ACA, we have another unfunded entitlement. NeoPrediction: Within three years, especially if a Dem wins the election, we'll hear that "corporate greed (bogeyman) has prevented the ACA from working (actually, failed design), so we HAVE to have a national single payer program to PREVENT THE COLLAPSE OF THE ENTIRE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM (our best nature, as Americans). It's here, folks, some are just learning it piece by piece. It'll still be unfunded, but we don't care. What's a few trillion on top of nineteen? We don't care that all of our stuff's unfunded. It sounds like good stuff. We're stoned. Monsieur de Tocqueville, get a load of THIS! In short, if government wants to provide it, "yay", but it has to cut elsewhere, just like you and me. Cuz, like, it is you and me. I recognize the benefit of health care for all. This is one of those issues I feel, in my heart. But, feeling it doesn't absolve me from having to solve it. Feeling is necessary, not sufficient. I fall off the populist wagon when I say "pay as you go, big government". I'm a mean conservative. I have a calculator, but it's mean to bring that up, too. It's much nicer to.... So, you see, my view of healthcare is really a view of economics, responsible governing, and prioritizing. Allow those concepts to enter the mix, and I'll talk. I'll even pay my fair share (instinctive phrase twitch). I am willing to be taxed by a responsible and honest entity with a plan. I am miserably subjected to something that lacks all three chacteristics, but can confiscate. We are holdup victims, and the crooks are nincompoops. "But, the bandits were so ... I don't know, charismatic and cute ... i can't wait until they rob me again .... swoooooon". I will kiss the next person who says "It's so important, so valuable, that we need to make it available to all, and here are the less important things that we must stop doing, because it has to add up". Politics Thread .... Bernie's most honest (yikes!), HRC's most deceptive (yawn), and TheRepubs haven't offered an alternative (MIA). Politics Thread .... I've learned so much from all of you, primarily with regard to priorities and trust .... PS ... these unfunded entitlement suicide plank walkers pick those who regulate your industries to make sure your practices are safe and sound ... no, really, you can't make this up ... PSS .... the national debt, the annual deficit, and the appetite for more among the citizenry, are the single largest existential threats to the nation as we know it ... forget ISIS and global warming ... we are a country which cannot support itself annually. We have been for decades. PSS ... i disguise all my commentary around economics as commentary around issues ... wait, they're the same thing. Economics is the science of human behavior. We put dollar signs in front of things to help us keep track. To ... The Dom .... there are others much better able to speak to health care than me ... but i just like you so!

Awesome GDT, both WC and TBJ with the gifs .... my YOUTH. Tonight will be fun .... almost like cousins who get to see one another a few times a year .... and learn how the other's doing ... I feel a tank kinship with AZ ....

^D4r ... Interesting. I'm reasonably close, day to day, to the conversation. More, smaller, banks has some appeal to me. It's more attractive than regulating the size of the coffee maker in the break room at big banks, IMHO. Size v regulation. Here's a thought starter. We're contemplating turning health care over to one, huge, too big to fail entity that runs near trillion dollar deficits, has accumulated nearly $19 trillion dollars of debt (or $60 thousand per person), and was recently downgraded. It'd be bankrupt if not for its ability to confiscate. It's trajectory worsens and its business plan is for more debt. Does too big to fail apply here? Google "too big to fail casino utility" for a conversation on traditional banking (a utility) and risk taking (financial engineering, inventory, and bets). Most of us know traditional banks.

Benghazi, tonight .... If you've not put me on ignore already, you have about 5 hours ... This is a public service announcement.

I'm surprised how little conversation's taken place. There's been some, but I thought "game changer" category. Perhaps you're still too close to something when you're exiting a theater.

Regulating capitalization is fine with me. I can say no more.

I take your point. Did you read or see "The Big Short"?

Good grief, those are all wonderful. I think we simply see ourselves further or not along a continuum. Raising and lowering my eyebrows -- you might be surprised what conservative bankers think about '08 / '09.

If it stopped there, we're in the same boat. How do you feel about my gas pedal example? If you think I'm nuts, I'll send you some regulatory language to peruse...

Unharnessed doesn't mean "FREE STYLE FOOD FIGHT" when I use it. That may be the rub, in this debate, between what I think is "Duh, obvious" and what others think is "Duh, obvious". I am not an anarchist. I don't know, what do you think I'm complaining about? I didn't think I was complaining. I am mad at anyone who does wrong. I just don't need to regulate the other 330 million of us. Let's prosecute the wrong doers. Regulate behaviors vs criminal laws .... two different things and too fine a distinction for my capabilities in this medium, I guess. I surrender.

Well, again, I'm not saying "no regulation and anarchy". Here's something that's occurring to me, today. We have criminal laws to stop crooks from being crooks. Yay! Let the judicial branch flourish. For your consideration, at the extremes. People are good. We need judicial courts to punish them when they commit crimes against others while allowing them to do whatever they want until they commit crimes. Not making everyone happy, safe, successful, and wealthy is not a crime. This is my philosophy regarding people. My philosophy regarding regulation and government follows this. vs. People are crooks. We need legislative regulation to prevent them from doing things because they may do bad things. You're a crook if you don't make everyone happy, safe, successful and wealthy. This is not my philosophy regarding people. My philosophy regarding regulation and government follows this. For anyone's consideration .... Conservatism is not, is most definitely not, anarchy. It is a philosophy that is, candidly, very respectful to law and order. It recognizes the benefits of law and order. It profits from law and order. This is the important part - it sees law and order as being in different universes from planned, directed, regulated, monitored, centralized activity. Law and order: You can't kill anyone. Regulation: You can have no knife greater than 6.324 inches on your person within 43.6 meters of any public gathering place as that gathering place is defined as a public place of assembly of two or more people, provided the people have reached the age of majority within the jurisdiction appropriately responsible ..... zzZZzz. Law and order: The speed limit is 55 mph. Criminal law. Regulation: Further, thou shall, using your right foot, exert pressure using your skeletal muscular system, on the in cabin sensor commonly referred to as the gasoline pedal, in such a fashion as to cause the automobile to accelerate no further than the proscribed limit on the vehicle's velocity, recognizing that the proscribed limit is subject to change, from time to time and along certain roads ... Think of the cost to you and me, and to business (which are you and me, but that's another debate), of conforming to the regulations when all that's really necessary is the criminal law ... Law and order works for me. Judicial system. The regulation does nothing more for me. Legislative policy ... Criminal law, good. Regulated behavior, bad. If you have one, you don't need two. Gross over simplifications designed to draw the distinction between those who feel over regulated and anarchists. The zip codes aren't the same. Not one, single, solitary, sole, single, sole, solitary business person thinks he or she built whatever in a vacuum. What would be the point? None, zero, zip, nada. There isn't one that succeeds without regulation .... but the one that succeeds the most is the least regulated. I might agree if we defined "ill effects". Pollution, death, assault, theft .... yes. If ill effects means something else, perhaps no. Regulating to make everyone happy, safe, rich, etc .... I'd stop short of that. Correction, I'd not stop short of that if it worked .... I'm still searching.

I'll accept teenie, tiny, harnesses to step off of anarchy, which is nuts, I agree.

Question: Would you characterize any more harnessed economy as more successful? I'll give you all the world and all of history as a possible pool for an answer. If not, would you argue we need more harnessing? I'm not for anarchy, of course. I just believe the 20 stallions are going to get wherever they do and that place is best. Remember, unharnessed doesn't mean they don't act in unison. They just get to figure it out, themselves. They're a lot better at that than any single example of centralized planning. Recessions: the cost of unharnessed activity. The result, a bumpier ride to more. Harnessing, the fool's errand of believing you can eliminate bumps and get as far. Political demagoguery: I'll manage growth that's safe and significant. I recall an assumption of risk dialogue. We all are where we are. I prefer a romper room that bruises foreheads than sitting quietly wearing helmets. I'll achieve more. We all will. Bring band aids to my room. Bring sedatives to the other. There's room to disagree unless we're saying the sedative room provides the same thing. Here's what I'd like to see: A politician saying "I propose well intentioned regulation that will limit certain activity and the benefits thereof. We'll achieve less in total, have similar outcomes to one another, and no one will get hurt". I'd admire his honesty and vote for the other guy. Just a choice of mine! Someday I'm going to post something that you'll not be able to link to Jesus. I'm trying, I'm trying! "Fish and chips taste better than veal lasagna". Today's America as different from that of the past - "we built it" people are now "whackos". I learn.

I'm going to be gone for several hours. I'm researching harnessed economies that have moved further since 1776. I'll report back if I find one.

I saw your response! I had to join!

The economy has 330 million commanders in chief. Stay out of their way. They create. If they trespass, prosecute. If they succeed, congratulate and emulate. Harness them and they slow down, regardless of the harness's good intentions. Free them, and they run.

I sent your email address to War On Ice. They're looking for a successor.

To PA: Well, we are fellow tin foil hat guys, just in different threads! I don't know how to use emoticons. I was smiling.

Pssst, there's a conspiracy, here, to confuse you.