« "The Most Productive in the World" | Main | Best Debate Yet » Like Bush, But Without the Deep Understanding of the Issues09 Oct 2007 05:48 pm Rudy Giuliani on whether or not it's a problem that China owns so much of our federal debt: "the way to balance to books is to sell more overseas -- sell energy independence, sell health care." John McCain on monetary policy: "I'm glad whenever they cut interest rates, I wish interest rates were zero." Comments (54)
I wish interest rates were zero. Did he really say that? Good god. 
We all have off days sometimes and say really dumb things. Really really dumb things.
Rudy Giuliani on whether or not it's a problem that China owns so much of our federal debt: "the way to balance to books is to sell more overseas -- sell energy independence, sell health care." McCain's zero interest rate comment is stupid, but Giuliani's doesn't even make any sense. How do you sell health care?
McCain's zero interest rate comment is stupid, but Giuliani's doesn't even make any sense. How do you sell health care? ..... I guess he means you sell prescription drugs. which means you are relying on those strictly enforced Chinese IP laws. Ummm...any other ideas Rudy?
John McCain, Islamofascist Manchurian candidate.
Oh for fuck's sake.
Well Rudy's been selling 9-11 for a long time so he guesses everything can be sold (even a national tragedy.) Who know, he might propose just selling the US itself. John McCain seems to have accelerated his descent to senility.
Um, what's the problem with Giuliani's statement??? Do we not "sell health care"? Is the complaint that health care is somehow unable to be sold in China? In any event, the larger point is correct - replacing investment in American debt with consumption of American goods.
Good point Ogged, McCain should just move to Yemen for some non-usurious lending. As a side note: in Islamic banking, it looks superficially like there's no interest rates, but get real -- if lenders got no return, why would they lend??
John McCain is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
As for McCain, I assume that he was proposing we adopt a policy like Japan did a few years ago. I don't think that's a good idea, though.
"As for McCain, I assume that he was proposing we adopt a policy like Japan did a few years ago. I don't think that's a good idea, though." You folks have a really weird race on the GOP end this cycle. I'm a student of Presidential primary races, and I don't think we've seen one this bizarre on either side of the aisle since the 70's. I'm starting to think Michigan has got to be Rudy's last stand. Assuming he pooches IA and NH, if he doesn't get MI, he's got some fatal problems. And if Romeny takes IA, NH, and MI, does that mean we settle into a long Romney vs the Southern anti-Romney race that the anti-Romeny eventually wins? And if Romney wins IA while Rudy win NH, does that lock the Sun Belt candidates out of two candidate race? Or do we wait for SC? (I always forget it's all about SC for you folks.) ----- It's beginning to smell a bit like Iowa...
Other things Al may have said: "what is wrong with having a wide stance? Do we not prefer full size cars and SUVs? In any event, the larger point is correct - replacing narrow airport bathroom stalls with more roomy ones" "As for Mark Foley, I assume he was instructing teenagers in the intricate art of IM seduction. I don't think that's a good idea, though" We all know that you are a GOP supporter. But seriously do you have to defend everything Republican? Everything? You know that even smart people say/do stupid things sometimes.
But seriously do you have to defend everything Republican? Everything? You know that even smart people say/do stupid things sometimes. Maybe you are not quite understanding my "I don't think [McCain's proposal is] a good idea, though." Usually, when someone says they don't think something is a good idea, they are not defending it.
I dunno Petey. I am not sure I agree with the importance of Iowa/NH, given the changes in the primary schedule. I know most people think the changes in the schedule make those states more important, but I'd disagree. I'd take Giuliani's position right now over Romney's every day of the week.
Al, surprisingly you are as profoundly confused on your own primary process as you are on the issues generally. If Romney wins IA and NH, as he may well given current polling, Giuliani, who never made any sense anyway to the portion of the GOP aware of the stances of the candidates on non-9/11 issues, is a goner.
I'd take Giuliani's position right now over Romney's every day of the week. Bent over and spread-legged in front of our corporate masters as opposed to kneeling with mouth open in front of the religious right? I can see how you might . . .
That's surprisingly homophobic of you, rea.
". I'd take Giuliani's position right now over Romney's every day of the week." If, and only if, Rudy can take NH or MI. if not, you're heading down to SC and FL with one viable Southerner against the Northerner who'd won 3 in a row, and the media unable to cover the third candidate, then... I just don't see how Rudy stays viable to the eve of 2/5 under those circumstances. ----- If I'm Rudy, I bet the farm in NH and fight it out there. Win that, and he's alive in good position. Lose that, and he's flat-lining. (Disclaimer, I don't understand your winner-take-all rules on your side, so my calculus is not always quite right for your side.)
As for McCain, I assume that he was proposing we adopt a policy like Japan did a few years ago. I don't think that's a good idea, though. Cutting rates from 0.15% to zero, as Japan did, is the stupid end result of a long series of small stupid decisions. Thinking it would be a good idea to cut from 4.75% to zero for no articulated reason is beyond just "not a good idea," it's...I can't even think of an adjective strong enough to describe how stupid it is. Then to go beyond just thinking that to saying it out loud at a debate, well...thank heavens McCain has no shot to be president at all.
McCain endorses a policy of hyperinflation and Al treats it as serious. And of course health care is a non-tradeable good, but Al thinks Giuliani makes sense!
That's surprisingly homophobic of you, rea. It may come as a surprise to you to learn that heteros do those things all the time, Al.
Give AI his due: zero interest rates are undesirable and AI said exactly that. Japan had a problem with liquidity and over-saving, so infinitesimal interest rates were perhaps malus minor. We can revive real-estate bubble, not such a hot idea. We can kill off the few remaining savers in USA -- again, not a hot idea. But from another point of view, we could plunge dollar so low that Chinese and other Far-East tigers would be forced to float dollars, and somewhere between 1 dollar -- 1 renminbi and 1 dollar -- 1 yen we would regain export competitiveness in basically everything (except of industries that we got rid off totally). Not to mention the national debt that is, he he, dollar denominated. Is Guliani making sense? Chinese can buy a bunch of hospitals etc., so healthcare can be sold. Energy independence is sold already, I am afraid. So, lets see -- pride, good name, dignity, surely, SOME should still remain? I would propose services of hedge-fund managers.
I think MY was reflecting on Giuliani's utter confusion regarding the trade deficit and it's corollary current account problem pounding the dollar - with America's reckless government spending and China and other nations holding the paper on our government debt. Two structurally different fiscal problems. One relating to China out-competing us, the other caused by us spending more than we tax and relying on domestic and international financiers to keep the government and it's unfunded by revenue spending going. Though I think that is a minor matter as Rudy has 20 years of experience as a US Marshall and Mayor working the financial side - some national macroeconomic facts may elude him, but he surely can comprehend the distinctions quickly if he gets in national office. Though Rudy obviously is not in Romney's league on economics.... I especially liked Romney's plan to do a formal strategic audit of the US Government budget and services ASAP to identify waste, inefficiencies, duplication of services, functions that the private sector does far cheaper and why differences exist...It is perhaps inspired by Gov Arnold's systemic audit of California's budget that advisors like Warren Buffet helped him with, but I really like the idea. (The Dems lack candidates with either Rudy or Mitt Romney's financial grounding) McCain's point though is one that will not damage him politically. Few Americans are savers and those that are have better investments than dollars sitting in banks. EVERYONE with debt, home mortgages, looking for a job would HOPE that the interest rate is more towards Zero than Carter-like 21% levels.
John McCain has officially entered the senile phase of his campaign.
Rudy has 20 years of experience as a US Marshall and Mayor working the financial side Rudy was a Marshal? When was that? I had not heard that part of his bio. And if he was, what sort of experience "working the financial side" would that give him?
Chris Ford, What exactly is China out-competing us in, producing lead-painted toys and tainted foods? China may dominate sweatshop industries like making glass beads, but high-tech American manufacturers are booming: John Deere, Boeing, United Technologies (includes Otis Elevator, Sikorsky Helicopter, Carrier air conditioners, etc.), etc. America's trade deficit is due mainly to importing 70%+ of our oil, not to losing low-tech manufacturing to China. I'm surprised no one from CNBC called the candidates on their bashing of China for "manipulating" their currency: how can any candidate criticize China for this when the dollar has declined 30%+ in the last 5 years, with the tacit approval of the Fed and Treasury? A weak dollar is a de facto tariff on foreign imports, including imports from China, and a boon to U.S. exporters. Overall, I wasn't impressed with the way the candidates spoke about these issues. My hope and belief about Romney though is that he is the rare candidate who is actually smarter than he appears on stage, as his previous accomplishments suggest.
America's trade deficit is due mainly to importing 70%+ of our oil, not to losing low-tech manufacturing to China. Total oil imports (2006): 224.68 billion dollars
I especially liked Romney's plan to do a formal strategic audit of the US Government budget and services ASAP to identify waste, inefficiencies, duplication of services, functions that the private sector does far cheaper and why differences exist... What about doing an audit of the services the government currently outsources but could do better and cheaper in-house? It is perhaps inspired by Gov Arnold's systemic audit of California's budget that advisors like Warren Buffet helped him with, but I really like the idea. Which actually found far less fat to be cut out than they expected, and helped lead to Arnold "handling" the budget deficit by... a gigantic $15 billion bond offering. Republicans are so awesome.
Rudy was a Marshal? When was that? Never. He was a US Attorney.
If they gave out awards for the best/funniest titles on posts this one should win like Secretariat at the Belmont Stakes. Great job, Matt.
Al -- You are right (even a blind pig, etc) about what we infer RG's general point to be -- US exports must rise, or US imports must fall, to finance our external deficit. But how can we export health care when we are the highest cost producer in the world ? How are we selling "energy independence" unless RG is talking cutting consumption or lifting supply so as to lower the energy trade deficit ? Is it really too much to ask of a Presidential candidate to speak clearly and with some knowledge of the facts ?
I agree - good title. Ranks right up there with the capsule review of an opera production as being "longer than Parsifal, but not as funny".
I am no Talmudic scholar, but my guess is that energy independence and reform of healthcare would lower the US's need to buy oil from abroad and would have a smaller deficit to pay for entitlement costs, thereby tackling the national debt. Ok, Ok, I'm struggling...
McCain's point though is one that will not damage him politically. Few Americans are savers and those that are have better investments than dollars sitting in banks. EVERYONE with debt, home mortgages, looking for a job would HOPE that the interest rate is more towards Zero than Carter-like 21% levels. That's like saying McCain would not be damaged politically by campaigning on a platform of printing free money and giving it away to everyone. In fact, it's almost exactly like that. Most conservatives are so deep into the supply-side Kool-Aid that they can't even recognize a batshit insane economic idea when they hear one. Look at Al, above, treating McCain's crazy comment seriously and concluding gee, on balance, I guess it's something I wouldn't go with. There's only one rational conclusion to draw and that's that McCain's statement was indicative of economic illiteracy.
Shorter Rudy: Interest is like, so wrong, dude. It should be zero, like, money should be free, know what I'm sayin? Hey, pass the bong, man....
In theory, one could sell energy independence like this: 1. Introduce world-leading pollution standards, and strong mandates for the use of renewable energy and energy-conservation measures.
Oh yeah? Well I wish interest rates were NEGATIVE! I'd run up huge debts and people would have to PAY ME! President Captain USA! Yeah! I like the sound of that.
Switching my vote to McCain. No doubt he'd appoint someone to the Fed who shares his views on zero percent interest rates. People are too afraid of inflation, you have to grow the economy! The so-called "Clinton years" were because Greenspan kept interest rates low. Clinton gets too much credit, he just sat in the White House triangulating and doing other stuff...
Timeout. Seriously. What is your problem here, with McCain's "I wish interest rates were zero" comment? It doesn't make any sense. Don't ban me, but I thought the left still considered interest (and profit, and rent, which they sometimes consider different things) illegitimate forms of income that should either be socially shunned or taxed the hell out of. I know Molly Ivins was writing about that as recently as '03. I thought investment income isn't "real" work in the way that labor is? Please clarify. Thank you.
Person - It appears you confusing interest payments with interest earnings. Oh, and all liberals don't think that all interest rates are bad, just 20% rates of predatory lenders (they used to be called loan sharks). "People are too afraid of inflation, you have to grow the economy!" If a large number of people begin saying this, it is a clear indication that you should be shorting your US stocks.
"Person," seriously. If you "know" that Molly Ivins was writing about these things, then presumably you'll have no trouble coming up with a link to it, since vast amounts of her writing are available online. And likewise, if the views you ascribe to "the left" are also commonplace, you should have no trouble linking to examples there, too. Unless you can, the "please argue with me about why you're not acting like my caricature of liberals" schtick is pretty lame.
Rihilism: If interest rates are zero, lenders aren't making money off loans. To be "okay" with paying interst but not receiving it is non-sensical. Redshift: You should generally only pretend to believe evidence doesn't exist, if you really believe the evidence doesn't exist. From the column that made me bang my head on my desk: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0107-08.htm "One reason dividends should be taxed is because the people who get them don't work for the money. In the old days, people who lived off their investments were known as 'coupon clippers' and generally despised as non-working parasites." (emphasis added) Now, begin rationalization.
"People are too afraid of inflation, you have to grow the economy!" If a large number of people begin saying this, it is a clear indication that you should be shorting your US stocks." Yes because inflation impacts the rich disproportionately more and employement growth (economic growth) effects the middle class/poor more. And the economy should revolve around the wealthy's desires and wants and needs. Really, the government should straight out tax the fat boys and redistribute to the rest of society. No need to mess with interest rates.
"Really, the government should straight out tax the fat boys and redistribute to the rest of society." Why should the "fat boys" stick around then to subsidize parasites like you? There are other countries more welcoming to the wealthy, like Britain, which doesn't tax them on foreign income. No country ever got rich by demonizing those who create wealth.
"In the old days, people who lived off their investments were known as 'coupon clippers' and generally despised as non-working parasites." In the old days, they were generally known as widows and retirees. My grandmother clipped coupons. Of course, she wouldn't have had any coupons to clip if her late husband hadn't built a successful business, creating dozens of jobs in the process, and prudently invested some of his profits in great American companies' stocks. Rest assured, that she was never "despised" in her community; on the contrary, she was well-liked and respected, as she generously donated her time and money to community organizations.
No country ever got rich by demonizing those who create wealth. The 'those who create wealth' phrase is a bit awkward; most people shorten it to 'workers'.
"The 'those who create wealth' phrase is a bit awkward; most people shorten it to 'workers'." Clever, but I'm sure you knew I was referring to entrepreneurs and their investors. Entrepreneurs and their investors create far more wealth than most workers. There's a reason why the founders of Jamba Juice and its initial investors are more highly compensated than the dreadlocked guys running the blenders. Of course, Communist countries such as the Soviet Union demonized entrepreneurial business owners and mythologized ordinary workers. It didn't prove to be a path to prosperity.
No country got rich by demonizing work either. No matter how little you think of those 'dreadlocked guys running the blenders', those entrepeneurs couldn't have created that wealth without them. If you wouled stop calling them 'parasites' for a sec, you'd probably realize both groups are actually needed for wealth creation. Even the poorest countries have rich people in them, while the rich ones invariably* have both rich people and an expansive middle class of 'workers'. That's not a coincidence. * Except for Equatorial Guinea, where the entrepreneurs really did create all the wealth. If by create you mean 'dig up' and by wealth you mean 'oil'.
Oh Person, you silly obfuscator, you. Dividends,as described by the dear departed Molly, are not interest income. They are investment income derived from profit. Credit Unions will sometimes refer to interest payments to members as dividends, since the members are technically owners, but that's not what she was talking about, and you probably know it. So either stop building straw men, or go educate yourself enough to understand that that what you are doing.
Singularity, I don't "know" the differences you refer to, and it wouldn't matter anyway. Some lefties hate rent, interest, and profit. Some just hate rent and profit. Some just hate rent and interest. Some just hate rent. So when someone here scoffs at "interest rate should be zero" I have no way of knowing whether they think that idea is stupid because they've rejected the left's historical hatred of non-labor income, or if they merely reject that particular part of it. (I happen to have just finished a paper that argues all three are the same: the return earned by a factor of production. Rent is the return earned by land or a building in a period of time. Dividends are the return earned by a corporation's assets. Interest is the return earned on money. The only think unique about interest is that the units of the rental price are the same as the units of the asset.) So before I build another strawman by failing to know *which* crank leftist belief you hold, please clarify: -Do you think interest income is a morally legit form of income? By the way if you bothered to educate yourself on the issue, you'd know that, while bonds pay interest, if I invest in bonds through a mutual funds, they income earned this way is referred to as a "dividend".
-Do you think interest income is a morally legit form of income? Also I don't believe capital gains income should be taxed differently from labor income. As you can see, I am not a Republican
Juan asked Why should the "fat boys" stick around then to subsidize parasites like you? There are other countries more welcoming to the wealthy, like Britain, which doesn't tax them on foreign income. Well they stuck around in the 1940's through 1970's. Maybe they like it here. Low taxes on investment income is harmful to the economy. It places too much money in the hands of the wealthy, who then cause rampant asset inflation by bidding up the price of scarce assets. Just because you create a pool of investable funds does not automatically create a corresponding pool of attractive assets. Proof of this is seen in rising P/E's on the stock market and on rising real home prices. (Long term return on equity is inversely correlated with P/E). What this does is reduce returns to capital (i.e. profit) which is the very core of how capitalist economies work. By embracing increasingly loony economics, Republicans have now become this country's greatest anti-capitalists.
Comments closed October 23, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
John McCain sounds like a deranged version of a Japanese central banker.
Posted by Reality Man | October 9, 2007 6:02 PM