TPS

It's not socialism or communism; it's more akin to the Chinese model--state directed Capitalism. The market is alive and well in Ecuador and Bolivia. The difference is these governments decided to take a greater share of the revenues from the companies extracting their resources, renegotiating the contracts. The increased revenues are being used to fund health, education, and infrastructure, and Ecuador is doing quite well with this model. In fact it is listed as one of the most popular countries in the world to retire to. My mistake then. I've been talking about Bolivia and Ecuador in this thread, staying away from the Chavez debate.

Ummm, Correa, who I was talking about, is the president of Ecuador.

Renegotiating contracts to keep more of the country's wealth generated from its natural resources, yes. Especially when there were corrupt regimes that preceded. This has allowed Correa to pay for his social programs without attacking the rich and pursuing your wealth distribution from within. Over the long run, a healthy, better educated population will generate more wealth and growth than the extremes of poverty that existed prior to the Bolivarian Revolution.

It was my projection for 2013 denso.

There you go again...Do you truly want to claim that QE was responsible for price increases dating to the the near bottom of the post-bubble crash? Any objective person would understand that stabilizing the economy would lead to a recovery in prices to some level. I know we've had this discussion, but it's really a specious argument. Don't you think we should look at "relative demand" as magox claims? Wouldn't it be more honest to look at where C-price indexes were relative to the pre-bubble level of global GDP? As I stated then, the first half of the year will be slowed by the payroll tax increase and now spending cuts. I said the second half would generate most of the growth. Starting from the low number justifies his world view. You won't change that.

If by transfer of wealth you mean renegotiating contracts with global resource extraction corps and renegotiating a bond issue that was deemed illegal from the previous administration, yes. So if reading and traveling to a country are not adequate sources, then what exactly gives one the ability to pontificate oh wise one? That socialist president Bachelet was smart enough to set up a sovereign wealth fund when copper prices were high, which allowed Chili (I like that spelling better) to weather the crisis better than other SA countries.

No dumbass, I 've been to Ecuador 4 times and Bolivia once. maybe you don't remember that you and I were both travelling there around the same time, 2009, yes?

A few months ago I suggested that the economy was gaining strength (which was why I said bullish bets were pushing up oil prices), but that didn't sit well with Obama haters. Despite the payroll tax increase and the recent cuts, the economy seems to have some decent momentum independent of stupid policies from both sides...

Two of the most significant improvements in "conditions of the poor" have come from Ecuador and Bolivia. I don't know that Mexico is the poster child for any "right way" for improving living conditions. Lula and Bachelet, two socialist presidents, made significant improvements in their countries as well. Bachelet will probably return as president in the next election. I'd really be interested in what you define as the "right way vs wrong way"....

Thanks. He has a decent view on things.

I didn't want to slander your industry....

The difference is that the biggest firms are dependent on the government for their survival. As I started with, those that have over 50% of their sales tied to govt contracts certainly are different from "normal capitalist firms."

That was funny.As AD said, (something like) you can't prevent stupidity from killing a company. I'm not saying they are completely exempt. The "thesis" is that many industries protect themselves from competition through their relationships and influence over politicians and regulators--the revolving door of regulatory agencies. That does not suggest they make exorbitant profits; it's about longevity and generating nice salaries for those at the top. Also, it's not some high-growth industry to be compared to Apple--you could make your comparison with almost any industry. They don't have to make huge profits, they just have to generate a decent ROE. Over the long run, no one is exempt from destroying a company, but large oligopolistic industries are about price control and reducing competition to a minimum. Again, I would argue that the big firms in many industries see regulations as a way to restrain new entrants in their markets. The big firms can afford to meet regs, the little guys can't. Big firms influence legislation. As recent topics here discuss, the farm bill isn't directed at helping small farmers; healthcare firms purchased protection, including big pharma by not allowing Medicare to bargain for discounts; Monsanto's seeds have contaminated non gmo varieties and it's the farmers who have to pay for acts of nature. The list goes on...

It's not a "leg up," it's symbiotic relationship that helps with survival. Mergers and concentrated industries are how capitalism works. Grumman didn't die. In trying to characterize general trends or forces, there are always counter-examples. Like using Latvia as the poster child of austerity's success....

While many idustries are subject to Schumpeterian forces, there are quite a few that are not. The Military-Industrial Complex for one. The largest firms have more than 50% of their sales tied to government contracts, which is why they have so many ex-generals on their payrolls. I think there are many industries that are highly concentrated and rely on their connections to government regulators and politicians to keep their industries less competitive and/or provide tax breaks to bolster profits. Regulations are designed make it difficult for smaller companies to compete with the bigger ones, because bigger companies can "afford" to meet regulations easier than smaller companies. It's as if there are really two economies: one for the insiders; and one for the rest of us.

I just ordered a book that I found out about from a book review in the latest New Yorker. The review references two similar books, one by Bruno Rizzi published in 1939 called the "Bureaucratization of the World," and the other by James Burnham published in 1941 called "The Managerial Revolution." Both authors argued that the world would eventually be taken over by major powers ruled by entrenched bureaucracies that cared little for the populous. I ordered the Burnham book, as it says Orwell's "1984" was influenced by this one. JK Galbraith also acknowledges this book as influencing his "The INdustrial State." A quote of Burnham's book from the review, "The economies of the major powers had fallen into the hands of a new elite: the managers, executives,financiers, and stockholders who owned and ran corporations, and the government administrators who regulated them." Doesn't sound to far off...

Yes, the point I was making is that you can't simply look at the level of debt and assume it's bad. The debt is a balance sheet item and we usually compare it to GDP, an income flow. The government has assets to sell, and it does sell quite often to resource companies. The government's debt is not much different than Heinz's debt: neither ever have to be paid off. Both can always reissue their debt as long as they show they can make their interest payments (though the government does have a last resort action if necessary).Thanks for the link. I'll check it after the Sabres game.

If I told you I have debt of $250,000, would you think that I'm insolvent? Heinz has $9 billion in liabilities, why would Buffett want to buy them? Regarding Medicare, it appears to be the most efficient entity in all of healthcare, but since it's government run, "it's bad"?

Don't lump in SS, as it is "funded" to 2030s. Using the USPS is a strawman. Medicaid apparently is one of the few entities helping to restrain costs. The Brill article supports the argument made by people like Dean Baker and Krugman that rising costs is the main factor driving the M/M deficit going forward (obviously the # of retirees is the other). The article is appealing because he throws bones out for both sides--Medicare is more efficient than private insurers; and the need for tort reform.

Given how often the topic gets discussed, I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet. A long look at the drivers of healthcare costs. He throws bones out for the left and right. http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/

I didn't know I was appointed the Obama defender. I didn't vote for him.

for defense contractors, here's the link. It's a good series and explains that many items are simply make-work programs that help feed the Military-Industrial Complex. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-19/pentagon-budget-stuck-in-last-century-as-warfare-changes.html

Signed with the Titans.

Really looking forward to the Ryan/Pettine Defense.

He's with the CAto institute. Nuff said.