TPS

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.

Yep.Then there was Greenspan, China, and the list goes on. To focus on one group as THE cause tends to fit one's political bias...

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/how_paul_krugman_broke_a_wikipedia_page_on_economics/

Just trying to make sure I piss everyone off. I'm an equal opportunity irritator...

He bought seeds from a grain elevator that contained "some" of Monsanto's seeds. I don't think it's his responsibility to have them tested to find out if SOME were Monsanto seeds. It should be Monsanto's responsibility to make sure those who by their seeds don't allow them to be re-sold. Here, here.

Seriously, politicians make faux pas all of the time. What's your angle on this? Why does it bother you? I want someone who isn't going to kiss Israel's butt. It's time to start questioning their actions. They want the US to go do their dirty work, first with Iraq, and now iran. I seriously want someone who wants to try to negotiate and open discussions instead of bombing first.

In other news, interesting action today M...http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-20/wti-oil-narrows-discount-to-brent-on-seaway-flows.html

It's the private sector debt consolidation that has caused this mess, and it what he's been fighting since 2008. I didn't think I needed to put it in quotes to indicate the sarcasm....