The Great Divergence

[kandrathe]

Stocks go up. Stocks go down. My point is - your idea of "ludicrous," an obvious loser, still would have net you 10% annual, despite having been at an unsustainable peak when you would have bought, and just following a major crash when you sold.

Had you bought at 100ish, in the early 2000s doldrums, then sold at 750 at the height of 2007, you'd have made a killing - about 22% annual. But then, if wishes were ponies, then beggars would ride, and if the stock market worked backwards, we'd all make a hobo of Warren Buffett.

At the point I thought it was ludicrous, I looked earnestly at the stocks projected sales to earnings ratios. Based upon their potential earnings, the stock wasn't worth $200 at that time. Greenspan was correct in calling it "irrational exuberance" at that time. But, in 2000, it was just a blind bet on something new and cool. Any IPO with relation to anything labelled "web based" went to a market cap higher than some blue chip stocks in a week. How many of those companies are still in existence? Not such a good bet then in 2000. And, unless you really knew Google would survive, you couldn't say Google was any better than them. Although it was established, but remember, this was before Google even had ads.

Ok, in your opinion then, companies using stimulus money to hire people they couldn't afford is better than having them eventually hired by companies that can afford them?

Funny, I seem to recall arguing that to you, when you suggested massive tax credits for businesses to hire extra workers as a solution to unemployment.

You're trying to frame this as a choice between "make work" employment and "real" employment. The real choice is between "make work" employment and unemployment - otherwise, why is there 10% unemployment? And yes, that's a benefit to the "make work" employed worker, albeit an expensive one.

I was advocating more of a hiring bonus thinking that a company can make a decision about the benefit of one time boon, versus depending on the government to fund the position. I guess the "smart" companies should have thought about "What happens in Jan 2011?" too.

I would frame this type of bogus "stimulus" as giving money to a company to temporarily employ someone they cannot afford, rather than using the money (or lack of revenue from a tax credit) to enable the company to be able to afford to hire people. The first is what did happen, in temporarily funding someone working, rather than have that person collecting unemployment, as opposed to actually stimulating the economy allowing the business to hire someone they needed, and could afford to hire.

Per the Iraq War: There's hedging your bets, and then there's the side you come down on. Are you really telling me that your position was one of opposition to the war? Or just distaste at having to pay for it all because France and Russia weren't interested? (Edit: Cagey, you were. But the one consistent theme is that Saddam *must* be "dealt with," and that existing methods weren't working. If you opposed the war, you certainly had an odd way of saying so.)

I almost always oppose war, except in cases of defense against direct attack. At that time even, I tended to couch my statements to try to show or guess at the rationale used by the administration.

I believed they must have had secret knowledge of something bigger and more sinister. In that, I was wrong. They had suspicions, but no actual hard evidence of anything. Any of us can construct a bogeyman, and justify acts of extreme violence to defend ourselves from scary fiction.

It might seem then, since I'm not railing against the US, or their actions, that I'm in agreement with their actions. Usually not. I'm actually opposed to most government action, since it's needlessly coercive and violent.

This might shock you... I was a peace activist in college during the 1980's and a student leader and founder of our campus's peace studies student organization. There was a Progressive Student Organization, that always resorted to confrontational civil disobedience almost weekly to get attention. I found a group a students who wanted to work for peace, but didn't think getting arrested in violent clashes with the authorities was a very rational or mature way to accomplish or demonstrate a commitment to non-violent social change. During that time I was really into Buddhism, and I studied many eastern philosophies, and dabbled in training in about 6 or so different martial arts over the next 15 years.

At the time they attacked Iraq, I felt they hadn't really done enough bring things back to serious negotiation. The UN weapons inspectors had hardly had a chance, before the gung-ho Neo-Cons war hawks marched in. I remember being awed by the US military power, and thankful that I wasn't an Iraqi. The hope of the UN was to be an organization that promoted peace, and provided a forum for addressing grievances without resorting to war. It's hard to have credibility in that when your nation is one of the largest manufacturers and suppliers of weapons to the worlds conflicts. And, that at the drop of a pin, we are willing to rush in with advisors, and escalate conflicts to full blown warfare. I just think sometimes for the people in power, that they find war to be good for business.

I opposed our intervention in the Balkans war, and subsequent nation building. I thought our attempts to help Africa were half baked, but I felt compassion for the people who were suffering. I am upset that the UN did near nothing to abate suffering and the millions of deaths in Darfur, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc. etc. etc.

Did you really predict that there wouldn't be many people living in Africa by 2010? I should really be keeping a list.)

I can't remember this one. Was this due to AIDS, war and stuff?

"[2000] began with 24 million Africans infected with the virus. In the absence of a medical miracle, nearly all will die before 2010. Each day, 6,000 Africans die from AIDS. Each day, an additional 11,000 are infected." — Lester R. Brown, HIV Epidemic Restructuring Africa’s Population, World Watch Issue Alert, 31 October 2000

The infection rate is still growing at about 10% per year. In 2008, there were about 35 million Africans infected with HIV, out of the billion that live there. The ravaging of Africa due to disease, corruption and war is ongoing, but slower than I thought obviously. The global recession has set things back a bit, and we're not bumping into "peak oil" shortages yet. Although, we're on course for a bigger global crisis on the horizon. I just don't know exactly which resource shortage will trigger it first, Oil, Food, or Water.