It appears you have not yet registered with our community. To register please click here.

Origin XT RPG Network Home

Bill Would Give president full control of the web


Aug 28 2009, 10:43 PM (Post #1)
Here for the cute boys ;)
* * * * * * * * *
Posts: 16,853
Cash: 9,337,572 / 95,912
Group: Nobility
Joined: 5/08/05 04:11 AM
QUOTE
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

A nice, vague, and strange bill—kind of like Obama's campaign slogan, right?

There, I said it—but on topic, this is disturbing. Talk about privacy violation
Post Options

2 Pages < 1 2 
Aug 30 2009, 06:29 AM (Post #16)
Angel of Music
* * * * * *
Posts: 2,222
Cash: 80,663 / 206,315
Group: Nobility
Joined: 10/12/03 10:17 PM
I'm aware of Keynesian economics from Highschool econ, but I have never read any of his writings. I agree with lightly midigating business cycles by making them shallow so as to avoid a major recessions, but I don't agree with printing money like crazy until it's worthless.
Post Options

Aug 30 2009, 08:44 AM (Post #17)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,875
Cash: 1,915,578 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
QUOTE (Uno @ Aug 29 2009, 09:26 PM)
Self-regulating? Are you serious? Corrupt officials have been usurping power they shouldn't ever possess for years. That notion is simply poppycock.

Changing the direction of the market in and of itself is regulation. But of course, promoting high-risk loans and bailing out entire industries isn't regulation. Of course not.
*


1. Yes, I am serious. Why do you think we have three branches of government?

2. No, that's not regulation. Suppose I offer you 1000 dollars for your $1100 2010 bond. Is that regulation? No, hardly.

I don't think you understand how the fed works.

Promoting high-risk loans: That was Greenspan.

Bailing out the finance industry: That was Bush.

Pushing GM and Chrysler over the brink: That was Obama.

Get your history right
Post Options

Aug 30 2009, 04:18 PM (Post #18)
Lieutenant
* * * * *
Posts: 894
Cash: -4,376 / 3,952
Group: Citizen
Joined: 12/18/07 07:25 AM
QUOTE (Jinghao @ Aug 30 2009, 03:44 AM)
I don't think you understand how the fed works.

Promoting high-risk loans: That was Greenspan.

Bailing out the finance industry: That was Bush.

Pushing GM and Chrysler over the brink: That was Obama.

Get your history right
*



Printing money to give to the treasury to buy back bonds they issued but could never afford to pay back, to pay for entitlements and bank shortcomings, and to lend to foreign central banks? Under every president since Wilson.
Post Options

Aug 30 2009, 04:26 PM (Post #19)
Lieutenant
* * * * *
Posts: 894
Cash: -4,376 / 3,952
Group: Citizen
Joined: 12/18/07 07:25 AM
And Greenspan did a lot more than "promote" high-risk loans. In fact, if you are talking about sub-prime and risky "prime" mortgages, the blame is mostly on FNMA and FHLMC (Fannie and Freddie) which are Congressional creations. While empowered by the Fed, it wasn't Greenspan who guaranteed high risk loans to large mortgage corporations—it was Congress' policies.

What Greenspan really did was at first, fool everyone (especially Reagan), by coming across as an Objectivist. He was, actually, at a time. But once in his position at the Fed (which seems to go against just about everything Rand advocated, to begin with), he adopted a fully Keynsian style of central economic planning by shifting interest rates to attempt to precede "recessions" which were/are really just failures by businesses or sectors that we can attribute to those running the businesses such as the cases of the financial industry, agricultural industry, (and now the auto industry), and not the fault of the collective economy like we are always told. The Fed was created by Wilson and expanded by Roosevelt to pay for wars, and now it has become so involved in the broader economy and individual lives that a corporate oligarchy has replaced a free market.

The concept, in a free society, is indefensible; its actions, as a functioning institution, are indefensible.

This post has been edited by orisikon: Aug 30 2009, 04:28 PM
Post Options

Aug 30 2009, 05:28 PM (Post #20)
Here for the cute boys ;)
* * * * * * * * *
Posts: 16,853
Cash: 9,337,572 / 95,912
Group: Nobility
Joined: 5/08/05 04:11 AM
QUOTE (orisikon @ Aug 30 2009, 09:18 AM)
Printing money to give to the treasury to buy back bonds they issued but could never afford to pay back, to pay for entitlements and bank shortcomings, and to lend to foreign central banks? Under every president since Wilson.
*


Well, you realize that before Wilson created the Fed, the only way the US could get out of their economic panics (the last being the 1907 one) was through the rich people of America—the Rockfellers, Carnegies, et al were the ones to pony up the dough. Granted, the Fed is accused of being shady in its dealings, but whats your alternative? Hoping the top 1% is compassionate enough to bail us all out?
Post Options

Aug 30 2009, 05:41 PM (Post #21)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,875
Cash: 1,915,578 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
QUOTE (orisikon @ Aug 30 2009, 08:18 AM)
Printing money to give to the treasury to buy back bonds they issued but could never afford to pay back, to pay for entitlements and bank shortcomings, and to lend to foreign central banks? Under every president since Wilson.
*


Monetary policy: That's the fed, not the treasury. The fed buys and sells bonds in order to moderate the M1 and thus M2 money supply, to make up for slowed money velocity during recessions and such. You wouldn't want deflation, would you?--when people stop buying stuff, which pushes on a downward economic spiral.

Fiscal policy: If you mean the treasury selling bonds to the fed in order to pay for the deficits, then that's a whole different issue. That is because we run deficits even when our economy is growing at 5% a year. Ideally we would run a budget with a long-run average deficit/surplus of $0. See: http://dailycow.org/node/447 for my analysis of what an ideal goal deficit/surplus is for any given economic climate.
Post Options

Aug 30 2009, 07:23 PM (Post #22)
Lieutenant
* * * * *
Posts: 894
Cash: -4,376 / 3,952
Group: Citizen
Joined: 12/18/07 07:25 AM
QUOTE (Jinghao @ Aug 30 2009, 12:41 PM)
Monetary policy: That's the fed, not the treasury. The fed buys and sells bonds in order to moderate the M1 and thus M2 money supply, to make up for slowed money velocity during recessions and such. You wouldn't want deflation, would you?--when people stop buying stuff, which pushes on a downward economic spiral.

Fiscal policy: If you mean the treasury selling bonds to the fed in order to pay for the deficits, then that's a whole different issue. That is because we run deficits even when our economy is growing at 5% a year. Ideally we would run a budget with a long-run average deficit/surplus of $0. See: http://dailycow.org/node/447 for my analysis of what an ideal goal deficit/surplus is for any given economic climate.
*




Your analysis at the dailycow.org seems pretty sound. How would you go about enforcing such a thing? Who would have the power to say 'no' to Congress?

"# Creating short-term deficits with infrastructure projects is necessary to buffer economic activity during slowdowns
# Running short-term surpluses with spending control is necessary to prevent overheating and inflation during boom periods"

Both of these, to me, seem to rely on tax increases, both historically, and for this model to function. Are these even necessary in the overall scheme of your model? I'm sure these could be trimmed down to be either relatively minor parts of a federal budget, and infrastructure projects (short-term deficits), and short-term surpluses could be relegated to local governments.

That and the $0 model, like Reaganomics in theory and Clinton's policies in practice, are centered around greater ultimate revenue for the central government. Sure this would increase real spending and nominal GDP outputs (those which are plastered on banners to the international bond holders)...but is it within the bounds of what a central government should do? And, doesn't it just "put off" ultimate disaster, with the hopes that somehow real GDP will just triple in a decade?

---

I think that is a very naive view of the Fed, that they merely buy and sell bonds to moderate M1 and M2. That would actually be the very innocent view of the central bank that Hamilton and the Wilsonians tried to convince us about. But almost immediately after the early central banks, and the Fed, came into existence, they did precisely what the critics said they would—opened up coffers to wider banking interests, so that banks that once were forced to lend on real money now could lend on credit and statistics (see: recent mortgage and asset crisis), with the Fed there to increase direct-to-bank money supply. Real money supply, like you're suggesting, measly citizen's bank accounts and bond auctions here and there, are nothing.

The Fed has proven in this recent crisis, and their unwillingness to accept an audit, that it exists to guarantee that lending institutions are guaranteed "solvency" which means they can lend $10 billion while only holding $5 billion in deposits (for a very, very simple example). The Fed embarked on trying to build up (inflate) an economy that would yield wild tax revenues while making most of the rest of America artificially wealthy against (particularly) foreign markets. That's the key to the opening of China under Clinton/Greenspan—it's ideology, central planning; not stabilization.

To trust that the Fed, just because it exists and is supposed to regulate the money supply, is to trust that any authority which has a specific goal is always going to do it, and will do it right. I just don't get this logic. It's truly a marvel that Keynes has so tainted the "conservatives" that they are just 'more efficient' central planners, and that Marx has tainted the "left" that they are just 'ideological' central planners.

Economics should be about the role of government, not statistical theory.
Post Options

Aug 30 2009, 11:54 PM (Post #23)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,875
Cash: 1,915,578 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
QUOTE (orisikon @ Aug 30 2009, 11:23 AM)
Your analysis at the dailycow.org seems pretty sound. How would you go about enforcing such a thing? Who would have the power to say 'no' to Congress?

"# Creating short-term deficits with infrastructure projects is necessary to buffer economic activity during slowdowns
# Running short-term surpluses with spending control is necessary to prevent overheating and inflation during boom periods"

Both of these, to me, seem to rely on tax increases, both historically, and for this model to function. Are these even necessary in the overall scheme of your model?  I'm sure these could be trimmed down to be either relatively minor parts of a federal budget, and infrastructure projects (short-term deficits), and short-term surpluses could be relegated to local governments.

That and the $0 model, like Reaganomics in theory and Clinton's policies in practice, are centered around greater ultimate revenue for the central government. Sure this would increase real spending and nominal GDP outputs (those which are plastered on banners to the international bond holders)...but is it within the bounds of what a central government should do? And, doesn't it just "put off" ultimate disaster, with the hopes that somehow real GDP will just triple in a decade?

---

I think that is a very naive view of the Fed, that they merely buy and sell bonds to moderate M1 and M2. That would actually be the very innocent view of the central bank that Hamilton and the Wilsonians tried to convince us about. But almost immediately after the early central banks, and the Fed, came into existence, they did precisely what the critics said they would—opened up coffers to wider banking interests, so that banks that once were forced to lend on real money now could lend on credit and statistics (see: recent mortgage and asset crisis), with the Fed there to increase direct-to-bank money supply. Real money supply, like you're suggesting, measly citizen's bank accounts and bond auctions here and there, are nothing.

The Fed has proven in this recent crisis, and their unwillingness to accept an audit, that it exists to guarantee that lending institutions are guaranteed "solvency" which means they can lend $10 billion while only holding $5 billion in deposits (for a very, very simple example). The Fed embarked on trying to build up (inflate) an economy that would yield wild tax revenues while making most of the rest of America artificially wealthy against (particularly) foreign markets. That's the key to the opening of China under Clinton/Greenspan—it's ideology, central planning; not stabilization.

To trust that the Fed, just because it exists and is supposed to regulate the money supply, is to trust that any authority which has a specific goal is always going to do it, and will do it right. I just don't get this logic. It's truly a marvel that Keynes has so tainted the "conservatives" that they are just 'more efficient' central planners, and that Marx has tainted the "left" that they are just 'ideological' central planners.

Economics should be about the role of government, not statistical theory.
*


To be honest, I only read your last line, and I must say I disagree. Statistics is playing a growing role in the realm of economics recently, especially in graduate study and research. That's because a large interactive and dynamic system like the world economy is impossible to model perfectly and must be approximated using stochastic models.
Post Options

Aug 31 2009, 04:11 AM (Post #24)
Lieutenant
* * * * *
Posts: 894
Cash: -4,376 / 3,952
Group: Citizen
Joined: 12/18/07 07:25 AM
QUOTE (Jinghao @ Aug 30 2009, 06:54 PM)
To be honest, I only read your last line, and I must say I disagree. Statistics is playing a growing role in the realm of economics recently, especially in graduate study and research. That's because a large interactive and dynamic system like the world economy is impossible to model perfectly and must be approximated using stochastic models.
*



That assumes that economics is necessarily about central planning. That's my point in the last line...we should be questioning if central planning is necessary/moral.
Post Options

Aug 31 2009, 04:31 AM (Post #25)
Not Odd anymore
* * * * * * * * * *
Posts: 45,875
Cash: 1,915,578 / 1,817,041,051
Group: Administrator
Joined: 7/10/02 09:48 PM
QUOTE (orisikon @ Aug 30 2009, 08:11 PM)
That assumes that economics is necessarily about central planning. That's my point in the last line...we should be questioning if central planning is necessary/moral.
*


Economics by definition is about finding the optimal means of resource allocation. It's about efficiency. Hence, it includes demand management at the central level because that involves resource allocation.
Post Options

Aug 31 2009, 11:56 PM (Post #26)
Colonel
* * * * * *
Posts: 2,579
Cash: 46,264 / 266,023
Group: Nobility
Joined: 12/14/05 03:32 PM
Damn, that's a solid argument between you guys. A good read. Kudos both ways for giving me something to read, even if I can't really contribute anything.
Post Options

2 Pages < 1 2