Trump II

[Alan Goldhammer]

"Obama clean energy loans leave taxpayers in $2.2 billion hole"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/27/obama-backed-green-energy-failures-leave-taxpayers/

Yes, and for every scandalous story there is a more reasoned evaluation:
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Yes, and for every scandalous story there is a more reasoned evaluation:
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit

Ah, yes, coming from the government's own propaganda arm: NPR. That's why Trump is defunding it.

[32BT]

"Obama clean energy loans leave taxpayers in $2.2 billion hole"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/27/obama-backed-green-energy-failures-leave-taxpayers/

You see, this is exactly what's wrong with the media these days. If reputable outlets like the WP write this kind of irrelevant non-sense. Ever wondered what the total expenditure on energy is in the US? Or even just relative to the average taxpayer? That would be like what? 10 usd per individual? Not to mention that failed projects may still inject money in the local economy. Trump would love it, either way.

[32BT]

Ah, yes, coming from the government's own propaganda arm: NPR. That's why Trump is defunding it.

Oh great, c!early you don't want to create jobs or an experienced workforce in the new energy sector...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You see, this is exactly what's wrong with the media these days. If reputable outlets like the WP...

I am not sure if you meant it sarcastically, but the source is the Washington Times, not the Washington Post. Now, neither is quite reputable these days, as the WT is leaning (or is) quite right, and the WP is rapidly becoming the loonie left.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Oh great, c!early you don't want to create jobs or an experienced workforce in the new energy sector...

Defunding NPR.

[32BT]

I am not sure if you meant it sarcastically, but the source is the Washington Times, not the Washington Post. Now, neither is quite reputable these days, as the WT is leaning (or is) quite right, and the WP is rapidly becoming the loonie left.

Okay, didn't realize that. In that case consider my comment retracted, although please be careful with all those irrelevant absolute numbers with which some writers try to emphasize the severity of their subject. I see this in so many newsitems, it's worrying.

[32BT]

Defunding NPR.

Okay, sorry, misread it.

[Robert Roaldi]

There are situations where the commercial sector is well-placed to provide goods and services and some for which it is not. That's about all you can say on the subject. Painting the discussion black or white is self-evidently silly, why do we continue to do so?

There are many instances of market failure where guvmint intrusion seems to be the only way forward. Do you think the "free market" would have eliminated slavery in the 19th century or "Jim Crow" in the 20th? What do you think high import tariffs to protect certain industries are if not guvmint intrusion in a "free" market?

Do you think that the "free market" is aided by allowing large corporations to become near-monopolies? It's not who owns the company that makes it efficient (whatever efficient means), it's whether or not there is competition. We seem to have forgotten that in our headlong rush to make a small percentage of people really rich, in the hopes that they will turn around and bless the rest of us with some jobs.

Do people really think that it's not important to insure that the water and air remain non-toxic? Do you really think that industry will voluntarily see to that, despite centuries of evidence that no one individual gives a crap about the "commons" unless penalties and supervision are in place to make sure of it?

NPR is an arm of the guvmint? That's hysterical. Worldwide, the ONLY media outlets that have any validity anymore are the ones that have some measure of autonomy guaranteed by mandate. Nearly all the private media is a farce.

I find it hilarious when people quote some obscure paragraph from Adam Smith that suits their immediate debating points, as if Mr. Smith was the last word on the subject, but at the same time choose to ignore his own words and those of many others on the importance of a healthy guvmint sector.

I also find it amusing that some people seem to think that the "swamp" only exists in Washington D.C. Do you not think there are swamps in every state capital, in every head office of every corporation, in every military base, in every guvmint-funded "security" establishment? I also find it amusing that people religiously think that Trump isn't part of that swamp and that he will change it. If that isn't irrational religious belief, I don't know what is.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Was this Trump's new evidence (coming in e few weeks) of his phones being tapped as ordered by the former President?
Source appears to be FoxNews propaganda. Are you serious? Why not incriminate the UK as well.

UK says U.S. claims about spying will not be repeated:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-wiretapping-idUSKBN16O16Q

And what does the USA say after falsely accusing the UK? Sorry? Someone told me?

Leading Republicans, Democrats reject Trump's Obama wiretap assertion:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN16N2K3

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Do you think the "free market" would have eliminated slavery in the 19th century...

While I do agree in general with you about the need to have a balanced approach to markets and governments, this one is a bit trickier. One can posit that the elimination of slavery IS the act of free market, rather than lofty ideology or morality. Northern, already industrialized U.S. states needed a free market and free movement for labor, as opposed to the agricultural South, where laborers were tied to the land. A controversial thought, though.

It's not who owns the company that makes it efficient...  it's whether or not there is competition. We seem to have forgotten that in our headlong rush to make a small percentage of people really rich...

Competition exists precisely because many people are trying to become rich.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Ah, yes, coming from the government's own propaganda arm: NPR. That's why Trump is defunding it.

If it was the govt's arm, the Trump has been doing a poor job of using it!!!

[Alan Goldhammer]

Competition exists precisely because many people are trying to become rich.

...and once they achieve that they try to prevent others from doing so.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...and once they achieve that they try to prevent others from doing so.

From one of my professors (Zingales) that addresses such an inherent paradox:

https://www.amazon.com/Saving-Capitalism-Capitalists-Unleashing-Opportunity/dp/0691121281

[Alan Goldhammer]

From one of my professors (Zingales) that addresses such an inherent paradox:

https://www.amazon.com/Saving-Capitalism-Capitalists-Unleashing-Opportunity/dp/0691121281

Yes, that's a decent book; I read it a while back.  I disagreed with some of what he wrote and of course there really is no such thing as the idealized system that he writes about.  I don't think we could exist without a central bank and decent securities laws. 

[Alan Klein]

...and once they achieve that they try to prevent others from doing so.

Government regulation is the cause of the lack of competition and lower prices.  regulation impedes entry into established industries where the big guys like regulation.   It's like Uber fighting for entry into cities where entrenched and protected taxi companies use government regs to protect them. 

[Alan Klein]

If it was the govt's arm, the Trump has been doing a poor job of using it!!!

NPR is run by liberals who present their points of view.  Also, now that there are so many cable stations, there are so many science, current event, nature and other stations that present multiple views all paid for privately.  It's no longer necessary for government to be involved, especially when the NPR producers are biased.  The taxpayers should keep the money for themselves or donate their own money to cable stations that present their point of view.

[Alan Klein]

There are many instances of market failure where guvmint intrusion seems to be the only way forward. Do you think the "free market" would have eliminated slavery in the 19th century or "Jim Crow" in the 20th? What do you think high import tariffs to protect certain industries are if not guvmint intrusion in a "free" market?

Do you think that the "free market" is aided by allowing large corporations to become near-monopolies? It's not who owns the company that makes it efficient (whatever efficient means), it's whether or not there is competition. We seem to have forgotten that in our headlong rush to make a small percentage of people really rich, in the hopes that they will turn around and bless the rest of us with some jobs.

I also find it amusing that some people seem to think that the "swamp" only exists in Washington D.C. Do you not think there are swamps in every state capital, in every head office of every corporation, in every military base, in every guvmint-funded "security" establishment? I also find it amusing that people religiously think that Trump isn't part of that swamp and that he will change it. If that isn't irrational religious belief, I don't know what is.

Regarding the Civil War, I wondered whether it was worth the death of 700,000 Americans not including the thousands who lost their limbs and were disabled.  I believe slavery would have ended shortly anyway. The cotton gin and other mechanization made slavery too expensive and less productive than motivated employees using modern farming tools. It would have ended on its own.  There may have been less Jim Crow laws implemented that kept discrimination for another hundred years.  Was getting rid of Saddam worth what we have now in the Middle East?  Sometimes the road to hell are paved with good intentions.

Regarding corporations, owners can NOT run them without employees.  The richer the investor, the more employees he'll need.  Regarding monopolies, an unrelated issue, laws prevent them.  In most cases, there are alternative products so monopolies rarely can exist even without laws against them. 

Yes it's true that there are swamps in every state and locality.  We should reduce government there too to get rid of the swamps.  I don't know if Trump will become part of the swamp.  It's too early to tell although he seems to be getting rid of some of it already.  But the fact is our other choice during the election was Hillary Clinton who has been a critter of the swamp her entire life.

[Schewe]

The taxpayers should keep the money for themselves or donate their own money to cable stations that present their point of view.

Hum...what would that look like. Are you going to donate money to Fox News or Breitbart or Rush Limbaugh? While NPR and PBS may be seen as being liberal, in point of fact that are far less liberal than the above 3 entities are to the right...far to the right. And yes, I do donate to PBS because I do want to see programing that is made for the purpose of enriching society instead of corporate pocketbooks...

Heck, even the Christian Science Monitor (not known for being a raging liberal media source, right?) is expressing a concern:
What America without the NEA and NEH would look like, and why that matters

Four cultural federal organizations, including the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), have for years been the target of conservative critics. But now the groups could see their funding gone as Mr. Trump on Thursday submitted his proposed budget to the Senate.

For arts and cultural groups across the country, the four agencies – although they account for only 0.02 percent of federal spending – have long been considered crucial in supporting outreach to underserved communities between the coasts, particularly in rural areas. Proponents of the proposed cuts have said that the proposed elimination of the agencies will open the door to a freer arts market that forces artists to produce works that speak to local audiences, rather than to bureaucrats in Washington.

The irony is cutting public funding from the the 4 main arts and humanities will hurt the rural red state smaller cities more than the east and west coast art centers.

Speaking with the Monitor from an event at a rural town in South Carolina, Pam Breaux, CEO of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, says everything around her “is indicative of the public benefits of the arts to rural communities.” With arts agencies in 56 states and jurisdictions, the assembly has found that collectively 25 percent of the state grant allocations go to rural communities, where private funding is not as prevalent, she says.

“Rural areas and low-income communities specifically would suffer disproportionately from significant reductions in funding from the NEA,” she says.

So, how does this fit in with Trump's promise to Make America Great Again?

But for Zabel, the loss of NEA means an erosion to the democratizing process that will lead to the loss of artistic and economic opportunities for artists in small towns outside the high-wealth coastal, urban cities.

“It concerns me because I think that [nurturing] culture and community as economic opportunities is part of how rural and small communities outside of the coasts are going to survive and thrive into the future,” she says. “A sense of place, a sense of identity, and a sense of culture, that's about our basic humanity.”

Yeah, Trump's budget is exactly what he promised to do...unfortunately, for his many supporters who voted for him.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So far, the damage, if any, is only speculative. Time will tell.