Mitt Romney's halo

[RSL]

Sounds good, Stamper, but the fly in the ointment is that neither a government run by the Tories nor a government run by any other party has a farthing of its own. Cheap money either means money taken at the point of a gun from the productive economy or funny money created by the modern equivalent of a printing press, which, even in the short run is the same thing as taking money directly from the productive economy. I don't know enough about the British situation to argue the point, but in the US, for reasons Jeremy explained, banks are sitting on tons of cheap funny money. Nonetheless small and startup businesses aren't borrowing -- for several reasons, the primary one being that they're scared to death of what the current whacko government might do next.

[Bryan Conner]

I think you are playing childish games with words while we are trying to have a discussion.

So you will not answer the question which is exactly at the heart of my disagreement with Slobodan's statements.  Avoiding the question is a childish game in itself.

[Bryan Conner]

Can you please stop this nonsense of a straw-man argument, putting words in my mouth and misquoting me? Can you please point out my quote that uses the phrase "ALL Americans," especially in the sense that you use it, meaning "each and every one"?

Copied from your original post:
"Most would certainly agree that spending beyond one's means, in general and over a prolonged period, is certainly not prudent, smart and responsible. And, on an individual level, it would be hard not to agree with it. But, and this is a big one, when the whole nation does that, as Americans do, is it still only a matter of individual responsibility? When it is considered un-American and unpatriotic not to "shop till you drop," "keep up with the Joneses," buy newer, bigger, better. When "spend, spend, spend" is considered as patriotic as apple pie, is it still just a matter of individual responsibility?"

The whole nation- what is the definition of whole?  Maybe I am missing the point here. Your entire statement in the above quote seems to lump all Americans into the same group. All Americans do not belong to the same group unless you are speaking of the fact that they are Americans or that they are humans.

But,you know what?  If you want to believe this, then so be it. I am not going to argue with th wall any more.  It is pointless, and getting you to change your opinion, or even getting you to open your mind will not benefit me at all. It really doesn't matter.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I believe that Slobodan is only trolling and I was weak (stupid) enough to take his bait.  For that, I apologize.

Ah, yes. For a brief moment I thought you are going to apologize for the cheap ethnic stereotype you used against me. Instead, you apologized for being "week (stupid)" in taking my "bait."

So, lets examine that "bait." I assume you are referring to this quote:

I see now how sitting in Germany might have given you a distorted perspective on savings though ;-)

Given that the quote above immediately followed my statement that "... Americans historically have the lowest savings rates among peer countries...," and given that I asked readers to check the attached graph, I think it is reasonable to expect from a reader to take the above quote in that context.

So what is the context?

The graph shows Germany as having the savings rate of 10.5% vs. U.S. rate of 1.4%, or 7 -8 times higher (I am attaching that graph below, with Germany highlighted). Thus, what I meant to say is the following: being surrounded by a nation whose attitudes toward savings, and by inference, less enthusiastic attitudes toward consumption, are orders of magnitude different that the one you are coming from, might have influenced your perspective. Please note that I used the term "might" in both cases.

Thats all there is to it. Where did you find the bait?

[jeremypayne]

In any case, my beef is with Keynes's idea that government spending can jack up an economy. It's a ridiculous idea prima facie. The government has no money. Every dollar it spends comes from the taxpayer, the guy who represents the real economy. If I take a buck from Peter and give it to Paul the transfer doesn't jolt the economy. Furthermore, since Paul is destitute and Peter isn't, it's pretty clear that Peter has a better clue about how to spend a buck than has Paul.

Ah ... but timing is everything.  Borrowing today to smooth consumption brings utility and can keep people in jobs.

Being out of a job for a long time can have severe consequences for the individual and society as a whole.  Communcal actions that smooth consumption and reduce joblessness can have long-term benefits to whole society.

[RSL]

Ah ... but timing is everything.

I won't dispute that, Jeremy, but what we're seeing isn't just a quick, temporary operation to avoid catastrophe. After two humongous bailouts with funny money that mostly went to outfits like Solyndra -- in other words, down the drain -- we're now up to which QE? And the current QE, according to Bernanke is ongoing with no end in sight. This fiasco fits Einstein's definition of insanity: Bernanke and company are doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

[Ray]

Wow! Those who don't, won't or can't learn from history are destined to repeat history.

We can't learn from the current economic crisis if we're not clear as to how it occurred, so I guess we're destined to repeated it some time in the future.

I prefer simplicity that makes sense, rather than complexity that I don't or can't understand.

It seems to me that everyone's prosperity is ultimately based on the true cost of energy and the uses to which we put that energy. To escape from that fundamental set of circumstances would be like kidding ourselves that the laws of diffraction do not exist. (See how I'm keeping this thread related to photography    ).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The whole nation- what is the definition of whole?  Maybe I am missing the point here. Your entire statement in the above quote seems to lump all Americans into the same group. All Americans do not belong to the same group unless you are speaking of the fact that they are Americans or that they are humans..."

Yes, you are (missing the point). But I am sure you are "not missing your own point" 

Btw, you couldn't produce my quote with "ALL Americans" in it. The closest you got is "the whole nation," which I used as a synonym for Americans. The word "whole" in that phrase certainly does not mean "each and every" member of that nation.

However, not being a native English speaker, I often reach for a dictionary (I am sure that you, as an English teacher, would appreciate that). So, here is the meaning of the adjective "whole," as per a dictionary (bold mine):

1 [ attrib. ] all of; entire : he spent the whole day walking | she wasn't telling the whole truth
• used to emphasize a large extent or number : whole shelves in libraries are devoted to the subject

So, Professor, emphasizing a large extent or a large number of something does not, and I repeat, does not mean "each and every." It is a simple case of non sequitur.

But forget dictionary for a moment. Lets see the common usage of the word "American," in journalism, politics, statistics etc.

For example, this: Americans to spend $370 million on pet costumes Does, it mean, Professor, that each and every American is going to spend on pet costumes???

Or this: Are Chinese Telecoms Firms Really Spying on Americans? Does it mean, Professor, they are spying on ALL Americans, EACH and EVERY one?

Or, speaking about Americans and spending: Americans plan to spend record $8 billion on Halloween

Or this: Americans consume 320,500,000 gallons of gasoline per day Does it mean, Professor, that each and every American drives every day (or drives at all)?

Do you really need any more lectures on the proper usage of English words from a lowly East European?

[Bryan Conner]

Yes, you are (missing the point). But I am sure you are "not missing your own point" 

Btw, you couldn't produce my quote with "ALL Americans" in it. The closest you got is "the whole nation," which I used as a synonym for Americans. The word "whole" in that phrase certainly does not mean "each and every" member of that nation.

However, not being a native English speaker, I often reach for a dictionary (I am sure that you, as an English teacher, would appreciate that). So, here is the meaning of the adjective "whole," as per a dictionary (bold mine):

So, Professor, emphasizing a large extent or a large number of something does not, and I repeat, does not mean "each and every." It is a simple case of non sequitur.

But forget dictionary for a moment. Lets see the common usage of the word "American," in journalism, politics, statistics etc.

For example, this: Americans to spend $370 million on pet costumes Does, it mean, Professor, that each and every American is going to spend on pet costumes???

Or this: Are Chinese Telecoms Firms Really Spying on Americans? Does it mean, Professor, they are spying on ALL Americans, EACH and EVERY one?

Or, speaking about Americans and spending: Americans plan to spend record $8 billion on Halloween

Or this: Americans consume 320,500,000 gallons of gasoline per day Does it mean, Professor, that each and every American drives every day (or drives at all)?

Do you really need any more lectures on the proper usage of English words from a lowly East European?

If you look further for the definition of "whole", you will find that one of the definitions that the Mirriam-Webster lists is:" constituting the total sum or undiminished entirety ", or from Dictionary.com: Adjective; comprising the full quantity, amount, extent, number, etc., without diminution or exception;   This definition is the definition that I understood and applied to your statement.  And no, I do not need any more lectures on the proper usage of English words.  After reading your responses where you have clarified what you intended your statements to mean, I see that it was a poor choice of words that caused the problem. 

Your comment about Germany came on a day that some (not all, and not the whole of  ) people in Greece were protesting against Angela Merkel.  They were calling her a Nazi and referring to the German government as being Nazis.  This is because some of these people believe that Germany is being too strict by wanting to enforce the austerity measures that Greece agreed to enact before more money is given to bail Greece out of a bad situation.  I thought Germany's unwillingness to give in and ease the conditions just because they are difficult was what you were making reference to in your comment. You have clarified, and I stand corrected.
 
I never called you a lowly East European.  I was only responding (in kind) to the seemingly cheap stereotype of all Americans spending more than they earn and feeling that one qualification for being patriotic is to shop until you drop.  If you were offended by me saying:    " Or is this a typical question that comes from a jealous, east European, former (or current) socialist mentality?  Because, as we all know, ALL people born in east Europe are clearly jealous of a very successful economy.  ", then I do sincerely apologize.  I never stated your name and I did put the little smiley face, and the winking face in hope that you would understand that I was being sarcastic and speaking with tongue in cheek. You viewed my comment as being unjust in the exact same way as I viewed your comment.  One clarification:  the "very successfull economy" that I referred to is Germany's, not America's.

I sincerely hope that we can move on past this. 

[Chairman Bill]

Could somebody please post a photo of a lighthouse, taken with a D800?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I sincerely hope that we can move on past this.  

+1

 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Could somebody please post a photo of a lighthouse, taken with a D800?

 

I wish I could. I mean, I have lighthouse photos, just not from D800.

[jeremypayne]

I won't dispute that, Jeremy, but what we're seeing isn't just a quick, temporary operation to avoid catastrophe. After two humongous bailouts with funny money that mostly went to outfits like Solyndra -- in other words, down the drain -- we're now up to which QE? And the current QE, according to Bernanke is ongoing with no end in sight. This fiasco fits Einstein's definition of insanity: Bernanke and company are doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I don't understand your critique of the fed ... they have been the only sane people in this crisis.  Given the continued low inflation without deflation and continued solid external market for long term US debt, I can't see how you can argue they have dropped the ball.

The fiscal stimulus to date has been mediocre ... by my modest, back-of-the-envelope math I think we should have done roughly double the stimulus we did.  Given the size of our economy and the demand gap created by the crisis, we didn't do enough stimulus.

[RSL]

Jeremy, all I can say is, we'll have to wait and see. I know you and the administration think we haven't printed enough funny money but there are plenty of economists out there who don't agree with you. Even some of the Fed folks are starting to get antsy about what Bernanke's doing and are starting to talk out of school. I think that if the velocity of the money that's out there picks up you're going to see that inflation's already in place and that there's no way for Bernanke to get things back under control. I'm not looking forward to the result.

[jeremypayne]

One of the only benefits of this crisis is that it is providing some rare data.  I predict that when the dust settles the evidence will support the efficacy of debt-financed fiscal stimulus during a lengthy financial crisis.

As you say, time will tell ... But there is already evidence comin' in, so we won't really have to wait long ...

[RSL]

... But there is already evidence comin' in, so we won't really have to wait long ...

Yeah, that's what's scary. . . The evidence is pretty damning.

[jeremypayne]

Yeah, that's what's scary. . . The evidence is pretty damning.

Actually no.  The evidence is suggesting that during such crises, the negative impact of fiscal consolidation is bigger than previous thought.

The fiscal multiplier during such times might be as high as 1.5-1.7 ... Not the 0.5 as many people believed.

See the IMF's recent World Economic Outlook.

You are stuck in some very old-think.  You need to keep an open-mind ...  the "proof" you speak of is weak at best.

Slobodan ... What's your take on the multiplier?

[Chairman Bill]

... What's your take on the multiplier?

I think it useful in terms of telephoto work, but I'd prefer to be without it & go FF when shooting wide angle & indeed, short telephoto work where limited depth of field is actually something I might want - portraiture, for example.

What? This is a photography forum.

[stamper]

You started it.

[jeremypayne]

What? This is a photography forum.

You must find the topic of some interest as you keep reading it ...