Humorous to some, sad to others.

This is hard to believe, but this is the way the U.S. and China do business.

Suppose that you made a nice product that I really wanted. So I come to you and say, "I'd like to buy 10 widgets at $100 a piece, so I'll give you a $1,000. OK?" You say, "That sounds good to me." Some time later you deliver the widgets and ask for payment. I give you a 10 year 4% note, instead of cash. You give me a funny look, but take the note because I tell that I'm going to buy a lot more of your widgets and other things you make. What a wonderful way to trade! Goods for 4% notes!
My own opinion here is that the Chinese are really not that stupid, so what is going on? I believe that the Chinese costs are inflated for the goods sold by two or three hundred percent. I say this because the very same good sold to America will sell on the street in China for 10 to 20% of the U.S. buying price. They can afford to sell widgets for 0% notes or even pay us interest on the notes. Not only that, but they get to scare the BeJesus out of the U.S. Congress and the public as well. Now that's a real bargain!
So, do you find this situation humorous or sad?
The Old Philosopher

Comments on Bill Clinton's Economics

May 31, 2009 4:38 PM The New York Times
This was in response to an article titled, “Bill Clinton, on His Economic Legacy”
By David Leonhardt (May 27,2009)
“Given the range of issues Peter Baker covers in his article about Bill Clinton for the coming New York Times Magazine, there was not room for anything close to Mr. Clinton’s entire comments on his economic record. And they’re fascinating (as is the article). So we’re going to post, below, the transcript of that portion of the discussion between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Baker.
In several places, I have annotated it, in italics. I’d be interested in hearing the thoughts of readers and other bloggers, too. (Update: Noam Scheiber, Mark Thoma and Matthew Yglesias weigh in.)……………..”
You can read the entire article by looking up the author in The NY Times archives. It’s about Bill defending his economic policies.
My comments:
I am a 79 year old ex-republican. Now an Obamaite. Mr Clinton left no economic legacy to be proud of.
Bill Clinton is possibly the luckiest President to ever hold office. Here is a man who was up for impeachment for lying. who took credit for a massive stock market rise, who did nothing to improve the lot of the working man and who helped perpetuate the turning of the American government into a giant corporation that was to be for the benefit of the wealthiest U.S. citizens. And now The Times is lauding him. The GOP propaganda machine( Spelled: Carl Rove ), which perpetuates the myth that, sleepy Mr Reagan, was the father of Capitalism for the People and saved our country from the Russian Bear, also kept Mr. Clinton at bay by using Mr. Reagan’s name and the Gallup poll ( which Mr. Clinton used to run the country ). Not many original ideas come from that quarter. I wish that President Obama had been in his place. He is a man with ideas to help the working man, and take the government back from the corporations and their lackeys, the lobbyists..
— Bob Bregman

Normal

This is just a little piece on how the statistics of normalcy can fool you. The normal of birth and death in the State of Florida is: It's normal to be born a Latino and die a Jew. How about that for a misleading statistic? My point, don't be fooled by what politicians and others say about percentage's of this and curves of that. The question you must always ask is, "Compared to what"? Everyone uses stats for their own purposes. The old saw, "Figures don't lie, liars figure" is more true today than ever. In the next few months as the President tries to get health care for everyone in this country, you will see some of the most extraordinary lies told by anti health care advocates, using statistics that can't possibly be proven. You will see particular comparisons of U.S. vs Canada or the U.K.. All the stories will be anecdotal rather than sold facts and figures. The Pres has a tough problem, but the bottom line is that this is the only advanced country in the World that doesn't take care of the health of all it's citizens. We can do it here without breaking the countries financial back. After all, the insurance companies have big buildings full of offices, computers, execs, workers plus stockholders who expect a profit and dividends. That's a lot of overhead that's not going toward our health care. Last I heard, we in the U.S. spend 2.7 trillion dollars per year on health care, and there are still 47 million people left out of the system. That's over $8,800/year for every man, woman and child in the country.
The End
Speak to you all soon.
The Old Philosopher

New book

I just finished "The Horse Soldiers". It's about the first days of the war in Afghanistan, just after 9/11. I thought it was a great story, with an epilogue that doubled the value of the read. I recommend it to anybody who has been in the service and to all who want to keep American participation in war to a minimum, but still be victorious. Sounds like a tall order, but this is the way.

Luck!

Risk taking-Why do we do it?
We are blinded by the possible outcomes-Riches, power, love, notoriety,etc. What are the real odds of winning (getting rich)? Very, very high. The cemetery of failed enterprises is very silent. We hear about the grand successes, we don't hear much about the failures, grand or otherwise, even though they out number successes by a wide margin.
So, can success be ascribed to the casual relationship between specific traits and subsequent events? Trump is shrewd, tall, hardworking and cynical. Is that why he's rich?
Can failure be ascribed to the casual relationship between specific traits and subsequent events? Bob the Bear is shrewd, tall, hardworking, and cynical. Is that why he's poor? What truly separates Trump from Bob the Bear is a single factor-Luck. Plain luck. that's why you often see rich men and women become poor, they ran out of luck. Madoff investors, 401k owners at Enron, Lucent, World Communications, the list goes on and on.
Nobody deserves to be a millionaire and conversely, nobody deserves not to be a millionaire. So if you can deserve either rich or not rich, what is the difference? Again, Luck
Now it gets a bit scary as we go further along this road of fortune, good or bad. The bigger question becomes; how much do we have to do with our success or failure; wealth or poverty?
Think about it. Not very comforting to realize that luck is the difference!
The basic ideas for this blog come from "The Black Swan" by N.N.Taleb.

Mother's Day

Good day all you Mothers out there.
I hope that you all had a great day. It's nice once a year to pay homage to you wonderful women. actually everyday should be mother's day, but then who would be left to run the world. Sorry girls, you'll just have to keep running things.
Lots of love to all of you.

the Old Philosopher (and I do mean old)

Bank Day

Well the stress test is over and there is a huge sigh of relief, just like when I used to take them. If I live it was a success, the banks are alive and seem to be doing just fine. For the heads of the banks it may be a different story. Ken Lewis CEO of the Bank of America, I told them to stay in Frisco, is humbled (in his words ) by the stockholders removing him from the chairmanship of the board.
He was on CNBC for 20 minutes and Bloomberg for 1 hour! He made what I thought was a good point this morning on CNBC. He was asked why didn't the banks regulate themselves on the dispensing of loans to uncredit worthy borrowers? No one twisted their arm to make bad loans. His response was that banks compete for deposits, so on a level playing field they have to go as far as legally possible to draw in money. Then they have to loan all that money out as fast as possible. If they don't do the above they will lose market share, and that's a no-no.
Now if the Federal Reserve and the SEC had been doing their job, they would have put the breaks on the heated up economy, by raising interest rates, reducing the money supply, increasing bank reserves and stopping the proliferation of derivatives. Now why didn't they do their jobs???
It's my opinion that the President of the United States of America told the Federal Reserve, the SEC, FDIC, FHA, Fanny Mae, and anyone that he might control that he needed lots of money (Taxes,Debt) to prosecute the wars that he was fighting. His thinking was that if the economy was rolling along at high speed, the war wouldn't be so much of a burden on the minds of the people. In other words the people were not asked to sacrifice for the war, so everything was great. In other words the President, Bush II, was afraid of even a mild slowdown. Because of this short sightedness, the people of this country are sacrificing anyway, but much more than if a bit of cold water had been thrown on the economy when everything got overheated.
We are talking TRILLIONS! For what?
All comments are welcome, now that you know where to find me.
Hang in there. I think our new President has a brain and best of all he knows how to use it for the benefit of the people.
Thanx for your time.