Posts with the tag pragmatism
About the Author
Overproduction is a classical economic description of the over-accumulation of capital. In the case of an over-consolidated capital, it specifically refers to sub-optimal compensation of wages and salaries and overcharge on the economic rent (the cost required to participate in the economy--the cost of living--which includes the over-compensation of top executives to administer the capital).
The leading indicators for impending overproduction are executive over-compensation, high prices (inflation) due to high speculative demand (administered by the executives), and a devaluation of the currency.
The result of inadequate compensation (the lack of consumption) is unsold inventories of goods and services, or overproduction. The effect of that is a weak dollar.
To read more, copy the URL http://griffithlighton.blogspot.com/
into the browser window.
The leading indicators for impending overproduction are executive over-compensation, high prices (inflation) due to high speculative demand (administered by the executives), and a devaluation of the currency.
The result of inadequate compensation (the lack of consumption) is unsold inventories of goods and services, or overproduction. The effect of that is a weak dollar.
To read more, copy the URL http://griffithlighton.blogspot.com/
into the browser window.
NYMEX Crude Down $4 on High Volume
The story is that TS Edoardo is not disruptive and Obam's comments on releasing oil from the SPR.
These are short-term reasons for a predicted massive sell-off despite the official story you've been getting that the peak oil price is due to long term scarcity. If that were true, today's massive compression should not have happened (the volume would not be there to drive a $4 drop).
As far as competence of the presidential candidates, Obama is very astute. He knows the peak oil hypothesis is flimsy at best and realizes that it will respond to a short term signal, like reduction of the SPR, favorable to the consumer needing short-term relief. Delivered!
Very smart! Very astute! Even better... he's behavimg in a highly effective, pragmatic way, and he's not even chief executive yet.
He's proving highly effective and he's just getting started!
Obama 2008!!
Very best wishes.
The story is that TS Edoardo is not disruptive and Obam's comments on releasing oil from the SPR.
These are short-term reasons for a predicted massive sell-off despite the official story you've been getting that the peak oil price is due to long term scarcity. If that were true, today's massive compression should not have happened (the volume would not be there to drive a $4 drop).
As far as competence of the presidential candidates, Obama is very astute. He knows the peak oil hypothesis is flimsy at best and realizes that it will respond to a short term signal, like reduction of the SPR, favorable to the consumer needing short-term relief. Delivered!
Very smart! Very astute! Even better... he's behavimg in a highly effective, pragmatic way, and he's not even chief executive yet.
He's proving highly effective and he's just getting started!
Obama 2008!!
Very best wishes.
It's no coincidence. It's a correlation. A direct causal relationship.
The legitimacy of capitalism is for record profits to produce record growth; and neo-classical capitalism (post Great Depression monetarism) says that record budget deficits will yield record growth.
Yes, the economy has yielded record growth, for the top one percent of incomes. Read More »
The legitimacy of capitalism is for record profits to produce record growth; and neo-classical capitalism (post Great Depression monetarism) says that record budget deficits will yield record growth.
Yes, the economy has yielded record growth, for the top one percent of incomes. Read More »
i'll probably vote kucinich in the primary (to send a message to the dems) and then HOPE that edwards beats out obama and hilary (though i'm very worried...and sadly, i'd probably vote for whichever dem they run).
i think edwards is the most liberal and electable of the "main" dem (and repub) candidates, though it ticks me off that MOST VOTERS (democrats AND republicans) pick Kucinich by a large margin in BLIND SURVEYS of the issues (see poll URL below), but don't even consider him because he's short, thin, vegan, elven-looking, compassionate and intelligent (though everyone agrees he has a smart and hot wife). i know he's against guns, but americans love their guns as much as their SUVs, apple-pies and high fructose corn syrup; and even many conservatives don't mind intelligent procedures like waiting periods and background checks.
sadly, people don't even know who best represents them--i saw a poll in Newsweek today that showed a majority of registered republicans don't know guiliani is "pro-choice and pro-gay"--which is why i hope he wins the GOP nomination...cuz he's more beatable than the slick mormon car-salesman guy with the nice hair and shiny smile). what's more, a majority of my students (and many friends) identify as "conservative" but don't even know what is meant by affirmative action, net neutrality, stem-cell research, ANWR drilling, SCOTUS, IMF, WTO, G8 or Kyoto Protocol (much less the conservative stance on these issues/groups/etc). anyway.
for me there isn't THAT much ideological difference between edwards, obama, clinton, and richardson (though i think edwards is the most liberal of them). sure i like kucinich, but he does talk about "love" a lot. dodd and gravel are great, but they are also nutty (like left-wing-pro-choice versions of ron paul...don't get me wrong, aside from ron paul's libertarian-economic-invisible-hand philosophy, his pro-fetus stance and his constant mentioning of his worship of an ancient mythological sky-deity, i like the crazy guy). biden is just too old-school-democrat-centrist-neoliberal for me, and regrettably richardson just hasn't gained traction in the polls, even though i do think he's the most qualified on paper of the candidates (not that that always means much). but i want change and i want someone who will undo the horrible stuff done by bush (clear skies initiative, insane tax cuts for the rich, etc...not that iraq can be "undone" or that there's even any good solutions at this point). so at the moment, i think this means edwards.
i think that clinton and obama are getting all the progressive love due to their minority-novelty (what i call "minorvelty") status; democrats like to say how much they love women, homosexuals and black people--even if they don't actually, usually, do much for them. but i still think there are too many americans out there who won't vote for a black guy named barak (iraq?) hussein (as in saddam?) obama (osama?); and clinton is too polarizing with too much baggage for even me to like her much--she lobbied for walmart, and tried to kill arkansas' federal minimum wage (so they could pay their employees even less). in her defense, i don't like how people call the only female candidate by her first name--it's not like bill's running again, so at this point i say we call her "clinton" and him bill.
that said, i think edwards is the most electable (despite what the right will label his slick-lawyeriness and baby face). also, and it's terrible to say this, but his wife's terminal cancer can't hurt (i know that's a terrible choice of words...and, of course, no one would say it's a political issue--doh, oh wait, i forgot that the republicans did attack edwards for his daring to mention how the death of his teenage son affected his religiousity and sense of duty). i know a pity vote is a sh_tty vote, but look at all the crappy stuff bush used to get elected (fear, lies, distortion, etc.,); for me, everything has to be on the table when you're fighting an evil this dark. also, it wouldn't just be a pity vote if edwards' wife died...it would also be novel (electing a handsome, single widower); it would be a "pitovelty" or "novitty" vote by those who care for such things (note: these voters are the people who read People Magazine cover-to-cover every week and cry watching Oprah daily--but there ARE a lot of them).
SO currently my pragmatic dream ticket is Edwards/Obama (even though i'd prefer edwards/kucinich-or-gravel or whatever).
note: remember, the most intelligent supreme court judges are so old now that they can't buy green bananas. another conservative president--or worse, another right-wing fundamentalist daddy's-boy idiot--could do away with what little balance is "left" and hurt the country even more for a long, long time. imagine if we got another right-wing moron like clarence thomas (or worse, an intelligent right-wing asshat like scalia) on the court!! ::shudder::
so what do you think??
(respond in my "blog" at myspace.com/whatgorilla OR if you completely disagree with me and happen to like thomas, scalia, and bush, you could just delete me as your friend as a political protest)
-------------
URL of poll where kucinich is winning by a landslide even though 181001 dems and republicans have taken the poll:
Link
Article about it:
Link
Stats so far:
Link
i think edwards is the most liberal and electable of the "main" dem (and repub) candidates, though it ticks me off that MOST VOTERS (democrats AND republicans) pick Kucinich by a large margin in BLIND SURVEYS of the issues (see poll URL below), but don't even consider him because he's short, thin, vegan, elven-looking, compassionate and intelligent (though everyone agrees he has a smart and hot wife). i know he's against guns, but americans love their guns as much as their SUVs, apple-pies and high fructose corn syrup; and even many conservatives don't mind intelligent procedures like waiting periods and background checks.
sadly, people don't even know who best represents them--i saw a poll in Newsweek today that showed a majority of registered republicans don't know guiliani is "pro-choice and pro-gay"--which is why i hope he wins the GOP nomination...cuz he's more beatable than the slick mormon car-salesman guy with the nice hair and shiny smile). what's more, a majority of my students (and many friends) identify as "conservative" but don't even know what is meant by affirmative action, net neutrality, stem-cell research, ANWR drilling, SCOTUS, IMF, WTO, G8 or Kyoto Protocol (much less the conservative stance on these issues/groups/etc). anyway.
for me there isn't THAT much ideological difference between edwards, obama, clinton, and richardson (though i think edwards is the most liberal of them). sure i like kucinich, but he does talk about "love" a lot. dodd and gravel are great, but they are also nutty (like left-wing-pro-choice versions of ron paul...don't get me wrong, aside from ron paul's libertarian-economic-invisible-hand philosophy, his pro-fetus stance and his constant mentioning of his worship of an ancient mythological sky-deity, i like the crazy guy). biden is just too old-school-democrat-centrist-neoliberal for me, and regrettably richardson just hasn't gained traction in the polls, even though i do think he's the most qualified on paper of the candidates (not that that always means much). but i want change and i want someone who will undo the horrible stuff done by bush (clear skies initiative, insane tax cuts for the rich, etc...not that iraq can be "undone" or that there's even any good solutions at this point). so at the moment, i think this means edwards.
i think that clinton and obama are getting all the progressive love due to their minority-novelty (what i call "minorvelty") status; democrats like to say how much they love women, homosexuals and black people--even if they don't actually, usually, do much for them. but i still think there are too many americans out there who won't vote for a black guy named barak (iraq?) hussein (as in saddam?) obama (osama?); and clinton is too polarizing with too much baggage for even me to like her much--she lobbied for walmart, and tried to kill arkansas' federal minimum wage (so they could pay their employees even less). in her defense, i don't like how people call the only female candidate by her first name--it's not like bill's running again, so at this point i say we call her "clinton" and him bill.
that said, i think edwards is the most electable (despite what the right will label his slick-lawyeriness and baby face). also, and it's terrible to say this, but his wife's terminal cancer can't hurt (i know that's a terrible choice of words...and, of course, no one would say it's a political issue--doh, oh wait, i forgot that the republicans did attack edwards for his daring to mention how the death of his teenage son affected his religiousity and sense of duty). i know a pity vote is a sh_tty vote, but look at all the crappy stuff bush used to get elected (fear, lies, distortion, etc.,); for me, everything has to be on the table when you're fighting an evil this dark. also, it wouldn't just be a pity vote if edwards' wife died...it would also be novel (electing a handsome, single widower); it would be a "pitovelty" or "novitty" vote by those who care for such things (note: these voters are the people who read People Magazine cover-to-cover every week and cry watching Oprah daily--but there ARE a lot of them).
SO currently my pragmatic dream ticket is Edwards/Obama (even though i'd prefer edwards/kucinich-or-gravel or whatever).
note: remember, the most intelligent supreme court judges are so old now that they can't buy green bananas. another conservative president--or worse, another right-wing fundamentalist daddy's-boy idiot--could do away with what little balance is "left" and hurt the country even more for a long, long time. imagine if we got another right-wing moron like clarence thomas (or worse, an intelligent right-wing asshat like scalia) on the court!! ::shudder::
so what do you think??
(respond in my "blog" at myspace.com/whatgorilla OR if you completely disagree with me and happen to like thomas, scalia, and bush, you could just delete me as your friend as a political protest)
-------------
URL of poll where kucinich is winning by a landslide even though 181001 dems and republicans have taken the poll:
Link
Article about it:
Link
Stats so far:
Link
Posts By Month
Posts
