« Friday Ephemera | Main | Because I’m Glorious, Goddammit »

November 12, 2012

Comments

Marcus

In other words it took more than $5.60 of debt to create $1 of economic growth.

I don't think I (or my kids) can afford Obama's better world.

Mr Andrew D Rowe

Obama is not all to blame. Congress passes laws. Obama just has a veto. States, Councils and Cities create more petty interference than the federal law makers can do with the current grid locked congress.

Spiny Norman

Obama just has a veto.

If only. Obama has the option of the Executive Order, and he has been using it freely, to rule by decree. Then there are the Cabinet-level federal agencies who answer only to the President. In just one example, Congress has rejected the idea of imposing a Carbon Tax "to save the planet", so the unelected Environmental Protection Agency has taken upon itself to do so anyway, through onerous regulation and fines. In the Lightworker's second term, if Congress chooses to oppose him, they will find themselves ignored and irrelevant. Not exactly the signs of a healthy Republic...

Wm T Sherman

Phase One: Leftists seize power by misrepresenting their intentions and demonizing the opposition.

Phase Two: Leftists consolidate power by ignoring the law and the Constitution.

Phase Three: As the economic failures mount, Leftists scapegoat the opposition.

According to the Leftists, all of the impending economic failures will be the result of sabotage by class enemies. In other words, the usual.

the wolf

Unfortunately, WWII provided the false cover that FDR's policies helped pull the country out of the Great Depression. Without the war we would have seen a prolonged period (which is similar to what we're going through now) of low or negative growth and chronic high unemployment, which may have stopped us from repeating the same mistake.

Spiny Norman

Pointing out that unemployment in the US was higher in 1937 than in 1932, after more than 4 years of Keynesian "stimulus", is typically be met with howls of protest.

WTP

Found this in today's WSJ rather interesting...


The state's dairy industry, one of the country's biggest, has been squeezed for years by soaring feed prices and slowing economic growth. Elsewhere, those conditions have caused milk production to shrink, pushing up prices. But in California, farmers say gains from higher prices have been muted by the state's formula governing the price that cheese makers pay for their milk—a quirk in state rules that some farmers say has forced them out of business.

After years of profits, Greg Anema's dairy farm in Chino, Calif., started to suffer when corn prices spiked in 2006 and increased the cost to feed his 3,400 cows. It got worse after the global economic slowdown hit demand for milk.

Now, Mr. Anema says he is closing his family's dairy because it has been selling milk to California cheese makers for far less than it would have fetched in other states for the past two years.
...
Leslie Butler, an economist at University of California at Davis, said the state has been reluctant to change its pricing because "processors have pretty strong lobbies."
...
State law requires California to keep the milk-for-cheese price in "a reasonable and sound relationship" with the federal price. California dairy farmers say that for the past two years, they have been receiving $2 less per hundred pounds of milk for cheese than farmers in other states.
...
Rob Vandenheuvel, a spokesman for the Milk Producers Council, said the two sides are having difficulty getting past the bitterness. "In some ways, we're their partners in the industry," said Mr. Vandenheuvel, "but unfortunately every time we meet now, it's a high-stress situation."

Some dairy farmers and cheese makers are suggesting the market should decide the price.
...

etc.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204707104578093463721731872.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_news

The comments to this entry are closed.

For Amazon US use this link .

Your filthy consumerism supports this blog.

Blogroll