9:07

Obama - wants to increase regulations, blames Bush and the Republicans for the economic down turn, even though it was Jimmy Carter and Willie Clinton's sub prime mortgages.

McCain - wants to use gov funds to buy up bad mortgages...? Did I hear that wrong? I was making a playlist.

9:10

McCain - Good question on the bailout!...too bad, it was the same as the first. McCain's taking credit for helping the bailout, bad deal since 65% of the people didn't want it. Did bring up the subprime mortgages and say they tried to repeal it...don't know if that's true, but they should have done a lot more.

Obama - Talking about small businesses getting helped form the bailout...eh. Not so much Barry. While I see his point, the bailout is largely for Wall Street. Now HE is saying he tried to do something about the subprime mortgages.

NOW he's saying (AGAIN) regulation is the answer. /sigh. Not really seeing any difference in these two.

9:18

GOOD QUESTION! How CAN we trust EITHER of the parties when THEY got us into this mess in the first place.

Obama - Yes. We did have a surplus when Bush came into office. Is it his fault that it went away? Not necesarily economists say. From subprime mortgages to just your average business cycle hitting a down.

McCain - Did fight to reduce earmarks. Obama HAS (to my reading) obtained somewhere around $800B in earmarks, and this is from Citizens Against Government Waste.

(the one minute discussion period is pretty hilarious because both are politicians. That's almost not enough time for them to put their feet in their mouth)

McCain - Good, screw social security (sorry, he said something about 'not being able to have the retirement for senior citizens we have today'). Just another bloated beaurocratic blah blah.

Obama - Didn't answer the question, just like McCain. Talking about how tax cuts are bad.

9:27

McCain - Talking about eliminating programs! Wants to look at 'every agency and department' and begin to eliminate them. Talked up some of his credentials. Talking about eliminating some earmarks. Wants to cut spending, 'spending freeze' - wants to freeze programs outside of national defense, Veteran Affairs. Freeze increase on spending on others. THAT is a good idea, kudos for McCain. Now if he'd only actually do that after he was elected...

Obama - Another attempt to try and tie Bush to McCain, seems the overall strategy for the Obama campaign. Ok...missed the rest of it except Obama saying something about Washington. Sorry, was getting a beer from the fridge because if I don't drink while watching this I'll cry.

9:33

Obama - says we need to watch spending, but also revenue. Bringing up the tax cuts because he doesn't quite understand them. I would really like to see a CEO get a tax cut of BILLIONS of dollars. I think he means the company. Teachers don't make as much money, well duh. My girlfriend is a teacher and couldn't run a Fortune 500 country. Doesn't want to take a 'hatchet', but a 'scalpel' to the budget. Woo hoo.

McCain - Brought up Obama raising taxes. Ooooh bringing up secret we don't know! Apparently it's by raising taxes on 50% of America's small businesses thanks to his higher taxes. McCain wants to make more tax cuts to middle class America. I'll drink to that! Incentives for health care. Again, health care should not be a government thing.

Obama was pissed because he didn't get to address that, you should have seen the look on his face. Oh well.

Obama - Wow. Said 'in my first term as president.' Are we serious? Ok, skips the question so he can go back to the question he wasn't allowed to respond to. BECAUSE OF RULES HE AGREED UPON. I'm not even going to bother on writing it down since he's being so 'politiciany'. The personal Jesus of the liberals, the messiah, the agent of change! Yawn.

McCain - Said he'd answer the question. Talking about healthcare and social security, two issues I'm not the greatest at. Woah, McCain's putting the full court press on Obama. Eh, medicare. Yet ANOTHER I'm not too good at. Attacking Obama's record, I guess if I was expecting not to see politicians...I would be watching...something interesting. Eh. McCain's 'reforming'....well I don't know. He was behind McCain-Feingold.

Wow. My roommate just agreed Obama came into the senate just to pursue the presidency. If that's true how can you vote for the man?

9:43

McCain - Eh. Talking about environment, something the government has no idea about since they are the #1 cause of pollution. McCain's mission, it seems, is to keep Obama on his toes, make him address McCain's jabs instead of stating his own views. It seems to be working because he KEEPS taking the bait.

Obama - Talking about green energy being an economic investment like the computer. I doubt this. What's good for the environment isn't often profitable. Hm, it almost seemed like Obama was going to switch routes and switch strategies to 'niceing' up and coming off as the nice guy. Seemed he changed his mind and again was baited by McCain.

Brokaw wants them to stay in the one minute time limit, neither have been. However, Obama immediately got up and said 'I"m just trying to follow John' which wasn't true because in the last question McCain only took a minute. Obama three....because he's allowing himself to be baited!

McCain - ....missed it. More talk about energy.

Obama - Looks like a healthcare question, should be interesting since it's Obama's main platform beside anti-war (which I would argue is what won him the primary). Ok what he's saying is kinda a lie because what I've seen before is he wants federal issurance. What he is saying is increasing incentives for the private sector. Talking about McCain stripping away regulations and increasing some kind of tax to help pay for the health care McCain wants.

9:52

McCain - I don't think healthcare is John's strong point and this is showing right about now. Talking about parents and small businesses being fined under Obama's plan for not providing healthcare for kids, employees respectively. I don't understand McCain's tax credit myself, so I can't comment on it. McCain keeps making okes but no one laughs - even when they are funny. I'm thinking they might have told the people not to laugh (no joke) or something. Whether or not it was partisian or not, I don't know.

Obama - Thinks healthcare should be a right. Oooooh pulling out the 'my mother died of cancer' card. That's kinda sick. (I realize I'm attacking Obama a bit more, but living with 2 Obamaphiles and being in a program with 14 of them takes its toll). Doesn't want people to shop for their own insurance across state lines, thinks it's a federal thing. Believes in regulation in almost every circumstance.

I think Obama is pretty frazzeled by McCain's strategy. From a political stand point that's pretty good. From a average joe watching TV it's kind of not because it makes him seem negative. Luckily McCain seems friendly 3/4 times.

McCain - Uh oh. A defense/international question. This from man #1 of loving war (#2 being Obama). Oh no, talking about record and sending marines around the world. My buddy just got reactivated and he should be going no where. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Lebanon. It doesn't matter if we can prevent genocide in Darfur, we're NOT Team America. We're not the world's police.

Obama - Bringing up Iraq War, knew this would happen, I'm sure McCain did too. Obama's entire political career seems made from his anti-war stance. It's something I try not to thumb my nose out. Pointing out how much we spent in Iraq - $700B is the number he threw out. Hm. Sounds kinda like how much the war War on the Free Market they both have been waging. Except so far the price tag for that is $850B. Yep. And he brought up Darfur. FUCK Darfur. We don't need to be using our combat troops anywhere except in our OWN DEFENSE.

10:03

Obama - "If ethnic clensing happens anywhere in the world we should go in there, stop things, police them just like Iraq. Especially Darfur. Blah, blah, blah, Darfur, genocide, no fly zone." Ok I'm paraphrasing, but it's pretty much what he's saying. He doesn't want Iraq, but he wants war in Darfur. NICE.

McCain - Trying to defend the Iraqi war. Talking about bringing home the troops with honor instead of defeat. Eh, true I guess but shouldn't have even been there in the first place! Talking about Lebanon and how to temper decisions with where you should send troops. Talking about sending American blood being our most precious asset. Eh, pretty much takes the same pro-war stance as Obama but with a stronger stance on defense.

10:08

Obama - This ? is on whether or not we should go over Pakistani borders while chasing terrorists or should we respect their borders. Takes a good jab at McCain for the Iraq War again. Eh. He pretty much side stepped the question, kinda sucks because I was hoping to hear a real answer to that. Says we can't coddle to a dictator...we will encourage democracy...ok, he side stepped the question.

McCain - Bringing up Teddy Roosevelt, different feelings about him. Says something about Obama wanting once to attack Pakistan, Obama looks PIIIIISSED. It may be a negative strategy, but it's a strategy that keeps him on the ropes. Talking about our relations with Pakistan, good. We need to build relations with all nations, even nations with terrorists in their hills. Need to get support of people and work with them to use force.

Again Obama's bitching about not being able to comment.

Obama - Talking about McCain wanting to bomb Iran. Well guess who else has threatened Iran Barry? Yoooooou! What's the difference?

McCain is bitching about responding now....sigh.

McCain - ...he uses the words 'my friends' too much. Waaaay too much. Oh snap! Brung up military career, who didn't see that coming? I'm guessing that in the next answer, Obama will AGAIN bring up McCain's previous comments, giving into his strategy. "Crocodile Hunter voice: Crikey let's see what happens!"

10:16

Obama - talking about withdrawing from Iraq, good. Moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, also good.

McCain - Says most importantly we have to have the same strategy, but need same strategy we used with the surge in Afghanistan that we used in Iraq. Interesting argument. Obama says we need more people yet says the Iraqi surge wasn't going to work.

10:18

Interesting, Russia question which deals with me because I have a close friend who is a Russian native

McCain - Dissing Putin for being KGB, eh. Yea. Oh, ok, that's crap. Georgia was NOT RUSSIA'S FAULT. Georgia War was GEORGIA'S FAULT. Georgia ATTACKED a country Russia has treaties with. Russia defended. Russian peace keeping troops were fired upon. Russian troops go into Georgia. GOOD FOR THEM.

I swear it's like football, they keep trying to force the other out of time or something.

Obama - Wants support to former USSR countries. (Ah! Spilled beer all over new shirt...anger ensues) Keeps talking about how we need to take political action with Russia. WRONG. We need to just leave Russia alone. For the love of God! Why do we need to start a NEW COLD WAR!?

Oh no, the question only calls for yes or no. Aaaand they won't answer I'm betting. It was a question on whether Russia is 'evil' as the old USSR.

Obama - Short answer "Yes, but they don't, but they might and they do but they don't"

McCain - Turns it to needing to be Russian independent.

10:24

Question about whether we should help Israel

McCain - Thinks we should not wait for the UN Security Council. Good enough, screw the UN. But Israel doesn't need us to help them in every little scrap they get into. Still playing the same strategy. (My liberal roommate went to screw around on YouTube, I wonder if that means his savior isn't doing as well?) "Can't allow a second Holocaust to take place." Meh.

Obama - Unacceptable to let Iran gain nuclear power. Important to use all tools on table before war. Wants to tighten sanctions (WRONG!), pretty much do everything to turn them into a (more so) third world poor country. Thinks we should have talks with Iran. Good, we need to. Whether or not Obama would go through with it and not just hit the red button remains unseen.

LAST QUESTION! (Yay!) 'What don't you know and how will you learn it?'

Obama - tries to make a joke about his wife, the usual Disney sitcom kind. He wouldn't be standing here unless this country gave him oppurtunity. I would say the debate is pretty much over. This is like a cookie cutter question. Obama's talking about the food stamps his mom got, yet he still made it! Good for him. The American Dream has diminished, he says. We're going bankrupt. Grades, will and drive to go to college but don't have money. WRONG. I had the grades, the will, and NO money, still went to college. Extraordinary journey we call America! Why thank you, sounds like he should use that when he sends us to Iran.

McCain - Americans are hurting tonight like they haven't in generations. Doesn't know what unexpected will be. Brings up father 'doing country's business' surprisingly doesn't bring up that his father was head of navy.

END!

Ok. I learned a couple things coming out of tonights first (and possibly last) live debate on my blog. One and EASILY the most important for any bloggers: drinking beers while watching the debate is not easy. As soon as I typed End I threw the lap top off and just ran to the bathroom.

On a less disgusting note, I think McCain's strategy of talking about his views, hitting Obama, then talking about his views again worked to his advantage. It forced Obama to address what was said and once or twice when he didn't, McCain actually spoke up afterwards "Well what about XXXX?." Diry, maybe. Politiciany, most definitely.

Who won? From a libertarian perspective: No one. They are both pro-war, statist bastards, both loving to see our economy in the hands of the government. Who won from a Joe Six Pack perspective? Hard to say, but in the end I'd give it to McCain. Though, he used the 'my friends' WAAAAY too much. He just seemd WAY more approachable. He's loaded but he seemed more common. Obama seemed more like the rich guy eating at Damon's (or Bob Evans or Applebees depending where you're from) who is trying to fit in but ends up getting disgusted by something or another.

All in all....it's a horrid day to believe in liberty OR change.

Because the candidates bring neither to the table.

-------

By: John Ivison, National Post
Published: Monday, September 29, 2008

Jack Layton has never really been taken seriously. Beyond the fiercely partisan types who crowded into a community centre just off Danforth Avenue yesterday, the NDP leader has always been regarded as a harmless buffoon -- a man so smug, he'd drink his own bathwater. Jack -- let's call him Jack -- has always said outrageous things and nobody has paid too much attention to this point.

But perhaps it's time people actually started listening.

The NDP leader unveiled his party's platform yesterday in front of a boisterous crowd in his own riding. It was a virtuoso performance.

"Friends, I sense a real excitement out there. A sense of hope that this time, in this election, we can really make a difference," he said.

"And maybe we can even make a little history."

If current polling trends continue, he could do just that, by taking possession of the keys to Stornoway, the residence of the leader of the Official Opposition. The NDP started the campaign as much as 19 points behind the Liberals -- some polls now put them in a statistical tie.

On the surface, much of the New Democrat platform will seem appealing to many Canadians -- families would receive an enhanced child benefit payment of up to $400 a month; billions would be spent on affordable housing; students would be given a $1,000-a-year grant; more doctors would be hired and their loans forgiven if they work in family medicine; and everyone would get an extra day off work in February. Unlike in days of yore, this would not mean plunging the country into deficit. Budgets would be balanced and personal income taxes would be held steady.

In short, Jack made a convincing case that if he became prime minister, we could trust him to spend our money wisely. There he is in his campaign literature, sleeves rolled up, in the living rooms of the hard-pressed Canadian families helping them make ends meet. No wonder he's flying high in the polls -- he's identified real problems, real issues and promised real solutions.

Read more

Part two:

10 Step Program for Capitalist Equilibrium.

Ahhhh, capitalist equilibrium.... A world of free and voluntary exchange, perfect competition, the perfect allocation of resources to meet the demands of consumers, of maximum freedom for all individuals...

Or is it? In a world of drastic inequality and crisis we have to ask why the real world diverges so drastically from this picture of capitalist equilibrium. Are there external forces hindering capitalist equilibrium or are inequality and crisis actually the true face of capitalism?

Already with the present crisis we mostly hear the former argument in various forms: that the crisis comes from poor government regulation, corruption, or central bank interference, inflation...

Most amusing is the argument of the far libertarian right that claims US economy is actually a socialist economy because of the tax system, state spending and the central bank. Thus any crisis could never be a crisis of capitalism, but only socialism. With such logic it is difficult to make any claims about whether capitalism works, because according to this argument there never has been and there never will be some abstract pure form of capitalism in which there is no government, no coordination of banking, no corruption, etc. This bourgeois conception of capitalism as a self-regulating system of free and voluntary exchange is an abstraction. But it is not the abstraction itself which is the problem with the bourgeois argument.

It is precisely this same abstraction which Marxists use to build their theory of capitalist crisis. The theory that capitalism is inherently prone to violent crisis is not built upon a model of government regulation, central bank-led inflation, etc. It proceeds from the same basic abstraction that bourgeois economy proceeds from: a free and voluntary exchange of commodities among equals. Let us then, take a whirlwind, speed-tour of how the logic of crisis is built from this abstraction. In just 10 steps!

1. Yes, you can fool some people sometimes... you can rip people off... you can always find a sucker, but by and large, in a society with free exchange trade tends to be trade between commodities of equal value. Because if someone is trying to rip you off you can always go trade with someone else. This tends to equalize the exchange value between commodities. Yes, this is an abstraction which makes certain assumptions, but it is the inherent tendency within in exchange.

2. We can't talk about an equality of exchange without some notion of value. It is logically impossible. Because the point of an economic analysis is to explain how all the productive activities of trillions of people are coordinated in one vast system, we use human labor as our notion of value. Again, this is an abstraction. Labor varies in intensity and expertise. But by and large, in the same way in which exchange creates an equivalence of value among heterogeneous commodities, exchange reduces work to a socially necessary abstract labor time. In other words, when commodities are exchanged this implies that an equal amount of work went into the making of them.

3. None of this would be possible without money. We don't exchange commodities directly with other commodities (C-C). Money intervenes in this process (C-M-C). We need money to measure the amount of value, the amount of socially necessary abstract labor time, represented by a commodity. With money, this abstract notion of value becomes more concrete. With this concreteness comes all of the ways concrete, empirical reality varies around this abstract form. We get price fluctuations and imbalances. Supply and demand cause money prices to shift above and below the actual labor value of a commodity. But underneath this fluctuation lies an abstract equilibrium price and this price corresponds to the amount of abstract labor in a commodity. These fluctuations are not exceptions to the abstract model. They are part of the model, made possible with necessary introduction of M into C-M-C.

4. Money is really powerful. It is the only measure of value. It can be exchanged for any other commodity. It also makes this possible: We can change C-M-C into M-C-M. People can set their money in motion, buying commodities, and then sell these commodities to someone else for more money (M-C-M1)! They can use their money not just as a medium of exchange in the free and voluntary exchange of commodities. The goal, for some, becomes not attaining the things one needs, but getting more of the same thing: money. We call these people capitalists and we call this never ending cycle of M-C-M1 capitalism.

5. But now our model appears to contradict our basic starting point: equal exchange. How is M-C-M1 possible in a world of equal exchange? Some one has to get ripped off at some point. But if we assume that we can't make a profit by fooling people through exchange we have to look somewhere other than exchange. Capitalists don't just sell the same commodities they buy. They buy raw materials, partially finished commodities, machines and human labor. At the end of their production process they have new commodities of greater value than they began with. They sell these commodities for a profit. We could write this: M-C...C1-M1. What happens in this mysterious production process? Where does that extra value come from? It comes from the difference between the wages paid to workers and the value created by those workers. This difference between the value created by human labor and the wages paid to those laborers is called surplus-value. Surplus value takes its money form as profit.

In fancy talk we call this surplus "s". We call the human labor power bought by wages "v" for variable capital. And we call the other commodities the capitalist buys "c" for constant capital. We call labor power variable because there is no way of knowing from the wage paid to a worker how much value they will produce each day. That is entirely up to how hard the capitalist can get them to work. In other words, the input in wages does not necessarily equal the output in value. We call all the other inputs (raw materials, machines, etc) constant capital because they can't be made to work harder. Thus, if you will indulge me in a little simple algebra, the value of a commodity is worth: c+v+s while the capitalist only paid c+v to make it!

That's a lot of information to jam into 5 steps, but if you've been watching many of my videos hopefully this all is review. At this stage we have an abstract model of a capitalist society: a model with two classes, capitalists and workers, one which benefits at the expense of the other. The model is constantly in motion as capitalists in competition seek new ways to increase the amount of surplus they extract from workers. This motion is responsible for much of the social antagonism in the world as well the incredible dynamism and innovation of a capitalist society.

Again, this model is an abstraction. In a real capitalist society there is a lot more complexity to this class map. But this is the way we proceed from the abstract to the concrete. We started with just the free and equal exchange of commodities and now we already have a theory of value and profit, a basic class structure and the beginnings of a model for the dynamics of motion in a society driven by the quest for profit. At each stage in the analysis, the model comes to resemble the real world more and more and at each stage we see how much variation is possible within the model, how many different types of capitalist worlds could emerge from the model.

The model doesn't move from abstract to concrete merely by injecting real world phenomena randomly into the analysis (like crude libertarians who start with an abstract concept of freedom through free exchange and then throw the Federal Reserve into the analysis without building any sort of theoretical structure with which to understand the relation of central banking to the system of exchange.) Instead we will see features of the real world emerge from the constant expansion of the basic concept of free and voluntary commodity exchange.

Next we will look at the way this basic class antagonism between capitalists and workers creates disequilibrium in the systems of production and exchange. It doesn't create this disequillibrium through political struggle- that would be more of a libertarian argument- that political interference with the market creates crisis. It destabilizes through the market and through production itself through a crisis we will eventually call "overaccumulation".

Once we've abstracted from the details of the falling rate of profit argument towards a more general theory of capitalist overaccumulation, we can begin to examine the ways the crisis of overaccumulation moves through space, constantly displacing crisis in geographical space as capital is globalized. And then we can talk about the way crisis is displaced over time via the credit system. And once we've talked about space and time we can talk about the role of the state in displacing crisis.

Only then, once this theoretical structure is complete can we begin to look at the history of capitalist crisis: The way capitalism evolved through successive displacements of the overaccumulation problem via Keynsianism, globalization and credit bubbles.  In contrast, the mainstream media and also much of left media start the the analysis with a brief history of sub-prime mortgages as if that is a logical starting point!

Whether or not you learn this from one of my videos or a book or wherever...  it is imperative for us to understand the basic structure of this argument if we are to come up with ways of surviving this coming crisis. It may very well be far bigger and more devastating than we can imagine.

Part two of this video asks an important question: Could such a system achieve equilibrium? I will set our model in motion and discuss the way value is created, expanded and recreated on a mass scale. This will then lead to an explanation of what would be required for this abstract model of capitalism to achieve equilibrium.

Part 2

6. Capitalist are in competition with each other. In order to survive they have to make more profit than their competitors- which is another way of saying "extract as much surplus value from workers as they can." Again, this is an abstraction. Some capitalist may be better or worse than others at this. The intensity of competition and the power of a labor movement can affect their ability to extract surplus value. But the drive to increase surplus value is the dominant tendency. One of the best ways of doing this is through technological innovation. By replacing some workers with machines a capitalist can increase the output per worker. Of course, once other capitalists adopt these innovations, the amount of socially necessary labor time in a commodity drops and the race to innovate begins all over again. Thus our model sees a cyclical rate of of unemployment and a constant race to innovate as related features of the same drive to increase surplus value.

7. This means that the total value of all the commodities in the economy is greater than the total amount of wages. This could create a system-wide problem if there wasn't enough demand to buy back all of the products created by capital. This is the problem of underconsumption which I discussed in my last video (Consume!). At the end of that video we concluded that capitalists could escape the underconsumption problem with the right reinvestment strategies. That is, if capitalists reinvest their surplus in expanding production they can increase the general demand in society enough to keep demand in pace with supply. This creates a further imperative for capitalism to keep growing. If growth ever slows the whole system can go into crisis.

8. The question then is, what sort of investment strategies would create a system in equilibrium? How much of the surplus should be spent on wages? How much on constant capital? To make this more complicated, we have to realize that there are two general types of commodities. There are consumer goods, the stuff you and I buy in the store, and there is constant capital, all the tools, raw materials and machines that capitalist need to buy. This complicates our equilibrium model a little because now we have to take into account capitalists paying workers, workers buying from capitalists, capitalists buying consumer goods from capitalists, and capitalists buying constant capital from capitalists. To visualize all this we divide the capitalist class into two "departments". Department 1 produces means of production (or c, constant capital) for the entire capitalist class. Department 2 produces consumer goods for both capitalists and workers. We can diagram this model of the economy thus:
Department one: c + v + s
Department two:  c + v+ s

This diagram shows the total value of all the commodities in both departments. Both departments' commodities are the total of all constant and variable capital and surplus value. Department one makes constant capital for itself, but it's workers and capitalists must turn to Department 2 for consumer goods. Department 2 produces consumer goods for all of the capitalists and workers, but it must turn to department 1 for constant capital. Capitalists have to decide how much of their surplus to devote to reinvesting in c+v and how much to spend on personal consumption. Their investment decisions determine the amount of supply and demand in the economy.

[An aside: Sometimes, in response to some of my videos about the labor theory of value, viewers countered that supply and demand are much better and explaining price than labor times. Here, in this video, I am explaining the way this model leads us to an explanation of the way supply and demand are created in the first place. It took us sometime to get to this point because we are not only concerned with measuring prices, but also with explaining the way the basic social structure of capitalism is reproduced. It is a much wider and more ambitious scope.]

If all these inputs and outputs line up, if everything balances out, capitalism is in equilibrium. But if things go out of balance we will see the overproduction of some commodities in one of the departments without enough demand to buy it back. If such an overproduction diverges far from balanced growth we see violent crisis in the economy: profit falls, investment falls, unemployment rises, commodities face devaluation, etc.

9. Karl Marx set about to establish such a model for a capitalist society in equilibrium. And he discovered this. If Department 1 reinvests half of its surplus in constant and variable capital, at the same ratio of constant to variable capital, and if Department 2 reinvests 3/10's of it's surplus in constant and variable capital, preserving the same ratio, the model can grow forever without crisis. Of course it may encounter external barriers, like environmental crisis, but our investigation here is about internal crisis.

I've decided that the math of the argument isn't all that suited for a Youtube video. But if you'd like to check it out, you can check out my wordpress blog where I have posted a "Math Supplement" to this video.

http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/math-supplement-to-capitalist-equilibrium/

So there you go: capitalism, theoretically, can grow and grow forever without problem. Story over.

Well... maybe there are a few more things to say....

10. If you've been paying close attention, you might have noticed, even without the math supplement, that there are some fishy things about this equilibrium model. First of all, if equilibrium requires very specific investment strategies, how are these reinvestment strategies ever to be reached if they are the result of lots of individual capitalists acting on their own? We can't use the old argument of supply and demand naturally balancing each other out, of the "hidden hand of the market" coordinating reinvestment, because we've just seen that supply and demand themselves are formed via these very reinvestment strategies. Such a restrictive reinvestment scheme could only be reached by accident.

In fact, these restrictions actually conflict with some of the more important aspects of our model. If exchange is free and voluntary than the model should allow capitalists to invest outside of their own department. We know that this happens all the time in the real world- automakers invest in computer companies, soft drink companies invest in the entertainment industry, etc. Michio Morishima has shown that if we allow capitalists to invest outside of their department, our model produces either progressive economic stagnation or violent crisis.

This model also assumes that capitalists don't change the ratio of constant capital to variable capital when they reinvest- in other words, it assumes that for every $100 reinvested, $50 go to new machines and $50 go to new workers. But we have already argued that the whole point of introducing machines into the labor process is to replace human labor. That's what machines are for. So, it makes no sense to reinvest in production at the same proportions.

If we allow for a steady increase in machines relative to workers we start to see a fall in the total amount of value created relative to total investment. In other words, we get a falling rate of profit. A falling rate of profit means a shrinking pool of profitable investments. And this means that capital stops flowing: a crisis.

One thing Liberal can do is to start assembling an economic oversight group. This would get them started on looking for ways to minimize impact of U.S. economic meltdown. This would also demonstrate to Canadian that the Liberal have a much deeper groups of experts for handling an economic slowdown. Contrast this with Harper's constant denial. He claimed U.S. is still not in recession. Yeah we heard that before. From George Bush!

Layton on the other hand is calling for a mid election leader meeting. Is he trying to imitate McCain?

As Dow have their worse drop in history and George "what recession?" Bush try to grapple with the crisis belatedly, Canada can't afford to be led by a guy who imitate Bush not only in words but also in actions.

If Harper win, not only would our economy suffer under his secretive government, but he will also continue to sell our valuable assets to foreign companies. He would continue to sell our assets, some of it he had already put in motion.  Remember this news? Toronto Star news: Nuclear selloff in works. Not to mention the CanadArm that he put on sale. Expect him to continue selling out Canada's assets.

McCain attacked Obama for his declaration that he would meet with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations "without preconditions." To do so with Iran, McCain said, "isn't just naive; it's dangerous." Obama countered by saying former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – a McCain adviser – agreed with him:

Obama: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran – guess what – without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

McCain rejected Obama's claim:

McCain: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.
Obama: We will take a look.
McCain: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.
Obama: Nobody's talking about that.

So who's right? Kissinger did in fact say a few days earlier at a forum of former secretaries of state that he favors very high-level talks with Iran – without conditions:

Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.

Later, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was asked about this by CBS News anchor Katie Couric, and Palin said, "I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, ‘Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.'" Afterward Couric said, "We confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview."

After the McCain-Obama debate, however, Kissinger issued a statement saying he doesn't favor a presidential meeting:

Kissinger: Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain.

McCain said – and Obama denied – that Obama had voted to increase taxes on "people who make as low as $42,000 a year." McCain was correct – with qualification.

McCain: But, again, Senator Obama has shifted on a number of occasions. He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year.
Obama: That's not true, John. That's not true.
McCain: And that's just a fact. Again, you can look it up.
Obama: Look, it's just not true.

Yes, as we’ve said before, Obama did in fact vote for a budget resolution that called for higher federal income tax rates on a single, non-homeowner who earned as little as $42,000 per year. A couple filing jointly, however, would have had to earn at least $83,000 per year to be affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.

The resolution actually would not have altered taxes without additional legislation. It called generally for allowing most of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire. McCain is referring to the provision that would have allowed the 25 percent tax bracket to return to 28 percent. The tax plan Obama now proposes, however, would not raise the rate on that tax bracket.

Obama contradicted McCain about what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen's said regarding "Obama's plan" for troop withdrawals.

McCain: Admiral Mullen suggests that Senator Obama's plan is dangerous for America.
Obama: That's not the case.
McCain: That's what ...
Obama: What he said was a precipitous...
McCain: That's what Admiral Mullen said.
Obama: ... withdrawal would be dangerous. He did not say that. That's not true.

Admiral Mullen did say in a Fox News interview that having a time line for withdrawal would be dangerous.

Mullen (July 20): I think the consequences could be very dangerous in that regard. I'm convinced at this point in time that coming – making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important.

However, interviewer Chris Wallace had just told Mullen to take Obama out of the equation.

Wallace (July 20): But I'm asking you in the absence – forget about Obama. Forget about the politics. If I were to say to you, "Let's set a time line of getting all of our combat troops out within two years," what do you think would be the consequences of setting that kind of a time line?

So strictly speaking Mullen was not talking specifically about "Obama's plan." He did say a rigid timetable could have dangerous consequences.

McCain was way off the mark when he said that earmarks in federal appropriations bills had tripled in the last five years.

McCain: But the point is that – you see, I hear this all the time. "It's only $18
billion." Do you know that it's tripled in the last five years?

In fact, earmarks have actually gone down. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, there was $22.5 billion worth of earmark spending in 2003. By 2008, that figure had come down to $17.2 billion. That's a decrease of 24 percent.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, another watchdog group, said in 2008 that "Congress has cut earmarks by 23 percent from the record 2005 levels," according to its analysis.

And while we're on the subject of earmarks, McCain repeated a misleading line we've heard before.

McCain: You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control.

McCain's been playing this for laughs since 2003. The study in question was done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it relied in part on federal appropriations. Readers (and politicians) may disagree on whether a noninvasive study of grizzly bear population and habitat is a waste of money. McCain clearly thinks it is – but on the other hand, he never moved to get rid of the earmark. In fact, he voted for the bill that made appropriations for the study. He did propose some changes to the bill, but none that nixed the bear funding.

Obama was out of date in saying the Iraqi government has "79 billion dollars," when he argued that the U.S. should stop spending money on the war in Iraq.

Obama: We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus.

As we've said before, there was a time when the country could have had as much as $79 billion, but that time has passed. What the Iraqis actually “have” is $29.4 billion in the bank. The Government Accountability Office projected in August that Iraq’s 2008 budget surplus could range anywhere from $38.2 billion to $50.3 billion, depending on oil revenue, price and volume. Then, in early August, the Iraqi legislature passed a $21 billion supplemental spending bill, which was omitted from the GAO’s surplus tally since it was still under consideration. The supplemental will be completely funded by this year’s surplus. So the range of what the Iraqi’s could have at year’s end is actually $47 billion to $59 billion. The $79 billion figure is outdated and incorrect.

McCain repeated an exaggerated claim that the U.S. is sending $700 billion per year to hostile countries.

McCain: Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don't like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations.

That's not accurate. McCain also made this claim in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. He's referring to the amount of money the U.S. spends in importing oil. But the number is inflated. In fact, we actually pay more like $536 billion for the oil we need. And one-third of those payments go to Canada, Mexico and the U.K.

(Note: A few of our readers messaged us, after we first noted McCain's mistake, with the thought that he was referring to foreign aid and not to oil. If so he's even farther off than we supposed: The entire budget for the State Department and International Programs works out to just $51.3 million.)

Obama overstated how many people would save on taxes under his plan:

Obama: My definition – here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase.

That should be 95 percent of families, not 95 percent of "American people." An analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that Obama's plan would decrease taxes for 95.5 percent of families with children. Overall, 81.3 percent of households would get a tax cut under his proposal.

Obama and McCain traded incorrect statements on each other's health care plan.

Obama: So you may end up getting a $5,000 tax credit. Here's the only problem: Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you're getting from your employer.

As we said before, McCain’s plan doesn’t call for taxing employers on health care benefits; it would instead tax employees. As the law stands now, employees don’t pay taxes on the dollar value of their health insurance benefits. Under McCain’s plan, they would.

McCain also misrepresented Obama's plan when he said that his opponent favored "handing the health care system over to the federal government."

McCain: Well, I want to make sure we're not handing the health care system over to the federal government which is basically what would ultimately happen with Senator Obama's health care plan. I want the families to make decisions between themselves and their doctors. Not the federal government.

McCain made a similar claim in his acceptance speech, when he said that
Obama's plans would "force families into a government run health care
system." We called it false then and we stand by that. Obama's plan mandates coverage for children, but not for adults, and it does not require anyone to be covered by a nationalized system. Obama's plan expands the insurance coverage offered by the government, but allows people to keep their own plans or choose from private plans as well.

McCain mangled his military history:

McCain: President Eisenhower, on the night before the Normandy invasion, went into his room, and he wrote out two letters.

One of them was a letter congratulating the great members of the military and allies that had conducted and succeeded in the greatest invasion in history, still to this day, and forever.

And he wrote out another letter, and that was a letter of resignation from the United States Army for the failure of the landings at Normandy.

The story is widely circulated in military circles but not entirely true. Eisenhower (then a general, not yet a president) did in fact write a letter taking responsibility should the D-Day invasion fail. But Eisenhower's letter does not mention resigning. Here's the full text:

Eisenhower (June 5, 1944): Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.

No mention of quitting the Army, or his command.

Obama stretched out his schedule for withdrawing troops from Iraq. During the debate, Obama said we could "reduce" the number of combat troops in 16 months:

Obama: Now, what I've said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put – provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.

But in Oct. 2007, Obama supported removing all combat troops from Iraq
within 16 months:

Obama (Oct. 2007): I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.

The quote appears in "Barack Obama and Joe Biden on Defense Issues" – a
position paper that was still available on the campaign's Web site as Obama spoke.

McCain repeated the false insinuation that Obama opposed naming Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

McCain: There is the Republican Guard in Iran, which Senator Kyl had an amendment in order to declare them a sponsor of terror. Senator Obama said that would be provocative. ...

Obama: Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I've consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran.

Obama has in fact said that the IRGC should be named a terrorist group. He was a cosponsor of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which, among other things, named the IRGC a terrorist organization. What he voted against was the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which also called for the terrorist group distinction. But Obama said that he opposed the amendment on the grounds that it was "saber-rattling."

Obama press release (Sept. 26, 2007): Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

McCain called Obama's initial statement on the conflict in Georgia "naive." It's worth noting Obama's words echoed those of the White House.

McCain: Well, I was interested in Senator Obama's reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, "Both sides ought to show restraint."

Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn't understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia.

It's true, as McCain said, that during the conflict between Georgia and Russia, Obama said, "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to
avoid an escalation to full scale war" in his first statement on the conflict. But so did the White House. Press secretary Dana Perino said on Aug. 8, “We urge restraint on all sides – that violence would be curtailed and that direct dialogue could ensue in order to help resolve their differences.” We pointed this out when New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani mischaracterized Obama's response to the crisis during the GOP convention.

Both candidates were right in talking about Obama’s NATO subcommittee.

McCain: Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO, that's in Afghanistan. To this day he's never had a hearing. …

Obama: Look, the -- I'm very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, who's the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And as he explains and as John well knows, the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that don't go through my subcommittee because they're done as a committee as a whole.

As we've already reported Obama's subcommittee on Afghanistan does have jurisdiction over NATO, which is supplying about half of the troops in Afghanistan. His subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over Afghanistan proper.

We also caught McCain getting his congressional history a little wrong.

McCain: Back in 1983, when I was a brand-new United States congressman,
the one -- the person I admired the most and still admire the most, Ronald
Reagan, wanted to send Marines into Lebanon. And I saw that, and I saw the
situation, and I stood up, and I voted against that because I was afraid
that they couldn't make peace in a place where 300 or 400 or several
hundred Marines would make a difference. Tragically, I was right: Nearly
300 Marines lost their lives in the bombing of the barracks.

This isn’t quite right. Marines were initially deployed to Lebanon in August 1982. McCain, however, was not elected to the U.S. House until November 1982, more than three months after Marines had already landed.

McCain is referring to a 1983 vote to invoke the War Powers Act. That bill, which Ronald Reagan signed into law on October 12, 1983, authorized an 18-month deployment for the Marines. On October 13, a suicide bomber destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut. McCain did in fact break with most Republicans to vote against the bill.

–by Brooks Jackson, Lori Robertson, Justin Bank, Jess Henig, Emi Kolawole and Joe Miller.

I believe that "no review" provision is unconstitutional.  It comes from arrogant "conservatives" who propose using Congress' power to delineate Federal courts' jurisdiction, to exclude altogether pet projects like anti-flag-burning, public school prayer, anti-abortion, anti-pornography, etc etc etc.  But that's at best a misunderstanding, at worst a vile perversion, of the provision, otherwise Congress could just explicitly exclude ALL its laws from judicial review, and do whatever it wants, the Constitution be damned.  But this power has never been seriously interpreted this way by Congress or the Courts.  Every act of the legislative or executive branches has to be reviewable judicially, even if just to say "It's a political matter" or "It's a Constitutional Amendment" (which would be obvious of course), "they're allowed."  If Congress (and the White House) sought to exclude a new bill from review by existing courts, they would be required to establish a new court just for that bill (like FISA), or designate State courts or something.  We can't have NO review!

And a dictatorship of the Treasury Secretary, who works for the President?  Please!  I don't see these powers granted in the Constitution.  Congress spends money.

As for the artificiality of the current "crisis," you just know these guys were sitting around one day saying to each other, "What'll they do, let us go under, and take the economy with us?!!"  This may be the culmination of W.'s "planned train wreck," to totally "discredit" government by ballooning the deficit (incl. erasing the Clinton / Democratic surplus!), instigating a reaction to "shrink government small enough to drown it in a bathtub."  (Of course, it all started with the Revolution of the Colonial Ruling Elites against The Crown and legitimate traditional government....)  They scream about "handouts" to us who are needy, but demand this total governmental giveaway to predatory corporations and the rich?!!!  This is right up there with trying to abolish Habeas Corpus and spy on us without a warrant.  And for the Democrats to just roll over and play dead on this when they have the majority in Congress would be a mortal sin.  RED states may not be buying it, but will they take that outrage to the polls in November and thrash the GOP that brought it on them?

Again, I have to wonder how much of this "bailout" money will find its way into Repug campaign coffers, or perhaps the corporate paychecks of Bush officials if they leave office in January?

Just more Republican "borrow-and-spend" "voodoo economics"!!!

Wall Street sinks again after Fed bails out AIG, Barclays buys Lehman businesses; Dow down 450

NEW YORK (AP) -- Wall Street plunged again Wednesday as anxieties about the financial system ran high after the government's bailout of insurer American International Group Inc. (AIG) and left investors with little confidence in many banking stocks. The Dow Jones industrial average lost about 450 points, giving it a shortfall of more than 800 so far this week.

As investors fled stocks, they sought the safety of hard assets and government debt, sending gold, oil and short-term Treasurys soaring.

The market was more unnerved than comforted by news that the Federal Reserve is giving a two-year, $85 billion loan to AIG in exchange for a nearly 80 percent stake in the company, which lost billions in the risky business of insuring against bond defaults. Wall Street had feared that the conglomerate, which has extensive ties to various financial services industries around the world, would follow the investment bank Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEH) into bankruptcy. However, the ramifications of the world's largest insurer going under likely would have far surpassed the demise of Lehman.

"People are scared to death," said Bill Stone, chief investment strategist for PNC Wealth Management. "Who would have imagined that AIG would have gotten into this position?"

He said the anxiety gripping the markets reflects investors' concerns that AIG wasn't able to find a lifeline in the private sector and that Wall Street is now fretting about what other institutions could falter. Over the past year, companies including Lehman and AIG have sought to reassure investors that they weren't in trouble, but as market conditions have worsened the market appears distrustful of any assurances.

"No one's going to be believing anybody now because AIG said they were OK along with everybody else," Stone said.

The two independent Wall Street investment banks left standing -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS)-- remain under scrutiny, as does Washington Mutual Inc. (WM), the country's largest thrift bank. Morgan Stanley revealed better-than-expected quarterly results late Tuesday and insisted that it is surviving the credit crisis that has ravaged many of its peers.

Lehman filed for bankruptcy protection on Monday, and by late Tuesday had sold its North American investment banking and trading operations to Barclays (BCS), Britain's third-largest bank, for the bargain price of $250 million. Over the weekend, Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER), the world's largest brokerage, sold itself to Bank of America Corp. (BAC) in a quickly arranged plan to sidestep further slides in its stock.

"It's still uncertain ground we're treading. We just have to move on a daily basis," said Jack A. Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank.

The Dow fell 449.36, or 4.06 percent, to 10,609.66, finishing not far off its lows of the session. On Monday, the Dow lost 504 points, the largest tumble since its drop following the September 2001 terror attacks. On Tuesday, it rose 141 points, after the Fed decided to leave interest rates unchanged.

The index is down more than 7 percent on the week, its worst showing since July 2002. The blue chips have fallen more than 25 percent since reaching a record close of 14,164.53 on Oct. 9 last year.

Broader stock indicators also fell sharply Wednesday. The Standard & Poor's 500 index dropped 57.21, or 4.71 percent, to 1,156.39, while the Nasdaq composite index fell 109.05, or 4.94 percent, to 2,098.85.

About 200 stocks rose on the New York Stock Exchange, while nearly 3,000 fell.

The stock market is likely to see heavy back-and-forth movement as traders continue to assess the flood of news that has poured in over the past several days.

Short-term Treasurys moved sharply higher as investors sought a safe place for at least the near future. There was heavy buying in T-bills, which range from three months to a year in maturities. But the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note, which moves opposite its price, slipped to 3.42 percent from 3.43 percent late Tuesday as longer-term debt fell.

Tom di Galoma, head of Treasurys trading at Jefferies & Co. (JEF), characterized the mood of the bond market as "sheer panic." With turmoil in markets such as credit default swaps, which are essentially insurance policies against bond defaults, investors sought out alternative short-duration assets, he said.

The dollar was lower against other major currencies.

Commodities prices that have slumped in recent weeks amid growing signs of economic weakness, soared because of the appeal of hard assets.

Gold for December delivery shot up as much as $90.40, or 11.6 percent, to $870.90 an ounce in after-hours trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange after jumping $70 to settle at $850.50 in the regular session; that was its largest ever one-day gain in dollar terms.

Crude oil that had also skidded lower since midsummer $6.01 to settle at $97.16 a barrel on the Nymex after the government reported a drop in domestic crude and gas inventories. Oil dropped by about $10 a barrel on Monday and Tuesday.

The government took other measures Tuesday to help alleviate the turmoil in the markets. The Treasury said it will start selling bonds for the Fed to aid it with its lending efforts, while the Securities and Exchange Commission said it will strictly prohibit naked short-selling starting Thursday.

Short-selling occurs when traders borrow shares of a stock they expect will fall and sell them. If the stock does indeed fall, the traders buy the cheaper shares to cover the borrowed ones and profit from the difference. Naked short-selling occurs when sellers don't actually borrow the shares before selling them; it's a practice some say is partially responsible for the huge drop in the shares of investment banks like Lehman, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns Cos. (BSC), which JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) bought earlier this year.

Among financial names getting hit, Goldman Sachs fell $18.51, or 14 percent, to $114.50 and Morgan Stanley fell $6.95, or 24 percent, to $21.75. AIG fell $1.70, or 45 percent, to $2.05.

Many of the investment banks are now being forced to pair up with regular banks, whose solid deposit base can provide ballast in a turbulent market.

"People are afraid of the unknown and they don't know what's on the books of these companies," said Joe Saluzzi, co-head of equity trading at Themis Trading. "The first reaction in a situation like this is to sell."

Saluzzi noted that surging gold prices and other measures of investors jitters indicate that anxiety is building.

Indeed, the Chicago Board Options Exchange's volatility index, known as the VIX, and often referred to as the "fear index," jumped nearly 15 percent to its highest close since 2002. A widely followed measure of financial stocks fell to its lowest close since mid-July.

Saluzzi is somewhat optimistic that the nervousness could be nearing a crescendo, which could squeeze out more investors and then clear the way for a snapback rally.

But the woes of the financial sector could also exacerbate problems facing other parts of the economy, given that individuals and businesses rely on the nation's money centers.

The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that home construction fell by 6.2 percent in August to 895,000 units, the slowest pace since January 1991. Slumping demand for houses, sinking home prices and mortgage defaults have been the catalysts behind Wall Street's turmoil -- and the risky mortgage-backed assets held by the nation's banks are not apt to regain in value until the housing market turns around.

NYSE volume came to a heavy 2.14 billion shares.

It happens - circumstances change -

You have a supply of a certain kind of strip and then change meters.
You have life changes that allow you to stop using the meter that require the strips.
What ever the reason, you are left with many boxes of Diabetic Test Strips that you cannot use.

What do you do with all of the "extra" test strips?
Don't throw them away! I can find a good home for them!

As long as the expiration date is current (or possibly just recently expired) I can find a home for them. There are many folks out there much like yourself that are in need of the exact brand of strips that you no longer can use. There are folks whose insurance or medical benefits do not cover the diabetic test strips at this time.

It is my joy to accumulate these "surplus" boxes of diabetic test strips and make them readily available to those who need them.

If you have extra Diabetic Test Strips, call or email me today.
email: terry4work@gmail.com
Cell Phone: 206 200 0914

I will make arrangements to either pick up the containers if you are in my local area. If you are out of my area, I will provide mailers for you to get them to me at my cost. You get cash for your supply.

I pay up to $10 a box for those in their original containers.

Call me today!
206 200 0914

To our good health,
Terry
206 200 0914

Definitions:

1. $latex \psi(u)$ -- Starting with surplus $latex u$, this is the probability of ruin as $latex t$ goes to infinity with $latex t$ defined on $latex \mathbb{R}$.
2. $latex \bar{\psi}(u)$ --  Same as above except $latex t \in \mathbb{N}_+$, positive integers.
3. $latex \psi(u,t)$ -- Probability of ruin from time 0 to time $latex t$ with $latex t \in \mathbb{R}$.
4. $latex \bar\psi(u,t)$ -- Same as above except $latex t \in \mathbb{N}_+$.

Where does this come from?  Roughly the last 30 years, or since the last time a Republican President managed to not ruin the country economically.  For all the things I disliked about Nixon, at least he could manage a budget:

Now this isn't some sort of liberal propaganda, these are numbers -- namely, who could stick to a budget, and who couldn't.  Slice it anyway you want, starting with Ford, Republicans have forgotten what the phrase "fiscal conservative" means.

The graph above shows yearly budget deficits versus surpluses.  What effect does this have on the National Debt?

This shows the increases in the National Debt.  Basically since Ford, the National Debt has been steadily increasing at a faster rate.  The only time in the last 30 years that it's slowed down is when Clinton was in office -- I guess we know what he was doing with the budget surpluses he had.  As interesting as that chart is, to really understand it's importance, you have to look at the rate the surplus is increasing (this is where you use some Calculus):

Wow!  You can really get a feel for the heroic efforts of the Clinton administration -- he only increased the national debt by $18,000,000,000 his last year in office.  Then it only took W. two years to undo the eight years of work Clinton did.

And spare me the excuses about 9/11 and the Iraq War. The real reason the national debt has skyrocketed in the last eight years is because, with Republicans controlling all three branches of government (checks and balances, wha...?), Bush has had free reign to give the rich tax cuts.  But that's a whole 'nother blog post.

Here's the most irritating thing about this whole subject though: how "fiscal conservatives" can still argue that Reaganomics works.  It blows my mind when I hear them say things about how the economy is slow to react to the tax cuts, and other nonsense.  But this isn't the case.  For pretty much the entire time Reagan was in office, the economy was in the crapper, and you can see from the charts above, it had a downward trend.  Clinton took office, and it progressively got better.  By the time W. took office, we were in a solid position to start paying down the national debt.  But instead, his administration, and the Republican led Congress took it the opposite way.  Since then, each year things have gotten worse for middle and lower class citizens.

At this point in time, the phrase "fiscally conservative" has become a joke.  Republicans keep saying they are fiscally conservative, but they aren't, they're they exact opposite.  Given this evidence, how can anyone even entertain the idea of electing McCain.  McCain has given us no indication that he will be any different.

Argh.  We (as a society) are screwed.

References:

US Budget Deficit or Surplus 1960-present

United States National Debt

Increases in the National Debt

I know most that visit this blog and other Workwear/Americana inspired ones have a soft spot for Surplus, Vintage, and Antique stores alike. That's why I am spot lighting a Surplus store that has been a part of my life since childhood, and is actually down the street from my current place of work. In Nashville, TN, Friedman's Army & Navy Surplus has been the goto location for workwear, footwear, weapons, hunting needs, and vintage military attire. The Grand Mason's Lodge atop the store adds to the great history and mystique as well. Visiting as a kid, I remember my dad buying me a helmet, ammunition belt, and field jacket all from the WWII era. To this day, I still have those items. There's nothing greater than a surplus store as a kid, and it still seems to feel that way now.

For whatever reason you may be in Nashville in the near future, forget the honky tonks you may be curious to see. Instead take a trip down 21st Avenue, where most of the better things in Nashville reside anyhow, and stop in Friedman's for some Red Wings and Carhartt. Then head down the street for some bourbon before heading to Natchez Trace and Loveless Cafe for the day.

• Kuwaiti parliament approved a budget with a record expenditure of KD 19 bil dinars (despite warnings by the central bank to contain spending to tackle record inflation)
• Kuwait invests 10% of its revenues in a fund for future generations
• A surplus means Kuwait Investment Authority (Kuwait's sovereign fund) has more funds to spend on foreign investments