[FoRK] Fed Makes Emergency 0.75% Rate Cut

[Sat N]

On Jan 22, 2008 10:35 PM, J. Andrew Rogers <andrew at ceruleansystems.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Russell Turpin wrote:
> > For the six years prior to last, Bush had a trained dog Congress
> > that pretty much gave him the legislation he wanted.
>
>
> Up to a point anyway; as a practical political matter the President
> has a limited ability to push back.  Some economically reasonable
> legislative proposals from Bush were effectively blunted (e.g. Social
> Security reform and so on), while a lot of economically stupid
> proposals (e.g. drug entitlement) were waved on through.  It was
> pretty clear that the Congress was only interested in spending money.
> Unfortunately, we do not get a Congress interested in fiscal restraint
> very often (if ever).
>
> Congress fiddles with the economy incessantly, but somewhat
> independently of their own spending habits even though the two are not
> disconnected.  And for better or worse, every Presidential candidate
> (except perhaps for Ron Paul) is inventing all sorts of new ways to
> have the government spend even more money and take even more control
> of the economy than they already do.
>
> Not that anyone should complain; most people *want* the government to
> spend more money, never mind that most of it is wasted.  Democracy in
> action.
>

Talking of presidential candidates, Karl Hillary Marx has a wonderful
plan where by she takes majority of the company profits and
distributes them to the poor or loss making companies.

Why not extend this to stock market, where by NASDAQ will balance
stock gains evenly across all companies. ( say APPL is down 10% while
VMW is up 10%, NASDAQ should adjust the price of APPL to be down only
5% and VMW should be down 5% ).

Heck, why not even extend this to employee salaries at any company.

Go Hillary, take us to Leningrad...

(Not that any other candidate is good, they are all bunch of bozos
with any decent lack of understanding of how economy works).