would be nice if we could concentrate on writing.

I will have to tweak the intro paragraph.

Eek.

Always change the title and the first paragraph slightly and yes, adding a link back to your blog on EP in the first part not only brings readers to other posts on EP, it has the dual purpose of changing the post slightly. This helps with SEO. i.e. they punish sites with duplicate content post by post so changing the post when cross posting helps.

Wouldn't it be nice to just focus in on writing and expressing your thoughts and views instead of the rest of this?

We have been asked to bank roll the banks, pony up to save floundering states and prop up “to large to fail business’s” and the top of the pile stand by while the unions are treated as secured stock holders over the risk takers who have been maligned as being speculators. These actions of strong armed management to discard the goodwill that it has taken many dealerships years to develop and reward the remaining with the results of others sweat and toil. http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indicators/economic-conditio...

We no longer see good management practice to encourage, business not to disable them. In the present our energy must be focused on disclosure and not be ashamed to admit our failures (learning points) and pick up and re envigurate the electorate to a stronger economy.

Let us not continue using of “Rules for Radicals”

Saul Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process that is being used in the Obama administration. .He emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

We must consider all not few, energize our prospective partys but only after our house is in order.

Though a lot of this information is helpful and usable we must be vigilant of the goal of what is being done. There in lies the true prize.

Information expressed in part is from Rules for Radicals

In 1971, Saul Alinsky

We love Naked Capitalism, especially the due diligence on the TARP, TALF. NC is a must read blog and why we have their article titles in the middle column.

For those NCs reading this comment, EP is a community blog and forum, which means we have many authors writing original economic analysis on EP. You have landed in our Instapopulist, which is our forum for shorter, more news or other blogs posts with some commentary. Check out the front page while you visit.

Thanks for the link NC!

I have no idea who or what you are talking to, but may I just suggest you point the mirror to yourself. This post is seemingly a desire to insult someone (who is it is beyond me) yet offers nothing in terms of economic analysis or issue discussion.

Excellence? You might start with your own ability to articulate thought.

To other anonymous drive-bys. We do allow anonymous comments, but please, if you're going to take the time to leave one, have something specific and insightful to say.

I'm really going to moderate these more in the future.

Everybody click on that Real Household Debt graph. Tell me you did not say an explicative when it was enlarged.

On posts previous written on EP, we have a lot of great content, a lot of information and it's fairly fast moving.

So, I'm all for recycling, referencing older posts or even recycling information, quoting from posts. And if a few duplicates slip in, don't worry about it, especially if it was posted a month or more ago. You can try to find it with the search, or a site specific Google search to reference.

This is an issue with blogs that I try to improve on. Blog posts have a shelf life of a few days. On Agent Orange for example, posts have a shelf life of 24 hours.

So, on EP, I have a lot of technology to make these posts more permanent and more like articles or references...some of these are fantastic and they should not have a shelf life of a few days...they are a lot of work and are not written to have a short time period to be relevant.

While many of your comments are spot on, I feel that the US Republic is simply to far gone. The levels of debt held by the US federal, state, and cities (not to mention consumers or private businesses) is so large the no combonation of higher growth or productivity will avert a fiscal disaster. Worse still is that the right now, relatively speaking the US is in calm water, with a large working age population, a smaller pool of recieving benefits and people still living on average until their 70-73. Soon the babyboomers will begin retiring on mass with little to no safety net(very few will have anything moe then the equity in their house and govt benefits) or health insurance, and a smaller tax base to draw their benefits from. This is complicated by the fact that most babyboomers have taken horrible care of their bodies (which will force the state to take on greater cost in keeping them alive) and the finances (and will therefore have to live off the state by raisng taxes on young, or simply move in with younger working family members). Balance this with the fact that it seem impossible for individuals to understand that they may have to infact pay for their government services (rather then cut taxes for themselves and pass the buck onto my generation). Worse, old people do vote on mass and will comporise such a staggering % of the population that by vote alone the young will be unable democratically to modify this structure, unless americans begin voting to cut their benefits and raise their taxes, which i highly doubt. If this gerentocracy thinks that we are going to tolerate 70% rates, 2nd world infastructure, failing schools and mountains of debt in order subsidize their lifestyle I feel that next civil war will not be between liberals and conservatives, but the young and the old.

evidence that we don't need financial conglomerates. I am glad that a professor from a fine institution like Roosevelt University was cited.

Financial conglomerates failed in many regards but were rewarded for their failures. They failed to manage risk and the failed to help small businesses (especially with their mortgage craze). Professor Edmund Phelps has suggested that financial conglomerates certainly have not fostered "economic dynamism and inclusion". I agree.

So what purpose do they serve that is so worthy of trillions of dollars?

But does economic prosperity, or allow me to be more specific, does financial allocation be mandated to be invested in "real" capital. What is the true definition of real capital? Is it tangible items like factories and such?

The reason why I'm bringing this up, is reading the piece again, it occured to me that it may not take into account the rise of non-tangible assets. Inttellectual property, software, methods, financial transaction vehicles (even those infamous credit default swaps).