Hi All,
I have not heard whether Starchild and/or Phil agreed to go to this event as Aubrey suggested, so I was curious if anyone is planning to go.
Marcy
Marcy,
Thanks for following up on this. I think Phil could be good to do this one if he's willing. The earthquake bond measure isn't one that I really feel like I have a lot to say about, and this is the Jewish Democratic Club. But I could probably go and speak in a pinch if needed.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Ok, I can go, but only if you all are OK with my views on this.
In general , I agree with the principle that local governments should be fiscally responsible.
However, because all governments are predatory , I like small predators rather large ones.
Thats why I voted Democrat for willie Brown, because I like when a predator does not hide his teeth.
In the event that we actually have a deflationary depression, the debt that city holds will become a dangerous burden.
However, history tells that the most likely course is that the present situation must end in hyperinflation.
In that case, whatever the city borrows will be paid back in pennies, or fraction of pennies in terms of purchasing power.
I said the same a few years ago when Brown blew 350 million on making City Hall an entertainment palace, gilded one at that.
The interest rate was tiny, due to Fed manipulation and tax incentives.
By the time the principle comes due, the palace can be paid for with the cost of a cup of coffee, or maybe a nice Brianni Suit.
The fools who buy long term munis will lose big eventually.
They deserve to. Lending predators and expecting the dollar to maintain any value over the long run.
So, actually, strictly from the selfish point of a San Francisco, I think that the city should cut taxes to the bone, build out all kinds of nice infrastructure , and put it all on the sucker bond buyers.
Besides, to the extent that the city absorbs the wealth of investors, the less there might be for the Feds to borrow for bombs , prisons, and tazers.
Hi Phil. Thanks for your thoughts. I think this argument sounds more like you're for the bond measure, rather than against it, so it would be odd showing up to oppose the measure with this argument. Thanks for offering to go, but I think I'll do it myself and stick with a more traditional argument of advocating to establish a fund for major improvements before authorizing any more expensive bonds. I prefer to advocate for fiscal responsibility.
Thanks!
Aubrey
Hi Phil, Aubrey, and All,
When I have a complex government financing question, I ask Phil. I usually understand the excellent answers thanks to my masters in finance and years working as a bean counter. Did I not have this background, as a rule, Phil's deep thinking would be of no use to me. So, my deep gratitude to Phil for volunteering to go to the JCC tonight, but I am glad Aubrey volunteered to present the more basic, straight forward argument that the average Joe has a chance to grasp in the 5 or 10 minutes available to communicate a point of view.
Aubrey, if you have not done so already, you might want to email or call the organizers and confirm you are coming, since the original invitation said "there were still available slots" making me think their schedule was tight.
Marcy
OK, Im gonna push back a little.
this is the Jewish Dem Club.
IMHO this will be a smart and powerful group.
I was going to ask then to make the following choice.
The choice comes down to this.
Do you think that infaltion will continue to infinity, then the city can reap the small benefit of getting nearly free retrofitting
at the price of contributing a tiny part to the debt infaltion bubble.
or Is there a possibility that the Fed will finally back away from the printing press in order to prevent a 1923 Weimer experience?
If inflation stops and deflation reigns, the tax burden could sink the city into bankruptcy.
The results would be devestating for many.
Is the small benefit of getting free stuff through leveraging inflation worth the risk of ruin.
Yes, we are not Detroit of Vallejo, but sometines the biggest fall the hardest.
I Then I will ask them how they handle their own finances.
Do they borrow to the hilt to buy stocks and real estate, hoping that infaltion will lessen the burden, or are they prudent with credit and cautious so as not to be ruined by bankruptcy. even if the chance is small.
I would be very disappointed not to have this opportunity.
Part of the reason I have supported the ballot editorializing is that it gives an audience.
I believe that I will give a powerful arguement for prudence.
Hi Phil,
As Aubrey indicated, It seems that you are arguing "For" the bond measure. If so, you, as the representative of the LPSF at this event, are contradicting what the LPSF stated on the ballot argument that will appear in the voter pamphlet. I would prefer that representatives of the LPSF stuck to the LPSF stance on all issues (different story in the case of candidates, or members not in an LPSF representing role). BTW, I practice what I preach: I am strongly in favor of the "No increase in height limits" proposition, but the LPSF voted for a "no position." So, as a private citizen and voter, I am on the "No increase in height limits" campaign, but would not hesitate to sick by the "no position" stance should I be asked an opinion as an LPSF representative.
I would suggest that Aubrey represent the LPSF and give the LPSF view as it appears in the ballot argument. However, no reason why you can't try to offer you view at this event as a private citizen and voter.
Another thought on the complexity of your argument, Phil. I agree that the attendees at the JCC might be intelligent, knowledgeable, etc. However, you need to get your point across in 5 minutes or so. I doubt you could in the case of the argument you are presenting here.
Marcy
I do not think that my arguenent contradicts the LPSF position. It is a nuance that puts the issue on a larger moral plain.
Your criticisms have helped me further distill my arguement.
I respectfully disagree, and would like to be the representative at this event.
Hi Phil,
Indeed. You are giving the audience a choice -- if you think inflation will continue indefinitely, get the bonds; if you think deflation is in the horizon, don't get the bonds. What are you recommending they do? They do not want choices, they want the LPSF recommendation. What is it, according to the LPSF representative?
With this, I will leave for Lucky's store for my Monday food shopping. Aubrey is at work, and I will not contradict his decision of this morning.
Marcy
Hi All! Thanks to Phil for showing up last night and doing a great job presenting our side. I didn't even see or hear Phil enter the room and just happened to notice that he had suddenly appeared there, dressed to the hilt. He did a great analogy using Jewish terms describing two types of characters, one being the spender who never saves for the future and the responsible one who puts away for his roof that may start leaking one day. It was an effective analogy, evoked some laughs, and was a good way to make an in with these folks. I stuck my two cents worth in when I could, but I think Phil's argument carried the day. Regardless, it does say "Earthquake Safety" in the title of the measure, so it will be passed by the voters.
We stayed until the end of the meeting, and Phil also asked one of the candidates running for judge if he knew about the Fully Informed Jury, which he did not, so it was a good opportunity to get that idea out there too. Thanks, Phil--you were great.
There is also one more Democratic meeting coming up next Tuesday April 1 that we were invited to in Potrero Hill, so Phil and I will be going to present the No on A argument.
Thanks!
Aubrey