Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktI have strongly believed, without more evidence than what I see in my life as a lawyer representing small businesses, and the generally repeated “accepted knowledge” that small biz, and especially NEW biz, are the engines of growth. I was thus struck dumb, deaf, and blind by the following article, which may be behind the NYT paywall for you.
It is deceptively titled, in that we know that consumer spending is the biggest component of the GDP. What struck me is the assertion that private investment is not historically necessary for growth; that growth is a function of gummint spending and consumer debt. Which of his assertions are based on misstatements of fact? Which are correlated to facts that are irrelevant to his conclusions? Or is this the new wisdom? I have provided emphasis to the central factual allegations.
It’s Consumer Spending, Stupid
By JAMES LIVINGSTON
AS an economic historian who has been studying American capitalism for 35 years, I’m going to let you in on the best-kept secret of the last century: private investment — that is, using business profits to increase productivity and output — doesn’t actually drive economic growth. Consumer debt and government spending do. Private investment isn’t even necessary to promote growth.
This is, to put it mildly, a controversial claim. Economists will tell you that private business investment causes growth because it pays for the new plant or equipment that creates jobs, improves labor productivity and increases workers’ incomes. As a result, you’ll hear politicians insisting that more incentives for private investors — lower taxes on corporate profits — will lead to faster and better-balanced growth.
The general public seems to agree. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll in May, a majority of Americans believe that increased corporate taxes “would discourage American companies from creating jobs.”
But history shows that this is wrong.
Between 1900 and 2000, real gross domestic product per capita (the output of goods and services per person) grew more than 600 percent. Meanwhile, net business investment declined 70 percent as a share of G.D.P. What’s more, in 1900 almost all investment came from the private sector — from companies, not from government — whereas in 2000, most investment was either from government spending (out of tax revenues) or “residential investment,” which means consumer spending on housing, rather than business expenditure on plants, equipment and labor.
In other words, over the course of the last century, net business investment atrophied while G.D.P. per capita increased spectacularly. And the source of that growth? Increased consumer spending, coupled with and amplified by government outlays.
The architects of the Reagan revolution tried to reverse these trends as a cure for the stagflation of the 1970s, but couldn’t. In fact, private or business investment kept declining in the ’80s and after. Peter G. Peterson, a former commerce secretary, complained that real growth after 1982 — after President Ronald Reagan cut corporate tax rates — coincided with “by far the weakest net investment effort in our postwar history.”
President George W. Bush’s tax cuts had similar effects between 2001 and 2007: real growth in the absence of new investment. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, retained corporate earnings that remain uninvested are now close to 8 percent of G.D.P., a staggering sum in view of the unemployment crisis we face.
So corporate profits do not drive economic growth — they’re just restless sums of surplus capital, ready to flood speculative markets at home and abroad. In the 1920s, they inflated the stock market bubble, and then caused the Great Crash. Since the Reagan revolution, these superfluous profits have fed corporate mergers and takeovers, driven the dot-com craze, financed the “shadow banking” system of hedge funds and securitized investment vehicles, fueled monetary meltdowns in every hemisphere and inflated the housing bubble.
Why, then, do so many Americans support cutting taxes on corporate profits while insisting that thrift is the cure for what ails the rest of us, as individuals and a nation? Why have the 99 percent looked to the 1 percent for leadership when it comes to our economic future?
A big part of the problem is that we doubt the moral worth of consumer culture. Like the abstemious ant who scolds the feckless grasshopper as winter approaches, we think that saving is the right thing to do. Even as we shop with abandon, we feel that if only we could contain our unruly desires, we’d be committing ourselves to a better future. But we’re wrong.
Consumer spending is not only the key to economic recovery in the short term; it’s also necessary for balanced growth in the long term. If our goal is to repair our damaged economy, we should bank on consumer culture — and that entails a redistribution of income away from profits toward wages, enabled by tax policy and enforced by government spending. (The increased trade deficit that might result should not deter us, since a large portion of manufactured imports come from American-owned multinational corporations that operate overseas.)
We don’t need the traders and the C.E.O.’s and the analysts — the 1 percent — to collect and manage our savings. Instead, we consumers need to save less and spend more in the name of a better future. We don’t need to silence the ant, but we’d better start listening to the grasshopper.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Beach_music was just saying that small businesses don't create jobs, which goes against my experience and statistics and basic math, as far as I can tell. Most jobs are gained and lost in small businesses because most employment is in the small business sector. "So corporate profits do not drive economic growth — they’re just restless sums of surplus capital, ready to flood speculative markets at home and abroad."I think this is true but it misses a not insignificant point: if there was demand for products and services the companies needed more employees to provide, they would spend that money on new jobs–and if that money was not available, they would not have it to spend. If there was even demand generally within the company for additional support or the ability to service internal customers, they would spend that money on new jobs–if they had it. Alas, there's no demand, even though they have the capital. Said capital could also create jobs by purchasing products or services from small businesses, who have no choice then but to hire more people to meet that demand. I've seen that happen, so I know it's possible, but productivity gains and technology has made it possible to bring a lot of outside service in house, and much of that technology is manufactured overseas . . . companies, especially very big companies, having more money does not mean the same thing to the domestic economy now that it once did, I don't believe. However, small businesses that experience or anticipate demand will spend money, if they have it, on employing people locally. If not, they'll hoard their cash to try and survive just like anybody else. My sense is that large corporations end up spending excess capital to subsidize their operations in other countries where they do pay their taxes, or to hire works and purchase products and services that employ people in other countries where regulations are more lax and labor is cheaper. Thus I don't expect lower corporate taxes would do my to stimulate hiring amongst the Fortune 1500. I really don't believe the vast majority of consumers have excess savings. Most of my (our, the family's) savings are earmarked for college education for our kids and emergencies. After that, there's really not much. My retirement funds will, as currently constituted, not last more than a few months, so I'm going to depend heavily on SS and, assuming I stay long enough working for the state of Tennessee, my state pension.
LikeLike
Yeah, I don't think this idea will get much steam. Most middle class Americans are too busy deleveraging to spend, so I hope no one's counting on us to borrow our way out of debt………..how would that work? I agree we shouldn't look to the 1% for leadership, I think we're on our own, but until our average debt is paid down I doubt you'll see enough spending to reverse consumer confidence or increase GDP. Another one of those interesting theories that exists in an alternate universe.
LikeLike
Here is an excerpt from the Conference Board report. Says Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center: "Consumer confidence is now back to levels last seen during the 2008-2009 recession. Consumer expectations, which had improved in September, gave back all of the gain and then some, as concerns about business conditions, the labor market and income prospects increased. Consumers' assessment of present-day conditions did not fare any better. The Present Situation Index posted its sixth consecutive monthly decline, as pessimism about the current economic environment continues to grow." Consumers' appraisal of present-day conditions deteriorated further in October. Those claiming business conditions are "bad" increased to 43.7 percent from 40.5 percent, while those claiming business conditions are "good" decreased to 11.0 percent from 12.1 percent. Consumers' assessment of the labor market was also less favorable. Those claiming jobs are "plentiful" decreased to 3.4 percent from 5.6, however, those saying jobs are "hard to get" decreased to 47.1 percent from 49.4 percent. Consumers' short-term outlook, which had improved last month, reversed course in October. Those expecting business conditions to improve over the next six months decreased to 9.1 percent from 11.8 percent, while those expecting business conditions to worsen edged down to 21.5 percent from 21.9 percent. Consumers' outlook for the job market was slightly more pessimistic. Those anticipating more jobs in the months ahead edged down to 11.3 percent from 11.9 percent, while those expecting fewer jobs decreased to 27.4 percent from 28.6 percent. The proportion of consumers anticipating an increase in their incomes declined to 10.3 percent from 13.5 percent.
LikeLike
OT: the FanFred receiver has finally got around to filing fraud cases.http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/10/25/how-ed-demarco-finally-cried-fraud/The article is a bit discombobulated, but it reinforces my negative opinion of Geithner. That had its inception when we learned he underpaid his personal income taxes while chair of the NY Fed. It still galls me that our SecTreas was a recent tax scofflaw.
LikeLike
A couple of quick thoughts:1) If the post 2000 economy was mainly residentially driven and that was driven by the government, isn't the author essentially blaming the government for the bubble. It seems that we can learn two (obviously there are more, but in the context of this article) lessons from post 2000. One is that our economy is driven by consumer and government spending. The other is that consumer and government spending creates bubbles that burst and bring lots of pain.2) As Kevin points out consumers aren't saving.3) I do sort of agree with "that entails a redistribution of income away from profits toward wages, enabled by tax policy and enforced by government spending." I don't know about the last part, but I think we would be in better shape if some of the corporate profits and gains in GDP that were realized in 2000-2008 went to workers as opposed to shareholders.
LikeLike
"The article is a bit discombobulated, but it reinforces my negative opinion of Geithner."This reminded me of a comment I wanted to make. Greg wonders why people left the PL, but fails to pay any attention to Apoc calling for Geitner to be executed. I'm sure he's just trying to make a point, but it's something I can live without.
LikeLike
Agree with what KW and LMS posted b/c it fits my worldview, too.As I think about this through the prism of what you two have offered, it seems to me that forced deleveraging is what we have now. The major investments of the middle class – the homestead and the retirement plan – are worth much less than they were in 2007. And savings for college are worth less by 10% per year [this has been going on for many years now]. So personal borrowing to buy stuff is a stupid strategy.
LikeLike
Mark:First, as personal/individual wealth expands to include greater and greater portions of the population, which it undoubtedly did between 1900 and 2000, the share of GDP represented by "business" investment relative to individual investment must, as a matter of simple math, decrease. The greater the share of GDP held by individual relative to businesses, the greater the proportion of all investment that will be represented by individual investment. This is not a bad thing, and is no reflection at all on the importance of business investment relative to creating jobs.Second, I have no idea what it means to say that "investment" was from "government spending". Spending is not an "investment". BTW, this paragraph:So corporate profits do not drive economic growth — they’re just restless sums of surplus capital, ready to flood speculative markets at home and abroad. In the 1920s, they inflated the stock market bubble, and then caused the Great Crash. Since the Reagan revolution, these superfluous profits have fed corporate mergers and takeovers, driven the dot-com craze, financed the “shadow banking” system of hedge funds and securitized investment vehicles, fueled monetary meltdowns in every hemisphere and inflated the housing bubble.….makes it pretty plain that this is hardly an objecive analysis. Restless sums of surplus capital? Superfluous profits? Shadow banking? There is quite a lot wrong there, and the author obviously has an axe to grind.
LikeLike
"Greg wonders why people left the PL, but fails to pay any attention to Apoc calling for Geitner to be executed."And just yesterday both Apoc and Beach were claiming how the Plumline is so much more civil now. What a waste of time, between Bernie's soap box and Beach discussing how 15 of his BFF's, who also happened to be the smartest people in the world, committed suicide, now he's climbing back out of a disabling depression or something.I'll check in later, I have to clean my office for the big audit this morning, lol.
LikeLike
Thanks, Scott. I had just had that arithmetical revelation reading through the second time, but you make it clear.I agree that the conclusions are polemical.Why won't john/banned come over here?
LikeLike
"consumer spending on housing, rather than business expenditure on plants, equipment and labor"I'd submit this is a result of policy choices we've made that have artificially lowered interest rates on housing. Meanwhile, we've set up enormous regulatory hurdles (not all bad) to build new plants. Cheaper labor isn't the only reason capital flees. Refinery capacity for example has been hamstrung by complex licensing/permitting requirements and NIMBYism. "Greg wonders why people left the PL, but fails to pay any attention to Apoc calling for Geitner to be executed."He has to know, though, right? He's a smart guy. How often do I have to read that "libertarians should be registered a sex offenders" before I get the hint that my contribution isn't exactly welcome, which is too bad, because for the longest time it was not a problem at all to express a minority point of view over there.
LikeLike
Scott, where I disagree with you is that government spending can be either for current obligations OR FOR INVESTMENT. You must think of the government as "US" or "WE". Then, if we spend on roads and ports, we increase our wealth over time. It is no different than if a rich private investor invested in roads and ports to increase shipping for himself.
LikeLike
"He has to know, though, right?"Yesterday, he thanked Bernie for a brownnosing post about how great Greg is (I'm not disputing that Greg does a good job) and how it's ridiculous for people to have left due to tech problems. So Greg does apparently read posts. Before that I wasn't so sure and was almost willing to give hm the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
"Greg wonders why people left the PL, but fails to pay any attention to Apoc calling for Geitner to be executed. "I missed that. I just don't get it. Just do not get it.
LikeLike
Scott: "Second, I have no idea what it means to say that "investment" was from "government spending". Spending is not an "investment"."Then durable goods purchases aren't investments? Building a new warehouse or purchasing inventory against the holiday season aren't investments? I'm not sure that "spending" and "investment" are mutually exclusive terms.
LikeLike
I saw that post — barf. That post, combined with the "where's everyone" lead me to believe that he's aware of the fact that people are driven away by the nastiness.
LikeLike
Mark:Sure, that is fair enough. Infrastructure expenditures are an investment of a sort. But how much of our budget qualifies? Not much, I think.
LikeLike
Kevin:I just don't get it. Just do not get it. There are lots of possible explanations. It is possible that Greg actually holds views similar to Chris Fox's, and so welcomes what he says, even if, for the sake of his public credibility (and his employment) he doesn't engage in that kind of commentary himself. (This, BTW, is almost certainly true of Bernie, I think.)Or, perhaps, he views CF as a useful attack dog for driving away troublesome conservatives who go out of their way to challenge him. Certainly I never felt welcomed on PL, and I suspect that Greg is just as happy to see the back of qb, McWing, and I as is CF. I'd guess that his concern about losing regulars was actually concern about losing liberal regulars. On the back of his PL query about where people have gone, I sent him an e-mail explaining my decision, and have received no response or acknowledgement whatsoever. He obviously doesn't care about me, and that surely has something to do with my ideology.Also possible is that Greg believes the kind of vitriol that the CF/ddawd/ruk axis exhibits is ultimately good for his blog and generates comments/hits. If so, perhaps ATiM will have the beneficial effect of making his business judgment a little bit better in the future.
LikeLike
" Beach discussing how 15 of his BFF's, who also happened to be the smartest people in the world, committed suicide"That was right after he was doing tech support for Mavis Beacon Teachers Typing with the Grand Wizard of the KKK, put him on speakerphone (presumably, the Caller ID said: Grand Wizard, KKK) and proceded to lecture him mercilessly, to the cheers of his office mates. ;)I'm still of the opinion that there is a high degree of likelihood that beach is, in fact, the "real" (though still quasi-pathological) person behind STRF. I say that because when I first asked beach if he liked to save the rain forests, who appears shortly thereafter but 37th Rising? And then disappears again.Too coincidental.
LikeLike
A new conservative poster, CyrusHarding, has appeared over there at PL and is not backing down from bernie and liam. Liam admitted Cyrus has "game." We will see how long he lasts. I do have to say I miss SueKzoo. Any insight into why she doesn't contribute here? She's seems reasonably active over at PL and she recruited me to come here.
LikeLike
Scott,I also just don't get Chris Fox. I have engaged in brief moments of lucid conversation with him. There is clearly a smart guy behind the pathologically disturbing violence and über-proud closed-mindedness. I can only assume this is like a video game for him, and doesn't value actual communication. I can assume the same of brigade, only with much less advocating for genocide. "This, BTW, is almost certainly true of Bernie, I think."I don't see anything much wrong with that (if I read you correctly). While I certainly have my own issues with Bernie, there's a yawning chasm between Chris and Bernie. I think Bernie, Liam, and others given Cao a pass because you tend to assume the best about people who are similar to you in other respects (or, many people do), and so thing his calling for the execution of public figures to be more innocuous (he's just being playful!) than a Sarah Palin ad that had crosshairs on it. "Certainly I never felt welcomed on PL, and I suspect that Greg is just as happy to see the back of qb, McWing, and I as is CF"I'm dubious about that, myself. " He obviously doesn't care about me, and that surely has something to do with my ideology."Don't be so sure. It could also have something to do with your physical appearance. 😉
LikeLike
Suekzoo has some bizarre Net Nanny at work that won't let her comment. The comment mechanism resolves to blogger.com, which is blocked by her net nanny. So she basically can't contribute during the day. I can tell you, from pervious experience, it's hard to stay involved when this is the case. If there's any other reason, I can only assume it's because she finds my robust manliness and authoritative cowboy swagger too intimidating. It's hard to be me, sometimes.
LikeLike
Kevin:It could also have something to do with your physical appearance.Now that was a good one.
LikeLike
Regarding the original article, I would point out that the drop in business investment is a gross expenditure number, and the drop reflects a change in our economy from one being based on heavily capital intensive manufacturing to one based on services and intellectual property. Instead of just looking at private investment in plant and equipment, I would be interested in what the number looks like if it measures investment in plant + research and development. My guess is that private investment hasn't declined the way he lays it out.FWIW, I was never on PL much anyway. Liam and Ethan were too much to take.
LikeLike
I've spent the morning on Plum Line. Not sure why. However, one response (of mine, of course) was a keeper:The civility here is so thick, I can cut it with a knife!
LikeLike
It stills blows my mind that cao wished Scott, QB and myself death with no comment about it from Greg. In my book that makes him, what the French would call, a "punk."
LikeLike
"Beach_music was just saying that small businesses don't create jobs, which goes against my experience and statistics and basic math, as far as I can tell. Most jobs are gained and lost in small businesses because most employment is in the small business sector. "I believe Steve Pearlstein has backed this up. The ironic thing is, one of the reasons large business drives employment is that small business is more efficient and has less bureaucracy.Small Business, Big FablePearlstein: Small Business Job Creation
LikeLike
who is chris fox?
LikeLike
"OT: the FanFred receiver has finally got around to filing fraud cases.How Ed DeMarco finally cried fraudThe article is a bit discombobulated, but it reinforces my negative opinion of Geithner. That had its inception when we learned he underpaid his personal income taxes while chair of the NY Fed. It still galls me that our SecTreas was a recent tax scofflaw. "Note that Fannie/Freddie Conservator Ed DeMarcois the guy that the Obama administration was trying to get rid of because he wouldn't play ball on letting the banks off the hook to ease refinancesDemocrats Seek to Oust Key Housing RegulatorThat may have changed as a result of the recent HARP changes, at the expense of undermining the fraud cases.FHFA Refi Plan Helps Banks Reduce Liability on Bad Loan Origination
LikeLike
"who is chris fox?"Apocalypse, Caothien, Gold and Tanzite among others at Plum Line.
LikeLike
"who is chris fox?"Currently posts as Apocalypse2011 on Plum Line.
LikeLike
Brent- Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Chris Fox is Cao, Apocalypse, and I'm sure there were other prior usernames, too.
LikeLike
Is this Chris Fox from PL? (Starts at 1:30 in).
LikeLike
"It stills blows my mind that cao wished Scott, QB and myself death with no comment about it from Greg."Goes back to what I said: when someone is so right as to agree with you on a number of important issues, when they say something psycopathic, they clearly are just kidding. Kids will be kids! I mean, I wouldn't say it, but come on. They aren't serious.
LikeLike
Scott, yeah, that's him. I'm not listening to the whole thing now, but I have before, and I'm pretty sure he gets through the entire thing without advocating anybody be executed.
LikeLike
Everybody had an answer for "Who is Chris Fox?" It's sort of like "Who is John Galt?", only in reverse.Shows you that the shtick creates awareness and brand identity. If only he could monetize it somehow.
LikeLike
FYI, I've got a new post up.And there's no mention of Chris Fox or Greg Sargent or executions.
LikeLike
Thanks MsJs, we could use the diversion…….on my way.
LikeLike
@Brent: Chris is actually quite a nice guy in real life (I know him), but he really, really doesn't get along with the conservatives who have joined our happy little ATiM family. They drive each other mutually insane, from what I can tell.He's also got quite an ego, which is probably 90% of the problem. . .
LikeLike
"Shows you that the shtick creates awareness and brand identity. If only he could monetize it somehow."I bow to your genius.
LikeLike
I don't accept that it's possible for someone to have the internet persona of caothien/apo/CF and be a nice guy in any life or context. He is disordered and dangerous, and I am not kidding about that. Having been stalked by him for months, I think I have a decent sense of this. There is no mutual insanity involved. He is a person consumed with hatred and anger, and is perversely needy of the people he most hates. It isn't simply the death wishes and genocide fantasies (among others) but the obsessive stalking and projection of very particular vices and behaviors. How else would you explain someone's behavior who uncontrollably posts an average of 3 replies, filled with insults about "impulse control" and "rage case," to virtually every comment someone makes? He gives ordinary liars a bad name.Yet Greg Sargent personally welcomed him to PL and applauded and encourged this very behavior. Greg thought it was terrific how cao was calling for bankers to be liquidated and personally attacking conservative commenters. He helped pull rukidding further over the edge so that he's not much different. Just the same rote anger points and insults, over and over. Greg can't be very bright to be wondering where his commenters are going after the environment he has created.
LikeLike
Btw, michi, are you saying you DID NOT SEE that Sparty game?Clearly will be one of the games of the year. In 40+ years of intensive football watching, I've never seen a last play quite like that one.
LikeLike
Oh, NO, qb–ESPN3 is my buddy!! Watched it to the amazing end–you're right, that was a play for the ages!!!(He really is a nice guy, you just have to imagine that you, sweetheart that you are, have just as bad an effect on him as he does on you.) 🙂
LikeLike
qb:There is no mutual insanity involved.I was going to let that pass, but now that you have said it, I have to agree. The reactions of us to him bear no resemblance whatsoever to his reaction to us. None.Mich:you just have to imagine that you, sweetheart that you are, have just as bad an effect on him as he does on you.I have to say I think that is a very unfair assessment, if it is based on the evidence of what's been written on PL. I've certainly never seen any evidence to support it.
LikeLike
if it is based on the evidence of what's been written on PL. I've certainly never seen any evidence to support itIt isn't based on PL, it's based on what he's told me. He's admitted that he's got a blind spot when it comes to you two and McWing (and a couple of others who aren't around here).You guys react much more viscerally (or at least that's the way it sounds when I read it) to him than you do to any of the rest of us. That's what I meant by mutual insanity. Kind of like MAD in the bad old Soviet Union days. . .
LikeLike
Scott, sometimes I think our lefty friends might not have been as aware of the the degree and volume of vile commentary as we were. Don't really know, but no one else ever approached it.Michi, btw, I wasn't trying to start or restart a fight over caothien, just state my position "for the record," as we say. No one will ever convince me otherwise.
LikeLike
I know, qb. And I understand why you feel that way (I read the comments, too). I just didn't want Brent to get a purely one-sided view of Chris, which is what it was up until I stuck up for him.
LikeLike
Michi, now that I just saw your last comment, I'm not sure how else anyone would react to someone repeatedly wishing you dead, "joking" about your molesting your own children and the like. If he had said some of those things in my presence, they've have been his last ones for a while. Even the worst of the rest didn't do that stuff. He wallowed in it. Your friend needs serious help.
LikeLike
"I was going to let that pass, but now that you have said it, I have to agree. The reactions of us to him bear no resemblance whatsoever to his reaction to us. None."I don't *think* that's what Michigoose was saying. I think she was saying you drive him just as crazy by your continued existence as he does us with his violent fantasies and physical insults and agitation for the execution of people he doesn't like. 😉 That being said, I don't have trouble believing that Chris is a super-nice guy when you don't stumble over the wrong trip-wire. He's smart, he's well read, if it doesn't involve politics he clearly knows something about what he's talking about . . . I find it unfortunate that he doesn't want to talk. But oh well. To QBs point, I got stalked by STRF. Even online stalking gets kind of threatening, and it's hard to focus on somebody's good points when they're stalking you.
LikeLike
Dangit, now I see you had a last comment after you last comment.Fair enough and even steven.
LikeLike
Works for me, qb!And Kevin, as usual, phrased my thought much better than I did. 🙂
LikeLike
"Michi, now that I just saw your last comment, I'm not sure how else anyone would react to someone repeatedly wishing you dead, "joking" about your molesting your own children and the like."I missed that, but I don't doubt it for a minute. I'm sure you're familiar with the story of Phineas Gage, who received a impromptu lobotomy from a tamping iron. "The equilibrium or balance, so to speak, between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities, seems to have been destroyed. He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury, although untrained in the schools, he possessed a well-balanced mind, and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart businessman, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of operation. In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was "no longer Gage."Or, one might call it comments section Tourettes.
LikeLike
I'm pretty much in agreement with ScottC and qb. While I occasionally am inclined to see "mutual insanity" on PL, more often I am in awe at Chris' seething. There are folks I've come across on WaPo who are more unstable/dangerous, but there are times I feel Chris needs to trust in humanity's diversity a bit more.
LikeLike