I support and applaud the common entrepreneur (I'm a ham, too, BTW - would love to see pics of the competition), but you also must agree that the conditions for business are created and determined by the laws and government - not by the entrepreneurs (except in the case of a black market). Government has a TREMENDOUS ability to control the market parameters, as in addition to levying taxes, they also set minimum wages, define unemployment benefits, control licensing of professionals such as doctors and accountants, control vehicle licensing, and perhaps most importantly, they control the flow of energy. While I wish there were more freedom in the market, I believe you vastly underestimate the true amount of control the government can and does exert on all aspects of business. According to economists Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, federal regulations cost businesses and consumers $1.75 trillion or approximately 12% of annual GDP! And that was in 2009!

What worries me even more, however, is the level of debt compared to GDP. With current interest rates around a paltry 1%, we are ONLY paying >$400 BILLION in debt service annually. What happens WHEN the interest rates rise? Where do we get the extra money to pay for this when we are ALSO running a $600 BILLION deficit? And that's only half as bad as the prior four deficits which added an average of $1.3 TRILLION to the deficit per year? And there is no sign that this is going to let up.

What is easy to overlook is that the interest rates also mean loads of cheap money for business right now. They will be in the same boat as our government when interest rates rise.

What will cause them to rise? The only reason they are as low as they are is because of - government control! The Fed's quantitative easing policies are keeping them artificially low in order to finance the debt, but even the Fed has agreed that this policy can not continue indefinitely. As they draw QE down, interest rates will go back up as the "easy money" dries up.

I wish things were not so dire. I haven't even touched on the housing market full of toxic mortgages or the overinflated stock prices or the personal debt loads of the common American. But the prevalence of all these and their continued neglect (and even furtherance in many cases) greatly concerns me. Our ship is being guided by a blind helmsman who is busy distributing liquor to the oarsmen while trying to persuade the passengers to stay in their cabins and not look out the portholes at the raging seas. And we can't really abandon ship.

We are getting more big-city problems, but part of that is we're growing.
Madison is still not expensive compared to major metro areas.
We did inclusionary zoning (IZ) for a few years with mixed results. We're put nice low-income housing just a few blocks walk from where I live in Hill Farms. From what I've seen it seems to be working.
Madison is a pretty amazing place to live. My wife and I both spent time away and before we met chose to live within a couple miles of where we lived as kids.

The economy is going gangbusters here, and part of it is money from the rest of the state, which no one likes to admit. It would be nice if they could spread out geographically the school and gov't offices more.

The rest of the state feels like dairy farms and paper mills are paying for biotech research. That's partly true, but there's more money today in technology. It's not like if gov't stopped funding the UW of a sudden paper mills and mining would be amazing generators of wealth.

I agree that Dane County, and maybe the so-called Madison region, should pay more of its own way. Dairy farms can pay their own way too.

It would be nice, but obviously impossible, if Madison could license the world Madison to businesses in Middleton, Verona, Fitchburg, Monona, McFarlands, and Waunakee that say they're in Madison. :)

I have seen from personal experience people who would work two jobs to stay above the poverty line get < 40hr/wk State jobs that provide a middle-class lifestyle. It makes it an amazing place to live, but that part is unfair to the rest of the state.

Wow. You and I just see things so differently. All human institutions have their foibles, and the Democrats and Republicans as institutions are much worse than ave. They drive me nuts. If they were in charge of the economy, we'd be in big trouble. Fortunately, they're not. I coordinated a high school level antenna design competition two weekends ago. Those people ARE in charge of the economy. They're exciting about creating things that solve problems and are marketable.

I categorically deny the debt and deficit point to a total collapse of the economic system. Unless GDP keeps rising and politicians make tough decisions, we may see inflation. But we're no where near collapse. The engine is all those people out here with good ideas and knowledge and enthusiasm to serve other people by producing goods/services.

"I would love to be optimistic about the fate of our nation, but I can not be optimistic about that with our current leadership"
This is my biggest concern about the US. I'm NOT concerned about fiscal collapse in the next few years. I am very concerned that our system more-and-more depends on having good leadership. We do need good leaders, but the system must be robust enough not to depend on good people b/c every once in a while you get bad leadership. I'm deeply concerned about this on the scale of decades.

If I had to pick someone to rule by exec decree with power to target Americans to kill, I might pick President Obama, BUT I in no way want to pick any person to have that power. The president isn't even empowered to declare war. The Constitution wasn't intended for the gov't to run a huge social safety net, domestic "anti-terror", "anti-drug" police state, or a vast empire. I really want to see that rolled back. democratic rule is fragile. We can become less democratic over decades and hardly notice it. I'm optimistic even about these problems; the short-term economic collapse fear isn't even on my radar.

We both hope I'm right about that and you're wrong. We'll know in three years.

I would offer that we aren't rejecting optimism, we just view the preponderance of evidence and say that it is far more likely than not that things continue to deteriorate. The past five years have shown us that Obama and the Democrats are so power-drunk that they ignore the results right in front of their eyes. And the Republican leadership has no backbone and therefore defer to the Democrats and wind up supporting bad policy.

No one can deny that the economic signs (we have $100 TRILLION in outstanding liabilities and added $600+ billion just this year - and Obamacare hasn't even gotten going yet!) point to a dangerous and total collapse of the economic system of the US without big structural changes, and that this will likely lead to catastrophic consequences around the globe. We remain optimistic in the ideals of America - free trade, etc. - but we are extremely pessimistic that those in control of the ship right now will make the necessary course corrections because they show no inclination to even reasonably consider the matter.

I would love to be optimistic about the fate of our nation, but I can not be optimistic about that with our current leadership. And if we survive the next three years without a major fiscal collapse AND new leadership takes over, we'll see then if the situation has changed.

I would perhaps elaborate on your definitions just slightly.

Liberals believe in the "now": policies that feel good at the moment regardless of their long-term ramifications. Liberals embrace choices emphasizing the moment or about how they can gain control over others. Liberals are apt to flit from fad to fad.

Conservatives emphasize policies that are ultra-long term - many of them faith-based - based on traditional values. Conservatives eschew principles that sacrifice long-term gains for short-term ones. Conservatives avoid fads to focus on principle.

Libertarians are kind of a mix of the two. Their policies are predominantly founded based on logic, but that logic is constrained to personal experience, thus they tend to embrace conservative fiscal policies and liberal social policies. This is why they don't get along well politically with either of the two major parties. (Disclaimer: Most Republicans are no longer conservative and have drifted very Libertarian, while Democrats have drifted far Left.)

If you want to talk about it in terms of freedom, Liberals believe you make your own freedom, Libertarians prioritize the freedom of the mind, and Conservatives focus on the freedom of the soul.

Why do you downvoters reject humble optimism? You'rerejecting the view of many people out here taking a chance and driving the economy.

yes

Yes. I tend to be conservative on social issues AND fiscal issues. As such, I'm a conservative.

there are many issues you and cg would agree about. think about it like this-there are some issues you and I will disagree on. but we both came to this site looking for like minds.

The laws of economics can't be repealed. $85 billion a month for months on end, Japan at $75 billion a month with 38% of our population is even worse. Need I mention Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland from the eurozone? France with 75% tax rates with Britain not far behind? You will see a continuing line of failures by governments using socialism intend of capitalism. Man's nature is two fold, one good, one bad. If offered something for nothing he will take it ech time as that is in his best interest. Long term bad. If he is exposed to capitalism he will strive to do better. Long term good. After all, what system has created wealth, communism and socialism which are failures at every opportunity or capitalism? It's really an easy easy answer for the Gulch residents but not for our ill educated electorate. They fall prey to the politician promising something for nothing. The producers should go on strike.

interesting and what a racket

Madison is a great example. The state is pouring tax dollars into UW-Madison. Of course, if you are a resident of Wisconsin it is now nearly impossible to get admitted to Madison. The state knows it will make more money on out of state tuition there.. All of this is making Madison a very expensive place to live. Which makes it kind of hilarious that they went out of there way to build low income subsidized housing, that is now attracting gang members up from Chicago who need to get away for a bit.

well think of it this way. the university brings in a billion a year. you're connected. that grant pays for your research, some marketing and time to prove your concept. your startup had little risk-even with all your time and talent cuz you were paid during the early part. juxtapose that to a private startup.

there are libertarians and there are libertarians. i would say that his answers are consistent with a liberal point of view. What he chooses to label himself as, I don't care.

you can call yourself a apple but if you are yellow colored, sour to the taste and stringy, I'd say that you might be a lemon. Choosing to call yourself a apple will not change your character.

oh no, not at all. CG.

PS: The eason I linked the article to the Agrentine expat thread is because the fist two "warning signs" of the impending "global economic meltdown" are about Argentina.

I linked the above article to a thread I started this morning in an Argentine expat fourm. The replies so far have been very interesting:

http://baexpats.org/topic/28948-argentin...

PS: Argentines are used to "bumpy" rides and no one I know here seems to be terribly worried.

If I still lived in the USA I would be very, very concerned.

sad. artificial prosperity sucks