JayB

Bullshit. Germany, France, Switzerland, the Nordics are much better off than the US. Germany in particular because they actually make shit that people want to buy. The PIIGS and Britain, not so much. They are pretty much fucked. I guess Britain will get to keep the Elgin marbles though They make nice stuff, but eventually there won't be enough of them in existence, much less on the job to foot the bill that's coming due for their grandparents. The Nordics are somewhere in the 1.6-1.8 range, and Germany and Switzerland are in the sub 1.5 range. France is just below two, but they seem to have less appetite for reform than the Greeks so I personally wouldn't bet on rising productivity or structural reforms saving the day for them.

Hopefully they're used to it by now, cause there'll be quite a bit more of the same for them* to endure in the future. *The Argentinian people. Nestor and Kristina will do just fine.

When you add in pension obligations, total public debt in Greece is ~875% of GDP. Their birth rate is hovering just north of 1.3. Combine the two and you've got public spending that the public can no longer finance. That's not blaming the public sector, it's simple arithmetic. The rest of the Western world isn't much better off. Some states will dig themselves out with a combination of structural reforms and growth. The US might. Greece and most of Western Europe won't.

Someone should break this news to Argentina, post haste...

Greece is bankrupt because the cost of their public sector exceeds their capacity to finance it. Every for profit enterprise in the world could have been vaporized twenty years ago and the only difference it would have made is that Greece's economy would have collapsed far more rapidly, since there'd be no real savings elsewhere for them to borrow to sustain their public servants in idleness from the age of 58 'till death.

And yet, just a couple of years of unrestrained capitalism has left them pining for the old days. Furthermore, apart from the spectacles provided by successive bubble-economies, capitalism has been in slow motion collapse for decades. What's your point? Yes, yes. Always looming in market economies, and materializing in socialist/communist regimes. My point is that each and every state that has rigidly adhered to/enforced the policies that you favor to the bitter end have followed a common trajectory terminating in complete economic collapse. What - specifically - is it about the examples of Cold War era Bulgaria, East Germany, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc - all of which carried your favorite policy prescriptions to their logical and political limits that screams "solution" to you? Hell - assume that the Greek Civil Service snaps its fingers and has complete control over all of the resources in the country at its disposal. They run everything. Nationalize everything, outlaw profits, etc, etc, etc, etc? How - according to you - will this put the country en route to become anything other than a Mediterranean Venezuela (without the petro-windfall to squander)?

Nary a neoliberal to be seen anywhere behind Ye Ole Iron Curtain for ~50 years, with the strictest enforcement of all of the protections against competition, privatization, corporate power, etc that you list above plus equally strict enforcement of social equality for ~98% of the population - yet it all imploded. Strange. Are you kidding? Practically the entire region is still trying to recover from the neoliberal "shock treatment" administered after the collapse of Communism. The political corruption of the past pales in comparison with rise of the oligarchs ushered in by free market fundamentalist eggheads. The key phrase here is "collapse of communism." Again: Nary a neoliberal to be seen anywhere behind Ye Ole Iron Curtain for ~50 years, with the strictest enforcement of all of the protections against competition, privatization, corporate power, etc that you list above plus equally strict enforcement of social equality for ~98% of the population - yet it all imploded. .

If all the Euros had to worry about was a band of renegade neoliberals inserting the odd free-trade agreement here and there they'd be dancing in the streets. Sure beats having to contemplate a slow motion fiscal and demographic collapse....

Nary a neoliberal to be seen anywhere behind Ye Ole Iron Curtain for ~50 years, with the strictest enforcement of all of the protections against competition, privatization, corporate power, etc that you list above plus equally strict enforcement of social equality for ~98% of the population - yet it all imploded. Strange.

Thanks for the input - just to be clear this would be a dedicated BC setup. Josh - what are the dimensions of your 172's?

As in they have little or no impact on Europe's political economy? Like locusts...

5'10", oscillating between 175-185 these days and looking to swap out an '02 vintage set-up featuring 185s with dimensions something like 100-85-95 for something shorter and fatter. Like the big boards for lift-served stuff, but hoping to go shorter and fatter this time without sacrificing too much flotation. Thinking something along the lines of 175cm that's ~120 at the tails and ~105 at the waist and wondering how other folks that have gone shorter and fatter have fared once they're pointed downhill.

Well done.

Think you'd dig Maren's book if you haven't already. Not terribly long and a quick but compelling read.

Some NZ Tuneage.. [video:youtube] [video:youtube]

May or may not help with your essay, but reading "The Road to Hell" by Michael Maren tells the story of how Somalia imploded as well as any.

Speaking of suckage: Northway lift gets my vote. Liked it much, much better without the lift and with the shuttle bus that'd take you back to the base. Used to be a pretty reliable stash with many an untracked line to be had even several hours after the opening bell, even on a weekend, and peppered with smallish cliff-drops that were always sporting pillow landings when the skiing was good. Now the untracked lines are a thing of the past by ~9:45 and the landings get packed out all season long. Memories......

Nowhere. That's why I largely gave up on lift skiing. I reserve paying for a lift ticket for those times where some friends want to go up who don't BC ski and I can chalk it up to a social event. Other than that, paying to get carried up the hill so you have your mountain experience crowded by other people isn't worth the money. Sounds reasonable once you reach a certain skill level. As other have said, for folks just starting out going the BC-only route is a license to suck....

I think I remember tickets to crystal being like ~ $35 in the late 80's - not sure what part of the increased price comes from inflation, and what part comes from the capital investment that's gone into upgrading and adding lifts - but I'd guess it's 50-50 or thereabouts. Like others said - it's possible to ski for a lot less than walk-up prices. I've been able to buy unlimited season passes for between $350-$550 from coast to coast since roughly 1998 (here, Colorado, EC) and have gone enough to bring the price per day down into the 20's. The Summit "Gold" pass came with 5 days at Crystal built into the price, and I think that was something like $500. You can ski at Whistler for $48(Can) after April 18th with an Edge Card.... Anyhow - the main comment I was responding to was the notion that Crystal is a little hill relative to some other destination. When you factor in the vert, the stuff under the lifts, and the stuff you can hit with 1-30 minutes worth of hiking I have a hard time putting Crystal in the "little" category vs anything in the PNW aside from Whistler. After serving a three year sentence on the East Coast at little POS resorts with man-made deathpack that charged $65+, so Crystal will always seem like a bargain to me.

It's funny - I grew up skiing at Crystal and dreamed of the day when I could travel and ski at all of the big resorts that had glossy adds in all of the ski mags. I've hit quite a few of them since then, and thought that they mostly sucked. The only places I've been too that I'd potentially trade for Crystal are Snowbird, Mammoth, and Whistler/Blackcomb. Never been to Jackson - but I'm willing to take that one on faith. Nothing on the East Coast even comes close. Ditto for Oregon. Ditto for Colorado (more arguable, but I'll stick with this one after logging four seasons there). Other than the resorts I mentioned, maybe there's something better in the Tahoe area (never skied there)? If Crystal isn't worth it at $65-70/day - what is? Do tell - 'cause I'd love to ski there.

don't worry about it. Before Reagan, the top marginal tax rate was 70%, it is now less than half that, now over half of corporations pay no taxes, there is a huge amount of tax evasion through tax heavens, etc ... so there is a way to go before we have to cut people's wages. Well, I guess we have established that you are not the sanctity-of-contract type ... what's left for you? Employee contracts are sacrosanct in Chapter 9 bankruptcy proceedings?

Unreasonable is a value-judgment. I'll settle for "exceeds total private sector compensation for comparable positions and skill sets." Or "exceeds the levels required to recruit and retain the necessary staff."

Not Greece? California's closer. You're missing the point. Study this table and get back to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP Looks like I should move to Japan - 27.4% vs 28.1! Momentary aside - this chart neglects the effects of debts that will have to be paid with taxes in the future. Factor this in and I think that the (real) tax rates, fiscal positions, and the efficiency with which tax revenues are put to use Canada, Australia, and NZ make them strong contenders for places where taxes are collected more judiciously and spent more efficiently than the US. And - all three of them now rank more highly than the US on the Index of Economic Freedom. We like NZ quite a bit and haven't completely ruled out re-locating there. Canada would also be on the list if they weren't 100% single payer. Now back to your point - the efficiency with which taxes are spent matters every bit as much as what percentage of GDP they represent. Asking workers in the public sector to finance their own retirements via 401(K) plans,paying for the same percentage of their medical expenses as workers in the private sector, etc would have next to zero-effect on retention, recruitment and would enable the government to provide more infrastructure, services, etc, for the same amount of money. What about that do you find so objectionable?

What you are making up is that crisis outcome (not being able to pay employee compensation) is the cause of the budget deficit, when in fact the economic crisis caused by the financial bubble and race to the bottom labor/environmental costs are the causes of revenue shortfall. The crisis only hastened the inevitable. Cost growth can only exceed revenue growth for so long before the curves converge and the gap between costs and revenues can no longer be financed with taxes or borrowing. That moment is now for California, Illinois, etc, etc, etc, etc. Take a look at the real and projected curves for public employee wage, pension, and benefit obligations vs time for the said states. Wage and benefits cuts are coming for public employees. Not because knuckle-dragging regressives like myself are clamoring for them, but because they can't be paid for. The only question is whether they'll be administered by legislatures or bankruptcy courts.

I don't see a problem with 60% of the state budget being spent on education, social services, etc .. What matters is to me is the quantity of services being provided in each of the said sectors and their unit costs over time relative to inflation and revenue. Clearly in your universe the it's the material well-being of the people delivering public services that trumps that of the people who depend on them.