Rod Speed wrote

The default rate on CRA loans was no higher than
on non CRA loans until the fuckwit clowns completely
imploded the entire world financial system, again.

Since 2000, the government has concealed the default rate on CRA loans,

indicating that the default rate was disturbingly high in 2000.

It can only have risen since then.

Michael Coburn
James A. Donald wrote

That is just because the government is manipulating the
cpi, thereby producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina

What a tin hat nut case.

How is that the economy is growing, while fewer and fewer people are employed?

How is it that fewer people are producing more stuff?

Well, in substantial part because the government
is paying people to destroy houses and cars.

(The cars are being crushed, the houses are being abandoned.
After being abandoned for a certain period, they are condemned.)

Because people are being paid to do this, it is treated in the figures
as production, even though it is not production, but destruction.

If I pay someone ten thousand dollars to produce a car for me, that
counts in the GDP figures as ten thousand dollars worth of GDP.

If the government pays me twenty thousand dollars to destroy my house, that
*also* counts in the GPP figures as twenty thousand dollars worth of GDP.

(Actually they don't pay individual homeowners, but
rather the bank that owns the underwater mortgage,

but the ultimate effect is the same)

And, by a convoluted process of adjustment, (hedonic adjustment)

the resulting increase in the cost of houses and cars is
counted as a decrease in the cost of houses and cars.

The cost of rent and cars is counted as falling not because it is
actually falling, but because our cars and rental accommodations
have supposedly been improved by destroying stuff.

What an idiot. The percentage unemployed may continue to rise, but
the number employed will typically keep pace with rising population.

But the number employed is not keeping place with the rising population,

but rather is falling like a stone.

http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/27000/Weak+Employment+Report

The October employment report came in
weaker than expected as the country lost
190,000 jobs, rather than the 175,000
expectation. It was, however, an
improvement over the 219,000 lost in
September, but worse than the 154,000 jobs
lost in August.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:40:20 -0600, Yadda wrote:

on 11/7/09 6:27 PM Rod Speed said the following:
Yadda wrote:
on 11/7/09 3:31 PM James A. Donald said the following:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:57:23 -0600, Yadda<yadda at (no spam) nospam.net
wrote:
Looks like a big crash is coming across all asset classes. The
tsunami will be Option ARMs, Commercial Real Estate, and
Leveraged Commodity and Carry Trade. Probably not until early
next year as the FED/Treasury will be propping up the economy on
funny money until the moment of reckoning. I am wondering if
money market funds will be safe in this forthcoming storm...

Money market funds will be fine in nominal terms, unless you have
long term bonds - but inflation is starting to accelerate. I
predict the next cpi report, due out in a week or so, is going to
be a shocker. Long term bonds will take a beating when inflation
starts to bite.


Many are predicting a run on money funds.

Many predicted a full depression.

Didnt happen.



Wait for the second round.

We're not out of the woods yet. Not even close.

Michael Coburn wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Michael Coburn wrote
Phlip wrote
Anarcissie <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote

Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't generate
employment.

Aaaand once again we twist around and stick our head up our ass to
avoid blaming...

--> rich people
--> Republicans

The former are holding onto their money, waiting for someone else to
stimulate the economy for them.

So the solution is quite simple.

Nope.

Your bring back the very progressive tax code of 1941 and you print
more money and blow it into the bottom of the economy with stimulus.
The money held in the mattresses of the rich will decline in value

Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by
that.

and they must find ways to actually _INVEST_ or see their wealth
eaten by the inflation monster.

Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by
that.

It really is a no brainer.

Your approach is completely brainless and wont work. Plenty of
countrys have tried it an they get that result of the rich moving
their money out of the country where its immune from inflation.

Or just put it into gold etc etc etc.

Government creates money and spends it into existence.

Thats only a small part of what drives the US economy, fool.

What good will it do a person with loads of money to take the money out
of the mattress and run away to Biminy?

They get it out of the hands of fools like you that want to tax it off
them, fuckwit.

the answer is, of course, that such a move would be useless.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one was ever
stupid enough to get you to do anything more challenging that drive a
truck for a while and why you ended up with fuck all in the way of
assets.

In a proper tax system where true investment is _NOT_ heavily taxed
while income from economic rent (i.e. income from government backed
bonds) _IS_ heavily taxed

Which is why the rich move it out of the country where it cant be taxed,
fuckwit.

we will not see the rich running away to foreign shores.

We have ALREADY seen them doing that with their money, fuckwit.

They will be much better off staying right here and actually INVESTING.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one was ever
stupid enough to get you to do anything more challenging that drive a
truck for a while and why you ended up with fuck all in the way of
assets.

I am using poor as in poor versus rich. The poor include working- and
lower-middle-class people for me. These are people who have savings
accounts, fixed pensions, life insurance and the like (if they have
anything -- and a lot of them have a little something).

Usually they
are wage-earners, with their wages or salaries set in currency amounts
which are often changed upward only with great difficulty. At least,
this has been my experience as such a person. These are the people you
appear to be proposing to tax through inflation.

By contrast, while the
rich may keep a certain amount of cash around to facilitate
transactions, most of their wealth is held in equities, commodities,
real estate, collectibles, and the like. They are far more able to deal
with inflation and escape its bad effects than the not-rich.

The CPI is a joke as far as I am concerned. It will become more of a
joke if any serious inflation sets in, since the government will be
interested in limiting payouts to Social Security beneficiaries.

[quoted text muted]

Assuming there is any serious domestic production of exportable goods,
beyond movies, bombs, bullets and bullshit.

[quoted text muted]

That's not much of an argument.

[quoted text muted]

That depends on what you're trying to buy. Note also that many areas of
the labor market are somewhat deflationary. There is a limit to how far
_that_ can be carried on, and in any case it exacerbates the bad effects
which the inflation you're proposing if it goes into effect (and I think
it will, because I think your advocacy of inflation channels
ruling-class intentions).

It always takes some time for a stimulus to do that.

It first hikes the GDP and that has already happened.

And it also prevents more unemployment, most obviously with the
cash for clunkers part of the stimulus that saw car sales recover
quite a bit and so avoided more layoffs in the car industry etc.

But [employment] not falling as fast as it would do without the stimulus.

How does gdp rise, when the number of people working falls?

By those still working being more productive, stupid.

Since 2000, the government has concealed the default rate on CRA loans,
indicating that the default rate was disturbingly high in 2000.

You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are
blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced racist lie.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:55:27 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
In 1929, the government forbade the market to adjust prices and wages
to reality, causing the great depression.

Michael Coburn
That is an outright lie. The government failed to regulate credit thus
producing the crash of 1929.

It was not until the country was placed firmly in the Great depression
that government tried to intervene in any positive way.

Things were not all that bad after 1929. Things really went to hell in
1932-1933. It was not until 1932-1933 that the country was "firmly in
the great depression, not until the government "tried to intervene in
any positive way" that the country was firmly in the great depression.

Hoover organized the economy into state backed business and labor
cartels, to artificially support prices and wages. This destroyed the
American economy. These ruinous cartels were subsequently further
strengthened by Roosevelt.

Then, after Roosevelt was elected, but before he came to power,
Roosevelt sowed terror among the businessmen, threatening apocalyptic
Mugabe style government, which caused a tremendous crash in the period
between Roosevelt's November 1932 victory and his March 1933
inauguration, from which dreadful crash the economy never fully
recovered until it became apparent that Roosevelt was history.

The Hoover Roosevelt cartels are what today's economists call "wage
price stickiness", and Roosevelt's threats of a fascist economic order
are what today's economists call "regime uncertainty"

That is just because the government is manipulating the cpi, thereby
producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina

What a tin hat nut case.

How is that the economy is growing, while fewer and fewer people are
employed? How is it that fewer people are producing more stuff?

Well, in substantial part because the government is paying people to
destroy houses and cars. (The cars are being crushed, the houses are
being abandoned. After being abandoned for a certain period, they are
condemned.)

Because people are being paid to do this, it is treated in the figures
as production, even though it is not production, but destruction.

If I pay someone ten thousand dollars to produce a car for me, that
counts in the GDP figures as ten thousand dollars worth of GDP. If the
government pays me twenty thousand dollars to destroy my house, that
*also* counts in the GPP figures as twenty thousand dollars worth of
GDP. (Actually they don't pay individual homeowners, but rather the
bank that owns the underwater mortgage, but the ultimate effect is the
same)

And, by a convoluted process of adjustment, (hedonic adjustment) the
resulting increase in the cost of houses and cars is counted as a
decrease in the cost of houses and cars. The cost of rent and cars is
counted as falling not because it is actually falling, but because our
cars and rental accommodations have supposedly been improved by
destroying stuff.

What an idiot. The percentage unemployed may continue to rise, but the
number employed will typically keep pace with rising population.

But the number employed is not keeping place with the rising population,
but rather is falling like a stone.

http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/27000/Weak+Employment+Report> : :
The October employment report came in : : weaker than expected
as the
country lost : : 190,000 jobs, rather than the 175,000 : :
expectation. It was, however, an : : improvement over the 219,000
lost in : : September, but worse than the 154,000
jobs : : lost in
August.

Rod Speed wrote
Michael Coburn wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Michael Coburn wrote
Phlip wrote
Anarcissie <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote

Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't generate employment.

Aaaand once again we twist around and stick our head up our ass to avoid blaming...

--> rich people
--> Republicans

The former are holding onto their money, waiting for someone else to stimulate the economy for them.

So the solution is quite simple.

Nope.

Your bring back the very progressive tax code of 1941 and you
print more money and blow it into the bottom of the economy with
stimulus. The money held in the mattresses of the rich will decline in value

Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.

and they must find ways to actually _INVEST_ or see their wealth eaten by the inflation monster.

Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.

It really is a no brainer.

Your approach is completely brainless and wont work. Plenty of
countrys have tried it an they get that result of the rich moving
their money out of the country where its immune from inflation.

Or just put it into gold etc etc etc.

Government creates money and spends it into existence.

Thats only a small part of what drives the US economy, fool.

Irrelevant.

Your AI handlers made a stupid claim regarding
money and now attempt to change the subject.

What good will it do a person with loads of money to take
the money out of the mattress and run away to Biminy?

They get it out of the hands of fools like you that want to tax it off them, fuckwit.

The creation of new money is a tax on the existing money

and there is no way to run away with the full
value of the existing mattress full of money.

No place to hide.

the answer is, of course, that such a move would be useless.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one was ever
stupid enough to get you to do anything more challenging that drive a
truck for a while and why you ended up with fuck all in the way of assets.

In a proper tax system where true investment is _NOT_
heavily taxed while income from economic rent (i.e. income
from government backed bonds) _IS_ heavily taxed

Which is why the rich move it out of the country where it cant be taxed, fuckwit.

As I have said, virus: that is a different subject if one relies upon the income tax.

Inflation is a tax on money.

And when combined with a tax on natural resources
and assets it can capture even expatriated profits.

A simpler mechanism is import duties on produced
goods and export duties on raw materials.

we will not see the rich running away to foreign shores.

We have ALREADY seen them doing that with their money, fuckwit.

Nothing they can ever do, virus, will stop the taxation of money
hoards imposed by printing additional money. There is _NO_ escape.

They will be much better off staying right here and actually INVESTING.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one was ever
stupid enough to get you to do anything more challenging that drive a
truck for a while and why you ended up with fuck all in the way of assets.

Yet another personal attack

Michael Coburn wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Michael Coburn wrote
Phlip wrote
Anarcissie <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote

Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't generate
employment.

Aaaand once again we twist around and stick our head up our ass to
avoid blaming...

--> rich people
--> Republicans

The former are holding onto their money, waiting for someone else to
stimulate the economy for them.

So the solution is quite simple.

Nope.

Your bring back the very progressive tax code of 1941 and you print
more money and blow it into the bottom of the economy with stimulus.
The money held in the mattresses of the rich will decline in value

Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by
that.

and they must find ways to actually _INVEST_ or see their wealth
eaten by the inflation monster.

Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by
that.

It really is a no brainer.

Your approach is completely brainless and wont work. Plenty of
countrys have tried it an they get that result of the rich moving
their money out of the country where its immune from inflation.

Or just put it into gold etc etc etc.

Moving the money to Kooka-Monga is not going to preserve its value

Corse it does if you move it to a currency that isnt being deliberately
devalued, fool.

Or into gold etc.

And who you traded with for the gold now has the money.

His problem when its deliberately devalued.

No matter where the money tries to hide or who owns it the money will
be devalued by the creation of new money.

Wrong when its moved to a currency that isnt devalued that way, or into
gold etc.

So the solution is quite simple.   Your bring back the very progressive
tax code of 1941 and you print more money

You contradict yourself. Tax the rich feed the poor problem solved. And
start shredding the dollar bills, too...

Rod Speed wrote
James A. Donald wrote
Rod Speed wrote
James A. Donald wrote
Rod Speed wrote

We aint even in a technical recession anymore.

That is just because the government is manipulating the
cpi, thereby producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Its actually added quite a
bit of stimulus and THAT has seen the GDP hike substantially.

If stimulus was working, we would see employment rising.

It always takes some time for a stimulus to do that.

It first hikes the GDP and that has already happened.

It is improbable that GDP has risen when employment continues to fall.

Much of the supposed rise in GDP is the government
paying people to destroy cars and houses,

which due to creative accounting is treated as
creating value, rather than destroying value.

And it also prevents more unemployment, most obviously with the
cash for clunkers part of the stimulus that saw car sales recover
quite a bit and so avoided more layoffs in the car industry etc.

Makework is not recovery:

For GDP to genuinely rise due to people working
in the car industry, we should have more cars,

whereas in reality "cash for clunkers" means we have fewer cars.

Fewer cars, thus real production is less, not more.

To take an extreme hypothetical example, suppose the government
purchased all cars at one hundred thousand dollars per car, and
dumped them at sea. Then this would similarly "stimulate",

just like "cash for clunkers" only more so - but we would have no cars!

Official GDP figures would be higher, a lot higher,
but actual GDP would be lower, a lot lower.

It is not a recovery unless people are engaged
in work producing what other people want,

and as a result of people doing useful work that
other people want done, people have more stuff.

The "recovery" is produced by government "stimulus" actions

that cause people to have less stuff

and less prospect of getting a job.

The only stimulus that actually stimulates is tax cuts that are expected to be lasting.

But [employment] not falling as fast as it would do without the stimulus.

How do you know?

It is falling a lot faster than the government predicted would happen.

How does gdp rise, when the number of people working falls?

By those still working being more productive, stupid.

Under the circumstances, the required sudden
and substantial rise in productivity is clearly improbable.

Rather, the explanation is that it is easier to destroy stuff than to create stuff,

and the government is paying people to destroy stuff

and counting that as creating stuff,

thereby magically and instantly producing fake rise in productivity.

Rod Speed wrote
James A. Donald wrote

Since 2000, the government has concealed the default rate on CRA
loans, indicating that the default rate was disturbingly high in 2000.

You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are
blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced racist lie.

So how many CRA loans defaulted in 2006, 2005, 2004, etc?

Rod Speed wrote
Michael Coburn wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Michael Coburn wrote
Phlip wrote
Anarcissie <anarcis... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote

Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't generate employment.

Aaaand once again we twist around and stick our head up our ass to avoid blaming...

--> rich people
--> Republicans

The former are holding onto their money, waiting
for someone else to stimulate the economy for them.

So the solution is quite simple.

Nope.

Your bring back the very progressive tax code of 1941 and you
print more money and blow it into the bottom of the economy with
stimulus. The money held in the mattresses of the rich will decline in value

Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.

and they must find ways to actually _INVEST_ or see their wealth
eaten by the inflation monster.

Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.

It really is a no brainer.

Your approach is completely brainless and wont work. Plenty of
countrys have tried it an they get that result of the rich moving
their money out of the country where its immune from inflation.

Or just put it into gold etc etc etc.

Moving the money to Kooka-Monga is not going to preserve its value

Corse it does if you move it to a currency that isnt being deliberately devalued, fool.

Or into gold etc.

The money just gets a new owner.

You traded the money for the gold or the different currency
and whoever "sold" you the other asset now holds the money.

The money is worth less than it was if more money is being created.

And who you traded with for the gold now has the money.

His problem when its deliberately devalued.

You seem to think that the devaluation of the money is "aimed" at certain individuals.

It isn't.

The INTENTION of devaluation through money infusion is itself a devaluation.

That devaluation causes a rise in the price of other assets (like houses).

No matter where the money tries to hide or who owns it
the money will be devalued by the creation of new money.

Wrong when its moved to a currency that isnt devalued that way, or into gold etc.

IDIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

further stupidity deleted

Phlip wrote

So the solution is quite simple. Your bring back the very
progressive tax code of 1941 and you print more money

You contradict yourself. Tax the rich feed the poor
problem solved. And start shredding the dollar bills, too...

I see no contradiction.