 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » 10.2%... |
|
Page 2 of 17 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 15, 16, 17 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| James A. Donald... |
 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]If the government stops wrecking the market, the market
will right itself rapidly, as it always has in the past.
Like hell it ever did after 1929
[/quote]
In 1929, the government forbade the market to adjust prices and wages
to reality, causing the great depression.
[quote]Recall the wonderful stimulus chart?
Obama threatened us, that the stimulus had to passed urgently,
urgently, for if the stimulus was not passed, unemployment
would rise to a horrifying eight percent by 2009 October.
He got that part right.
Its not even a technical recession anymore.
[/quote]
That is just because the government is manipulating the cpi, thereby
producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
Unemployment just rose 0.4% to 10.2% this month
And the reason it "only" rose to 10.2 is that very large numbers of
people are no longer considered job seekers. The number of employed
people continues to plunge.
That is a recession all right. People are losing their jobs. When
lots of people lose their jobs, it is a recession. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dänk 1010011010... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 4:24 pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]The rightarded seem to lack for any solutions at all. Lots of spinning
and whining and not even a hint of any solutions to the problem. Very
similar to health care. Nothing in the way of positive policy. Just
whining.
The American dollar must be devalued much further than is the case right
now. There is no other solution to the problem of middle class decay in
the United States. We are the only country in the G20 that has a large
trade deficit. And that deficit is because the American dollar is still
far too strong. Jobs will not return to America until we stop the glut
of free trade by a combination of minor protectionism and dollar
devaluation. That same devaluation if accomplished via increased wages
and social welfare will also fix the Housing/credit problem. Bailing out
banks is not the solution. Bailing out manufacturing of any kind is
advisable and so to are minor tariffs and policies that insist on
stimulus money being used to "buy American" (or at least to buy NORTH
American).
[/quote]
The 'solutions' you propose sound identical to those tried by Mexico's
corrupt ruling PRI party in the 1980s. The devaluation of the peso
was supposed to ease Mexico's debt burden, and help the middle class
by lifting wages. Instead, net purchasing power declined, and half
the population attempted to flee the country to work in the USA. The
ruling elite was unaffected by the devaluation, since they were smart
enough to keep their fabulous wealth in hard-currency Swiss bank
accounts.
Mexico also bailed-out its manufacturing and banking sectors, and
imposed steep tariffs on imported goods to protect Mexican
industries. This did not work and led to inefficiency, corruption,
and massive smuggling of consumer goods from the USA. Today most
Mexican goods that are manufactured in Mexico are produced by U.S. and
other foreign companies.
The bailed-out banks were first nationalized so that their dollar
deposits could be converted to devalued pesos, protected with monopoly
status for a decade or so, before finally being privatized by selling
them to friends of El Presidente for a pittance and a dollar-
denominated bribe transferred to his personal Swiss bank account. The
new privatized bank owners became instant billionaires, then lent the
banks' money to their friends and relatives who then defaulted,
requiring the Mexican congress to authorize a US$50 billion bailout. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yadda... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
on 11/6/09 3:15 PM *Anarcissie* said the following:
[quote]Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't
generate employment. No employment, no wages; no
wages, no consumption; no consumption, no business;
no business, no employment. But you knew that already.
We may be reaching the end of the funny-money era,
although it would not surprise me if our lords and masters
and their tame geniuses gave it another shot or two
regardless of the lack of positive results. They
probably don't know what else to do.
So, how much further will the funny money go, and
then what's next?
Looks like a big crash is coming across all asset classes. The tsunami[/quote]
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... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:25:57 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Not only didnt we get a depression in 1990, we didnt even get one
just recently when the clowns completely imploded the entire world
financial system, AGAIN.
we ain't done yet.
We aint even in a technical recession anymore.
[/quote]
You aren't that naive, are you? I mean, you seem like a pretty smart
fellow. You don't really think it's over, do you? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James A. Donald wrote:
[quote]If the government stops wrecking the market, the market
will right itself rapidly, as it always has in the past.
Like hell it ever did after 1929
In 1929, the government forbade the market to adjust
prices and wages to reality, causing the great depression.
[/quote]
Hoover did that eh ?
Thanks for the completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
[quote]Recall the wonderful stimulus chart?
Obama threatened us, that the stimulus had to passed urgently,
urgently, for if the stimulus was not passed, unemployment
would rise to a horrifying eight percent by 2009 October.
He got that part right.
Its not even a technical recession anymore.
That is just because the government is manipulating the
cpi, thereby producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
[/quote]
Thanks for the completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Pity about the car sales, fuckwit.
[quote]Unemployment just rose 0.4% to 10.2% this month
[/quote]
Whoopy fucking do. Hordes of countrys would sell their first borns into slavery to get a result like that, fool.
[quote]And the reason it "only" rose to 10.2 is that very large
numbers of people are no longer considered job seekers.
[/quote]
Another bare faced lie. U-4 and U-5 went up by the same amount you silly little pathological liar.
[quote]The number of employed people continues to plunge.
[/quote]
Another bare faced lie.
[quote]That is a recession all right. People are losing their jobs.
When lots of people lose their jobs, it is a recession.
[/quote]
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
hal wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
Not only didnt we get a depression in 1990, we didnt even get one
just recently when the clowns completely imploded the entire world
financial system, AGAIN.
we ain't done yet.
We aint even in a technical recession anymore.
You aren't that naive, are you? I mean, you seem like a
pretty smart fellow. You don't really think it's over, do you?
[/quote]
Never said a word about over. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 1:06 am, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:10:13 -0800, *Anarcissie* wrote:
On Nov 6, 6:24 pm, Michael Coburn <mik... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Inflating the money seriously would generally tax those on fixed incomes
and those with savings accounts and the like tied to currency values,
that is, poor people.
What a strange definition you have for "poor people".
Rich people have lots of money and poor people don't. What sort of
training (brain washing) does it take to claim that a decrease in the
value of money hurts people who have no money. Most of the middle class
has had their 401ks looted but that is NOT money in a saving account at
the bank. It is shares of ownership in the means of production. And
inflation will not harm these real capital assets. This crap about fixed
incomes is yet another brain washing. SS benefits are tied to CPI.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]I suppose this would loosen up a certain amount
of value, but I can't see that it would fix the large structural
problems caused by deindustrialization and years and years of inflated
credit.
I don't see why not. As the dollar is worth less to foreigners then the
cost of foreign goods rises and the advantage to domestic production
improves. That is a pretty well understood economic reality.
[/quote]
Assuming there is any serious domestic production of
exportable goods, beyond movies, bombs, bullets and
bullshit.
[quote]One might also want to recall the results of the inflation in
Germany in the 1920s --
Boogerman, Boogerman, Boogerman!!! Hyped like a true defender of the
rich.
[/quote]
That's not much of an argument.
[quote]there is no particular reason to believe that,
if the savings and pensions of the working and middle classes are wiped
out, they will take the blow passively.
The working middle class has investments in their 401K. They do not have
any serious amount of money stuffed in a mattress or in a savings account
and aver diversified regarding government bonds. If not then these people
will lose some purchasing power. Bur the _VAST_ majority will be better
off. We not the continued apparent health of the equities market in
spite of the fact that demand is very slack. It is currency devaluation
that causes that to happen.
There is also the problem of the huge debts owed to foreigners which
must be refinanced from time to time. If a policy of strong inflation
goes into effect, the interest rates won't be pretty.
That is what curbs the amount of inflation that can be tolerated, but at
present we have NO internal inflation.
[/quote]
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). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:14:46 -0800, Phlip wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 1:15Â pm, "*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.
[/quote]
So the solution is quite simple. 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 and they must find ways to actually _INVEST_ or see
their wealth eaten by the inflation monster. It really is a no brainer.
[quote]And the latter? Well, they tried everything they could to prevent
libruls and Democrats from getting us into this mess, and they failed!
[/quote]
WOW!!! That has to be the biggest whopper I have ever seen!!!!!!
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:57:23 -0600, Yadda wrote:
[quote]on 11/6/09 3:15 PM *Anarcissie* said the following:
Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't generate
employment. No employment, no wages; no wages, no consumption; no
consumption, no business; no business, no employment. But you knew
that already.
We may be reaching the end of the funny-money era, although it would
not surprise me if our lords and masters and their tame geniuses gave
it another shot or two regardless of the lack of positive results.
They probably don't know what else to do.
So, how much further will the funny money go, and then what's next?
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...
[/quote]
Why would there be a crash of asset prices unless the government isn't
blowing enough money into the bottom of the economy??????
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:55:27 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
[quote]If the government stops wrecking the market, the market will right
itself rapidly, as it always has in the past.
Like hell it ever did after 1929
In 1929, the government forbade the market to adjust prices and wages to
reality, causing the great depression.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]Recall the wonderful stimulus chart?
Obama threatened us, that the stimulus had to passed urgently,
urgently, for if the stimulus was not passed, unemployment would rise
to a horrifying eight percent by 2009 October.
He got that part right.
Its not even a technical recession anymore.
That is just because the government is manipulating the cpi, thereby
producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
[/quote]
What a tin hat nut case.
[quote]Unemployment just rose 0.4% to 10.2% this month
[/quote]
Yes... It did.
[quote]And the reason it "only" rose to 10.2 is that very large numbers of
people are no longer considered job seekers. The number of employed
people continues to plunge.
[/quote]
What an idiot. The percentage unemployed may continue to rise, but the
number employed will typically keep pace with rising population.
[quote]That is a recession all right. People are losing their jobs. When lots
of people lose their jobs, it is a recession.
[/quote]
Nope. When the owners of the means of production don't suck enough
economic rent out of the economy we have a technical recession. So long
as the rich people continue to haul in money there isn't a recession.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Coburn wrote
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]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
[/quote]
Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.
[quote]and they must find ways to actually _INVEST_
or see their wealth eaten by the inflation monster.
[/quote]
Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.
[quote]It really is a no brainer.
[/quote]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James A. Donald... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:25:57 +1100, "Rod Speed"
[quote]We aint even in a technical recession anymore.
[/quote]
That is just because the government is manipulating the cpi, thereby
producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
Unemployment just rose 0.4% to 10.2% this month
And the reason it "only" rose to 10.2 is that very large numbers of
people are no longer considered job seekers. The number of employed
people continues to plunge.
That is a recession all right. People are losing their jobs. When
lots of people lose their jobs, it is a recession.
The number of jobs has been in steady and rapid decline for quite some
time, and the decline shows no sign of flattening out - indeed, as the
"stimulus" starts to bite, it shows signs of accelerating. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James A. Donald... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:57:23 -0600, Yadda <yadda at (no spam) nospam.net> wrote:
[quote]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...
[/quote]
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James A. Donald... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Phlip <phlip2005 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Aaaand once again we twist around and stick our head
up our ass to avoid blaming...
--> rich people
--> Republicans
[/quote]
It is a bit hard to blame republicans, when Congress,
which has oversight of the financial system, has been in
the hands of the Democrats during the whole crisis, and
was well before the crisis began.
The proximate cause of the crisis was not rich people
but the regulatory requirement that bankers make loans
equally to members of protected minorities, even though
members of protected minorities are not equally inclined
to repay their debts. The crisis began in 2005
November, in that it became glaringly obvious that
members of protected minorities were failing to pay
their debts in large numbers.
So the guilty are:
1. Democrats, who had oversight, and who appointed
larcenous (but politically correct) criminals to run
Fannie and Freddie over the protests of Republicans.
2. The regulators, who insisted on politically correct
security ratings, rather security ratings that reflected
reality, and then, when investors started to
"irrationally" panic about politically correct security
ratings, insisted that financial institutions act as if
these ratings reflected reality.
3. The poor, primarily poor members of protected
minorities, who accepted loans they had neither the will
nor the ability to repay. When you hear of "toxic
assets", they are toxic because based on politically
correct loans. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:05:10 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
The Virus again shows that it is brainless. Government creates money and
spends it into existence. What good will it do a person with loads of
money to take the money out of the mattress and run away to Biminy? the
answer is, of course, that such a move would be useless. 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 we will not see the rich running away to foreign shores. They will
be much better off staying right here and actually INVESTING.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:39 pm
|
|