American Banks Dumping Dollars for the Yen

jeff f · Sep 5, 2010

hanimmal said:
Really? Are you sure, or is this more bs that you felt like saying even though you have no information about it and feel that because your wealth of knowledge from construction has giving you some special insight, that all the business men, people examining the economy for the last couple hundred years, and thousands of professors that have dedicated their lives pulling all this information together into models that are very good predictors of what goes on, do not have? Yeah because you decided that they only have ever been in a classroom and not ever worked jobs, did work for companies, owned companies, been in conferences with other businesses throughout the world, they must not have.

Oh so you have read his stuff? Looked into the papers he wrote, and understood it? Because I don't think that you have, because I am guessing you are not able to really get it if you thought I was talking in jargon before.

And I am glad you are smart, but you should read my posts again. The government would not tell you what you have to purchase. What I had said is they would offer jobs, if you don't want to take them and not get work in your down time that is your call, but there are plenty of business men that will be more than happy to do so. And their guys having money in their pocket is a very good thing for our economy, even if in your vast experience you think that it is better for them to not have any work and to not have any money so more and more people can have their homes foreclosed on and bringing down even more wealth from loss of value of their homes that are now apart of the list of bankruptcies, which means the neighbors all lose their value too because they will never be able to sell their 150k home for the 30k the HUD home down the street is going for.

And with the 8% thing. You never heard an economist say that. You did hear Obama say something around those lines but didn't hear the rest of his speech I am guessing. Economist would not be able to come up with a number like 8%, the CBO would always give a range. And 8.5 would have been the low with the info they put into the model. With different parameters the number would change.

Here from Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/09/eric-cantor/Cantor-and-other-republicans-say-obama-promised-s/

Why do you think that they put that in there? The economists are not the ones pulling the strings, it is the politicians.

Compared to where we were heading. The fact is that the economy is still very fragile, but still moving in the right direction, even if it slows at times and threatens to backtrack. Being at 11% with a crippled banking industry (if they would have been allowed to fail, the jobs that the stimulus has created, the jobs that it had stopped from doing lay offs due to getting contracts, the increase in home purchases briefly, the car stimulus, the 80billion they put out for small business loans, extended unemployment, all have helped people out tremendously.

You may not want to believe it because it may not have directly helped you out, but to all those people (one of which was the car dealer I bought my new truck from a couple months back for one) it was a very important boost to help them out and get them over the hump that this recession caused.

But I guess when you want someone to be wrong it will not matter what reality is, they will be wrong to you.

yes, i am saying your heroes ;like krugman have never had a job where they had to make payroll or risk their lifes savings on a business

going to war college doesnt mean shit when bullets start flying by your head. your heroes never put on a kevlar helmet in business battle. their only experience is classroom or guvmt jobs.

here is a little bio on your hero krugman

A Partial Paul Krugman Timeline
***********************

1953 - Born
1974 BA, Yale
1977 PhD, MIT
1977 Yale
1980 MIT
1982-3 White House, Council of Economic Advisers
1984 tenured at MIT; teaches there until 1994
1991 John Bates Clark Medal
1994 he goes west to Stanford
1996 back to MIT
2000 resigned from MIT and joined Princeton faculty

However, it doesnt look like he was moving around because he ran into
any kind of problems; on the contrary, it looks like he was playing
the best economics schools in the world against each other to ratchet
his compensation and benefits packages upand upand higher still

Biographical Facts
*****************

I was born in 1953, got my Ph.D. from MIT in 1977, and have since
taught at Yale and Stanford as well as MIT. I also spent an
eye-opening year working at the White House (Council of Economic
Advisers) in 1982-3. In 1991 I received my major professional gong,
the John Bates Clark Medal, given by the American Economic Association
every two years to an economist under 40.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/

He has taught at Yale, Stanford, MIT and Princeton -

Krugman, a graduate of Yale University, received his Ph.D. from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and has taught at Yale,
Stanford and, most recently, MIT before "leaving one outstanding
program to join another" at Princeton last summer.

Wife is Robin Wells, and she now works for Princeton as well

This semester, though still recovering from election fatigue, he will
continue to provide The Times with trenchant commentary, drawing from
"a cornucopia of topics, like urban sprawl, or the WTO." He will
resume work on a textbook, "Principles of Economics," co-written with
his wife, Robin Wells, who is a member of the research staff in
economics.

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0219/1b.shtml

Joined New York Times in 1999

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the
Op-Ed Page and continues as Professor of Economics and International
Affairs at Princeton University.

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=18145532

Wife Wells was previously an Assistant Professor at MIT; they resigned
simultaneously in 1999 to go to Princeton

Professor Paul Krugman and Assistant Professor Robin Wells resigned
effective June 30, 2000. They will both assume positions in the
Economics Department at Princeton University.

http://web.mit.edu/communications/pres00/12.04.html

A couple of documents off of Krugmans new official site, which can be
found at-

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/

First, Krugmans Enron FAQ -

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/enronfaq.html

And, second, his little diatribe, Incidents from my career

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/incidents.html

This essay gives a lot of insight into Krugmans many career and
academic moves.

Another personal essay should provide further insight

How I Work

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/howiwork.html

Specifically, the following section is of interest its titled
Regrets my comments are interspersed among quotes from this
section -

There are a lot of things about my life and personality that I regret
-- if things have gone astonishingly well for me professionally, they
have been by no means as easy or happy elsewhere.

So, doesnt sound like his personal life is a charmer

A minor regret is that I have never engaged in really serious
empirical work.

Goes to his style of work; I would actually hold that to his credit

A more important regret is that while the MIT course evaluations rate
me as a pretty good lecturer, I have not yet succeeded in generating a
string of really fine students, the kind who reflect glory on their
teacher.
Likely why he has succeeded more in a business-sense and not
academically, since he has not produced a generation of prolific
students who cite his works day and night

It's also true that I probably seem busy and distracted, and perhaps
I am just not imposing enough in person to be inspiring (if I were
only a few inches taller

hanimmal · Sep 5, 2010

As much as I would love to go to the school he has taught at I have not.

So that is some good info and I look forward to learning more about krugman, who like it or not is a good economist. But all that background was unessecary because I never said anything about his life did I?

There is more about economics than any one person could possibly know, which is why I wrote this:

Really? Are you sure, or is this more bs that you felt like saying even though you have no information about it and feel that because your wealth of knowledge from construction has giving you some special insight, that all the business men, people examining the economy for the last couple hundred years, and thousands of professors that have dedicated their lives pulling all this information together into models that are very good predictors of what goes on, do not have? Yeah because you decided that they only have ever been in a classroom and not ever worked jobs, did work for companies, owned companies, been in conferences with other businesses throughout the world, they must not have.

Go through it again, economics is the combined knowledge and experience of all sorts of people from many varied fields and businesses, and times. One of the most influential people in my life was a man named Steve fraiser. If someone is into wrestling they will know him. I actually had the opportunity to practice with him a good amount back in the day. One of the things he told me was no matter what he always tries to listen. If he got done with a match and some little kid walked up to him and told him he did something wrong he would pay attention, because you never know it could be some insight he never thought of before and be the key to a large improvement.

It doesn't mean that they are right, but that the possibility is there. This is the way economics works, it's not just Paul krugman, it is everyone that has ever contributed to the field.

And among them have been some great businessmen and a lot of data that all sorts of businesses have contributed in order for better models. That's the reason why most businesses pay well for actuaries and economists, because the evaluating process is very beneficial.

jeff f · Sep 5, 2010

hanimmal said:
As much as I would love to go to the school he has taught at I have not.

So that is some good info and I look forward to learning more about krugman, who like it or not is a good economist. But all that background was unessecary because I never said anything about his life did I?

There is more about economics than any one person could possibly know, which is why I wrote this:

Go through it again, economics is the combined knowledge and experience of all sorts of people from many varied fields and businesses, and times. One of the most influential people in my life was a man named Steve fraiser. If someone is into wrestling they will know him. I actually had the opportunity to practice with him a good amount back in the day. One of the things he told me was no matter what he always tries to listen. If he got done with a match and some little kid walked up to him and told him he did something wrong he would pay attention, because you never know it could be some insight he never thought of before and be the key to a large improvement.

It doesn't mean that they are right, but that the possibility is there. This is the way economics works, it's not just Paul krugman, it is everyone that has ever contributed to the field.

And among them have been some great businessmen and a lot of data that all sorts of businesses have contributed in order for better models. That's the reason why most businesses pay well for actuaries and economists, because the evaluating process is very beneficial.

my point is that the eggheads that are telling obama the govt spending will improve the economy, they might as well be peeing up a rope. they have drawn their conclusions by looking at charts and graphs, not real world stuff. big diff.

and when you make assumptions that govt or banks or business is going to hire when they feel secure, thats not how it works. business hires when they have orders. there is very little the govt can do to make orders happen. some tax incentives perhaps but then you are moving toward central planning.

here is an example, the volt. that stupid little car that obama builds. he can hire a million union auto workers to build the thing tomorrow. and the day after tomorrow there wont be a single additional buyer of the volt.

the only thing that will save the volt would be if someone wanted one. and apparently nobody does.

business focuses on peoples needs. politicians focus on votes and have little to no idea what peoples needs are.

another example, that phony john kerry. that scumbag wants to raise taxes but moves his yacht to rhode island to avoid taxes. the ignorant bastard thinks he will be the only one to think of moving his property to avoid taxes.....duh. everyone who can afford to move their yaht will. so who gets hurt in mass? the workers who man the docks, clean the boats, storage companies etc. the very persons who the dork thinks he is helping. but this igor looking lurch mother fucker looks in the mirror and tells everyone how great he is by increasing taxes on the rich.

same thing has happened to a lot of business that have gone over seas. they arent going to remain in business where govt drives up labor/equipment costs for the "greater" good. they are going to where they can make a profit selling the product that customers are willing to buy.

and i know your argument, we need more taxing to increase revenue. thats bullcrap. look up govt revenues from the past 50 years. the charts are out there, i have posted them before but dont have time right now. everytime there was a major tax DECREASE, revenues shot up by large amounts. then the kerry/krugmans of the world who are smarter than everyone else, take the money and spend it on more chevy volts. ie, throw it down the shitter. then they act like they werent involved. just like the mortgage crises.

Mr.KushMan · Sep 5, 2010

I forgot to post this way back with my appeal against fiat currency:

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein

Peace

hanimmal · Sep 5, 2010

my point is that the eggheads that are telling obama the govt spending will improve the economy, they might as well be peeing up a rope. they have drawn their conclusions by looking at charts and graphs, not real world stuff. big diff.

But your wrong, man. Think about it, you keep saying orders right? What do you think happens when the government pays a company to build a new bridge, road, or say 300 wind turbines? That is money that goes directly to the company that takes the deal, that is direct spending and money directly into the economy. One to one, a dollar going into the economy, is one dollar.

The extra times that money circulates, has been tracked and shown how it moves around the economy from there, anything that happens after that government spending is extra GDP. So when someone uses their check to pay a bill, that means those dollars are now in the hands of that company that was owed the money, which means that they now have extra revenue, that they will either save in a bank (which can then be loaned out), spend it on new goods, which increases GDP and that money passes to someone else to start the next cycle, or taken home as income which means that they are increaseing the money in peoples hands right?

That money is spent, and it moves around the economy.

and when you make assumptions that govt or banks or business is going to hire when they feel secure, thats not how it works. business hires when they have orders. there is very little the govt can do to make orders happen. some tax incentives perhaps but then you are moving toward central planning.

The direct spending is the orders you are talking about. And I don't know about you, but as a business I would feel much more secure when I have revenue and a job to do. Yeah if you feel it is only one job you may only hire short term if at all, but that money still will be used by the business, and as that money circulates and more people have money in their hands from it, ect just like above.

here is an example, the volt. that stupid little car that obama builds.

What?

Concept vehicle

The first Chevy Volt concept vehicle

The Volt concept vehicle has four doors with a rear liftgate, and is capable of carrying four passengers. This is a significant change in design when compared to the General Motors EV1 of the 1990s, which only seated two to reduce weight. The top speed has also been increased on the Volt, from the electronically limited 80 miles per hour (130 km/h) to 100 miles per hour (160 km/h). The battery pack size has also been reduced, from about 300 L in volume in the EV1, to just 100 L in the Volt.[26]
GM's Vice Chairman Robert Lutz told Newsweek in 2007 that a two-seat sports car by Tesla Motors, the Roadster, and the rapid advancement of battery technology inspired him to push GM to develop the Volt.[27]

Damn Obama's good!

here is an example, the volt. that stupid little car that obama builds. he can hire a million union auto workers to build the thing tomorrow. and the day after tomorrow there wont be a single additional buyer of the volt.

the only thing that will save the volt would be if someone wanted one. and apparently nobody does.

How do you know there will not be a single buyer exactly? But it looks like we will know within the year as they started to get the dealers to pre-order it in july and are schedualed to build 10k of them next year.

business focuses on peoples needs. politicians focus on votes and have little to no idea what peoples needs are.
another example, that phony john kerry. that scumbag wants to raise taxes but moves his yacht to rhode island to avoid taxes. the ignorant bastard thinks he will be the only one to think of moving his property to avoid taxes.....duh. everyone who can afford to move their yaht will. so who gets hurt in mass? the workers who man the docks, clean the boats, storage companies etc. the very persons who the dork thinks he is helping. but this igor looking lurch mother fucker looks in the mirror and tells everyone how great he is by increasing taxes on the rich.

I agree that politicians are idiots, always have always will until we get most of them to not be lawyers in office they will continue to not have a clue about the economy.

same thing has happened to a lot of business that have gone over seas. they arent going to remain in business where govt drives up labor/equipment costs for the "greater" good. they are going to where they can make a profit selling the product that customers are willing to buy.

Yeah, it makes total sense for them to produce the product at the lowest possible price, and it is actually a good thing because we can buy the shit we want for far less saving us more money than we are losing with those jobs going over there. Sadly we are in this mess because we didn't do what we should have and spent the money saved on helping the people losing their jobs get into a better career that we have the competitive advantage in.

and i know your argument, we need more taxing to increase revenue.

What hole did you pull this from? You just don't get that I continually say politicians are idiots, they don't have a clue, anyone looking to increase taxes and/or decrease spending during this economic downturn doesn't have a fucking clue about economics, and is just parroting the bullshit of the political party they are in.

and i know your argument, we need more taxing to increase revenue. thats bullcrap. look up govt revenues from the past 50 years. the charts are out there, i have posted them before but dont have time right now. everytime there was a major tax DECREASE, revenues shot up by large amounts. then the kerry/krugmans of the world who are smarter than everyone else, take the money and spend it on more chevy volts. ie, throw it down the shitter. then they act like they werent involved. just like the mortgage crises.

Heres a bit from factcheck.org.

Q:
Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim?
A:
No. In fact, economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves.

This economic theory is what George H.W. Bush called “voodoo economics.” We called it “supply-side spin” when we wrote about Republican presidential contender John McCain’s claim that President George W. Bush’s tax cuts had increased federal revenues. We found that a slew of government economists [FONT=&quot]–[/FONT] from the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers [FONT=&quot]–[/FONT] all disagreed with that theory, saying that tax cuts may spur economic growth but they lead to revenues that are lower than they would have been if the cuts hadn’t been enacted.

The supply-side theory that tax-cut proponents often espouse was demonstrated by the Laffer curve, named for economist Arthur B. Laffer. The curve suggests that a higher tax rate can generate just as much revenue as a lower rate. But most economists are not Laffer-curve purists. Instead, while they may believe in the power of tax cuts to create an economic boost, they don't say that growth is enough to completely make up for lost revenue. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of the current President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

Corporate income taxes, however, may be an exception. There is some evidence that cutting the corporate tax rate can produce more revenue than was projected under the higher rate in the special case of multinational corporations, which can move their money and operations around to take advantage of lower taxes in certain countries. Economists with the pro-business American Enterprise Institute came to that conclusion in a study released in July 2007. They found that lower corporate rates attract enough growth in corporate income to produce higher government revenues. However, one of the authors, Kevin A. Hassett, told FactCheck.org that small countries, such as Ireland, had the most success and that "it may or may not be correct" to apply the study's results to the United States.

Im fine with a tax decrease, and that was what we got with the stimulus package that people never talked about, The largest portion of it was for tax breaks. Doesn't mean we don't still need government spending as well.

The problem was as Krugman said (not that I am a Krugman groupie but you seem to have a particularly hatred for this guy even though I doubt you have heard anything he has done, aside from the point of view of him being bad) that they did this half assed. It was not enough, and we are puttering out as a result.

hanimmal · Sep 5, 2010

I forgot to post this way back with my appeal against fiat currency:

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein

Peace

What about using dead viruses to stimulate the bodies response of creating white blood cells to attack the very virus they introduced?

NoDrama · Sep 5, 2010

Han you are still confused on WHAT government spending is. Government has no money, they produce nothing, they never make a profit, it is always a losing proposition. The money being spent is YOUR money, and it is being charged a portion of interest for the government to be the one who spends it.

Do you believe that if 330 million Americans all Had multiple PhD's from MIT, Harvard and Princeton that there would be 100% Employment? You are delusional if you think that the unemployment situation will improve if people just get a better education. You don't think there are people with Masters degrees in Business who are employed as wait staff at a restaurant? The highest Unemployment numbers are the greatest in the just graduated from college demographic. Bright Shiny young minds still living with mom and on the Dole or working as wait staff.

NoDrama · Sep 5, 2010

hanimmal said:
The problem was as Krugman said (not that I am a Krugman groupie but you seem to have a particularly hatred for this guy even though I doubt you have heard anything he has done, aside from the point of view of him being bad) that they did this half assed. It was not enough, and we are puttering out as a result.

Of course that is what he said, there is nothing else he can say. The Fed has nothing else it can do except provide even more stimulus. Its not like they can lower interest rates or anything. He would not suggest anything else as he doesn't want to appear wrong.

We will come out of this once either the bad debt is erased/payed off/liquidated or another Paradigm Shift like the Internet and computers happens and there is MASSIVE growth in certain sectors of the economy. Consumers make the economy, without them spending there is no recovery. QE causes inflation, inflation causes people to spend because they want to get rid of their ever depreciating dollar, unfortunately once we get to that point there isn't anything we can really do to solve even greater inflation and devaluation. Its not 1981 anymore we can't increase the interest rates to stop the inflation. A high interest rate will cause the HUGE Public debt service payment to be many times more than tax income, the Fed will not be able to buy treasuries to stop it either becasue the inflation would have setup certain commodities to increase in value at a much higher rate than anything else and those banks which own the majority of US Bonds looking to make a quick buck will have already sold all of their treasuries to finance the commodity acquisition.

They will print print print the dollar into oblivion. We come out the other side either with a new currency or a world/regional currency.

hanimmal · Sep 5, 2010

Damn it, all I had lost to a time out....

Han you are still confused on WHAT government spending is. Government has no money, they produce nothing, they never make a profit, it is always a losing proposition. The money being spent is YOUR money, and it is being charged a portion of interest for the government to be the one who spends it.

Ok Govt produces nothing and the money they spend is our taxes, I get what your saying, but at times like this it does not take away from the fact that government spending does have its place.

Look at it this way, lets say about the last 7yrs of Bush did not happen the way they did, we had built a surplus under clinton and can pretend Bush kept growing it during his presidency. And then lets pretend that the crash happened when Obama took office, If they had a 3 trillion dollar surplus at that time, would you make the same argument that they should not use it to get us out of the recession?

Because when the government increases their spending it puts new orders for products into the businesses yes? And that means that those businesses could then hire to meet the new demand right? Which means those people would have money in their pockets to pay off their debt or save it (which goes into banks and can become new loans) or buy new stuff (which goes into merchants hands, which would then inturn increase their spending) right?

So how can you say that is not an increase in GDP? The problem is the almost everyone in the government cannot just not spend that money, they cannot keep a surplus and we are in this mess with no backup plan ready to go.

This does work if the surplus is not there, the only problem is that they will need to pull out more money in the future to finance it for the next few decades, which if Obamas taxes go through would place that burden on the people that made the most money off the ride to the pop in the first place.

Do you believe that if 330 million Americans all Had multiple PhD's from MIT, Harvard and Princeton that there would be 100% Employment? You are delusional if you think that the unemployment situation will improve if people just get a better education. You don't think there are people with Masters degrees in Business who are employed as wait staff at a restaurant? The highest Unemployment numbers are the greatest in the just graduated from college demographic. Bright Shiny young minds still living with mom and on the Dole or working as wait staff.

Never said 100% employment, full employment in America is around 4% unemployment or 96% employment. You will always have people in transition (new mothers, just moved looking for work, not taking work they can get because they are holding out for better job, ect). But yah it would be incredibly better if everyone had the highest levels of education that could. Can you not imagine how much more innovation with the new technologies we have there would be?

The problem is we are beyond the pet rock days, the new innovative ideas are going to be very technical, and we need as many people as possible coming up with new ways to use it all to be as productive as possible. How can someone come up with new medicines if they don't know any real science? Or new computer models if they don't know the ins and outs of computers, or better machines if they don't know engineering, Foods without any biological understanding, or new ways to travel or build buildings or waste removal without a understanding of physics, it just keeps going to the point that I cannot even dream up all the things that could actually come about.

Of course that is what he said, there is nothing else he can say. The Fed has nothing else it can do except provide even more stimulus. Its not like they can lower interest rates or anything. He would not suggest anything else as he doesn't want to appear wrong.

This was before the stimulus package was passed.

We will come out of this once either the bad debt is erased/payed off/liquidated or another Paradigm Shift like the Internet and computers happens and there is MASSIVE growth in certain sectors of the economy. Consumers make the economy, without them spending there is no recovery.

Well yeah, they both happen at the same time really right, as more consumers spend money that will put more money into the businesses which means more money goes back to the employees, which means that they can all pay more debts off.

But how does this preclude the government being able to kick start the spending?

QE causes inflation, inflation causes people to spend because they want to get rid of their ever depreciating dollar, unfortunately once we get to that point there isn't anything we can really do to solve even greater inflation and devaluation. Its not 1981 anymore we can't increase the interest rates to stop the inflation. A high interest rate will cause the HUGE Public debt service payment to be many times more than tax income, the Fed will not be able to buy treasuries to stop it either becasue the inflation would have setup certain commodities to increase in value at a much higher rate than anything else and those banks which own the majority of US Bonds looking to make a quick buck will have already sold all of their treasuries to finance the commodity acquisition.

They would not be buying treasuries from the banks as that would put more currency out into the system, so instead what they would be doing is selling the bonds they have collected throughout the recession back to the banks to withdraw the excess currency. And this is not a problem because Treasuries are the most liquid item on the market.

And when you see rates increasing it is a sign that banks are wanting to earn more money in the future because they see inflation coming, this will be around the time you see the fed start their open market sales to slowly allow the inflation to steady around 3%.

They will print print print the dollar into oblivion. We come out the other side either with a new currency or a world/regional currency.

There is no proof this is happening or will happen. There is no incentive for American banks, or our government to screw up our currency to move to a different currency that would diminish the potency of our system. Nor is there much need for the world to want that to happen either, because they cannot keep pace with us and having to compete in the same playing field would crush almost all of them.

jeff f · Sep 5, 2010

hanimmal said:
But your wrong, man. Think about it, you keep saying orders right? What do you think happens when the government pays a company to build a new bridge, road, or say 300 wind turbines? That is money that goes directly to the company that takes the deal, that is direct spending and money directly into the economy. One to one, a dollar going into the economy, is one dollar.

The extra times that money circulates, has been tracked and shown how it moves around the economy from there, anything that happens after that government spending is extra GDP. So when someone uses their check to pay a bill, that means those dollars are now in the hands of that company that was owed the money, which means that they now have extra revenue, that they will either save in a bank (which can then be loaned out), spend it on new goods, which increases GDP and that money passes to someone else to start the next cycle, or taken home as income which means that they are increaseing the money in peoples hands right?

That money is spent, and it moves around the economy.

The direct spending is the orders you are talking about. And I don't know about you, but as a business I would feel much more secure when I have revenue and a job to do. Yeah if you feel it is only one job you may only hire short term if at all, but that money still will be used by the business, and as that money circulates and more people have money in their hands from it, ect just like above.

What?

Damn Obama's good!

How do you know there will not be a single buyer exactly? But it looks like we will know within the year as they started to get the dealers to pre-order it in july and are schedualed to build 10k of them next year.

I agree that politicians are idiots, always have always will until we get most of them to not be lawyers in office they will continue to not have a clue about the economy.

Yeah, it makes total sense for them to produce the product at the lowest possible price, and it is actually a good thing because we can buy the shit we want for far less saving us more money than we are losing with those jobs going over there. Sadly we are in this mess because we didn't do what we should have and spent the money saved on helping the people losing their jobs get into a better career that we have the competitive advantage in.

What hole did you pull this from? You just don't get that I continually say politicians are idiots, they don't have a clue, anyone looking to increase taxes and/or decrease spending during this economic downturn doesn't have a fucking clue about economics, and is just parroting the bullshit of the political party they are in.

Heres a bit from factcheck.org.

Im fine with a tax decrease, and that was what we got with the stimulus package that people never talked about, The largest portion of it was for tax breaks. Doesn't mean we don't still need government spending as well.

View attachment 1138113

The problem was as Krugman said (not that I am a Krugman groupie but you seem to have a particularly hatred for this guy even though I doubt you have heard anything he has done, aside from the point of view of him being bad) that they did this half assed. It was not enough, and we are puttering out as a result.

notice this chart, there are better ones. look at tax cutting years and look at revenue to the govt. cut taxes raise revenue. raise taxes decrease revenue. history on this is very clear.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1960_2011&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=s&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

hatred for krugman? you bettcha, he is a communist elitest.

NoDrama · Sep 6, 2010

Han, which would you buy? Something that yields 3% or something that yields 80%? The Banks won't buy treasuries, they will lose money if they do that,there won't be interest rate increases therefore all demand for treasuries will dry up the moment inflation heats up. The USA is broke, worse than broke, we are in the Hole and owe everyone.

If the government pays a contractor to build a home and there are already a few homes for sale in the area, what will that do to the prices of all homes? Supply and demand. By propping up the builders of homes the government will create less demand due to higher inventories. Less demand equals lower home prices which is what got us here in the first place. You think people are under water with their mortgages now? Wait til the price of their home declines by another 20% due to increased inventory due to government support of home builders. You will have millions more walk away leaving all the more problems. No, government spending is not the answer, government cuts are the answer. Why is it that economists never see consequences?

Consumers won't spend unless they have access to cheap credit. They don't have money saved up like the Japanese do. Banks will not lend to consumers because they have lent too much already and many are legitimately bankrupt but survive due to Enron style accounting. Besides, why not just take the guaranteed 2-3% carry trade, its easy and safe money.

hanimmal · Sep 6, 2010

notice this chart, there are better ones. look at tax cutting years and look at revenue to the govt. cut taxes raise revenue. raise taxes decrease revenue. history on this is very clear.

So the on that chart why didn't the nineties have a decrease in tax revenues? Bush one and Clinton both raised taxes and the revenues continued to rose. The economy was booming in the eighties the new major industry formed in computers and really knocked it out of the park for us.

But then if you want to know a problem with that chart more during the eighties there was huge inflation, so those increases under regain would look far different if you took that into account.

hatred for krugman? you bettcha, he is a communist elitest.

You really should not believe everything you read dogging people. He's an economist, most the things I'm betting you have read are at the least right leaning, so calling someone a commi or socialist is just part of their game. But krugman is very much in the favor of the free market, knows and have written about businesses doing better with less government intervention, ect. Basically normal economic principles. But what ever doesn't really matter, just thought you might like to know you are way off on him.

hanimmal · Sep 6, 2010

Han, which would you buy? Something that yields 3% or something that yields 80%? The Banks won't buy treasuries, they will lose money if they do that,there won't be interest rate increases therefore all demand for treasuries will dry up the moment inflation heats up. The USA is broke, worse than broke, we are in the Hole and owe everyone.

Not the case at all. And what you call owing everyone, is really like saying it's bad for businesses to sell stock. The treasuries are the largest traded items on the market, and are almost as liquid as cash. Banks will buy treasuries because if not all their long term debt will devalue, and they really do not want that to happen. And we are far from broke as a country, it's just people are not spending.

If the government pays a contractor to build a home and there are already a few homes for sale in the area, what will that do to the prices of all homes? Supply and demand. By propping up the builders of homes the government will create less demand due to higher inventories. Less demand equals lower home prices which is what got us here in the first place. You think people are under water with their mortgages now? Wait til the price of their home declines by another 20% due to increased inventory due to government support of home builders. You will have millions more walk away leaving all the more problems. No, government spending is not the answer, government cuts are the answer. Why is it that economists never see consequences?

Houses? Why do you pull out quite possibly the worst area spending can go into. Shit buying shitty houses and tearing them down would be far better than building new ones. And why is it economists what was it never see the consequences? Because we don't think you will pick the stupidest possible thing to do.

So instead how about you figure out the benefits or better Internet systems, building upgrades for efficiencies, new solar techs, new roads, you know things to help us I crease our competitive advantages.

Consumers won't spend unless they have access to cheap credit. They don't have money saved up like the Japanese do. Banks will not lend to consumers because they have lent too much already and many are legitimately bankrupt but survive due to Enron style accounting. Besides, why not just take the guaranteed 2-3% carry trade, its easy and safe money.

. Access to cheap credit defiantly helps but not the only thing consumers need to spend. Your saying that the loans that are assets to the bank that the customer took out somehow caused the banks to become bankrupt?

Anyway, you seem to have quit trying. And that's fine I need to get ready for classes on wed anyway. It bums me out though, you just say stuff and don't address my questions to you like what would you be saying if the government had three trillion dollars saved up, would you want them to use it to get us out of this recession or not? Do you not see that if the government bought some of our private companies services it would put money into consumers pockets?

Oh well I'll be stopping by less and less so have a good year man, and seriously you should get that macro book I linked, it's really pretty good.

jeff f · Sep 6, 2010

so, what you are saying han through all this is, the economy is great. things are looking up and we have nothing to worry about. your boys are gonna increase taxes, they spent a bunch of money just like they wanted to. now they want to spend a whole bunch more. we owe the world kazzillions, including our enemies.

there we have it fellas, han said everything is fine. i feel much better. thanks for taking the time to explain it to us pee-ons. here we thought shit really sucked.

seriously, you are off your rocker.

NoDrama · Sep 6, 2010

hanimmal said:
Your saying that the loans that are assets to the bank that the customer took out somehow caused the banks to become bankrupt?

Wow.

Were you not around in 2008? Were you off in outer space or something and just happened to miss the headlines? WTF do you think caused the crash? What bubble burst?

WTF dude, a loan isn't worth jack shit if it isn't being paid on. The banks can put mortgages as assets all they want, if no one pays for the mortgages the banks goes bankrupt, I suppose you never heard of this in your econ books eh?

You never answer my questions, even when I ask them 5 times, so don't expect me to answer yours.

If there isn't cheap credit what alternative do people have to spend? Savings? Lol don't make me laugh, people in the USA do not save. so you tell me where all this money is going to come from for the average Joe to go out and have a shopping spree every weekend.

You keep talking about treasuries like they are some kind of GodLike instrument of power. They are debt notes, that is all and if you think the USA can't default on them you have another thing coming. If faith is lost in the dollar, no treasury will be able to be sold. Would you pay good(Bad) money for something that is worth nothing? If the dollar is worth nothing, a treasury denominated in dollars is also worthless, liquidity makes no difference.

The government never will, never has saved money for a rainy day, so your 3 trillion dollar saving scenario is a moot point. While we are at impossibilities lets talk about IF the government was 1/10th the size it is now how would things be?

The other thing I would take issue with is how you place the USA on top of the world, how if other countries were to have to compete directly with us they would all lose to our mighty economic and manufacturing power. I hate to tell you this, but that was 50 years ago, the USA is no longer that powerhouse.

hanimmal · Sep 6, 2010

Were you not around in 2008? Were you off in outer space or something and just happened to miss the headlines? WTF do you think caused the crash? What bubble burst?

WTF dude, a loan isn't worth jack shit if it isn't being paid on. The banks can put mortgages as assets all they want, if no one pays for the mortgages the banks goes bankrupt, I suppose you never heard of this in your econ books eh?

Look into the shadow banking industry. The large deposits are not insured so the wealthy don't keep them in banks. When the loans were defaulting, it hurt the the banks, but not nearly as much as when the wealthy panicked from it because they had no clue who was carrying the loans and withdrew a ton of money from the shadow banking industry similar to a bank run because they were not insured. Then that froze the capital markets, banks were losing money from these financial companies and that is where all this started. There are some great papers on it.

You never answer my questions, even when I ask them 5 times, so don't expect me to answer yours.

I always try to answer your questions that's why I go line by line. Sorry if I miss some here or there, I'm more than happy to answer them if you want to point them out so I can see for myself that I didn't.

If there isn't cheap credit what alternative do people have to spend? Savings? Lol don't make me laugh, people in the USA do not save. so you tell me where all this money is going to come from for the average Joe to go out and have a shopping spree every weekend.

. How about paychecks! There is still 90% employment those people don't all spend all their money on bills and savings, that is were the spending comes from. You are the one deciding it is avg joe, not me. But even still, avg Joe still buys a shit load too. Groceries, cell phones, cars, repairs, clothes, people still buy this stuff even if it less than in some years.

You keep talking about treasuries like they are some kind of GodLike instrument of power. They are debt notes, that is all and if you think the USA can't default on them you have another thing coming. If faith is lost in the dollar, no treasury will be able to be sold. Would you pay good(Bad) money for something that is worth nothing? If the dollar is worth nothing, a treasury denominated in dollars is also worthless, liquidity makes no difference.

your ifs are so far fetched. You somehow think America is going to fall apart and become mad max. Even Germany got through some nasty hyperinflation pre ww2 to a decent economy before hitlers crazy ass took over.

Hell look at Greece right now, they had a decent bond auction and they were as bad as it gets.

The government never will, never has saved money for a rainy day, so your 3 trillion dollar saving scenario is a moot point. While we are at impossibilities lets talk about IF the government was 1/10th the size it is now how would things be?

The problem is when someone gets some svings rolling there's a change and the next guy usually kills it. The problem here is that I asked if they did have that what would you be saying about them using it to get us out of recession.

You're avoiding the question because you know the answer is bad for your viewpoint. Of course you know you would want them to use the money in the economy to get it restarted. It's the same principle, if the government spend that money now it is beneficial for getting us out of this recession, and yes when the economy turns around there would be money to pay back, but under obamas plan it would not hit the middle to low income people who did not gain as much from the boom as the upper tiers.

So if the government was one tenth the size, I take it you want me to assume we have all the same benefits we have today from them like the roads, safety regulations, electricity grid, Internet, cable networks, foreign trade ect right?

In that case right now the government just reduced down to a tenth of the size we would have all those government employees out of work, so a few hundred thousand at the least, less spending on military goods, so wipe out lockheed Martin and ll of those, increase in safety violations. Probably some decrease in elderly care programs and poor programs, food would still get to market i wouldn't worry about goods for a bit. Less taxes of course but deteriorating roads and infrastructure would start rotting, less education for future workforce so that would slow the economy in the future. More people booted off of insurance with less oversight on that.

Basically a complete shit in the nation top to bottom, most likely ending up with a economic meltdown similar to the great depression.

The other thing I would take issue with is how you place the USA on top of the world, how if other countries were to have to compete directly with us they would all lose to our mighty economic and manufacturing power. I hate to tell you this, but that was 50 years ago, the USA is no longer that powerhouse.

. Take issue all you want but I'm right, we have about four times the national yearly income as china and far more stored wealth. Other countries do compete with us, but what you don't get is where America is on all the lists.

Oil produceing, manufacturing, technology, financial, education, health care, bio research, innovations, entertainment, he'll furniture, food, minerals, coal, natural gas, on and on. What sets us apart is not that we are number one in every single category, but that we are almost always near the top if not number one in almost every catagory. Yeah we don't have competitive advantage in every single thing, but that doesn't mean shit.

How can you not get this? It's easy. Look at any economic list you want and see where America is, then look at who else is in the top, go to thenext list you will see us in the top, but the other countries have changed, as a whole we are far and away the number one economy.

Sports analogies work great here. You take a football team, if you go through the roster of them and every pertinate statistic they have a player near the top for the year, you have one of the most dominate teams in history. That is us at this point in time economically.

so, what you are saying han through all this is, the economy is great. things are looking up and we have nothing to worry about. your boys are gonna increase taxes, they spent a bunch of money just like they wanted to. now they want to spend a whole bunch more. we owe the world kazzillions, including our enemies.

there we have it fellas, han said everything is fine. i feel much better. thanks for taking the time to explain it to us pee-ons. here we thought shit really sucked.

seriously, you are off your rocker.

. I love when you just make up absurd shit and pretend like I said it Jeff. I am not saying we are not in a rough patch. We obviously are, I'm not saying the politicians are not going to screw it up and make it worse, I actually think that they ar going to make the same dumb shit mistakes they made back in the great depression, stopping spending because the deficit hawks and increasing taxes because the republicans don't want Obama to get his tax reform passed.

And I never called you pee ons, but you should wake up to the fact that maybe people can have some insight that you don't have as a owner of a construction company. That all the people throughout the centuries that have added to the economics studied today may have some pretty damn good information to share.

But instead if you want to stay in your little bubble and think you have all the answers and nobody else can know anything and are commis because they have seen economies demonstrate time and again that things like government spending does in fact work in times of economic recessions, so be it. But it's people that think the way you do that keep voting these dumb asses in power, because they dumb everything down to appease people that don't have a clue about how the entire economy works because they want to get voted back into office and are not willing to make the unpopular calls even if they are needed.

NoDrama · Sep 6, 2010

YEah, umm the hyperinflation in Weimar Germany is what made it possible for Hitler to gain power in the first place. You should read the history.

The rich would not have panicked if the 4 quadrillion Credit Derivative market made of mortgage backed loans hadn't blown up. The bursting of the home market is what precipitated all of it. Banks leveraged themselves with those market instruments at huge levels of up to 200 to 1. The resetting of ARM loans to higher values pushed it over the edge.

If the govt had 3 trillion I would hope they would try and use it to pay for its own bills instead of running a deficit that they then have to tax us for to pay the interest.

Employment is at 67.4%, well thats according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, can't really trust them its probably much lower in reality. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
What was that about 90% employment?

How could you remove bread from all the grocery stores literally overnight?

hanimmal · Sep 6, 2010

YEah, umm the hyperinflation in Weimar Germany is what made it possible for Hitler to gain power in the first place. You should read the history.

Does that somehow take away from the fact that their economy did rebound from it before ww2?

Employment is at 67.4%, well thats according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, can't really trust them its probably much lower in reality. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
What was that about 90% employment?

Are you going off of the entire population of the actual workforce? I didn't see your 67.4% on that link page, was it another link that your referring to? Because I meant the workforce when I said 90%. The us rate is just under ten percent now right. That's what I'm going from. And the only real issue with the stats you are talking about is that they only call a portion of the population, so it is inaccurate I agree.

The rich would not have panicked if the 4 quadrillion Credit Derivative market made of mortgage backed loans hadn't blown up. The bursting of the home market is what precipitated all of it. Banks leveraged themselves with those market instruments at huge levels of up to 200 to 1. The resetting of ARM loans to higher values pushed it over the edge.

I would like to hear more about your 200 to one.

If the govt had 3 trillion I would hope they would try and use it to pay for its own bills instead of running a deficit that they then have to tax us for to pay the interest.

wouldn't we all. Unfortunantly the politicians in charge don't have the foggiest idea of what they are doing.

How could you remove bread from all the grocery stores literally overnight?

Is this a trick question? Ask all grocery stores to put their bread outside? Recall? Fire sale of the bread? I'm trying to think of something funny but everything keeps coming out racist. So Feel free to school me on this one.

NoDrama · Sep 7, 2010

hanimmal said:
Does that somehow take away from the fact that their economy did rebound from it before ww2?

Are you going off of the entire population of the actual workforce? I didn't see your 67.4% on that link page, was it another link that your referring to? Because I meant the workforce when I said 90%. The us rate is just under ten percent now right. That's what I'm going from. And the only real issue with the stats you are talking about is that they only call a portion of the population, so it is inaccurate I agree.

Its in there, and for the total population its 58%, its about halfway down, hidden so that most people will just skim over it.

Unfortunantly the politicians in charge don't have the foggiest idea of what they are doing.

no disagreement there

Is this a trick question? Ask all grocery stores to put their bread outside? Recall? Fire sale of the bread? I'm trying to think of something funny but everything keeps coming out racist. So Feel free to school me on this one.

Just have Government put a price control on bread.

Do you know why they call Ben Bernanke "helicopter Ben"?

WhateverOne · Sep 7, 2010

hanimmal said:
Does that somehow take away from the fact that their economy did rebound from it before ww2?

Yes the economy did rebound prior to WWII and you should check history books on how they "solved" the issue.. And this was mainly how hitler gained his power, and also perverted the big german mass into the nazis..

however.. What you fail to realize here is that your country doesnt have a printing press of its own.. the printing of the money is in hands of the FED.. not a governmental institution.. Its a private cartel groups of banks..

What does this create?
Well the government has to "buy" its own money from the fed in exchange for the treasury bonds.. So every time they have to increase the money supply (to bail out the inflation the fiat money system creates) they have to exchange bonds (promises to pay back this loan + interest..) This increases public debt constant..
And guess what is paying of public debt..? Income tax.. That is illegal to exist in the first place.. (proven) And if you realize that in a FIAT monetairy system you need constant increase in money supply the government hasnt got a choice but to take on more loan money from the fed.. thus increasing the public debt..
And do not forget how politicians are.. Would they increase taxation in order to decrease the national debt (increase in tax = not very popular = not many votes next election) or rather bail their own out by simply loaning more money from the feds that actually has to be paid back eventually.. thus gaining the money to support the promises they made during election without bigger taxation, more ensuring them a spot in office next run??
dont be naive...

Second biggest issue that this system of "money control" creates, is that when you are in control of the money supply of a nation, you can decide for yourself if you want to keep "the press" rolling.. the moment you say "no more money" the system depending on this increase also reacts.. the opposite works as well.. you say ok well create triple the amount of money for this period.. well that means (due to supply and demand) that money will devalue according to increase of supply..
And knowing that the maximum amount of money creation is regulated by outstanding loans (every outstanding loan can be used as 8/9 reserve if not mistaken to create money for new loans.. check document modern money mechanics for actual data.. i knw im close) well technicaly they can increase the supply almost infinite.. What this means in turn is that depressions in economic can be created for the likes of these people who are in control of the supply..

really think about it and prove me wrong if you think you can..

American Banks Dumping Dollars for the Yen

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member