Why Gold?

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 22, 2009

I didn't read every post here so I can only assume no one has corrected a couple of minor facts in the original post by TBT. Im not trying to be critical here, just want to make some minor corrections. First off the dollar was not originally based on 1/20 an ounce of gold, it was actually based on the spanish silver dollar or reals ( Pieces of 8 coin). The silver dollar was authorized by Congress on April 2, 1792. Weight and fineness were specified at 416 grains and .8924 fine. The weight was changed by the law of January 18, 1837, to 412 grains and .900 fineness.Until 1804, all silver dollars had the value stamped on the edge. HUNDRED CENTS ONE DOLLAR OR UNIT. Interestingly enough 1837 was also the year they changed the dollar to the gold dollar you mention.

There was no such thing as a silver eagle, only the gold coins were called eagles, the silver coin was just called the "Dollar". Today the US Mint produces investable quality 1 troy ounce .999 fine silver coins called Silver Eagles now, but they have only been producing them since 1986. They weigh 2 grams more and are 100% silver as opposed to the 90% of the circulating coins of yesteryear.

The US phased out the use of Silver in almost all coins ( Except for 40% silver kennedy half dollar ones)after 1964. All coins since then have been a nickle clad copper slug. Since 1981 the US no longer makes pennies out of copper (Zinc now), a penny pre 1982 is worth almost 3 times its face value in metal value. Pre 1964 silver coins are worth 12 times face value in metal value as of this date. Forget about gold coins, they don't circulate since they were made illegal to own in 1933 by FDR who confiscated all citizens gold to pay for all the social programs he came up with. It was made legal to own again in 1973, but by then we were deeply entrenched in worthless "Paper" money and printing it as fast as we could spend it.

Anyway just wanted to clear that up, fascinating reading.

Thank you for correcting those errors, though to be specific the exact ratio is 1/20.67 dollars to Oz of Gold. I ditched the decimal to make the math easier (laziness.)

And yes, I have to admit you are correct about the Silve Dollar vs Silver Eagle argument. Clearly as the Eagle was $10 and the Double Eagle was $10, it would be irrational to call the Silver Dollar a Silver Eagle as a Silver Eagle would have had to have been 10 oz of Silver instead of 1 oz.

Interesting stuff about the content to value ratios

3:1 on copper
12:1 on silver

300% inflation and 1200% inflation against those respective commodities. since just prior to the abandonment of the use of those metals in coins for each respectively.

Though I wonder about the 3:1, at what price point is that? That is how much copper actually went into a copper cent?

http://www.coinfacts.com/historical_notes/history_of_the_silver_dollar.htm

NoDrama · Jul 22, 2009

TheBrutalTruth said:
Though I wonder about the 3:1, at what price point is that? That is how much copper actually went into a copper cent?

http://www.coinfacts.com/historical_notes/history_of_the_silver_dollar.htm

2.53 is what it actually was the last time I checked, but I rounded up. Laziness you know?

in 1981 it cost the government something like .9999 cent to make 1 penny out of copper, in 1982 it would have cost more than 1 cent to make a 1 penny coin, but zinc is much cheaper. Can you imagine if we still had the gold standard around? We would be half as taxed, enjoy overall greater freedoms and liberties and actually own real wealth. My grandpa was a big gold and silver bug he was also a numismatist ( Coin Collector) and gave me some of his collection when he passed. I have been buying bullion since I was 12 years old little by little when ever I could, I still have a small cache buried in my parents yard in another state that I put there in 1984. At least I still think its there..... might need to borrow a metal detector next visit up. And if I dig it up now, i will enjoy a nice 1000% profit compared to the dollar bill. Find me a paper currency that you can bury for 25 years, dig it up and have it be worth more and I will show you real wealth. Paper rots just like the promise to pay behind it eventually rots until it too no longer exists.

hanimmal · Jul 23, 2009

Which is what is not supposed to be. Money is supposed to be a convenient commodity that sets a benchmark for the trading of all other commodities. Nation's can not just print themselves into prosperity. I do believe that the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe illustrate this point quite effectively.

Hyperinflation is a totally different thing that inflation/deflation. You can also point to post WWI Germany for that.

Actually, the problem is that inflation punishes past investment, and it does little to discourage current investment.

Real returns from the stock market have crashed since the crash began, with a multitude of corporations cutting dividend payments, and thus serving to discourage investment.

T-Bonds are yielding negative after inflation.

Doesn't really sound like a conducive environment to investing, considering that the majority of long term financial gains are the result of dividends being reinvested to create a cumulative effect.

Click to expand...

Long term bonds don't like inflation since they basically just keep up with it, so it is more like a piggy bank that the VALUE of the money stays the same.

But it does not hurt past investment. Money is not a fixed number, that money that was made in the past even with inflation when reinvested will grow as inflation grows. Think about it the money invested will grow, and at faster rates with inflation, and slower to negative with deflation. This keeps the investment REAL VALUE the same, or growing. Just because a newspaper is $1 today it doesn't cost more in real value terms than the .25 cents it cost back then.

Yes, it helps people get something for nothing, which means it is screwing over the people that made the loans to begin with. No such thing as a free lunch.

And inflation helps loans (your education example) be lower since a dollar today is not as much as a dollar tomorrow so paying back loans is cheaper.

Click to expand...

Where is the free lunch? Your still paying your loans they are not free.... And you call me stupid!

I do believe the above is sufficient to demonstrate that I'm at least partially correct.

If people would be able to not pay back student loans and get a "Free lunch" you would be partially correct.

Inflation doesn't encourage savings, and it doesn't encourage thrift. If prices are rising faster than real incomes then it makes since to purchase now, instead of later. It makes more sense to purchase on credit, than to save to purchase, because in the future the prices will be higher, thus depriving you of the benefit of your savings.

As far as investment, if real returns are negative then it makes more sense to spend the money rather than hold onto it.

As inflation is cumulative, and quantity of inflation will ultimately punish savings and investment by depriving the money invested of its value, unless real returns (after inflation returns) are actually positive.

Inflation is a hidden tax that encourages people to be unduly greedy, because they have to ensure that their earnings are sufficient to compensate for the negative effects of inflation.

A business that is not making enough profits to continue to match increasing expenses due to inflation will end up bankrupt.

Any business that thinks this way will go out of business for not understanding economics. You are thinking hyperinflation, which we do not and will not have here in the US. That is a right wing scare tactic to enrage the people.

If your buying on credit around 4-10% as a business and inflation is around 2% (It was actually less than 1% last quarter), you would be better off saving in a decent investment getting about 3-8% return. But that being said if you can turn that new investment into 15-20% extra return through your business the loan makes sense.

Actually the Great Depression was more devastating than any other bust. By comparison the prior busts through out the 19th century were short term affairs that resolved themselves quickly.

Yeah that is why they popped the great in front of it. America was much higher than it was ever before so the fall was a lot further. For the actual people affected though it was just as devistating. And it was because noone cared to help those people back up on their feet.

Stolen money, taxes are collected by force and coercion. If taxes were voluntary who would pay them?

Again a little out there, because this is not an real option. Do taxes that goes to things like Firedepartments, schools, roads, water works help or hurt the country? And last I knew I have never had a government official put a gun to my head and tell me to give them 36% of my paycheck. And I think most white collar criminals can agree as much as it sucks for them, at least they didn't get chased down the street and hve their head pushed in the ground and beaten by 15 cops. It usually is quite civilized.

Not necessarily. A bank that has sufficient reserves to withstand the demands of its depositors will survive, thus while mismanaged banks that underestimate maximum reserve requirements to survive a run fail, those that correctly estimate the response to the demands of depositors will remain solvent.

A good example of this would be the response of National City, which was mismanaged. When the news became public the CEO disclosed what had happened, and then provided the bank with sufficient capital to cover the theft of customer funds by the employees. (They were actually speculating on the stock market.)

Your absolutley right, that is a great example. But before the FED we didn't have the FDIC, and bank runs were like waves since people would lose everything. Now our deposits aer insured for the populous that don't understand why pulling all your money out of banks in a panic is counterproductive.

If the stupid banks (All the big banks period) would have been allowed to collapse last year, it would have tanked a lot of the good banks too. Then how would we rebuild without a working financial system? It would have been devistating for the average person. The rich would have been fine.

That's common sense...

Which is what Keynesian economics is at its root. Common sence.

And if I can borrow $1000 for a car that allows me to get to a job that I can make $2000 it is worth it if the alternative is to make $500. The principles are very simple, and usually correct.

Click to expand...

And if the interest on the loan makes the real cost $2,500, and deprives you of the ability to eat, despite having that job?

If I am borrowing $1000, and paying back $2500 in a year that would be the case and a extremely stupid decision. But if your talking a 5 year loan I would have made $10,000 vs $5000 without the car, meaning that I am still ahead $2,500 from not investing in the car.

Even if I did take out a really stupid loan instead of a 8% one.

Prior to 1913, the economy averaged much higher growth on a much more consistent basis.

I looked up your numbers for this in before and disagree with this. There were far greater advancements (agriculture, electricity, railroads, dams, assembly plants, plumbing, ect) because they had so far to go from hut style living. But the booms and busts were far more frequent and severe. The 45-70's if you look at the economic indicators it is almost a stait line on a small incline. Before then it read like a cardio gram. Which is what it has looked like since the mid 70's.

I'd urge you to go read up more on ACORN, their tactics in encouraging those banks to make those bad loans weren't exactly savory.

And I urge you to read some stuff that is not on a right wing blog or corrupt 'news' site. Your talking about a group of people that have fought hard for everything that they have. And no I am not saying they are perfect, but to think they had anything to do with how the banks did/do business is assanine (sp?).

The only ones that make the banks do anything is themselves, if they didn't want to they would lobby the government and buy them off like they always do. Isn't it more likely that the banks saw loopholes to make a killing off of the deregulation and getting entire groups of new people to make loans to and jumped on it?

It does however interfere in the natural flow of money, which I believe is what I said.

And government injections do not benefit the economy, because the money would have remained in the economy to begin with. It's like taking a bucket of water out of one side of the lake and then pooring it into the other. There really is no change, except wastage due to the person drinking water while walking, and any spillage.

Only if you don't see the benefit of government programs. Again it is not 100% bad or 100% good, but things like roads, schools, police, fire, science, utilities all make our economy better.

I would more say it is like taking a bucket of water from one lake that is polluted celaning it a little and putting it into another that we can drink from... Wow that last part is just bs, I have no clue what I am saying there.

Volunteer Fire Departments.

Driving pickup trucks carrying buckets of water? And they still get paid by the government, insurances, building, utilities.

Actually, I believe it is not the correct name. Or at least not the best name. Industriousness or Initiative are two better terms to describe a rational person's motivation to better themselves.

Maybe, but it is just a word to best encompass all aspects of it. Would you call enron industrious?

Freedom to fail, if people are going to be stupid then the best thing to do is to let them, so that people have an example of why it following the same course of action is stupid. Allowing people to learn from other people's mistakes, and their own is better than obligating other people to suffer for them.

But it doesn't work that way, peoples stupidity costs everyone else much more money than just paying for the idiot in the first place.

Yes, but that just leads to abuse by people that would take loans with no intention of paying it back, leading to interest rates and collateral requirements rising because the bank would need to require more protection from default.

Exactly why we pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes we all pay more in the end. Even if people don't understand or want to understand they still benefit.

Do any of them purport to be attempting to replace the Dollar?

They use them instead of the dollar. Maybe if they try to become martyr and prove a political point they may get in trouble, but whats the point of that? Silent protest are very effective. Show things can work better and eventually things will try to copy that.

Neither do I, but I don't think they were doing anything illegal, aside from calling their coins currency.

They were busted for laundering money. It may not be true, but if someone wanted to launder fake money inventing a fake currency would be a great way to do it.

I am not opposed to going to a different monetary standard be it gold or w/e. I just really thing that the banking situation needs to be better understood since it seems so evil until you really figure it out and see that it is a very important tool to our economy. I used to think the same way, but once I had to actually get educated in the numbers of how the economy expands and shrinks and the importance of allowing the markets to operate (with guidelines), I changed my views.

And then further how the FED sets those regulations with things like required reserves that stop money from just expanding forever, while allowing it to not be choked out before it really gets a chance to grow. It is facinating when you see the nuts and bolts of it.

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 23, 2009

Hyperinflation is a totally different thing that inflation/deflation. You can also point to post WWI Germany for that.

Hyperinflation is a type of inflation, it is not totally different, just of a different magnitude.

Long term bonds don't like inflation since they basically just keep up with it, so it is more like a piggy bank that the VALUE of the money stays the same.

If the yields are equal to the inflation rate they do. If the yields are below the inflation rate (real negative yields) then they are losing value.

But it does not hurt past investment.

If the real yields are negative against inflation then the investment is being hurt. If the money is buried in a yard some where, inflation destroys its values. If it is stored in a checking account or savings account then the value is destroyed.

Money is not a fixed number, that money that was made in the past even with inflation when reinvested will grow as inflation grows.

Yes, but it will not buy more goods, because prices will rise, if prices rise faster than the returns, then the money is worth less (not more.)

A nation can not print itself to prosperity.

Think about it the money invested will grow, and at faster rates with inflation, and slower to negative with deflation.

Let's think about this.

Inflation - Prices Go up, each dollar is WORTH LESS
Deflation - Prices Go Down, each dollar is WORTH MORE

and any positive return during periods of deflation are increased by deflation. If money gains 6%, and investments return 1%, then real returns are 7%. If money loses 6%, and investments return 3%, then real returns are -3%. That is the money has lost its value.

That, and the CPI, and other Inflation Benchmarks used by the government have been fiddled with so that using CPI as the sole basis of inflation/deflation is not accurate in the long term.

This keeps the investment REAL VALUE the same, or growing.

Just because a newspaper is $1 today it doesn't cost more in real value terms than the .25 cents it cost back then.

Actually, compared to real inflation it costs considerably less, because deflation is the natural state of a vibrant economy, due to advances in labor available, and productivity.

But the price of a newspaper is irrelevant, because it is just a single consumer item.

Where is the free lunch? Your still paying your loans they are not free.... And you call me stupid!

If the money that the loans are paid off with is not worth the same amount of the money that was issued in the loan then the amount being paid is less than the actual value of the loan.

If people would be able to not pay back student loans and get a "Free lunch" you would be partially correct.

^^^ See above

Any business that thinks this way will go out of business for not understanding economics. You are thinking hyperinflation, which we do not and will not have here in the US. That is a right wing scare tactic to enrage the people.

Any inflation results in cost increases, because any inflation results in prices going up, because the money is WORTH LESS

If your buying on credit around 4-10% as a business and inflation is around 2% (It was actually less than 1% last quarter), you would be better off saving in a decent investment getting about 3-8% return. But that being said if you can turn that new investment into 15-20% extra return through your business the loan makes sense.

Yeah that is why they popped the great in front of it. America was much higher than it was ever before so the fall was a lot further. For the actual people affected though it was just as devistating. And it was because noone cared to help those people back up on their feet.

Oh my god, no one cared, the cry of the idiots on the left.
No one cares, waah, waah, waah, you sound like a whiny neotenous swine, or a brain dead mymidon that believes the rhetoric of idiots like Krugman.

Again a little out there, because this is not an real option. Do taxes that goes to things like Firedepartments, schools, roads, water works help or hurt the country?

Hurt,

Public Education is inefficient and wasteful and costs 200% - 500% more than private institutions that provide marginally better education.

And last I knew I have never had a government official put a gun to my head and tell me to give them 36% of my paycheck.

AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO YOU IF YOU STOPPED PAYING TAXES?

And I think most white collar criminals can agree as much as it sucks for them, at least they didn't get chased down the street and hve their head pushed in the ground and beaten by 15 cops. It usually is quite civilized.

Irrelevant point

Your absolutley right, that is a great example. But before the FED we didn't have the FDIC, and bank runs were like waves since people would lose everything. Now our deposits aer insured for the populous that don't understand why pulling all your money out of banks in a panic is counterproductive.

If the bank is mismanaged the mistake was to put the money in the bank in the first place, and if the money is not available for the bank to return to its depositors, then everyone is screwed.

Besides, bank runs were a natural result of people not having faith in the banks. Propping up banks that would otherwise have failed due to mismanagment is a giant case of malinvestment, better to invest in the banks that would not have failed, and thus were well managed, and protect them from the effects of the banks that were mismanaged collapsing.

The FDIC doesn't actually solve anything, because it, as a branch of the federal corporation, doesn't keep sufficient reserves on hand, nor gain sufficient returns on investments to cover the investments on hand.

Your belief in the FDIC rivals that of a small child in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Real information available about the FDIC, indicated that it did not have sufficient reserves to cover the deposits it was insuring.

If the stupid banks (All the big banks period) would have been allowed to collapse last year, it would have tanked a lot of the good banks too. Then how would we rebuild without a working financial system? It would have been devistating for the average person. The rich would have been fine.

The solution would have been to protect the well-managed small banks, and let the large banks collapse, because the small banks would have still been conducting business, extending loans and thus served as a focal point for economic revival.

Making good the losses of the bad banks is nothing more than throwing good money after the bad. No one benefitted from saving them, except for those banks themselves.

The TARP money was then promptly misused to allow those institutions to by other banks, and to make bad investments.

Too big too fail sounds like an argument for the break up of the big banks into smaller institutions that could be allowed to fail. It sounds like an argument for reducing the percent of the market that they have to ensure that they can not threaten the entire system, and thus can be allowed to fail.

Actually, I really doubt that the result would have been as catastrophic as all that. Clearly as the banks are not making loans (especially the big banks) then the effects on industry was inefficient. Saving insolvent mismanaged firms was idiotic, a better use of that money would have been to buffer well-managed firms against the shocks of the failure of the mismanaged banks.

Which is what Keynesian economics is at its root. Common sence.

Common seance, yes, most assuredly, it is nothing more than puffery and skullduggery that does not have common sense at its root, but a neotenous belief in government.

If I am borrowing $1000, and paying back $2500 in a year that would be the case and a extremely stupid decision. But if your talking a 5 year loan I would have made $10,000 vs $5000 without the car, meaning that I am still ahead $2,500 from not investing in the car.

Even if I did take out a really stupid loan instead of a 8% one.

If you're paying 800 points on a loan you're getting shafted.

I looked up your numbers for this in before and disagree with this. There were far greater advancements (agriculture, electricity, railroads, dams, assembly plants, plumbing, ect) because they had so far to go from hut style living. But the booms and busts were far more frequent and severe. The 45-70's if you look at the economic indicators it is almost a stait line on a small incline. Before then it read like a cardio gram. Which is what it has looked like since the mid 70's.

Inaccurate portrayal of the economy

Like I said, 9600% real growth from 1800 - 1912
Only 1600% from 1913 - 2007

And as the economy is a living entity (as opposed to the walking dead entity that it has become) one would expect for it to show all the vibrancies of living things. Your common sense reeks of dogma that goes directly against common sense.

And I urge you to read some stuff that is not on a right wing blog or corrupt 'news' site. Your talking about a group of people that have fought hard for everything that they have. And no I am not saying they are perfect, but to think they had anything to do with how the banks did/do business is assanine (sp?).

Get off my thread, if you are going to turn this discussion into a left-right debate then it is clear that your supposed understanding of economics revolves around the idiotic belief in your own superiority, despite the fact that you consistently demonstrate that you are a neotenous myrmidon incapable of looking at real world data, and understanding real world concepts.

As far as your infantile attempts and asinine beliefs that I need to read more, all I can respond with is, Yob Tvoyu Maht, Inu.

Perhaps you should stop reading the idiotic views of neotenous swine such as yourself and read something more in line with Austrian Economics, which is an infinitely older school than your failed school of Keynesian Economics, and actually does a much better job of explaining the reason why booms and busts occur.

The only ones that make the banks do anything is themselves, if they didn't want to they would lobby the government and buy them off like they always do. Isn't it more likely that the banks saw loopholes to make a killing off of the deregulation and getting entire groups of new people to make loans to and jumped on it?

No, because those loans that they made have since defaulted, meaning that the people that got the loans have since lost the collateral and the money they paid on those loans.

Instead of being better off those people are NOW WORSE OFF.

COMMON FUCKING SENSE, myrmidon.

Only if you don't see the benefit of government programs. Again it is not 100% bad or 100% good, but things like roads, schools, police, fire, science, utilities all make our economy better.

60% of research funded by private enterprise

And the issue is FEDERAL TAXATION not local taxation. Your arguments reek of self-serving rhetoric that attempts to confuse the issue, and thus dodge the accusations.

I would more say it is like taking a bucket of water from one lake that is polluted celaning it a little and putting it into another that we can drink from... Wow that last part is just bs, I have no clue what I am saying there.

You missed the analogy completely, myrmidon.

Driving pickup trucks carrying buckets of water? And they still get paid by the government, insurances, building, utilities.

Maybe, but it is just a word to best encompass all aspects of it. Would you call enron industrious?

Yes, the problem was not their industriousness, the problem was the fact that their CEO and CFO attempted to mislead the public into believing that their real revenues were greater than they were. The problem wasn't that Enron was doing stuff, the problem was that Enron was

1. Manipulating the Markets (electricity)
2. Blatantly misleading investors on its 10-Ks and 10-Qs by using SPEs to hide losses

But it doesn't work that way, peoples stupidity costs everyone else much more money than just paying for the idiot in the first place.

No, it would cost me considerably less if the government would let the idiots die.

$16,000/year in taxes, and you have the audacity to dictate to me, how my money should be spent. Fuck that, and fuck you, it's my money, and I'm the only one that should be able to determine where it goes, and I'm saying that it should not have gone to CitiGroup, Oldman (sucking) Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and the whole list of mismanaged firms.

Though speaking of too big to fail, if that was true, then why didn't the government save Washington Mutual and Lehman Brothers?

Perhaps the real truth is TOO POLITICALLY CONNECTED TO FAIL.

Exactly why we pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes we all pay more in the end. Even if people don't understand or want to understand they still benefit.

Taxes contribute nothing to society. If I want fire protection I will pay for it, I don't need middlemen in government to take my money and then pay for it. I could easily organize my neighborhood to pay for fire protection.

Besides, this is all at a local community level, not at a national level.

I expected a more mature intelligent debate from you, but it would appear that I was wrong.

They use them instead of the dollar. Maybe if they try to become martyr and prove a political point they may get in trouble, but whats the point of that? Silent protest are very effective. Show things can work better and eventually things will try to copy that.

They were busted for laundering money. It may not be true, but if someone wanted to launder fake money inventing a fake currency would be a great way to do it.

I believe you are referring to eGold.

Laundering Money, how horrible of them...

Considering the fact that I don't believe in restrictions on drugs, then it should be sufficiently clear that I also don't believe that it is actually possible for a bank, or other financial entity, to be held guilty of "laundering" money when it accepts deposits from drug dealers.

Now, if it was a matter of them laundering money that was gained from extortion, blackmail, and embezzlement, that's different.

I am not opposed to going to a different monetary standard be it gold or w/e. I just really thing that the banking situation needs to be better understood since it seems so evil until you really figure it out and see that it is a very important tool to our economy. I used to think the same way, but once I had to actually get educated in the numbers of how the economy expands and shrinks and the importance of allowing the markets to operate (with guidelines), I changed my views.

You still have a lot to learn, and I'm not saying that banking in general is evil, I'm saying that under the Fractional Reserve System it operates on an immoral and dishonest basis.

And then further how the FED sets those regulations with things like required reserves that stop money from just expanding forever, while allowing it to not be choked out before it really gets a chance to grow. It is facinating when you see the nuts and bolts of it.

Yes, yes, and I suppose you also believe in the tooth fairy, santa clause and the easter bunny.

The creation of non-existent money is immoral and dishonest. The fractional reserve system which relies upon the creation of non-existent money is immoral and dishonest. Thus any banks that rely upon the fractional reserve system are immoral and dishonest.

You probably don't even know what has held inflation down, despite the insane amount of money that has been printed, and the irrational expansion of the money supply by the Federal Reserve.

hanimmal · Jul 23, 2009

Hyperinflation is a type of inflation, it is not totally different, just of a different magnitude.

That is like saying a sunburn is the same as forth degree burn just different magnitudes. But I will concede the point, since you dislike my correct use of greed.

If the real yields are negative against inflation then the investment is being hurt. If the money is buried in a yard some where, inflation destroys its values. If it is stored in a checking account or savings account then the value is destroyed.

Accounts at banks give back interest that usually is around the natural inflation rate (with in a percent) If you have enough money to grow and keep it in a can your hurting yourself regardless of inflation or not.

I saw the number before, but as I can just remember the moral I wont use stats, there has not been a period of 2 years since the great depression that the stock market has not outpaced inflation for returns.

Yes, but it will not buy more goods, because prices will rise, if prices rise faster than the returns, then the money is worth less (not more.)

A nation can not print itself to prosperity.

Not at all, the money they print is worthless. not even sure why that is there.

But investments outpace inflation as a rule (except for a couple years in the 70's when they experimented with super low unemployment rate jacking it up) And even in the 70's the people that stuck with it made out.

Here check this out it talks about deflation better than I can: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610845

Since this is the first year since the 50's to get have (Unnaturally High unemployment causes deflation)

Actually, compared to real inflation it costs considerably less, because deflation is the natural state of a vibrant economy, due to advances in labor available, and productivity.

But the price of a newspaper is irrelevant, because it is just a single consumer item.

Again good article linked above.

If the money that the loans are paid off with is not worth the same amount of the money that was issued in the loan then the amount being paid is less than the actual value of the loan.

Free is free not slightly less expensive with interest keeping it above profit levels in regards to inflation. If you really wanted to get me on that point, you could have pointed to my saying a dollar tomorrow is more than one today, I meant less.

Any inflation results in cost increases, because any inflation results in prices going up, because the money is WORTH LESS

I gave you a way out, inflation does not mean that real costs increase. The money is worth less but the actual cost of buying the same thing that has a inflated tag is the same (keeping inflation the same on both). Because the price of one thing increases and money increases at the same time/rate they still equate.

Oh my god, no one cared, the cry of the idiots on the left.
No one cares, waah, waah, waah, you sound like a whiny neotenous swine, or a brain dead mymidon that believes the rhetoric of idiots like Krugman.

First off are you serious? I was pointing out that your childish image of how great the good ole' days where is wrong. It was rough back then, and although that quote had nothing to do with anything by Krugman.

I love that you call someone with a nobel prize in economics an idiot. I am sure that you and your bloggers have so much to teach him right? I mean why talk shit about someone like that?

Nevermind it is because you want to not agree with him so your acting out.

Hurt,

Public Education is inefficient and wasteful and costs 200% - 500% more than private institutions that provide marginally better education.

Lets break out those books. I want to see actual numbers from that. I love private schools, but that is just rediculous.

There are schools that are way inefficient and horrid in the public system, but to toss out a blanket statement like that is junk.

AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO YOU IF YOU STOPPED PAYING TAXES?

I am guessing that I would file for unemployment.

If the bank is mismanaged the mistake was to put the money in the bank in the first place, and if the money is not available for the bank to return to its depositors, then everyone is screwed.

Besides, bank runs were a natural result of people not having faith in the banks. Propping up banks that would otherwise have failed due to mismanagment is a giant case of malinvestment, better to invest in the banks that would not have failed, and thus were well managed, and protect them from the effects of the banks that were mismanaged collapsing.

And bank robberies when they were stuffed with gold. But they did fail before the FDIC.

The FDIC doesn't actually solve anything, because it, as a branch of the federal corporation, doesn't keep sufficient reserves on hand, nor gain sufficient returns on investments to cover the investments on hand.

Your belief in the FDIC rivals that of a small child in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Real information available about the FDIC, indicated that it did not have sufficient reserves to cover the deposits it was insuring.

And your belief that it is the monster under your bed is just as stupid. At least as a child you get presents, or egg, or quarter under the pillow.

Since the FDIC there has not been a single person that has not gotten the insured amount if their bank failed. For the last 70 years and around a thousand bank failings that is pretty damn good. I would put more faith in something with a 100% success rate than the people that spouted that bullshit.

The solution would have been to protect the well-managed small banks, and let the large banks collapse, because the small banks would have still been conducting business, extending loans and thus served as a focal point for economic revival.

Making good the losses of the bad banks is nothing more than throwing good money after the bad. No one benefitted from saving them, except for those banks themselves.

The TARP money was then promptly misused to allow those institutions to by other banks, and to make bad investments.

Too big too fail sounds like an argument for the break up of the big banks into smaller institutions that could be allowed to fail. It sounds like an argument for reducing the percent of the market that they have to ensure that they can not threaten the entire system, and thus can be allowed to fail.

Actually, I really doubt that the result would have been as catastrophic as all that. Clearly as the banks are not making loans (especially the big banks) then the effects on industry was inefficient. Saving insolvent mismanaged firms was idiotic, a better use of that money would have been to buffer well-managed firms against the shocks of the failure of the mismanaged banks.

Bank of America: A $45 billion loan to save over 2 trillion dollars of investors money. And that money will get paid back with a small pinch of interest.

I am all for more smaller banks taking some of the size away.

They are now making loans and if you watch the quarterly reports you will see the tide has really started to turn with the economy. It was funny today one guy who douches on Obama non stop wa saying how great the economy has turned and he was absolutely shocked about it. But then said he hopes Obama will stop since he is destroying it. The dude just can't get a break.

If the banks would have failed it would have been horrific.

Common seance, yes, most assuredly, it is nothing more than puffery and skullduggery that does not have common sense at its root, but a neotenous belief in government.

Ok I am curious what do you base that on? I really don't think you have studied it, not trying to be snobbish about it, but people get these thoughts in their mind and just don't know really where that came from.

Keynesian economics has nothing to do with the government, other than if the society is not spending money, in order to get it moving again the government needs to buy the good the people have produced to reduce the inventory and allow it to be restarted. And once it is back moviing the government gets the hell out of the economy and lets it work.

After that it is just charts and graphs showing how a change in this affects that. And gives the reason and common sence for it. Nothing more.

If you're paying 800 points on a loan you're getting shafted.

God yeah, I would hate to see what the $1000 loan points are to have to pay $2500!

Inaccurate portrayal of the economy

Like I said, 9600% real growth from 1800 - 1912
Only 1600% from 1913 - 2007

And as the economy is a living entity (as opposed to the walking dead entity that it has become) one would expect for it to show all the vibrancies of living things. Your common sense reeks of dogma that goes directly against common sense.

We will have to disagree with those numbers, I know this is a gold thread, but I as I have not had a chance to ask a economics professor about how to figure inflation year over year, I will say not enough information on my part.

But all you need to do is look at the GDP charts and see the lines. That 'dogma' is nothing but numbers.

Quote:
And I urge you to read some stuff that is not on a right wing blog or corrupt 'news' site. Your talking about a group of people that have fought hard for everything that they have. And no I am not saying they are perfect, but to think they had anything to do with how the banks did/do business is assanine (sp?).
Get off my thread, if you are going to turn this discussion into a left-right debate then it is clear that your supposed understanding of economics revolves around the idiotic belief in your own superiority, despite the fact that you consistently demonstrate that you are a neotenous myrmidon incapable of looking at real world data, and understanding real world concepts.

As far as your infantile attempts and asinine beliefs that I need to read more, all I can respond with is, Yob Tvoyu Maht, Inu.

Perhaps you should stop reading the idiotic views of neotenous swine such as yourself and read something more in line with Austrian Economics, which is an infinitely older school than your failed school of Keynesian Economics, and actually does a much better job of explaining the reason why booms and busts occur.

Please. You said Acorn was making the banks give out those loans. I really don't think that you diserned that from actual information about acorn and what they have done.

Pop out more big words and ditch on a practiced study. In fact why do economists get jobs every industry if it is a failed school (you really come off a ignorant tool of propaganda by keep saying "Keynesian economics" since that is not the name of any program, it is just a type of study, similar to saying Trig is so stupid and failed since it is just Calculus that matters). In economics there are several charts, graphs, ect, but to say you cannot use anything other than a keynesian cross to track something is not the case.

No, because those loans that they made have since defaulted, meaning that the people that got the loans have since lost the collateral and the money they paid on those loans.

Instead of being better off those people are NOW WORSE OFF.

COMMON FUCKING SENSE, myrmidon.

You can be a dumbass at times. Our economy had almost melted down, we had about 10% unemployment rate, and it is disporportiontly affected the people with less education, who make less money. And who did Fannie Mae make loans to? Oh yeah the people that were poor, so when the layoffs hit, whose customers would have been most affected? Oh yeah!

But why did it happen? Because the "banks" like quikloans, quickenloans, then Bank of America, Citibank, JP, ect all jumped in on the lessened regulations and kept selling crappy loans to wallstreet. Then they traded the 'toxic mortgages' and insured them, and when the 5% turned into 15% loans and people defaulted they put it on Fannie and Freddie.

There was corruption with the mac's, but the meltdown was not even close to their fault.

60% of research funded by private enterprise

And the issue is FEDERAL TAXATION not local taxation. Your arguments reek of self-serving rhetoric that attempts to confuse the issue, and thus dodge the accusations.

Do you wear tin foil on your head? I swear you are very quick to jump onto conspiracies out to get you. I am not attempting anything. Did you say Federal Taxation? In fact do we both not often mention things on all levels of taxation?

40% left over for reaserch is damn good for the Federal government to invest in, since they only take in at most 39% for the top teir. And the public has everything to gain from it.

You missed the analogy completely, myrmidon.

I would love to say you have a great vocabulary, but you stick to the same put down time and again, so it really is not so.

No, it would cost me considerably less if the government would let the idiots die.

$16,000/year in taxes, and you have the audacity to dictate to me, how my money should be spent. Fuck that, and fuck you, it's my money, and I'm the only one that should be able to determine where it goes, and I'm saying that it should not have gone to CitiGroup, Oldman (sucking) Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America and the whole list of mismanaged firms.

Though speaking of too big to fail, if that was true, then why didn't the government save Washington Mutual and Lehman Brothers?

Perhaps the real truth is TOO POLITICALLY CONNECTED TO FAIL.

Because they learned from their mistakes? I used to be a tool of propaganda too and thought that bush was retarded. But at least he learned from the mistake of almost allowing the countries economy to collapse with those companies.

And after that $16,000 in taxes they don't dictate shit, that is yours.

Taxes contribute nothing to society. If I want fire protection I will pay for it, I don't need middlemen in government to take my money and then pay for it. I could easily organize my neighborhood to pay for fire protection.

Besides, this is all at a local community level, not at a national level.

I expected a more mature intelligent debate from you, but it would appear that I was wrong.

Right, I think you need a hug from someone.

Why don't you organize a new fire department then? I am sure there are communities that would love the help due to budget cuts over the last decade or so. Actions speak louder than words.

So you want an example of great things on the Federal level, ok

93.551 Abandoned Infants

Objective: To develop, implement and operate projects that demonstrate how to: (1) Prevent the abandonment of infants and young children exposed to HIV/AIDS and drugs, including the provision of services to family members for any conditions that increased the probability of abandonment of an infant or young child; (2) identify and address the needs of abandoned infants, especially those born with AIDS and those exposed to drugs; (3) assist these children to reside with their natural families, if possible, or in foster care; (4)recruit, train and retain foster parents; (5) carry out residential care programs for abandoned children and children with AIDS; (6) establish programs of respite care for families and foster families; (7) recruit and train health and social services personnel to work with families, foster families and residential care staff; and (

prevent the abandonment of infants and young children by providing needed resources through model programs. This program also funds technical assistance, including training, with respect to the planning, development and operation of the projects.

I believe you are referring to eGold.

Laundering Money, how horrible of them...

Considering the fact that I don't believe in restrictions on drugs, then it should be sufficiently clear that I also don't believe that it is actually possible for a bank, or other financial entity, to be held guilty of "laundering" money when it accepts deposits from drug dealers.

Now, if it was a matter of them laundering money that was gained from extortion, blackmail, and embezzlement, that's different.

No it was on the Liberty Dollars article I read, but as I am not one to blindly believe shit I don't know if it is the case. It is just as likely to me that they were targeted for being too loud.

Yes, yes, and I suppose you also believe in the tooth fairy, santa clause and the easter bunny.

The creation of non-existent money is immoral and dishonest. The fractional reserve system which relies upon the creation of non-existent money is immoral and dishonest. Thus any banks that rely upon the fractional reserve system are immoral and dishonest.

You probably don't even know what has held inflation down, despite the insane amount of money that has been printed, and the irrational expansion of the money supply by the Federal Reserve.

Easy high unemployment.

NoDrama · Jul 23, 2009

inflation always lags the printing by 2-3 years. wait until 2011, should see prices of everything go up up up. You should also see precious metals price go up up up and mining stocks go up up up up up up more. Since we have already had 3 failed treasury auctions I doubt any other country is going to take our inflation off shore any more. The chickens will be coming home to roost.

hanimmal · Jul 23, 2009

inflation always lags the printing by 2-3 years. wait until 2011, should see prices of everything go up up up. You should also see precious metals price go up up up and mining stocks go up up up up up up more. Since we have already had 3 failed treasury auctions I doubt any other country is going to take our inflation off shore any more. The chickens will be coming home to roost.

Like JP Morgan just did, paying back the money will shrink it back to normal. If inflation starts to move faster the FOMC (federal open market committee) can do an open market sale of bonds shrinking it back up. Also if needed they can raise the required reserves to shrink it. Their tools work very well. This is why stock brokers have the saying "Don't bet against the Fed".

NoDrama · Jul 23, 2009

hanimmal said:
Like JP Morgan just did, paying back the money will shrink it back to normal. If inflation starts to move faster the FOMC (federal open market committee) can do an open market sale of bonds shrinking it back up. Also if needed they can raise the required reserves to shrink it. Their tools work very well. This is why stock brokers have the saying "Don't bet against the Fed".

They can't sell the bonds, they have already had 3 failures to do so, so they fall back on " The lender of last resort" The FED. When the FED buys US treasuries it creates the money to buy it from thin air, that money goes directly into the economy and moves much faster than money that is being shipped off shore to other countries so they can hold it for reserves.

FWIW The FED does not have absolute control over interest rates, The Bond market is what really moves the rates. Other countries do not want our treasuries because they know they will be left holding the bag.

Unemployment is not what has kept inflation down. De leveraging and decreased demand has done that through the process of deflation. No one is making loans therefore new money is not being created out of thin air and going into the pockets of the people.
Government is purchasing notes from the fed at interest and spending it on the banks. the banks are taking that money and trying desperately to hide/obfuscate/sell or somehow get rid of the toxic derivatives and holding the cash as reserves so as not to lose their credit rating. Right now the cash is being sat on, it will eventually move through the system and you will see inflation. I believe this as much as i believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 23, 2009

That is like saying a sunburn is the same as forth degree burn just different magnitudes. But I will concede the point, since you dislike my correct use of greed.

Accounts at banks give back interest that usually is around the natural inflation rate (with in a percent) If you have enough money to grow and keep it in a can your hurting yourself regardless of inflation or not.

I saw the number before, but as I can just remember the moral I wont use stats, there has not been a period of 2 years since the great depression that the stock market has not outpaced inflation for returns.

Yes, but are the holdings of SS in the stock market, are all retirement investments in the stock market?

And what about companies that go bankrupt. Yes, on average the stock market outpaces inflation, but most of the actual returns comes from dividends, which are now being taxed at a higher rate, discouraging savings and investment.

Not at all, the money they print is worthless. not even sure why that is there.

Because you are arguing that inflation some how leads to prosperity, if you are going to concede that you can not print yourself to prosperity than you need to concede that inflation does not lead to prosperity.

But investments outpace inflation as a rule (except for a couple years in the 70's when they experimented with super low unemployment rate jacking it up) And even in the 70's the people that stuck with it made out.

Here check this out it talks about deflation better than I can: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610845

Since this is the first year since the 50's to get have (Unnaturally High unemployment causes deflation)

Lower demand, it could have been a higher savings rate (which actually also partially to blame) that is leading to deflation.

Again good article linked above.

Free is free not slightly less expensive with interest keeping it above profit levels in regards to inflation. If you really wanted to get me on that point, you could have pointed to my saying a dollar tomorrow is more than one today, I meant less.

I gave you a way out, inflation does not mean that real costs increase. The money is worth less but the actual cost of buying the same thing that has a inflated tag is the same (keeping inflation the same on both). Because the price of one thing increases and money increases at the same time/rate they still equate.

Inflation causes prices to rise, because wages rise, which leads to more inflation because people that are acting immorally greedy (demanding more with out improving their productivity) then turn around and insist that they need COLAs.

Inflation and Deflation are natural market responses, the problem is that under the Federal Reserve system inflation is the only path the believe in which fails to allow the market to adapt to demands, and leads to further levels of malinvestment, because the market can not accurately gauge what the true level of demand is.

First off are you serious? I was pointing out that your childish image of how great the good ole' days where is wrong. It was rough back then, and although that quote had nothing to do with anything by Krugman.

I love that you call someone with a nobel prize in economics an idiot. I am sure that you and your bloggers have so much to teach him right? I mean why talk shit about someone like that?

It's not my fault that he's an idiot.

He's one of those dumb asses that believed that the Fed had to encourage a housing bubble in response to the bursting of the NASDAQ Bubble. Well, we've seen what happened since we've followed his advice.

I believe the proof of his idiocy is pretty self-evident now.

Nevermind it is because you want to not agree with him so your acting out.

Because he's been proven wrong, which means he's either an idiot or stupid. Clearly he's not stupid, as he appears to have an abundance of knowledge, so that leaves idiocy, which is the inability to use that knowledge correctly.

Lets break out those books. I want to see actual numbers from that. I love private schools, but that is just rediculous.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10362

There are schools that are way inefficient and horrid in the public system, but to toss out a blanket statement like that is junk.

Thousands of teachers being paid to not teach in NY because they can't be fired, or the state is in middle of the process of attempting to fire them.

$300,000/year for school administrators in Ohio

Thousands of teachers being paid not to teach in California, because of the same reasons as NY.

Earlier this year, I sifted through the 2008-09 budget for the District of Columbia, summing up all K-12 education spending, not counting charter schools. It comes to just under $1.3 billion.
The latest audited enrollment count for the district is 44,681, putting per-pupil spending in the nation's capital at about $29,000. Meanwhile, fewer than half of the students who enter the ninth grade in D.C. go on to graduate four years later.
To put that profligacy in perspective, the private schools serving D.C.'s 1,700 voucher students charge an average tuition of $6,600, according to a recent Education Department. After three years in the program, voucher students read more than two school years ahead of a randomized control group of their public school peers.
That is, the voucher program yields substantially better results at less than one-quarter the cost.
For those unfamiliar with the D.C. voucher program, it is the one that President Obama has decided to phase out, despite his stated goal of pursuing education reform that's effective and efficient.
The massive productivity advantage of private-sector education is not unique to Washington, D.C.

$29K vs $6,600 in D.C., that's right around 5x

I am guessing that I would file for unemployment.

What would happen to you if you stopped paying taxes?

Not what would you do if you lost your job...

And bank robberies when they were stuffed with gold. But they did fail before the FDIC.

Market forces at work...

Freedom to succeed implies the Freedom to fail.

Can't succeed with out having the risk of failure, because if it's not success if it's just handed to you.

And your belief that it is the monster under your bed is just as stupid. At least as a child you get presents, or egg, or quarter under the pillow.

Oh, you poor depraved child, only a quarter, my sympathies.

Since the FDIC there has not been a single person that has not gotten the insured amount if their bank failed. For the last 70 years and around a thousand bank failings that is pretty damn good. I would put more faith in something with a 100% success rate than the people that spouted that bullshit.

It's not a 100% success rate, if it was a 100% success rate the Federal Government wouldn't have had to step in and move deposits between banks to avoid watching the FDIC implode when it was revealed that it lacked sufficient reserves to even cover the closure of just one of the majors.

Bank of America: A $45 billion loan to save over 2 trillion dollars of investors money. And that money will get paid back with a small pinch of interest.

Public money being spent for private benefit, that is not the concern of the Federal Government. Besides, $2 Trillion dollars is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the wealth of the United States in its entirety.

However, the $45 Billion dollars is not money that the United States has. Clearly, if the United States had the money (due to actually not having a National Debt that has grown by $1 Trillion in the last 9 months, and operating at a deficit (which is now larger since Obama took office)) then I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. Well, other then the fact that if the government wasn't operating at a deficit, I'd be demanding additional tax breaks. I'd also be a little wary, government operating efficiently...

I am all for more smaller banks taking some of the size away.

And yet you consistently defend the throwing of good public money away after bad private money...

They are now making loans and if you watch the quarterly reports you will see the tide has really started to turn with the economy. It was funny today one guy who douches on Obama non stop wa saying how great the economy has turned and he was absolutely shocked about it. But then said he hopes Obama will stop since he is destroying it. The dude just can't get a break.

Obama isn't benefiting the economy.

Let's see

There's the GSEs which Bush continually flopped on, they've been nationalized instead of spun down and closed in a firesale of their assets, ending their monopoly on the mortgage markets.

There's AIG which received over $100 Billion in public money (and has yet to pay all of it back.)

There's GM which has received around $50 Billion in public money (and was then stolen from its bondholders and given to the UAW)

There's Chrysler which received $10 or $20 Billion in public money (and was stolen from its owner and given to the UAW)

There's Washington Mutual which was not saved, because it was obviously not politically connected enough to get saved.

If the banks would have failed it would have been horrific.

I don't know about horrific, but certainly the kind of chaos that a living organism like the economy needs to be able to adapt to changing circumstance and correct for malinvestment which can best be described as a form of malignant cancer that steals nutrients from healthy cells and thus weakens the entire body.

Of course, thinking of the malignancy of things, that's also a suitable analogy to the bloated inefficient system of government that we have.

Ok I am curious what do you base that on? I really don't think you have studied it, not trying to be snobbish about it, but people get these thoughts in their mind and just don't know really where that came from.

Keynesian economics had an irrational belief that increased public spending would benefit the economy, instead of appropriating resources that would eventually be reinvested by people in themselves, or in other businesses.

http://mises.org/story/3583

http://mises.org/story/3583
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Since Krugman has such a backwards diagnosis of depressions, it should be no surprise that his Keynesian remedies would be equally wrongheaded, and disastrously destructive. The Keynesian prescription to ward off depression is government stimulus. This is what Krugman is talking about whenever he calls for "priming the pump." Keynesian stimulus comes in two forms: monetary and fiscal. With monetary stimulus, a central bank (like the Federal Reserve) greatly increases the money supply, which dramatically lowers interest rates, which in turn stimulates spending. This is the "pro-bubble" side of Krugman's economics, which I've written about here and here. His now-notorious prescription of an induced housing bubble was to be accomplished (and was actually accomplished) via monetary stimulus. Krugman said in an interview with Lou Dobbs:

Meanwhile, economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer. (emphasis added)

This was his prescription for the recession in 2001. The rest is housing bubble history.
The ironic thing is that monetary expansion, Krugman's cure for depressions, is the very poison that causes them in the first place. According to the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which was first expounded in 1912 by Ludwig von Mises, the great Austrian economist who predicted the Great Depression, monetary expansion misdirects resources, causing excessive investment in stages of production that are more removed from the final products. This lengthening of the chain of production is unsustainable, given the actual amount of savings available for continuous investment. Eventually, businesses realize this fact, and that the malinvestments need to be liquidated and resources reallocated toward sustainable projects. Further monetary stimulus (or any government intervention for that matter) only serves to retard that reallocation process and to prolong the depression. For a nice primer on the true story behind business cycles, I recommend this article and this speech (video) by Thomas Woods.

Click to expand...

With monetary policy a non-starter, "That leaves nothing but government spending" to prime the pump, Krugman said. "That's pure Keynes."

Click to expand...

"It's helpful, but it does not cover even one-third of the gap, so it's disappointing," Krugman said. Out of the $789 billion approved, only about $600 billion adds real stimulus, in Krugman's opinion. "So you've only got $600 billion to fill a $2.9 trillion hole."

Click to expand...

that this must not be literally true. "Keynes may have been wrong on some things," you may protest, "but no economist as prominent as him would believe something so foolish!" Read the man's words for yourself:

If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.

Click to expand...

The above passage is not some off-hand note written to a colleague in a fit of academic speculation. It is part of Keynes's chief contribution to economics, upon which his reputation rests: The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. I don't care how prominent, credentialed, or "accomplished" an economist is. If he says that burying cash in the ground can be a boon to society, then he should be immediately dismissed from public and academic discourse.

The simple fact that Krugman regards such a fellow as an exemplar of economic scholarship would be highly telling by itself. "Okay," you might think, "Keynes was a bit extreme. But Krugman himself wouldn't go so far as to believe something like that."
Wrong again. In April, Krugman actually bemoaned the fact that Obama's stimulus projects were under budget.

President Obama hails the fact that stimulus projects are coming in ahead of schedule and under budget. Yay but boo.
Ahead of schedule is good. Under budget well, ordinarily that's a good thing. But the point of the stimulus is to increase spending!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Paul Krugman wants to be our savior. Like a savior, he would perform a miracle for us: that of turning consumption into wealth. But who would accept a messiah with such a John the Baptist as John Maynard Keynes, who proclaimed that credit expansion could perform the "miracle of turning a stone into bread"? In any case, Krugman is a curious kind of savior: one more interested in exercising his brilliance than in actually helping people. In the Newsweek profile, he said of his policy advocacy,

"I am not overflowing with human compassion. It's more of an intellectual thing."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Keynesian economics has nothing to do with the government, other than if the society is not spending money, in order to get it moving again the government needs to buy the good the people have produced to reduce the inventory and allow it to be restarted. And once it is back moviing the government gets the hell out of the economy and lets it work.

Will you concede the point that Keynesian Economics had a lot to do with government interference, or that Krugman is just as disillusioned as I am (and therefore either stupid or an idiot) (which of course would mean that I'm ignorant of Keynes, but c'est la vie)

After that it is just charts and graphs showing how a change in this affects that. And gives the reason and common sence for it. Nothing more.

God yeah, I would hate to see what the $1000 loan points are to have to pay $2500!

Tsk, tsk, 800 points is just 800%, a point is not a full percentage point, but 1/100th of a percentage point.

Of course, on second thought I think on my CCs the rate is 1399 points on any balance carried forward, but I don't carry balances forward.

We will have to disagree with those numbers, I know this is a gold thread, but I as I have not had a chance to ask a economics professor about how to figure inflation year over year, I will say not enough information on my part.

Inflation is cumulative

Here, let's say you have 1,000,000 dollars, if you increase the money supply by 2% you then have 1,020,000 dollars, if you increase the money supply by 2% again, you would have 1,040,400 dollars, or cumulative inflation of 1.02 * 1.02 = 1.0404 (4.04%) have to remember to subtract 100 from that as the initial 100 represents the 1,000,000 dollars that you started with.

Simple Exponential Math.

Same principles behind compound interest

But all you need to do is look at the GDP charts and see the lines. That 'dogma' is nothing but numbers.

Please. You said Acorn was making the banks give out those loans. I really don't think that you diserned that from actual information about acorn and what they have done.

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/10/29/acorns-food-stamp-mortgages
http://www.blackinformant.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/ACORN_AHC_Report.pdf

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMmNhZWQ1MTA=

Pop out more big words and ditch on a practiced study. In fact why do economists get jobs every industry if it is a failed school (you really come off a ignorant tool of propaganda by keep saying "Keynesian economics" since that is not the name of any program, it is just a type of study, similar to saying Trig is so stupid and failed since it is just Calculus that matters).

Actually there's a considerable difference between Economics and Maths, and your analogy fails.

Trigonometry and Calculus are but two branches of Math, there is no conflict between Trig and Calculus. There is a conflict between Austrian Economics and Keynesian Economics.

In economics there are several charts, graphs, ect, but to say you cannot use anything other than a keynesian cross to track something is not the case.

You can be a dumbass at times.

I'm going to just ignore your ad hominem attacks, and to think I had thought you were done with them...

Our economy had almost melted down, we had about 10% unemployment rate, and it is disporportiontly affected the people with less education, who make less money. And who did Fannie Mae make loans to? Oh yeah the people that were poor, so when the layoffs hit, whose customers would have been most affected? Oh yeah!

Loans that they would not have qualified for if it wasn't for people in ACORN forcing banks to lower their lending standards, (not that some of the banks weren't complicit in it.)

Loans that a rational person would have avoided like a plague

Interest Only
Adjustable Rate
NINJA Loans (I don't even want to know what Rates were on those)

But why did it happen? Because the "banks" like quikloans, quickenloans, then Bank of America, Citibank, JP, ect all jumped in on the lessened regulations and kept selling crappy loans to wallstreet.

Well if it is the failure of the banks then why are you so ardently defending the bail out of those institutions. Clearly if they are so horribly mismanaged it would actually be more beneficial to chop them up, and sell their assets off, and trade them in for a more efficient model.

Then they traded the 'toxic mortgages' and insured them, and when the 5% turned into 15% loans and people defaulted they put it on Fannie and Freddie.

What was I saying about Derivatives and Hedging...

Though speaking of the GSEs

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/125/goingsubprime.html
http://hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=5876
http://www.aei.org/outlook/28704
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html

And it goes back...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19cisneros.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/10/GR2008061000059.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?

And as we're discussing housing...
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_2_homeownership.html

There was corruption with the mac's, but the meltdown was not even close to their fault.

33% of the Subprime market bought up and backed by them, and it's not their fault. Clearly then they were sending signals with out meaning too.

Maybe they can testify that despite stripping they never intended to fuck and thus were raped...

Do you wear tin foil on your head? I swear you are very quick to jump onto conspiracies out to get you. I am not attempting anything. Did you say Federal Taxation? In fact do we both not often mention things on all levels of taxation?

That's because Local Taxation is different from Federal Taxation.

40% left over for reaserch is damn good for the Federal government to invest in, since they only take in at most 39% for the top teir. And the public has everything to gain from it.

I would love to say you have a great vocabulary, but you stick to the same put down time and again, so it really is not so.

If you are done exposing your cephalopod-like ability to suck and suck hard, perhaps we can move away from the immature ad hominem attacks?

Because they learned from their mistakes? I used to be a tool of propaganda too and thought that bush was retarded. But at least he learned from the mistake of almost allowing the countries economy to collapse with those companies.

Let's see

They did this shit in the 30s (it didn't work)
they did this shit in the 70s (it didn't work)
they are now doing this shit again (and it won't work)

Why wont it work?

Because it is a temporary fix, that does nothing more than mask the problem. Of course, seeing as how Obama is a politician and not a Statesman it can not be a surprise that he is just attempting to kick the problem down hill.

Though you have yet to show any demonstratable evidence that it is getting better.

It is just not getting that much worse.

Pointing to profits while companies are still cutting jobs does not prove that it is getting better. Clearly, if net jobs are still negative then unemployment is still going up, and thus things are still getting worse.

And after that $16,000 in taxes they don't dictate shit, that is yours.

No, they dictate quite a lot. if it was up to me, I wouldn't pay, but since they will throw me in jail for not paying, I'm actually rather afraid I don't have much say in the matter....

Right, I think you need a hug from someone.

No, I'm rather convinced that I just need to stop wasting my time arguing with people that are clearly made up in their opinions, and save myself a lot of time, and energy.

Why don't you organize a new fire department then? I am sure there are communities that would love the help due to budget cuts over the last decade or so. Actions speak louder than words.

As long as the government collects taxes for such things then there is no reason for me to do so, but in many rural communities the only fire protection comes from a volunteer fire department, which is not funded through taxation.

Proving that it is possible for society to function with out the State's coercion, graft, extortion and corruption.

So you want an example of great things on the Federal level, ok

93.551 Abandoned Infants

93 and a half abandoned infants? What happen to the other half of the 94th?

You must mean 93,551.

And is that a year?
A month?
A week?

Besides, before government got involved there were orphanages ran by private charities that would have taken them in and taken care of them.

Your insistence that the State with its ravenous appetite for stolen money, and it's continual acid reflux caused by inefficiency ignores reality.

Objective: To develop, implement and operate projects that demonstrate how to: (1) Prevent the abandonment of infants and young children exposed to HIV/AIDS and drugs, including the provision of services to family members for any conditions that increased the probability of abandonment of an infant or young child; (2) identify and address the needs of abandoned infants, especially those born with AIDS and those exposed to drugs; (3) assist these children to reside with their natural families, if possible, or in foster care; (4)recruit, train and retain foster parents; (5) carry out residential care programs for abandoned children and children with AIDS; (6) establish programs of respite care for families and foster families; (7) recruit and train health and social services personnel to work with families, foster families and residential care staff; and ( prevent the abandonment of infants and young children by providing needed resources through model programs. This program also funds technical assistance, including training, with respect to the planning, development and operation of the projects.

Private Charity would have a much simpler mission statement.

No it was on the Liberty Dollars article I read, but as I am not one to blindly believe shit I don't know if it is the case. It is just as likely to me that they were targeted for being too loud.

Easy high unemployment

Wrong

Try the Eurodollar market, and the fact that the majority of the dollars in circulation are not inside the United States.

The result of the US Dollar's status as a reserve currency is that it is used everywhere for everything from drug dealing to legitimate business. Trade is routinely conducted in dollars.

The reason why we haven't seen Weimar Republic levels of Inflation is because the dollars don't stay here.

Repatriation by Immigrants (Legal and Illegal) to their home countries. (Which is both good and bad)

Good, because it holds down inflation
Bad, because that money is not reinvested in the local communities

Usage in the Illegal Drug Trade

Good, inflation once again is held down
Bad, not reinvested in the United States, or taxed to the full extent

Dollarization in Central America and South America

Good, inflation is held down
Bad, well there's not really a bad to this one...

Good try though, but you're thinking entirely too short term...

Though there's also productivity gains (which leads to natural deflation, thus limiting inflation)

The fact that increasing amounts of our goods come from the third world (which have cheaper costs, leading to deflation, thus limiting inflation)

And maybe a distant last, is unemployment.

Of course the deflation due to unemployment only lasts as long as the malinvestment continues to take place and as long as the market has to try to clean up after the malinvestment of the past.

Once the malinvestment is cleared up then employment will start climbing. I don't see that happening for at least two years, or longer if Obama continues pursuing the path that he is pursuing.

Microsoft (80,000 jobs) has stated it will leave the U.S. if the tax hikes are put in place.

I'm sure China or Japan would love to be able to snag those jobs, they are both weak in Software.

India would love those jobs...

And how many call center jobs would follow those jobs as companies leave in disgust?

The corporations are not the enemy.

hanimmal · Jul 23, 2009

I wouldn't buy bonds right now either. The market was very cheap and if you were about to invest that would be where to get the most return. The rate is so low it is not worthwile. If inflation starts to rise they will get more aggressive with the lending rates.

Inflation and unemployment pull against each other. If we have 10% of our workers not getting paid (scaring the next 10% that they may be next) there is less money in the economy, so in turn inventories rise, which means companies start to drop prices to move product. That leads to lower prices (deflation) which is why we have deflation now.

Likewise if we have higher natural employment, more people have jobs, more money to buy stuff (higher demand) so the companies ramp up production (more supply) and rise prices due to the demand, that money gets back in the pockets of workers with higher wages, on and on bringing up inflation.

The 70's was the low unemployment debacle leading to very high inflation, that Regan had to counteract by, well not regan, but those years) allowing unemployment to skyrocket to correct the market.

Sorry this is the best/first pic I could find of it:

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 23, 2009

I assumed you had been on a forum before. When I try and quote your post it isn't there... so it creates MORE work than you had to do. As I said, it is common courtesy, and you are the single exception in a fairly vast history on BBS's which refused to show it. It also italicizes the font, making it more difficult to read. I am clear now that it is intentional. You are not ignorant, you are a jackass. So be it.

Yes I am, actually it consistently amazes me how much I don't know, but I haven't stopped learning either, so I have to plead guilty to being both ignorant in some fields, (like philology (languages)) and robotics. Both fields that actually interest me.

I'm also a jack ass, but really, if I didn't have some level of respect for you I would have just stopped responding to your arguments.

Besides, a good verbal sparring match is always fun.

I am going to skip the rest because it is all straw, and I need that answered...

Need what answered?

anyway, as far as the Jews being Jews or being Hebrews. Your technically right, but common usage is to refer to Hebrews (regardless of their practice of Judaism) as Jews, and their religion as Judaism.

So, you're technically right, but I'm also right, because it is the common usage.

hanimmal · Jul 23, 2009

Yes, but are the holdings of SS in the stock market, are all retirement investments in the stock market?

And what about companies that go bankrupt. Yes, on average the stock market outpaces inflation, but most of the actual returns comes from dividends, which are now being taxed at a higher rate, discouraging savings and investment.

The 15% tax rate was set to expire December 31, 2008. However, with the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, the lower tax rate was extended until the end of 2010. Not sure where it is going to be when/if Obama changes it, but for ever free dollar I make in the market I only have to pay 15 cents. Meaning that I make an extra 85% off of all the extra money that I make for myself.

It would be stupid to say I don't want 80 cents extra money off of the money I am not using because they are going to take 20 cents of it, when if I made it through actual work they would take 40%.

Because you are arguing that inflation some how leads to prosperity, if you are going to concede that you can not print yourself to prosperity than you need to concede that inflation does not lead to prosperity.

I think you got me wrong, if I said that anywhere I appologize because that would be ignorant. I am just saying that inflation is not the evil that people seem to think as long as it is consistent and over the entire economy (and low). Simply because the money does not mean anything it is what it buys.

Lower demand, it could have been a higher savings rate (which actually also partially to blame) that is leading to deflation.

Definantly lower demand, people saving money adds into it, but it is mostly a result of unemployment. If everyone had a job and was making the same money we were a few years back and they dumped a couple trillion into the market inflation would be huge right now.

Inflation causes prices to rise, because wages rise, which leads to more inflation because people that are acting immorally greedy (demanding more with out improving their productivity) then turn around and insist that they need COLAs.

Inflation and Deflation are natural market responses, the problem is that under the Federal Reserve system inflation is the only path the believe in which fails to allow the market to adapt to demands, and leads to further levels of malinvestment, because the market can not accurately gauge what the true level of demand is.

I don't know, but I would be willing to bet if anyone in the Fed could make inflation and deflation disapear they would not only win nobel prizes, but be promptly hired by the country to run us!

We are in agreement. That link talks about deflation being the worse of two evils. I agree simply because if I make less and my loans stay the same (with interest that doesn't change) I am boned.

It's not my fault that he's an idiot.

He's one of those dumb asses that believed that the Fed had to encourage a housing bubble in response to the bursting of the NASDAQ Bubble. Well, we've seen what happened since we've followed his advice.

I believe the proof of his idiocy is pretty self-evident now.

I'll have to read more into him and concede the point. But until I have read a book or paper of his saying that I will obstain.

Because he's been proven wrong, which means he's either an idiot or stupid. Clearly he's not stupid, as he appears to have an abundance of knowledge, so that leaves idiocy, which is the inability to use that knowledge correctly.

I was being a dick and am sorry. I had just read that stupid post about the health reform bill on the obama looking good thread and systematically picked it apart, but it took about two hours to get through all of it. I learned a lot so can't complain, but I was pissy. And you kept calling me a trilobite or something.

Thousands of teachers being paid to not teach in NY because they can't be fired, or the state is in middle of the process of attempting to fire them.

$300,000/year for school administrators in Ohio

Thousands of teachers being paid not to teach in California, because of the same reasons as NY.

This does piss me off. You and I should be able to agree on the fact that Obama's education director says if a school is failing, fire everyone. They can reapply and if they are the best canidate get their jobs back, but it is not garanteed. He did it in chicago to a inner city school and brough it from the worst to one of the best. I hate incompitence. And to kind of paraphrase him "You can get a new job, these children only have one shot at a education"

What would happen to you if you stopped paying taxes?

Not what would you do if you lost your job...

It was an attempt at humor! If I wasn't paying taxes it would mean I didn't have a job! But I get your point, I just don't agree in letting others shoulder the burden while I am not doing my part.

Oh, you poor depraved child, only a quarter, my sympathies.

lol

It's not a 100% success rate, if it was a 100% success rate the Federal Government wouldn't have had to step in and move deposits between banks to avoid watching the FDIC implode when it was revealed that it lacked sufficient reserves to even cover the closure of just one of the majors.

I was saying that 100% of people got their money, I am not saying it was clean and easy.

Public money being spent for private benefit, that is not the concern of the Federal Government. Besides, $2 Trillion dollars is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the wealth of the United States in its entirety.

However, the $45 Billion dollars is not money that the United States has. Clearly, if the United States had the money (due to actually not having a National Debt that has grown by $1 Trillion in the last 9 months, and operating at a deficit (which is now larger since Obama took office)) then I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. Well, other then the fact that if the government wasn't operating at a deficit, I'd be demanding additional tax breaks. I'd also be a little wary, government operating efficiently...

lol damned if you do damed if you dont! And that drop in the bucket is exactly why they jumped on it to save the economy.

And yet you consistently defend the throwing of good public money away after bad private money...

Anyone that says they would like to always give good money to the bad would indead be stupid. But in that situation, I say yes with everything that was going on it was the most logical and cost effective way to save everything from a meltdown. Now could they have done things differently of course, but the lending out of the money would have still needed to happen.

Obama isn't benefiting the economy.

Let's see

There's the GSEs which Bush continually flopped on, they've been nationalized instead of spun down and closed in a firesale of their assets, ending their monopoly on the mortgage markets.

There's AIG which received over $100 Billion in public money (and has yet to pay all of it back.)

There's GM which has received around $50 Billion in public money (and was then stolen from its bondholders and given to the UAW)

There's Chrysler which received $10 or $20 Billion in public money (and was stolen from its owner and given to the UAW)

There's Washington Mutual which was not saved, because it was obviously not politically connected enough to get saved.

And due to that all those companies are open today (even Wamu due to the Fed). Saving millions of jobs, and even more that rely on those companies.

And that is a lot of money to pay back. Even if they can't those moves helped save further decline. If AIG would have collapsed it would had essentially melted all the banks that they had insurance with. Disclaimer: AIG is mostly scum.

I don't know about horrific, but certainly the kind of chaos that a living organism like the economy needs to be able to adapt to changing circumstance and correct for malinvestment which can best be described as a form of malignant cancer that steals nutrients from healthy cells and thus weakens the entire body.

Of course, thinking of the malignancy of things, that's also a suitable analogy to the bloated inefficient system of government that we have.

Well said. But you know that even though I am all about a streamlined smaller government (get out of our personal lives) I do think that it is essentially good, but idiots we elect, blah blah you know how I feel.

Keynesian economics had an irrational belief that increased public spending would benefit the economy, instead of appropriating resources that would eventually be reinvested by people in themselves, or in other businesses.

That is why they put college under consuming in the keynesian model. Also investment (in business hard goods not capital) plays a big part. It wasn't his fault idiotic politicians continue to think that when he said spend, he meant leverage yourself to the nose and spend it all on crap you don't need.

Will you concede the point that Keynesian Economics had a lot to do with government interference, or that Krugman is just as disillusioned as I am (and therefore either stupid or an idiot) (which of course would mean that I'm ignorant of Keynes, but c'est la vie)

Yeah I will concede to that if you concede that it was politicians not understanding basic economics that made them think that was what was meant. And I will read up on Krugman but I don't like websites (even though that one looks ok) that cut and paste quotes, since usually it is out of context, sound good?

acorn stuff

Is it possible that they became an easy scapegoat?

Actually there's a considerable difference between Economics and Maths, and your analogy fails.

Trigonometry and Calculus are but two branches of Math, there is no conflict between Trig and Calculus. There is a conflict between Austrian Economics and Keynesian Economics.

There is conflicts between neoclassical economics and keynesian too, but they are both branches. But the thing is that they can both be right at different times for different answers. Anyone that says they have a model that works 100% of the time is full of crap. The example of trig and calc I was trying (and failed) to make was that they are both right even if they shouldn't be used to try to solve an equation that they don't cover.

I'm going to just ignore your ad hominem attacks, and to think I had thought you were done with them...

Yeah I was again being a dick, see above.

Loans that they would not have qualified for if it wasn't for people in ACORN forcing banks to lower their lending standards, (not that some of the banks weren't complicit in it.)

Loans that a rational person would have avoided like a plague

Interest Only
Adjustable Rate
NINJA Loans (I don't even want to know what Rates were on those)

I would put it as banks wouldn't have been able to make those loans and come up with ways to distort what the laws were changed to. That were a result of different organizations (including acorn) trying to get people loans for things they could afford through banks that didn't want to deal with poor people.

Once they learned that poor usually = ignorance, the banks pounced.

Well if it is the failure of the banks then why are you so ardently defending the bail out of those institutions. Clearly if they are so horribly mismanaged it would actually be more beneficial to chop them up, and sell their assets off, and trade them in for a more efficient model.

Not defending the institions, just saving the economy through the bailouts. If we could slowly (say one every other year) dismantle them safely it would be better than letting the system meltdown.

My gf is home so running out of time, I will look at those later!

33% of the Subprime market bought up and backed by them, and it's not their fault. Clearly then they were sending signals with out meaning too.

Maybe they can testify that despite stripping they never intended to fuck and thus were raped...

Funny, and true. But they were there to support the low income loans, I will have to learn more timeling, but the preditory loans didn't start with them.

If you are done exposing your cephalopod-like ability to suck and suck hard, perhaps we can move away from the immature ad hominem attacks?

Now I think that you are where I was when I was typing. And I agree, I was being childish.

Let's see

They did this shit in the 30s (it didn't work)
they did this shit in the 70s (it didn't work)
they are now doing this shit again (and it won't work)

Why wont it work?

Because it is a temporary fix, that does nothing more than mask the problem. Of course, seeing as how Obama is a politician and not a Statesman it can not be a surprise that he is just attempting to kick the problem down hill.

Though you have yet to show any demonstratable evidence that it is getting better.

It is just not getting that much worse.

Pointing to profits while companies are still cutting jobs does not prove that it is getting better. Clearly, if net jobs are still negative then unemployment is still going up, and thus things are still getting worse.

Unemployment lags. This quarter was a very good one for companies (because they are off their lows, but big improvements). The bears are starting to invest again, the market is rising, people are starting to hire again. This next quarter should start the upward trend on employment. When that happens the economy shouldbe fully stabilized.

Then we should be able to start the revolution!

93 and a half abandoned infants? What happen to the other half of the 94th?

You must mean 93,551.

And is that a year?
A month?
A week?

Besides, before government got involved there were orphanages ran by private charities that would have taken them in and taken care of them.

Your insistence that the State with its ravenous appetite for stolen money, and it's continual acid reflux caused by inefficiency ignores reality.

Sorry that was the number of the law. I was saying abandoned infants is a good cause is all.

Wrong

You have all good points. I was saying unemployment is the largest factor. The things you have listed have been in existence for a long time before now and we had inflation.

And for microsoft, if they leave due to a few extra taxes (which is grandstading) it is because they want to pay people a fraction of what they pay here, and not actually say the real reason. 3% savings (extra taxes), vs 300% (salaries).

I don't know the last time I talked to an american call center.

We would be better off as a country if we could get those people degrees and have them in a different field though, but that is hard to do shortterm.

Good times.

NoDrama · Jul 23, 2009

You get taxed on unemployment benefits!

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 23, 2009

NoDrama said:
You get taxed on unemployment benefits!

Now that's irony, here's free money, wait, we need to take a cut...

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 23, 2009

hanimmal said:
The 15% tax rate was set to expire December 31, 2008. However, with the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, the lower tax rate was extended until the end of 2010. Not sure where it is going to be when/if Obama changes it, but for ever free dollar I make in the market I only have to pay 15 cents. Meaning that I make an extra 85% off of all the extra money that I make for myself.

It would be stupid to say I don't want 80 cents extra money off of the money I am not using because they are going to take 20 cents of it, when if I made it through actual work they would take 40%.

That is true, but any gains made short term are taxed at, what is it 35%?

What I really need to do is form a corporation just for trading activities...

I think you got me wrong, if I said that anywhere I appologize because that would be ignorant. I am just saying that inflation is not the evil that people seem to think as long as it is consistent and over the entire economy (and low). Simply because the money does not mean anything it is what it buys.

It just sounds like that is what you are arguing.

I dislike inflation, a dollar ten years ago should be worth the same as a dollar today and the same as a dollar ten years from now. Having to worry about the responsibility of the people that are managing the money supply is not something that businesses and citizens should have to concern themselves with.

Definantly lower demand, people saving money adds into it, but it is mostly a result of unemployment. If everyone had a job and was making the same money we were a few years back and they dumped a couple trillion into the market inflation would be huge right now.

Weimar Republic, lol, though actually, another reason why we need to really cut inflation is because the Chinese are getting churlish. They don't like our national debt and deficit any more than we do.

I don't know, but I would be willing to bet if anyone in the Fed could make inflation and deflation disapear they would not only win nobel prizes, but be promptly hired by the country to run us!

Inflation and Deflation are natural results of variances in the market.

People want more money (because they are all saving for some hot new product) businesses (if they weren't limited to do so by law) would respond to it by cutting prices and thus money would go further allowing consumers to save and still buy.

People want more goods (because they have accumulated savings and now want to spend) businesses react by raising prices, thus slowing down demand.

The government's attempts to act concerned with what the market is doing just interferes in the proper functioning of the markets, and the ability of the markets to truly judge what they need to do to best serve their interestes and the interests of the people to prevent widespread shortages, or overproduction.

We are in agreement. That link talks about deflation being the worse of two evils. I agree simply because if I make less and my loans stay the same (with interest that doesn't change) I am boned.

Yes, but at the same time your food expense, rent expense, insurance expense and other fluctuating expenses go down, so you might not be as boned as you imagine...

Besides, life should be an adventure, it shouldn't be a tedious repetition of the same thing year after year, decade after decade.

I'll have to read more into him and concede the point. But until I have read a book or paper of his saying that I will obstain.

I'll have to read up more on him, too, and on Keynes, because if the politicians are screwing up his ideas as badly as you believe then I want to know...

I was being a dick and am sorry. I had just read that stupid post about the health reform bill on the obama looking good thread and systematically picked it apart, but it took about two hours to get through all of it. I learned a lot so can't complain, but I was pissy. And you kept calling me a trilobite or something.

No need to apologize and I was calling you a myrmidon, which was a Greek or Macedonian group of soldiers known for their awesome fighting ability but their rigid inability to think for themselves and question orders.

This does piss me off. You and I should be able to agree on the fact that Obama's education director says if a school is failing, fire everyone. They can reapply and if they are the best canidate get their jobs back, but it is not garanteed. He did it in chicago to a inner city school and brough it from the worst to one of the best. I hate incompitence. And to kind of paraphrase him "You can get a new job, these children only have one shot at a education"

That is true, but then again, there's also the problem of those school administrator's making $300K. Fire them all, and give their wages to the teachers, and then we'd see the best and brightest flock to teach inquiring minds all of their accumulated knowledge...

It was an attempt at humor! If I wasn't paying taxes it would mean I didn't have a job! But I get your point, I just don't agree in letting others shoulder the burden while I am not doing my part.

I'm sick of doing more than my fair share.

And I have yet to see my free Pontiac G5 in my driveway, along with my free Chrysler Crossfire. Of course, I'll take it out of GM's hide in other ways, like never purchasing another one of their vehicles and actively telling people not to purchase their vehicles.

Though I don't think any one in Ohio is happy with GM right now.

You know, I probably would be willing to pay a flat 10% on everything, or a flat 20% even, but I hate the scaled income system, because the harder you work the more they take.

A single mother that wants to work two jobs to put their child through school is taxed higher than some one that is not attempting to improve their station. It punishes hardwork, which is stupid.

My friend had a friend that had a wife with a shitload of CC debt, and he was working two jobs to help her pay it off. Was he getting a tax cut? No, he was being taxed higher for working harder.

The tiered income tax system is stupid.

Hell, if it had been hooked to inflation 90% of Americans probably wouldn't pay income tax, but I don't think the rich should have to pay income tax either. I can not consent to them being obligated to pay for services they do not reap the benefit of, any more than I can consent to being obligated to pay for services I do not reap the benefit of.

Yes, roads, and fire departments, and all those other things are good, but they'd all likely be formed anyway, because people would recognize a demand and seek to fill it.

lol

I was saying that 100% of people got their money, I am not saying it was clean and easy.

All right

lol damned if you do damed if you dont! And that drop in the bucket is exactly why they jumped on it to save the economy.

Anyone that says they would like to always give good money to the bad would indead be stupid. But in that situation, I say yes with everything that was going on it was the most logical and cost effective way to save everything from a meltdown. Now could they have done things differently of course, but the lending out of the money would have still needed to happen.

I'll have to concede, when investing you don't stop investing just because prices are falling, you keep investing, because you'll see larger gains when prices recover (if the firm doesn't go bankrupt...)

And due to that all those companies are open today (even Wamu due to the Fed). Saving millions of jobs, and even more that rely on those companies.

And that is a lot of money to pay back. Even if they can't those moves helped save further decline. If AIG would have collapsed it would had essentially melted all the banks that they had insurance with. Disclaimer: AIG is mostly scum.

AIG's London Trading Office is mostly scum, from what I understand it was their bad trades in derivatives that nearly killed AIG.

Well said. But you know that even though I am all about a streamlined smaller government (get out of our personal lives) I do think that it is essentially good, but idiots we elect, blah blah you know how I feel.

Too many lawyers and career politicians/bureaucrats that just want more power, instead of to do public service...

That is why they put college under consuming in the keynesian model. Also investment (in business hard goods not capital) plays a big part. It wasn't his fault idiotic politicians continue to think that when he said spend, he meant leverage yourself to the nose and spend it all on crap you don't need.

I'd say college belongs under investing...

Yeah I will concede to that if you concede that it was politicians not understanding basic economics that made them think that was what was meant. And I will read up on Krugman but I don't like websites (even though that one looks ok) that cut and paste quotes, since usually it is out of context, sound good?

Yeah, based on the fact that most of them are lawyers or political science majors I can definitely see how they would not actually have been obligated to study Economics in depth.

Is it possible that they became an easy scapegoat?

I don't see it,

Is it possible that I'm attacking them because they make a nice big target and are connected to Obama, yes.

But the meltdown can be attributed to a lot of different players. Acorn was just one of them...

There is conflicts between neoclassical economics and keynesian too, but they are both branches. But the thing is that they can both be right at different times for different answers. Anyone that says they have a model that works 100% of the time is full of crap. The example of trig and calc I was trying (and failed) to make was that they are both right even if they shouldn't be used to try to solve an equation that they don't cover.

I like Austrian Economics, nice simple, suits me, highly individualistic. I personally believe that the best way to serve people is to motivate them to get off their ass and improve their lot in life. I also don't think it is rational for government to not limit people on welfare from receiving welfare support for any child after the second.

Yeah I was again being a dick, see above.

It's all good, I don't know if it was you that gave me a + rep with a comment about it being difficult to avoid becoming heated during a political debate, or any other kind of debate.

I would put it as banks wouldn't have been able to make those loans and come up with ways to distort what the laws were changed to. That were a result of different organizations (including acorn) trying to get people loans for things they could afford through banks that didn't want to deal with poor people.

Once they learned that poor usually = ignorance, the banks pounced.

I blame the mortgage brokers on that portion of the problem. They were the one's that made the mortgages then sold them to the banks to make more bad mortgages.

But they are just one player amongst a field of dozens.

Not defending the institions, just saving the economy through the bailouts. If we could slowly (say one every other year) dismantle them safely it would be better than letting the system meltdown.

My gf is home so running out of time, I will look at those later!

Funny, and true. But they were there to support the low income loans, I will have to learn more timeling, but the preditory loans didn't start with them.

I personally think that a meltdown would not be nearly as bad as everyone was predicting.

Now I think that you are where I was when I was typing. And I agree, I was being childish.

Yes, I was being childish and impatient when I made that. Got sick of trying to bit my tongue... or fingers.

Unemployment lags. This quarter was a very good one for companies (because they are off their lows, but big improvements). The bears are starting to invest again, the market is rising, people are starting to hire again. This next quarter should start the upward trend on employment. When that happens the economy shouldbe fully stabilized.

Then we should be able to start the revolution!

Lol, Revolutions are bad things, though I think once the market starts recovering Obama will find that his support has dried up, and that his "majority" is blocked into inaction by John Q Public standing up on his hind feet and giving the politicians the finger.

No, wonder why he seems to be russian from one collosal waste of money to the next. His power will soon be limited by people demanding true accountability and true transparency as they see their incomes getting confiscated through taxation.

Though I think a lot are getting pissed off at him...

Sorry that was the number of the law. I was saying abandoned infants is a good cause is all.

Yes, abandoned infants need to be brought up, but I think it's something that private charity can handle, and probably more efficiently than government.

You have all good points. I was saying unemployment is the largest factor. The things you have listed have been in existence for a long time before now and we had inflation.

And for microsoft, if they leave due to a few extra taxes (which is grandstading) it is because they want to pay people a fraction of what they pay here, and not actually say the real reason. 3% savings (extra taxes), vs 300% (salaries).

Actually, I think they don't want to see their largest cost go up any further (labor.) Besides, they might just go to Ireland, or maybe even Eastern Europe, seeking not lower labor costs, but just lower taxes.

The belief that corporations are the enemy is irrational. I have yet to see government pay my bills, but I see my employer pay my taxes every two weeks (against my will, but they don't have a choice) and pay my bills, and provide me with money to go and have fun.

Of course, I have a decent job, but even when I was at the bottom, I still saw government taking money I couldn't afford (I needed it to pay for school) and not give anything back.

I don't know the last time I talked to an american call center.

We would be better off as a country if we could get those people degrees and have them in a different field though, but that is hard to do shortterm.

Eh, more competition in professional fields... we'd end up right back where we started, besides, I don't want to have to compete with more people that know how to write software. I like being able to demand more than $8/hour for my skillset.

Good times.

Eh, even the bad times were good,

No fear, no regrets

The storm washed over me, and I felt sorry for those that were losing their houses, but I knew I was fine, because I didn't leverage myself up to the hilt.

Of course, now with the dental my flex is not as great...

and the new GF (GFs are expensive)

I can't wait until I'm done paying for the dental, then I can get back to investing, and saving.

Well, unless Obama does something stupid like force me to get Health Care Insurance, that I don't want, and don't need.

Anyway, have fun with your Girl.

hanimmal · Jul 24, 2009

Weimar Republic, lol, though actually, another reason why we need to really cut inflation is because the Chinese are getting churlish. They don't like our national debt and deficit any more than we do.

I agree. Besides education and healthcare reforms, this is going to be my measuring stick for Obama. If he can get the deficit down with how far in we are now, and helps fix the other two. He will become in my eyes one of the great presidents. If he doesn't he gets tossed out onto the pile of mediocre we have had for decades.

Yes, but at the same time your food expense, rent expense, insurance expense and other fluctuating expenses go down, so you might not be as boned as you imagine...

Besides, life should be an adventure, it shouldn't be a tedious repetition of the same thing year after year, decade after decade.

Very good point.

I'll have to read up more on him, too, and on Keynes, because if the politicians are screwing up his ideas as badly as you believe then I want to know...

Awesome! You made all the time I have put onto this site the last week or so worth it right there. And funny enough I was looking through my books and I do have a Krugman book! It is a text book 'Economics".

I found a good quote in it but cant find it now. Essentially:

Three questions that the politicians may ask a economist:

1. What is the most likely situation if we adjust taxes to this amount. An economist can use tax models to figure out the most likely situation with numbers that should be close to what will happen.

2. What would the total cost of this new program extrapulate out to be. And how would it effect the economy. (Say social program I think was what it was, but the only reason this is important is question 3)

3. Should we raise taxes to do number 2. Here is where economics no longer has an answer it can just help understand the trade-offs. This gets tossed onto the economists 'values'.

Also he talks about how economists get improperly labelled "Kenyesian" or "Friedman economists" but it is not by them it is the political world that does it to discredit them.

Anyway thought you may get a kick out of the question thing.

That is true, but then again, there's also the problem of those school administrator's making $300K. Fire them all, and give their wages to the teachers, and then we'd see the best and brightest flock to teach inquiring minds all of their accumulated knowledge...

That is sick. We need some major reform. The system we are using is so antiquated. I really don't think that city schools should worry about having summer breaks to be able to work on the farm anymore.

You know, I probably would be willing to pay a flat 10% on everything, or a flat 20% even, but I hate the scaled income system, because the harder you work the more they take.

I agreed with everything else but just wanted to say I am on the the other side of this issue.

The problem with flat system is that the lower your income on the scale the more % of your income would be used up.

The food someone eats may be a little more money (better quality) the wealthier you get, but you would not be spending as much of a % of your money on it as a poorer person. Things like water, electricity, tickets, cable subscriptions ect. The more money you have the more money that you have to reinvest and grow it.

That is why state taxes and flat taxes disporportionalntly affect the lower income people because they generally are not able to get around them. Also they don't have the same access to tax lawyers and accountants so are not able to take advantage of the same loopholes.

Flat taxes are a rich mans dream who would have the same percent of his/her income as a poor person without having to spend near as much (%) of it on the neccessities of life.

I'll have to concede, when investing you don't stop investing just because prices are falling, you keep investing, because you'll see larger gains when prices recover (if the firm doesn't go bankrupt...)

Really good way to put it I didn't think of it from that angle. It does make sense though because the fed and giethner came out and said that they would not allow them to fail taking out the worry of bankruptcy.

AIG's London Trading Office is mostly scum, from what I understand it was their bad trades in derivatives that nearly killed AIG.

I think I remember hearing that was were the bonuses went to too.

Too many lawyers and career politicians/bureaucrats that just want more power, instead of to do public service...

Too True. We need to really get a grassroots political group with people that want to get normal people that are very well educated in their fields and that can prove that they can work together with people of different viewpoints and make the best decisions not just their own.

I'd say college belongs under investing...

Funny! I actually said that in class when I first heard that too. He agreed, but said the reasoning was that Investing is more defined in that model as building/material/technologies. But also at the end of it agreed that it is an investment because it grows wealth, and but as it doesn't depreciate they leave it in consuming for simplicity.

Yeah, based on the fact that most of them are lawyers or political science majors I can definitely see how they would not actually have been obligated to study Economics in depth.

Yeah basic class at best that they need to coast a C in, but insanely easy to not understand anything and still get an A. Sneds shivers down my back thinking about everyone in the senate is a lawyer and how much of a joke it is that they have the brightest minds in the world (economics, scientists, education speciallists ect) trying to help them understand things when it should be the other way around, the lawyers telling them why they can or cannot change things because of the constitution.

I don't see it,

Is it possible that I'm attacking them because they make a nice big target and are connected to Obama, yes.

But the meltdown can be attributed to a lot of different players. Acorn was just one of them...

I will concede.

I like Austrian Economics, nice simple, suits me, highly individualistic. I personally believe that the best way to serve people is to motivate them to get off their ass and improve their lot in life. I also don't think it is rational for government to not limit people on welfare from receiving welfare support for any child after the second.

I don't know enough about Austrian economics ins and outs, but if it is a branch of economics I am sure it can't be too far off the mark but I will reserve judgement either way until I have more understanding. Child welfare is one of the more noble ideas (sounds good poor mothers children should not suffer completely due to parents sucking) that got taken and turned into one of the most gross programs ever.

I like the idea of no more money after 2nd kid. Very simple and effective.

It's all good, I don't know if it was you that gave me a + rep with a comment about it being difficult to avoid becoming heated during a political debate, or any other kind of debate.

Twas! And I apreciate your +rep for me with basically the same thing. These are very informitive debates. I learn a lot from them. Like reading over the health bill that dude posted in the other thread, I can now say that I have read the parts of it that people are distorting in the media and have a much better understanding of it.

Just like how I have learned a lot from this thread with things you have brought up. I feel this is important, if nothing else anyone that may read it may learn something too, or at least realize we are not that far from eachother and have the same basic goals (prosperity, smaller government, good economy, civil liberties, and everything else) but just are approaching them from different angles.

I blame the mortgage brokers on that portion of the problem. They were the one's that made the mortgages then sold them to the banks to make more bad mortgages.

But they are just one player amongst a field of dozens.

For sure, there is enough blame to be spread around.

I personally think that a meltdown would not be nearly as bad as everyone was predicting.

Very possible. But luckily we won't have to have known! Things are not great yet, but at least we are beyond the worst.

Lol, Revolutions are bad things, though I think once the market starts recovering Obama will find that his support has dried up, and that his "majority" is blocked into inaction by John Q Public standing up on his hind feet and giving the politicians the finger.

No, wonder why he seems to be russian from one collosal waste of money to the next. His power will soon be limited by people demanding true accountability and true transparency as they see their incomes getting confiscated through taxation.

Though I think a lot are getting pissed off at him...

I too think once things start to get back to normal the drive will fall off, but funny enough from the other side of it. Once people are no longer paniced they will start to go back to not careing enough to pay attention or fight for anythign and it will be easy for the dems to relax since noone is watching them anymore and pushing for the reform.

Yes, abandoned infants need to be brought up, but I think it's something that private charity can handle, and probably more efficiently than government.

I agree this would actually be a great area for churches (as long as they don't stagnate their education) to help out. They get government money (churches) but are very good people and would be a great fit for it. So kind of a blend of gov and private.

Actually, I think they don't want to see their largest cost go up any further (labor.) Besides, they might just go to Ireland, or maybe even Eastern Europe, seeking not lower labor costs, but just lower taxes.

The belief that corporations are the enemy is irrational. I have yet to see government pay my bills, but I see my employer pay my taxes every two weeks (against my will, but they don't have a choice) and pay my bills, and provide me with money to go and have fun.

Of course, I have a decent job, but even when I was at the bottom, I still saw government taking money I couldn't afford (I needed it to pay for school) and not give anything back.

Yeah corporations are not the enemy, I just say we shouldn't be afraid to call bullshit when they say they will leave due to taxes. Doesn't Ireland not have any corporate taxes? I think I heard that somewhere.

And the government has been very unkind to my paychecks through the years, but the school loans that they subsidize will come in handy now that I am a full time student again.

Eh, more competition in professional fields... we'd end up right back where we started, besides, I don't want to have to compete with more people that know how to write software. I like being able to demand more than $8/hour for my skillset.

Good point. But if we can buy things so much cheaper since they moved over seas and we are able to get onto the next big idea the money will still be there, it will just be that everything else is cheaper. Like cloths we can now buy. It was very bad at first but once we adapted everyone made out.

Eh, even the bad times were good,

No fear, no regrets

The storm washed over me, and I felt sorry for those that were losing their houses, but I knew I was fine, because I didn't leverage myself up to the hilt.

Of course, now with the dental my flex is not as great...

and the new GF (GFs are expensive)

I can't wait until I'm done paying for the dental, then I can get back to investing, and saving.

Well, unless Obama does something stupid like force me to get Health Care Insurance, that I don't want, and don't need.

Anyway, have fun with your Girl.

Yeah after reading that I really don't think (but always room to be wrong even if a small chance) we will have forced insurance anytimne soon.

Congrats with the Gf, and nice job not mortgaging yourself to the hilt!

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 25, 2009

I agree. Besides education and healthcare reforms, this is going to be my measuring stick for Obama. If he can get the deficit down with how far in we are now, and helps fix the other two. He will become in my eyes one of the great presidents. If he doesn't he gets tossed out onto the pile of mediocre we have had for decades.

Oh, no, he's already below mediocrity, he will be lucky if he achieves that level.

Hell, right now, he'll be lucky if he is compared with Carter (and comes out on top, instead of bottom.)

http://mises.org/story/3585

Very good point.

Awesome! You made all the time I have put onto this site the last week or so worth it right there. And funny enough I was looking through my books and I do have a Krugman book! It is a text book 'Economics".

Just because I'm willing to read, does not mean that I am going to take it any more than with a grain of salt. Actions (such as stating that the Fed should create a Housing Bubble) count for far more than words on paper in a textbook, which will not reveal the true extent of a person's extremism, and idiocy.

I found a good quote in it but cant find it now. Essentially:

Three questions that the politicians may ask a economist:

1. What is the most likely situation if we adjust taxes to this amount. An economist can use tax models to figure out the most likely situation with numbers that should be close to what will happen.

Strange, but their models are usually wrong.

2. What would the total cost of this new program extrapulate out to be. And how would it effect the economy. (Say social program I think was what it was, but the only reason this is important is question 3)

They are usually wrong there.

The costs that government predicts are usually off by over 80 - 90%. The bureaucratic economists that suck at government's hind teat are not about to bite the hands that feed them.

3. Should we raise taxes to do number 2. Here is where economics no longer has an answer it can just help understand the trade-offs. This gets tossed onto the economists 'values'.

Raising taxes is always a bad solution, it decreases revenues and slows economic growth, thus preventing tax revenues from increasing as fast as they would with out tax increases, or with tax reductions.

Harding/Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan showed that cutting taxes spurs economic growth.

Also he talks about how economists get improperly labelled "Kenyesian" or "Friedman economists" but it is not by them it is the political world that does it to discredit them.

If Krugman truly wanted the Fed to create a Housing Bubble then he deserved to be discredited. Any economist that urges the creation of a bubble is not worth the effort it would take to wipe one's ass with their degree.

Anyway thought you may get a kick out of the question thing.

Not really, they are all about Tax and Spend, not real questions...

Like

"How do we best accomodate the desires of 300 Million people to be free from undue interference in their lives, and allow them to pursue any opportunities that they see, and desire to try taking advantage of?"

"How do we allow the best and brightest of our citizens to stride boldly forward to generate real prosperity for this nation, and themselves?"

"How do we encourage economic growth, competition, and freedom?"

That is sick. We need some major reform. The system we are using is so antiquated. I really don't think that city schools should worry about having summer breaks to be able to work on the farm anymore.

I'm for summer breaks, not because of the teachers, but for the students. Children should be given time to be children, instead of mindless drones.

I agreed with everything else but just wanted to say I am on the the other side of this issue.

The problem with flat system is that the lower your income on the scale the more % of your income would be used up.

I disagree, 10% of 1,000 or 10% of 1,000,000 is still 10% the percentage does not change.

The food someone eats may be a little more money (better quality) the wealthier you get, but you would not be spending as much of a % of your money on it as a poorer person.

That doesn't justify taxing them a higher rate and thus punishing their efforts to work harder or smarter. And it ignores the fact that often those very people paid to get to the point of where they are.

It ignores the fact that higher education costs money and time, and thus, while there are earnings difference some of that difference is due to compensation for time and money spent to make themselves more useful to society.

It does not benefit society to tax those that have improved themselves and thus benefit society more.

Things like water, electricity, tickets, cable subscriptions ect. The more money you have the more money that you have to reinvest and grow it.

And it is a person's natural right to do what they want with the fruits of their labor. Taking it through force, fraud and coercion is immoral, and the equivalent of that most deplorable of practices known as slavery.

That is why state taxes and flat taxes disporportionalntly affect the lower income people because they generally are not able to get around them. Also they don't have the same access to tax lawyers and accountants so are not able to take advantage of the same loopholes.

No they wouldn't. If everyone pays 10% above some cut off point then the poor are not more effected by it.

The opposite is the true, the rich, and middle class are still paying proportionately more than the true value of the benefits they receive from government.

Flat taxes are a rich mans dream who would have the same percent of his/her income as a poor person without having to spend near as much (%) of it on the neccessities of life.

Myrmidon, stop believing the imbecilic rhetoric of the left, and try thinking and doing the math for yourself for a change. The rich, and middle class would still be taxed more for working harder, just it would be at a consistent percentage, and thus it would not punish some one that is working two low paying jobs for some reason for doing so.

To argue that those that do not contribute what the average citizen contributes to society should see tax benefits is idiotic. If the average American earns $44,000 then they should pay the same amount at that level as some one that earns $14,000, or $84,000.

The person that earns $84,000 due to being an entrepreneur and opening a business (and thus providing jobs for other people) should pay an equal percentage to the people they employee, especially considering that they are obligated to pay 7% on top of any wages they pay to pay payroll taxes and thus are already punished for creating the job in the first place.

Your arguments demonstrate an irrational belief in the beliefs of the far left, and reek of State-Worship.

Really good way to put it I didn't think of it from that angle. It does make sense though because the fed and giethner came out and said that they would not allow them to fail taking out the worry of bankruptcy.

I still believe that they should have been allowed to fail, or the failed firms should have been sold off piece meal to successful firms, instead of being allowed to continue under the same management or same failed names.

Failure should be punished (to discourage it) in the free market the price for failure is dissolution and destruction. Which is efficient, because it frees up wasted resources for other uses.

To reward failure (by not allowing nature to take its course) is irrational, and illogical, and reeks of corruption.

I think I remember hearing that was were the bonuses went to too.

The Bonuses were insufficient to bring down AIG. The firm was huge, Asia, America and Europe.

Too True. We need to really get a grassroots political group with people that want to get normal people that are very well educated in their fields and that can prove that they can work together with people of different viewpoints and make the best decisions not just their own.

I just think we need more Representatives, we don't necessarily need a grassroots political group...

More representatives would allow for a more distributed House of Representatives that better represents the country at large, and its myriad of interests.

Funny! I actually said that in class when I first heard that too. He agreed, but said the reasoning was that Investing is more defined in that model as building/material/technologies. But also at the end of it agreed that it is an investment because it grows wealth, and but as it doesn't depreciate they leave it in consuming for simplicity.

Education - Acquisition of Technological Know How,

it might be a wash, some education can be due to needing to learn new technologies (and thus is an investment)

some is pointless attempts by schools to charge for credit hours for courses that really don't offer any great benefit (and thus belong under waste, err consumption)

Yeah basic class at best that they need to coast a C in, but insanely easy to not understand anything and still get an A. Sneds shivers down my back thinking about everyone in the senate is a lawyer and how much of a joke it is that they have the brightest minds in the world (economics, scientists, education speciallists ect) trying to help them understand things when it should be the other way around, the lawyers telling them why they can or cannot change things because of the constitution.

The lawyers obviously have been neglecting their duties then. There is far too much that is not defined in the Constitution and thus goes directly against the Constitution that has been added onto the Federal Government.

The largest of these are the Departments of Education, HHS, Energy, and so on and so forth.

I will concede.

I don't know enough about Austrian economics ins and outs, but if it is a branch of economics I am sure it can't be too far off the mark but I will reserve judgement either way until I have more understanding. Child welfare is one of the more noble ideas (sounds good poor mothers children should not suffer completely due to parents sucking) that got taken and turned into one of the most gross programs ever.

I like the idea of no more money after 2nd kid. Very simple and effective.

Twas! And I apreciate your +rep for me with basically the same thing. These are very informitive debates. I learn a lot from them. Like reading over the health bill that dude posted in the other thread, I can now say that I have read the parts of it that people are distorting in the media and have a much better understanding of it.

Just like how I have learned a lot from this thread with things you have brought up. I feel this is important, if nothing else anyone that may read it may learn something too, or at least realize we are not that far from eachother and have the same basic goals (prosperity, smaller government, good economy, civil liberties, and everything else) but just are approaching them from different angles.

I don't know, some of your angles sound like you're trying to bring about larger government, not smaller government.

For sure, there is enough blame to be spread around.

Very possible. But luckily we won't have to have known! Things are not great yet, but at least we are beyond the worst.

I would rather know, because I think it would have been considerable better than the government controlled collapse (the government didn't really halt or prevent the collapse through its intervention)

I too think once things start to get back to normal the drive will fall off, but funny enough from the other side of it. Once people are no longer paniced they will start to go back to not careing enough to pay attention or fight for anythign and it will be easy for the dems to relax since noone is watching them anymore and pushing for the reform.

It's not a matter of not caring, but more a matter of not having the money to care.

Charity begins by protecting those that have money from the government, and other entities that would steal it. You can not tax a nation into prosperity.

Besides, if a man, woman or child can not look at me in the eyes and ask for help then they are not deserving of it. If they are not willing to put away their pride and ask for help, then they should not receive it.

If they are going to insist that I am some how obligated to help them, and thus use the laws of this nation to steal from me against my will to help themselves, then they do not deserve help.

I agree this would actually be a great area for churches (as long as they don't stagnate their education) to help out. They get government money (churches) but are very good people and would be a great fit for it. So kind of a blend of gov and private.

I'm sick of Quasi-Governmental Institutions, or Government-Backed Institutions like the GSEs, the Federal Reserve, and other entities. They are not obligated to disclose what they are doing, and are often times ran by bureaucrats that are only skilled in the art of sycophancy and know nothing about the industries they are getting involved in, due to having that knowledge erased through inhaling the stench of political bullshit.

Yeah corporations are not the enemy, I just say we shouldn't be afraid to call bullshit when they say they will leave due to taxes. Doesn't Ireland not have any corporate taxes? I think I heard that somewhere.

12%, considerably lower than the United States

Everyone talks about how the United States can not exist in a vacuum, and yet some continuously ignore themselves when it comes to tax policy.

Protecting Corporations, Protects Jobs, which generates Prosperity and Wealth.

And the government has been very unkind to my paychecks through the years, but the school loans that they subsidize will come in handy now that I am a full time student again.

I've already paid off my debts to the government, I want to be quit of the entire sordid system and be allowed to be a free and independent person, not the government's chattel.

Besides, I could use a helping hand, but I already know the response I'll receive.

It will be a prettified "FUCK YOU!" from some bureaucrat that survives by drinking the piss of their betters from the ground.

Good point. But if we can buy things so much cheaper since they moved over seas and we are able to get onto the next big idea the money will still be there, it will just be that everything else is cheaper. Like cloths we can now buy. It was very bad at first but once we adapted everyone made out.

No, there's still a lot of people that are screwed over.

I'm in favor of tariff's and protectionism. The United States should be self-sufficient, and not dependent on any nation for needed commodities, such as food, clothing and shelter.

More important is the fact that some industries agriculture, textiles, forestry, steel, iron, resource extraction, and manufacturing deserve the protection of our government, because protecting them is vital to our national interests in being able to defend ourselves from aggression.

While the world has been relatively peaceful for the last several decades, such a lull in war is unlikely to last.

Yeah after reading that I really don't think (but always room to be wrong even if a small chance) we will have forced insurance anytimne soon.

Go and read that bill again. It sounds like it is going to force people to have insurance.

Congrats with the Gf, and nice job not mortgaging yourself to the hilt!

Thanks, of the two the GF is more important, the latter is just the result of having common sense...

hanimmal · Jul 25, 2009

Just because I'm willing to read, does not mean that I am going to take it any more than with a grain of salt. Actions (such as stating that the Fed should create a Housing Bubble) count for far more than words on paper in a textbook, which will not reveal the true extent of a person's extremism, and idiocy.

People can mispeak, or get trapped by stupid questions, or misquoted, or just outright lie about what was said. Written word is the only way I will belive something (other than video that is uncut and full and prepared).

Besides actions speak louder than words and all that.

Quote:
1. What is the most likely situation if we adjust taxes to this amount. An economist can use tax models to figure out the most likely situation with numbers that should be close to what will happen.
Strange, but their models are usually wrong.

Quote:
2. What would the total cost of this new program extrapulate out to be. And how would it effect the economy. (Say social program I think was what it was, but the only reason this is important is question 3)
They are usually wrong there.

The costs that government predicts are usually off by over 80 - 90%. The bureaucratic economists that suck at government's hind teat are not about to bite the hands that feed them.

Quote:
3. Should we raise taxes to do number 2. Here is where economics no longer has an answer it can just help understand the trade-offs. This gets tossed onto the economists 'values'.
Raising taxes is always a bad solution, it decreases revenues and slows economic growth, thus preventing tax revenues from increasing as fast as they would with out tax increases, or with tax reductions.

Harding/Coolidge, Kennedy, and Reagan showed that cutting taxes spurs economic growth.

It is not the models that are 80-90% off, economists agree that raising costs (taxes) will bring slow growth. If the politicians are talking they are the ones that are distorting the numbers. And if the economists that are hired are making the numbers fit what the politicians make them say they will be then it still falls onto the politician for not letting the guy do what he is supposed to do and listen.

But most will just fire them, and the economist knows having a job is better than not because someone else is going to do it anyway.

Reagan raised taxes and cut them several times. He would lower then they would run out and have to bring it back up. But what he did to get the inflation under control was to get unemployment up over 10%. Regardless, I stick by my statement about Obama.

If Krugman truly wanted the Fed to create a Housing Bubble then he deserved to be discredited. Any economist that urges the creation of a bubble is not worth the effort it would take to wipe one's ass with their degree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?scp=4&sq=krugman mcculley bubble&st=cse

There is the link to an article he wrote that they say he advocated the housing bubble. I read it not that this is what should be done, but what the Fed could do to snap back the recession of 02. But at the same time saying that anything is going to get bad. I think he was right the path we were going on there was going to be another dip (we are in it now) before things could get better. And by increasing housing purchases it would delay the inevitable.

"How do we best accomodate the desires of 300 Million people to be free from undue interference in their lives, and allow them to pursue any opportunities that they see, and desire to try taking advantage of?"

"How do we allow the best and brightest of our citizens to stride boldly forward to generate real prosperity for this nation, and themselves?"

"How do we encourage economic growth, competition, and freedom?"

But those are not the questions that economics answers. They can come up with the decision that would fit their personal feelings and desires, but it would always be slanted towards their beliefs. Now if you got a room full of many types of scientists (econ, doctors, sociologists, urban developement, healthcare) that would be able to go trhough every possible situation they could think of and professional insite and then come up with the best possible decision.

But one person will almost always get it wrong in another persons eyes.

I'm for summer breaks, not because of the teachers, but for the students. Children should be given time to be children, instead of mindless drones.

I would rather see 4 medium breaks a year instead of 1 ultra long (summer) 1 medium (winter) and 1 short (spring). Between each semester a month off. This way your not halting a class in the middle and expecting them to be able to pick up right were they left off after the break.

No they wouldn't. If everyone pays 10% above some cut off point then the poor are not more effected by it.

The opposite is the true, the rich, and middle class are still paying proportionately more than the true value of the benefits they receive from government.

The rest added up to this so I hope you dont mind if I just sum it up here.

If you think about what benefits the wealthy get from the lower classes in regards to taxes they get far more benefit. They make money off of the workers they employ. So the money that goes to roads means that their goods can travel faster and better, meaning that thier trucks wont need to be repaired as much, and thier workers can be at work on time. Same with electricity, even healthcare.

If I have an employee that is sick I can't make any money off of them. So it is better for me that they get cured up so they can get back to work and make me money.

The wealthier person is able to then turn all the extra money that they don't have to spend (much higher amount of money is able to be used to reinvest) on ways to make money. Also things like state tax very much affect the poorer since they spend most of their money in stores meaning that almost every dollar they have is double taxed. While people that don't have to spend all of it don't have to double pay on the left over money.

Myrmidon, stop believing the imbecilic rhetoric of the left, and try thinking and doing the math for yourself for a change. The rich, and middle class would still be taxed more for working harder, just it would be at a consistent percentage, and thus it would not punish some one that is working two low paying jobs for some reason for doing so.

To argue that those that do not contribute what the average citizen contributes to society should see tax benefits is idiotic. If the average American earns $44,000 then they should pay the same amount at that level as some one that earns $14,000, or $84,000.

The person that earns $84,000 due to being an entrepreneur and opening a business (and thus providing jobs for other people) should pay an equal percentage to the people they employee, especially considering that they are obligated to pay 7% on top of any wages they pay to pay payroll taxes and thus are already punished for creating the job in the first place.

Your arguments demonstrate an irrational belief in the beliefs of the far left, and reek of State-Worship.

I have done the math.

And don't have the irrational beliefs of the far left. As I think you would know since I am very pro private business. I am just very pro logic and reason.

84k is not the wealthy that I am referring to, lets bump it up to 150k vs 50k.

If you add up all the bills paid, the taxes that go to it, the taxes on everything that is bought, plates for your car on and on, all the things we end up paying taxes on (which I know you hate as well), and look at the actual percent of their salary of what is paid by the person at 50k, vs someone that makes 150k the totals will be in the benefit of the 150k.

They will have far more money left over to reinvest. And also they profit most off of the places that those taxes go to. Not to mention getting tax help and being able to use all the tax breaks that they are able to use.

But then again I am a Myridon right? I obviously had to have read this on some blog and took it as the truth (actually I did not, these ideas are formed from a lot of reading, searching, evaluating and doing the math myself).

I still believe that they should have been allowed to fail, or the failed firms should have been sold off piece meal to successful firms, instead of being allowed to continue under the same management or same failed names.

Failure should be punished (to discourage it) in the free market the price for failure is dissolution and destruction. Which is efficient, because it frees up wasted resources for other uses.

To reward failure (by not allowing nature to take its course) is irrational, and illogical, and reeks of corruption.

Going with what 'feels' right in the face of disaster is not the best way to go about things. The best way is to do the math. If this happens now what do we stand to lose. If these companies are allowed to fail in the future what will the costs be. Which is less. Go that route. Not just assume that it is the best bet to let it fail right now.

The Bonuses were insufficient to bring down AIG. The firm was huge, Asia, America and Europe.

I never said that brought down AIG not sure where you got that. I was agreeing with you and saying that those scum were the ones that got the bonuses that everyone was crying about.

I just think we need more Representatives, we don't necessarily need a grassroots political group...

More representatives would allow for a more distributed House of Representatives that better represents the country at large, and its myriad of interests.

But the way it is going now they would just be more lawyers. I think a couple extra parties running for office would be very good. Libertarians, green, ect get some different viewpoints and more educated diverse people.

Education - Acquisition of Technological Know How,

it might be a wash, some education can be due to needing to learn new technologies (and thus is an investment)

some is pointless attempts by schools to charge for credit hours for courses that really don't offer any great benefit (and thus belong under waste, err consumption)

Yeah just to inflate their pocket books.

The lawyers obviously have been neglecting their duties then. There is far too much that is not defined in the Constitution and thus goes directly against the Constitution that has been added onto the Federal Government.

The largest of these are the Departments of Education, HHS, Energy, and so on and so forth.

No I am saying that the non lawyers should be coming up with the ideas, and the lawyers that are in power now should be letting them know if it is within the constitution to do so. Now it is the lawyers in charge trying figuring out ways to get around the constitution with hardly regarding the science that would benefit the best change.

I don't know, some of your angles sound like you're trying to bring about larger government, not smaller government.

Smaller doesn''t mean non-exsistent. We are paying more than enough to do the things needed, and wasting sooo much money on what isn't. We need to get out of peoples lives, but protect their interests.

If a bailout is needed, do it, but get out and get paid back with interest. Build a better school system, doesn't mean starting from scratch. If there is a good needed program already in place, make sure it is as efficient as possible even if it means putting it into the private sector. Pull money from areas that are unbenefitial (like the aircrafts they just scratched that have never even been flown) and put it into health insurance. Get rid of the bloat and there will be enough for everything that is needed. And if it is not needed scrap it. Stop fighting wars and instead invest in those countries and get the return from them as their economy builds.

We need to prune! The government is already too large. But that doesn't mean we should shut it down (I know your not this extreme) to pay as little as possible.

I would rather know, because I think it would have been considerable better than the government controlled collapse (the government didn't really halt or prevent the collapse through its intervention)

Well then take the 5 largest banks figure out the money costs from their collapse to the economy over the next 5 years, add into that all the side businesses that rely on them (down to the corner resturaunt) and figureout the amount of money that would have been left over after the sale (at the price people would have been willing/able to buy it) and you got the number.

I think that I like my way better, to do all the math and figure which is going to cost less money with the best outcome for the country the winner.

It's not a matter of not caring, but more a matter of not having the money to care.

Charity begins by protecting those that have money from the government, and other entities that would steal it. You can not tax a nation into prosperity.

Besides, if a man, woman or child can not look at me in the eyes and ask for help then they are not deserving of it. If they are not willing to put away their pride and ask for help, then they should not receive it.

If they are going to insist that I am some how obligated to help them, and thus use the laws of this nation to steal from me against my will to help themselves, then they do not deserve help.

No I mean once this is over the greater public will go back to watching sitcoms instead of the news. Leaving the politicians to step off the frying pan. When that happens all the political will to get the changes done that are nessecary will be pushed out further. Instead of figuring out what needs to get done to save the most money and doing it right.

I'm sick of Quasi-Governmental Institutions, or Government-Backed Institutions like the GSEs, the Federal Reserve, and other entities. They are not obligated to disclose what they are doing, and are often times ran by bureaucrats that are only skilled in the art of sycophancy and know nothing about the industries they are getting involved in, due to having that knowledge erased through inhaling the stench of political bullshit.

They have disclosure, it is just the politicians can't understand it so they want to get their clutches in deeper. Just like a public traded company. I like the intertwining of private and government though since it is the best way to have checks and balances. If it is just private with no regards to government then it can be more easily corrupted (the most important thing is profits, not the people that your supposed to be taking care of) and if it is just government it tends to become very bloated since it is not thier moeny they are playing with.

12%, considerably lower than the United States

Everyone talks about how the United States can not exist in a vacuum, and yet some continuously ignore themselves when it comes to tax policy.

Protecting Corporations, Protects Jobs, which generates Prosperity and Wealth.

But if they are going to want to pay the people less money than they are willing to take they will leave anyway. What we need is a more skilled workforce that can produce better and faster than anyone in the world in areas that no other country has the skills to be able to do it.

And if by moving over there they can sell us the product at a lower price than all the jobs that were lost we would actually come out ahead as a society. And then we could retrain the people whos jobs are lost and get them into new fields of technology. Just like we did with clothing, we are far better off letting other countries like china make them for us.

No, there's still a lot of people that are screwed over.

I'm in favor of tariff's and protectionism. The United States should be self-sufficient, and not dependent on any nation for needed commodities, such as food, clothing and shelter.

More important is the fact that some industries agriculture, textiles, forestry, steel, iron, resource extraction, and manufacturing deserve the protection of our government, because protecting them is vital to our national interests in being able to defend ourselves from aggression.

While the world has been relatively peaceful for the last several decades, such a lull in war is unlikely to last.

Tariffs and protectionism works about as well as socialism. For 'people' socialism is a good thing, but it doesn't work. You cannot force companies to not have the same competition trhough tariffs. There are people that will always be devistates by progress (horse saddle makers when cars came around) but in the long run the entire society is better off with trade than without. Whoever can make the item cheapest should trade that. It is a good idea, but it halts the free market. As a country we will never be without the vital industries to protect our country. We have too many resources. And unless they come by sea I am not afraid of canada or mexico declaring war on us in the next hundred years.

And if we really got smart we would realize that being the breadbasket of the world is more important than things like oil. People can't eat oil.

Go and read that bill again. It sounds like it is going to force people to have insurance.

Definantly I will continue that one. I did not see where you said it was but I will continue to check on it. Hopefully that is not the case, but it is not something that is improbable.

TheBrutalTruth · Jul 26, 2009

People can mispeak, or get trapped by stupid questions, or misquoted, or just outright lie about what was said. Written word is the only way I will belive something (other than video that is uncut and full and prepared).

Besides actions speak louder than words and all that.

If you misspeak it is a result of not knowing what the fuck you are talking about, or due to stupidity. Or, because you don't truly believe what you are saying. If you believe what you are saying you are going to be consistent in what you say, and thus will not misspeak.

It is not the models that are 80-90% off, economists agree that raising costs (taxes) will bring slow growth. If the politicians are talking they are the ones that are distorting the numbers. And if the economists that are hired are making the numbers fit what the politicians make them say they will be then it still falls onto the politician for not letting the guy do what he is supposed to do and listen.

You're right, the models are more like 300 - 400% off.

Too many variables, not enough computing power...

But most will just fire them, and the economist knows having a job is better than not because someone else is going to do it anyway.

I guess most economists like the taste of shit then, and are unprincipled mercenaries with out honor.

Reagan raised taxes and cut them several times. He would lower then they would run out and have to bring it back up. But what he did to get the inflation under control was to get unemployment up over 10%. Regardless, I stick by my statement about Obama.

Inflation or Deflation does not have anything to do with unemployment.

In the case of Reagan's success against inflation, it was the fact that he actively discouraged inflation by increasing interest rates, or urging the fed to raise them.

Inflation results from an increase in the money supply... too much money chasing too few goods, if interest rates are low, and thus credit is easy to get, you are going to have inflationary pressure, when interest rates are higher and credit more difficult to get then there will be either no inflationary pressure, or deflationary pressure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html?scp=4&sq=krugman mcculley bubble&st=cse

There is the link to an article he wrote that they say he advocated the housing bubble. I read it not that this is what should be done, but what the Fed could do to snap back the recession of 02. But at the same time saying that anything is going to get bad. I think he was right the path we were going on there was going to be another dip (we are in it now) before things could get better. And by increasing housing purchases it would delay the inevitable.

It was a stupid idea, creating another bubble to fix a bubble is not a real solution. The real solution is to step aside and let the markets correct themselves.

But those are not the questions that economics answers. They can come up with the decision that would fit their personal feelings and desires, but it would always be slanted towards their beliefs. Now if you got a room full of many types of scientists (econ, doctors, sociologists, urban developement, healthcare) that would be able to go trhough every possible situation they could think of and professional insite and then come up with the best possible decision.

Actually, those questions are at the heart of economics. You can not have economics with out political theory. Any economic theory that ignores political reality will fail, any political theory that ignores economic realities will fail.

But one person will almost always get it wrong in another persons eyes.

I would rather see 4 medium breaks a year instead of 1 ultra long (summer) 1 medium (winter) and 1 short (spring). Between each semester a month off. This way your not halting a class in the middle and expecting them to be able to pick up right were they left off after the break.

It's a way of separating the wheat from the chaff. Those that are intelligent will retain most of the knowledge over the summer, and those that are not will forget it.

Besides, the classes are typically designed to fit into each semester, or have clear components that fit into each semester, and thus there is no interruption in the middle.

The rest added up to this so I hope you dont mind if I just sum it up here.

If you think about what benefits the wealthy get from the lower classes in regards to taxes they get far more benefit. They make money off of the workers they employ. So the money that goes to roads means that their goods can travel faster and better, meaning that thier trucks wont need to be repaired as much, and thier workers can be at work on time. Same with electricity, even healthcare.

If the employees were not depriving benefit themselves they would not work. Everyone benefits, and obviously as with out the roads the employees would have no jobs to go to, or would not be able to sustain employment for long periods of time, and thus would often suffer from hunger, then it is they who are getting the majority of the benefit.

If I have an employee that is sick I can't make any money off of them. So it is better for me that they get cured up so they can get back to work and make me money.

Yes, you enjoy slavery, your posts make that abundantly clear.

If people are sick, or injured through their own personal actions then it should not be the obligation of everyone else to pay for their stupidity. If some one is drunk and gets into wrecks repeatedly then insurance companies should have the right to refuse coverage, because it is costing everyone else more to allow them to be in the benefit pool.

Or, if they want to charge extra premiums, they should have that right.

Instead of trying for an imbecilic one-size fits all system, like the current legislation is attempting to do, the market should be free to match individual needs, wants and costs as closely as is desired by both the individuals and the insurance companies.

The wealthier person is able to then turn all the extra money that they don't have to spend (much higher amount of money is able to be used to reinvest) on ways to make money. Also things like state tax very much affect the poorer since they spend most of their money in stores meaning that almost every dollar they have is double taxed. While people that don't have to spend all of it don't have to double pay on the left over money.

Your arguments are stupid, socialist drivel.

I have done the math.

And don't have the irrational beliefs of the far left. As I think you would know since I am very pro private business. I am just very pro logic and reason.

No, I don't see your logic, or your reason.

It fails the simple test of preserving humanity.

It is a system of slavery, and you are not pro-business, no more than you are pro-freedom.

You are pro-government and pro-slavery.

Sic Semper Tyrannis,

fall on your sword.

84k is not the wealthy that I am referring to, lets bump it up to 150k vs 50k.

84K is affluent, and in the top 25%, and illustrates my point just as well as 150%.

If you add up all the bills paid, the taxes that go to it, the taxes on everything that is bought, plates for your car on and on, all the things we end up paying taxes on (which I know you hate as well), and look at the actual percent of their salary of what is paid by the person at 50k, vs someone that makes 150k the totals will be in the benefit of the 150k.

They will have far more money left over to reinvest. And also they profit most off of the places that those taxes go to. Not to mention getting tax help and being able to use all the tax breaks that they are able to use.

But then again I am a Myridon right? I obviously had to have read this on some blog and took it as the truth (actually I did not, these ideas are formed from a lot of reading, searching, evaluating and doing the math myself).

I doubt it, you're repeating the same mindless drivel that is said on T.V.

Going with what 'feels' right in the face of disaster is not the best way to go about things. The best way is to do the math. If this happens now what do we stand to lose. If these companies are allowed to fail in the future what will the costs be. Which is less. Go that route. Not just assume that it is the best bet to let it fail right now.

Whatever, Myrmidon, you're ignoring humanity, but we've already established that your pro-government enslavement, so this should not be any surprise.

I never said that brought down AIG not sure where you got that. I was agreeing with you and saying that those scum were the ones that got the bonuses that everyone was crying about.

I could care less about their bonuses, especially if AIG was contractually obligated to deliver those bonuses, and I don't think it was the London Branch that was getting the bonuses that everyone was up in arms about.

If AIG was contractually obligated to pay those bonuses then the government had no right to interfere in that contract.

But the way it is going now they would just be more lawyers. I think a couple extra parties running for office would be very good. Libertarians, green, ect get some different viewpoints and more educated diverse people.

If we had 1 representative for every 30,000 people, I don't think we'd end up with more lawyers.

Yeah just to inflate their pocket books.

No I am saying that the non lawyers should be coming up with the ideas, and the lawyers that are in power now should be letting them know if it is within the constitution to do so. Now it is the lawyers in charge trying figuring out ways to get around the constitution with hardly regarding the science that would benefit the best change.

If you need a lawyer to tell you if something is unConstitutional you are a dumb ass.

The Constitution is very clear and concise in its language and not written in legalese.

Smaller doesn''t mean non-exsistent. We are paying more than enough to do the things needed, and wasting sooo much money on what isn't. We need to get out of peoples lives, but protect their interests.

The best way to protect their interests is to allow them to choose their own interests and get the hell out of the way instead of dictating to them what those interests are.

If a bailout is needed, do it, but get out and get paid back with interest.

Public money should not be given for private benefit.

The firms should have been allowed to collapse, regardless of the "consequences" which obviously were not averted by bailing those firms out.

3 Million additional jobs lost (if not more than that.)

Build a better school system, doesn't mean starting from scratch.

Yes, it does, sometimes you have to just dynamite the entire structure especially when the foundation is flawed.

If there is a good needed program already in place, make sure it is as efficient as possible even if it means putting it into the private sector.

Healthcare was efficient. Most people that don't have health insurance probably chose to have something else instead.

Pull money from areas that are unbenefitial (like the aircrafts they just scratched that have never even been flown)

National Defense is the only role that government should be involved in at the Federal Level.

Well, aside from coining money and ensuring a uniform system of bankruptcy laws, and making sure that the states are not waging economic war against each other.

and put it into health insurance.

Get rid of the bloat and there will be enough for everything that is needed. And if it is not needed scrap it. Stop fighting wars and instead invest in those countries and get the return from them as their economy builds.

The only duty the government has at a federal level is National Defense.

Besides, it would not be efficient for the government to invest tax dollars in foreign countries.

If businesses want to, then that is up to them.

But sending public money to foreign nations where it will not benefit the average citizen, but will instead harm them, by allowing for the usage of cheap labor is irrational.

We need to prune! The government is already too large. But that doesn't mean we should shut it down (I know your not this extreme) to pay as little as possible.

Prune it, what an understatement, we need to take a cutting, destroy the rotted carcass of the old, and plant a new federal government that follows the Constitution, and does not operate as a malignant virus that kills its host.

Bureaucrats are Parasites...

Well then take the 5 largest banks figure out the money costs from their collapse to the economy over the next 5 years, add into that all the side businesses that rely on them (down to the corner resturaunt) and figureout the amount of money that would have been left over after the sale (at the price people would have been willing/able to buy it) and you got the number.

The businesses that supposedly rely upon these banks are not dependent upon them. Any bank is interchangeable with any other bank, in the eyes of business. Their competently managed competitors would step in to fill the demand created by their collapse.

Your arguing absurdities.

I think that I like my way better, to do all the math and figure which is going to cost less money with the best outcome for the country the winner.

Yes, you would, myrmidon, it allows you to dictate what people have to do, just like the little statis that you are.

The problem is that it ignores all the individual desires of humanity. This is a nation of 300 Million individuals that are (or should be) independent, and by virtue of their individuality of individual desires, goals, wants and needs. Some of them, don't need health insurance, or want it.

Some of them could just be waiting until they decide that it benefits them more.

The government stated that the largest group was people in my age bracket, clearly then, it would demonstrate that perhaps like me these people are waiting until they have dependents to take care of to get health insurance, because they have decided that they are better able to use that money elsewhere.

The other group are probably entrepreneurs who are trying to operate their businesses, and thus are building those businesses, probably with the goal of being able to provide themselves with health insurance.

Your ideas fail when tested against humanities variances as individuals.

It is an objectivist view that ignores the fact that dealing with people demands subjectivity to pay attention to all their individual desires.

No I mean once this is over the greater public will go back to watching sitcoms instead of the news. Leaving the politicians to step off the frying pan. When that happens all the political will to get the changes done that are nessecary will be pushed out further. Instead of figuring out what needs to get done to save the most money and doing it right.

Here's a question for you, how much are the legal fees paid by the medical industry, and malpractice premiums paid by the medical industry.

How much do they amount to as a percentage of that spending, because they are no doubt included in the "costs" of our healthcare system.

The bests solution is probably to provide better protection for doctors against lawyers. If a doctor makes a mistake (as they are likely to do being humans and not machines) it is then logical to expect them to fix it with out a fee, and thus getting lawyers involved is a colossal waste of money. Yes, there are errors that can not be fixed, and those justify lawsuits, but a lot of stuff does not.

They have disclosure, it is just the politicians can't understand it so they want to get their clutches in deeper. Just like a public traded company. I like the intertwining of private and government though since it is the best way to have checks and balances. If it is just private with no regards to government then it can be more easily corrupted (the most important thing is profits, not the people that your supposed to be taking care of) and if it is just government it tends to become very bloated since it is not thier moeny they are playing with.

Yes, you would love FASCISM, and SOCIALISM.

Your mixing of private corporations with the government has lead to what probably should be called the most corrupt government on this planet. How many billions of dollars are given to campaigns by businesses.

Your system will collapse into tyranny and corruption, and thus fails.

But if they are going to want to pay the people less money than they are willing to take they will leave anyway. What we need is a more skilled workforce that can produce better and faster than anyone in the world in areas that no other country has the skills to be able to do it.

We already have that, to think we could maintain our advantage forever was unrealistic.

Especially when we are going to punish productivity and people that have acquired skills with higher taxes. Obviously they benefit society by being better skilled, thus it is irrational to punish them.

Their higher pay means they purchase more goods and services, that require more labor to make. Their consumption requires production, and production equals jobs.

Simple common sense.

And if by moving over there they can sell us the product at a lower price than all the jobs that were lost we would actually come out ahead as a society. And then we could retrain the people whos jobs are lost and get them into new fields of technology. Just like we did with clothing, we are far better off letting other countries like china make them for us.

Obviously, this idea hasn't benefitted the United States, and will not benefit the United States. Regardless of your ideas, some entry level jobs are necessary, otherwise individuals will not be able to climb up the ladder to success, as opposed to suck-Cess which is apparently the ladder that you are climbing with your anti-libertarian ideals.

Tariffs and protectionism works about as well as socialism. For 'people' socialism is a good thing, but it doesn't work.

Tell that to the workers at United States Steel.

Tell that to the workers in the Foreign-Owned Factories that are in the United States.

Reality demonstrates that your beliefs are wrong.

You cannot force companies to not have the same competition trhough tariffs.

The idea behind tariffs is not to eliminate competition, but to ensure that foreign corporations and foreign governments (as well as domestic governments) do not take jobs from inside the nation and ship them to foreign nations to pad their bottom lines.

It is to ensure that our domestic industries, and foreign industries compete on a level playing field.

There are people that will always be devistates by progress (horse saddle makers when cars came around) but in the long run the entire society is better off with trade than without.

If we aren't producing wealth, then we can't trade for anything.

You're wrong again, Myrmidon.

Trade, implies trade, one way flows of goods and services ultimately benefit no one.

Whoever can make the item cheapest should trade that.

That was an example, not a plan to follow myrmidon, I've read the same examples, and understand that they are just that, examples. They ignore reality, and ignore humanities individuality.

Just because some one can make the item the cheapest does not mean they should trade it. Maybe they don't want to make that item (having been sick of making that item over and over and over again) and want to do something else.

The economic example that you are pulling out of your textbooks is simplistic, and ignores reality.

It is a good idea, but it halts the free market.

So do taxes, but you seem to favor those, myrmidon.

Better to tax foreign goods come in, then domestic labor producing goods for domestic consumption.

As a country we will never be without the vital industries to protect our country.

You don't have a crystal ball, don't pretend like you do.

Did you not see the news about Northrup Grumman and EADS teaming up to produce tankers for the airforce. It is a short jump from there to foreign corporations dominating that market which should be served by American Corporations.

Did you not read the news regarding the motivations that Bush had behind using tariffs against foreign steel?

Steel is clearly a vital commodity for any nation seeking to defend itself, and thus to not use tariffs to create an even playing field (which American Productivity and Ingenuity is rewarded upon) is irrational.

And it doesn't prevent trade, it just alters the flow.

If we tax goods at 2.5% that are coming into our country then there is no "restriction" to trade (that cost would just be passed onto consumers) which might of course switch to domestically produced goods, and thus create more jobs, and more economic growth.

Tariffs are not this great evil thing that you are making them out to be, no more than deflation is.

Inflation is not this great requisite force for good that you were making it out to be.

Your economic models that you have in your head are too simplified.

We have too many resources. And unless they come by sea I am not afraid of canada or mexico declaring war on us in the next hundred years.

If we have too many resources, then it would be logical that we should be self-sufficient.

And if we really got smart we would realize that being the breadbasket of the world is more important than things like oil. People can't eat oil.

If we are unable to afford oil to grow the food then we are not going to be able to remain the breadbasket of the world.

Are you even thinking about what you are typing any more, myrmidon?

Definantly I will continue that one. I did not see where you said it was but I will continue to check on it. Hopefully that is not the case, but it is not something that is improbable.

It says it,

It even says it on that site you linked to.

Pry the scales off your eyes myrmidon

hanimmal · Jul 27, 2009

You came back full of piss and vinegar.

If you misspeak it is a result of not knowing what the fuck you are talking about, or due to stupidity. Or, because you don't truly believe what you are saying. If you believe what you are saying you are going to be consistent in what you say, and thus will not misspeak.

The press specializes in having people look stupid and get them to say what they want. And if they are not able to get it there they cut and paste until it is what they wanted. That is why no comment is the easiest way to get the crap over with and the raping begin.

You're right, the models are more like 300 - 400% off.

Too many variables, not enough computing power...

You were way off with the 80-90% but I let that go, but I can't here. That is such a naive thing to say man I know you know better than that. Economists wouldn't have jobs if they were that far off. You cannot measure accuratly anything is the truth (in anything). A 2 inch piece of wood is not exactly 2 inches. As you go further and further down (depending on how many decimal places you go) you will never be able to reach the exact measurement. But you can get close enough for any reasonable person. It is the same for economics.

I guess most economists like the taste of shit then, and are unprincipled mercenaries with out honor.

Most? I know this is nitpicky, most economists do not work for politicians, and even most the time they don't get asked to redo numbers since we hear about very few bills. You are being very crass and making generalizations just to be cranky I think.

Inflation or Deflation does not have anything to do with unemployment.

In the case of Reagan's success against inflation, it was the fact that he actively discouraged inflation by increasing interest rates, or urging the fed to raise them.

Inflation results from an increase in the money supply... too much money chasing too few goods, if interest rates are low, and thus credit is easy to get, you are going to have inflationary pressure, when interest rates are higher and credit more difficult to get then there will be either no inflationary pressure, or deflationary pressure.

You are wrong about inflationary trends and unemployemnt. Inflation and interest rates move together, not opposite. As inflation goes up the banks do not want to be stuck with low rates on a loan meaning that they are going to be losing money so they raise the rates in an inflationary situation. The pressures you are talking about do happen, but rates don't cause inflation. You can have higher rates and low inflation though if unemployment is at the natural level or below.

You are right that it has to do with the money in the system which is why you can simply look at the jobs (not stop there but startthere). If (like in 70's >3%) you have unnaturally high EMPLOYMENT you will have more money into the system and high inflation. If you (like the 80's 10+%) you have less moeny floating so the inflation gets pushed down.

It was a stupid idea, creating another bubble to fix a bubble is not a real solution. The real solution is to step aside and let the markets correct themselves.

Its stupid just to let things happen without thought just to let the market correct itself. If you take the time and can extend the burst by 6 years in order to make the adjustments so it is not a burst, but slowly deflating it (ie bubble gum, you can pop a huge bubble, but you can also let the air out) would allow for not having total devistation.

But they screwed the pooch and made no adjustments because politicians were more concerened with the war.
And not ready to fight the industries to make the nessecary changes.

Actually, those questions are at the heart of economics. You can not have economics with out political theory. Any economic theory that ignores political reality will fail, any political theory that ignores economic realities will fail.

This is not the case. Look at science, if you are doing an experiment you do it within a vacuum. And not allowing anyones views on it cloud the process (double blind). It is the same with economics. Economics is at the heart of politics, but politics should never be played in economics. You take the data that is untainted and unbiased, then base the decision that fits your ideals after that.

Essentially this is where I diverge from Austrian Economics. I was reading that link that you had and really started to get uncomfortable with all the political ideals that is in it. As soon as you start to have that you can bastardize any information to make it fit your beliefs. In stats they say that given enough weight to one number over another you can make it fit your goals. It is the same with econ. It should NEVER be mixed with politics when constructing the numbers.

It's a way of separating the wheat from the chaff. Those that are intelligent will retain most of the knowledge over the summer, and those that are not will forget it.

Besides, the classes are typically designed to fit into each semester, or have clear components that fit into each semester, and thus there is no interruption in the middle.

I don't want to have chaff though, we need to bring them up and smarten them up as much as possible. And allow the best to get better. Instead of grades based on age we could just have testing to get out of the class and into the next. That way people could move at their own pace.

Thanksgiving break is in the middle so is spring break.

If the employees were not depriving benefit themselves they would not work. Everyone benefits, and obviously as with out the roads the employees would have no jobs to go to, or would not be able to sustain employment for long periods of time, and thus would often suffer from hunger, then it is they who are getting the majority of the benefit.

Everyone benefits from this trade and very much so. But that is why it works. If you take out the most important things like roads that allow for this consenual trade it would not be possible and we would go back to be sustinance farmers. But thankfully we don't have to. But in a trade someone almost always benefits more. And you just have to drive through the wealthy neighborhoods to figure out who it is.

Yes, you enjoy slavery, your posts make that abundantly clear.

If people are sick, or injured through their own personal actions then it should not be the obligation of everyone else to pay for their stupidity. If some one is drunk and gets into wrecks repeatedly then insurance companies should have the right to refuse coverage, because it is costing everyone else more to allow them to be in the benefit pool.

Or, if they want to charge extra premiums, they should have that right.

Instead of trying for an imbecilic one-size fits all system, like the current legislation is attempting to do, the market should be free to match individual needs, wants and costs as closely as is desired by both the individuals and the insurance companies.

But we don't just let people pay for their stupidity in this country. It is just the way it is. Again if my house burns because I was stupid it affects the entire neighborhood. So under your system we would have to kick out anyone that we won't personally be willing to help out. It would leave our country divided into essentially clans.

Quote:
The wealthier person is able to then turn all the extra money that they don't have to spend (much higher amount of money is able to be used to reinvest) on ways to make money. Also things like state tax very much affect the poorer since they spend most of their money in stores meaning that almost every dollar they have is double taxed. While people that don't have to spend all of it don't have to double pay on the left over money.
Your arguments are stupid, socialist drivel.

Um.. that first part is pure capitalism. And the second is just how it is. You come off ignorant when you just dismiss things then are wrong and attach a 'ism' to it. Having more money means that I have more money to invest, in % of income and total actual money. When I had less money everything I had spent went to the nessecities, which are all taxed so I have nothing to invest that would be at all useful so it was stuffed into a savings account. How is that not true? How is that socialist drivel?

No, I don't see your logic, or your reason.

It fails the simple test of preserving humanity.

It is a system of slavery, and you are not pro-business, no more than you are pro-freedom.

You are pro-government and pro-slavery.

Sic Semper Tyrannis,

fall on your sword.

Did you attend a tea party this weekend or something to whip yourself up? Taxes is not and will never be slavery. Taxes do suck, but the fact I am living in my own home and not having my life dicated to me and told what I have to do with my free time or my carreer it is not slavery.

Slavery is devoid of all of the freedoms that we have. Those freedoms don't equate to 3% increase.

I doubt it, you're repeating the same mindless drivel that is said on T.V.

I actually take that as a insult, which I am sure you meant it as. I did not get that from anyone, it was an example that I had came up with as I typed that. If you would actually not force yourself into the box you had and studied up on different schools of economics that don't dismiss the things that don't fit into their ideals and stick with the facts and not political ideals you may get that.

Whatever, Myrmidon, you're ignoring humanity, but we've already established that your pro-government enslavement, so this should not be any surprise.

Funny that you call me that when you have nothing to actually say. You are wrong, I am not pro enslavement. I do think that having law is good, sorry that that is a bad thing. Does the government go too far? Of course.

But that is why we vote. The issue is that people that are just going to ignore the things that their masters tell them to ignore (like the faulty economics you follow) without even considering that the other side may be right we vote in the idiots we have now.

If we had 1 representative for every 30,000 people, I don't think we'd end up with more lawyers.

Fair enough I am all for more people, in fact I actually am in favor of power getting shifted more back towards the states. But as the system stands (and it will unless we get smart) it will not change unless we vote in smarter people.

If you need a lawyer to tell you if something is unConstitutional you are a dumb ass.

The Constitution is very clear and concise in its language and not written in legalese.

Then why do we have a judicial system at all? The law is deep and not just the constitution anymore. I am talking realistic world, not the just constitution and no taxes place you are imagining that will never happen.

Quote:
Smaller doesn''t mean non-exsistent. We are paying more than enough to do the things needed, and wasting sooo much money on what isn't. We need to get out of peoples lives, but protect their interests.
The best way to protect their interests is to allow them to choose their own interests and get the hell out of the way instead of dictating to them what those interests are.

Then there would be several hundred thousand different interests that would need to be looked after on a micro level. Trying to do that is akin to bringing back the soviet union but instead of prices they would have to adress indivual peoples feelings of what their interests are.

Quote:
If a bailout is needed, do it, but get out and get paid back with interest.
Public money should not be given for private benefit.

The firms should have been allowed to collapse, regardless of the "consequences" which obviously were not averted by bailing those firms out.

3 Million additional jobs lost (if not more than that.)

Quote:
Build a better school system, doesn't mean starting from scratch.
Yes, it does, sometimes you have to just dynamite the entire structure especially when the foundation is flawed.

But here you said:

I'll have to concede, when investing you don't stop investing just because prices are falling, you keep investing, because you'll see larger gains when prices recover (if the firm doesn't go bankrupt...)

To allow a private company that will bring a halt to the economy to fail just because of principle it silly. When the entire economy is so invested you can't just let it collapse sendig everyone on a downward spiral. Instead with that relitivly (to the actual size) small investment we stopped the collapse and now here we are not even a year later and everything is stabilizing.

And that money is goign to get paid back, with some interest. So making a loan is better than a principle stand and letting the economy melt.

Healthcare was efficient. Most people that don't have health insurance probably chose to have something else instead.

That we pay for. Anyone that gets their medical care at reduced costs we that have insurance or pay taxes are already paying for it. And our system is not that great. If it was we wouldn't touch it *unless the government is stealing for it to pay for something else that is stupid.

National Defense is the only role that government should be involved in at the Federal Level.

Well, aside from coining money and ensuring a uniform system of bankruptcy laws, and making sure that the states are not waging economic war against each other.

That covers a lot.

The private system is fine.

Why would you compare us to Canada? They are number 30. I would at least want to crack the top 5 and get compared to them. Everyone likes to point to canada and england in comparing care that is opposed to this, but they are not who we should be trying to reach.

That is where your arguement is flawed. Do more research on the care that the French get and compare it to them.

The only duty the government has at a federal level is National Defense.

Besides, it would not be efficient for the government to invest tax dollars in foreign countries.

If businesses want to, then that is up to them.

But sending public money to foreign nations where it will not benefit the average citizen, but will instead harm them, by allowing for the usage of cheap labor is irrational.

Helping those countries that we are fighting with schools and hospitals, and maybe a small amount of infrastructure will be a far better tactic to win a war than to go in spend far more money killing the people that oppose us being in there.

Quote:
Well then take the 5 largest banks figure out the money costs from their collapse to the economy over the next 5 years, add into that all the side businesses that rely on them (down to the corner resturaunt) and figureout the amount of money that would have been left over after the sale (at the price people would have been willing/able to buy it) and you got the number.
The businesses that supposedly rely upon these banks are not dependent upon them. Any bank is interchangeable with any other bank, in the eyes of business. Their competently managed competitors would step in to fill the demand created by their collapse.

Your arguing absurdities.

Only after the market stabilized which would take a long time. Every business/individual that has money in the bank over 250k would lose it. And the trust of all banks would collapse.

Yes, you would, myrmidon, it allows you to dictate what people have to do, just like the little statis that you are.

The problem is that it ignores all the individual desires of humanity. This is a nation of 300 Million individuals that are (or should be) independent, and by virtue of their individuality of individual desires, goals, wants and needs. Some of them, don't need health insurance, or want it.

Some of them could just be waiting until they decide that it benefits them more.

The government stated that the largest group was people in my age bracket, clearly then, it would demonstrate that perhaps like me these people are waiting until they have dependents to take care of to get health insurance, because they have decided that they are better able to use that money elsewhere.

The other group are probably entrepreneurs who are trying to operate their businesses, and thus are building those businesses, probably with the goal of being able to provide themselves with health insurance.

Your ideas fail when tested against humanities variances as individuals.

It is an objectivist view that ignores the fact that dealing with people demands subjectivity to pay attention to all their individual desires.

You mean it ignores YOUR views on what people want. Your saying that people want to lose money by making poor decisions based on what you think is right?

Here is what I said again:

I think that I like my way better, to do all the math and figure which is going to cost less money with the best outcome for the country the winner.

By why would that make me your favorite word? I am saying to use the information (not ignore it like you seem to like) and use it to make the best decision.

And as you do people still don't understand that just by sticking their heads in the sand does not make issues go away. You will cost me money in the long run and I accept that. You will eventually need to get treatment and if you continue to ignore that fact (well under the old system) I would have to pay for it in long run. Even if just through the decreased costs that get tacked onto my bill.

Here's a question for you, how much are the legal fees paid by the medical industry, and malpractice premiums paid by the medical industry.

How much do they amount to as a percentage of that spending, because they are no doubt included in the "costs" of our healthcare system.

The bests solution is probably to provide better protection for doctors against lawyers. If a doctor makes a mistake (as they are likely to do being humans and not machines) it is then logical to expect them to fix it with out a fee, and thus getting lawyers involved is a colossal waste of money. Yes, there are errors that can not be fixed, and those justify lawsuits, but a lot of stuff does not.

I agree with this, and have no clue why you would think that I did not. There was actually a thread a week or so ago about the stupid H1N1 vaccine and not being allowed to sue the company. No one is going to force it on it first off, so lets not even go there. But I said that I agree with them not being able to be sued, because of frivoulus lawsuits.

Now if they are acting negligent there should be something to penalize them, but we need to stop the sue crazy world we are in it is too expensive.

But those costs that I have to pay are apart from the other costs of people using my money as supliment to thir care. We need to work to fix all the drains on the system, and not just say one is good enough.

Yes, you would love FASCISM, and SOCIALISM.

Your mixing of private corporations with the government has lead to what probably should be called the most corrupt government on this planet. How many billions of dollars are given to campaigns by businesses.

Your system will collapse into tyranny and corruption, and thus fails.

You are going off the deepend again. Is our country the most wealthy? Is it Corrupt? Is our standard of living among the best if not the best? The answer is yes to all the above.

You toss your 'isms' out again btw.

We already have that, to think we could maintain our advantage forever was unrealistic.

Especially when we are going to punish productivity and people that have acquired skills with higher taxes. Obviously they benefit society by being better skilled, thus it is irrational to punish them.

Their higher pay means they purchase more goods and services, that require more labor to make. Their consumption requires production, and production equals jobs.

Simple common sense.

1st with tax loopholes, perks, investment building, better tax free investments, accountants (free usually through work). Do you actually believe that you pay less taxes on aggregate than the wealthy?

2nd it is ignorance to believe that we will be the number one economy forever. But as of right now we are so far ahead that it will be decades before it can switch. But eventually someone with more drive will pass us up and we can become the future France, or England and become satisfied with what we have.

Obviously, this idea hasn't benefitted the United States, and will not benefit the United States. Regardless of your ideas, some entry level jobs are necessary, otherwise individuals will not be able to climb up the ladder to success, as opposed to suck-Cess which is apparently the ladder that you are climbing with your anti-libertarian ideals.

We have by far the largest economy so it has worked very well. You really should study up on the actual economics. Even Austrian can help out with the cost benefit analysis. There will always be entry level jobs. But the best part of trade is that the entry level jobs can be better under the trade than without.

Where are your stands on Walmart?

Tell that to the workers at United States Steel.

Tell that to the workers in the Foreign-Owned Factories that are in the United States.

Reality demonstrates that your beliefs are wrong.

Your ability to switch to totally different trains of thoughts without realizing it is truly amazing. You go from my Macro scale (all citizens in the us) to a Micro scale (A small devistated area) without really knowing it I think. By having steel be so much cheaper being produced in China, EVERY COMPANY THAT BUYS STEEL BENEFITS. But it absolutly is devistating for the community that loses it.

That is why I said "Tariffs and protectionism works about as well as socialism. For 'people' socialism is a good thing, but it doesn't work. ". For the "People" (Entire population) it is good, but if you go small enough scale some people will be devistated.

Every one that buys anything with steel in it is greatly benefitting from the lower prices of foreign trade, enough to pay for the people that lost jobs, and still leave much of it left over. That is where your economic understanding is lacking. Do yourself a favor look up: Production Possibility charts and Comparative advantage and gains from trade. It will help out.

Quote:
You cannot force companies to not have the same competition trhough tariffs.
The idea behind tariffs is not to eliminate competition, but to ensure that foreign corporations and foreign governments (as well as domestic governments) do not take jobs from inside the nation and ship them to foreign nations to pad their bottom lines.

It is to ensure that our domestic industries, and foreign industries compete on a level playing field.

I know that. But it doesn't work and will stagnate the economy by using inefficient resources where they would be better used somewhere else. If the money made over the entire economy with the steel company leaving it would have easily been used to pay for everyone of those employees to go to school and get a different carreer. And for the ones that were no longer spring chickens, they could have just been able to retire and enjoy it.

Quote:

There are people that will always be devistates by progress (horse saddle makers when cars came around) but in the long run the entire society is better off with trade than without.
If we aren't producing wealth, then we can't trade for anything.

You're wrong again, Myrmidon.

Trade, implies trade, one way flows of goods and services ultimately benefit no one.

There it is again, when your the one fighting fiercly without any intelectual arguement. Trade implies trade? We don't live in a barter system. We use a medium of exchange (money) to buy those goods and services. Then with our speicality we can create something else of benefit and sell those services to bring in more money. The moeny saved plus using the better allocated resources means we all benefit, as well as the trading partner.

You lack of true economic understanding is hurting you.

Quote:
Whoever can make the item cheapest should trade that.
That was an example, not a plan to follow myrmidon, I've read the same examples, and understand that they are just that, examples. They ignore reality, and ignore humanities individuality.

Just because some one can make the item the cheapest does not mean they should trade it. Maybe they don't want to make that item (having been sick of making that item over and over and over again) and want to do something else.

The economic example that you are pulling out of your textbooks is simplistic, and ignores reality.

You do come off ignorant again in basic economic principle.

We covered this before. If I can make an item for $4, and you can sell it to me for $2 I am better off buying it from you and using that $4 to reinvest somewhere else since I cannot compete with you.

By just saying that that person may not want to always make it leaving me to have to buy it for $5 from someone else, simply means that I can go back to doing what I was in the past since it would now be cheaper for me to produce.

So do taxes, but you seem to favor those, myrmidon.

Better to tax foreign goods come in, then domestic labor producing goods for domestic consumption.

We already do tax them for products coming in. But to tax away all the competitive benefits will mean that the foreign company will chose not to sell it to us, thus putting the tax burden back onto our companies, and eliminating any benefit that the citizens would gain from paying less for an item. It is a lose lose lose situation.

Again using your favorite catchphrase and not understanding what you are talking about does not make you seem smart.

You don't have a crystal ball, don't pretend like you do.

Did you not see the news about Northrup Grumman and EADS teaming up to produce tankers for the airforce. It is a short jump from there to foreign corporations dominating that market which should be served by American Corporations.

Did you not read the news regarding the motivations that Bush had behind using tariffs against foreign steel?

Steel is clearly a vital commodity for any nation seeking to defend itself, and thus to not use tariffs to create an even playing field (which American Productivity and Ingenuity is rewarded upon) is irrational.

And it doesn't prevent trade, it just alters the flow.

If we tax goods at 2.5% that are coming into our country then there is no "restriction" to trade (that cost would just be passed onto consumers) which might of course switch to domestically produced goods, and thus create more jobs, and more economic growth.

Tariffs are not this great evil thing that you are making them out to be, no more than deflation is.

Inflation is not this great requisite force for good that you were making it out to be.

Your economic models that you have in your head are too simplified.

See the example above. Just because we stop making something doesn't mean we lose the ability to produce it. We stopped making mass market horse saddles. But if all of a sudden we needed to do it we would be able to meet the demand.

And the economic models in your head are non existant. Evil and Good are silly concepts in economics. And have no place. Keep it to your beliefs, not facts.

Did we mine up all the steel in our country?

If not then we would be able to produce it. And unless there would be no country that would be willing to sell to us (which is nonsence any country can get whatever they want through the black market) then we would be able to produce it in times of need.

If we have too many resources, then it would be logical that we should be self-sufficient.

Self sufficient does not equal efficient. A farmer that is out in the wild living on his own producing everything he needs is not ever going to produce the same same amount of say bread as one farmer using all his resources to make grain and
then trading it to other farmers to get what he needs when they specialize in say milk one in making bread from the traded wheat, and another in eggs.

If we are unable to afford oil to grow the food then we are not going to be able to remain the breadbasket of the world.

Are you even thinking about what you are typing any more, myrmidon?

Oil is used to produce food yes, but it is not a prereq for it. We could switch to natural gas engines and go from there. Oil is just the thing we have been using, not the only thing that is able to be used. Myrmidon. Again seriously I see a pattern, everytime you make a comment based in ignorance and closemindedness you pull it out.

It says it,

It even says it on that site you linked to.

Pry the scales off your eyes myrmidon

Alas you use it correctly! Congrats!............ Oh wait you re wrong. You said that it will force you to have it. Technically it doesn't, or else they couldn't tax you if you don't have it right? So in essence they are giving you every reason to get it. Subtlely different.

Anyway not sure what happened to you over the weekend but I wish you the best, and strongly plee to you to get a actual economics book from a 101 class. It will really help out since the Austrian economics your following has some serious flaws.

Why Gold?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member