Cause if he can't do something soon, it looks like he's a goner, and we may have 12 years of GOP control of the Whitehouse.
Is there anything that Obama can do to help the economy?
|by Anonymous||reply 138||10/09/2012|
Let the Concern Trolling Begin!
18 months of this bullshit.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||06/07/2011|
Like what, OP? Name 3 specific things should Obama do "soon," that won't involve bloody, extended Congressional fights? And you can't say something like "He SHOULD have done X two years ago!"
And by "soon," give us a specific date by which Obama must do those 3 specific things you think he should do.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||06/07/2011|
Stand up to Wall Street and other Billionaires.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||06/07/2011|
Where do you get 12 years, OP?
|by Anonymous||reply 4||06/07/2011|
The first thing he should do is lower taxes on businesses with fewer than 100 people, the backbone of America's economy.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 5||06/07/2011|
Economists have said over and over again the big things that will have an immediate positive effect on the economy is getting more money into the hands of the poor. %0D %0D Increase minimum wage, SS, especially very low of about 6-7 hundred dollars a month that people on SSI get, increase food stamps and public assistance.%0D %0D This is money that will go right back into the economy of businesses and in the form of sales tax. It won't get tucked away in offshore accounts the way welfare given to the rich gets tucked away.%0D %0D We know the right won't admit this is true but what's so scary this time is that Obama and most of the Democrats won't even talk about this when they know it's true too.%0D %0D This country would never have gotten out of the first Great Depression if FDR had not put more money into the hands of the poor. %0D %0D You know even the stupidest Americans can be made to understand this but the pretend Dems in office now just talk people into believing the lies the right tells.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 6||06/07/2011|
R2, it's funny but when Obama wants something that will give more money to the rich he somehow manages to bully both the House and the Senate into it. It's only when it comes to workers, unions and especially to anything that might help the poor that Obama does his pretend cave so the stupid still drinking the Kool-Aid say poor Obama can't fight with the House and Senate being the way they are.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||06/07/2011|
I took this from the Corporate rule thread, but it is appropriate here too.
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." Ludwig von Mises
The banks and the FED will keep creating credit, much of it used to fund their own excesses, and unless it is stopped the second propostion is in force. If we rely on these corporpolitical parasites to rein in their own behavior, then the inevitable outcome is "final and total catastrophe" in the debt/credit monetary system.
QE1&2(&3 soon) are just the injection of more debt/credit into the system in a futile attempt to keep artificially valued assets at unsustainable highs. The end result of all this money creation, once it finally moves into the banking system, will be much higher inflation in consumables- gas, energy, food- while still having low net inflation because consumer durables, like housing, lawn equipment, cars are dropping in price because of over production. Capital equipment purchases are difficult to amortize properly in a highly uncertain market. The spiral of weaker dollar, higher prices, stagnant wages continues...until it doesn't.
That's the problem- once the fresh injections eventually end, these new price calculations take effect, and things get worse. Eventually, the market will reject any more credit/debt money creation...and corporate rule of government will be over, and it will be the least of your problems. Like will this $300 get me dinner for the night or enough gas to get out of town.
Ergo, Obama can do nothing other than hinder the eventual recovery with insane economic policies which will be ignored by the bankrupt states.
Anyone care to point out any flaws in this reasoning?
|by Anonymous||reply 8||06/07/2011|
r6 is right- stimulus in the form of increased benefits and wages is the only thing that will get the economy moving. after unemployment, social security and welfare benefits are increased, how about a WPA program to to help put some of the unemployed to work until private industry starts hiring again?
|by Anonymous||reply 9||06/07/2011|
[quote]Where do you get 12 years, OP?
From the same place he got "Whitehouse".
|by Anonymous||reply 10||06/07/2011|
Sheldon Whitehouse is a thing, right?
|by Anonymous||reply 11||06/07/2011|
Fire the Wall Streeters like that cloest case Timothy Geithner (sp).
|by Anonymous||reply 12||06/07/2011|
R1. The economic situation of the country is serious shit. A president may not be able to single-handely help the economy, but the president is the one to get blamed when things are this bad. %0D %0D No one is trolling simply because this issue is raised or if some people feel that perhaps Obama isn't doing enough or following the right path.%0D %0D And Obama better get used to the criticism because he's going to be voted out if things don't improve. And I for one don't want fucking Romney as president.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||06/07/2011|
[quote]Anyone care to point out any flaws in this reasoning?%0D %0D Yup, the very first sentence is both wrong and stupid. Given that your basic premise is flawed, the rest of your "analysis" is worthless. GIGO.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||06/07/2011|
Republicans won't let him do anything. They're obstructionist, and their sole interest is in ensuring the economy tanks so that they can blame it on Obama and recapture the White House and Senate and keep a hold of the House.%0D %0D The only things Obama CAN do is speak out, make his case, explain the reality, and push a disciplined message out through the media. A media controlled by the opposition, so good luck with that.%0D %0D And he's already made it clear he doesn't want to do that... to appear to be 'partisan' or 'populist'. And that's a shame. I wish he'd LEAD on this issue, instead of just sitting back and trying to build a consensus with one side who refuses to even consider consensus, and is only interested in dirty political tricks and obstructinism.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 15||06/07/2011|
ask Oprah for a little money
|by Anonymous||reply 16||06/07/2011|
There is not much that Obama can do on his own, regrettably. Anything that's likely to help requires Congressional action, which will not be forthcoming, as Republicans have the power, and the desire, to block anything that has even a remote chance of being helpful.%0D %0D The two things that are most likely to help are economic stimulus in the form of infrastructure rebuilding/investment and allowing bankruptcy judges to adjust the terms of a mortgage, aka cramdown. Neither of these will even come up for a vote in the House and neither would make it past a Republican filibuster in the Senate.%0D %0D All we can do is pray that we are not seeing a true double-dip recession. And pray that someone, somehow, will beat some common sense into the heads of those in charge. Why the *fuck* are we talking about the deficit with the economy in such sad shape, so many people out of work, and interest rates so damn low?%0D %0D Yes, the deficit is a problem that will need to be addressed eventually but austerity measures now, which is what Republicans are proposing, will have a deleterious effect on the economy, which we've already seen everywhere they have been tried. Just ask Britain, Scotland, Greece, et. al.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||06/07/2011|
"Yup, the very first sentence is both wrong and stupid"
R14, deeper analysis and explanation of why it is wrong and stupid would be helpful.
Do you know anything about economics or are you just a troll?
|by Anonymous||reply 18||06/07/2011|
To answer your question, No. A President can't do anything to help the economy except the "bully pulpit," and no one listens this one's hypnotic, back-and-forth speeches anymore.%0D %0D He's not a goner, because while the republicans might have all kinds of ideas, they have no one to deliver them. Christie is too fat and will never run. The rest are guaranteed losers.%0D %0D If, as you say, the republicans do somehow take over, it would be for no more than 4 years. We're in for that painful cycle for about the next 20 years.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||06/07/2011|
*tax increases for the wealthy - letting the Bush administration's tax cuts expire for households earning more than $250,000, increasing the tax rate on capital gains and qualified dividends, and extend the Social Security payroll tax to those with incomes of more than $102,000
*eliminate corporate tax subsidies
*a windfall-profits tax on Big Oil
Also known as what he SAID he was going to do when he was running for office in 2008.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||06/07/2011|
[italic]The first thing he should do is lower taxes on businesses with fewer than 100 people, the backbone of America's economy.[/italic]
LMAO. Please, dear, stop.
I know it's a cliche, but we truly need someone like FDR to literally redo the economic structure of this country. Obama has no experience in anything, so he could never have been the one to do anything like this. You also need someone with a strong stomach to literally take down any opponent who tries to stop you from making some serious changes.
Capitalism is a bust, and has always been a bust, and now it's out of fucking control. Either they wake up and smell the coffee, or the country is history. This is actually how Communism creeps into countries. You're going to have a tiny elite owning and controlling everything, and the people will start a revolution, murdering this group. Unfortunately, when this happens, it's always at the command of a nutcase, and up pops a Communist regime. Whether a Republican takes over the White House in two years is not going to matter. Something must be done, and it's not going to be in the Right's favor. You could literally see the recall of an American President.
America has finally reached its limit with it's out of control economic redistribution to the wealthiest in the country. If anything, America needs to close down the ability for US businesses to send their jobs overseas. They even need to deem it illegal to do any trading with the Middle East. We did this with Cuba. We can do it again. There are literally a million easy answers to not only "fix" all of this, but fix it for good. We need someone with the guts to do it though. Obama has given Republicans everything they could ever dream of. He has treated federal government workers like you wouldn't believe. They're now dipping into pensions, just to give the elite their tax breaks, and "incentives".
|by Anonymous||reply 21||06/07/2011|
Nationalize the oil companies. Forget about this "tax" shit.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 22||06/08/2011|
[quote]He's not a goner, because while the republicans might have all kinds of ideas, they have no one to deliver them.%0D %0D Republicans don't have any ideas, really, and what few they DO have, are uniformly terrible.%0D %0D Mostly it's just "more of the same deluded crap that got us into this mess".%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 23||06/08/2011|
He could ask Saudi Arabia to pump extra oil to drive down prices at the pump. Lower gas prices will mean money in the pockets of most people.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||06/08/2011|
[quote]He could ask Saudi Arabia to pump extra oil to drive down prices at the pump. Lower gas prices will mean money in the pockets of most people.
R24, Saudia Arabia actually is amenable to this idea. Problem is, they're not solo actors; they're part of a cartel. Venezuela and some other countries are strongly against the idea.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||06/08/2011|
The Democratic and Republican parties are the same party today. The political fighting is semantics to appease the USA! USA! types.
America is actually a 1 party system.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||06/08/2011|
i'm sick of the false equivalency- comparing the dems to the rethugs and saying they are each just as bad as the other. it's like comparing a relationship with a boyfriend who is physically abusive to one with a dude who is just a dick. both relationships are bad for you, but one will put you in the hospital, while the other while merely put you on the therapists couch.
yes, both rethugs and dems answer to the same corporate masters, and both are unpalatable choices, but the degree to which they are willing to screw over the american people is NOT the same.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||06/08/2011|
Really R27...so what are the Dems doing to save us?
|by Anonymous||reply 28||06/08/2011|
the dems are doing nothing, r27, but they *aren't* actively campaigning to take away rights from women and gays, as well as destroy the very limited social safety nets that currently exist in this country.
so again, false equivalency ain't gonna fly, freep, so freep away home.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||06/08/2011|
Many of the Dems ARE trying to do the right things. Like repeal DADT. Like Repeal the Bush tax cuts. Like shrink Defense/Homeland Security spending. Like get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Like issue a second stimulus package. Like break-up the huge too-big-to-fail banks and bring back the Glass-Steagal act. Like get the consumer protection Beaureau up and running with Elizabeth Warren in charge of it. Like enabling (forcing?) banks to re-negotiate mortgage terms to avoid foreclosures. Like pushing for improvements (rather than repeal) to the Affordable Healthcare Act, including restoring the Public Option and/or implementing Medicare for All. %0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 30||06/08/2011|
I agree with r21.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 31||06/08/2011|
No R30 they make a pretense of doing those things.
They HAD control and the ability to do ALL of that and chose instead to be stupid do nothings.
Now they make feeble noises in hopes of filling the campaign coffers.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||06/08/2011|
An American Caesar will require that:
* He would attract to himself all true believers, the extremists, the Hot eyed custodians of The Truth
* He would oversimplify some difficult but vital issue, putting himself on the side of the majority
* He would not in the least resemble the folk idea of a dictator. He would not be hysteric like Hitler. Rather, he would be just plain folks (and while he was amusing us on TV, the storm troopers would be gathering in the streets.)
And our hot eyed Kool Aid drinkers continue to defend our Folksy, first black president and insist he is just DOING THE BEST HE CAN!
Anyone who disagrees is just plain racist and stupid, and will be addressed as an anti-social retarded second grader, which, as we know, always makes friends and influences people...
|by Anonymous||reply 33||06/08/2011|
[quote]hey HAD control and the ability to do ALL of that and chose instead to be stupid do nothings%0D %0D Nice revisionist history there.%0D %0D Over 400 bills were passed by the House. And would have passed into law if it weren't for the grotesque abuse of the Filibuster by the petulant asshole Republicans.%0D %0D So you're wrong.%0D %0D Factually. Objectively.%0D %0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 34||06/08/2011|
[quote]And our hot eyed Kool Aid drinkers continue to defend our Folksy, first black president and insist he is just DOING THE BEST HE CAN!
And our hot eyed Kool Aid drinkers continue to defend our Folksy, faux texan president and insist he is just DOING THE BEST HE CAN! for eight long, war-filled, deficit increasing, taxcutting for billionaires, economy collapsing years...
[quote]Anyone who disagrees is just plain racist and stupid, and will be addressed as an anti-social retarded second grader, which, as we know, always makes friends and influences people...
Anyone who disagrees hates America and is un-patriotic, and will be addressed as an anti-business retarded second grader, which, as we know, usually makes one end up in Guantanamo...
|by Anonymous||reply 35||06/08/2011|
[quote]"Yup, the very first sentence is both wrong and stupid"%0D %0D [quote][R14], deeper analysis and explanation of why it is wrong and stupid would be helpful.%0D %0D You posted total drivel, unsupported by anything even remotely resembling data, logic, or reason, and you have the gall to complain when someone calls you on it? Not everyone shares your quasi-religious views about the Fed and about the economy.%0D %0D The Austrian School has never mapped to reality and has never generated any meaningful quantifiable data that can lead to verifiable predictions of future behavior, something that is critical for anything that purports to be a science. It is always a post hoc justification for whatever theory they happen to be pushing at the time. In particularly, those who follow the Austrian School have *always* predicted gloom and doom, regardless of the actual state of the economy.%0D %0D [quote]Do you know anything about economics or are you just a troll?%0D %0D ROFL... oh, the irony...
|by Anonymous||reply 36||06/08/2011|
[quote]They HAD control and the ability to do ALL of that and chose instead to be stupid do nothings.%0D %0D Sigh... as already noted, no, they didn't. They faced uniform and extreme Republican opposition in the Senate, plus a few wafflers in their own party. The majority of Democrats in the Senate voted to support those things both of us want and the country needed, but the 60-vote threshold for damn near everything was just too high a bar to hit. It only took a couple of folks like Bayh or Nelson or Lieberman to doom what needed to be done. You may not like that reality but reality it was.%0D %0D Yes, I wish Obama had been more aggressive in bargaining, that he had picked a slightly different economic team, that he had used the bully pulpit more effectively, and yes, I think he missed out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the debate, to shift the Overton window, and yes, I think he underestimated Republican intransigence, but Obama ran as a cautious centrist and has run his administration as a cautious centrist. For better or worse, that's what we have.%0D %0D Anyone who pretends that McCain/Palin would have been better just isn't paying attention, either to their statements, their policies, or history. There is a difference and it's foolish to pretend otherwise.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||06/08/2011|
...and I would say that you are foolish to pretend there is a difference.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||06/08/2011|
"The Austrian School has never mapped to reality and has never generated any meaningful quantifiable data that can lead to verifiable predictions of future behavior, something that is critical for anything that purports to be a science"
The Austrians uniformly warned starting in 2004 that the policies being pursued were leading to bubbles in housing and stocks. Your beloved village idiots Bernanke and Krugman denied it until it crashed, just as they are now denying inflation. Austrians also began predicting the bull market beginning in gold back in the late 90s, and application of Austrian principles of analysis would allow any average student to look at datasets from any time period and indicate with confidence whether a recession is imminent. Your lack of knowledge of it isn't surprising.
Paul, your education in economics has left you with flawed premises that lead to massively wrong conclusions.
The current sovereign and corporate debt in the world is dependent on infusions of fiat money to keep going, and they are in danger of collapsing spectacularly. Greece will default - the Germans are not giving any more money. That default will have worldwide repercussions.
So, Paul, although thymology is frowned upon in the Austrian school, I will predict that if Greece is NOT bailed out by the end of July, the drachma will return.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||06/08/2011|
[quote]...and I would say that you are foolish to pretend there is a difference.%0D %0D ROFL.... I'm fine with that. You really should follow the maxim that it's better to be thought a fool than to post here and prove it.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||06/08/2011|
As should you.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||06/08/2011|
Obama's administration has been hamstrung twice. First by Pelosi's leadership of The House and second by the lousy liberal turnout for the November 2010 election.%0D %0D The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that if the Republicans have power they will use it. The Dems were too concerned about being re-elected which is ridiculous. They should have passed every liberal initiative possible considering that they lost power anyway.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||06/08/2011|
[quote]The Austrians uniformly warned starting in 2004 that the policies being pursued were leading to bubbles in housing and stocks.%0D %0D Dear heart, the Austrians have *always* warned about bubbles and catastrophes, most of which failed to materialize. They have also warned about other things that have entirely failed to appear. Like a stopped clock, those who follow the Austrian religion are occasionally right. Until they come up with actual empirical data, until they actually have a theory that reliably predicts both boom and bust, they will, correctly, continue to be seen as nothing more than a wacky fringe.%0D %0D [quote]Your beloved village idiots Bernanke and Krugman denied it until it crashed,%0D %0D LOL... You're wrong on both counts. Not only are those two not particularly beloved by me, Krugman, in particular, correctly predicted the bubble, as did quite a few others. Hell, *I* predicted the bubble well before the crash. It took no particular economic expertise to see that. It took willful and blind partisanship, of the kind that, say, Alan Greenspan possesses, to ignore the many and obvious signs.%0D %0D [quote]just as they are now denying inflation.%0D %0D There's a reason they are "denying inflation." Care to guess what that reason is? Hint: look at the data.%0D %0D [quote]and application of Austrian principles of analysis would allow any average student to look at datasets from any time period and indicate with confidence whether a recession is imminent.%0D %0D ROFL... Hindsight is so much better than foresight, isn't it? Tell you what: when you can accurately predict when the *next* recession will be, I'll take you seriously. Until then, not so much. See, here's the thing: I predict that there will be a recession in the next ten years. And you know something? There's a damn good chance I'll be proven correct. Wow! That puts me on par with the best of the Austrian prognosticators. Are you getting the point yet?%0D %0D [quote]Your lack of knowledge of it isn't surprising.%0D %0D ROFL... Much like your lack of knowledge about anything other than that religion you follow.%0D %0D [quote]Paul, your education in economics has left you with flawed premises that lead to massively wrong conclusions.%0D %0D Really, dear? Do tell me which "massively wrong conclusions" I've reached, won't you? I eagerly await your enlightenment.%0D %0D [quote]The current sovereign and corporate debt in the world is dependent on infusions of fiat money to keep going, and they are in danger of collapsing spectacularly. Greece will default - the Germans are not giving any more money. That default will have worldwide repercussions.%0D %0D ROFL... You really don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, do you? Here's a free clue: what's happening in Greece doesn't have a damn thing to do with "infusions of fiat money" or the lack thereof.%0D %0D That's the problem with only having a hammer to work with: everything looks like a nail. The rest of us don't insist that the world fit our wacky theories... we adjust our theories to fit the world. It works a hell of a lot better.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||06/08/2011|
[quote]As should you.%0D %0D "I know you are but what am I" really only works on the kindergarten playground, dear. You might want to improve your rhetorical skills before you come back to play again.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||06/08/2011|
[quote] I will predict that if Greece is NOT bailed out by the end of July, the drachma will return.
You do know that China has come to the rescue in Greece, right? They've taken a lease out on the major port near Athens and run it now while destroying labor relations.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||06/08/2011|
They're able to do it right in Germany.%0D %0D See link
|by Anonymous||reply 46||06/08/2011|
R42 Obama has hamstrung himself. If he had pushed a progressive program he would have gotten results, but this "I don't have the power, it's Congress which decides" bullshit is too ridiculous to be believed. Corruption is the big shadow behind this man.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 47||06/08/2011|
You nailed it R47.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||06/08/2011|
The Austrians uniformly warned starting in 2004 that the policies being pursued were leading to bubbles in housing and stocks. Dear heart, the Austrians have *always* warned about bubbles and catastrophes, most of which failed to materialize. They have also warned about other things that have entirely failed to appear(no they haven't, see below) Like a stopped clock, those who follow the Austrian religion are occasionally right. Until they come up with actual empirical data, until they actually have a theory that reliably predicts both boom and bust, they will, correctly, continue to be seen as nothing more than a wacky fringe.
Dear Paul, I wish you were as right as you predict. First of all, despite my hedged reply about Greece, Austrians do not make predictions. It is a bastardized offshoot termed "thymology"- which you would know if you knew anything about Mises, Rothbard, etc.
You seem to think that Austrianism predates Keynesianism (now A & K, like the gay store) when in fact A didn't even begin until the 30s with Mises and wasn't formalized until the 60s by Rothbard. Sure, Mises decimated Keynes with Human Action, but since the government and the military wanted Much More Money, Keynes was lauded. The government, and "adventures" aka wars and foreign aid, grew. %C2%A0Fast. Mises was an unknown 10 years ago, until people started realizing his theories actually explained what was happening.
Now, the best part is this- if you apply A's theories, today, to the data available for a time period, a sophomore student of %C2%A0A can say "recession" or "no" by looking at the data from a year before. %C2%A0K students at a masters level (or like Bernanke and Krugman, way above) cannot look at ANY data and say "yes" or " no" to a coming recession, proven by their missing the 2001 and 2008 manifestations. They said everything was FINE back in 2008! Then Lehman collapsed, and suddenly they were fucked.
Your beloved village idiots Bernanke and Krugman denied it until it crashed, LOL... You're wrong on both counts. Not only are those two not particularly beloved by me, Krugman, in particular, correctly predicted the bubble, as did quite a few others. Hell, *I* predicted the bubble well before the crash. It took no particular economic expertise to see that. It took willful and blind partisanship, of the kind that, say, Alan Greenspan possesses, to ignore the many and obvious signs.
Krugman DID NOT PREDICT the bubble, and Bernanke was denying it days before Lehman crashed. %C2%A0Period. When collapse became imminent, he admitted it.
just as they are now denying inflation. There's a reason they are "denying inflation." Care to guess what that reason is? Hint: look at the data.
The data shows inflation across the board. Food. Gas. Any consumable. Bernanke BURIED it.
ROFL... Hindsight is so much better than foresight, isn't it? Tell you what: when you can accurately predict when the *next* recession will be, I'll take you seriously. Until then, not so much. See, here's the thing: I predict that there will be a recession in the next ten years. And you know something? There's a damn good chance I'll be proven correct. Wow! That puts me on par with the best of the Austrian prognosticators. Are you getting the point yet? Your lack of knowledge of it isn't surprising. ROFL... Much like your lack of knowledge about anything other than that religion you follow.
Still think it's a religion? If you can refute my points, please do.
Paul, your education in economics has left you with flawed premises that lead to massively wrong conclusions. Really, dear? Do tell me which "massively wrong conclusions" I've reached, won't you? I eagerly await your enlightenment.
The current sovereign and corporate debt in the world is dependent on infusions of fiat money to keep going, and they are in danger of collapsing spectacularly. Greece will default - the Germans are not giving any more money. That default will have worldwide repercussions. ROFL... You really don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, do you? Here's a free clue: what's happening in Greece doesn't have a damn thing to do with "infusions of fiat money" or the lack thereof.
That's the problem with only having a hammer to work with: everything looks like a nail. The rest of us don't insist that the world fit our wacky theories... we adjust our theories to fit the world. It works a hell of a lot better.
If you are too arrogant to understand the preceding, then you are too ignorant to understand the rest.
Sent from my iPad
|by Anonymous||reply 49||06/08/2011|
Krugman has been right pretty much every day in every way for the last couple of years.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 50||06/08/2011|
[quote](no they haven't, see below)%0D %0D Yes, dear, they have. I know it hurts you to find out that your beloved religion is not what you thought it was but do try to rejoin the real world; you'll be ever so much happier.%0D %0D [quote]Dear Paul, I wish you were as right as you predict. First of all, despite my hedged reply about Greece, Austrians do not make predictions.%0D %0D ROFL.... Dear heart, your entire premise here was based on the assertion that they were, in fact, right, in predicting the bubbles and that they alone did so. Now that you're hedging (because you are, of course, wrong), you're pretty much destroying your argument and confirming mine. Because Austrian economics cannot be used for any useful predictive purpose, there simply is no point to it. It's a classic post hoc fallacy pseudo-science.%0D %0D Free hint: what's the difference between science and pseudo-science?%0D %0D [quote]You seem to think that Austrianism predates Keynesianism%0D %0D Dear heart, why are you trying to put words in my mouth? We'll have a much better discussion if you would restrict yourself to what I actually say, instead of what those voices in your head are spouting.%0D %0D I'm not even going to bother responding to your wonderful little fantasies about Mises and Keynes and how Mises "decimated" Keynes, and your paranoid rantings about "the government and the military," because such things happened only in your fevered imagination, not here in the real world.%0D %0D [quote]They said everything was FINE back in 2008!%0D %0D No, dear, they didn't, as anyone who was actually paying attention would know. You *really* should do your homework before posting again, since you are flatly incorrect.%0D %0D [quote]Krugman DID NOT PREDICT the bubble%0D %0D ROFL.... Yes, dear, he did, and he himself posted the evidence just a few days ago on his blog. Like I said, you really should do your homework before posting here. You're just making yourself look foolish. Krugman has been rather badly wrong at times, as he himself will admit, but he wasn't wrong here, nor were quite a few others. Now if you want to bash partisans like Alan Greenspan, who *still* doesn't get it, I'll happily join in.%0D %0D [quote]There's a reason they are "denying inflation." Care to guess what that reason is? Hint: look at the data.%0D %0D [quote]The data shows inflation across the board. Food. Gas. Any consumable.%0D %0D ROFL... Oh, my... you really don't know *anything*, do you, dear? If you mean that inflation is above 0, well, duh! If you mean that inflation is at a level where anyone should be concerned, well, sorry, but the data don't support your theories. You got nothing, dear.%0D %0D [quote]Still think it's a religion?%0D %0D Yup, I do, at least as practiced by people like yourself. Did it really not occur to you that you have presented exactly *zero* support for your rantings on this thread? Not one shred of evidence, not one iota of data, not one bit of logic or reason. You are simply, and mindlessly, repeating drivel that you have been taught, regurgitating it without even once wondering whether it's true. That's a religion, dear.%0D %0D [quote]If you can refute my points, please do.%0D %0D Dear heart, you haven't given me a damned thing to refute! Unsupported assertions are not "points" that need to be "refuted." They are foolishness to be mocked, which I will happily continue to do.%0D %0D [quote]If you are too arrogant to understand the preceding, then you are too ignorant to understand the rest.%0D %0D ROFL... And, again, oh, the irony.... Do come back when you've done your homework, won't you, dear? Until then, I'll just keep mocking you for your total ignorance and mindless devotion to your religion.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||06/08/2011|
[quote]Krugman has been right pretty much every day in every way for the last couple of years.%0D %0D He's certainly been right more than he's been wrong. And has been very right in areas where his research has made him an expert. But no economist has gotten everything right. The best of them admit their mistakes, learn from them, and move on. The worst of them, like most who follow the Chicago School of Economics or the Austrian School, keep making the same mistakes over and over again, ignoring the data that clearly refutes their theories.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||06/08/2011|
No, Paul, predicting the time of a crash is different than observing that a crash will happen. You confuse exposition of reality to predictions about the future.
Scientists, like the Austrians, can make hypotheses and test them, whereas pseudos, like Keynes, have to constantly change their model and cherry pick inputs to conform to their ideas.
Bernanke was still denying a housing bubble in 2007, just as the top hit.
Annualized inflation is picking up, and 6% yoy is NOT tame. Your sources are ill-informed, Paul.
Paul, no evidence- until you educate yourself on economic fundamentals- will convince someone as grossly and gravely misinformed and maleducated as you. I hope your degree was worth it, because you learned nothing of value.
I, on the other hand, started buying gold in 2001, just as the Austrians suggested, and have quintupled my money.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||06/09/2011|
Except Austrians have been wrong about pretty much everything, and Keynesians have been right about pretty much everything (not to mention that Keynesians just make more sense).%0D %0D Any time I hear someone spouting off about Austrian economics, I pretty much tune out any more, because all it means is that they're an ignorant (but trying to be pompous) libertarian fucktard.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 54||06/09/2011|
It is not what the Democrats "Can do" it is what they "Will or Won't do".
They can fix the problem because they have a majority. But they are beholden to Corporations not the people.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||06/09/2011|
R55, some are beholden to corporations. But for the most part, they're blocked at trying to fix anything by the Republicans, who are ENTIRELY beholden to the corporate elite.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 56||06/09/2011|
I don't know what is more damaging to progressivism, the false equivalency, "we really only have one party and the corporations are in charge" trolls or the "if Obama had only gone much, much harder to the left he'd be way more popular now" fools. Here are a few realities you need to face:
1) Obama has faced opposition from a party that has been out to destroy his presidency, that things all of his policies are evil, that doesn't believe in taxes, and that pretty much wants to dismantle the federal government from Day One. That's real, and no, that wouldn't be different if "he'd just stood up to them" or what ever personality-driven horseshit reason you've all invented.
2) The economy you want him to fix was broken over thirty years by Republican policies and heedlessness. And while you're casting blame, look in the goddamn mirror. Every one of you who bought shit without knowing how you'd pay for it, who just had to get a Playstation or a big screen TV but never thought having a savings account was an important thing, gets a share of the blame. It doesn't get "fixed" overnight, or over a year, or over two. But if you want to have a grownup conversation about it, here's where it starts: Any "recovery" policy that does not start with raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans is indefensible bullshit. So there's an area where the two parties are NOT alike.
3) The reason Obama has not done more and the reason he has not kept more of his promises is Republican congressional obstruction. And any of you goddamn dumbasses who sat out the midterm elections or didn't write a check to the Democrats when you could have or otherwise fetishized your own sense that your pouting little tantrum was more important than anything else helped make that possible. So, you know, thanks.
4) He's the first black man to get elected president and he did it in a country full of white racists. The economy sucks and his approval rating is still at about 50%. So maybe he's actually smarter than you are. Which wouldn't be hard because on the evidence of this thread I'm amazed some of you even know how to turn on your computer.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||06/09/2011|
[quote]No, Paul, predicting the time of a crash is different than observing that a crash will happen. You confuse exposition of reality to predictions about the future.%0D %0D No, dear, I don't. Again, you really need to stop listening to those voices in your head and actually pay attention to what I'm really saying. Anyone can observe that a crash will happen at some future time, dear, including my prediction above that there will be a recession in the next ten years. That prediction on my part is both accurate and worthless, much like the crap that comes from many who follow the Austrian School. Hell, they've been predicting doom and gloom for years (see, for example, Peter Schiff).%0D %0D There's nothing inherently wrong with post hoc analysis. It's a critical element of science and is particularly useful in helping determine what went wrong when existing models break down. But what needs to come out of that analysis is testable theories that will provide guidance for the future. And this is where the Austrian School has, thus far, consistently failed, despite your rather silly assertion below.%0D %0D [quote]Scientists, like the Austrians, can make hypotheses and test them, whereas pseudos, like Keynes, have to constantly change their model and cherry pick inputs to conform to their ideas.%0D %0D ROFLMAO.... Dear heart, you do realize that you have it exactly backwards, don't you? That is, in fact, the primary criticism of the Austrian School - that those who follow it *don't* make testable hypotheses, that they excel in coming up with facile explanations after the fact, but that they are unable to apply these explanations to future events in any meaningful way.%0D %0D [quote]Bernanke was still denying a housing bubble in 2007, just as the top hit.%0D %0D So? I didn't defend Bernanke; I defended Krugman. Thank you for conceding that you were wrong.%0D %0D [quote]Annualized inflation is picking up, and 6% yoy is NOT tame. Your sources are ill-informed, Paul.%0D %0D ROFL... Dear heart, "annualized inflation" is not, at this time, "picking up," nor is it "6% year-over-year." Speaking of ill-informed... Can you really not spend 30 seconds with Google before you post stupidity like this?%0D %0D [quote]Paul, no evidence- until you educate yourself on economic fundamentals- will convince someone as grossly and gravely misinformed and maleducated as you.%0D %0D ROFL... Oh, my... coming from you, this is priceless... I repeat: You haven't given me a damned thing to refute! Unsupported assertions are not "points" that need to be "refuted." They are foolishness to be mocked, which I will happily continue to do.%0D %0D I used the word "religion" advisedly and your every post here confirms the accuraacy of that term, as well as the depths of your ignorance and the mindlessness of your devotion.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||06/09/2011|
I know something he can do...stop kissing up to the Republicans and big business.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||06/09/2011|
He could force Bill Clinton to become president again
|by Anonymous||reply 60||06/09/2011|
[bold]The Next Financial Crisis Will Be Hellish, And It%E2%80%99s On Its Way[/bold]%0D %0D %E2%80%9CThere is definitely going to be another financial crisis around the corner,%E2%80%9D says hedge fund legend Mark Mobius, %E2%80%9Cbecause we haven%E2%80%99t solved any of the things that caused the previous crisis.%E2%80%9D%0D %0D We%E2%80%99re raising our alert status for the next financial crisis. We already raised it last week after spreads on U.S. credit default swaps started blowing out. We raised it again after seeing the remarks of Mr. Mobius, chief of the $50 billion emerging markets desk at Templeton Asset Management.%0D %0D Speaking in Tokyo, he pointed to derivatives, the financial hairball of futures, options, and swaps in which nearly all the world%E2%80%99s major banks are tangled up.%0D %0D Estimates on the amount of derivatives out there worldwide vary. An oft-heard estimate is $600 trillion. That squares with Mobius%E2%80%99 guess of 10 times the world%E2%80%99s annual GDP. %E2%80%9CAre the derivatives regulated?%E2%80%9D asks Mobius. %E2%80%9CNo. Are you still getting growth in derivatives? Yes.%E2%80%9D%0D %0D In other words, something along the lines of securitized mortgages is lurking out there, ready to trigger another crisis as in 2007-08.%0D %0D What could it be? We%E2%80%99ll offer up a good guess, one the market is discounting.%0D %0D Seldom does a stock index rise so much, for so little reason, as the Dow did on the open Tuesday morning: 115 Dow points on a rumor that Greece is going to get a second bailout.%0D %0D Let%E2%80%99s step back for a moment: The Greek crisis is first and foremost about the German and French banks that were foolish enough to lend money to Greece in the first place. What sort of derivative contracts tied to Greek debt are they sitting on? What worldwide mayhem would ensue if Greece didn%E2%80%99t pay back 100 centimes on the euro?%0D %0D (continued)%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 61||06/10/2011|
That%E2%80%99s a rhetorical question, since the balance sheets of European banks are even more opaque than American ones. Whatever the actual answer, it%E2%80%99s scary enough that the European Central Bank has refused to entertain any talk about the holders of Greek sovereign debt taking a haircut, even in the form of Greece stretching out its payments.%0D %0D That was the preferred solution among German leaders. But it seems the ECB is about to get its way. Greece will likely get another bailout %E2%80%93 30 billion euros on top of the 110 billion euro bailout it got a year ago.%0D %0D It will accomplish nothing. Going deeper into hock is never a good way to get out of debt. And at some point, this exercise in kicking the can has to stop. When it does, you get your next financial crisis.%0D %0D And what of the derivatives sitting on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve? Here%E2%80%99s another factor behind our heightened state of alert.%0D %0D %E2%80%9CThrough quantitative easing efforts alone,%E2%80%9D says Euro Pacific Capital%E2%80%99s Michael Pento, %E2%80%9CBen Bernanke has added $1.8 trillion of longer-term GSE debt and mortgage-backed securities (MBS).%E2%80%9D%0D %0D Think about that for a moment. The Fed%E2%80%99s entire balance sheet totaled around $800 billion before the 2008 crash, nearly all of it Treasuries. Now the Fed holds more than double that amount in mortgage derivatives alone, junk that the banks needed to clear off their own balance sheets.%0D %0D %E2%80%9CAs the size of the Fed%E2%80%99s balance sheet ballooned,%E2%80%9D continues Mr. Pento, %E2%80%9Cthe dollar amount of capital held at the Fed has remained fairly constant. Today, the Fed has $52.5 billion of capital backing a $2.7 trillion balance sheet.%0D %0D %E2%80%9CPrior to the bursting of the credit bubble, the public was shocked to learn that our biggest investment banks were levered 30-to-1. When asset values fell, those banks were quickly wiped out. But now the Fed is holding many of the same types of assets and is levered 51-to-1! If the value of their portfolio were to fall by just 2%, the Fed itself would be wiped out.%E2%80%9D%0D %0D (end)%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 62||06/10/2011|
Excellent find, R61.
Arguing with fools is useless when they can't see that the end result of their policies is the scenario you describe- a mass loss in confidence in currencies worldwide as more and more debt is defaulted on, resulting in a disorderly and highly unpredictable path of economic destruction. Every bank on the planet, with marginal exceptions, is bankrupt. Period. They have so much junk debt (that's still rated AAA) that it can never be repaid. The FDIC is almost broke, and is still shutting down banks with better balance sheets than BoA or Citi.
The end result of this is going to make 2008 look rosy.
Care to disagree, Paul?
|by Anonymous||reply 63||06/10/2011|
Obama needs to enact comprehensive New Deal-like legislation. I completely agree with the recommendations to increase minimum wage, and SS benefits, food stamps, etc. That's immediate.%0D %0D I would also add a tax increase for people making more than $1 Million a year, and I would immediately re-open trade agreements to address the imbalance especially with tariffs. %0D %0D I would offer incentives to business and industries involved in manufacturing, and incentivize buy America in state and local communities. %0D %0D Some of these things should have been done in '09 when he engaged Congress on the Stimulus. He needs to dig in and do it. He will get his Democratic Majority back in 2012 if he does.%0D %0D %0D NAFTA and deregulation on Wall Street/financial services industries are killing us. Literally. Our roads, bridges, water and sewage systems, and electical grids are antiquated. %0D %0D Our infrastructure is literally crumbling. He can put people to work. All the talk about "shovel ready " projects needs to be looked at again to get some of them "shovel ready." Because they weren't. As more people become employed, the deficit will decrease.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||06/10/2011|
* Corporate Lawyer for Wall Street.
* Entered office during the worst economic crisis this country has ever experienced.
* Unemployment at 25% when he entered office.
* Passed major economic stimulus legislation in first 100 days of office. (New Deal)
* After 8 years in office (first two terms) unemployment figures declined to 17.2% by 1939 (recession of 1937).
[bold]* Removed 500,000 Veterans and widows from the pension rolls and reduced benefits for the remainder.[/bold]
* Cut the salaries of federal employees.
[bold]* Reduced spending on research and education.[/bold]
[bold]* First 8 years: Democratic Majorities in both houses.[/bold]
|by Anonymous||reply 65||06/10/2011|
Question for R64-
Why are our bridges, sewers, roads and electrical grid in bad shape? What one thing do they all have in common? Hmmmm, could it be that they are almost 100% state controlled on every level, even if they are nominally privatized. Same goes for public schools, TBTF banks, cable systems, health care- the injection of government regulation at every minute level has made everything SO MUCH BETTER!
|by Anonymous||reply 66||06/10/2011|
R66, you're kind of an idiot.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 67||06/10/2011|
Britain and the US are both in the shit, but Britain is taking a very hard line on cutting spending, while the US is not (though cuts are still being made). Economists are very interested how two different approaches to resolving the same problem will play out ... i.e., who will recover first (so far neither).
If I were Obama, I'd pull out of NAFTA, and encourage manufacturing back home. I'd do that by looking at what China/India and other emerging nations are doing: set up lots of trade zones offering generous benefits (no red tape, little or no tax).
|by Anonymous||reply 68||06/10/2011|
The problem is Obama will not do anything to help the economy because god forbid he piss off his rich contributors.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||06/10/2011|
BINGO! @ r69!%0D %0D Obama is one of the greediest and biggest corrupt crooks who has ever held office. %0D %0D He is Republican through and through.%0D %0D Obama has nothing but contempt for the poor, workers and unions.%0D %0D I'll be writing in the names of real Liberals in 2012. %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 70||06/10/2011|
[quote]Why are our bridges, sewers, roads and electrical grid in bad shape? What one thing do they all have in common?
because they we all built in the first half of the last century, and since the reagan revolution in the 80's, as tax revenues were purposally stripped from federal, state and local governments, there has been little to no government funding available for new projects, or even upkeep on the old, and the infrastructure that has been privatize,d is too busy lining CEO's pockets with their profits, to reinvest in structural improvements.
[quote]Same goes for public schools, TBTF banks, cable systems, health care- the injection of government regulation at every minute level has made everything SO MUCH BETTER!
again, public schools were GREAT until the revenue shrinking schemes of the reagan revolution decided that lining the pockets of the very wealthy at the expense of the masses was the way to go ("why support public schools anyway? our kids are in private!").
as for the banking and cable industries, *those* are your shining lights of how big business can deliver better services with less government oversight? what little regulation there is on those industries has hardly protected consumers from being raped, and as we know with the failed laissez faire capitalism of the banking industry has almost destroyed this nation's economy and just might yet, if things are fixed (which our politicians seem unwilling to do).
my question for you, RPT, is why do you hate america so much that you want to destroy it? is it really worth it to decimate the nation, and throw 90% of the american people into abject poverty, so you can live out your libertarian wet dream of unregulated capitalist anarchy?
|by Anonymous||reply 71||06/10/2011|
Hyperbole much, R70?
|by Anonymous||reply 72||06/10/2011|
[quote]If I were Obama, I'd pull out of NAFTA, and encourage manufacturing back home. I'd do that by looking at what China/India and other emerging nations are doing: set up lots of trade zones offering generous benefits (no red tape, little or no tax).
good lord, you would have us emulating india and china? nations where workers are one step above being slaves? where pollution is so bad that in industrialized areas of china there are NO BIRDS, not even pigeons, because the environment is so toxic and so choked with smog, you can't even see the sun on cloudless days? we should be like nations who have hundreds of millions of people literally starving to death in the streets, because they can't feed their own populations yet export food to other nations simply because the labor of those same starving people is so cheap?
no thank you.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||06/10/2011|
r73, I'm not saying emulate Chinese and Indian labour and environmental laws!! (or lack of).
|by Anonymous||reply 74||06/10/2011|
R71, the cable companies are an example of why government regulation always leads to problems. There is rarely any competition, they are both highly regulated and protected by law, and they serve at the privilege of the FCC. Banks are as bad- both highly regulated and heavily protected, and as such the more politically connected banks got to be larger and took over more and more, operating technically within the rules, but using their status as government insiders to get more power, grow larger, engage in more reckless behavior knowing Fannie and Freddie will buy any crap, and so on.
Compare that to Apple, or Google, or Mercedes, or in less political, freer markets, and you'll see the point.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||06/10/2011|
RPT, you are right on one point- government insiders ARE the problem, but the solution is MORE regulation, not less, as in removing private money from campaigns entirely, and strict conflict of interest laws to make sure those with industry connections are not appointed to police the industries they are connected with. a complete BAN on lobbyists would take care of this nicely, especially if jail times were enforced for violations.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||06/10/2011|
Yes, and you can repeal the law of gravity but it won't work. Gov and corps are mutual, and one can't exist without the other.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||06/10/2011|
Hillary would have been better.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||06/10/2011|
He should work with private industry by lowering taxes so they can create jobs. They're worried about ObamaCare being so expensive, they can't afford to take the risk of hiring. His Stimulus Packages were used government projects of building roads and fixing bridges, which have no longterm impact on improving the economy.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||06/10/2011|
"Hillary would have been better."
She ain't ever gonna be president, Blanche! Move the fuck on.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||06/10/2011|
[quote]He should work with private industry by lowering taxes so they can create jobs.%0D %0D You are a fucking moron. Taxes are already very low, and cutting taxes has never in the history of mankind created even ONE SINGLE FUCKING JOB. Stop with the idiotic, disproven, right-wing talking points.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 81||06/10/2011|
Over-regulation is the exact OPPOSITE of the problem. The crash happened because there was not ENOUGH. No regulstion of those default credit swaps, and no oversight on how leveraged some of these companies (*cough* AIG *cough*) became.%0D %0D Anyone advocating even MORE deregulation is a fucking moron with his head up his ass.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 82||06/10/2011|
[quote] Anyone advocating even MORE deregulation is a fucking moron with his head up his ass.
Or a republican or libertarian. Actually, same thing as a moron with his head up his ass.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||06/10/2011|
r2 One thing he could do is put the onus on the states to put people to work. Instead of paying 2 years of unemployment for not working we can allow people to work doing jobs that need to be done but aren't due to lack of funding. Also use that unemployment to pay businesses to hire and train people as interns for new positions temporarily that will increase their skill sets and make them more marketable in a new field. Maybe if these businesses were getting workers and didn't have to pay for them, it might increase their productivity and in the long term create jobs. This sitting home collecting a check for not working is not doing anything for anyone. Another entitlement. unacceptable.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||06/10/2011|
He should lower the corporate tax rate.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||06/10/2011|
There should be a moratorium on payroll taxes for six months, this will give people money to spend.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||06/10/2011|
He could act like he gives a damn about all the people who are hurting even though he obviously doesn't.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||06/10/2011|
There is absolutely nothing that Obama can do to help the economy. There is nothing that ANY President could have done. We are in a cycle right now that has to play out. It will get better; it always does. Americans want the good life; we want success. We tend to forget that there have been down times before, but we've always come back up. It's difficult to maintain optimism when one is in the middle of financial upheaval (as I am); however, if you keep reminding yourself that this has happened before, then you know that it will get better. %0D %0D However, that being said, don't forget the lessons taught by these times: 1) if anything is waaaayyy too good to be true, it is; 2) if you rack up debt, you'll be expected to pay not only that debt but the cost of that debt ("personal responsibility" is the key phrase here); 3) any gain anticipated via the stock market is a gamble on air quality, because it is all "hot air" spewed by those who earn their living managing your funds.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||06/10/2011|
The problem is Obama doesn't want to help anyone but the very rich.%0D %0D Listen, at the link, to what Bernie Sanders has to say.%0D %0D If you compare what Sanders says to the things Obama has said, (only since after the 2008 election of course when he no longer had to lie) you would swear that on one side is the Democrat (Sanders) and the other side a Republican (Obama)
|by Anonymous||reply 89||06/10/2011|
[quote]The end result of this is going to make 2008 look rosy. Care to disagree, Paul?%0D %0D Yup. GIGO.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||06/11/2011|
[quote]He should lower the corporate tax rate.%0D %0D Why? They're already paying a historically low share of the overall tax burden.%0D %0D [quote]He could act like he gives a damn about all the people who are hurting%0D %0D And that will help, how exactly?%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 91||06/11/2011|
[quote]One thing he could do is put the onus on the states to put people to work.%0D %0D He can't. Not only does he not have any control over what the states do with their money, most states are constrained by their own constitutions. If there is a solution, it must come from the federal government, not the states.%0D %0D [quote]Also use that unemployment to pay businesses to hire and train people as interns for new positions temporarily that will increase their skill sets and make them more marketable in a new field.%0D %0D That's not an unreasonable idea but it won't do any good in the current market. The problem isn't on the supply side; it's on the demand side, and your solution does nothing to address that.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||06/11/2011|
[quote]Over-regulation is the exact OPPOSITE of the problem. The crash happened because there was not ENOUGH. No regulation of those default credit swaps, and no oversight on how leveraged some of these companies (*cough* AIG *cough*) became.%0D %0D Exactly right.%0D %0D [quote]Anyone advocating even MORE deregulation is a fucking moron with his head up his ass.%0D %0D Yup, hence the GIGO principle. Our dear little chum's "analyses" are fatally flawed, in that he's starting from a completely skewed set of premises, wholly unrelated to anything in the real world. Hence, the output of his "analysis" is equally fatally flawed, not to mention really, really stupid.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||06/11/2011|
[quote]but Britain is taking a very hard line on cutting spending%0D %0D Yup, and the results thus far are pretty much a disaster. To the best of my knowledge, every country in trouble today that is practicing so-called "austerity" measures has just made things worse. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist, or even a particularly skilled economist, to figure out why.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||06/11/2011|
How the Great Depression Finally Ended
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on March 3, 2009 01:27 PM
It was a "stimulus" provided by about a two-thirds reduction of federal spending, from $98.7 billion in 1945 to $33.8 billion in 1948. See the Statistical Abstract of the United States, and click on #14, "Federal Government Finances" on the left.
As Bob Higgs has said, every Keyensian economist in the world, led by Paul Samuelson, predicted an economic calamity at the time, and every Keyensian in the world was dead wrong. Taking all of that money from the parasitic clutches of the state and returning it to its rightful owners (taxpayers) caused the post-war recovery. Today's Keynesians, led by Paul Krugman, insist that they have no idea whatsoever why the Great Depression did not resume after WW II ended. Thus, they haven't learned a single thing in over 60 years. (Either that, or they are and always have been nothing by shills for the state masquerading as "economists").
|by Anonymous||reply 95||06/12/2011|
ROFL.... That's fricking hilarious, RPT. So badly, and provably, wrong in its very first sentence. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and confirm it. %0D %0D Oh, and for the record, DiLorenzo is as badly wrong about Krugman and Keyenesians as you are, as they do, in fact, have an explanation and theoretical model not only for the Great Depression but also for its aftermath.%0D %0D Does it ever occur to even *think* about the bilge you're swallowing and posting? To spend 5 minutes in Google to see whether it's true? To spend 5 minutes in rational thought to figure out whether it even remotely makes sense? Free clue: it's not, and it doesn't.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||06/12/2011|
Paul, you never post facts, just baseless attempts to refute something you know nothing about- economics. You're acceptance of the party line and refusal to think about any issue more than to regurgitate what you were taught is tiring.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||06/12/2011|
An old colleague of mine is married to Tom DiLorenzo. He is a fat zealot -- an anti-government conspiracy theorist who believes that Lincoln was a Nazi, FDR was Hitler, na na na. His wife took care to keep his views very quiet at the liberal TV channel where we worked.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||06/12/2011|
[quote]Paul, you never post facts%0D %0D ROFL... Oh, the irony, coming from this poster. Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that *none* of yours posts contain a single verifiable fact? Not one. I repeat: You haven't given me a damned thing to refute! Unsupported assertions are not "points" that need to be "refuted." They are foolishness to be mocked, which I will happily continue to do.%0D %0D [quote]just baseless attempts to refute something you know nothing about- economics.%0D %0D Dear heart, I know how to use Google to look at, e.g., GDP growth, unemployment, and the like during the Great Depression and WWII eras, which is why I know that that DiLorenzo post you quoted is laughably and provably wrong, just as I stated.%0D %0D I also know enough to look at what Keynesians like Krugman actually say, not what you and DiLorenzo claim they say. Those strawman arguments of yours may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside but are just hilarious to those of us who know better.%0D %0D [quote]You're acceptance of the party line and refusal to think about any issue more than to regurgitate what you were taught is tiring.%0D %0D ROFLMAO.... Oh, man, this is just wonderful. The lack of self-awareness is just priceless. Don't ever change. Coming from someone who has been doing nothing but mindlessly regurgitating in this entire thread, that DiLorenzo post a classic example, forgive me if I entirely fail to be wounded by your low opinion of me.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||06/12/2011|
Yup, R99, DiLorenzo is a well-known nutcase and conspiracy theorist, which is why it's hilarious that our dear chum RPT is quoting him approvingly. And that specific quote, in particular! The mind boggles at just how much you have to turn off your brain to mindlessly accept drivel like that.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||06/12/2011|
What I find particularly hilarious about our dear chum RPT is that he is guilty of everything he's accused me of! The lack of self-awareness is absolutely wonderful. Examples include:%0D %0D [quote]Your education in economics has left you with flawed premises that lead to massively wrong conclusions.%0D %0D [quote]If you are too arrogant to understand the preceding, then you are too ignorant to understand the rest.%0D %0D [quote] no evidence- until you educate yourself on economic fundamentals- will convince someone as grossly and gravely misinformed and maleducated as you.%0D %0D [quote]you never post facts, just baseless attempts to refute something you know nothing about- economics.%0D %0D [quote]You're (sic) acceptance of the party line and refusal to think about any issue more than to regurgitate what you were taught is tiring.%0D %0D Q.E.D.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||06/12/2011|
Paul, since you love the look of your own typing, why don't we try the basics. I'll expose your misguided thoughts.
What is inflation?
To Austrians, it is when excess money is introduced into the economy. Period. Price increas inevitably follow this creation of money from nothing.
Why don't you enlighten us with a tortured Keynesian explanation.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||06/12/2011|
Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that I'm not here to educate you? I'm here to mock you, to poke fun at you, to highlight your lack of thought, to point out your mindless regurgitation of drivel.%0D %0D In that vein, let me point out to you that you are not only wrong about what you claim the Austrian School says about inflation, the definition that you have created is meaningless, offering no useful real-world value.%0D %0D This is what von Mises actually said, dear:%0D %0D [quote]In theoretical investigation there is only one meaning that can rationally be attached to the expression Inflation: an increase in the quantity of money ... that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money ... so that a fall in the objective exchange-value of money must occur.%0D %0D Given your complete inability to respond to any of the points I've made, I've long since given up any hope of a real dialog with you, dear. I'm just here to have fun.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||06/12/2011|
LOL - RPT, you've been exposed as a simpleton. You know nothing about economics, only "Austrian economics," which is mostly a political movement not a branch of economic study.
Being a fervent follower of "Austrian economics" is not the same as understanding economics, though you're clearly not bright enough to realize it - which is why Paul has reduced you posts which amount to nothing more than childish insults. But those posts aren't doing what you think they are in covering up your ignorance.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||06/12/2011|
[quote]The Democratic and Republican parties are the same party today. The political fighting is semantics to appease the USA! USA! types.
Or progressive dipshit.
Either way, go fuck yourself.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||06/12/2011|
Nothing in the quote from Mises counters my assertion- it in fact supports it.
Are you really too stupid to see that?
|by Anonymous||reply 106||06/12/2011|
Oh, and I notice you don't answer the question of what inflation is since you know a Keynesian definition is impossible.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||06/12/2011|
[quote]If I were Obama, I'd pull out of NAFTA, and encourage manufacturing back home. I'd do that by looking at what China/India and other emerging nations are doing: set up lots of trade zones offering generous benefits (no red tape, little or no tax).
"China Lead Poisoning: Over 600 Sickened In Latest Incident, Including 103 Children "
yup. emulate china.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||06/12/2011|
RPT is a complete fucking moron.
Taxes, right now, are at the lowest they've been in decades. Is that helping? No.
Businesses are raking in record profits. Are they hiring? No.
Yet your solution is deregulate, privatize and lower taxes, none of which is currently working.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||06/12/2011|
The next bailout should be for those of us still paying our student loans, starting with%0D graduate students who have professional degrees. The bailout would immediately pump money into the banks. Then the graduates would immediately have a rise in income which would pump money into the economy.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||06/13/2011|
R111 personifies what is wrong with higher education these days.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||06/13/2011|
Glass-Steagall needs to be reinstuted, and all the bankes broken up so there aren't any 'too big to fail' banks left.%0D %0D
|by Anonymous||reply 112||06/13/2011|
Paul, are you too scared to provide a definition of inflation because you know that it will prove once and for all how ignorant you are?
|by Anonymous||reply 113||06/13/2011|
I'm sick of this stupid country.%0D %0D There may well be little or nothing he can do to help the economy, other than the steps he's already taken to not make things much, much worse than they currently are.%0D %0D However:%0D %0D Why then hand this over to the Republicans who won't be able to do anything helpful either and may make things much, much worse?%0D %0D The reason: because we are idiots.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||06/13/2011|
[quote]Nothing in the quote from Mises counters my assertion- it in fact supports it. Are you really too stupid to see that?%0D %0D ROFLMAO.... Oh my... this is just too rich. You really *don't* know anything, do you? Mises' quote doesn't match yours, dear. It's different in one key respect. The answer is left as an exercise for the reader.%0D %0D [quote]Oh, and I notice you don't answer the question of what inflation is since you know a Keynesian definition is impossible.%0D %0D ROFL.... Dear heart, you really should quit while you're behind, as there is nothing inherently un-Keynesian about the standard definition for inflation, just as is true of the Chicago School and literally every other school of economics.%0D %0D The only reason the Austrian School needs a special definition, dear, is that Mises felt that the standard definition was overloaded. He wanted a term for what he believed to be the inflation of the money supply and a separate term for what he believed to be the effect of that money supply inflation.%0D %0D [quote]Paul, are you too scared to provide a definition of inflation because you know that it will prove once and for all how ignorant you are?%0D %0D LOL... Dear, there's this thing called a "life." I really do suggest you get one.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||06/13/2011|
The WWII method of command socialism: confiscatory taxes on the rich, full employment, rising incomes, rationed consumption, forced savings. In just 4 years 60 years of prosperity were guaranteed.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||06/13/2011|
Paul, if it's so simple, enlighten us.
Quit stalling, hoping it will go away.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||06/14/2011|
RPT, dear, there's this thing called a "dictionary." You might want to consult it. It's only Austrian economics that has to make shit up, dear. To the rest of the world, and to the other economic schools, the standard definitions are just fine as a starting point for the discussion.%0D %0D But, dear, as long as we're on the subject of "hop[ing] it will go away," I'm still waiting for you to support *any* of your assertions on this thread. Were you planning to do so anytime soon?%0D %0D Personally, I loved your hilarious assertion that a "Keynesian definition" of inflation is "impossible." Really, dear, before you say anything more about Keynesian economics, don't you think you should spend a teensy amount of time actually researching it? Your every pronouncement about it, on this thread and others, has been badly and stupidly wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||06/14/2011|
Why should Obama be blamed for the state of the economy? The corporations in this country--those those haven't moved to other countries--have gotten away with financial murder for years and continue to do so.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||06/15/2011|
Because he can fix if he adopts R117's methods, he knows it, and he hasn't done it.%0D
|by Anonymous||reply 120||06/15/2011|
Paul, put up or shut up.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||06/15/2011|
Wall Street and the business community will not accept a Democratic President again. That's just the way it is.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||06/15/2011|
Then send in the troops and takeover Wall Street and Fairfield County, throw them all in jail and charge them with treason. He's the fucking president, and who are these little hedge fund people? His pretense of powerlessness is extremely aggravating.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||06/15/2011|
Inflation is a rice in the general price level. Can be caused by money creation, but not when the excess money is shipped overseas to service debt.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||06/15/2011|
Can also be caused by supply shocks (food shortages, oil prices) but only if these are included in what is measured and luxury goods are not.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||06/15/2011|
R122, you really need to take a basic economic history course, you really don't understand anything and your obsession with Paul is sad. My solutions will be followed someday by someone.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||06/15/2011|
If you're at the top of the organizational ladder, you're doing just fine. Their salaries have increased 28% in just two years.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||06/15/2011|
"Inflation is a rice in the general price level."%0D %0D Goddammit, the fucking Chinese are taking over EVERYTHING.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||06/15/2011|
[quote]Paul, put up or shut up.%0D %0D ROFL... Why should I, RPT? You've certainly not "put up" in this thread; why should I be held to a different standard?%0D %0D In any case, dear, I did, in fact, "put up." That you don't like the answer does not make it any less valid. I'm so sorry if that bothers you.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||06/15/2011|
[quote]Wall Street and the business community will not accept a Democratic President again. That's just the way it is.
Hah! This one made every one of their dreams come true. If there is another Obama for sale, they'll buy.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||06/15/2011|
The WWII method of command socialism: confiscatory taxes on the rich, full employment, rising incomes, rationed consumption, forced savings. In just 4 years 60 years of prosperity were guaranteed.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||06/15/2011|
No, Paul, you didn't, because you can't. You can't provide a simple, accurate definition of inflation because your fatally flawed economic model doesn't allow for a simple, comprehensible definition.
Admit it, or try to define it.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||06/16/2011|
Dear heart, you made the claim, not me, that "a Keynesian definition [of inflation] is impossible." It's up to you to back it up. What was that phrase you used? Oh, yes... put up or shut up, dear. And once you've done so, I'll happily prove you wrong, just as I have done so many other times on this thread and others.%0D %0D [quote]No, Paul, you didn't%0D %0D Yes, dear, I did. I'm so sorry you found my response unsatisfactory. You simply can't imagine how devastated I am.%0D %0D [quote]because you can't.%0D %0D Since I already have, dear, it's rather silly of you to pretend I can't.%0D %0D [quote]You can't provide a simple, accurate definition of inflation because your fatally flawed economic model doesn't allow for a simple, comprehensible definition.%0D %0D ROFL... Dear heart, since you manifestly know nothing about Keynesian economic models, forgive me if I take this just as seriously as your other claims.%0D %0D [quote]Admit it%0D %0D Dear heart, why on earth would I "admit" to something so stupidly false?
|by Anonymous||reply 133||06/16/2011|
I've always known you were full of shit, Paul.
Thanks for proving it.
Your economic fantasies have no basis in the real world.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||06/16/2011|
ROFL... Dear RPT... projecting again, are we? Let's see...%0D %0D - Inability to provide any data to back up assertions? Check.%0D %0D - Constant ad hominem attacks when challenged? Check.%0D %0D - Making shit up? Check.%0D %0D - Total ignorance of Keynesian economics? Check.%0D %0D - Inability to counteract rebuttals, changing the subject when challenged? Check.%0D %0D - Assertions directly contradicted by real-world data? Check.%0D %0D Which of us is "full of shit" again dear? Free clue: it ain't me.%0D %0D Thanks so much for conceding that you were beaten and humiliated, dear. It's been such fun and we have some lovely consolation prizes for you.
|by Anonymous||reply 135||06/17/2011|
The Federal Aviation Administration is working towards putting the finishing touches on rules and regulations for widespread domestic drone use, and the agency expects as many as 30,000 UAVs will be in America’s airspace by the decade’s end. As Russia Today notes, given that the department has already addressed the issue of acquiring drones to give the DHS a better eye of domestic doings, though, those law enforcement operations in question could very well transcend away from legitimate uses and quickly cause civil liberty concerns from coast-to-coast. All drones will be equipped with Electro-Optical/Infra-Red sensors, as well as the technology to sniff out certain chemicals from thousands of feet above our heads. Have no fear though, since the "Robotic Aircraft for Public Safety" program is for your own protection, we are sure Janet Napolitano would suggest.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||10/09/2012|
Donât be surprised if you catch a federal fleet of sneaky spy drones soaring over your head in the near future, but donât be too terrified â itâs all in the name of public safety. Â The US Department of Homeland Security is asking the makers of small unmanned aerial vehicles to submit their crafts for consideration as the agency ramps up the construction of a full-fledged surveillance state across America. The DHS plans to soon conduct drone tests over the Fort Sill, Oklahoma US Army base, and theyâre already soliciting spy planes from the private sector so they can select what kind of UAV to use. Â According to a request for information published on the Federal Business Opportunities website recently, the DHS is determined to begin drone tests over the military base soon and is seeking submissions from drone makers that donât mind making a few bucks by having their products put into the US airspace to conduct sweeping surveillance. Â The Borders and Maritime Security Division of the DHS âwill conduct flight testing and evaluation of airborne sensors and small unmanned aerial systems,â the request reads, and now invites vendors to submit drones to be tested âunder a wide variety of simulated but realistic and relevant real-world operation scenarios.â Â The solicitation says that drones will be evaluated to see how well they perform law enforcement operations and conduct search and rescue missions, but once a craft is handed over to the DHS then the details will be put under lock and key. Specifically, the call for work says, "the information within each test report will be classified as For Official Use Only, and will not be shared with the general public." Â Given that the department has already addressed the issue of acquiring drones to give the DHS a better eye of domestic doings, though, those law enforcement operations in question could very well transcend away from legitimate uses and quickly cause civil liberty concerns from coast-to-coast. Â Homeland Security Janet Napolitano told a House Committee panel in July that the DHS was âlooking at drones that could be utilized to give us situational awareness in a large public safety [matter] or disasterâ and the next piece of the puzzle is already being put into place. With their latest solicitation, the DHS acknowledges that it is specifically testing a âRobotic Aircraft For Public Safety,â but the components necessary to be considered suggest that any drone adopted by the agency will be brought in for sweeping surveillance. Â The solicitation request requires that all drones be equipped with Electro-Optical/Infra-Red sensors, as well as the technology to sniff out certain chemicals from thousands of feet from above. The UAV must also have an integrated laser designator, can be hand-launched by a single person and must be able to be remotely managed by a pilot with only one day of training. The Federal Aviation Administration is working towards putting the finishing touches on rules and regulations for widespread domestic drone use, and the agency expects as many as 30,000 UAVs will be in Americaâs airspace by the decadeâs end.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||10/09/2012|