10.2%
*Anarcissie*
generate employment. No employment, no wages; no
wages, no consumption; no consumption, no business;
no business, no employment. But you knew that already.
We may be reaching the end of the funny-money era,
although it would not surprise me if our lords and masters
and their tame geniuses gave it another shot or two
regardless of the lack of positive results. They
probably don't know what else to do.
So, how much further will the funny money go, and
then what's next?
Dänk 1010011010
I just got back from Serbia, and picked up a nice set of 1993-series
Yugoslavian banknotes with denominations ranging all the way up to
500,000,000,000 dinars. The 1993 series lasted three months before
being replaced by the 'revalued' 1994 series which chopped 9 zeroes
off, and still suffered from hyperinflation so bad it was replaced a
month later with a new dinar that was pegged to the Deutsche Mark.
The current Serbian dinar is unpegged to other currencies, but seems
to be relatively stable for the time being.
Then there is my own experience with hyperinflation as a kid growing
up along the border with Mexico. I watched as that country's economy
collapsed, and the corrupt ruling party began printing pesos to pay
the bills, causing hyperinflation (though not nearly as bad as
Yugoslavia) which destroyed the life savings and wages of average
Mexicans (the fabulously wealthy ruling elite was unaffected, since
they kept most of their wealth in hard-currency offshore accounts).
The ruling party's favorite trick was to give away 'free' money to
purchase political support at election time, then print new money to
replace it, causing the net purchasing power of the people to decline
so they wound up being worse off than before.
Rod Speed
> Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't generate employment.
Corse it can, it obviously depends on how its spread around.
And avoiding another great depression or worse certainly prevents the
unemployment rate hiking to the levels we saw in the last one or worse.
> No employment, no wages;
There is always employment, even during the great depression.
While say 25% were unemployed, thats still 75% employed, getting wages.
> no wages,
Never happens. Even when some countrys lost a word war that didnt happen in those countrys.
> no consumption; no consumption, no business; no business, no employment.
Never happens. Even when some countrys lost a word war that didnt happen in those countrys.
> But you knew that already.
Its just cloud cuckooland stuff, nothing like what actually happens in the real world.
> We may be reaching the end of the funny-money era,
Nope, in fact there is a hell of a lot more funny money around than there was before
those clowns completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.
> although it would not surprise me if our lords and masters
We dont have any of those anymore in the great democracys.
> and their tame geniuses gave it another shot
> or two regardless of the lack of positive results.
> They probably don't know what else to do.
What they have done has been quite effective.
Damned sight more effective than anything you yourself have proposed.
> So, how much further will the funny money go,
For as long as it takes.
> and then what's next?
World economys will recover, just like they always do.
And we wont need another world war to get that this time, you watch.
Michael Coburn
The rightarded seem to lack for any solutions at all. Lots of spinning
and whining and not even a hint of any solutions to the problem. Very
similar to health care. Nothing in the way of positive policy. Just
whining.
The American dollar must be devalued much further than is the case right
now. There is no other solution to the problem of middle class decay in
the United States. We are the only country in the G20 that has a large
trade deficit. And that deficit is because the American dollar is still
far too strong. Jobs will not return to America until we stop the glut
of free trade by a combination of minor protectionism and dollar
devaluation. That same devaluation if accomplished via increased wages
and social welfare will also fix the Housing/credit problem. Bailing out
banks is not the solution. Bailing out manufacturing of any kind is
advisable and so to are minor tariffs and policies that insist on
stimulus money being used to "buy American" (or at least to buy NORTH
American).
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie wrote
>> Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't generate
>> employment. No employment, no wages; no wages, no consumption; no
>> consumption, no business; no business, no employment. But you knew
>> that already.
>> We may be reaching the end of the funny-money era, although it would
>> not surprise me if our lords and masters and their tame geniuses
>> gave it another shot or two regardless of the lack of positive
>> results. They probably don't know what else to do.
>> So, how much further will the funny money go, and then what's next?
> The rightarded seem to lack for any solutions at all.
Thats a lie. Even the shrub did quite a bit, and the half
white fella mostly just continued with what he had done.
> Lots of spinning and whining and not even a hint of any solutions to the problem.
Another lie.
> Very similar to health care. Nothing in the way of positive policy. Just whining.
Thats more accurate.
> The American dollar must be devalued much further than is the case right now.
Not even possible when the RMB is loosely locked to the USD.
> There is no other solution to the problem of middle class decay in the United States.
There is no decay of the middle class, thats another lie.
> We are the only country in the G20 that has a large trade deficit.
Another bare faced lie.
> And that deficit is because the American dollar is still far too strong.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
And since the RMB is loosely locked to the USD, even a very dramatic
devaluation of the USD wont change that trade deficit anyway, in fact
it will make the trade deficit with oil MUCH worse.
> Jobs will not return to America until we stop the glut of free trade
> by a combination of minor protectionism and dollar devaluation.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
The unemployment rate bottomed at 4.x% and the number employed hit an all
time historic high with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate, just before
you clowns completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.
> That same devaluation if accomplished via increased wages
> and social welfare will also fix the Housing/credit problem.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
> Bailing out banks is not the solution.
Letting them all go bust would absolutely guarantee another great depression or worse.
> Bailing out manufacturing of any kind is advisable and so to are
> minor tariffs and policies that insist on stimulus money being
> used to "buy American" (or at least to buy NORTH American).
That approach fucked the economy the last time the clowns were stupid enough to try it.
phil scott
look to history for that answer.... its a repeating cycle.. for a
superb long cycle discussion
(260 year life cycle of nations) see Dr Ravi Batra's book the
comming depression 1990
we are in the final phase of that cycle,... collapse from the last
peak (we just went though that 15 years ago, runs about 20 years,,,
with the final implosing taking just days,
the book plots the drivers for these long cycles,,, human nature, we
start strong, get fat and lazy then corrupt, the elect idiots, then
ruin our currency with corruption then attempt to recover by war and
seizing others assets land or oil etc.... then the counter attack on a
three hundred sixty degree perimeter takes the nation out. loss of
empire, though the nation itself still sits in the same land
Phil scott
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't
>> generate employment. No employment, no wages; no
>> wages, no consumption; no consumption, no business;
>> no business, no employment. But you knew that already.
>> We may be reaching the end of the funny-money era,
>> although it would not surprise me if our lords and masters
>> and their tame geniuses gave it another shot or two
>> regardless of the lack of positive results. They
>> probably don't know what else to do.
>> So, how much further will the funny money go, and then what's next?
> look to history for that answer.... its a repeating cycle.. for a
> superb long cycle discussion (260 year life cycle of nations)
> see Dr Ravi Batra's book the comming depression 1990
That fool has never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Not only didnt we get a depression in 1990, we didnt even get one just recently
when the clowns completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.
> we are in the final phase of that cycle,...
Nope.
> collapse from the last peak
There has been no collapse from any peak.
> (we just went though that 15 years ago,
Bare faced pig ignorant lie. We actually saw the longest boom in history instead.
> runs about 20 years,,, with the final implosing taking just days,
That has never EVER happened. NOT ONCE.
> the book plots the drivers for these long cycles,,,
He couldnt even get the basics right.
> human nature, we start strong, get fat and lazy then corrupt, the
> elect idiots, then ruin our currency with corruption then attempt to
> recover by war and seizing others assets land or oil etc....
You cant list even a single example of that ever happening.
> then the counter attack on a three hundred sixty degree
> perimeter takes the nation out. loss of empire,
That hasnt happened that way either.
> though the nation itself still sits in the same land
And we have never ever seen even single one imploding in just days.
What we have actually seen is a few just fading away
into obscurity instead over half a century or so.
*Anarcissie*
Inflating the money seriously would generally tax those on
fixed incomes and those with savings accounts and the
like tied to currency values, that is, poor people. I suppose
this would loosen up a certain amount of value, but I can't
see that it would fix the large structural problems caused
by deindustrialization and years and years of inflated
credit. One might also want to recall the results of the
inflation in Germany in the 1920s -- there is no particular
reason to believe that, if the savings and pensions of the
working and middle classes are wiped out, they will take
the blow passively.
There is also the problem of the huge debts owed to
foreigners which must be refinanced from time to time.
If a policy of strong inflation goes into effect, the interest
rates won't be pretty.
hal
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>phil scott wrote
>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't
>>> generate employment. No employment, no wages; no
>>> wages, no consumption; no consumption, no business;
>>> no business, no employment. But you knew that already.
>
>>> We may be reaching the end of the funny-money era,
>>> although it would not surprise me if our lords and masters
>>> and their tame geniuses gave it another shot or two
>>> regardless of the lack of positive results. They
>>> probably don't know what else to do.
>
>>> So, how much further will the funny money go, and then what's next?
>
>> look to history for that answer.... its a repeating cycle.. for a
>> superb long cycle discussion (260 year life cycle of nations)
>> see Dr Ravi Batra's book the comming depression 1990
>
>That fool has never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>
>Not only didnt we get a depression in 1990, we didnt even get one just recently
>when the clowns completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.
we ain't done yet.
James A. Donald
> The rightarded seem to lack for any solutions at all.
If the government stops wrecking the market, the market will right
itself rapidly, as it always has in the past.
Recall the wonderful stimulus chart?
Obama threatened us, that the stimulus had to passed urgently,
urgently, for if the stimulus was not passed, unemployment would rise
to a horrifying eight percent by 2009 October.
He got that part right.
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
Yes.
> that is, poor people.
Nope. The only real poor people in modern first world countrys
are those entirely dependant on welfare from govt and those
who are 'homeless' who dont receive any welfare, and they
wont get any effect like that, essentially because govt welfare
would go up and the 'homeless' arent affected by inflation.
> I suppose this would loosen up a certain amount of value,
That wouldnt help even if it did.
> but I can't see that it would fix the large structural
> problems caused by deindustrialization
There are no 'large structural problems caused by deindustrialization',
we saw the total number employed at an all time historic high and
an unemployment rate of 4.x%, the envy of much of the world with
a massive legal and illegal immigration rate just before the clowns
completely imploded the entire world financial system, again.
> and years and years of inflated credit.
Thats what delivered the longest boom in recorded history.
> One might also want to recall the results
> of the inflation in Germany in the 1920s
That wont happen in the US if the US was stupid enough to do what he proposes.
It happened there because they chose to pay the reparations
that the allies were stupid enough to apply with worthless money.
> -- there is no particular reason to believe that, if the
> savings and pensions of the working and middle classes
> are wiped out, they will take the blow passively.
They did the last time that happened in the US.
Essentially because they have no choice on that when it happens.
> There is also the problem of the huge debts owed to
> foreigners which must be refinanced from time to time.
Fools like him usually proposed they just be defaulted on.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> phil scott wrote
>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't
>>>> generate employment. No employment, no wages; no
>>>> wages, no consumption; no consumption, no business;
>>>> no business, no employment. But you knew that already.
>>>> We may be reaching the end of the funny-money era,
>>>> although it would not surprise me if our lords and masters
>>>> and their tame geniuses gave it another shot or two
>>>> regardless of the lack of positive results. They
>>>> probably don't know what else to do.
>>>> So, how much further will the funny money go, and then what's next?
>>> look to history for that answer.... its a repeating cycle.. for a
>>> superb long cycle discussion (260 year life cycle of nations)
>>> see Dr Ravi Batra's book the comming depression 1990
>> That fool has never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>> Not only didnt we get a depression in 1990, we didnt even get one
>> just recently when the clowns completely imploded the entire world
>> financial system, AGAIN.
> we ain't done yet.
We aint even in a technical recession anymore.
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>> The rightarded seem to lack for any solutions at all.
> If the government stops wrecking the market, the market
> will right itself rapidly, as it always has in the past.
Like hell it ever did after 1929
> Recall the wonderful stimulus chart?
> Obama threatened us, that the stimulus had to passed urgently,
> urgently, for if the stimulus was not passed, unemployment
> would rise to a horrifying eight percent by 2009 October.
> He got that part right.
Its not even a technical recession anymore.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 6, 6:24 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> Inflating the money seriously would generally tax those on fixed incomes
> and those with savings accounts and the like tied to currency values,
> that is, poor people.
What a strange definition you have for "poor people".
Rich people have lots of money and poor people don't. What sort of
training (brain washing) does it take to claim that a decrease in the
value of money hurts people who have no money. Most of the middle class
has had their 401ks looted but that is NOT money in a saving account at
the bank. It is shares of ownership in the means of production. And
inflation will not harm these real capital assets. This crap about fixed
incomes is yet another brain washing. SS benefits are tied to CPI.
> I suppose this would loosen up a certain amount
> of value, but I can't see that it would fix the large structural
> problems caused by deindustrialization and years and years of inflated
> credit.
I don't see why not. As the dollar is worth less to foreigners then the
cost of foreign goods rises and the advantage to domestic production
improves. That is a pretty well understood economic reality.
> One might also want to recall the results of the inflation in
> Germany in the 1920s --
Boogerman, Boogerman, Boogerman!!! Hyped like a true defender of the
rich.
there is no particular reason to believe that,
> if the savings and pensions of the working and middle classes are wiped
> out, they will take the blow passively.
The working middle class has investments in their 401K. They do not have
any serious amount of money stuffed in a mattress or in a savings account
and aver diversified regarding government bonds. If not then these people
will lose some purchasing power. Bur the _VAST_ majority will be better
off. We not the continued apparent health of the equities market in
spite of the fact that demand is very slack. It is currency devaluation
that causes that to happen.
> There is also the problem of the huge debts owed to foreigners which
> must be refinanced from time to time. If a policy of strong inflation
> goes into effect, the interest rates won't be pretty.
That is what curbs the amount of inflation that can be tolerated, but at
present we have NO internal inflation.
James A. Donald
> > If the government stops wrecking the market, the market
> > will right itself rapidly, as it always has in the past.
>
> Like hell it ever did after 1929
In 1929, the government forbade the market to adjust prices and wages
to reality, causing the great depression.
> > Recall the wonderful stimulus chart?
> >
> > Obama threatened us, that the stimulus had to passed urgently,
> > urgently, for if the stimulus was not passed, unemployment
> > would rise to a horrifying eight percent by 2009 October.
> >
> > He got that part right.
> Its not even a technical recession anymore.
That is just because the government is manipulating the cpi, thereby
producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
Unemployment just rose 0.4% to 10.2% this month
And the reason it "only" rose to 10.2 is that very large numbers of
people are no longer considered job seekers. The number of employed
people continues to plunge.
That is a recession all right. People are losing their jobs. When
lots of people lose their jobs, it is a recession.
Yadda
will be Option ARMs, Commercial Real Estate, and Leveraged Commodity and
Carry Trade. Probably not until early next year as the FED/Treasury
will be propping up the economy on funny money until the moment of
reckoning. I am wondering if money market funds will be safe in this
forthcoming storm...
Phlip
> Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't
> generate employment.
Aaaand once again we twist around and stick our head up our ass to
avoid blaming...
--> rich people
--> Republicans
The former are holding onto their money, waiting for someone else to
stimulate the economy for them.
And the latter? Well, they tried everything they could to prevent
libruls and Democrats from getting us into this mess, and they failed!
hal
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Not only didnt we get a depression in 1990, we didnt even get one
>>> just recently when the clowns completely imploded the entire world
>>> financial system, AGAIN.
>
>> we ain't done yet.
>
>We aint even in a technical recession anymore.
You aren't that naive, are you? I mean, you seem like a pretty smart
fellow. You don't really think it's over, do you?
Rod Speed
>>> If the government stops wrecking the market, the market
>>> will right itself rapidly, as it always has in the past.
>> Like hell it ever did after 1929
> In 1929, the government forbade the market to adjust
> prices and wages to reality, causing the great depression.
Hoover did that eh ?
Thanks for the completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>> Recall the wonderful stimulus chart?
>
>>> Obama threatened us, that the stimulus had to passed urgently,
>>> urgently, for if the stimulus was not passed, unemployment
>>> would rise to a horrifying eight percent by 2009 October.
>>> He got that part right.
>> Its not even a technical recession anymore.
> That is just because the government is manipulating the
> cpi, thereby producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
Thanks for the completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Pity about the car sales, fuckwit.
> Unemployment just rose 0.4% to 10.2% this month
Whoopy fucking do. Hordes of countrys would sell their first borns into slavery to get a result like that, fool.
> And the reason it "only" rose to 10.2 is that very large
> numbers of people are no longer considered job seekers.
Another bare faced lie. U-4 and U-5 went up by the same amount you silly little pathological liar.
> The number of employed people continues to plunge.
Another bare faced lie.
> That is a recession all right. People are losing their jobs.
> When lots of people lose their jobs, it is a recession.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
Rod Speed
Dänk 1010011010
> The rightarded seem to lack for any solutions at all. Lots of spinning
> and whining and not even a hint of any solutions to the problem. Very
> similar to health care. Nothing in the way of positive policy. Just
> whining.
>
> The American dollar must be devalued much further than is the case right
> now. There is no other solution to the problem of middle class decay in
> the United States. We are the only country in the G20 that has a large
> trade deficit. And that deficit is because the American dollar is still
> far too strong. Jobs will not return to America until we stop the glut
> of free trade by a combination of minor protectionism and dollar
> devaluation. That same devaluation if accomplished via increased wages
> and social welfare will also fix the Housing/credit problem. Bailing out
> banks is not the solution. Bailing out manufacturing of any kind is
> advisable and so to are minor tariffs and policies that insist on
> stimulus money being used to "buy American" (or at least to buy NORTH
> American).
The 'solutions' you propose sound identical to those tried by Mexico's
corrupt ruling PRI party in the 1980s. The devaluation of the peso
was supposed to ease Mexico's debt burden, and help the middle class
by lifting wages. Instead, net purchasing power declined, and half
the population attempted to flee the country to work in the USA. The
ruling elite was unaffected by the devaluation, since they were smart
enough to keep their fabulous wealth in hard-currency Swiss bank
accounts.
Mexico also bailed-out its manufacturing and banking sectors, and
imposed steep tariffs on imported goods to protect Mexican
industries. This did not work and led to inefficiency, corruption,
and massive smuggling of consumer goods from the USA. Today most
Mexican goods that are manufactured in Mexico are produced by U.S. and
other foreign companies.
The bailed-out banks were first nationalized so that their dollar
deposits could be converted to devalued pesos, protected with monopoly
status for a decade or so, before finally being privatized by selling
them to friends of El Presidente for a pittance and a dollar-
denominated bribe transferred to his personal Swiss bank account. The
new privatized bank owners became instant billionaires, then lent the
banks' money to their friends and relatives who then defaulted,
requiring the Mexican congress to authorize a US$50 billion bailout.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 6, 1:15 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't generate
>> employment.
>
> Aaaand once again we twist around and stick our head up our ass to avoid
> blaming...
>
> --> rich people
> --> Republicans
>
> The former are holding onto their money, waiting for someone else to
> stimulate the economy for them.
So the solution is quite simple. Your bring back the very progressive
tax code of 1941 and you print more money and blow it into the bottom of
the economy with stimulus. The money held in the mattresses of the rich
will decline in value and they must find ways to actually _INVEST_ or see
their wealth eaten by the inflation monster. It really is a no brainer.
> And the latter? Well, they tried everything they could to prevent
> libruls and Democrats from getting us into this mess, and they failed!
WOW!!! That has to be the biggest whopper I have ever seen!!!!!!
Michael Coburn
Why would there be a crash of asset prices unless the government isn't
blowing enough money into the bottom of the economy??????
Michael Coburn
>> > If the government stops wrecking the market, the market will right
>> > itself rapidly, as it always has in the past.
>>
>> Like hell it ever did after 1929
>
> In 1929, the government forbade the market to adjust prices and wages to
> reality, causing the great depression.
That is an outright lie. The government failed to regulate credit thus
producing the crash of 1929. It was not until the country was placed
firmly in the Great depression that government tried to intervene in any
positive way.
>> > Recall the wonderful stimulus chart?
>> >
>> > Obama threatened us, that the stimulus had to passed urgently,
>> > urgently, for if the stimulus was not passed, unemployment would rise
>> > to a horrifying eight percent by 2009 October.
>> >
>> > He got that part right.
>
>> Its not even a technical recession anymore.
>
> That is just because the government is manipulating the cpi, thereby
> producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
What a tin hat nut case.
> Unemployment just rose 0.4% to 10.2% this month
Yes... It did.
> And the reason it "only" rose to 10.2 is that very large numbers of
> people are no longer considered job seekers. The number of employed
> people continues to plunge.
What an idiot. The percentage unemployed may continue to rise, but the
number employed will typically keep pace with rising population.
> That is a recession all right. People are losing their jobs. When lots
> of people lose their jobs, it is a recession.
Nope. When the owners of the means of production don't suck enough
economic rent out of the economy we have a technical recession. So long
as the rich people continue to haul in money there isn't a recession.
Rod Speed
> Phlip wrote
>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't generate employment.
>> Aaaand once again we twist around and stick our head up our ass to avoid blaming...
>> --> rich people
>> --> Republicans
>> The former are holding onto their money, waiting for
>> someone else to stimulate the economy for them.
> So the solution is quite simple.
Nope.
> Your bring back the very progressive tax code of 1941 and you print
> more money and blow it into the bottom of the economy with stimulus.
> The money held in the mattresses of the rich will decline in value
Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.
> and they must find ways to actually _INVEST_
> or see their wealth eaten by the inflation monster.
Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.
> It really is a no brainer.
Your approach is completely brainless and wont work. Plenty
of countrys have tried it an they get that result of the rich moving
their money out of the country where its immune from inflation.
Or just put it into gold etc etc etc.
James A. Donald
That is just because the government is manipulating the cpi, thereby
producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
Unemployment just rose 0.4% to 10.2% this month
And the reason it "only" rose to 10.2 is that very large numbers of
people are no longer considered job seekers. The number of employed
people continues to plunge.
That is a recession all right. People are losing their jobs. When
lots of people lose their jobs, it is a recession.
The number of jobs has been in steady and rapid decline for quite some
time, and the decline shows no sign of flattening out - indeed, as the
"stimulus" starts to bite, it shows signs of accelerating.
James A. Donald
> Looks like a big crash is coming across all asset classes. The tsunami
> will be Option ARMs, Commercial Real Estate, and Leveraged Commodity and
> Carry Trade. Probably not until early next year as the FED/Treasury
> will be propping up the economy on funny money until the moment of
> reckoning. I am wondering if money market funds will be safe in this
> forthcoming storm...
Money market funds will be fine in nominal terms, unless you have long
term bonds - but inflation is starting to accelerate. I predict the
next cpi report, due out in a week or so, is going to be a shocker.
Long term bonds will take a beating when inflation starts to bite.
James A. Donald
> Aaaand once again we twist around and stick our head
> up our ass to avoid blaming...
>
> --> rich people
> --> Republicans
It is a bit hard to blame republicans, when Congress,
which has oversight of the financial system, has been in
the hands of the Democrats during the whole crisis, and
was well before the crisis began.
The proximate cause of the crisis was not rich people
but the regulatory requirement that bankers make loans
equally to members of protected minorities, even though
members of protected minorities are not equally inclined
to repay their debts. The crisis began in 2005
November, in that it became glaringly obvious that
members of protected minorities were failing to pay
their debts in large numbers.
So the guilty are:
1. Democrats, who had oversight, and who appointed
larcenous (but politically correct) criminals to run
Fannie and Freddie over the protests of Republicans.
2. The regulators, who insisted on politically correct
security ratings, rather security ratings that reflected
reality, and then, when investors started to
"irrationally" panic about politically correct security
ratings, insisted that financial institutions act as if
these ratings reflected reality.
3. The poor, primarily poor members of protected
minorities, who accepted loans they had neither the will
nor the ability to repay. When you hear of "toxic
assets", they are toxic because based on politically
correct loans.
Michael Coburn
The Virus again shows that it is brainless. Government creates money and
spends it into existence. What good will it do a person with loads of
money to take the money out of the mattress and run away to Biminy? the
answer is, of course, that such a move would be useless. In a proper tax
system where true investment is _NOT_ heavily taxed while income from
economic rent (i.e. income from government backed bonds) _IS_ heavily
taxed we will not see the rich running away to foreign shores. They will
be much better off staying right here and actually INVESTING.
*Anarcissie*
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:10:13 -0800, *Anarcissie* wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 6:24 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> [quoted text muted]
>
> > Inflating the money seriously would generally tax those on fixed incomes
> > and those with savings accounts and the like tied to currency values,
> > that is, poor people.
>
> What a strange definition you have for "poor people".
>
> Rich people have lots of money and poor people don't. What sort of
> training (brain washing) does it take to claim that a decrease in the
> value of money hurts people who have no money. Most of the middle class
> has had their 401ks looted but that is NOT money in a saving account at
> the bank. It is shares of ownership in the means of production. And
> inflation will not harm these real capital assets. This crap about fixed
> incomes is yet another brain washing. SS benefits are tied to CPI.
I am using poor as in poor versus rich. The poor include working-
and lower-middle-class people for me. These are people who have
savings accounts, fixed pensions, life insurance and the like (if they
have anything -- and a lot of them have a little something). Usually
they are wage-earners, with their wages or salaries set in currency
amounts which are often changed upward only with great difficulty.
At least, this has been my experience as such a person. These
are the people you appear to be proposing to tax through
inflation. By contrast, while the rich may keep a certain amount
of cash around to facilitate transactions, most of their wealth is
held in equities, commodities, real estate, collectibles, and the
like. They are far more able to deal with inflation and escape
its bad effects than the not-rich.
The CPI is a joke as far as I am concerned. It will become more
of a joke if any serious inflation sets in, since the government
will be interested in limiting payouts to Social Security
beneficiaries.
> > I suppose this would loosen up a certain amount
> > of value, but I can't see that it would fix the large structural
> > problems caused by deindustrialization and years and years of inflated
> > credit.
>
> I don't see why not. As the dollar is worth less to foreigners then the
> cost of foreign goods rises and the advantage to domestic production
> improves. That is a pretty well understood economic reality.
Assuming there is any serious domestic production of
exportable goods, beyond movies, bombs, bullets and
bullshit.
> > One might also want to recall the results of the inflation in
> > Germany in the 1920s --
>
> Boogerman, Boogerman, Boogerman!!! Hyped like a true defender of the
> rich.
That's not much of an argument.
> > there is no particular reason to believe that,
> > if the savings and pensions of the working and middle classes are wiped
> > out, they will take the blow passively.
>
> The working middle class has investments in their 401K. They do not have
> any serious amount of money stuffed in a mattress or in a savings account
> and aver diversified regarding government bonds. If not then these people
> will lose some purchasing power. Bur the _VAST_ majority will be better
> off. We not the continued apparent health of the equities market in
> spite of the fact that demand is very slack. It is currency devaluation
> that causes that to happen.
>
> > There is also the problem of the huge debts owed to foreigners which
> > must be refinanced from time to time. If a policy of strong inflation
> > goes into effect, the interest rates won't be pretty.
>
> That is what curbs the amount of inflation that can be tolerated, but at
> present we have NO internal inflation.
That depends on what you're trying to buy. Note also that many
areas of the labor market are somewhat deflationary. There is a
limit to how far _that_ can be carried on, and in any case it
exacerbates the bad effects which the inflation you're proposing
if it goes into effect (and I think it will, because I think your
advocacy of inflation channels ruling-class intentions).
Yadda
Google "Carry Trade" for a start. Volatility is off the charts in
bonds, stocks, and many commodities. And there is massive leverage on
these bets. If they unwind, watch out!
Yadda
Many are predicting a run on money funds.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> We aint even in a technical recession anymore.
> That is just because the government is manipulating the
> cpi, thereby producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Its actually added quite a
bit of stimulus and THAT has seen the GDP hike substantially.
Nothing even remotely like Argentina, you silly little pathological liar.
> Unemployment just rose 0.4% to 10.2% this month
A rate many other countrys would sell their first born into slavery to get, fuckwit.
> And the reason it "only" rose to 10.2 is that very large
> numbers of people are no longer considered job seekers.
Another bare faced lie. U4 and U5 increased by about
the same amount, you silly little pathological liar.
> The number of employed people continues to plunge.
Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
The total employed didnt even drop, you silly little pathological liar.
> That is a recession all right.
Taint a TECHNICAL recession, fuckwit.
> People are losing their jobs. When lots of people lose their jobs, it is a recession.
Wrong, as always.
> The number of jobs has been in steady and rapid decline for quite some time,
Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
> and the decline shows no sign of flattening out
Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
> - indeed, as the "stimulus" starts to bite, it shows signs of accelerating.
Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
Rod Speed
> Yadda <ya...@nospam.net> wrote
>> Looks like a big crash is coming across all asset classes. The
>> tsunami will be Option ARMs, Commercial Real Estate, and Leveraged
>> Commodity and Carry Trade. Probably not until early next year as
>> the FED/Treasury will be propping up the economy on funny money
>> until the moment of reckoning. I am wondering if money market funds
>> will be safe in this forthcoming storm...
> Money market funds will be fine in nominal terms, unless you have
> long term bonds - but inflation is starting to accelerate. I predict the
> next cpi report, due out in a week or so, is going to be a shocker.
You'll have egg all over your pathetic little face, as always.
> Long term bonds will take a beating when inflation starts to bite.
It wont, you watch.
Rod Speed
> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Aaaand once again we twist around and
>> stick our head up our ass to avoid blaming...
>> --> rich people
>> --> Republicans
> It is a bit hard to blame republicans, when Congress,
> which has oversight of the financial system, has been
> in the hands of the Democrats during the whole crisis,
> and was well before the crisis began.
Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
And it aint even the Congress that produced the GFC, you silly little pathological liar.
> The proximate cause of the crisis was not rich people
> but the regulatory requirement that bankers make
> loans equally to members of protected minorities,
You can keep chanting that bare faced lie till the cows come home, changes nothing.
> even though members of protected minorities
> are not equally inclined to repay their debts.
Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
The default rate on CRA loans was no higher than
on non CRA loans until the fuckwit clowns completely
imploded the entire world financial system, again.
> The crisis began in 2005 November,
Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
> in that it became glaringly obvious that
> members of protected minorities were
> failing to pay their debts in large numbers.
Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
The default rate on CRA loans was no higher than
on non CRA loans until the fuckwit clowns completely
imploded the entire world financial system, again.
> So the guilty are:
> 1. Democrats, who had oversight, and who appointed
> larcenous (but politically correct) criminals to run
> Fannie and Freddie over the protests of Republicans.
Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
> 2. The regulators, who insisted on politically correct security
> ratings, rather security ratings that reflected reality,
Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
> and then, when investors started to "irrationally"
> panic about politically correct security ratings,
> insisted that financial institutions act as if
> these ratings reflected reality.
Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
> 3. The poor, primarily poor members of protected minorities, who
> accepted loans they had neither the will nor the ability to repay.
Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
The default rate on CRA loans was no higher than
on non CRA loans until the fuckwit clowns completely
imploded the entire world financial system, again.
> When you hear of "toxic assets", they are toxic because based on politically correct loans.
Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
There were never enough CRA loans written to completely implode the entire world financial system.
Even if they had ALL defaulted, and the default rate
on CRA loans was no higher than on non CRA loans
until the fuckwit clowns completely imploded the
entire world financial system, again, the worst
that could have produced is higher costs for
non CRA loans, you silly little pathological liar.
Rod Speed
>>>>> Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't generate employment.
>>>> Aaaand once again we twist around and stick our head up our ass to avoid blaming...
>>>> --> rich people
>>>> --> Republicans
>>>> The former are holding onto their money, waiting for
>>>> someone else to stimulate the economy for them.
>>> So the solution is quite simple.
>> Nope.
>>> Your bring back the very progressive tax code of 1941 and you print
>>> more money and blow it into the bottom of the economy with stimulus.
>>> The money held in the mattresses of the rich will decline in value
>> Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.
>>> and they must find ways to actually _INVEST_ or
>>> see their wealth eaten by the inflation monster.
>> Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.
>>> It really is a no brainer.
>> Your approach is completely brainless and wont work. Plenty of
>> countrys have tried it an they get that result of the rich moving
>> their money out of the country where its immune from inflation.
>> Or just put it into gold etc etc etc.
> Government creates money and spends it into existence.
Thats only a small part of what drives the US economy, fool.
> What good will it do a person with loads of money to take
> the money out of the mattress and run away to Biminy?
They get it out of the hands of fools like you that want to tax it off them, fuckwit.
> the answer is, of course, that such a move would be useless.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no
one was ever stupid enough to get you to do anything
more challenging that drive a truck for a while and why
you ended up with fuck all in the way of assets.
> In a proper tax system where true investment is _NOT_
> heavily taxed while income from economic rent (i.e. income
> from government backed bonds) _IS_ heavily taxed
Which is why the rich move it out of the country where it cant be taxed, fuckwit.
> we will not see the rich running away to foreign shores.
We have ALREADY seen them doing that with their money, fuckwit.
> They will be much better off staying right here and actually INVESTING.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no
one was ever stupid enough to get you to do anything
more challenging that drive a truck for a while and why
you ended up with fuck all in the way of assets.
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
>>> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>>> Inflating the money seriously would generally tax those
>>> on fixed incomes and those with savings accounts and
>>> the like tied to currency values, that is, poor people.
>> What a strange definition you have for "poor people".
>> Rich people have lots of money and poor people don't. What sort of
>> training (brain washing) does it take to claim that a decrease in the
>> value of money hurts people who have no money. Most of the middle
>> class has had their 401ks looted but that is NOT money in a saving
>> account at the bank. It is shares of ownership in the means of
>> production. And inflation will not harm these real capital assets.
>> This crap about fixed incomes is yet another brain washing. SS
>> benefits are tied to CPI.
> I am using poor as in poor versus rich.
Its never the binary.
> The poor include working-and lower-middle-class people for me.
More fool you. Those arent anything even remotely resembling
anything like poor, and the rest arent anything like the rich either.
> These are people who have savings accounts,
With fuck all money in most of them.
> fixed pensions,
Hardly any have that anymore.
> life insurance
Most of those dont have much of that either.
> and the like (if they have anything -- and a lot of them have a little something).
But not enough to be affected by inflation much.
That group you listed mostly just spend most of their income and dont save much.
The only ones that save much are those who are buying the house they live in.
> Usually they are wage-earners, with their wages or salaries set in currency
> amounts which are often changed upward only with great difficulty.
That is a lie, particularly when there is substantial inflation.
> At least, this has been my experience as such a person.
Just because no one considered you contributed enough to give a raise to...
> These are the people you appear to be proposing to tax through inflation.
Nope, they dont have much in the way of cash savings so wont be affected much.
> By contrast, while the rich may keep a certain amount
> of cash around to facilitate transactions, most of their
> wealth is held in equities, commodities, real estate,
> collectibles, and the like. They are far more able to deal
> with inflation and escape its bad effects than the not-rich.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Its actually the reasonably comfortably off that tend
to have substantial savings in a form that is penalised
by inflation and you have ignored them completely.
There is actually a hell of a lot more of them than the rich.
> The CPI is a joke as far as I am concerned.
More fool you. Yes, its got some real problems with accurately
quantifying costs, but you wont be able to do any better yourself.
> It will become more of a joke if any serious inflation sets in, since the government
> will be interested in limiting payouts to Social Security beneficiaries.
Utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
>>> I suppose this would loosen up a certain amount of value, but
>>> I can't see that it would fix the large structural problems caused
>>> by deindustrialization and years and years of inflated credit.
>> I don't see why not. As the dollar is worth less to foreigners then
>> the cost of foreign goods rises and the advantage to domestic
>> production improves. That is a pretty well understood economic reality.
> Assuming there is any serious domestic production of exportable
> goods, beyond movies, bombs, bullets and bullshit.
Hell of an assumption.
>>> One might also want to recall the results of the inflation in Germany in the 1920s --
>> Boogerman, Boogerman, Boogerman!!! Hyped like a true defender of the rich.
> That's not much of an argument.
Thats all he can ever manage. Thats why he ended up driving trucks.
>>> there is no particular reason to believe that, if the
>>> savings and pensions of the working and middle
>>> classes are wiped out, they will take the blow passively.
>> The working middle class has investments in their 401K. They do
>> not have any serious amount of money stuffed in a mattress or in a
>> savings account and aver diversified regarding government bonds.
>> If not then these people will lose some purchasing power. Bur the
>> _VAST_ majority will be better off. We not the continued apparent
>> health of the equities market in spite of the fact that demand is
>> very slack. It is currency devaluation that causes that to happen.
>>> There is also the problem of the huge debts owed to foreigners
>>> which must be refinanced from time to time. If a policy of strong
>>> inflation goes into effect, the interest rates won't be pretty.
>> That is what curbs the amount of inflation that can be
>> tolerated, but at present we have NO internal inflation.
> That depends on what you're trying to buy.
Nope.
> Note also that many areas of the labor market are somewhat
> deflationary. There is a limit to how far _that_ can be carried on,
Nope.
> and in any case it exacerbates the bad effects which the inflation
> you're proposing if it goes into effect (and I think it will, because
> I think your advocacy of inflation channels ruling-class intentions).
There is no ruling class.
Rod Speed
Many predicted a full depression.
Didnt happen.
Michael Coburn
Moving the money to Kooka-Monga is not going to preserve its value,
virus. And who you traded with for the gold now has the money. No
matter where the money tries to hide or who owns it the money will be
devalued by the creation of new money.
On the subject of taxation you have a leg on which to stand in that it
might be possible to move yourself outside the tax jurisdiction in order
to evade an income tax. But in the larger scheme of things it is
government that protects all assets and all ownership. If the rich
attempt to escape to a jurisdiction that is untaxed by the US government
then that jurisdiction should be unprotected. In other words, if the
Chinese wish to nationalize your factory and your trade names and tell
you to suck eggs then you can sue them in a Chinese court. How's that
"capital flight" workin' out for ya?
Beam Me Up Scotty
Yadda
Wait for the second round.
Rod Speed
>> Nope.
Corse it does if you move it to a currency that isnt being deliberately devalued, fool.
Or into gold etc.
> And who you traded with for the gold now has the money.
His problem when its deliberately devalued.
> No matter where the money tries to hide or who owns it
> the money will be devalued by the creation of new money.
Wrong when its moved to a currency that isnt devalued that way, or into gold etc.
> On the subject of taxation you have a leg on which to
> stand in that it might be possible to move yourself outside
> the tax jurisdiction in order to evade an income tax.
No might about it, stupid.
> But in the larger scheme of things it is government
> that protects all assets and all ownership.
There are plenty of govts that do that without deliberately devaluing its currency, stupid.
> If the rich attempt to escape to a jurisdiction that is untaxed by
> the US government then that jurisdiction should be unprotected.
It is anyway, whether fools like you like it or not.
> In other words, if the Chinese wish to nationalize your factory and your trade
> names and tell you to suck eggs then you can sue them in a Chinese court.
And if you move your wealth to Switzerland, that wont happen, fool.
> How's that "capital flight" workin' out for ya?
I'm not stupid enough to have my assets in a country that is stupid enough to deliberately devalue them.
In fact they have appreciated very substantially against the USD without me
doing anything at all, and this country isnt stupid enough to try to tax it away
from the rich either, we dont even have death dutys or inheritance taxes either.
And we have a decent health care funding system that only uses HALF
the percentage of GDP that the US is stupid enough to piss against the
wall on insurance companys too. And delivers a better result on longevity
and years in good health as well.
Phlip
> tax code of 1941 and you print more money
You contradict yourself. Tax the rich feed the poor problem solved.
And start shredding the dollar bills, too...
Phlip
> > --> Republicans
> > ... Well, they tried everything they could to prevent
> > libruls and Democrats from getting us into this mess, and they failed!
>
> WOW!!! That has to be the biggest whopper I have ever seen!!!!!!
I wish I could claim credit but Rush Limbaugh seems to have invented
it exactly one year ago. The "Obama Recession" seems to have started
then! C-:
Phlip
> > and they must find ways to actually _INVEST_
> > or see their wealth eaten by the inflation monster.
>
> Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.
Obama is starting an IRS task force to start tracking down those fun
and games.
This is a _total_ change from 40 years of regulatory negligence. The
IRS under Republicans (and Clinton) audited the lower-middle class
returns much, much more often than they audit the people with the
means, motive, and opportunity to play financial hide-and-seek.
> Your approach is completely brainless and wont work. Plenty
> of countrys have tried it an they get that result of the rich moving
> their money out of the country where its immune from inflation.
>
> Or just put it into gold etc etc etc.
Note that we tax income, not assets. So if they work for a publicly
owned company, those numbers must be reported...
Phlip
> So the guilty are:
> 1. Democrats, who had oversight, and who appointed
> 2. The regulators, who insisted on politically correct
> 3. The poor, primarily poor members of protected
WOW!!! That has to be the biggest whopper I have ever seen!!!!!!
Phlip
>
> Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
The crisis was already reaching boiling point when Ronny Raygun
slashed taxes for the extreme rich, and started borrowing to buy huge
death machines...
Phlip
> Looks like a big crash is coming across all asset classes. The tsunami
> will be Option ARMs, Commercial Real Estate, and Leveraged Commodity and
> Carry Trade. Probably not until early next year as the FED/Treasury
> will be propping up the economy on funny money until the moment of
> reckoning. I am wondering if money market funds will be safe in this
> forthcoming storm...
Good. Looks like only the rich will get hit...
Oh, yeah, then they respond by firing as many people as it takes to
generate a tiny bounce in their shares. All with the blessings of the
finance industry & regulators.
Spread out the social safety nets, and tax them to pay for them!
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Yadda wrote
>>>> Yadda<ya...@nospam.net> wrote
>>>>> Looks like a big crash is coming across all asset classes. The
>>>>> tsunami will be Option ARMs, Commercial Real Estate, and Leveraged
>>>>> Commodity and Carry Trade. Probably not until early next year as
>>>>> the FED/Treasury will be propping up the economy on funny money
>>>>> until the moment of reckoning. I am wondering if money market
>>>>> funds will be safe in this forthcoming storm...
>>>> Money market funds will be fine in nominal terms, unless you have
>>>> long term bonds - but inflation is starting to accelerate. I predict
>>>> the next cpi report, due out in a week or so, is going to be a
>>>> shocker. Long term bonds will take a beating when inflation
>>>> starts to bite.
>>> Many are predicting a run on money funds.
>> Many predicted a full depression.
>> Didnt happen.
> YET...
Wont happen either. We've actually worked out that it makes a hell of a
lot more sense to stimulate early when clowns have completely imploded
the entire world financial system, AGAIN, and not wait till that has
produced massive unemployment and most of the banks going bust.
We havent even been stupid enough to try tarrif barrier wars either.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Yadda wrote
>>> James A. Donald wrote
>>>>> Looks like a big crash is coming across all asset classes. The
>>>>> tsunami will be Option ARMs, Commercial Real Estate, and Leveraged
>>>>> Commodity and Carry Trade. Probably not until early next year as
>>>>> the FED/Treasury will be propping up the economy on funny money
>>>>> until the moment of reckoning. I am wondering if money market
>>>>> funds will be safe in this forthcoming storm...
>>>> Money market funds will be fine in nominal terms, unless you have
>>>> long term bonds - but inflation is starting to accelerate. I predict the next cpi report, due out in a week or so,
>>>> is going to be a shocker. Long term bonds will take a beating when inflation
>>>> starts to bite.
>>> Many are predicting a run on money funds.
>> Many predicted a full depression.
>> Didnt happen.
> Wait for the second round.
We wont get one even if there is a second round.
James A. Donald
> Its actually added quite a bit of stimulus and THAT
> has seen the GDP hike substantially.
If stimulus was working, we would see employment rising.
Instead it is falling, and falling far and fast.
<http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/27000/Weak+Employment+Report>
: : The October employment report came in
: : weaker than expected as the country lost
: : 190,000 jobs, rather than the 175,000
: : expectation. It was, however, an
: : improvement over the 219,000 lost in
: : September, but worse than the 154,000 jobs
: : lost in August.
How does gdp rise, when the number of people working
falls? Are those that remain magically becoming a lot
more productive all of a sudden? To get the numbers to
come out right, it is not enough to suppose they fired
the least productive, you have to suppose that those
that remained got better.
To make the figures add up, you need a sudden and quite
improbable surge in productivity.
> > Unemployment just rose 0.4% to 10.2% this month
> A rate many other countrys would sell their first born
> into slavery to get, fuckwit.
Because they have long had the same policies as Obama is
now introducing.
> > The number of employed people continues to plunge.
> Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological
> liar.
See the above link.
The mystery of the magical increase in productivity
comes from valuing stuff at what government pays for it.
Suppose, for example. the government was to buy one
thousand "green" cars from General Motors, guaranteed to
run on sunlight and water if you don't mind a top speed
of four miles per hour, a range of ten miles in the dark
or in cloudy weather, and tendency to fall apart after a
year, able to carry a maximum of one adult, one child,
two small dwarf children, and a small handbag of
luggage, at one billion dollars each. Then our GDP would
magically increase by a trillion dollars, due to the
amazingly wonderful productivity at General motors.
But, of course, this would not really measure
productivity, but waste and madness.
GDP is only meaningful and well defined in terms of arms
length transactions measured against a standard of well
defined and stable value. Government fiat money is not
a standard of well defined and stable value, and
government transactions are not arms length, thus heavy
handed government interventions to "stimulate" the
economy are apt to "stimulate" the numbers rather than
the reality. Because government transactions are not
arms length, they often fail to reflect production. If
the government pays someone a billion dollars, it rarely
means that that someone has produced a billion dollars
worth of value. More likely it means that dollars are
suddenly worth less than they are supposed to be worth.
Thus, for example, much of the supposed increase in GDP
came from the "cash for clunkers" program, which in
reality reduced GDP by destroying value.
Hence employment and living standards continue to fall,
while "GDP" rises.
The "cash for clunkers" program paid people to destroy perfectly good
cars, which was clearly destruction, not production, yet because the
government was paying, the GDP calculation assumes that destruction
was a benefit, since it values actions at what is paid for them.
If the government paid a hundred million people a hundred dollars each
to each stick their heads into buckets of water, while hitting their
toes with a hammer, this also would be counted as increasing GDP by
ten billion dollars. Since the activity is paid for, it is supposedly
creating value.
If instead of paying people to destroy good cars, the government had
paid them to hit their toes with a hammer, the statistics would have
shown the same purported increase in GDP, but we would not have
suffered a real loss of cars.
James A. Donald
> > starts to bite.
Yadda
> Many are predicting a run on money funds.
The government has guaranteed the money funds - suddenly
they also are too big to fail.
Of course, when the entire economy is too big to fail
then we have a fully socialist economy, which experience
has shown does not work well.
James A. Donald
> on non CRA loans until the fuckwit clowns completely
> imploded the entire world financial system, again.
Since 2000, the government has concealed the default rate on CRA
loans, indicating that the default rate was disturbingly high in 2000.
It can only have risen since then.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> and they must find ways to actually _INVEST_
>>> or see their wealth eaten by the inflation monster.
>> Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by that.
> Obama is starting an IRS task force to start tracking down those fun and games.
The IRS gets no say what so ever on moving wealth
to where it isnt affected by the inflation monster.
> This is a _total_ change from 40 years of regulatory negligence.
No regulatory neglicence involved in moving wealth
to where it isnt affected by the inflation monster.
> The IRS under Republicans (and Clinton) audited the lower-middle
> class returns much, much more often than they audit the people with
> the means, motive, and opportunity to play financial hide-and-seek.
They can 'audit' whatever they like, its perfectly legal to move
wealth to where it isnt affected by the inflation monster.
>> Your approach is completely brainless and wont work. Plenty
>> of countrys have tried it an they get that result of the rich moving
>> their money out of the country where its immune from inflation.
>> Or just put it into gold etc etc etc.
> Note that we tax income, not assets. So if they work for a
> publicly owned company, those numbers must be reported...
And if they move their wealth to a tax haven, it aint, in fact its illegal to report it in most of them.
Rod Speed
Nope, that was a quite separate 'crisis'
Rod Speed
> Yadda <ya...@nospam.net> wrote
>> Looks like a big crash is coming across all asset classes. The
>> tsunami will be Option ARMs, Commercial Real Estate, and Leveraged
>> Commodity and Carry Trade. Probably not until early next year as the
>> FED/Treasury will be propping up the economy on funny money until
>> the moment of reckoning. I am wondering if money market funds will
>> be safe in this forthcoming storm...
> Good. Looks like only the rich will get hit...
Nope, because it wont happen, you watch.
> Oh, yeah, then they respond by firing as many people
> as it takes to generate a tiny bounce in their shares.
The bounce has been a hell of a lot more than tiny.
> All with the blessings of the finance industry & regulators.
Who for some odd reason have noticed what actually
drives the economy and employment, even if you havent.
> Spread out the social safety nets, and tax them to pay for them!
They'll just move their wealth outside the reach of the taxers.
James A. Donald
> > In 1929, the government forbade the market to adjust prices and wages to
> > reality, causing the great depression.
Michael Coburn
> That is an outright lie. The government failed to regulate credit thus
> producing the crash of 1929.
> It was not until the country was placed
> firmly in the Great depression that government tried to intervene in any
> positive way.
Things were not all that bad after 1929. Things really went to hell
in 1932-1933. It was not until 1932-1933 that the country was "firmly
in the great depression, not until the government "tried to intervene
in any positive way" that the country was firmly in the great
depression.
Hoover organized the economy into state backed business and labor
cartels, to artificially support prices and wages. This destroyed the
American economy. These ruinous cartels were subsequently further
strengthened by Roosevelt.
Then, after Roosevelt was elected, but before he came to power,
Roosevelt sowed terror among the businessmen, threatening apocalyptic
Mugabe style government, which caused a tremendous crash in the period
between Roosevelt's November 1932 victory and his March 1933
inauguration, from which dreadful crash the economy never fully
recovered until it became apparent that Roosevelt was history.
The Hoover Roosevelt cartels are what today's economists call "wage
price stickiness", and Roosevelt's threats of a fascist economic order
are what today's economists call "regime uncertainty"
> > That is just because the government is manipulating the cpi, thereby
> > producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
> What a tin hat nut case.
How is that the economy is growing, while fewer and fewer people are
employed? How is it that fewer people are producing more stuff?
Well, in substantial part because the government is paying people to
destroy houses and cars. (The cars are being crushed, the houses are
being abandoned. After being abandoned for a certain period, they are
condemned.)
Because people are being paid to do this, it is treated in the figures
as production, even though it is not production, but destruction.
If I pay someone ten thousand dollars to produce a car for me, that
counts in the GDP figures as ten thousand dollars worth of GDP. If
the government pays me twenty thousand dollars to destroy my house,
that *also* counts in the GPP figures as twenty thousand dollars worth
of GDP. (Actually they don't pay individual homeowners, but rather
the bank that owns the underwater mortgage, but the ultimate effect is
the same)
And, by a convoluted process of adjustment, (hedonic adjustment) the
resulting increase in the cost of houses and cars is counted as a
decrease in the cost of houses and cars. The cost of rent and cars is
counted as falling not because it is actually falling, but because our
cars and rental accommodations have supposedly been improved by
destroying stuff.
> What an idiot. The percentage unemployed may continue to rise, but the
> number employed will typically keep pace with rising population.
But the number employed is not keeping place with the rising
population, but rather is falling like a stone.
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
We're not out of the woods yet. Not even close.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> We aint even in a technical recession anymore.
>>> That is just because the government is manipulating the
>>> cpi, thereby producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
>> Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Its actually added quite a
>> bit of stimulus and THAT has seen the GDP hike substantially.
> If stimulus was working, we would see employment rising.
Wrong. It always takes some time for a stimulus to do that.
It first hikes the GDP and that has already happened.
And it also prevents more unemployment, most obviously with the
cash for clunkers part of the stimulus that saw car sales recover
quite a bit and so avoided more layoffs in the car industry etc.
> Instead it is falling,
But not falling as fast as it would do without the stimulus.
> and falling far and fast.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
The unemployment rate has only just got into double digits and
its taken a couple of years to do that. Thats neither far nor fast,
you silly little pathological liar, and nothing even remotely
resembling anything like whats happened in Argentina.
> <http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/27000/Weak+Employment+Report>
>>> The October employment report came in
>>> weaker than expected as the country lost
>>> 190,000 jobs, rather than the 175,000
>>> expectation. It was, however, an
>>> improvement over the 219,000 lost in
>>> September,
So you lied, we did see the rate of increase in
unemployment fall, you silly little pathological liar.
>>> but worse than the 154,000 jobs lost in August.
But better than in quite a few months before that.
> How does gdp rise, when the number of people working falls?
By those still working being more productive, stupid.
Many of them do that because they dont want to be the next to be sacked.
> Are those that remain magically becoming
> a lot more productive all of a sudden?
Dont need to be a lot more productive to
see the increase in GDP that has been seen.
> To get the numbers to come out right, it is not
> enough to suppose they fired the least productive,
Wrong, as always. That always does put one
hell of a bomb under those they dont fire.
> you have to suppose that those that remained got better.
And they ALWAYS do when the least productive are fired.
> To make the figures add up, you need a sudden
> and quite improbable surge in productivity.
Wrong, as always. The increase in GDP wasnt that
dramatic, productivity always increase by that sort
of amount when you start firing the least productive.
With the car industry particularly, quite a bit of the
increase in productivity just came from not needing
to have so many on reduced hours as well.
>>> Unemployment just rose 0.4% to 10.2% this month
>> A rate many other countrys would sell their first born into slavery to get, fuckwit.
> Because they have long had the same policies as Obama is now introducing.
Wrong, as always. Plenty like China had much higher
unemployment rates for entirely different reasons.
>>> The number of employed people continues to plunge.
>> Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.
> See the above link.
Nothing even remotely resembling anything
like a plunge, you silly little pathological liar.
> The mystery of the magical increase in productivity
> comes from valuing stuff at what government pays for it.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Quite a bit of it came from
the cash for clunkers program, you silly little pathological liar.
> Suppose, for example. the government was to buy one
> thousand "green" cars from General Motors, guaranteed
> to run on sunlight and water if you don't mind a top speed
> of four miles per hour, a range of ten miles in the dark
> or in cloudy weather, and tendency to fall apart after a
> year, able to carry a maximum of one adult, one child,
> two small dwarf children, and a small handbag of
> luggage, at one billion dollars each.
Pity Obummer hasnt done that, you silly little pathological liar.
> Then our GDP would magically increase by a trillion dollars,
> due to the amazingly wonderful productivity at General motors.
Gone blind yet ?
> But, of course, this would not really measure
> productivity, but waste and madness.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
What they actually did was to have a cash for clunkers program
that not only replaced some gas guzzling dinosaurs, but also
provided real work for those producing the replacements.
> GDP is only meaningful and well defined in terms
> of arms length transactions measured against a
> standard of well defined and stable value.
And that is precisely what is done.
> Government fiat money is not a standard
> of well defined and stable value,
Wrong, as always.
> and government transactions are not arms length,
Dont need to be. What matters is that they happened
when that GDP involves quite a bit of what govt does.
> thus heavy handed government interventions to "stimulate" the
> economy are apt to "stimulate" the numbers rather than the reality.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
> Because government transactions are not
> arms length, they often fail to reflect production.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
> If the government pays someone a billion dollars, it rarely means
> that that someone has produced a billion dollars worth of value.
And that doesnt add a billion bucks to the GDP, you pig ignorant clown.
> More likely it means that dollars are suddenly
> worth less than they are supposed to be worth.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> Thus, for example, much of the supposed increase
> in GDP came from the "cash for clunkers" program,
> which in reality reduced GDP by destroying value.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Its no different to boom times when consumers feel
free to replace their current car with a new one, fool.
> Hence employment and living standards continue to fall, while "GDP" rises.
That ALWAYS happens in ANY recession, fool.
> The "cash for clunkers" program paid people to destroy perfectly good cars,
And WW2 went much further and blew away vastly more hardware
and lives and that massive hike in GDP was real ANYWAY.
> which was clearly destruction, not production,
So was WW2 in spades, fool.
> yet because the government was paying, the GDP
> calculation assumes that destruction was a benefit,
Its not an assumption, its a fact, fool.
> since it values actions at what is paid for them.
Wrong, as always.
> If the government paid a hundred million people a hundred
> dollars each to each stick their heads into buckets of water,
> while hitting their toes with a hammer, this also would be
> counted as increasing GDP by ten billion dollars.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Since the activity is paid for, it is supposedly creating value.
True in spades of WW2, fool.
> If instead of paying people to destroy good cars, the government
> had paid them to hit their toes with a hammer, the statistics would
> have shown the same purported increase in GDP,
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> but we would not have suffered a real loss of cars.
We see the same real loss of cars in boom times, fool.
Rod Speed
> Yadda
>>> Long term bonds will take a beating when inflation starts to bite.
>> Many are predicting a run on money funds.
Only the fools.
> The government has guaranteed the money funds - suddenly they also are too big to fail.
Nope, just big enough to produce another great depression or worse if they are allowed to fail.
> Of course, when the entire economy is too big
> to fail then we have a fully socialist economy,
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> which experience has shown does not work well.
No one has ever tried that fuckwit.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> The default rate on CRA loans was no higher than
>> on non CRA loans until the fuckwit clowns completely
>> imploded the entire world financial system, again.
> Since 2000, the government has concealed the default rate on CRA loans,
You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are
blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced racist lie.
> indicating that the default rate was disturbingly high in 2000.
You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are
blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced racist lie.
> It can only have risen since then.
You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are
blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced racist lie.
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>> That is just because the government is manipulating the
>>> cpi, thereby producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
>> What a tin hat nut case.
Indeed.
> How is that the economy is growing, while fewer and fewer people are employed?
It isnt that much fewer, that only changed by 6%
> How is it that fewer people are producing more stuff?
By firing the least productive and putting one hell of a bomb under
those who have not yet been fired to be more productive, and
by having quite a few who were working reduced hours working
fulltime again and producing much more because they are.
> Well, in substantial part because the government
> is paying people to destroy houses and cars.
They did that in spades in WW2, fuckwit. And lives as well.
Have a look at what happened to Hiroshima, Nagasaki,
Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin etc etc etc sometime.
> (The cars are being crushed, the houses are being abandoned.
> After being abandoned for a certain period, they are condemned.)
The replacements are still part of the GDP, fool.
> Because people are being paid to do this, it is treated in the figures
> as production, even though it is not production, but destruction.
True in spades of WW2, you pig ignorant clown.
> If I pay someone ten thousand dollars to produce a car for me, that
> counts in the GDP figures as ten thousand dollars worth of GDP.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist rabid racist fuckwits ?
> If the government pays me twenty thousand dollars to destroy my house, that
> *also* counts in the GPP figures as twenty thousand dollars worth of GDP.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> (Actually they don't pay individual homeowners, but
> rather the bank that owns the underwater mortgage,
They dont do that either, fool.
> but the ultimate effect is the same)
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> And, by a convoluted process of adjustment, (hedonic adjustment)
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> the resulting increase in the cost of houses and cars is
> counted as a decrease in the cost of houses and cars.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> The cost of rent and cars is counted as falling not because it is
> actually falling, but because our cars and rental accommodations
> have supposedly been improved by destroying stuff.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>> What an idiot. The percentage unemployed may continue to rise, but
>> the number employed will typically keep pace with rising population.
> But the number employed is not keeping place with the rising population,
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Not only is it keeping pace with
the increased population over the long haul, ITS ALSO KEEPING PACE
WITH THE MASSIVE LEGAL AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AS WELL.
> but rather is falling like a stone.
Another bare faced lie.
> <http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/27000/Weak+Employment+Report>
Doesnt say anything even remotely resembling anything like your bare faced lies.
>>> The October employment report came in
>>> weaker than expected as the country lost
>>> 190,000 jobs, rather than the 175,000
>>> expectation. It was, however, an
>>> improvement over the 219,000 lost in
>>> September, but worse than the 154,000 jobs
>>> lost in August.
Doesnt say anything even remotely resembling anything like your bare faced lies.
Rod Speed
There are no woods, and no bears either.
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>>> Phlip wrote
>>>>> Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> Looks to me like spreading funny money around can't generate
>>>>>> employment.
>
>>>>> Aaaand once again we twist around and stick our head up our ass to
>>>>> avoid blaming...
>
>>>>> --> rich people
>>>>> --> Republicans
>
>>>>> The former are holding onto their money, waiting for someone else to
>>>>> stimulate the economy for them.
>
>>>> So the solution is quite simple.
>
>>> Nope.
>
>>>> Your bring back the very progressive tax code of 1941 and you print
>>>> more money and blow it into the bottom of the economy with stimulus.
>>>> The money held in the mattresses of the rich will decline in value
>
>>> Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by
>>> that.
>
>>>> and they must find ways to actually _INVEST_ or see their wealth
>>>> eaten by the inflation monster.
>
>>> Nope, they just move it out of the country where its not affected by
>>> that.
>
>>>> It really is a no brainer.
>
>>> Your approach is completely brainless and wont work. Plenty of
>>> countrys have tried it an they get that result of the rich moving
>>> their money out of the country where its immune from inflation.
>
>>> Or just put it into gold etc etc etc.
>
>> Government creates money and spends it into existence.
>
> Thats only a small part of what drives the US economy, fool.
Irrelevant. Your AI handlers made a stupid claim regarding money and now
attempt to change the subject.
>> What good will it do a person with loads of money to take the money out
>> of the mattress and run away to Biminy?
>
> They get it out of the hands of fools like you that want to tax it off
> them, fuckwit.
No, Virus. The creation of new money is a tax on the existing money and
there is no way to run away with the full value of the existing mattress
full of money. No place to hide.
>> the answer is, of course, that such a move would be useless.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one was ever
> stupid enough to get you to do anything more challenging that drive a
> truck for a while and why you ended up with fuck all in the way of
> assets.
Personal attacks are all your handlers can do, virus. Your handlers have
totally pooped in their pants.
>> In a proper tax system where true investment is _NOT_ heavily taxed
>> while income from economic rent (i.e. income from government backed
>> bonds) _IS_ heavily taxed
>
> Which is why the rich move it out of the country where it cant be taxed,
> fuckwit.
As I have said, virus: that is a different subject if one relies upon the
income tax. Inflation is s a tax on money. And when combined with a tax
on natural resources and assets it can capture even expatriated profits.
A simpler mechanism is import duties on produced goods and export duties
on raw materials.
>> we will not see the rich running away to foreign shores.
>
> We have ALREADY seen them doing that with their money, fuckwit.
Nothing they can ever do, virus, will stop the taxation of money hoards
imposed by printing additional money. There is _NO_ escape.
>> They will be much better off staying right here and actually INVESTING.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one was ever
> stupid enough to get you to do anything more challenging that drive a
> truck for a while and why you ended up with fuck all in the way of
> assets.
Yet another personal attack from a brain dead virus.
James A. Donald
>
> It first hikes the GDP and that has already happened.
It is improbable that GDP has risen when employment continues to fall.
Much of the supposed rise in GDP is the government paying people to
destroy cars and houses, which due to creative accounting is treated
as creating value, rather than destroying value.
> And it also prevents more unemployment, most obviously with the
> cash for clunkers part of the stimulus that saw car sales recover
> quite a bit and so avoided more layoffs in the car industry etc.
Makework is not recovery: For GDP to genuinely rise due to people
working in the car industry, we should have more cars, whereas in
reality "cash for clunkers" means we have fewer cars. Fewer cars,
thus real production is less, not more.
To take an extreme hypothetical example, suppose the government
purchased all cars at one hundred thousand dollars per car, and dumped
them at sea. Then this would similarly "stimulate", just like "cash
for clunkers" only more so - but we would have no cars! Official GDP
figures would be higher, a lot higher, but actual GDP would be lower,
a lot lower.
It is not a recovery unless people are engaged in work producing what
other people want, and as a result of people doing useful work that
other people want done, people have more stuff. The "recovery" is
produced by government "stimulus" actions that cause people to have
less stuff and less prospect of getting a job.
The only stimulus that actually stimulates is tax cuts that are
expected to be lasting.
> But [employment] not falling as fast as it would do without the stimulus.
How do you know? It is falling a lot faster than the government
predicted would happen.
> > How does gdp rise, when the number of people working falls?
> By those still working being more productive, stupid.
Under the circumstances, the required sudden and substantial rise in
productivity is clearly improbable.
Rather, the explanation is that it is easier to destroy stuff than to
create stuff, and the government is paying people to destroy stuff and
counting that as creating stuff, thereby magically and instantly
producing fake rise in productivity.
Michael Coburn
> I am using poor as in poor versus rich. The poor include working- and
> lower-middle-class people for me. These are people who have savings
> accounts, fixed pensions, life insurance and the like (if they have
> anything -- and a lot of them have a little something).
That would be the definition of _stupid_ people. Only stupid people have
money in a "savings account". Only stupid people are invested in
something like an annuity that is not tied to the CPI. Only stupid people
would think that GM could ever make good on its pensions.
> Usually they
> are wage-earners, with their wages or salaries set in currency amounts
> which are often changed upward only with great difficulty. At least,
> this has been my experience as such a person. These are the people you
> appear to be proposing to tax through inflation.
Wages will increase as wage push inflation happens. Wage push inflation
happens whenever government blows money into the bottom of the economy as
a stimulus. Giving money to banks and Wall Street is not a stimulus. It
is a rich bitch bailout.
> By contrast, while the
> rich may keep a certain amount of cash around to facilitate
> transactions, most of their wealth is held in equities, commodities,
> real estate, collectibles, and the like. They are far more able to deal
> with inflation and escape its bad effects than the not-rich.
The very rich are more able to deal with anything and everything than are
the poor. That sort of asinine observation is pretty much worthless. It
does not matter how the rich have stored their wealth, the injection of
money at the bottom of the economy, reduces the actual value of hoarded
wealth even while it may increase prices. The houses held by the banks is
awaiting the inflation of wages so as to clear the market.
> The CPI is a joke as far as I am concerned. It will become more of a
> joke if any serious inflation sets in, since the government will be
> interested in limiting payouts to Social Security beneficiaries.
I thought that was the case with Bush, but looking back it wasn't. So
lets get away from the conspiracy crap and look at the economics.
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> Assuming there is any serious domestic production of exportable goods,
> beyond movies, bombs, bullets and bullshit.
We do not need to export a damned thing. All we need do is stop slurping
so much foreign oil.
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> That's not much of an argument.
>
>> [quoted text muted]
>
> That depends on what you're trying to buy. Note also that many areas of
> the labor market are somewhat deflationary. There is a limit to how far
> _that_ can be carried on, and in any case it exacerbates the bad effects
> which the inflation you're proposing if it goes into effect (and I think
> it will, because I think your advocacy of inflation channels
> ruling-class intentions).
Boogerman, boogerman, boogerman.
James A. Donald
> > Since 2000, the government has concealed the default rate on CRA loans,
"Rod Speed"
> You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are
> blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced racist lie.
So how many CRA loans defaulted in 2006, 2005, 2004, etc?
Michael Coburn
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:55:27 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
>> > In 1929, the government forbade the market to adjust prices and wages
>> > to reality, causing the great depression.
>
> Michael Coburn
>> That is an outright lie. The government failed to regulate credit thus
>> producing the crash of 1929.
>
>> It was not until the country was placed firmly in the Great depression
>> that government tried to intervene in any positive way.
>
> Things were not all that bad after 1929. Things really went to hell in
> 1932-1933. It was not until 1932-1933 that the country was "firmly in
> the great depression, not until the government "tried to intervene in
> any positive way" that the country was firmly in the great depression.
>
> Hoover organized the economy into state backed business and labor
> cartels, to artificially support prices and wages. This destroyed the
> American economy. These ruinous cartels were subsequently further
> strengthened by Roosevelt.
OOPS!!! Hold it right there, pal. You are actually correct so far on
your history, but for some shading. But you are now proceeding into the
area where government intervention did good instead of harm. Roosevelt
_DID_ screw up by supporting the cartels and even handedly supporting the
unions. But there were not a lot of choices because there was not a lot
of free financial capital. The gold standard really limited what could
be done. He screwed up just like we are currently screwing up. He did
not cut the hours of work as he should have.
> Then, after Roosevelt was elected, but before he came to power,
> Roosevelt sowed terror among the businessmen, threatening apocalyptic
> Mugabe style government, which caused a tremendous crash in the period
> between Roosevelt's November 1932 victory and his March 1933
> inauguration, from which dreadful crash the economy never fully
> recovered until it became apparent that Roosevelt was history.
I would suggest that you actually look at the data as opposed to just
making shit up:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg
> The Hoover Roosevelt cartels are what today's economists call "wage
> price stickiness", and Roosevelt's threats of a fascist economic order
> are what today's economists call "regime uncertainty"
Those terms have Jack Shit to do with the relaxation of anti-trust laws
that took place during the Roosevelt administration.
>> > That is just because the government is manipulating the cpi, thereby
>> > producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
>
>> What a tin hat nut case.
>
> How is that the economy is growing, while fewer and fewer people are
> employed? How is it that fewer people are producing more stuff?
That would be the normal result of technological innovation and real
capital development while asininely sticking with a 40 hour work week.
> Well, in substantial part because the government is paying people to
> destroy houses and cars. (The cars are being crushed, the houses are
> being abandoned. After being abandoned for a certain period, they are
> condemned.)
This is actually true. We are INVENTING more work to do. Really stupid.
OK. You make a valid point here. But the solution to the problem
remains the same. Cut the @#$^#&@#*^ work week per person and employ
more people.
Rod Speed
>>>> Nope.
> Irrelevant.
Nope.
> Your AI handlers made a stupid claim regarding
> money and now attempt to change the subject.
Everyone can see that you are lying, as always.
>>> What good will it do a person with loads of money to take
>>> the money out of the mattress and run away to Biminy?
>> They get it out of the hands of fools like you that want to tax it off them, fuckwit.
> The creation of new money is a tax on the existing money
Wrong, as always.
> and there is no way to run away with the full
> value of the existing mattress full of money.
Wrong, as always. You convert it to gold or another
currency which isnt being fucked over, fuckwit.
> No place to hide.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one was ever
stupid enough to let you do anything more challenging than driving a
truck, and how you ended up with fuck all in the way of real assets.
>>> the answer is, of course, that such a move would be useless.
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one was ever
>> stupid enough to get you to do anything more challenging that drive a
>> truck for a while and why you ended up with fuck all in the way of assets.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>> In a proper tax system where true investment is _NOT_
>>> heavily taxed while income from economic rent (i.e. income
>>> from government backed bonds) _IS_ heavily taxed
>> Which is why the rich move it out of the country where it cant be taxed, fuckwit.
> As I have said, virus: that is a different subject if one relies upon the income tax.
And you fucked up completely there, as always.
> Inflation is a tax on money.
Not if you have enough of a clue to have have turned it into
gold or a currency that isnt being deliberately devalued.
> And when combined with a tax on natural resources
> and assets it can capture even expatriated profits.
Pity no one is stupid enough to try going that route,
essentially because its so trivial to avoid that sort of tax.
> A simpler mechanism is import duties on produced
> goods and export duties on raw materials.
No one is actually stupid enough to go that route either.
>>> we will not see the rich running away to foreign shores.
>> We have ALREADY seen them doing that with their money, fuckwit.
> Nothing they can ever do, virus, will stop the taxation of money
> hoards imposed by printing additional money. There is _NO_ escape.
Wrong, as always. They can turn it into gold or a
currency that aint being deliberately devalued, fuckwit.
>>> They will be much better off staying right here and actually INVESTING.
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one was ever
>> stupid enough to get you to do anything more challenging that drive a
>> truck for a while and why you ended up with fuck all in the way of assets.
> Yet another personal attack
Another lie. Just the facts, fuckwit.
Michael Coburn
>> Moving the money to Kooka-Monga is not going to preserve its value
>
> Corse it does if you move it to a currency that isnt being deliberately
> devalued, fool.
>
> Or into gold etc.
No. virus... The money just gets a new owner. You traded the money for
the gold or the different currency and whoever "sold" you the other asset
now holds the money. The money is worth less than it was if more money
is being created.
>> And who you traded with for the gold now has the money.
>
> His problem when its deliberately devalued.
You seem to think that the devaluation of the money is "aimed" at certain
individuals. It isn't. The INTENTION of devaluation through money
infusion is itself a devaluation. That devaluation causes a rise in the
price of other assets (like houses).
>> No matter where the money tries to hide or who owns it the money will
>> be devalued by the creation of new money.
>
> Wrong when its moved to a currency that isnt devalued that way, or into
> gold etc.
IDIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<<<<<<<<<< further stupidity deleted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Michael Coburn
>> So the solution is quite simple. Your bring back the very progressive
>> tax code of 1941 and you print more money
>
> You contradict yourself. Tax the rich feed the poor problem solved. And
> start shredding the dollar bills, too...
I see no contradiction.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> James A. Donald wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> We aint even in a technical recession anymore.
>>>>> That is just because the government is manipulating the
>>>>> cpi, thereby producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina
>>>> Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Its actually added quite a
>>>> bit of stimulus and THAT has seen the GDP hike substantially.
>>> If stimulus was working, we would see employment rising.
>> It always takes some time for a stimulus to do that.
>> It first hikes the GDP and that has already happened.
> It is improbable that GDP has risen when employment continues to fall.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.
That ALWAYS happens in ANY recession or depression, fool.
> Much of the supposed rise in GDP is the government
> paying people to destroy cars and houses,
Yes, just like the massive rise in the GDP during WW2 was in spades.
> which due to creative accounting is treated as
> creating value, rather than destroying value.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.
That happened IN SPADES in WW2 fuckwit.
That was an absolutely CLASSIC example of Keynesian deficit spending, stupid.
>> And it also prevents more unemployment, most obviously with the
>> cash for clunkers part of the stimulus that saw car sales recover
>> quite a bit and so avoided more layoffs in the car industry etc.
> Makework is not recovery:
Wrong, as always. WW2 was make work in spades, fuckwit.
> For GDP to genuinely rise due to people working
> in the car industry, we should have more cars,
Wrong, as always. We saw PRECISELY the same effect in boom
times with hordes replacing their perfectly viable cars with new cars.
> whereas in reality "cash for clunkers" means we have fewer cars.
Wrong, as always.
> Fewer cars, thus real production is less, not more.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.
> To take an extreme hypothetical example, suppose the government
> purchased all cars at one hundred thousand dollars per car, and
> dumped them at sea. Then this would similarly "stimulate",
Yes, because they would mostly spend that $100K, fuckwit.
> just like "cash for clunkers" only more so - but we would have no cars!
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.
They would just buy new cars with part of that $100K, fuckwit.
> Official GDP figures would be higher, a lot higher,
> but actual GDP would be lower, a lot lower.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.
The GDP aint the total assets, fool.
Yes, WW2 did see a lot of real assets wiped out
AND IT MASSIVELY HIKED THE GDP AS WELL.
> It is not a recovery unless people are engaged
> in work producing what other people want,
That is precisely what happened with cash for clunkers, most do want new cars, fool.
> and as a result of people doing useful work that
> other people want done, people have more stuff.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.
Its still GDP if they replace clunkers with new cars, fool.
> The "recovery" is produced by government "stimulus" actions
Just like WW2 was in spades.
> that cause people to have less stuff
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.
They have just as many cars when they replace a clunker with a new car, fool.
AND they have higher value assets too.
> and less prospect of getting a job.
They have MORE prospect of getting a job in car industry, fool.
> The only stimulus that actually stimulates is tax cuts that are expected to be lasting.
No one said a word about lasting, fool.
If a stimulus improves consumer confidence that they
arent about to lose their current job, THAT is lasting, fool.
>> But [employment] not falling as fast as it would do without the stimulus.
> How do you know?
Its obvious with the car industry and the housing industry alone.
Any destruction of clunkers or surplus houses MUST increase
the employment prospects in those industrys, fool.
> It is falling a lot faster than the government predicted would happen.
Predictions are completely irrelevant. They are always very difficult to get right.
>>> How does gdp rise, when the number of people working falls?
>> By those still working being more productive, stupid.
> Under the circumstances, the required sudden
> and substantial rise in productivity is clearly improbable.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.
While ever those with the lowest productivity are fired, that MUST increase
the productivity of those who have not yet got fired, just because they
mostly do want to ensure that they aint gunna be next to be fired.
And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that those
involved in the production of the new cars that replace the clunkers
are likely to be able to work more paid hours than they would otherwise
be the case with fewer buying new cars with no cash for clunkers program.
The housing industry in spades.
> Rather, the explanation is that it is easier to destroy stuff than to create stuff,
Yes, and that worked fine in WW2 and completely wiped out the great depression unemployment.
> and the government is paying people to destroy stuff
Just like they did during WW2 in spades.
> and counting that as creating stuff,
Just like they did during WW2 in spades.
> thereby magically and instantly producing fake rise in productivity.
Taint fake, its real, just like it was during WW2 in spades.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Since 2000, the government has concealed the default rate on CRA
>>> loans, indicating that the default rate was disturbingly high in 2000.
>> You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are
>> blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced racist lie.
> So how many CRA loans defaulted in 2006, 2005, 2004, etc?
The rate was no higher than it was with non CRA loans.
Rod Speed
>>>> Nope.
>> Or into gold etc.
> The money just gets a new owner.
Irrelevant to what happens to the owner of that gold, fuckwit.
> You traded the money for the gold or the different currency
> and whoever "sold" you the other asset now holds the money.
Thats THEIR problem, fuckwit.
> The money is worth less than it was if more money is being created.
Thats THEIR problem, fuckwit.
>>> And who you traded with for the gold now has the money.
>> His problem when its deliberately devalued.
> You seem to think that the devaluation of the money is "aimed" at certain individuals.
Nope.
> It isn't.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> The INTENTION of devaluation through money infusion is itself a devaluation.
Irrelevant to those with enough of a clue to move into
gold or a currency that isnt being deliberately devalued.
> That devaluation causes a rise in the price of other assets (like houses).
Irrelevant to those with enough of a clue to move into
gold or a currency that isnt being deliberately devalued.
>>> No matter where the money tries to hide or who owns it
>>> the money will be devalued by the creation of new money.
>> Wrong when its moved to a currency that isnt devalued that way, or into gold etc.
> IDIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wota stunningly rational line argument you have there, fuckwit.
> <<<<<<<<<< further stupidity deleted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Everyone can see you face down in the mud, as always.
Rod Speed
> Phlip wrote
>>> So the solution is quite simple. Your bring back the very
>>> progressive tax code of 1941 and you print more money
>> You contradict yourself. Tax the rich feed the poor
>>> problem solved. And start shredding the dollar bills, too...
> I see no contradiction.
No surprises there. You were warned about wanking yourself completely blind, you wouldnt listen...
James A. Donald
> OOPS!!! Hold it right there, pal. You are actually correct so far on
> your history, but for some shading. But you are now proceeding into the
> area where government intervention did good instead of harm. Roosevelt
> _DID_ screw up by supporting the cartels and even handedly supporting the
> unions. But there were not a lot of choices because there was not a lot
> of free financial capital.
There was plenty of free financial capital, the problem was that
Roosevelt had terrorized it with revolutionary rhetoric, and that
there was nothing to invest in, because everything had been
cartelized, so a new business was not allowed to compete with existing
businesses.
Most new employment, unsurprisingly, comes from new businesses.
Hoover had made new businesses de-facto illegal, and Roosevelt
proceeded to make them de-jure illegal. Thus, very little new
employment.
> > Then, after Roosevelt was elected, but before he came to power,
> > Roosevelt sowed terror among the businessmen, threatening apocalyptic
> > Mugabe style government, which caused a tremendous crash in the period
> > between Roosevelt's November 1932 victory and his March 1933
> > inauguration, from which dreadful crash the economy never fully
> > recovered until it became apparent that Roosevelt was history.
> I would suggest that you actually look at the data as opposed to just
> making shit up:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg
Which shows the economy going the hell in 1932-33, not 1929.
Which shows the economy hitting bottom AFTER Hoover's cartels, and
Roosevelt's menacing anti capitalist rhetoric.
> > How is that the economy is growing, while fewer and fewer people are
> > employed? How is it that fewer people are producing more stuff?
> That would be the normal result of technological innovation and real
> capital development while asininely sticking with a 40 hour work week.
Except that the sudden and amazing boom in productivity set in when
the government started massively intervening in the economy after
Lehman brothers. Productivity went up on paper when it was perfectly
obvious that it was falling in reality.
Such massive intervention unavoidably distorts the measurement of
prices, production, consumption, productivity, by replacing voluntary
transactions with coerced transactions. A voluntary transaction is
evidence of wealth created. A coerced transaction is not.
Consider, for example "cash for clunkers". The government is paying
people to destroy perfectly good cars, and this results in a
substantial rise in GDP. To see that this is a distortion of
measurement, not a real rise, perform the following thought
experiment: what would happen if the government increased the program,
by offering to buy any car that could move under its own power at
thirty thousand dollars apiece, and sinking them in the ocean. GDP
would rise, but the reality that GDP is supposed to measure, the
amount of stuff that people get, would diminish.
As an ultimate reductio ad absurdum of cash for clunkers, suppose that
in a farm support program, the government bought up all the food and
destroyed it. GDP on paper would be higher, but everyone would
starve, proving that GDP was in reality considerably lower, because
people would have less stuff.
> OK. You make a valid point here. But the solution to the problem
> remains the same. Cut the @#$^#&@#*^ work week per person and employ
> more people.
We don't want jobs. We want what jobs produce. Work is the price we
pay for stuff. If you create jobs, but not wealth, it does not work.
If you cut the work week, less stuff would be produced, but this would
not automagically mean more people employed, because the people who
are unemployed do not have the same skill set, or live in the same
place, as the people employed.
For an extreme example, suppose that most of the excess unemployed are
real estate agents, mortgage brokers, New York financiers, people in
New York who produce services for New York financiers, Californian
home improvement builders, and everyone who lives in Detroit or New
Orleans.
Then cutting the work week for oil riggers in Alaska is not going to
improve matters.
James A. Donald
> >>> Since 2000, the government has concealed the default rate on CRA
> >>> loans, indicating that the default rate was disturbingly high in 2000.
Rod Speed wrote
> >> You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are
> >> blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced racist lie.
James A. Donald wrote
> > So how many CRA loans defaulted in 2006, 2005, 2004, etc?
Rod Speed wrote
> The rate was no higher than it was with non CRA loans.
How do you know this when you don't have the numbers?
And if it was true, the government would not be hiding the numbers.
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
17.5% "real" unemployment, and nearly all of the "economic growth"
existing as an economic bubble regrowing in the financial sector?
Oh, we're still in the woods all right.
Steve
I'm sure you are, Jamieson...
--
Contrary to what liberals are whining, nobody
owes you anything.
Old Pif
>
> So, how much further will the funny money go, and
> then what's next?
>
Couple of time more, as you said.
Les Cargill
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:55:27 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
>
> How is that the economy is growing, while fewer and fewer people are
> employed? How is it that fewer people are producing more stuff?
>
Roughly, productivity gains ( in addition to the other
factors you bring up). Production is less and less
dependent on labor natively. We get lots of
cognitive dissonance from the relatively-Marxians
here because they axiomatize production being
more dependent on labor.
much of productivity gains come from relentlessly
pursuing cheap at all cost, and there's frequently a
decline in real quality in favor of faux economy of
production.
> Well, in substantial part because the government is paying people to
> destroy houses and cars. (The cars are being crushed, the houses are
> being abandoned. After being abandoned for a certain period, they are
> condemned.)
>
GDP is a flow, and the flow is up pretty much by the amount
of stimulus. That's the point of the stimulus, to create a
(false) impression of growth, to bootstrap hopefully real
growth.
> Because people are being paid to do this, it is treated in the figures
> as production, even though it is not production, but destruction.
>
That's just Schumpeter. It's less of a concern when it's houses and
cars and more of a concern when it's applied to productive
capacity and no real replacement ensues. That goes directly to
employment stats.
The natural "labor anorexia" of the economy was deferred by the 2003
era tax and spend regime, to solve in the short term problem by
inflating the value of housing. So there really was oversupply - I
saw home builders shutting down as early as 2005.
> If I pay someone ten thousand dollars to produce a car for me, that
> counts in the GDP figures as ten thousand dollars worth of GDP. If
> the government pays me twenty thousand dollars to destroy my house,
> that *also* counts in the GPP figures as twenty thousand dollars worth
> of GDP. (Actually they don't pay individual homeowners, but rather
> the bank that owns the underwater mortgage, but the ultimate effect is
> the same)
>
It's congruent with ag policy prior to Earl Butts. Butts renormalized
how ag subsidy works.
> And, by a convoluted process of adjustment, (hedonic adjustment) the
> resulting increase in the cost of houses and cars is counted as a
> decrease in the cost of houses and cars. The cost of rent and cars is
> counted as falling not because it is actually falling, but because our
> cars and rental accommodations have supposedly been improved by
> destroying stuff.
>
Something like that. Although I am wholly skeptical that an increase in
the cost of housing and cars will be seen. People are saving, and that's
not all just deferring the purchase of big screen TVs.
>> What an idiot. The percentage unemployed may continue to rise, but the
>> number employed will typically keep pace with rising population.
>
> But the number employed is not keeping place with the rising
> population, but rather is falling like a stone.
>
> <http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/27000/Weak+Employment+Report>
> : : The October employment report came in
> : : weaker than expected as the country lost
> : : 190,000 jobs, rather than the 175,000
> : : expectation. It was, however, an
> : : improvement over the 219,000 lost in
> : : September, but worse than the 154,000 jobs
> : : lost in August.
>
It is on a local ( over time ) basis. we're all wating to see if it
recovers, and when.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Well, we're off the gold standard now at least. It's premature to cut
hours. We'll have the opportunity to do a fairly stable
experiment on that strategy, because Germany right now *has* cut
hours.
>> Then, after Roosevelt was elected, but before he came to power,
>> Roosevelt sowed terror among the businessmen, threatening apocalyptic
>> Mugabe style government, which caused a tremendous crash in the period
>> between Roosevelt's November 1932 victory and his March 1933
>> inauguration, from which dreadful crash the economy never fully
>> recovered until it became apparent that Roosevelt was history.
>
> I would suggest that you actually look at the data as opposed to just
> making shit up:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg
>
I think that picture makes his point perfectly. The uptick around
1937-38 happened only after many of Roosevelt's policies were
repealed or the Second World War came along. At least the best
interpretations of the "second dip" between '37 and '40 ( which was
short and shallow ) are that way.
So long as people *believed* Roosevelt was wrong, you could still have
that effect. And many did. Hoover knew how much fear would be
created by that level of munging the economy. Neither man was perfectly
right. But Roosevelt was much more effective at selling his version.
>> The Hoover Roosevelt cartels are what today's economists call "wage
>> price stickiness", and Roosevelt's threats of a fascist economic order
>> are what today's economists call "regime uncertainty"
>
> Those terms have Jack Shit to do with the relaxation of anti-trust laws
> that took place during the Roosevelt administration.
>
But wait - wages are roughly an "output parameter" of all the
various transfer functions ( as in H() operators ) that are
in play upstream of labor. Simply declaring subsidies may help,
but not if labor's "in a pole" of one of the transfer functions
upstream of it.
What's evinced since is that our Byzantine regime of subsidies
were generally proven to be more efficient than simply pumping
money at the bottom. But then we're constantly chasing our hat
adjusting them, and we miss a thing or two.
*The Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act* added employment as
part of the Fed's problem. That's the principal *cause* of
us being boom-and-bust now.
<snip>
>
> OK. You make a valid point here. But the solution to the problem
> remains the same. Cut the @#$^#&@#*^ work week per person and employ
> more people.
>
Might not work very well. Labor's become less interchangeable as
"quality" movements ( which usually result in being much more
customer-focused ) mean the learning curve for most jobs is
up quite a bit over what it was even just a few years ago.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn wrote
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>> Michael Coburn
>>>> James A. Donald wrote
>>>>> In 1929, the government forbade the market to adjust prices and wages to reality, causing the great depression.
>>>> That is an outright lie. The government failed to regulate credit thus producing the crash of 1929.
>>>> It was not until the country was placed firmly in the Great
>>>> depression that government tried to intervene in any positive way.
>>> Things were not all that bad after 1929. Things really went to
>>> hell in 1932-1933. It was not until 1932-1933 that the country was
>>> "firmly in the great depression, not until the government "tried to
>>> intervene in any positive way" that the country was firmly in the
>>> great depression.
>
>>> Hoover organized the economy into state backed business and labor
>>> cartels, to artificially support prices and wages. This destroyed
>>> the American economy. These ruinous cartels were subsequently
>>> further strengthened by Roosevelt.
>> OOPS!!! Hold it right there, pal. You are actually correct so far
>> on your history, but for some shading. But you are now proceeding
>> into the area where government intervention did good instead of
>> harm. Roosevelt _DID_ screw up by supporting the cartels and even
>> handedly supporting the unions. But there were not a lot of choices
>> because there was not a lot of free financial capital. The gold
>> standard really limited what could be done. He screwed up just like
>> we are currently screwing up. He did not cut the hours of work as
>> he should have.
> Well, we're off the gold standard now at least. It's premature to cut
> hours. We'll have the opportunity to do a fairly stable experiment on that strategy, because Germany right now *has*
> cut hours.
And France tried it previously and it just plain doesnt work.
Essentially because there is no way to enforce the hours worked.
And plenty of modern first world countrys allow job sharing,
mostly for married women who dont want to work full time.
That does work for the individual but makes no difference to the unemployment rate.
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg
>> OK. You make a valid point here. But the solution to the problem remains the same. Cut the @#$^#&@#*^ work week
>> per person and employ more people.
> Might not work very well. Labor's become less interchangeable as "quality" movements ( which usually result in being
> much more
> customer-focused ) mean the learning curve for most jobs is
> up quite a bit over what it was even just a few years ago.
Thats very arguable when so much of the basics are automated, most
obviously with call centers where what is being flogged is completely
irrelevant, all the labor needs to be able to do is read the screen etc.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> 5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09 wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Yadda wrote
>>>>>> James A. Donald wrote
>>>>>>> Yadda<ya...@nospam.net> wrote
>>>>>>>> Looks like a big crash is coming across all asset classes. The
>>>>>>>> tsunami will be Option ARMs, Commercial Real Estate, and
>>>>>>>> Leveraged Commodity and Carry Trade. Probably not until early
>>>>>>>> next year as the FED/Treasury will be propping up the economy
>>>>>>>> on funny money until the moment of reckoning. I am wondering
>>>>>>>> if money market funds will be safe in this forthcoming storm...
>>>>>>> Money market funds will be fine in nominal terms, unless you
>>>>>>> have long term bonds - but inflation is starting to accelerate.
>>>>>>> I predict the next cpi report, due out in a week or
>>>>>>> so, is going to be a shocker. Long term bonds
>>>>>>> will take a beating when inflation starts to bite.
>>>>>> Many are predicting a run on money funds.
>>>>> Many predicted a full depression.
>>>>> Didnt happen.
>>>> Wait for the second round.
>>> We're not out of the woods yet. Not even close.
>> There are no woods, and no bears either.
> 17.5% "real" unemployment,
Another bare faced lie.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
Thats the number that would like more hours than they currently are getting, not those who are unemployed.
> and nearly all of the "economic growth" existing as an economic bubble regrowing in the financial sector?
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Much of the increase in GDP came from stuff
like the cash for clunkers program which is real production of physical goods.
> Oh, we're still in the woods all right.
There are no woods, and no bears either.
Les Cargill
I have to go all pragmatist on you here. Whatever works.
Platon's objection to the charging of interest was that
money is a symbol, and that charging interest reified
the symbol. He's wrong, but for surprising reasons.
Since credit money reduces the constraints on what people
can accomplish, there exists a path using credit money where
we are all better off. So to an extent, the *practical*
result is that objecting to credit money in the manner
Platon reacted is kind of reifying the symbol itself, once
you embrace a kind of empirical approach redolent of the Scottish
Enlightenment. The Medici might have "perfected" it, but we
have to go to the Scots to understand it.
But this places a much greater burden of wisdom on us,
as all powerful tools ultimately do. We're not even close to
making that wisdom the central theme of our use of it.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> James A. Donald wrote
>>>>> Since 2000, the government has concealed the default rate on CRA
>>>>> loans, indicating that the default rate was disturbingly high in
>>>>> 2000.
>
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are
>>>> blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced racist lie.
>
> James A. Donald wrote
>>> So how many CRA loans defaulted in 2006, 2005, 2004, etc?
>
> Rod Speed wrote
>> The rate was no higher than it was with non CRA loans.
> How do you know this when you don't have the numbers?
The numbers are available.
> And if it was true, the government would not be hiding the numbers.
It is true, as can be seen from the numbers.
The govt isnt hiding the numbers.
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>> OOPS!!! Hold it right there, pal. You are actually correct so far
>> on your history, but for some shading. But you are now proceeding
>> into the area where government intervention did good instead of
>> harm. Roosevelt _DID_ screw up by supporting the cartels and even
>> handedly supporting the unions. But there were not a lot of choices
>> because there was not a lot of free financial capital.
> There was plenty of free financial capital, the problem was that
> Roosevelt had terrorized it with revolutionary rhetoric, and that there
> was nothing to invest in, because everything had been cartelized,
Another bare faced lie.
> so a new business was not allowed to compete with existing businesses.
Another bare faced lie.
> Most new employment, unsurprisingly, comes from new businesses.
Another bare faced lie. Particularly in a recession and depression, much
new employment comes from existing businesses employing more people.
> Hoover had made new businesses de-facto illegal,
Another bare faced lie.
> and Roosevelt proceeded to make them de-jure illegal.
Another bare faced lie.
> Thus, very little new employment.
Pity about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
you silly little pathological liar.
>>> Then, after Roosevelt was elected, but before he came
>>> to power, Roosevelt sowed terror among the businessmen,
>>> threatening apocalyptic Mugabe style government,
Another bare faced lie.
>>> which caused a tremendous crash in the period between Roosevelt's
>>> November 1932 victory and his March 1933 inauguration, from which
>>> dreadful crash the economy never fully recovered until it became
>>> apparent that Roosevelt was history.
>> I would suggest that you actually look at the data as opposed to just making shit up:
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg
> Which shows the economy going the hell in 1932-33, not 1929.
But blows a fucking great hole in your bare faced lie that GDP never
fully recovered until it became apparent that Roosevelt was history.
It in fact fully recovered LONG before that, you silly little pathological liar.
> Which shows the economy hitting bottom AFTER Hoover's
> cartels, and Roosevelt's menacing anti capitalist rhetoric.
Rhetoric changes nothing, fool.
>>> How is that the economy is growing, while fewer and fewer people
>>> are employed? How is it that fewer people are producing more stuff?
>> That would be the normal result of technological innovation and real
>> capital development while asininely sticking with a 40 hour work week.
> Except that the sudden and amazing boom in productivity set in when the
> government started massively intervening in the economy after Lehman brothers.
Another bare faced lie. It happened much later than that.
> Productivity went up on paper when it was perfectly obvious that it was falling in reality.
You wouldnt know what reality was with GDP if it bit you on your lard arse.
> Such massive intervention unavoidably distorts the measurement
> of prices, production, consumption, productivity, by replacing
> voluntary transactions with coerced transactions.
They aint coerced, they're encouraged, fool.
> A voluntary transaction is evidence of wealth
> created. A coerced transaction is not.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Consider, for example "cash for clunkers". The
> government is paying people to destroy perfectly
> good cars, and this results in a substantial rise in GDP.
And that happened in spades in WW2, fool.
> To see that this is a distortion of measurement, not a real rise,
Corse its a real rise in GDP, fool.
> perform the following thought experiment:
That aint a though experiment, thats you desperately pig ignorantly wanking, as always.
> what would happen if the government increased the program,
> by offering to buy any car that could move under its own power
> at thirty thousand dollars apiece, and sinking them in the ocean.
Not very different to a world war, fool. The GDP increases
dramatically and thats a real increase in GDP, fool.
> GDP would rise, but the reality that GDP is supposed to
> measure, the amount of stuff that people get, would diminish.
That last isnt GDP, fool.
> As an ultimate reductio ad absurdum of cash for clunkers,
> suppose that in a farm support program, the government
> bought up all the food and destroyed it.
Its STILL part of the GDP, fool.
> GDP on paper would be higher,
And in reality it would be higher too, fool.
> but everyone would starve, proving that GDP was in reality
> considerably lower, because people would have less stuff.
The amount of stuff people have aint GDP, you pig ignorant clown.
>> OK. You make a valid point here. But the solution to the problem remains the
>> same. Cut the @#$^#&@#*^ work week per person and employ more people.
> We don't want jobs.
Wrong, as always.
> We want what jobs produce.
No those that want a job so they can pay off the mortgage, fool.
> Work is the price we pay for stuff.
Its a hell of a lot more than just that.
> If you create jobs, but not wealth, it does not work.
Wrong, as always. A lack of jobs is what a recession is about, fool.
If you increase the number of jobs enough, you've got out of recession, fool.
> If you cut the work week, less stuff would be produced,
But there would be less unemployed, fool.
> but this would not automagically mean more people employed, because
the people who are unemployed do not have the same skill set,
You dont know that either with a doubled unemployment rate due to a recession.
> or live in the same place, as the people employed.
You dont know that either with a doubled unemployment rate due to a recession.
> For an extreme example,
Pathetic wank, actually.
> suppose that most of the excess unemployed are real estate agents,
> mortgage brokers, New York financiers, people in New York who
> produce services for New York financiers, Californian home
> improvement builders, and everyone who lives in Detroit or New
> Orleans.
That never happens in the real world, fool.
> Then cutting the work week for oil riggers in Alaska is not going to improve matters.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, fool.
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
Let's take a look at the actual BLS definition, instead of your Scrooge
McDuck take on it:
NOTE: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither
working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and
are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent
past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached,
have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a
job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those
who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle
for a part-time schedule. For more information, see "BLS
introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures," in the
October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Updated population
controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
That's in ADDITION to the unemployed, "discouraged workers" and all that.
If your household needs $2000 a month to survive, and the only work you
can find is part time paying $1,000 a month, then you aren't "employed"--
your just falling off the same cliff, only more slowly.
Michael Coburn
I have been "tuned in" to that for a while. It seems to be serving them
very well.
>>> Then, after Roosevelt was elected, but before he came to power,
>>> Roosevelt sowed terror among the businessmen, threatening apocalyptic
>>> Mugabe style government, which caused a tremendous crash in the period
>>> between Roosevelt's November 1932 victory and his March 1933
>>> inauguration, from which dreadful crash the economy never fully
>>> recovered until it became apparent that Roosevelt was history.
>>
>> I would suggest that you actually look at the data as opposed to just
>> making shit up:
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg
>>
>>
> I think that picture makes his point perfectly. The uptick around
> 1937-38 happened only after many of Roosevelt's policies were repealed
> or the Second World War came along. At least the best interpretations of
> the "second dip" between '37 and '40 ( which was short and shallow ) are
> that way.
>
> So long as people *believed* Roosevelt was wrong, you could still have
> that effect. And many did. Hoover knew how much fear would be created by
> that level of munging the economy. Neither man was perfectly right. But
> Roosevelt was much more effective at selling his version.
I suppose it is possible to assign different religious beliefs to the
37-38 recession but that is what you are looking at. Your "uptick" was a
recovery from that recession, not a real upward trend caused by Roosevelt
dumping. There is little, if any, difference in the slope of gdp before
and after the recession. The recession was caused by Fed tightening and
spending cuts. The Fed and the elected government saw the screw up and
corrected it and the gdp resumed its upward slope.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/DepressionSpending.html
>>> The Hoover Roosevelt cartels are what today's economists call "wage
>>> price stickiness", and Roosevelt's threats of a fascist economic order
>>> are what today's economists call "regime uncertainty"
>>
>> Those terms have Jack Shit to do with the relaxation of anti-trust laws
>> that took place during the Roosevelt administration.
>>
>>
>
> But wait - wages are roughly an "output parameter" of all the various
> transfer functions ( as in H() operators ) that are in play upstream of
> labor. Simply declaring subsidies may help, but not if labor's "in a
> pole" of one of the transfer functions upstream of it.
>
> What's evinced since is that our Byzantine regime of subsidies were
> generally proven to be more efficient than simply pumping money at the
> bottom. But then we're constantly chasing our hat adjusting them, and we
> miss a thing or two.
>
> *The Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act* added employment as part of
> the Fed's problem. That's the principal *cause* of us being
> boom-and-bust now.
In 1979 Paul Volcker peed all over the bill you are touting. The _CAUSE_
of boom bust is too much reward to speculation. Always has been and
always will be.
> <snip>
>>
>> OK. You make a valid point here. But the solution to the problem
>> remains the same. Cut the @#$^#&@#*^ work week per person and employ
>> more people.
>>
>>
> Might not work very well. Labor's become less interchangeable as
> "quality" movements ( which usually result in being much more
> customer-focused ) mean the learning curve for most jobs is up quite a
> bit over what it was even just a few years ago.
--
Michael Coburn
> On 8 Nov 2009 07:54:51 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> OOPS!!! Hold it right there, pal. You are actually correct so far on
>> your history, but for some shading. But you are now proceeding into
>> the area where government intervention did good instead of harm.
>> Roosevelt _DID_ screw up by supporting the cartels and even handedly
>> supporting the unions. But there were not a lot of choices because
>> there was not a lot of free financial capital.
>
> There was plenty of free financial capital, the problem was that
> Roosevelt had terrorized it with revolutionary rhetoric, and that there
> was nothing to invest in, because everything had been cartelized, so a
> new business was not allowed to compete with existing businesses.
> Most new employment, unsurprisingly, comes from new businesses. Hoover
> had made new businesses de-facto illegal, and Roosevelt proceeded to
> make them de-jure illegal. Thus, very little new employment.
I though I had already agreed wit this. Why belabor the issue?
>> > Then, after Roosevelt was elected, but before he came to power,
>> > Roosevelt sowed terror among the businessmen, threatening apocalyptic
>> > Mugabe style government, which caused a tremendous crash in the
>> > period between Roosevelt's November 1932 victory and his March 1933
>> > inauguration, from which dreadful crash the economy never fully
>> > recovered until it became apparent that Roosevelt was history.
>
>> I would suggest that you actually look at the data as opposed to just
>> making shit up:
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/US_GDP_10-60.jpg
>
> Which shows the economy going the hell in 1932-33, not 1929.
Yes. I agree. As Smoot-Hawley-knee-jerk-Republicans and Hoover tried to
"save big business" and balance the budget things got very bad indeed.
> Which shows the economy hitting bottom AFTER Hoover's cartels, and
> Roosevelt's menacing anti capitalist rhetoric.
The problem is that the economy recovers after Roosevelt comes to town
and poops all over Hoovers stupid across the board tax hikes and spending
cuts. But I will admit AGAIN that cartelization and labor union sucking
up tended to hurt the real economy and prolong the unemployment.
>> > How is that the economy is growing, while fewer and fewer people are
>> > employed? How is it that fewer people are producing more stuff?
>
>> That would be the normal result of technological innovation and real
>> capital development while asininely sticking with a 40 hour work week.
>
> Except that the sudden and amazing boom in productivity set in when the
> government started massively intervening in the economy after Lehman
> brothers. Productivity went up on paper when it was perfectly obvious
> that it was falling in reality.
You tend to jump around quite a bit here. Joining all the wrong dots in
support of a religious affliction.
> Such massive intervention unavoidably distorts the measurement of
> prices, production, consumption, productivity,
Yes.
> by replacing voluntary
> transactions with coerced transactions. A voluntary transaction is
> evidence of wealth created. A coerced transaction is not.
All very nicely preached.
> Consider, for example "cash for clunkers". The government is paying
> people to destroy perfectly good cars, and this results in a substantial
> rise in GDP. To see that this is a distortion of measurement, not a
> real rise, perform the following thought experiment: what would happen
> if the government increased the program, by offering to buy any car that
> could move under its own power at thirty thousand dollars apiece, and
> sinking them in the ocean. GDP would rise, but the reality that GDP is
> supposed to measure, the amount of stuff that people get, would
> diminish.
> As an ultimate reductio ad absurdum of cash for clunkers, suppose that
> in a farm support program, the government bought up all the food and
> destroyed it. GDP on paper would be higher, but everyone would starve,
> proving that GDP was in reality considerably lower, because people would
> have less stuff.
I see no reason for hammering on "broken window fallacy". I have NEVER
been an advocate of using GDP as a barometer of the economy. It is,
however, being used by all the so called economists and it is the data
that are cataloged and presented. The unemployment rate is the only
current data that is cataloged and presented that is indicative of the
real economy.
>
>> OK. You make a valid point here. But the solution to the problem
>> remains the same. Cut the @#$^#&@#*^ work week per person and employ
>> more people.
>
> We don't want jobs. We want what jobs produce. Work is the price we
> pay for stuff. If you create jobs, but not wealth, it does not work.
That's what I said.
> If you cut the work week, less stuff would be produced, but this would
> not automagically mean more people employed, because the people who are
> unemployed do not have the same skill set, or live in the same place, as
> the people employed.
Cutting the work week will not reduce the output. More people will have
jobs creating the same output as before and those who currently have jobs
will have smaller incomes. But that is more than offset by the reduction
in unemployment.
> For an extreme example, suppose that most of the excess unemployed are
> real estate agents, mortgage brokers, New York financiers, people in New
> York who produce services for New York financiers, Californian home
> improvement builders, and everyone who lives in Detroit or New Orleans.
It does not take a long tome to learn how to operated a forklift or how
to sell shoes or how to drive a truck and labor is, in fact, mobile.
> Then cutting the work week for oil riggers in Alaska is not going to
> improve matters.
Cutting the work week for all will increase the number of employment
opportunities. There will be relocation and retraining. That is how
reality is. Health care revamp is a big part of labor mobility although
the current effort falls short. Labor _IS_ mobile and needs to be even
more mobile within the USA.
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> Boogerman, boogerman, boogerman.
>
All that means to me is that you can't deal with the objections
raised. I went through the last major inflation in the 1970s as
a working-class person and it was not the picnic you seem to
envision. As for its political consequences, we didn't get
Hitler, but we did get Reagan.
You can go back to your mantra now, but it's a lot less
impressive than you think.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Yadda wrote
>>>> James A. Donald wrote
>>>>> Yadda<ya...@nospam.net> wrote
>
>>>>>> Looks like a big crash is coming across all asset classes. The
>>>>>> tsunami will be Option ARMs, Commercial Real Estate, and Leveraged
>>>>>> Commodity and Carry Trade. Probably not until early next year as
>>>>>> the FED/Treasury will be propping up the economy on funny money
>>>>>> until the moment of reckoning. I am wondering if money market
>>>>>> funds will be safe in this forthcoming storm...
>
>>>>> Money market funds will be fine in nominal terms, unless you have
>>>>> long term bonds - but inflation is starting to accelerate. I predict
>>>>> the next cpi report, due out in a week or so, is going to be a
>>>>> shocker. Long term bonds will take a beating when inflation
>>>>> starts to bite.
>
>>>> Many are predicting a run on money funds.
>
>>> Many predicted a full depression.
>
>>> Didnt happen.
>
>
> Wont happen either. We've actually worked out that it makes a hell of a
> lot more sense to stimulate early when clowns have completely imploded
> the entire world financial system, AGAIN, and not wait till that has
> produced massive unemployment and most of the banks going bust.
>
> We havent even been stupid enough to try tarrif barrier wars either.
>
>
*Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul*
How does that work with your personal credit cards, you do realize that
you have to pay the bills you just transferred from one credit card to
another....
You avoided the TOTAL economic Apocalypse for today, the Dollar hasn't
totally collapsed, but that doesn't mean it's not a case where you
kicked the can a year down the road. We are still crashing, just in
slow motion.
Socialism will not fix this economy and Obama is Forcing us into Socialism.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>> Didnt happen.
>>> 17.5% "real" unemployment,
Those arent the bulk of your 17.5% over the real unemployment rate of 10.2%
> Persons employed part time for economic reasons
> are those who want and are available for full-time
> work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.
Those aint unemployed, because they are EMPLOYED, fool.
> For more information, see "BLS introduces new range of
> alternative unemployment measures," in the October 1995
> issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Updated population controls
> are introduced annually with the release of January data.
> That's in ADDITION to the unemployed, "discouraged workers" and all that.
Pity the bulk of that 17.5% you pig ignorantly waved around and
the real figure for the unemployed of 10.2% are EMPLOYED, fool.
> If your household needs $2000 a month to survive, and the only work
> you can find is part time paying $1,000 a month, then you aren't "employed"--
Corse you are, fool.
> your just falling off the same cliff, only more slowly.
You aint established that the bulk of the difference between your 17.5%
and the real 10.2% are getting less money than they need to survive, fool.
>>> and nearly all of the "economic growth" existing as
>>> an economic bubble regrowing in the financial sector?
>> Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Much of the increase in GDP came from stuff
>> like the cash for clunkers program which is real production of physical goods.
>>> Oh, we're still in the woods all right.
>> There are no woods, and no bears either.
So you can change your underwear now.
*Anarcissie*
Do you know what the term _socialism_ means?
Rod Speed
>>>> Didnt happen.
>>> YET...
*The rolling stone gathers no moss*
> How does that work with your personal credit cards,
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed the difference
between personal credit cards and the national accounts.
> you do realize that you have to pay the bills you
> just transferred from one credit card to another....
And they realise that the cost of another great depression is MUCH
greater than what has been spent on the bailouts and stimulus.
> You avoided the TOTAL economic Apocalypse for today,
Forever actually.
> the Dollar hasn't totally collapsed,
Hasnt even partially collapsed either.
> but that doesn't mean it's not a case where you kicked the can a year down the road.
Avoiding another great depression is a lot more than kicking the can a year down the road.
> We are still crashing, just in slow motion.
You wouldnt know what a real crash was if one bit you on you lard arse.
The unemployment rate has only just got into double digits.
> Socialism will not fix this economy and Obama is Forcing us into Socialism.
There's been socialism ever since independance, stupid.
Even HongKong before it was handed back to china had socialism too.
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
The unemployment percentage measure is probably too easy
to manipulate, like the CPI, to be worth very much, but as far as
I know it's all we've got. Any suggestions for an available
replacement?
Beam Me Up Scotty
It means you are too stupid to understand economics.... otherwise you
would be a capitalist. Socialism seeks mediocrity and is why it will
always fail. Socialism wastes human initiative.
Socialism is for those that have yet to evolve a higher mind that
contains the human spark that seeks growth and initiative.
To make it short and sweet.... it's for lazy worthless parasites like you.
James A. Donald
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
> 17.5% "real" unemployment, and nearly all of the "economic growth"
> existing as an economic bubble regrowing in the financial sector?
And of course "cash for clunkers" and other stimulus waste - lots of
"jobs created" to do stuff that is pointless.
The theory is that these makework jobs would result in real jobs
thanks to the magic of the Keynsian multiplier. So far, however, the
magical Keynsian multiplier looks to be about unity, and Keynsianism
is looking suspiciously like the fallacy of the broken window.
If you pay someone to destroy a car under "cash for clunkers", this
does indeed create a job in the car industry, just as paying people to
break windows would indeed create jobs in the glass industry - but an
artificially created job in the car industry does not have a
multiplier effect creating jobs in the skill sets and locations of
people who are presently unemployed. Instead, it demands goods and
services that are already in short supply and getting shorter,
creating inflation and international trade deficits, not jobs.
James A. Donald
"Rod Speed"
> Another bare faced lie.
> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
Government statistics show fewer people in the category of working
*or* *looking* *for* *work* - but this is obviously a lie.
If one considers that the population has increased, and the number of
people employed has decreased, and estimates from this the number of
unemployed, one gets an estimate of about 17.5% unemployment.
Rod Speed
> 5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09 <de...@dead.com> wrote
>> 17.5% "real" unemployment, and nearly all of the "economic growth"
>> existing as an economic bubble regrowing in the financial sector?
> And of course "cash for clunkers" and other stimulus
> waste - lots of "jobs created" to do stuff that is pointless.
WW2 did that in spades and got the economy out of the great depression fine.
This time around we can avoid the massive piles of corpses.
We miss out on the movies tho.
> The theory is that these makework jobs would result
> in real jobs thanks to the magic of the Keynsian multiplier.
And that is precisely what happened with WW2.
> So far, however, the magical Keynsian multiplier looks to be about unity, and
> Keynsianism is looking suspiciously like the fallacy of the broken window.
Only to pig ignorant fools like you.
> If you pay someone to destroy a car under "cash for clunkers",
> this does indeed create a job in the car industry,
And avoids more layoffs in that industry too.
> just as paying people to break windows would indeed create
> jobs in the glass industry - but an artificially created job in the
> car industry does not have a multiplier effect creating jobs in the
> skill sets and locations of people who are presently unemployed.
Doesnt need to when so many of them already have the skills needed to make cars etc.
> Instead, it demands goods and services that are already in short supply and getting shorter,
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> creating inflation and international trade deficits, not jobs.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.