Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bernanke Assimilated by the Borg
19 views
Skip to first unread message
Jigme Dorje
Apr 30, 2012, 11:58:55 PM4/30/12
to
Graphic: http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/97500/Bernanke-Borg--97866.jpg
Resistance is Futile
Paul Krugman criticized Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke on ABC’s “This Week”
saying he has “been assimilated by the Borg,” building on criticisms he
made in a Times Magazine piece last week titled “Earth to Ben Bernanke.”
“I think what’s happened to Bernanke, as they say, he’s been assimilated
by the Borg,” he said. “He’s become more concerned, probably
unconsciously, with defending the Fed’s institutional safety, because
it’s the apostle of price stability, than with doing whatever he can to
get this economy moving. Which if he’d listened to Professor Bernanke,
himself 10 years ago, he would know that he was supposed to be doing more.”
Krugman accused Bernanke of ignoring the economic advice he championed
when he was a professor at Princeton and blamed the nation’s continuing
economic issues on Bernanke’s failure to take actions he was expected to
take, such as buying a bigger portion of the government’s debt. He
urged Bernanke to focus more on the growing unemployment rate.
“Allowing unemployment to stay near 9 percent, allowing the number of
long-term unemployed to be 4 million, which it hasn’t been since the
1930s, which is destroying skills, destroying the attachment of workers
to the workforce,” he said.
Earth to Bernanke
In his Time Magazine piece, Earth to Bernanke, Krugman acknowledges that
Bernanke is a fine economist, noting that he is a a leading scholar of
the Great Depression and modern Japan, and “the exact problems he would
confront at the end of 2008.” Since he argued forcefully for an
aggressive response, castigating the Bank of Japan for its passivity, it
is odd that he acted differently as head of the Fed. The divergence
between what Professor Bernanke advocated and what Chairman Bernanke has
actually done is something he calls “the Bernanke Conundrum:”
While the Fed went to great lengths to rescue the financial system, it
has done far less to rescue workers. The U.S. economy remains deeply
depressed, with long-term unemployment in particular still disastrously
high, a point Bernanke himself has recently emphasized. Yet the Fed
isn’t taking strong action to rectify the situation…the fact is that the
Fed isn’t doing the job many economists expected it to do, and a result
is mass suffering for American workers.
Bernanke on Japan
According to Krugman, the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate: price
stability and maximum employement, and it normally tries to meet these
goals by moving short-term interest rates, by adding to or subtracting
from bank reserves. If the economy is weak and inflation is low, the Fed
cuts rates, making borrowing attractive, stimulating private spending
and potentially leading to economic recovery. Contrarily, the Fed raises
rates if the economy is strong and inflation is a threat to discourages
borrowing and spending, and cool the economy off.
However, while the current economic picture shows both a weak economy
and subdued inflation, rates can’t be cut further. Since the onset of
the recession in 2007 until November 2008, , the Fed continued to cut
short-term interest rates to nearly zero, hitting the “zero lower
bound.” Has the Fed reached the limits of its usefulness?
Yet, Professor Bernanke and a number of economists, took notice of a
similar situation in Japan in the 1990s, — when a huge real estate
bubble burst, causing high private-sector debt and a central bank up
against the zero lower bound. While the situation in the United States
today isn’t identical to those faced by Japan, Japan’s slump was never
as bad as the one we face today, and unemployment never as bad.
In a 2000 paper titled “Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of
Self-Induced Paralysis?” Bernanke argued that the Bank of Japan could
still improve the situation if it would “abandon its excessive caution
and its defensive response to criticism.” He stated that Japan should
act like F.D.R. and do whatever it takes. Some of the actions he laid
out included:
Quantitative easing —While short-term interest rates may be zero, and
the Fed typically buys only short-term U.S. government debt, it could
take a larger role in financial markets by buying long-term government
debt, and mortgage-backed bonds to drive down the interest rates on
these assets.
Change expectations about future Fed policy — Investors’ expectations
that the economy will eventually recover enough for the Fed to start
raising rates again can impact on the economy now. Investors assume the
Fed will raise rates enough to keep inflation from rising much above 2
percent. But a wide range of economists, including the IMF’s chief
economist argue that if the Fed were to raise its target for inflation
for the next decade, this would aid an economy up against the zero lower
bound, by persuading investors and businesses that it is not a good idea
to sit on cash. Bernanke suggested that the Bank of Japan declare “a
target in the 3-to-4-percent range for inflation, to be maintained for a
number of years.”
Chairman Bernanke vs. Professor Bernanke
Chairman Bernanke has been much more passive than Professor Bernanke’s
writings recommended. The Fed has bought over $2 trillion of long-term
government debt and bonds of government-backed housing agencies, but
this is much less than most analysts think is required to spur economic
recovery. The Fed has only tried to influence market expectations about
future policy for the near term, announcing that it doesn’t expect to
raise short-term rates until late 2014. And Bernanke in 2010 ruled out
the notion of a higher inflation target saying it would undermine the
Fed’s “hard-won inflation credibility.”
Don’t Worry Be Happy?
Krugman examines a minority view among some economists that high
unemployment is structural and can’t be brought down by stimulating
people to increase spending. What is structural unemployment?
Structural unemployment stresses a perceived mismatch between the work
force and employment opportunities: workers, so the story goes, either
have the wrong skills or are in the wrong place. But as Bernanke pointed
out in a recent speech, employment looks bad across the board: “The fact
that labor demand appears weak in most industries and locations is
suggestive of a general shortfall of aggregate demand rather than a
worsening mismatch of skills and jobs.” As a result, he declared, the
data “do not support the view that structural factors are a major cause
of the increase in unemployment during the most recent recession.”
Regarding inflation, the Consumer Price Index, has fluctuated wildly,
driven mainly by fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, poor
indicators of underlying inflationary pressures. Witness the recent
fluctuations in the price of gasoline, for instance, driven by
speculation. Core inflation, which excludes volatile energy and food
prices, has remained fairly level. Yet, the Fed, instead of helping
to improve and employment remains unwilling to take any further action
to boost the economy.
Assimilated by the Borg?
Laurence Ball of Johns Hopkins University, who examined the Fed minutes
to determine how and when Ben Bernanke’s views changed, found that the
loss of resolve began shortly after he arrived at the Fed in 2003 when a
Fed staff report rejected many of the ideas Bernanke previously
supported. What happened? Krugman points out that since 2008, the Fed
has faced constant attacks over supposed inflationary actions.
Right-wing bullying can’t be discounted: “he might well have returned to
his earlier views if the political climate hadn’t been so hostile…As for
his insistence that it’s not about politics — could he really get away
with saying, or even hinting, that pressure from the likes of Paul Ryan
is keeping him from pursuing full employment?
Ball emphasizes both the pressures of groupthink and Bernanke’s shy
personality. Krugman suggests it goes further — that Chairman Bernanke’s
reticence to take risks is to guard the Fed from blame for embarrassing
failures by retreating to a narrow definition of the Fed’s role. For
instance, it would be place the Fed in an embarrassing position if a
higher inflation target were ignored by the markets as not credible.
Back in 2000, Professor Bernanke warned against exactly this kind of
retreat, harshly criticizing the Bank of Japan’s unwillingness to “try
anything that isn’t absolutely guaranteed to work.” But within a year of
his arrival at the Fed, he seemed to have been assimilated by the Fed
Borg, like Capt. Jean-Luc Picard in a famous “Star Trek” episode,
converted into a half-robot servant of a hive-mind.
Time to Pull the Plug on the Borg
Krugman concludes that the Fed’s disappointing response given the scale
of our economic catastrophe ”represents the effects of both bullies and
the Borg, a combination of political intimidation and the desire to make
life easy for the Fed as an institution,” and the Fed’s unwillingness to
provide that help makes the Fed part of a broader problem.
Consider, if you will, the current state of our nation. Despite hints of
economic progress, we’re still in the midst of an immense disaster, in
which unemployment and underemployment are devastating millions of
American lives. And none of this need be happening! There has been no
plague of locusts; we have not lost our technological know-how.
Americans should be richer, not poorer, than they were five years ago.
Yet economic policy across the board has become almost passive, has
essentially accepted this disaster instead of trying to end it.
Krugman makes a compelling case. While he believes that Ben Bernanke has
done a better job than others might have, he has not done enough. No one
denies — with the possible exception of Ron Paul, who appears to be
“living in the world that was 150 years ago”— that the government is an
integral part of the equation of the economic problem, and the Fed, as
the Central Bank of the U.S. is part of this equation.
Commentary: Principle of the political “Collective”:
Whomever is elected or appointed to serve in the “Collective” is already
as good as assimilated.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/29/paul-krugman-ben-bernanke_n_1462520.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/chairman-bernanke-should-listen-to-professor-bernanke.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Resistance is Futile
Paul Krugman criticized Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke on ABC’s “This Week”
saying he has “been assimilated by the Borg,” building on criticisms he
made in a Times Magazine piece last week titled “Earth to Ben Bernanke.”
“I think what’s happened to Bernanke, as they say, he’s been assimilated
by the Borg,” he said. “He’s become more concerned, probably
unconsciously, with defending the Fed’s institutional safety, because
it’s the apostle of price stability, than with doing whatever he can to
get this economy moving. Which if he’d listened to Professor Bernanke,
himself 10 years ago, he would know that he was supposed to be doing more.”
Krugman accused Bernanke of ignoring the economic advice he championed
when he was a professor at Princeton and blamed the nation’s continuing
economic issues on Bernanke’s failure to take actions he was expected to
take, such as buying a bigger portion of the government’s debt. He
urged Bernanke to focus more on the growing unemployment rate.
“Allowing unemployment to stay near 9 percent, allowing the number of
long-term unemployed to be 4 million, which it hasn’t been since the
1930s, which is destroying skills, destroying the attachment of workers
to the workforce,” he said.
Earth to Bernanke
In his Time Magazine piece, Earth to Bernanke, Krugman acknowledges that
Bernanke is a fine economist, noting that he is a a leading scholar of
the Great Depression and modern Japan, and “the exact problems he would
confront at the end of 2008.” Since he argued forcefully for an
aggressive response, castigating the Bank of Japan for its passivity, it
is odd that he acted differently as head of the Fed. The divergence
between what Professor Bernanke advocated and what Chairman Bernanke has
actually done is something he calls “the Bernanke Conundrum:”
While the Fed went to great lengths to rescue the financial system, it
has done far less to rescue workers. The U.S. economy remains deeply
depressed, with long-term unemployment in particular still disastrously
high, a point Bernanke himself has recently emphasized. Yet the Fed
isn’t taking strong action to rectify the situation…the fact is that the
Fed isn’t doing the job many economists expected it to do, and a result
is mass suffering for American workers.
Bernanke on Japan
According to Krugman, the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate: price
stability and maximum employement, and it normally tries to meet these
goals by moving short-term interest rates, by adding to or subtracting
from bank reserves. If the economy is weak and inflation is low, the Fed
cuts rates, making borrowing attractive, stimulating private spending
and potentially leading to economic recovery. Contrarily, the Fed raises
rates if the economy is strong and inflation is a threat to discourages
borrowing and spending, and cool the economy off.
However, while the current economic picture shows both a weak economy
and subdued inflation, rates can’t be cut further. Since the onset of
the recession in 2007 until November 2008, , the Fed continued to cut
short-term interest rates to nearly zero, hitting the “zero lower
bound.” Has the Fed reached the limits of its usefulness?
Yet, Professor Bernanke and a number of economists, took notice of a
similar situation in Japan in the 1990s, — when a huge real estate
bubble burst, causing high private-sector debt and a central bank up
against the zero lower bound. While the situation in the United States
today isn’t identical to those faced by Japan, Japan’s slump was never
as bad as the one we face today, and unemployment never as bad.
In a 2000 paper titled “Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of
Self-Induced Paralysis?” Bernanke argued that the Bank of Japan could
still improve the situation if it would “abandon its excessive caution
and its defensive response to criticism.” He stated that Japan should
act like F.D.R. and do whatever it takes. Some of the actions he laid
out included:
Quantitative easing —While short-term interest rates may be zero, and
the Fed typically buys only short-term U.S. government debt, it could
take a larger role in financial markets by buying long-term government
debt, and mortgage-backed bonds to drive down the interest rates on
these assets.
Change expectations about future Fed policy — Investors’ expectations
that the economy will eventually recover enough for the Fed to start
raising rates again can impact on the economy now. Investors assume the
Fed will raise rates enough to keep inflation from rising much above 2
percent. But a wide range of economists, including the IMF’s chief
economist argue that if the Fed were to raise its target for inflation
for the next decade, this would aid an economy up against the zero lower
bound, by persuading investors and businesses that it is not a good idea
to sit on cash. Bernanke suggested that the Bank of Japan declare “a
target in the 3-to-4-percent range for inflation, to be maintained for a
number of years.”
Chairman Bernanke vs. Professor Bernanke
Chairman Bernanke has been much more passive than Professor Bernanke’s
writings recommended. The Fed has bought over $2 trillion of long-term
government debt and bonds of government-backed housing agencies, but
this is much less than most analysts think is required to spur economic
recovery. The Fed has only tried to influence market expectations about
future policy for the near term, announcing that it doesn’t expect to
raise short-term rates until late 2014. And Bernanke in 2010 ruled out
the notion of a higher inflation target saying it would undermine the
Fed’s “hard-won inflation credibility.”
Don’t Worry Be Happy?
Krugman examines a minority view among some economists that high
unemployment is structural and can’t be brought down by stimulating
people to increase spending. What is structural unemployment?
Structural unemployment stresses a perceived mismatch between the work
force and employment opportunities: workers, so the story goes, either
have the wrong skills or are in the wrong place. But as Bernanke pointed
out in a recent speech, employment looks bad across the board: “The fact
that labor demand appears weak in most industries and locations is
suggestive of a general shortfall of aggregate demand rather than a
worsening mismatch of skills and jobs.” As a result, he declared, the
data “do not support the view that structural factors are a major cause
of the increase in unemployment during the most recent recession.”
Regarding inflation, the Consumer Price Index, has fluctuated wildly,
driven mainly by fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, poor
indicators of underlying inflationary pressures. Witness the recent
fluctuations in the price of gasoline, for instance, driven by
speculation. Core inflation, which excludes volatile energy and food
prices, has remained fairly level. Yet, the Fed, instead of helping
to improve and employment remains unwilling to take any further action
to boost the economy.
Assimilated by the Borg?
Laurence Ball of Johns Hopkins University, who examined the Fed minutes
to determine how and when Ben Bernanke’s views changed, found that the
loss of resolve began shortly after he arrived at the Fed in 2003 when a
Fed staff report rejected many of the ideas Bernanke previously
supported. What happened? Krugman points out that since 2008, the Fed
has faced constant attacks over supposed inflationary actions.
Right-wing bullying can’t be discounted: “he might well have returned to
his earlier views if the political climate hadn’t been so hostile…As for
his insistence that it’s not about politics — could he really get away
with saying, or even hinting, that pressure from the likes of Paul Ryan
is keeping him from pursuing full employment?
Ball emphasizes both the pressures of groupthink and Bernanke’s shy
personality. Krugman suggests it goes further — that Chairman Bernanke’s
reticence to take risks is to guard the Fed from blame for embarrassing
failures by retreating to a narrow definition of the Fed’s role. For
instance, it would be place the Fed in an embarrassing position if a
higher inflation target were ignored by the markets as not credible.
Back in 2000, Professor Bernanke warned against exactly this kind of
retreat, harshly criticizing the Bank of Japan’s unwillingness to “try
anything that isn’t absolutely guaranteed to work.” But within a year of
his arrival at the Fed, he seemed to have been assimilated by the Fed
Borg, like Capt. Jean-Luc Picard in a famous “Star Trek” episode,
converted into a half-robot servant of a hive-mind.
Time to Pull the Plug on the Borg
Krugman concludes that the Fed’s disappointing response given the scale
of our economic catastrophe ”represents the effects of both bullies and
the Borg, a combination of political intimidation and the desire to make
life easy for the Fed as an institution,” and the Fed’s unwillingness to
provide that help makes the Fed part of a broader problem.
Consider, if you will, the current state of our nation. Despite hints of
economic progress, we’re still in the midst of an immense disaster, in
which unemployment and underemployment are devastating millions of
American lives. And none of this need be happening! There has been no
plague of locusts; we have not lost our technological know-how.
Americans should be richer, not poorer, than they were five years ago.
Yet economic policy across the board has become almost passive, has
essentially accepted this disaster instead of trying to end it.
Krugman makes a compelling case. While he believes that Ben Bernanke has
done a better job than others might have, he has not done enough. No one
denies — with the possible exception of Ron Paul, who appears to be
“living in the world that was 150 years ago”— that the government is an
integral part of the equation of the economic problem, and the Fed, as
the Central Bank of the U.S. is part of this equation.
Commentary: Principle of the political “Collective”:
Whomever is elected or appointed to serve in the “Collective” is already
as good as assimilated.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/29/paul-krugman-ben-bernanke_n_1462520.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/chairman-bernanke-should-listen-to-professor-bernanke.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
noname
May 1, 2012, 4:46:42 AM5/1/12
to
minimum-wage law for the first time and now it specifies a bit less than
$300 USD per month. We are looking at the end times of globalization.
The world is shrinking before our very economies. Workers in the US
need to make perhaps 10 times as much as those elsewhere (eg, Malaysia)
just to break even.
It's real-estate prices. Price a storefront in the US, or a warehouse.
Combine that with the cost of American workers who must pay the price
for a place to live in the US, and you'll get an idea why the world
economy is swirling the toilet.
Beyond that, it's taxes. If you make money the government is going to
take it away in order to pay for the abuse it thinks you need.
I despise these social comment threads, stupidity is very very stupid.
Hitting send then kill-thread.
Jigme Dorje
May 1, 2012, 9:39:44 AM5/1/12
to
beerlet dhiblang
May 1, 2012, 12:46:53 PM5/1/12
to
We can't be a superpower with a weak currency, now can we?
/l
Wilson
May 1, 2012, 1:00:54 PM5/1/12
to
Austrian School are talking, trying to be heard over the din of
arguments and counter arguments that fill the room. They seem to be
saying that the policies Krugman advocates will inevitably lead to
another bubble that will eventually pop. That of course will create the
need for another stimulus, which will inevitably lead to another bubble
... until the whole thing is simply unsustainable, and further stimulus
is fiscally impossible. That's when the economy comes crashing down.
In place of this tail chasing they advocate less manipulation of the
currency with a stable gold standard, and allowing the market to price
goods and interest rates where it will.
Of the few other economists who are even aware of them, most think they
are either crazy or misinformed.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/04/my-speech-delivered-at-new-york-federal.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izXEWZ3rZek
--
Wilson
Jigme Dorje
May 1, 2012, 1:31:11 PM5/1/12
to
gold standard, it had effectively ended in 1933, when the government
decided that individuals could no longer redeem dollars for gold. There
are innumerable problems with the gold standard that makes it
ridiculously impractical.
Primarily, there's just not enough gold in the world to return to a gold
standard — which is why no one else in the world uses it.
Most of the gold that has ever been mined is still around - about
170,000 metric tons in the world, worth roughly $9 trillion at $1,639.10
an ounce. Since the U.S. GDP is $15 trillion, even if it could
commandeer the entire world supply, total gold owned by the government
is still only 248 million ounces - $405 billion dollars, hardly enough
to support a $15 trillion economy.
So if the amount of currency issued were tied to the government's
holdings, the price of gold would have to soar to accommodate U.S. trade
in goods and services.
Another problem is basic supply and demand, and gold isn't quite stable.
The last time we were on the gold standard, in 1933, there were 2
billion people in the world," and there are now 7 billion.
An example includes September 1857, when the S.S. Central America sank,
taking 30,000 pounds of gold down. The economy, already in recession,
was reeling from bank and insurance company failures. When a prominent
bank suspended payment in gold, there was a nationwide run on the banks.
Contrarily, a major strike would lead to inflation — as when the U.S.
discovered gold in California and in Alaska.
The primary appeal of the gold standard is a measure of monetary
discipline - when you tie your currency to gold, there's only so much
currency you can issue — because there's only so much gold. In theory,
tying the value of the dollar to gold would prevent the government from
printing too much money and creating runaway inflation - as if that were
our problem. It also cedes control of monetary policy, making it unable
to increase the money supply in times of economic crisis, which is not a
good thing either.
But the gold standard doesn't end government manipulation of the
currency, making the entire exercise moot. Governments have a long
tradition of manipulating coinage, by setting the price (as they did
during the gold standard) or diluting the percentage of gold in official
currency. Governments can also manipulate the market price of gold, by
open market buying and selling. And speculators can try to corner the
market, as Jay Gould and Jim Fisk tried In 1869. The government had to
sell $4 million in gold to break it up.
liaM
May 1, 2012, 5:16:00 PM5/1/12
to
Le 01/05/2012 18:46, beerlet dhiblang a écrit :
>
> We can't be a superpower with a weak currency, now can we?
>
> /l
Nazi Germany was just that, having created a weapon industry by paying
>
> We can't be a superpower with a weak currency, now can we?
>
> /l
workers w/newly printed paper money. Then using forced labor they
didn't need to pay.
Sanford Manley
May 1, 2012, 5:28:56 PM5/1/12
to
AND it helps our competitiveness? Win/win!
--
Sanford
dr x
May 1, 2012, 5:31:28 PM5/1/12
to
Jigme Dorje
May 1, 2012, 6:31:55 PM5/1/12
to
possum
May 1, 2012, 10:47:39 PM5/1/12
to
"Wilson" <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote in
message
news:wsqdndmgg4Beiz3S...@supernews.com...
liQuidating the debt asap is best policy.
(gidiot's runing it here) the question is,
when the little people are losing a lot, en
masse, where is the equaliser?
the how is as important as the what if the
equaliser is not to be incredibly painful,
and best policy that is what only isn't
going to be best policy at all - you try
telling that to a politician...they'd sooner
do it the hard way...
possum
jigme.d...@gmail.com
May 2, 2012, 12:35:27 AM5/2/12
to
"possum" <zen1...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Wilson" <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote in
>message
>news:wsqdndmgg4Beiz3S...@supernews.com...
>> On 5/1/2012 9:39 AM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2012 4:46 AM, noname wrote:
>>>> On 04/30/2012 09:58 PM, Jigme Dorje
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Resistance is Futile
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Krugman criticized Fed Chairman
>>>>> Ben Bernanke on ABC’s “This Week”
>>>>> saying he has “been assimilated by the
>>>>> Borg,” building on criticisms he
>>>>> made in a Times Magazine piece last
>>>>> week titled “Earth to Ben Bernanke.”
>liQuidating the debt asap is best policy.
>(gidiot's runing it here) the question is,
>when the little people are losing a lot, en
>masse, where is the equaliser?
>
>the how is as important as the what if the
>equaliser is not to be incredibly painful,
>and best policy that is what only isn't
>going to be best policy at all - you try
>telling that to a politician...they'd sooner
>do it the hard way...
>
>
>
>
>
>possum
>
>
So it turns out that the Fed had been secretly lending 7.77 trillion to banks
>(gidiot's runing it here) the question is,
>when the little people are losing a lot, en
>masse, where is the equaliser?
>
>the how is as important as the what if the
>equaliser is not to be incredibly painful,
>and best policy that is what only isn't
>going to be best policy at all - you try
>telling that to a politician...they'd sooner
>do it the hard way...
>
>
>
>
>
>possum
>
>
all over the world but can't loosen up a little liquidity to create jobs, huh?
The interviews I've read recently of Fed officials confirms that they're fighting
the imaginary windmill of inflation and the rest of us be damned.
possum
May 2, 2012, 12:09:49 AM5/2/12
to
<jigme.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fa0ab7f$1...@x-privat.org...
can nuke 'em. like we nuked rupert.
And so it is that the socio-economic model
of the 21st century attains its iconic
apotheosis: a gated community with added
surface-to-air missiles.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/30/insanity-london-2012-sport-olympics?commentpage=3#comment-15895628
Neolazarusx
May 2, 2012, 12:21:32 AM5/2/12
to
Wilson <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote:
[snik!]
Wow. That was some kool-aid laden Paulist propaganda right there buddy,
spouted to me almost word for word by other Paulbots. Put down the
kool-aid, Wilson.
No thanks, I'm driving.
--
-NLx "There you go with all that reverse causality quantum woo again,
Neo." -leebert
[snik!]
Wow. That was some kool-aid laden Paulist propaganda right there buddy,
spouted to me almost word for word by other Paulbots. Put down the
kool-aid, Wilson.
No thanks, I'm driving.
--
-NLx "There you go with all that reverse causality quantum woo again,
Neo." -leebert
Jigme Dorje
May 2, 2012, 3:00:27 AM5/2/12
to
Evans stands with him.
"While most of his colleagues at the Fed have recently taken an even
more hawkish turn, Evans remains a champion of additional monetary
stimulus. And on Tuesday he took an even bigger step: He became the
first sitting Fed member to endorse NGDP level targeting.
...Actually, it's not quite true that Evans wants more inflation. He
wants more income. To revert to econospeak, he wants the total size of
the economy -- that is, inflation plus growth, or nominal GDP (NGDP) --
to get back to the long-term trend it was on before the financial crisis
and recession. He would prefer if NGDP goes up due to real growth. But
if it's a choice between stagnating NGDP and NGDP that's going up mostly
because of inflation, Evans would choose the latter."
...The Fed is still a long way off, if ever, from adopting an NGDP level
target. But Evans' endorsement of the idea is a big first step in what
could be a hugely important paradigm shift. Even if there isn't a large
difference between the quasi-NGDP level target that is the Evans Rule
and an actual NGDP level target, it's a fairly radical new way of
framing policy. Rather than the central bank letting the economy recover
faster, it puts the onus for a faster recovery on the central bank.
Most incredibly is how quickly the idea is gaining acceptance. It's true
that writers like The Atlantic's own Clive Crook have long advocated the
merits of NGDP targeting. But as recently as 2009, it was mostly a few
lonely bloggers like Scott Sumner and David Beckworth who picked up the
torch. Then Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius and Paul Krugman
said they were willing to give it a try. Now, a sitting Fed president is
on board.
At this rate, it might not be long until we describe Evans as an
orthodox central banker. Now that would be progress.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/a-rebellion-at-the-federal-reserve/256601/
Occupy the Fed!
Wilson
May 2, 2012, 7:59:31 AM5/2/12
to
called "great" depression of the 1930s. In the earlier one, the US
government paid down it's debt, cut spending and generally lived within
it's means. It was a very short downturn followed by a very prosperous
10 years. The other one had make-work projects and all the rest that
everyone is familiar with, and it was not so short eventually leading to
a world war.
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 2, 2012, 8:07:23 AM5/2/12
to
On 5/2/2012 12:35 AM, jigme.d...@gmail.com wrote:
imaginary windmill, it's a paper shredder of savings.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarLarge.jpg
http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/
--
Wilson
> "possum"<zen1...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Of the few other economists who are even
>>> aware of them, most think they are either
>>> crazy or misinformed.
>>>
>>> http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/04/my-speech-delivered-at-new-york-federal.html
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izXEWZ3rZek
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wilson
>>
>> .. suppose your guys are right and
>> liQuidating the debt asap is best policy.
>> (gidiot's runing it here) the question is,
>> when the little people are losing a lot, en
>> masse, where is the equaliser?
>>
>> the how is as important as the what if the
>> equaliser is not to be incredibly painful,
>> and best policy that is what only isn't
>> going to be best policy at all - you try
>> telling that to a politician...they'd sooner
>> do it the hard way...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Of the few other economists who are even
>>> aware of them, most think they are either
>>> crazy or misinformed.
>>>
>>> http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/04/my-speech-delivered-at-new-york-federal.html
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izXEWZ3rZek
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wilson
>>
>> .. suppose your guys are right and
>> liQuidating the debt asap is best policy.
>> (gidiot's runing it here) the question is,
>> when the little people are losing a lot, en
>> masse, where is the equaliser?
>>
>> the how is as important as the what if the
>> equaliser is not to be incredibly painful,
>> and best policy that is what only isn't
>> going to be best policy at all - you try
>> telling that to a politician...they'd sooner
>> do it the hard way...
>>
>>
> So it turns out that the Fed had been secretly lending 7.77 trillion to banks
> all over the world but can't loosen up a little liquidity to create jobs, huh?
> The interviews I've read recently of Fed officials confirms that they're fighting
> the imaginary windmill of inflation and the rest of us be damned.
>
That dollar is worth 4.32% of what it was worth in 1913. That's not an
> all over the world but can't loosen up a little liquidity to create jobs, huh?
> The interviews I've read recently of Fed officials confirms that they're fighting
> the imaginary windmill of inflation and the rest of us be damned.
>
imaginary windmill, it's a paper shredder of savings.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarLarge.jpg
http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/
--
Wilson
brian mitchell
May 2, 2012, 10:27:22 AM5/2/12
to
Wilson wrote:
>On 5/2/2012 12:35 AM, jigme.d...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "possum"<zen1...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>> The interviews I've read recently of Fed officials confirms that they're fighting
>> the imaginary windmill of inflation and the rest of us be damned.
>>
>
>That dollar is worth 4.32% of what it was worth in 1913. That's not an
>imaginary windmill, it's a paper shredder of savings.
Not many of us have been saving for 100 years. Assuming a savings regime of 30 years, which is more
>On 5/2/2012 12:35 AM, jigme.d...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "possum"<zen1...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>> The interviews I've read recently of Fed officials confirms that they're fighting
>> the imaginary windmill of inflation and the rest of us be damned.
>>
>
>That dollar is worth 4.32% of what it was worth in 1913. That's not an
>imaginary windmill, it's a paper shredder of savings.
realistic, that CPI calculator delivers an inflation rate of 137.7% from 1982 to the present, an
annual average of 4.56%, which is quite high but within normal long-term interest yields. This would
suggest that actual purchasing power for people with money to save has remained fairly steady over
the 30 years. Those who never earn enough to save may have fared worse, although incomes have
probably risen over the period as well. By your logic we could go back and calculate the purchasing
power of the Crown or Ducat and arrive at inflation rates in the thousands.
>
>http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarLarge.jpg
>
>http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/
Wilson
May 2, 2012, 11:08:43 AM5/2/12
to
inflation is not an accident. It's almost certainly a desired feature.
Who does it benefit? People who pursue active investment
opportunities, who keep their money moving.
Who does it harm? People who are very conservative in their investment
choices.
And for people who don't have any money to invest? They are encouraged
to spend now rather than save for a rainy day, increasing their reliance
on the state to care for them in their old age.
--
Wilson
Jigme Dorje
May 2, 2012, 12:33:34 PM5/2/12
to
into the category error rabbit hole?
daletx
May 2, 2012, 1:46:16 PM5/2/12
to
DT
daletx
May 2, 2012, 1:55:46 PM5/2/12
to
Depression lasted as long as it did because the government didn't do
enough, soon enough.
And see this re: 1920
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2010/11/does-1920-21-recession-really-prove.html
DT
daletx
May 2, 2012, 2:00:23 PM5/2/12
to
buy today!
Of course, back then my dad was probably making 1/20th what I'm making
today...
DT
Wilson
May 2, 2012, 2:30:51 PM5/2/12
to
know by now that sort of bluster (often used to shut down the sharing of
opposing viewpoints) does not intimidate me.
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 2, 2012, 2:31:31 PM5/2/12
to
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 2, 2012, 2:37:08 PM5/2/12
to
Yes, it's a book.
>
> And see this re: 1920
> http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2010/11/does-1920-21-recession-really-prove.html
learned in school agrees with you. But the more I read the less
certain I am that what we learned is true.
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 2, 2012, 2:39:09 PM5/2/12
to
current worldwide economic malaise) things are going to have to get a
lot worse before they can get any better. Not an appealing
prescription. Maybe that's why they aren't more popular.
--
Wilson
brian mitchell
May 2, 2012, 3:51:37 PM5/2/12
to
daletx wrote:
>How's that fiscal austerity and belt-tightening working out for the EU?
As I'm sure you're aware, not very well. Something now like eleven countries in recession.
>How's that fiscal austerity and belt-tightening working out for the EU?
The most disturbing factor is the huge rise in votes for far right nationalist parties. Greece is
particularly worrying in that respect right now, but not alone. Weren't we here in 1930s Germany?
brian mitchell
May 2, 2012, 4:06:53 PM5/2/12
to
Wilson wrote:
>On 5/2/2012 10:27 AM, brian mitchell wrote:
>> Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/2/2012 12:35 AM, jigme.d...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> "possum"<zen1...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> The interviews I've read recently of Fed officials confirms that they're fighting
>>>> the imaginary windmill of inflation and the rest of us be damned.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That dollar is worth 4.32% of what it was worth in 1913. That's not an
>>> imaginary windmill, it's a paper shredder of savings.
>>
>> Not many of us have been saving for 100 years. Assuming a savings regime of 30 years, which is more
>> realistic, that CPI calculator delivers an inflation rate of 137.7% from 1982 to the present, an
>> annual average of 4.56%, which is quite high but within normal long-term interest yields. This would
>> suggest that actual purchasing power for people with money to save has remained fairly steady over
>> the 30 years. Those who never earn enough to save may have fared worse, although incomes have
>> probably risen over the period as well. By your logic we could go back and calculate the purchasing
>> power of the Crown or Ducat and arrive at inflation rates in the thousands.
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarLarge.jpg
>>>
>>> http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/
>
>
>You almost have to acknowledge that such a history of long term
>inflation is not an accident. It's almost certainly a desired feature.
>
>Who does it benefit? People who pursue active investment
>opportunities, who keep their money moving.
I doubt you can separate inflation from growth, so in that respect inflation has benefitted
>On 5/2/2012 10:27 AM, brian mitchell wrote:
>> Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/2/2012 12:35 AM, jigme.d...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> "possum"<zen1...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> The interviews I've read recently of Fed officials confirms that they're fighting
>>>> the imaginary windmill of inflation and the rest of us be damned.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That dollar is worth 4.32% of what it was worth in 1913. That's not an
>>> imaginary windmill, it's a paper shredder of savings.
>>
>> Not many of us have been saving for 100 years. Assuming a savings regime of 30 years, which is more
>> realistic, that CPI calculator delivers an inflation rate of 137.7% from 1982 to the present, an
>> annual average of 4.56%, which is quite high but within normal long-term interest yields. This would
>> suggest that actual purchasing power for people with money to save has remained fairly steady over
>> the 30 years. Those who never earn enough to save may have fared worse, although incomes have
>> probably risen over the period as well. By your logic we could go back and calculate the purchasing
>> power of the Crown or Ducat and arrive at inflation rates in the thousands.
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarLarge.jpg
>>>
>>> http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/
>
>
>You almost have to acknowledge that such a history of long term
>inflation is not an accident. It's almost certainly a desired feature.
>
>Who does it benefit? People who pursue active investment
>opportunities, who keep their money moving.
everyone, though not equally, of course. The rich go on getting proportionately richer.
>And for people who don't have any money to invest? They are encouraged
Depending on what the spending is, that might be the wisest course. Most poor people round the world
try to provide for their old age by investing in the welfare and --if they can-- the education of
their children, which is all present expense.
Jigme Dorje
May 2, 2012, 4:34:37 PM5/2/12
to
daletx
May 2, 2012, 6:30:37 PM5/2/12
to
On 5/2/2012 1:37 PM, Wilson wrote:
> On 5/2/2012 1:55 PM, daletx wrote:
>> On 5/2/2012 6:59 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm told the perfect example is the depression of 1920-22 and the so
>>> called "great" depression of the 1930s. In the earlier one, the US
>>> government paid down it's debt, cut spending and generally lived within
>>> it's means. It was a very short downturn followed by a very prosperous
>>> 10 years. The other one had make-work projects and all the rest that
>>> everyone is familiar with, and it was not so short eventually leading to
>>> a world war.
>>
>> Gonna need a cite for that one. *My* economists claim the Great
>> Depression lasted as long as it did because the government didn't do
>> enough, soon enough.
>
> http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/contents.asp
>
> Yes, it's a book.
>
>>
>> And see this re: 1920
>> http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2010/11/does-1920-21-recession-really-prove.html
>>
>
> Opinions are a dime a dozen.
Finally, something we can agree on! Expert opinions, however, might be
> On 5/2/2012 1:55 PM, daletx wrote:
>> On 5/2/2012 6:59 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm told the perfect example is the depression of 1920-22 and the so
>>> called "great" depression of the 1930s. In the earlier one, the US
>>> government paid down it's debt, cut spending and generally lived within
>>> it's means. It was a very short downturn followed by a very prosperous
>>> 10 years. The other one had make-work projects and all the rest that
>>> everyone is familiar with, and it was not so short eventually leading to
>>> a world war.
>>
>> Gonna need a cite for that one. *My* economists claim the Great
>> Depression lasted as long as it did because the government didn't do
>> enough, soon enough.
>
> http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/contents.asp
>
> Yes, it's a book.
>
>>
>> And see this re: 1920
>> http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2010/11/does-1920-21-recession-really-prove.html
>>
>
> Opinions are a dime a dozen.
worth a bit more.
> The traditional party line and what I
> learned in school agrees with you. But the more I read the less certain
> I am that what we learned is true.
I'm sure Paul the K. has read a *bit* more on the subject than you and I
put together. I tend to listen when he speaks.
But...that's just my opinion! Gimme a dime, and I'll owe you eleven
more just like it.
DT
daletx
May 2, 2012, 6:35:39 PM5/2/12
to
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/opinion/krugman-death-of-a-fairy-tale.html?ref=paulkrugman
http://xrl.us/bm52xy
The point that Mr. K makes, and that I would like to make for our friend
Wilson, is that if it ain't workin' over there, what makes anybody think
it's gonna work over here?
DT
possum
May 2, 2012, 10:18:45 PM5/2/12
to
news:9L-dnZoGve88vDzS...@supernews.com...
boom bust and wars...
gerrrreat.
i mean, it sucks...
i found these statistics, quite interesting.
http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist427/texts/1920seconomy.htm#Economic_Concentration,_1929_
71% of families income was below the poverty
line. in the 1950s it was 25%. something
went right.
do you know what happened, besides the war?
possum
gerrrreat.
i mean, it sucks...
i found these statistics, quite interesting.
http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist427/texts/1920seconomy.htm#Economic_Concentration,_1929_
71% of families income was below the poverty
line. in the 1950s it was 25%. something
went right.
do you know what happened, besides the war?
possum
Neolazarusx
May 3, 2012, 12:53:19 AM5/3/12
to
daletx <dal...@gnusguy.com> wrote:
>
> How's that fiscal austerity and belt-tightening working out for the EU?
>
> DT
Muy mierda!
>
> How's that fiscal austerity and belt-tightening working out for the EU?
>
> DT
Wilson
May 3, 2012, 4:26:59 PM5/3/12
to
On 5/2/2012 4:06 PM, brian mitchell wrote:
> Wilson wrote:
>
>> You almost have to acknowledge that such a history of long term
>> inflation is not an accident. It's almost certainly a desired feature.
>>
>> Who does it benefit? People who pursue active investment
>> opportunities, who keep their money moving.
>
> I doubt you can separate inflation from growth, so in that respect inflation has benefitted
> everyone, though not equally, of course. The rich go on getting proportionately richer.
Pretty much all economists claim to recognize the difference between
> Wilson wrote:
>
>> You almost have to acknowledge that such a history of long term
>> inflation is not an accident. It's almost certainly a desired feature.
>>
>> Who does it benefit? People who pursue active investment
>> opportunities, who keep their money moving.
>
> I doubt you can separate inflation from growth, so in that respect inflation has benefitted
> everyone, though not equally, of course. The rich go on getting proportionately richer.
inflation and growth. Of course, here I am relying on the testimony of
so-called experts. They could all be wrong.
>
>> And for people who don't have any money to invest? They are encouraged
>> to spend now rather than save for a rainy day...
>
> Depending on what the spending is, that might be the wisest course. Most poor people round the world
> try to provide for their old age by investing in the welfare and --if they can-- the education of
> their children, which is all present expense.
themselves when they get old.
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 3, 2012, 4:28:59 PM5/3/12
to
the source. But your point is valid, things were definitely better in
the US in 1950 than in 1930. Maybe I should just give up and embrace
the collective.
--
Wilson
Ned Ludd
May 3, 2012, 4:34:48 PM5/3/12
to
news:3_-dna1GW6oadz_S...@supernews.com...
feelin' a bit
like the borg
hammerin' the
login key
monday night
in the seven-to-ten
dead zone
those first two days
of the week
trying to infect
the net
with the nanobots
of my mind
repetitively striking
the login key
to no avail
in the dead zone
of the first
two nights
of the week
- Ned
>
>> i found these statistics, quite interesting.
http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist427/texts/1920seconomy.htm#Economic_Concentration,_1929_
>> 71% of families income was below the poverty
>> line. in the 1950s it was 25%. something
>> went right.
>> do you know what happened, besides the war?
>
> Cherry picked statistics like that lead me to suspect the accuracy
> and the source. But your point is valid, things were definitely better
> in the US in 1950 than in 1930. Maybe I should just give up and
> embrace the collective.
> --
> Wilson
>
feelin' borg
>> i found these statistics, quite interesting.
http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist427/texts/1920seconomy.htm#Economic_Concentration,_1929_
>> 71% of families income was below the poverty
>> line. in the 1950s it was 25%. something
>> went right.
>> do you know what happened, besides the war?
>
> Cherry picked statistics like that lead me to suspect the accuracy
> and the source. But your point is valid, things were definitely better
> in the US in 1950 than in 1930. Maybe I should just give up and
> embrace the collective.
> --
> Wilson
>
feelin' a bit
like the borg
hammerin' the
login key
monday night
in the seven-to-ten
dead zone
those first two days
of the week
trying to infect
the net
with the nanobots
of my mind
repetitively striking
the login key
to no avail
in the dead zone
of the first
two nights
of the week
- Ned
possum
May 3, 2012, 11:35:31 PM5/3/12
to
news:3_-dnbJGW6qNdz_S...@supernews.com...
how do you know that's the reason?
possum
>
> --
> Wilson
possum
>
> --
> Wilson
possum
May 3, 2012, 11:35:52 PM5/3/12
to
news:3_-dna1GW6oadz_S...@supernews.com...
it is an unattributed document i googled,
seems to be on the san frasico state
university website, but it seemed a neat and
simple set of stats. there's a very
comprehensive article on the ecomomic
statistics for the year. if you want to
look at the oldest edition of The Communist
on that website of yours. :-)
there was a big increase in consumer credit
spending during the 20s, a bit groundhog
day-ish.
possum
seems to be on the san frasico state
university website, but it seemed a neat and
simple set of stats. there's a very
comprehensive article on the ecomomic
statistics for the year. if you want to
look at the oldest edition of The Communist
on that website of yours. :-)
there was a big increase in consumer credit
spending during the 20s, a bit groundhog
day-ish.
possum
Jigme Dorje
May 4, 2012, 1:55:11 AM5/4/12
to
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/17/business/income-earned-by-the-wealthiest.html
"Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty have spent the last decade tracking
the incomes of the poor, the middle class and the rich in countries
across the world. More than anything else, their work shows that the top
earners in the United States have taken a bigger and bigger share of
overall income over the last three decades, with inequality nearly as
acute as it was before the Great Depression.
The two economists’ project of mapping income inequality started two
decades ago, when Mr. Saez was teaching at Harvard and Mr. Piketty
teaching down the road at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Their innovation was to measure American income inequality historically.
Existing data went back only to the 1970s. Tedious archival research at
the Internal Revenue Service allowed them to stretch the data all the
way back to 1913. Once they had collected the data, the computation was
easy. They figured out the benchmark for various income levels — the top
10 percent, top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent of earners, for instance —
and calculated what share of income each group took each year.
What they found startled them. As in other industrially advanced
countries, income inequality in the United States fell after World War
II, a period that economic historians call the “Great Compression,” and
remained stable through much of the 1970s.
But then inequality started increasing again, with the top 1 percent of
earners drawing a bigger and bigger share of overall income. Their graph
showing the trend became well-known: a deep U, with inequality as acute
today as it was just before the depression. When they first published
their work, income inequality was mostly off the political radar screen,
thanks to the 1990s boom, Mr. Saez said.
But the deep downturn of the last few years, and Mr. Obama’s election,
brought the issue back to the fore. Peter R. Orszag, the former Obama
budget director, has said the Piketty-Saez work “helped to point the way
for the administration in its pledge to rebalance the tax code.”
They have found that the trends have mostly continued. From 2000 to
2007, incomes for the bottom 90 percent of earners rose only about 4
percent, once adjusted for inflation. For the top 0.1 percent, incomes
climbed about 94 percent. The recession interrupted the trend, with the
sharp decline in stock prices hitting the pocketbooks of the rich. But
the income share of 1 percent has since rebounded. Data that the two
economists released in March showed that the top 1 percent of earners
got nearly every dollar of the income gains eked out in the first full
year of the recovery. In 2010, the top 10 percent of earners took about
half of overall income.
“The debate in Washington is between the Bush-era and Clinton-era tax
rates,” said Mr. Diamond, whom Mr. Obama nominated to the Federal
Reserve and Republicans blocked. “Our finding is that the debate should
be between the pre-1986 Reagan tax rate, which was 50 percent, and the
rates that existed from Johnson until Reagan,” which were higher.
“Thirty percent is three times smaller than the 91 percent of
Roosevelt,” Mr. Piketty said, responding to the Buffett Rule proposal
and referring to the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who engineered
the New Deal. “And inequality is greater than in the time of Roosevelt.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/business/for-economists-saez-and-piketty-the-buffett-rule-is-just-a-start.html?_r=1
The bad news: we're fucked:
Mr. Saez added, “Absent drastic policy changes, I doubt that income
inequality will decline on its own.”
Wilson
May 4, 2012, 8:06:29 AM5/4/12
to
>> Most of the poor people seem to want to
>> have lots of children to support
>> themselves when they get old.
>
> how do you know that's the reason?
Well, most of what I know about this is what I read. It seems that they
>> have lots of children to support
>> themselves when they get old.
>
> how do you know that's the reason?
say that's the reason. And a little more objectively, when
opportunities improve and they can live above subsistence, they stop
having so many children.
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 4, 2012, 12:31:45 PM5/4/12
to
On 5/4/2012 1:55 AM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/business/for-economists-saez-and-piketty-the-buffett-rule-is-just-a-start.html?_r=1
>
> The bad news: we're fucked:
>
> Mr. Saez added, “Absent drastic policy changes, I doubt that income
> inequality will decline on its own.”
I read that the top tax rate in the old days was hardly ever actually
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/business/for-economists-saez-and-piketty-the-buffett-rule-is-just-a-start.html?_r=1
>
> The bad news: we're fucked:
>
> Mr. Saez added, “Absent drastic policy changes, I doubt that income
> inequality will decline on its own.”
paid. The rich changed their into non-taxable perks, like health
insurance. Or they simply stopped working when they go to a certain
income level. The second was widely practiced in Hollywood.
I'm not sure if either practice is beneficial, although it might make
"fairness" focused folks feel better about things.
--
Wilson
Jigme Dorje
May 4, 2012, 1:27:19 PM5/4/12
to
that lower corporate taxes spurs economic growth.
daletx
May 4, 2012, 1:29:18 PM5/4/12
to
DT
Wilson
May 4, 2012, 4:26:18 PM5/4/12
to
On 5/4/2012 1:27 PM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
> On 5/4/2012 12:31 PM, Wilson wrote:
>> On 5/4/2012 1:55 AM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/business/for-economists-saez-and-piketty-the-buffett-rule-is-just-a-start.html?_r=1
>>>
>>> The bad news: we're fucked:
>>>
>>> Mr. Saez added, “Absent drastic policy changes, I doubt that income
>>> inequality will decline on its own.”
>>
>> I read that the top tax rate in the old days was hardly ever actually
>> paid. The rich changed theirs into non-taxable perks, like health
> On 5/4/2012 12:31 PM, Wilson wrote:
>> On 5/4/2012 1:55 AM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/business/for-economists-saez-and-piketty-the-buffett-rule-is-just-a-start.html?_r=1
>>>
>>> The bad news: we're fucked:
>>>
>>> Mr. Saez added, “Absent drastic policy changes, I doubt that income
>>> inequality will decline on its own.”
>>
>> I read that the top tax rate in the old days was hardly ever actually
>> insurance. Or they simply stopped working when they got to a certain
>> income level. The second was widely practiced in Hollywood.
>>
>> I'm not sure if either practice is beneficial, although it might make
>> "fairness" focused folks feel better about things.
>
> The data on actual tax collections disproves and put to rest the myth
> that lower corporate taxes spurs economic growth.
I'd like to take a look at that data.
>>
>> I'm not sure if either practice is beneficial, although it might make
>> "fairness" focused folks feel better about things.
>
> The data on actual tax collections disproves and put to rest the myth
> that lower corporate taxes spurs economic growth.
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 4, 2012, 4:33:33 PM5/4/12
to
On 5/4/2012 1:29 PM, daletx wrote:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/business/for-economists-saez-and-piketty-the-buffett-rule-is-just-a-start.html?_r=1
>
> Great find.
>
> DT
The way the economy works:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3h0cbN8Sk1qaoso9o1_500.jpg
--
Wilson
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/business/for-economists-saez-and-piketty-the-buffett-rule-is-just-a-start.html?_r=1
>
> Great find.
>
> DT
The way the economy works:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3h0cbN8Sk1qaoso9o1_500.jpg
--
Wilson
awaken21
May 4, 2012, 10:00:45 PM5/4/12
to
Jigme Dorje
May 4, 2012, 11:00:23 PM5/4/12
to
corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other
country in the world. And that's a more objective measure of tax burden.
Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as
income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons
of tax rates misleading.
U.S. corporate tax collections totaled only 1.7% of GDP in 2009, the
most recent year for which complete data is available, according to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. On that measure,
the United States had the third lowest corporate tax burden, behind
France and Germany. The worldwide average was 2.8%."
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/news/international/corporate_taxes/index.htm
So here's the data. Statistics from the Office of Management and Budget
graphing total collected corporate taxes as a percentage of the overall
economy, shows that U.S. corporations are paying lower tax bills than
ever before.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/corporate-tax-revenues-ne_n_830361.html
CBPP Director Chuck Marr points out that While the U.S.'s top corporate
tax rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, "the amount
corporations actually end up forking over to the government is much
lower, sometime as low as 4 percent. This is due to a dizzying number of
deductions, write-offs, and other accounting tricks that allow
corporations to legally reduce their tax burden."
In 2007, the report notes, the Treasury estimated federal government had
missed an opportunity to collect $1.2 trillion due to various corporate
tax expenditures over the previous decade.
As New York Times columnist David Leonhardt columnist recently put it, a
company like General Electric is, indeed, "expert at avoiding taxes."
awaken21
May 4, 2012, 11:44:17 PM5/4/12
to
possum
May 5, 2012, 8:41:04 AM5/5/12
to
news:n5SdnQ8H_b7dWz7S...@supernews.com...
i didn't notice that you said 'children to
support themselves when they get old' when i
replied, and you have replied as i took it
to mean (children to support them, not
themselves).
many animals reproduce to the maximum, eg
the phrase 'breed like rabbits', a perennial
criticism of the poor. do animals reproduce
for the sake of their own old age? i don't
think so.
possum
support themselves when they get old' when i
replied, and you have replied as i took it
to mean (children to support them, not
themselves).
many animals reproduce to the maximum, eg
the phrase 'breed like rabbits', a perennial
criticism of the poor. do animals reproduce
for the sake of their own old age? i don't
think so.
possum
possum
May 5, 2012, 8:52:52 AM5/5/12
to
news:Ld2dnVziNezxmTnS...@supernews.com...
'fairness' focussed folks, eh?
do the unfairness focussed folk have a
transitional plan for moving from a taxation
system to a no taxation system in advanced
nations? a getting from here to there kind
of thing?
possum
do the unfairness focussed folk have a
transitional plan for moving from a taxation
system to a no taxation system in advanced
nations? a getting from here to there kind
of thing?
possum
Wilson
May 5, 2012, 1:22:58 PM5/5/12
to
On 5/5/2012 8:41 AM, possum wrote:
> "Wilson"<Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote in
> message
> news:n5SdnQ8H_b7dWz7S...@supernews.com...
>> On 5/3/2012 11:35 PM, possum wrote:
>>> "Wilson"<Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>> Most of the poor people seem to want to
>>>> have lots of children to support
>>>> themselves when they get old.
>>>
>>> how do you know that's the reason?
>>
>>
>> Well, most of what I know about this is
>> what I read. It seems that they say
>> that's the reason. And a little more
>> objectively, when opportunities improve
>> and they can live above subsistence, they
>> stop having so many children.
>>
>> --
>> Wilson
>
> i didn't notice that you said 'children to
> support themselves when they get old' when i
> replied, and you have replied as i took it
> to mean (children to support them, not
> themselves).
Yeah, that's what I meant.
> "Wilson"<Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote in
> message
> news:n5SdnQ8H_b7dWz7S...@supernews.com...
>> On 5/3/2012 11:35 PM, possum wrote:
>>> "Wilson"<Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>> Most of the poor people seem to want to
>>>> have lots of children to support
>>>> themselves when they get old.
>>>
>>> how do you know that's the reason?
>>
>>
>> Well, most of what I know about this is
>> what I read. It seems that they say
>> that's the reason. And a little more
>> objectively, when opportunities improve
>> and they can live above subsistence, they
>> stop having so many children.
>>
>> --
>> Wilson
>
> i didn't notice that you said 'children to
> support themselves when they get old' when i
> replied, and you have replied as i took it
> to mean (children to support them, not
> themselves).
>
> many animals reproduce to the maximum, eg
> the phrase 'breed like rabbits', a perennial
> criticism of the poor. do animals reproduce
> for the sake of their own old age? i don't
> think so.
>
> possum
quantities when they are poor? Why would that change when they are no
longer poor?
Availability of birth control probably is probably a reason why, as
florida Luke pointed out. But I'm pretty sure wealth creation is also a
reason. Everything else being equal, folks generally act in their own
best interest.
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 5, 2012, 1:35:53 PM5/5/12
to
tax collections disproves and put to rest the myth that lower corporate
taxes spurs economic growth"?
It seems sensible to say that a tax system that rewards companies that
take their production overseas harms the national economy. That's what
corporate leaders have been saying is happening. They've been saying
that for years in fact. That's why I've decided that this is not an
accident, it's deliberate.
It's very likely there's been a policy to push companies to invest and
produce outside the US. My guess is it's to uplift the economies around
the world to equalize opportunity. The side effect has been to diminish
the economic growth in the US.
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 5, 2012, 1:47:31 PM5/5/12
to
>> I read that the top tax rate in the old
>> days was hardly ever actually paid. The
>> rich changed their into non-taxable perks,
>> like health insurance. Or they simply
>> stopped working when they go to a certain
>> income level. The second was widely
>> practiced in Hollywood.
>>
>> I'm not sure if either practice is
>> beneficial, although it might make
>> "fairness" focused folks feel better about
>> things.
>>
>> --
>> Wilson
>
>
> 'fairness' focussed folks, eh?
>
> do the unfairness focussed folk have a
> transitional plan for moving from a taxation
> system to a no taxation system in advanced
> nations? a getting from here to there kind
> of thing?
I don't know if anyone has a plan. I believe taxes are probably
>> days was hardly ever actually paid. The
>> rich changed their into non-taxable perks,
>> like health insurance. Or they simply
>> stopped working when they go to a certain
>> income level. The second was widely
>> practiced in Hollywood.
>>
>> I'm not sure if either practice is
>> beneficial, although it might make
>> "fairness" focused folks feel better about
>> things.
>>
>> --
>> Wilson
>
>
> 'fairness' focussed folks, eh?
>
> do the unfairness focussed folk have a
> transitional plan for moving from a taxation
> system to a no taxation system in advanced
> nations? a getting from here to there kind
> of thing?
necessary, but if they are too high they will reduce revenue (payments)
to the government. That's fairly well understood and acknowledged.
I'd like to see a country try completely voluntary payments to the
government. Maybe they'd have to do telethons or bake sales to raise
money. Sort of like National Public Radio here in the US. :-)
--
Wilson
Jigme Dorje
May 5, 2012, 2:22:51 PM5/5/12
to
through NAFTA. For that matter, on a different issue, he spoke on behalf
of ending Glass Steagall.
> It's very likely there's been a policy to push companies to invest and
> produce outside the US.
corporate leaders say, they are the ones who originated, promoted and
perpetrate it. It has now permeated every link in the supply chain in a
spiraling effect, such that retailers like Walmart won't buy goods above
a certain price point, and product firms therefore won't produce goods
above a certain price point.
> My guess is it's to uplift the economies around
> the world to equalize opportunity. The side effect has been to
> diminish the economic growth in the US.
lead government policy and you see that none of them have an interest in
equalizing opportunity abroad.
Their main markets are here in the US, and, to the extent that markets
arise abroad, they penetrate there as well. However, there is no
incentive for anyone to create markets from scratch through investment
in production facilities overseas.
In fact, if you examine the economic circumstances, the obvious
motivation is to reduce unit costs by moving to nations with lower labor
and investment costs. Some companies have in fact left China for other
nations with lower costs, including Bangladesh, which has no lucrative
consumer market.
You need to understand that corporations are motivated by quarterly
profits, propelled by influential majority shareholders, primarily
private equity firms. The quick win is what they are after - to minimize
costs at production and maximize the unit price at sale, as well as the
profit margin by lowering the cost of doing business wherever possible.
Investment must increasingly be justified by imminent profit potential
in the short term (under 5 years.)
possum
May 5, 2012, 3:32:01 PM5/5/12
to
news:4oednYKV0r52_DjS...@supernews.com...
correllations between education in women and
reduced family sizes have been well
observed. maybe ignorance thrives where
there is inequality.
"Among women in South
Africa, one study found that strong reading
comprehension
skills, regardless of family income level,
affected family size."
http://www.prb.org/pdf/IsEducat-Contracept_Eng.pdf
possum
reduced family sizes have been well
observed. maybe ignorance thrives where
there is inequality.
"Among women in South
Africa, one study found that strong reading
comprehension
skills, regardless of family income level,
affected family size."
http://www.prb.org/pdf/IsEducat-Contracept_Eng.pdf
possum
possum
May 5, 2012, 3:42:21 PM5/5/12
to
news:0u6dnU6qZupv-TjS...@supernews.com...
it's very likely? i am incredulous that you
see philanthropy where most see corporate
greed? is there some sort of secret
conspiracy that has been kept from the 99%,
to ensure that they do not rumble that
corporate america, or whoever is behind the
pushing, is saintly, not greedy,
exploitative and power mad?
what is the evidence base for your 'very
likely' conclusion?
possum
>
>
> --
> Wilson
see philanthropy where most see corporate
greed? is there some sort of secret
conspiracy that has been kept from the 99%,
to ensure that they do not rumble that
corporate america, or whoever is behind the
pushing, is saintly, not greedy,
exploitative and power mad?
what is the evidence base for your 'very
likely' conclusion?
possum
>
>
> --
> Wilson
Wilson
May 5, 2012, 3:46:08 PM5/5/12
to
>
> http://www.prb.org/pdf/IsEducat-Contracept_Eng.pdf
>
> possum
"Not now, I'm reading!"
--
Wilson
possum
May 5, 2012, 3:46:29 PM5/5/12
to
news:aLOdnS-ex9Qw-jjS...@supernews.com...
sounds like my boss's fund raising strategy.
he's an ass-hole.
possum
>
> --
> Wilson
he's an ass-hole.
possum
>
> --
> Wilson
Wilson
May 5, 2012, 3:58:27 PM5/5/12
to
The people running the day to day operations of companies are quite a
few levels down from the ones who decide the big picture stuff. I
suspect even the top levels of the government are a few levels below the
big picture guys.
But my question remains. I'm still waiting on you to support your
assertion that, "The data on actual tax collections disproves and put to
rest the myth that lower corporate taxes spurs economic growth."
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 5, 2012, 4:14:24 PM5/5/12
to
Perhaps you need to step outside the socialist mythos to see it. The
corporations are not running the world. But there are a few very
powerful / wealthy people who do have a lot of influence. If you stop
to think about it, it goes without saying.
There's a real problem for those few who depend on the current world
order if there's a breakdown in that world order (like what happened in
the 1930s & 40s).
What could cause such a breakdown? Well for one thing, the poor around
the world have more access than ever to information. How long do you
suppose they would put up with a wealthy West while their 90% majority
continues to suffer by on subsistence? And they *can* do something
about it when the raw materials the west depends on increasingly comes
from those poor countries. Not to mention their nukes. Interesting how
fast China has improved economically over the last 30 years, isn't it?
And India.
But it's all speculation. I don't really know any of those people :-)
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 5, 2012, 4:15:49 PM5/5/12
to
>> I'd like to see a country try completely
>> voluntary payments to the government.
>> Maybe they'd have to do telethons or bake
>> sales to raise money. Sort of like
>> National Public Radio here in the US. :-)
>
> sounds like my boss's fund raising strategy.
> he's an ass-hole.
Heh. Oh well, maybe I'm an asshole too!
>> voluntary payments to the government.
>> Maybe they'd have to do telethons or bake
>> sales to raise money. Sort of like
>> National Public Radio here in the US. :-)
>
> sounds like my boss's fund raising strategy.
> he's an ass-hole.
--
Wilson
Neolazarusx
May 5, 2012, 4:29:18 PM5/5/12
to
time to time but usually as a defense mechanism for self-preservation. Less
than 1% of the time. Advanced civilizations act together as societies the
other 99% of the time, mostly acting and interacting for the mutual benefit
and preservation of the species, of the earth... of all species. Of life
itself. Just my experience. YMMV.
--
-NLx "There you go with all that reverse causality quantum woo again,
Neo." -leebert
Jigme Dorje
May 5, 2012, 4:39:46 PM5/5/12
to
possum
May 5, 2012, 4:44:57 PM5/5/12
to
news:_rCdncjZs-6EFzjS...@supernews.com...
the illuminati! i'll get my coat...
possum
May 5, 2012, 4:45:56 PM5/5/12
to
news:_rCdncvZs-7yFzjS...@supernews.com...
who isn't?
>
> --
> Wilson
>
> --
> Wilson
beerlet dhiblang
May 5, 2012, 5:24:54 PM5/5/12
to
It must be cooked, and served properly.
/l
beerlet dhiblang
May 5, 2012, 5:25:43 PM5/5/12
to
On May 5, 4:29 pm, Neolazarusx <neolazar...@nomailforoldmen.net>
wrote:
You two-legged ants down there look *so* small.
/l
wrote:
/l
daletx
May 5, 2012, 6:27:27 PM5/5/12
to
never get out of power, would they?
DT
jigme.d...@gmail.com
May 5, 2012, 8:58:41 PM5/5/12
to
Wilson
May 6, 2012, 10:56:46 AM5/6/12
to
On 5/5/2012 4:29 PM, Neolazarusx wrote:
--
Wilson
> Wilson<Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>> Availability of birth control probably is probably a reason why, as
>> florida Luke pointed out. But I'm pretty sure wealth creation is also a
>> reason. Everything else being equal, folks generally act in their own best interest.
>
>
> No, that's Randian objectivism. Selfishness. People DO act like that from
> time to time but usually as a defense mechanism for self-preservation. Less
> than 1% of the time. Advanced civilizations act together as societies the
> other 99% of the time, mostly acting and interacting for the mutual benefit
> and preservation of the species, of the earth... of all species. Of life
> itself. Just my experience. YMMV.
Between 33% and 37% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
>>
>> Availability of birth control probably is probably a reason why, as
>> florida Luke pointed out. But I'm pretty sure wealth creation is also a
>> reason. Everything else being equal, folks generally act in their own best interest.
>
>
> No, that's Randian objectivism. Selfishness. People DO act like that from
> time to time but usually as a defense mechanism for self-preservation. Less
> than 1% of the time. Advanced civilizations act together as societies the
> other 99% of the time, mostly acting and interacting for the mutual benefit
> and preservation of the species, of the earth... of all species. Of life
> itself. Just my experience. YMMV.
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 6, 2012, 11:12:07 AM5/6/12
to
bogus.
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 6, 2012, 11:17:30 AM5/6/12
to
>>
>> What could cause such a breakdown? Well
>> for one thing, the poor around the world
>> have more access than ever to information.
>> How long do you suppose they would put up
>> with a wealthy West while their 90%
>> majority continues to suffer by on
>> subsistence? And they *can* do something
>> about it when the raw materials the west
>> depends on increasingly comes from those
>> poor countries. Not to mention their
>> nukes. Interesting how fast China has
>> improved economically over the last 30
>> years, isn't it? And India.
>>
>> But it's all speculation. I don't really
>> know any of those people :-)
>>
>> --
>> Wilson
>
> the illuminati! i'll get my coat...
Oh please. No need for the creation of imaginary friends.
>> What could cause such a breakdown? Well
>> for one thing, the poor around the world
>> have more access than ever to information.
>> How long do you suppose they would put up
>> with a wealthy West while their 90%
>> majority continues to suffer by on
>> subsistence? And they *can* do something
>> about it when the raw materials the west
>> depends on increasingly comes from those
>> poor countries. Not to mention their
>> nukes. Interesting how fast China has
>> improved economically over the last 30
>> years, isn't it? And India.
>>
>> But it's all speculation. I don't really
>> know any of those people :-)
>>
>> --
>> Wilson
>
> the illuminati! i'll get my coat...
The fear of the Illuminati, of corporate control of the world, of the 1%
taking all of the money, all of these are prestidigitator hand waving so
you don't look at what's actually going on.
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 6, 2012, 11:23:13 AM5/6/12
to
handouts" program.
> A great example of a fallacious sylogism!
--
Wilson
beerlet dhiblang
May 6, 2012, 11:32:40 AM5/6/12
to
funniness.
/l
daletx
May 6, 2012, 12:09:22 PM5/6/12
to
DT
daletx
May 6, 2012, 12:12:01 PM5/6/12
to
On 5/6/2012 10:23 AM, Wilson wrote:
> On 5/5/2012 8:58 PM, jigme.d...@gmail.com wrote:
>> daletx<dal...@gnusguy.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2012 3:33 PM, Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2012 1:29 PM, daletx wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/business/for-economists-saez-and-piketty-the-buffett-rule-is-just-a-start.html?_r=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Great find.
>>>>>
>>>>> DT
>>>>
>>>> The way the economy works:
>>>>
>>>> http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3h0cbN8Sk1qaoso9o1_500.jpg
>>>
>>> Wow! If that's the case, then if the Dems *ever* got into power,
>>> they'd never get out of power, would they?
>
> Except that not everyone buys into the long term efficacy of the "free
> handouts" program.
And that number seems to waver between 49-51% of the voting public?
> On 5/5/2012 8:58 PM, jigme.d...@gmail.com wrote:
>> daletx<dal...@gnusguy.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2012 3:33 PM, Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2012 1:29 PM, daletx wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/business/for-economists-saez-and-piketty-the-buffett-rule-is-just-a-start.html?_r=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Great find.
>>>>>
>>>>> DT
>>>>
>>>> The way the economy works:
>>>>
>>>> http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3h0cbN8Sk1qaoso9o1_500.jpg
>>>
>>> Wow! If that's the case, then if the Dems *ever* got into power,
>>> they'd never get out of power, would they?
>
> Except that not everyone buys into the long term efficacy of the "free
> handouts" program.
And around we go...
>> A great example of a fallacious sylogism!
>
> Dale's observation? Yes, it was.
country was in great shape, the tax rate on the highest earners was much
higher than it has been since Reagan.
DT
Wilson
May 6, 2012, 12:22:21 PM5/6/12
to
But murdered with unfunniness? Sounds more like a serious disease.
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 6, 2012, 12:33:00 PM5/6/12
to
the aughhhhhghhehhhgggaaggg ...
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 6, 2012, 1:17:26 PM5/6/12
to
--
Wilson
possum
May 7, 2012, 12:46:02 AM5/7/12
to
news:IaidnWsbFPi6LzvS...@supernews.com...
as the vultures always say, in their
disclaimer.
possum
>
> --
> Wilson
disclaimer.
possum
>
> --
> Wilson
beerlet dhiblang
May 7, 2012, 3:14:22 AM5/7/12
to
> messagenews:IaidnWsbFPi6LzvS...@supernews.com...
<like button/>
/l
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/6/2012 12:12 PM, daletx wrote:
> >> On 5/6/2012 10:23 AM, Wilson wrote:
> >>> On 5/5/2012 8:58 PM,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/6/2012 12:12 PM, daletx wrote:
> >> On 5/6/2012 10:23 AM, Wilson wrote:
> >>> On 5/5/2012 8:58 PM,
> >>> jigme.dorje...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> daletx<dal...@gnusguy.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/4/2012 3:33 PM, Wilson wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/4/2012 1:29 PM, daletx wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/business/for-economists-saez-and-pi...
> >>>> daletx<dal...@gnusguy.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/4/2012 3:33 PM, Wilson wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/4/2012 1:29 PM, daletx wrote:
>
/l
Wilson
May 7, 2012, 8:10:18 AM5/7/12
to
On 5/7/2012 12:46 AM, possum wrote:
> "Wilson"<Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote ...
The vultures only eat what's already dead.
--
Wilson
> "Wilson"<Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote ...
--
Wilson
beerlet dhiblang
May 7, 2012, 8:13:36 AM5/7/12
to
/l
Wilson
May 7, 2012, 12:19:21 PM5/7/12
to
On 5/7/2012 3:14 AM, beerlet dhiblang wrote:
> On May 7, 12:46 am, "possum"<zen102...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Wilson"<Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote
> On May 7, 12:46 am, "possum"<zen102...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Wilson"<Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote
>>> On 5/6/2012 12:12 PM, daletx wrote:
>>
>>>> Here's an observation. You can google it
>>>> yourself. Back when the country
>>>> was in great shape, the tax rate on the
>>>> highest earners was much higher
>>>> than it has been since Reagan.
>>
>>
>>>> Here's an observation. You can google it
>>>> yourself. Back when the country
>>>> was in great shape, the tax rate on the
>>>> highest earners was much higher
>>>> than it has been since Reagan.
>>
>>> Correlation does not imply causation.
>>
>> as the vultures always say, in their
>> disclaimer.
>>
>> possum
>
> <like button/>
>
> /l
The idea that the economy was better in the 1950s and 60s than it was in
>>
>> as the vultures always say, in their
>> disclaimer.
>>
>> possum
>
> <like button/>
>
> /l
the 1980s through 2007 is a bogus myth. The standard of living in the
US increased steadily through that time period. Wages (even when
adjusted for inflation) increased or held steady as well.
Meanwhile since Obama's immaculation, the gainfully employed in the US
have shrunk in number steadily. The total number of people who are
actually working for a living in the US is called the Labor Force
Participation Rate. Check it out:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
That chart is as close as you can get for proof that Obama's policies
have not worked at all.
--
Wilson
daletx
May 7, 2012, 1:45:21 PM5/7/12
to
DT
daletx
May 7, 2012, 1:56:09 PM5/7/12
to
actual numbers.
If you look at the actual numbers (from the same source), you'll notice
that "the gainfully employed in the US" did indeed shrink during the
first two years of the Obama administration. Of course, that trend
started the last year of the previous administration.
Since then, there have been fluctuations, but the total number employed
is trending steadily upward.
DT
brian mitchell
May 7, 2012, 2:02:41 PM5/7/12
to
(hope none of my Welsh neighbours see this)
possum
May 7, 2012, 2:56:28 PM5/7/12
to
news:BeudnSW8pu42JjrS...@supernews.com...
you could give 'em that stinker of a report
you've been promoting.
possum
>
> --
> Wilson
you've been promoting.
possum
>
> --
> Wilson
possum
May 7, 2012, 3:19:04 PM5/7/12
to
news:VIadnRoQFJGUazrS...@supernews.com...
you mean it's impossible to prove.
damn all bogus myths.
possum
>
> --
> Wilson
damn all bogus myths.
possum
>
> --
> Wilson
Wilson
May 8, 2012, 7:53:12 AM5/8/12
to
available, what good is that? You still have more people not working
today than you did 4 years ago.
--
Wilson
Wilson
May 8, 2012, 7:57:50 AM5/8/12
to
On 5/7/2012 3:19 PM, possum wrote:
>>
>> The idea that the economy was better in
>> the 1950s and 60s than it was in the 1980s
>> through 2007 is a bogus myth. The
>> standard of living in the US increased
>> steadily through that time period. Wages
>> (even when adjusted for inflation)
>> increased or held steady as well.
>>
>> Meanwhile since Obama's immaculation, the
>> gainfully employed in the US have shrunk
>> in number steadily. The total number of
>> people who are actually working for a
>> living in the US is called the Labor Force
>> Participation Rate. Check it out:
>> http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
>>
>> That chart is as close as you can get for
>> proof that Obama's policies have not
>> worked at all.
>
> you mean it's impossible to prove.
>
> damn all bogus myths.
>
> possum
Results do matter. Even in politics and economics.
>>
>> The idea that the economy was better in
>> the 1950s and 60s than it was in the 1980s
>> through 2007 is a bogus myth. The
>> standard of living in the US increased
>> steadily through that time period. Wages
>> (even when adjusted for inflation)
>> increased or held steady as well.
>>
>> Meanwhile since Obama's immaculation, the
>> gainfully employed in the US have shrunk
>> in number steadily. The total number of
>> people who are actually working for a
>> living in the US is called the Labor Force
>> Participation Rate. Check it out:
>> http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
>>
>> That chart is as close as you can get for
>> proof that Obama's policies have not
>> worked at all.
>
> you mean it's impossible to prove.
>
> damn all bogus myths.
>
> possum
--
Wilson
awaken21
May 9, 2012, 9:34:47 AM5/9/12
to
You need someone to call 911 Wilson? That looked brutal.
beerlet dhiblang
May 9, 2012, 8:18:14 PM5/9/12
to
On May 2, 1:46 pm, daletx <dal...@gnusguy.com> wrote:
> On 5/1/2012 12:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
>
> > On 5/1/2012 9:39 AM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
> >> On 5/1/2012 4:46 AM, noname wrote:
> >>> On 04/30/2012 09:58 PM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
>
> >>>> Resistance is Futile
>
> >>>> Paul Krugman criticized Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke on ABC’s “This Week”
> >>>> saying he has “been assimilated by the Borg,” building on criticisms he
> >>>> made in a Times Magazine piece last week titled “Earth to Ben
> >>>> Bernanke.”
>
> >>>> “I think what’s happened to Bernanke, as they say, he’s been
> >>>> assimilated
> >>>> by the Borg,” he said. “He’s become more concerned, probably
> >>>> unconsciously, with defending the Fed’s institutional safety, because
> >>>> it’s the apostle of price stability, than with doing whatever he can to
> >>>> get this economy moving. Which if he’d listened to Professor Bernanke,
> >>>> himself 10 years ago, he would know that he was supposed to be doing
> >>>> more.”
>
> >>>> Krugman accused Bernanke of ignoring the economic advice he championed
> >>>> when he was a professor at Princeton and blamed the nation’s continuing
> >>>> economic issues on Bernanke’s failure to take actions he was
> >>>> expected to
> >>>> take, such as buying a bigger portion of the government’s debt. He
> >>>> urged
> >>>> Bernanke to focus more on the growing unemployment rate.
>
> >>>> “Allowing unemployment to stay near 9 percent, allowing the number of
> >>>> long-term unemployed to be 4 million, which it hasn’t been since the
> >>>> 1930s, which is destroying skills, destroying the attachment of workers
> >>>> to the workforce,” he said.
>
> >>>> Earth to Bernanke
>
> >>>> In his Time Magazine piece, Earth to Bernanke, Krugman acknowledges
> >>>> that
> >>>> Bernanke is a fine economist, noting that he is a a leading scholar of
> >>>> the Great Depression and modern Japan, and “the exact problems he would
> >>>> confront at the end of 2008.” Since he argued forcefully for an
> >>>> aggressive response, castigating the Bank of Japan for its
> >>>> passivity, it
> >>>> is odd that he acted differently as head of the Fed. The divergence
> >>>> between what Professor Bernanke advocated and what Chairman Bernanke
> >>>> has
> >>>> actually done is something he calls “the Bernanke Conundrum:”
>
> >>>> While the Fed went to great lengths to rescue the financial system, it
> >>>> has done far less to rescue workers. The U.S. economy remains deeply
> >>>> depressed, with long-term unemployment in particular still disastrously
> >>>> high, a point Bernanke himself has recently emphasized. Yet the Fed
> >>>> isn’t taking strong action to rectify the situation…the fact is that
> >>>> the
> >>>> Fed isn’t doing the job many economists expected it to do, and a result
> >>>> is mass suffering for American workers.
>
> >>>> Bernanke on Japan
>
> >>>> According to Krugman, the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate: price
> >>>> stability and maximum employement, and it normally tries to meet these
> >>>> goals by moving short-term interest rates, by adding to or subtracting
> >>>> from bank reserves. If the economy is weak and inflation is low, the
> >>>> Fed
> >>>> cuts rates, making borrowing attractive, stimulating private spending
> >>>> and potentially leading to economic recovery. Contrarily, the Fed
> >>>> raises
> >>>> rates if the economy is strong and inflation is a threat to discourages
> >>>> borrowing and spending, and cool the economy off.
>
> >>>> However, while the current economic picture shows both a weak economy
> >>>> and subdued inflation, rates can’t be cut further. Since the onset of
> >>>> the recession in 2007 until November 2008, , the Fed continued to cut
> >>>> short-term interest rates to nearly zero, hitting the “zero lower
> >>>> bound.” Has the Fed reached the limits of its usefulness?
>
> >>>> Yet, Professor Bernanke and a number of economists, took notice of a
> >>>> similar situation in Japan in the 1990s, — when a huge real estate
> >>>> bubble burst, causing high private-sector debt and a central bank up
> >>>> against the zero lower bound. While the situation in the United States
> >>>> today isn’t identical to those faced by Japan, Japan’s slump was never
> >>>> as bad as the one we face today, and unemployment never as bad.
>
> >>>> In a 2000 paper titled “Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of
> >>>> Self-Induced
> >>>> Paralysis?” Bernanke argued that the Bank of Japan could still improve
> >>>> the situation if it would “abandon its excessive caution and its
> >>>> defensive response to criticism.” He stated that Japan should act like
> >>>> F.D.R. and do whatever it takes. Some of the actions he laid out
> >>>> included:
>
> >>>> Quantitative easing —While short-term interest rates may be zero, and
> >>>> the Fed typically buys only short-term U.S. government debt, it could
> >>>> take a larger role in financial markets by buying long-term government
> >>>> debt, and mortgage-backed bonds to drive down the interest rates on
> >>>> these assets.
> >>>> Change expectations about future Fed policy — Investors’ expectations
> >>>> that the economy will eventually recover enough for the Fed to start
> >>>> raising rates again can impact on the economy now. Investors assume the
> >>>> Fed will raise rates enough to keep inflation from rising much above 2
> >>>> percent. But a wide range of economists, including the IMF’s chief
> >>>> economist argue that if the Fed were to raise its target for inflation
> >>>> for the next decade, this would aid an economy up against the zero
> >>>> lower
> >>>> bound, by persuading investors and businesses that it is not a good
> >>>> idea
> >>>> to sit on cash. Bernanke suggested that the Bank of Japan declare “a
> >>>> target in the 3-to-4-percent range for inflation, to be maintained
> >>>> for a
> >>>> number of years.”
> >>>> Chairman Bernanke vs. Professor Bernanke
>
> >>>> Chairman Bernanke has been much more passive than Professor Bernanke’s
> >>>> writings recommended. The Fed has bought over $2 trillion of long-term
> >>>> government debt and bonds of government-backed housing agencies, but
> >>>> this is much less than most analysts think is required to spur economic
> >>>> recovery. The Fed has only tried to influence market expectations about
> >>>> future policy for the near term, announcing that it doesn’t expect to
> >>>> raise short-term rates until late 2014. And Bernanke in 2010 ruled out
> >>>> the notion of a higher inflation target saying it would undermine the
> >>>> Fed’s “hard-won inflation credibility.”
>
> >>>> Don’t Worry Be Happy?
>
> >>>> Krugman examines a minority view among some economists that high
> >>>> unemployment is structural and can’t be brought down by stimulating
> >>>> people to increase spending. What is structural unemployment?
>
> >>>> Structural unemployment stresses a perceived mismatch between the work
> >>>> force and employment opportunities: workers, so the story goes, either
> >>>> have the wrong skills or are in the wrong place. But as Bernanke
> >>>> pointed
> >>>> out in a recent speech, employment looks bad across the board: “The
> >>>> fact
> >>>> that labor demand appears weak in most industries and locations is
> >>>> suggestive of a general shortfall of aggregate demand rather than a
> >>>> worsening mismatch of skills and jobs.” As a result, he declared, the
> >>>> data “do not support the view that structural factors are a major cause
> >>>> of the increase in unemployment during the most recent recession.”
>
> >>>> Regarding inflation, the Consumer Price Index, has fluctuated wildly,
> >>>> driven mainly by fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, poor
> >>>> indicators of underlying inflationary pressures. Witness the recent
> >>>> fluctuations in the price of gasoline, for instance, driven by
> >>>> speculation. Core inflation, which excludes volatile energy and food
> >>>> prices, has remained fairly level. Yet, the Fed, instead of helping to
> >>>> improve and employment remains unwilling to take any further action to
> >>>> boost the economy.
>
> >>>> Assimilated by the Borg?
>
> >>>> Laurence Ball of Johns Hopkins University, who examined the Fed minutes
> >>>> to determine how and when Ben Bernanke’s views changed, found that the
> >>>> loss of resolve began shortly after he arrived at the Fed in 2003
> >>>> when a
> >>>> Fed staff report rejected many of the ideas Bernanke previously
> >>>> supported. What happened? Krugman points out that since 2008, the Fed
> >>>> has faced constant attacks over supposed inflationary actions.
> >>>> Right-wing bullying can’t be discounted: “he might well have
> >>>> returned to
> >>>> his earlier views if the political climate hadn’t been so hostile…As
> >>>> for
> >>>> his insistence that it’s not about politics — could he really get away
> >>>> with saying, or even hinting, that pressure from the likes of Paul Ryan
> >>>> is keeping him from pursuing full employment?
>
> >>>> Ball emphasizes both the pressures of groupthink and Bernanke’s shy
> >>>> personality. Krugman suggests it goes further — that Chairman
> >>>> Bernanke’s
> >>>> reticence to take risks is to guard the Fed from blame for embarrassing
> >>>> failures by retreating to a narrow definition of the Fed’s role. For
> >>>> instance, it would be place the Fed in an embarrassing position if a
> >>>> higher inflation target were ignored by the markets as not credible.
>
> >>>> Back in 2000, Professor Bernanke warned against exactly this kind of
> >>>> retreat, harshly criticizing the Bank of Japan’s unwillingness to “try
> >>>> anything that isn’t absolutely guaranteed to work.” But within a
> >>>> year of
> >>>> his arrival at the Fed, he seemed to have been assimilated by the Fed
> >>>> Borg, like Capt. Jean-Luc Picard in a famous “Star Trek” episode,
> >>>> converted into a half-robot servant of a hive-mind.
>
> >>>> Time to Pull the Plug on the Borg
>
> >>>> Krugman concludes that the Fed’s disappointing response given the scale
> >>>> of our economic catastrophe ”represents the effects of both bullies and
> >>>> the Borg, a combination of political intimidation and the desire to
> >>>> make
> >>>> life easy for the Fed as an institution,” and the Fed’s
> >>>> unwillingness to
> >>>> provide that help makes the Fed part of a broader problem.
>
> >>>> Consider, if you will, the current state of our nation. Despite
> >>>> hints of
> >>>> economic progress, we’re still in the midst of an immense disaster, in
> >>>> which unemployment and underemployment are devastating millions of
> >>>> American lives. And none of this need be happening! There has been no
> >>>> plague of locusts; we have not lost our technological know-how.
> >>>> Americans should be richer, not poorer, than they were five years ago.
> >>>> Yet economic policy across the board has become almost passive, has
> >>>> essentially accepted this disaster instead of trying to end it.
>
> >>>> Krugman makes a compelling case. While he believes that Ben Bernanke
> >>>> has
> >>>> done a better job than others might have, he has not done enough. No
> >>>> one
> >>>> denies — with the possible exception of Ron Paul, who appears to be
> >>>> “living in the world that was 150 years ago”— that the government is an
> >>>> integral part of the equation of the economic problem, and the Fed, as
> >>>> the Central Bank of the U.S. is part of this equation.
>
> >>>> Commentary: Principle of the political “Collective”:
>
> >>>> Whomever is elected or appointed to serve in the “Collective” is
> >>>> already
> >>>> as good as assimilated.
>
> >>>> Sources:
>
> >>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/29/paul-krugman-ben-bernanke_n_...
>
> >>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/chairman-bernanke-should-l...
>
> >>> Much ado about something unavoidable. Malaysia has instituted a
> >>> minimum-wage law for the first time and now it specifies a bit less than
> >>> $300 USD per month. We are looking at the end times of globalization.
> >>> The world is shrinking before our very economies. Workers in the US need
> >>> to make perhaps 10 times as much as those elsewhere (eg, Malaysia) just
> >>> to break even.
>
> >>> It's real-estate prices. Price a storefront in the US, or a warehouse.
> >>> Combine that with the cost of American workers who must pay the price
> >>> for a place to live in the US, and you'll get an idea why the world
> >>> economy is swirling the toilet.
>
> >>> Beyond that, it's taxes. If you make money the government is going to
> >>> take it away in order to pay for the abuse it thinks you need.
>
> >>> I despise these social comment threads, stupidity is very very stupid.
> >>> Hitting send then kill-thread.
>
> >> "The rent is too damn high!"
>
> > In a corner on the other side, a small group of economists from the
> > Austrian School are talking, trying to be heard over the din of
> > arguments and counter arguments that fill the room. They seem to be
> > saying that the policies Krugman advocates will inevitably lead to
> > another bubble that will eventually pop. That of course will create the
> > need for another stimulus, which will inevitably lead to another bubble
> > ... until the whole thing is simply unsustainable, and further stimulus
> > is fiscally impossible. That's when the economy comes crashing down. In
> > place of this tail chasing they advocate less manipulation of the
> > currency with a stable gold standard, and allowing the market to price
> > goods and interest rates where it will.
>
> > Of the few other economists who are even aware of them, most think they
> > are either crazy or misinformed.
>
> >http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/04/my-speech-delivered-at-n...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izXEWZ3rZek
>
> How's that fiscal austerity and belt-tightening working out for the EU?
>
> DT
Austro-Hungarian dissolution or full federalization?
/l
> On 5/1/2012 12:00 PM, Wilson wrote:
>
> > On 5/1/2012 9:39 AM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
> >> On 5/1/2012 4:46 AM, noname wrote:
> >>> On 04/30/2012 09:58 PM, Jigme Dorje wrote:
>
> >>>> Resistance is Futile
>
> >>>> Paul Krugman criticized Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke on ABC’s “This Week”
> >>>> saying he has “been assimilated by the Borg,” building on criticisms he
> >>>> made in a Times Magazine piece last week titled “Earth to Ben
> >>>> Bernanke.”
>
> >>>> “I think what’s happened to Bernanke, as they say, he’s been
> >>>> assimilated
> >>>> by the Borg,” he said. “He’s become more concerned, probably
> >>>> unconsciously, with defending the Fed’s institutional safety, because
> >>>> it’s the apostle of price stability, than with doing whatever he can to
> >>>> get this economy moving. Which if he’d listened to Professor Bernanke,
> >>>> himself 10 years ago, he would know that he was supposed to be doing
> >>>> more.”
>
> >>>> Krugman accused Bernanke of ignoring the economic advice he championed
> >>>> when he was a professor at Princeton and blamed the nation’s continuing
> >>>> economic issues on Bernanke’s failure to take actions he was
> >>>> expected to
> >>>> take, such as buying a bigger portion of the government’s debt. He
> >>>> urged
> >>>> Bernanke to focus more on the growing unemployment rate.
>
> >>>> “Allowing unemployment to stay near 9 percent, allowing the number of
> >>>> long-term unemployed to be 4 million, which it hasn’t been since the
> >>>> 1930s, which is destroying skills, destroying the attachment of workers
> >>>> to the workforce,” he said.
>
> >>>> Earth to Bernanke
>
> >>>> In his Time Magazine piece, Earth to Bernanke, Krugman acknowledges
> >>>> that
> >>>> Bernanke is a fine economist, noting that he is a a leading scholar of
> >>>> the Great Depression and modern Japan, and “the exact problems he would
> >>>> confront at the end of 2008.” Since he argued forcefully for an
> >>>> aggressive response, castigating the Bank of Japan for its
> >>>> passivity, it
> >>>> is odd that he acted differently as head of the Fed. The divergence
> >>>> between what Professor Bernanke advocated and what Chairman Bernanke
> >>>> has
> >>>> actually done is something he calls “the Bernanke Conundrum:”
>
> >>>> While the Fed went to great lengths to rescue the financial system, it
> >>>> has done far less to rescue workers. The U.S. economy remains deeply
> >>>> depressed, with long-term unemployment in particular still disastrously
> >>>> high, a point Bernanke himself has recently emphasized. Yet the Fed
> >>>> isn’t taking strong action to rectify the situation…the fact is that
> >>>> the
> >>>> Fed isn’t doing the job many economists expected it to do, and a result
> >>>> is mass suffering for American workers.
>
> >>>> Bernanke on Japan
>
> >>>> According to Krugman, the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate: price
> >>>> stability and maximum employement, and it normally tries to meet these
> >>>> goals by moving short-term interest rates, by adding to or subtracting
> >>>> from bank reserves. If the economy is weak and inflation is low, the
> >>>> Fed
> >>>> cuts rates, making borrowing attractive, stimulating private spending
> >>>> and potentially leading to economic recovery. Contrarily, the Fed
> >>>> raises
> >>>> rates if the economy is strong and inflation is a threat to discourages
> >>>> borrowing and spending, and cool the economy off.
>
> >>>> However, while the current economic picture shows both a weak economy
> >>>> and subdued inflation, rates can’t be cut further. Since the onset of
> >>>> the recession in 2007 until November 2008, , the Fed continued to cut
> >>>> short-term interest rates to nearly zero, hitting the “zero lower
> >>>> bound.” Has the Fed reached the limits of its usefulness?
>
> >>>> Yet, Professor Bernanke and a number of economists, took notice of a
> >>>> similar situation in Japan in the 1990s, — when a huge real estate
> >>>> bubble burst, causing high private-sector debt and a central bank up
> >>>> against the zero lower bound. While the situation in the United States
> >>>> today isn’t identical to those faced by Japan, Japan’s slump was never
> >>>> as bad as the one we face today, and unemployment never as bad.
>
> >>>> In a 2000 paper titled “Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of
> >>>> Self-Induced
> >>>> Paralysis?” Bernanke argued that the Bank of Japan could still improve
> >>>> the situation if it would “abandon its excessive caution and its
> >>>> defensive response to criticism.” He stated that Japan should act like
> >>>> F.D.R. and do whatever it takes. Some of the actions he laid out
> >>>> included:
>
> >>>> Quantitative easing —While short-term interest rates may be zero, and
> >>>> the Fed typically buys only short-term U.S. government debt, it could
> >>>> take a larger role in financial markets by buying long-term government
> >>>> debt, and mortgage-backed bonds to drive down the interest rates on
> >>>> these assets.
> >>>> Change expectations about future Fed policy — Investors’ expectations
> >>>> that the economy will eventually recover enough for the Fed to start
> >>>> raising rates again can impact on the economy now. Investors assume the
> >>>> Fed will raise rates enough to keep inflation from rising much above 2
> >>>> percent. But a wide range of economists, including the IMF’s chief
> >>>> economist argue that if the Fed were to raise its target for inflation
> >>>> for the next decade, this would aid an economy up against the zero
> >>>> lower
> >>>> bound, by persuading investors and businesses that it is not a good
> >>>> idea
> >>>> to sit on cash. Bernanke suggested that the Bank of Japan declare “a
> >>>> target in the 3-to-4-percent range for inflation, to be maintained
> >>>> for a
> >>>> number of years.”
> >>>> Chairman Bernanke vs. Professor Bernanke
>
> >>>> Chairman Bernanke has been much more passive than Professor Bernanke’s
> >>>> writings recommended. The Fed has bought over $2 trillion of long-term
> >>>> government debt and bonds of government-backed housing agencies, but
> >>>> this is much less than most analysts think is required to spur economic
> >>>> recovery. The Fed has only tried to influence market expectations about
> >>>> future policy for the near term, announcing that it doesn’t expect to
> >>>> raise short-term rates until late 2014. And Bernanke in 2010 ruled out
> >>>> the notion of a higher inflation target saying it would undermine the
> >>>> Fed’s “hard-won inflation credibility.”
>
> >>>> Don’t Worry Be Happy?
>
> >>>> Krugman examines a minority view among some economists that high
> >>>> unemployment is structural and can’t be brought down by stimulating
> >>>> people to increase spending. What is structural unemployment?
>
> >>>> Structural unemployment stresses a perceived mismatch between the work
> >>>> force and employment opportunities: workers, so the story goes, either
> >>>> have the wrong skills or are in the wrong place. But as Bernanke
> >>>> pointed
> >>>> out in a recent speech, employment looks bad across the board: “The
> >>>> fact
> >>>> that labor demand appears weak in most industries and locations is
> >>>> suggestive of a general shortfall of aggregate demand rather than a
> >>>> worsening mismatch of skills and jobs.” As a result, he declared, the
> >>>> data “do not support the view that structural factors are a major cause
> >>>> of the increase in unemployment during the most recent recession.”
>
> >>>> Regarding inflation, the Consumer Price Index, has fluctuated wildly,
> >>>> driven mainly by fluctuations in the prices of raw materials, poor
> >>>> indicators of underlying inflationary pressures. Witness the recent
> >>>> fluctuations in the price of gasoline, for instance, driven by
> >>>> speculation. Core inflation, which excludes volatile energy and food
> >>>> prices, has remained fairly level. Yet, the Fed, instead of helping to
> >>>> improve and employment remains unwilling to take any further action to
> >>>> boost the economy.
>
> >>>> Assimilated by the Borg?
>
> >>>> Laurence Ball of Johns Hopkins University, who examined the Fed minutes
> >>>> to determine how and when Ben Bernanke’s views changed, found that the
> >>>> loss of resolve began shortly after he arrived at the Fed in 2003
> >>>> when a
> >>>> Fed staff report rejected many of the ideas Bernanke previously
> >>>> supported. What happened? Krugman points out that since 2008, the Fed
> >>>> has faced constant attacks over supposed inflationary actions.
> >>>> Right-wing bullying can’t be discounted: “he might well have
> >>>> returned to
> >>>> his earlier views if the political climate hadn’t been so hostile…As
> >>>> for
> >>>> his insistence that it’s not about politics — could he really get away
> >>>> with saying, or even hinting, that pressure from the likes of Paul Ryan
> >>>> is keeping him from pursuing full employment?
>
> >>>> Ball emphasizes both the pressures of groupthink and Bernanke’s shy
> >>>> personality. Krugman suggests it goes further — that Chairman
> >>>> Bernanke’s
> >>>> reticence to take risks is to guard the Fed from blame for embarrassing
> >>>> failures by retreating to a narrow definition of the Fed’s role. For
> >>>> instance, it would be place the Fed in an embarrassing position if a
> >>>> higher inflation target were ignored by the markets as not credible.
>
> >>>> Back in 2000, Professor Bernanke warned against exactly this kind of
> >>>> retreat, harshly criticizing the Bank of Japan’s unwillingness to “try
> >>>> anything that isn’t absolutely guaranteed to work.” But within a
> >>>> year of
> >>>> his arrival at the Fed, he seemed to have been assimilated by the Fed
> >>>> Borg, like Capt. Jean-Luc Picard in a famous “Star Trek” episode,
> >>>> converted into a half-robot servant of a hive-mind.
>
> >>>> Time to Pull the Plug on the Borg
>
> >>>> Krugman concludes that the Fed’s disappointing response given the scale
> >>>> of our economic catastrophe ”represents the effects of both bullies and
> >>>> the Borg, a combination of political intimidation and the desire to
> >>>> make
> >>>> life easy for the Fed as an institution,” and the Fed’s
> >>>> unwillingness to
> >>>> provide that help makes the Fed part of a broader problem.
>
> >>>> Consider, if you will, the current state of our nation. Despite
> >>>> hints of
> >>>> economic progress, we’re still in the midst of an immense disaster, in
> >>>> which unemployment and underemployment are devastating millions of
> >>>> American lives. And none of this need be happening! There has been no
> >>>> plague of locusts; we have not lost our technological know-how.
> >>>> Americans should be richer, not poorer, than they were five years ago.
> >>>> Yet economic policy across the board has become almost passive, has
> >>>> essentially accepted this disaster instead of trying to end it.
>
> >>>> Krugman makes a compelling case. While he believes that Ben Bernanke
> >>>> has
> >>>> done a better job than others might have, he has not done enough. No
> >>>> one
> >>>> denies — with the possible exception of Ron Paul, who appears to be
> >>>> “living in the world that was 150 years ago”— that the government is an
> >>>> integral part of the equation of the economic problem, and the Fed, as
> >>>> the Central Bank of the U.S. is part of this equation.
>
> >>>> Commentary: Principle of the political “Collective”:
>
> >>>> Whomever is elected or appointed to serve in the “Collective” is
> >>>> already
> >>>> as good as assimilated.
>
> >>>> Sources:
>
> >>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/29/paul-krugman-ben-bernanke_n_...
>
> >>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/chairman-bernanke-should-l...
>
> >>> Much ado about something unavoidable. Malaysia has instituted a
> >>> minimum-wage law for the first time and now it specifies a bit less than
> >>> $300 USD per month. We are looking at the end times of globalization.
> >>> The world is shrinking before our very economies. Workers in the US need
> >>> to make perhaps 10 times as much as those elsewhere (eg, Malaysia) just
> >>> to break even.
>
> >>> It's real-estate prices. Price a storefront in the US, or a warehouse.
> >>> Combine that with the cost of American workers who must pay the price
> >>> for a place to live in the US, and you'll get an idea why the world
> >>> economy is swirling the toilet.
>
> >>> Beyond that, it's taxes. If you make money the government is going to
> >>> take it away in order to pay for the abuse it thinks you need.
>
> >>> I despise these social comment threads, stupidity is very very stupid.
> >>> Hitting send then kill-thread.
>
> >> "The rent is too damn high!"
>
> > In a corner on the other side, a small group of economists from the
> > Austrian School are talking, trying to be heard over the din of
> > arguments and counter arguments that fill the room. They seem to be
> > saying that the policies Krugman advocates will inevitably lead to
> > another bubble that will eventually pop. That of course will create the
> > need for another stimulus, which will inevitably lead to another bubble
> > ... until the whole thing is simply unsustainable, and further stimulus
> > is fiscally impossible. That's when the economy comes crashing down. In
> > place of this tail chasing they advocate less manipulation of the
> > currency with a stable gold standard, and allowing the market to price
> > goods and interest rates where it will.
>
> > Of the few other economists who are even aware of them, most think they
> > are either crazy or misinformed.
>
> >http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/04/my-speech-delivered-at-n...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izXEWZ3rZek
>
> How's that fiscal austerity and belt-tightening working out for the EU?
>
> DT
Austro-Hungarian dissolution or full federalization?
/l
0 new messages