Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The [ECONOMY]

2456785

Posts

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    MM has it. And it was Keynes himself, among many other famous Cambridge economists, that made the point that liquidity demand can be precautionary (i.e. Store of Value) in addition to transactionary (i.e. Medium of Exchange).

    Too bad the Keynesians ruined that point with the IS/LM model.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I try not to be tin foily but I wonder how much politics effects these business decisions. If the Obama Administration remains in power, they are likely to increase (and actually enforce) a lot of economic regulation, especially on Wall Street and longer term on Big Oil/Energy. If the economy doesn't bounce back by the early fall - or more accurately if it appears that its not bouncing back as well as it should - that's probably good for the people controlling the large multinationals.

    But I think the old adage about malice and incompetence comes into play

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    MM has it. And it was Keynes himself, among many other famous Cambridge economists, that made the point that liquidity demand can be precautionary (i.e. Store of Value) in addition to transactionary (i.e. Medium of Exchange).

    Too bad the Keynesians ruined that point with the IS/LM model.

    Minsky was a post-Keynesian!

    I am, alas, a loyal defender of the orthodoxy. IS/LM still works if you define M verrry carefully, adopting some PK insights.

    e: indeed, don't most modern expressions of IS/LM include liquidity preference in the LM curve? Albeit as an exogenous hand-waving variable?

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    PantsB wrote: »
    I try not to be tin foily but I wonder how much politics effects these business decisions. If the Obama Administration remains in power, they are likely to increase (and actually enforce) a lot of economic regulation, especially on Wall Street and longer term on Big Oil/Energy. If the economy doesn't bounce back by the early fall - or more accurately if it appears that its not bouncing back as well as it should - that's probably good for the people controlling the large multinationals.

    But I think the old adage about malice and incompetence comes into play
    I don't know how much of a stomach the Dems will have for more regulation if the economy is still in the doldrums come 2011.

    If the economy is still shitty come November, it's going to be a tough election for incumbents, meaning we're looking at fewer Democrats in Congress. Fairly or not (and some of the economic criticisms levelled at Obama are somewhat unfair), the party in power gets the blame.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    An optimistic prediction: Yellen etc. are confirmed to the Fed. Bernanke begins unconventional easing (assuming that the rumors that he isn't doing so due to internal FOMC opposition are true - the three additional nominees are expected to follow Bernanke's line). By November 2011, interest rates, price levels, employment, and output should be growing.

    A pessimistic prediction: stimulus runs out, tax hikes occur, we have a double-dip.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Minsky was a post-Keynesian!

    I am, alas, a loyal defender of the orthodoxy. IS/LM still works if you define M verrry carefully, adopting some PK insights.

    e: indeed, don't most modern expressions of IS/LM include liquidity preference in the LM curve? Albeit as an exogenous hand-waving variable?

    I was loose with my language. When I say Keynesians, I mean traditional Neo-Keynesians, not the new breed of Post and New Keynesians that actually bother with microfoundations. And when I say IS/LM, I mean the model as used by the Neo-Keynesians. I mean, by itself, it's only a graphical trick to show simultaneous equilibrium in three markets (Money, Bonds, Products) on one graph. Nothing sinister to that.

    The problem is that the traditional LM (Liquidity demand = Money supply) curve only contains income and interest rates. But no expectations over uncertain futures! Without expectations, you can't make a decent macro model in this day and age. Lucas argued that point quite definitely (with a Prize to show for it).

    It's sad, because Keynes (et al.) talked about it.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    An optimistic prediction: Yellen etc. are confirmed to the Fed. Bernanke begins unconventional easing (assuming that the rumors that he isn't doing so due to internal FOMC opposition are true - the three additional nominees are expected to follow Bernanke's line). By November 2011, interest rates, price levels, employment, and output should be growing.

    A pessimistic prediction: stimulus runs out, tax hikes occur, we have a double-dip.
    As much as I dislike Obama, I'm hoping the optimistic prediction is correct. Seeing the Democrats out of power is probably not enough of a silver lining for more years of economic misery.

    A story on the BBC noted that something like 55% of American workers have lost their job, taken a pay cut or seen reduced benefits, or had their hours cut during this recession.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    An optimistic prediction: Yellen etc. are confirmed to the Fed. Bernanke begins unconventional easing (assuming that the rumors that he isn't doing so due to internal FOMC opposition are true - the three additional nominees are expected to follow Bernanke's line). By November 2011, interest rates, price levels, employment, and output should be growing.

    A pessimistic prediction: stimulus runs out, tax hikes occur, we have a double-dip.
    As much as I dislike Obama, I'm hoping the optimistic prediction is correct. Seeing the Democrats out of power is probably not enough of a silver lining for more years of economic misery.

    A story on the BBC noted that something like 55% of American workers have lost their job, taken a pay cut or seen reduced benefits, or had their hours cut during this recession.

    Yea well, it's just going to get worse.

    The United States is never going to recover, not with popular sentiment moving further away from sanity.

    That's why I'm getting off this ship as soon as I can
    ronya wrote: »
    tehmarken wrote: »
    For during a recession, it does feel odd to set the standard of debt vs % of GDP. Because when GDP goes down due to a recession, you want the government to spend it's reserves and go into debt to provide more jobs so that the GDP can go back up.

    Maybe I'm just one of those weird people, but I think government spending should just be redistributing wealth via creating jobs. Take the taxes you collect from everyone and use it to pay other people to work (hopefully work on things that benefit everybody like roads, public transport, utilities, emergency services, military, etc).

    Very few economists still think that government spending can create jobs in the long run - many think it can do so in the short run, but in the long run the economy adjusts to take it into account, then non-government jobs decrease by at least the number of government jobs created.

    Of course, recessions happen in the short run.

    Redistributing wealth is an orthogonal issue, as is the provision of public goods; it is generally a good idea to keep these separate!

    What about measures to provide substantial benefits to businesses that hire more employees? Does that help? I mean absolutely no government intervention is politically viable, not with the lion's share of the country filled with rabid hatred of the unemployed and the poor, so it's all academic

    Edit: I should clarify, the US economy is going to recover, the US middle class is going away fast and the number of poor is just going to keep flying upward.

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • thisisntwallythisisntwally Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    An optimistic prediction: Yellen etc. are confirmed to the Fed. Bernanke begins unconventional easing (assuming that the rumors that he isn't doing so due to internal FOMC opposition are true - the three additional nominees are expected to follow Bernanke's line). By November 2011, interest rates, price levels, employment, and output should be growing.

    A pessimistic prediction: stimulus runs out, tax hikes occur, we have a double-dip.
    As much as I dislike Obama, I'm hoping the optimistic prediction is correct. Seeing the Democrats out of power is probably not enough of a silver lining for more years of economic misery.

    A story on the BBC noted that something like 55% of American workers have lost their job, taken a pay cut or seen reduced benefits, or had their hours cut during this recession.

    Yea well, it's just going to get worse.

    The United States is never going to recover, not with popular sentiment moving further away from sanity.

    That's why I'm getting off this ship as soon as I can

    South America? Options look limited at the moment.

    I guess Canada actually looks pretty good...

    #someshit
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    An optimistic prediction: Yellen etc. are confirmed to the Fed. Bernanke begins unconventional easing (assuming that the rumors that he isn't doing so due to internal FOMC opposition are true - the three additional nominees are expected to follow Bernanke's line). By November 2011, interest rates, price levels, employment, and output should be growing.

    A pessimistic prediction: stimulus runs out, tax hikes occur, we have a double-dip.
    As much as I dislike Obama, I'm hoping the optimistic prediction is correct. Seeing the Democrats out of power is probably not enough of a silver lining for more years of economic misery.

    A story on the BBC noted that something like 55% of American workers have lost their job, taken a pay cut or seen reduced benefits, or had their hours cut during this recession.

    Yea well, it's just going to get worse.

    The United States is never going to recover, not with popular sentiment moving further away from sanity.

    That's why I'm getting off this ship as soon as I can
    Man, and I thought I was pessimistic.

    If you're right, I'm glad I have three passports.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    Why keep it in cash of all things? Is it just the cash-under-the-mattress effect? One would think that if they're going to default to just keeping cash for safety that they'd at least put them into savings mechanisms which generate interest.

    Or am I misunderstanding "cash" when really it means "anything that acts as a savings mechanism, interest bearing or not"?

    In the business sense Cash normally is just a shorthand for 'short term, very liquid investments'. It doesn't actually mean they have a vault filled with dollar bills or anything. So it will earn some interest.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    An optimistic prediction: Yellen etc. are confirmed to the Fed. Bernanke begins unconventional easing (assuming that the rumors that he isn't doing so due to internal FOMC opposition are true - the three additional nominees are expected to follow Bernanke's line). By November 2011, interest rates, price levels, employment, and output should be growing.

    A pessimistic prediction: stimulus runs out, tax hikes occur, we have a double-dip.
    As much as I dislike Obama, I'm hoping the optimistic prediction is correct. Seeing the Democrats out of power is probably not enough of a silver lining for more years of economic misery.

    A story on the BBC noted that something like 55% of American workers have lost their job, taken a pay cut or seen reduced benefits, or had their hours cut during this recession.

    Yea well, it's just going to get worse.

    The United States is never going to recover, not with popular sentiment moving further away from sanity.

    That's why I'm getting off this ship as soon as I can

    South America? Options look limited at the moment.

    I guess Canada actually looks pretty good...

    I know a guy working in Mexico city who's doing pretty good, my cousin is working in Montreal and his company is hiring network people. The US is probably over 20% unemployment, we're not that far off from great depression numbers and this time they're permanent because businesses realized they can just work one guy to death to do two people's jobs.

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    In related news: businesses are holding record high amounts of debt, and record high amounts of cash. You'd think they'd use one to pay off the other, but apparently not. In any case, businesses are not using the money for investment or hiring.

    On the whole this is difficult to explain in conventional theory; I suspect this reflects a continued messed-up financial market. It is highly tempting to keep citing Minsky.

    With Consumer Confidence so abysmally low, I don't find it hard to imagine a business environment where you don't want to invest your money or pay off your debts for fear of a coming crash.

    If you suspect that your entire business may fall apart in the near future, it makes sense (on an emotional level, not necessarily on a strategic level) to restrict spending and to maintain some debt in order to build cash reserves.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Oh I forgot about the possibility of a second crash, god knows Goldmann Sachs is trying as hard as they can to do it a second time

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited July 2010

    I know a guy working in Mexico city who's doing pretty good, my cousin is working in Montreal and his company is hiring network people. The US is probably over 20% unemployment, we're not that far off from great depression numbers and this time they're permanent because businesses realized they can just work one guy to death to do two people's jobs.

    I hate to break it to Canada and Mexico, but it seems likely that if the US really got that bad, there would be considerable fallout to both of their economies (well and the world economy, but especially our neighbors). Geography matters.

  • LoklarLoklar Registered User
    edited July 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »

    I know a guy working in Mexico city who's doing pretty good, my cousin is working in Montreal and his company is hiring network people. The US is probably over 20% unemployment, we're not that far off from great depression numbers and this time they're permanent because businesses realized they can just work one guy to death to do two people's jobs.

    I hate to break it to Canada and Mexico, but it seems likely that if the US really got that bad, there would be considerable fallout to both of their economies (well and the world economy, but especially our neighbors). Geography matters.

    I think in the short-run we're okay up here. Doesn't matter how hard the US economy crashes, you'll still be buying oil. Especially considering the Gulf fiasco.

    Longer-term I think you're right. But gives us time to learn to sell to the Chinese.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    Very few economists still think that government spending can create jobs in the long run - many think it can do so in the short run, but in the long run the economy adjusts to take it into account, then non-government jobs decrease by at least the number of government jobs created.

    Of course, recessions happen in the short run.

    Redistributing wealth is an orthogonal issue, as is the provision of public goods; it is generally a good idea to keep these separate!

    What about measures to provide substantial benefits to businesses that hire more employees? Does that help? I mean absolutely no government intervention is politically viable, not with the lion's share of the country filled with rabid hatred of the unemployed and the poor, so it's all academic

    Edit: I should clarify, the US economy is going to recover, the US middle class is going away fast and the number of poor is just going to keep flying upward.

    Well, it's called a temporary payroll tax cut, which has strong bipartisan support among economists. You are right in supposing that it would help. It acts on the problem of sticky nominal wages most directly. A identical alternative is a tax credit for employment.

    One problem is a lack of trust, so to speak. Democrats don't think the tax cut, if enacted, will really be temporary. Republicans don't think the tax credit, if enacted, will really be temporary. And any legislation in the US must be packaged with pork of some sort to make it politically viable, which doesn't really help either way. The Obama stimulus plan included considerable amounts of spending increases and payroll tax cuts, but that was more than a year ago.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »

    I know a guy working in Mexico city who's doing pretty good, my cousin is working in Montreal and his company is hiring network people. The US is probably over 20% unemployment, we're not that far off from great depression numbers and this time they're permanent because businesses realized they can just work one guy to death to do two people's jobs.

    I hate to break it to Canada and Mexico, but it seems likely that if the US really got that bad, there would be considerable fallout to both of their economies (well and the world economy, but especially our neighbors). Geography matters.

    I think in the short-run we're okay up here. Doesn't matter how hard the US economy crashes, you'll still be buying oil. Especially considering the Gulf fiasco.

    Longer-term I think you're right. But gives us time to learn to sell to the Chinese.

    Europe, actually. That free trade deal with the EU is still in the works, though business doesn't seem entirely thrilled with it.

    But until more widespread integration with European markets (and even then we currently don't have all that much trade with them comparative to the US), we still depend dis-proportionally on a functioning US market, even if our own internal financial regulations keep us weathered from similar fallouts.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I know a guy working in Mexico city who's doing pretty good, my cousin is working in Montreal and his company is hiring network people. The US is probably over 20% unemployment, we're not that far off from great depression numbers and this time they're permanent because businesses realized they can just work one guy to death to do two people's jobs.

    What? No.

    After the Great Depression had ended, the US unemployment rate (U3) was still well over 15%. Bad as this recession may have been, we barely exceeded 10% at its trough.

    Great Depression years in pink.
    Spoiler:

    Great Recession years in grey.
    Spoiler:

    Go check out some books/websites on the Great Depression. I assure you it was much worse than what we have experienced (so far).

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    The US is probably over 20% unemployment, we're not that far off from great depression numbers and this time they're permanent because businesses realized they can just work one guy to death to do two people's jobs.

    U-6 is at 16.5%, actually. In California and Michigan it is at 21.7%; close to GD's national-average maximum of 22.5%, I guess. The GD was really, truly terrible, compounded by a series of policy mistakes we have (thus far) managed to avoid: no collapse in world trade, no mass cartelization, etc.

    And normally we take U-3 which has been idling around 10% for a while now, so. It's a fair distance to 22.5%.

    The surge in per-worker output always happens during every recovery, and you are somewhat right about the overworking - the whole 'reserve army of labor' thing does have an impact. It does rapidly fade, though, for the reason that if you work one guy to death, he eventually drops dead.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    stuff

    How do you get their site to spit out graphs? I always end up having to edit URLs by hand. I've no idea where on their site they offer these. :oops:

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Loklar wrote: »
    I think in the short-run we're okay up here. Doesn't matter how hard the US economy crashes, you'll still be buying oil. Especially considering the Gulf fiasco.

    Longer-term I think you're right. But gives us time to learn to sell to the Chinese.

    I donno, the US accounts for roughly 70% of Canada's total export volume.

    Energy products make up around 22% of that export volume. That isn't even the largest category, Machinery and Equipment is by a hair.

    Exports to the US alone compromise 21% of your GDP, though of course if the US collapsed you wouldn't import from the US either, so the net impact would be far less. But still, keeping in mind that the contraction during the Great Recession in the US topped out at roughly 3%, and you can see why it would be a Big Deal for Canada and Mexico if the US collapsed.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    stuff

    How do you get their site to spit out graphs? I always end up having to edit URLs by hand. I've no idea where on their site they offer these. :oops:

    Are you talking about FRED II? Because if your econ profs haven't told you about that, they kinda fucked up.

    Or do you have trouble making custom graphs in FRED II? I'll happily give you the step by step on that.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Loklar wrote: »
    I think in the short-run we're okay up here. Doesn't matter how hard the US economy crashes, you'll still be buying oil. Especially considering the Gulf fiasco.

    Longer-term I think you're right. But gives us time to learn to sell to the Chinese.

    I donno, the US accounts for roughly 70% of Canada's total export volume.

    Energy products make up around 22% of that export volume. That isn't even the largest category, Machinery and Equipment is by a hair.

    Exports to the US alone compromise 21% of your GDP, though of course if the US collapsed you wouldn't import from the US either, so the net impact would be far less. But still, keeping in mind that the contraction during the Great Recession in the US topped out at roughly 3%, and you can see why it would be a Big Deal for Canada and Mexico if the US collapsed.

    Except that the US is "Recovering", the thing is, the economy isn't "for us" anymore.

    The US economy is the wealthiest Americans, the peasants below them are unimportant except for when they can be goaded into voting against their own interests and slashing the taxes on the richest repeatedly
    ronya wrote: »
    The US is probably over 20% unemployment, we're not that far off from great depression numbers and this time they're permanent because businesses realized they can just work one guy to death to do two people's jobs.

    U-6 is at 16.5%, actually. In California and Michigan it is at 21.7%; close to GD's national-average maximum of 22.5%, I guess. The GD was really, truly terrible, compounded by a series of policy mistakes we have (thus far) managed to avoid: no collapse in world trade, no mass cartelization, etc.

    And normally we take U-3 which has been idling around 10% for a while now, so. It's a fair distance to 22.5%.

    The surge in per-worker output always happens during every recovery, and you are somewhat right about the overworking - the whole 'reserve army of labor' thing does have an impact. It does rapidly fade, though, for the reason that if you work one guy to death, he eventually drops dead.

    Meanwhile millions of educated workers get to live on $15,000 a year if they get any money at all because the government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking industry and couldn't give two shits

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    I try not to be tin foily but I wonder how much politics effects these business decisions. If the Obama Administration remains in power, they are likely to increase (and actually enforce) a lot of economic regulation, especially on Wall Street and longer term on Big Oil/Energy. If the economy doesn't bounce back by the early fall - or more accurately if it appears that its not bouncing back as well as it should - that's probably good for the people controlling the large multinationals.

    But I think the old adage about malice and incompetence comes into play
    I don't know how much of a stomach the Dems will have for more regulation if the economy is still in the doldrums come 2011.

    If the economy is still shitty come November, it's going to be a tough election for incumbents, meaning we're looking at fewer Democrats in Congress. Fairly or not (and some of the economic criticisms levelled at Obama are somewhat unfair), the party in power gets the blame.

    This is what I'm saying. Economy doing better -> Dems lose fewer seats -> Regulation is more likely. Therefore Recovery stalling -> less dominant majorities -> Regulation is neutered.

    But while I think unspoken collusion is highly probable in direct pursuit of profit, this seems a bit too removed to be likely.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Put me on record as saying unemployment starts rising again in January at the latest.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Meanwhile millions of educated workers get to live on $15,000 a year if they get any money at all because the government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking industry and couldn't give two shits

    I'm not sure how this is supposed to help the banking industry, really.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • ForarForar #432 Already prepping for Toronto Fan Expo!Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I guess Canada actually looks pretty good...

    No, we don't.

    We totally don't.

    No need to pay attention to us whatsoever. Nope, none at all.

    sigone.png
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    Put me on record as saying unemployment starts rising again in January at the latest.

    Put yourself on record here. If you're right, you stand to triple your money.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Meanwhile millions of educated workers get to live on $15,000 a year if they get any money at all because the government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking industry and couldn't give two shits

    I'm not sure how this is supposed to help the banking industry, really.

    You're right that's not correct, it's a complicated web of industries and politicians, but the bottom line is that "the people" do not factor into most government decisions.

    Why the hell would 58 votes be insufficient to extend unemployment if they gave a shit? They could easily destroy the filibuster with a simple majority by contesting it
    enc0re wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Put me on record as saying unemployment starts rising again in January at the latest.

    Put yourself on record here. If you're right, you stand to triple your money.

    Wait you can make money by being cynical and being correct? How is that possible, given that cynicism and precognition are synonyms?

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    On Canada:
    According to this morning's Labour Force Survey release (the LFS is a mandatory survey that uses census data - are its days numbered, too?), 97% of the jobs that were lost to the recessions have been recovered.

    source

    Canada has done pretty well compared to its southern brethren.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Put me on record as saying unemployment starts rising again in January at the latest.

    Put yourself on record here. If you're right, you stand to triple your money.

    Wait you can make money by being cynical and being correct? How is that possible, given that cynicism and precognition are synonyms?

    Oh, you have no idea just how cynical. Here's Intrade, betting on whether Intrade will still exist in however many years. It's hilarious.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Put me on record as saying unemployment starts rising again in January at the latest.

    Put yourself on record here. If you're right, you stand to triple your money.

    I'd pass. I'd also keep hoping that it's a very, very bad prediction.
    Also, this link is a flat settlement(y/n) type contract and it seems the market has almost no liquidity. Real men would place their confidence on an actual spread(..and lose their yearly salary!) ;oP

    edit: Intrade was previously the financial skin for Tradesports' financial markes. They closed shop with the sports operation 2 years ago and kept open the financials product. It's never been very succesful.

  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    On Canada:
    According to this morning's Labour Force Survey release (the LFS is a mandatory survey that uses census data - are its days numbered, too?), 97% of the jobs that were lost to the recessions have been recovered.

    source

    Canada has done pretty well compared to its southern brethren.

    I keep hearing things around here regarding that we've just postponed our housing bubble which has still yet to massively burst, though I'm not entirely sure of the credibility of such accounts. It apparently has to do with eased regulations/lax hand with regard to mortgages passed by our current government.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Meanwhile millions of educated workers get to live on $15,000 a year if they get any money at all because the government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking industry and couldn't give two shits

    I'm not sure how this is supposed to help the banking industry, really.

    You're right that's not correct, it's a complicated web of industries and politicians, but the bottom line is that "the people" do not factor into most government decisions.

    Why the hell would 58 votes be insufficient to extend unemployment if they gave a shit? They could easily destroy the filibuster with a simple majority by contesting it

    Incompetence over malice, etc.

    Congress has never been very good at focusing on anything; as I noted in the OP, as recently as seven months ago the Senate managed to unanimously extend unemployment. Whatever horse trading that managed to produce that result didn't occur again, I suppose. If anything, I would blame "a system that rewards myopically scoring short-term political points rather than considering the welfare of Americans" over "shadowy manipulation by the rich".

    When economists talk about the delays and problems associated with fiscal policy, it's usually America they're thinking of - for good or ill, smaller developed countries tend to have less trouble altering the direction of the ship we call government in the ocean of policy options. They are, after all, smaller, and often have more centralized institutions. For all the power devolution that Europe has gone through, it has taken care to retain the strongest tools of fiscal and monetary policy in the hands of central governments.

    My own pet theory is that the US will always have trouble reconciling its founding ideals with the institutions of a modern mixed-economy liberal democracy and that will persistently reduce legislative agility. But I suppose the US is stuck with it.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    I don't suppose anybody can tell me why exchange rates aren't tied to the consumer price index or something?

    Also, how's Russia been doing? Given that one of its spies was paid to sleep with wall street guys, that might be one of the few things Russia may have gotten intel on.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Well, prices might not converge due to real (rather than nominal) costs and differences. And for very large countries like the US any convergence that does happen would take a very long time to occur.

    I mean, measurements of the CPI already take nominal imports into account, since they don't distinguish between domestic goods and foreign goods available on the domestic market. For very small countries exchange rates would be tied closely to the CPI, yes.

    Russia: coasting along on oil revenues, as far as I can tell.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Well, prices might not converge due to real (rather than nominal) costs and differences. And for very large countries like the US any convergence that does happen would take a very long time to occur.

    I mean, measurements of the CPI already take nominal imports into account, since they don't distinguish between domestic goods and foreign goods available on the domestic market. For very small countries exchange rates would be tied closely to the CPI, yes.

    Russia: coasting along on oil revenues, as far as I can tell.

    It just confuses me that the value of money isn't based on what you could buy with the money. My mind breaks down when people seriously try to claim that it's cheaper to buy everything in a certain location due to the value of the currency, as it seems like claiming that you have to drive farther in the US because we use miles.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I don't suppose anybody can tell me why exchange rates aren't tied to the consumer price index or something?

    As in:

    Why isn't there a law or regulation tying exchange rates to the CPI (or else)?
    -or-
    Why don't supply and demand force market exchange rates to converge to CPI (or else) ratios between countries?

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    My only hope is that the Obama administration will be more apt to do something post november elections, because the dems will probably still have a majority, but too small to try to squeeze things through without using force (as it seems now they're trying to wiggle things through gently by bending on one knee and offering fellatio to the GOP)

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
Sign In or Register to comment.