So anybody who is accurate about the economy, but not the first person to be accurate, isn't worth listening to? Is, as you put it, a crazy idiot?
The concept of "dog-piling" is what I was referring to with the whole "late to the party" business. If you're the last person to admit that something that is clearly happening is happening, you're probably not the brightest bulb in the drawer.
Here's Peter Schiff promising that hyperinflation is going to happen "eventually", a promise he'd been making for four years at that point. Hyperinflation has yet to materialize. At what point do you stop listening to that person?
...so we shouldn't do something beneficial now, under current conditions, because at some indeterminate point in the future those conditions will have changed and we will need to do something else at that point? I'm glad I don't get stuck behind you at traffic lights.
Interest rates determine how much extra money gets tacked onto the debt every year. The bigger the debt load, the worse things get the second interest rates go back up.
Things currently are worse. Interest rates would only rise when things stop being worse. Which is, you know, a good thing.
No, see, the interest rates go back up when the Federal Reserve decides to raise them. Because it controls them. Which I don't like. One bit.
That's not actually true, the Fed has control over the supply of money, not the interest rate. And while the supply of money affects the interest rate, it's more affected by other things; like the number of transactions and the market's predictions about the future. When we're specifically talking about bonds interest rates, they are determined by the market's view on their safety (as they are a safe investment) versus the safety of other investments.
Right now, United States bonds are one of the safest investments you can make. Which is why they've been sold at either close to or at 0% interest, which means that the US actually makes money off of them since it pays them back at a lower price in the future (because of inflation).
On its own, this could mean nothing (hypothetically), but we're also in a market where companies continue to sit on their money and not spend it. If this continues into the future we could be looking at another jobless recovery which would be buoyed by yet another bubble. Now, in order to get the economy going, someone needs to start spending money, and as much as we can pray to the market faerie, an unguided recovery will likely lead to the situation I just described.
There are several ways that the government can do a stimulus,
A)Tax the rich and corporations who are saving in order to spend money on direly needed things (upgrades for infrastructure, money into education, money for municipal public transport, etc).
B)Create a series of bonds in order to pay for those things (which, given that people are essentially paying to buy these bonds, is functionally similar to A)
C)Enact policies which put money into the hands of those who spend it--the poor and the young. This is actually the structural problem behind the last recession: real wages have been stagnant in the last 30 years, and with an increase in education/housing/consumer costs we've seen the household savings rate (and especially the savings rate for the lower class) first tank through the 80s and then slip into the negatives. Through the 90s and 00s the largest item of 'saving' was people's homes and the assumption that it would appreciate--if you take this out of the picture, the wealth of the working class has been stagnant since the late 80s. But productivity gains have been through the roof, which means that companies and the CEOs of those companies have been capturing a larger and larger portion of the wealth created in the American economy. The demand for loans from the working class (who need the money to pay off things they need like cars/housing/education) and the increased supply of loans (because after a certain point you can only buy so many yachts, so you reinvest your money in the financial market) led to increasing financialization and an increased reliance on debt as a driver of the American economy. This structural issue hasn't been solved, and at this point we need policy to solve it.
But given the events of last week, I'd say that we're probably only going to see parts of C enacted at the state level.
Also given that the thread's going to get locked anyways, if anyone wants to ask me for PDF sources (or the paper I wrote the intro on that explains this in more detail) PM me
1) That Business Insider article, I read that, did you? I'll even quote it for you:
President Bush, you will recall, inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades). Then, hit with a recession, he took the budget into deficit. Then he cut taxes, growing the deficit to $400 billion a year... President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts hit federal revenue, while federal spending growth continued apace. This combination ballooned the deficit in the early years of the Bush presidency.
Guess what, $400 billion dollars is 2/5 of the deficit! Crazy, right!
2) So? The bubble crash was caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was regulated mortage-adjustment rates. It was repealed under Clinton, if that makes you feel any better. But it shouldn't, cause major effects didn't start until 2003 when it exploded upwards. So yes, Krugman was correct.
3) From that same article that you so helpfully provided, but didn't actually read:
So again, like I said. Bush is the one that fucked up and Obama's plan worked, but just didn't go far enough.
To you:
Quit fucking up your facts. Thanks for providing a link to prove me correct though, you're a true bro.
1) See, the $400 billion number didn't stay there and wasn't the only cause. It didn't balloon it from zero. Good job.
2) That's a canard many like to push forth. It was the only piece of deregulation for the entire decade. You're forgetting Sarbanes-Oxley and all the other financial regulation that happened in the '90s and '00s.
3) The stimulus failed. Only partisans say it "didn't go far enough." Because deficit spending doesn't work unless on a massive scale of like $30 trillion. At that point, you might as well split it by the population of the country and give every man, woman, and child the resulting amount. Anyone who knows anything about the structure of borrowing knows that the government spending a lot of money it doesn't have crowds out the borrowing of everyone else and takes funds that would have been loaned to someone else to the government. But, you know, that's what a business degree taught me.
Jesus fuck, man! Can you ever stay on a single topic? Cause We're talking about Krugman here! Quit moving the goalposts!
1) He predicted after the Bush tax cuts, but before crazy war spending, that the cuts would increase the deficit. Guess what the surplus was in 2000? It was $122 billion. Guess what the the Bush Tax Cuts did? Remove $400 billion. That, by itself with no help from outside spending, is a goddamn deficit!
2) SOX didn't do shit. If I'm being generous, it made it so the crash happened a tad later than it should have. And it still doesn't help your argument that Krugman didn't predict the crash due to deregulation.
3. No, it didn't fail, see these?
The stimulus helped, but not as much as it could have. Again, predicted by Krugman. Stop making this about your personal beliefs/
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
This seems to be going in a circle, with each lap involving less and less excellence towards our fellow forumers .
Yeah, BWS is repeating Fox News talking points that have been refuted for years. All you have to do is type them into google and the refutation is the first or second link you find. Done, circle broken.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Because apparently we take Iran at their word now. I really don't trust those bastards to not sell the bomb they're clearly making to the highest bidder
Iran wants an atomic bomb because they know the minute they have one, their weight class on the global political scale goes way up, while also significantly decreasing their chances of being invaded or fucked with by larger foreign powers. Which has been known to happen in the past... Selling the technology on the black market is a far more serious problem with North Korea than it will likely ever be with Iran. I think the US and world at large has much better chance of retarding their nuclear pursuits by bringing them into the fold then to take your tack, and the tack republicans and hawks in congress like to take, that they're a filthy bag of liars who can't be trusted.
Because apparently we take Iran at their word now. I really don't trust those bastards to not sell the bomb they're clearly making to the highest bidder.
We take Israel at their word and they've directly killed far more Americans than Iran. Plus, they steal the classified technology we send them using taxpayer dollars and sell it to Red China for TEXA$. Not to mention insult us to our face, demand we change our policy for their benefit, and fund the Israeli equivalent of the Friends of the Soviet Union. Israel has repeatedly stabbed America in the back and is a terrible ally.
This seems to be going in a circle, with each lap involving less and less excellence towards our fellow forumers .
Yeah, BWS is repeating Fox News talking points that have been refuted for years. All you have to do is type them into google and the refutation is the first or second link you find. Done, circle broken.
It's been awhile since I looked into it, but the talking point for blaming the CRA for the housing bubble was interesting, in a sort ironic way, in that it was one of the regulations that actually had some ways to stop some of the mortgage practices that were otherwise free reign in the wild days of the housing bubble. I don't remember the exact details these years on, but it was obvious that they choose something mild annoyance of theirs that was slightly relevant to be the scapegoat for all the excess of the financial industry and the housing sector, and the suckers would take it and run with it.
And Rick Scott totally isn't crooked, either.
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Iran knows having a nuke is the only why they can be sure Israel won't bomb them out of boredom
And Ukraine has proven that if a nation doesn't have nukes they really should get them if they don't want to be roflstomped by a bigger nation whose leader is having a midlife crisis and needs to flex his nuts.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
Here's Peter Schiff promising that hyperinflation is going to happen "eventually", a promise he'd been making for four years at that point. Hyperinflation has yet to materialize. At what point do you stop listening to that person?
That's not actually true, the Fed has control over the supply of money, not the interest rate. And while the supply of money affects the interest rate, it's more affected by other things; like the number of transactions and the market's predictions about the future. When we're specifically talking about bonds interest rates, they are determined by the market's view on their safety (as they are a safe investment) versus the safety of other investments.
Right now, United States bonds are one of the safest investments you can make. Which is why they've been sold at either close to or at 0% interest, which means that the US actually makes money off of them since it pays them back at a lower price in the future (because of inflation).
On its own, this could mean nothing (hypothetically), but we're also in a market where companies continue to sit on their money and not spend it. If this continues into the future we could be looking at another jobless recovery which would be buoyed by yet another bubble. Now, in order to get the economy going, someone needs to start spending money, and as much as we can pray to the market faerie, an unguided recovery will likely lead to the situation I just described.
There are several ways that the government can do a stimulus,
A)Tax the rich and corporations who are saving in order to spend money on direly needed things (upgrades for infrastructure, money into education, money for municipal public transport, etc).
B)Create a series of bonds in order to pay for those things (which, given that people are essentially paying to buy these bonds, is functionally similar to A)
C)Enact policies which put money into the hands of those who spend it--the poor and the young. This is actually the structural problem behind the last recession: real wages have been stagnant in the last 30 years, and with an increase in education/housing/consumer costs we've seen the household savings rate (and especially the savings rate for the lower class) first tank through the 80s and then slip into the negatives. Through the 90s and 00s the largest item of 'saving' was people's homes and the assumption that it would appreciate--if you take this out of the picture, the wealth of the working class has been stagnant since the late 80s. But productivity gains have been through the roof, which means that companies and the CEOs of those companies have been capturing a larger and larger portion of the wealth created in the American economy. The demand for loans from the working class (who need the money to pay off things they need like cars/housing/education) and the increased supply of loans (because after a certain point you can only buy so many yachts, so you reinvest your money in the financial market) led to increasing financialization and an increased reliance on debt as a driver of the American economy. This structural issue hasn't been solved, and at this point we need policy to solve it.
But given the events of last week, I'd say that we're probably only going to see parts of C enacted at the state level.
Also given that the thread's going to get locked anyways, if anyone wants to ask me for PDF sources (or the paper I wrote the intro on that explains this in more detail) PM me
The thing about soothsayers is that people tend to forget their errors.
Because holy shit those morons never stop with the doomsday warnings.
Jesus fuck, man! Can you ever stay on a single topic? Cause We're talking about Krugman here! Quit moving the goalposts!
1) He predicted after the Bush tax cuts, but before crazy war spending, that the cuts would increase the deficit. Guess what the surplus was in 2000? It was $122 billion. Guess what the the Bush Tax Cuts did? Remove $400 billion. That, by itself with no help from outside spending, is a goddamn deficit!
2) SOX didn't do shit. If I'm being generous, it made it so the crash happened a tad later than it should have. And it still doesn't help your argument that Krugman didn't predict the crash due to deregulation.
3. No, it didn't fail, see these?
The stimulus helped, but not as much as it could have. Again, predicted by Krugman. Stop making this about your personal beliefs/
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Yeah, BWS is repeating Fox News talking points that have been refuted for years. All you have to do is type them into google and the refutation is the first or second link you find. Done, circle broken.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Iran wants an atomic bomb because they know the minute they have one, their weight class on the global political scale goes way up, while also significantly decreasing their chances of being invaded or fucked with by larger foreign powers. Which has been known to happen in the past... Selling the technology on the black market is a far more serious problem with North Korea than it will likely ever be with Iran. I think the US and world at large has much better chance of retarding their nuclear pursuits by bringing them into the fold then to take your tack, and the tack republicans and hawks in congress like to take, that they're a filthy bag of liars who can't be trusted.
We take Israel at their word and they've directly killed far more Americans than Iran. Plus, they steal the classified technology we send them using taxpayer dollars and sell it to Red China for TEXA$. Not to mention insult us to our face, demand we change our policy for their benefit, and fund the Israeli equivalent of the Friends of the Soviet Union. Israel has repeatedly stabbed America in the back and is a terrible ally.
It's been awhile since I looked into it, but the talking point for blaming the CRA for the housing bubble was interesting, in a sort ironic way, in that it was one of the regulations that actually had some ways to stop some of the mortgage practices that were otherwise free reign in the wild days of the housing bubble. I don't remember the exact details these years on, but it was obvious that they choose something mild annoyance of theirs that was slightly relevant to be the scapegoat for all the excess of the financial industry and the housing sector, and the suckers would take it and run with it.
And Rick Scott totally isn't crooked, either.
And Ukraine has proven that if a nation doesn't have nukes they really should get them if they don't want to be roflstomped by a bigger nation whose leader is having a midlife crisis and needs to flex his nuts.