# Double Dip and Mid Terms



## George Caplan (Oct 15, 2010)

is a double - dip on its way and will the house of reps/a third of the senate/ and some govs all go out the window for obama? 

strong possibility of all of that looking at it from this angle.


----------



## lux (Oct 15, 2010)

what


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 15, 2010)

Yes, it is on the way.

"Stimulus was too big, stop government spending!"

"The Dems promised jobs, but they didn't deliver!"

The US govt needed to spend at least 2 trillion, to create jobs that would otherwise not have existed. The opposition Faux-media-political complex would never allow it. And so less than 800 billion was spent (seems like a lot until you find out what the US GDP is), and job losses continue.

A golf metaphor: The former administration/Faux team dug a deep sand trap hole, didn't allow the next golfer to use the right club to swing out of it, and is now blaming the poor choice of club for the fact that the ball is still not coming out.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Oct 15, 2010)

I don't think we'll see a double dip, just a long time for things to fully recover.

But who knows, nobody has a crystal ball.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 15, 2010)

No opinion on the elections.

On double dip I'm going with unlikely. However I'm inclined to say the likelihood of double dip is greater than generally believed by people in the top fifth. 
So I suppose there's a market call in there somewhere.

(And did you trade JOE in the past few days? How much fun is that?!)


----------



## midphase (Oct 15, 2010)

lux @ Fri Oct 15 said:


> what



Elections in the USA coming up in a couple of weeks. Not for president, for senate and house.


----------



## lux (Oct 15, 2010)

midphase @ Fri Oct 15 said:


> lux @ Fri Oct 15 said:
> 
> 
> > what
> ...



thanks


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 15, 2010)

Ned has it 100% right.


----------



## David Story (Oct 15, 2010)

Smoothing out the boom-bust cycle would make less billionaires.
But so would a double-dip.
The money wants a "safe" down period, until new businesses start to thrive. Then off to the races again.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 16, 2010)

madbulk @ Fri Oct 15 said:


> No opinion on the elections.
> 
> On double dip I'm going with unlikely. However I'm inclined to say the likelihood of double dip is greater than generally believed by people in the top fifth.
> So I suppose there's a market call in there somewhere.
> ...



yep i may go with that. as far as markets are concerned right now we are getting hammered. but its mainly in the uk where the trading is going for us. cant buy or sell the market for nuts correctly at this time. the issues may lie with currency more than anything sooner than later.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 16, 2010)

Isnt it funny how we hear that bigger Government is the answer for all of the worlds ailments.
Bush grew the Government and blew the surplus a functioning administration left him and failed to see the coming crisis.
Obamas Union thugs and Law Proffessors have grown the Federal government and spent trillions, yet the economic team has jumped from the sinking ship.
So I have 10 years of proof that these "leaders" don't have a clue on how to grow an economy.

We need Doctors and Medical experts to design Health Care choices.
And we need skilled businessmen to handle the purse strings.

After 10 years of progressive growth and spending itsnt it apparent that elected officials have no idea how to run the worlds largest eceonmy............???

Before we give everything away again,lets try and get rid of the lawyers, politicians and proffessors with all of their theorires, and appoint people who are held accountable for their actions.
Just like they do in the real world.

Big Government is perfect for a large economy, but it needs to be focused instead of layered.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 16, 2010)

chimuelo @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> So I have 10 years of proof that these "leaders" don't have a clue on how to grow an economy.



what i never understood about the way they work in the uk was their public sector pension system. this system has systematically more or less destroyed any chance they ever get of having a surplus. the right dont seem to be able to get to grips with it and the left want to keep it but have no idea on how to keep funding it. 
and these ps pensions are unfunded. in other words they just get paid out of taxation and government debt at the time of payment. and they are based on final salary and number of years in the job. they are then indexed in payment.
yu would need a massive pension fund to get that kind of return. mostly impossible based on todays mortality tables. crazy system.

in short what might be a good idea would be for the uk government to phaze out ps pensions and get the ps workers to fund their own pensions by investing their money into british and overseas companies whos taxes pay for their pensions in the first place. remember these uk ps pensions are unfunded.

you can never grow an economy effectively with just this one example and there are many acting like an anchor.


----------



## wst3 (Oct 16, 2010)

I believe that Capitalists are hated for two reasons.

The first is plain old envy - whether it is envy of their financial position, or envy of their skill sets, or envy of their social standing, whatever, we all want to be in a better position than currently occupied, and in theory at least, that's what drives capitalism.

I'm not even sure that it is a bad thing, all things considered.

The second is far worse! People hate Capitalists because they have succumbed to a level of greed that is really difficult for most of us to even comprehend. I don't have a clue how things spun so far out of control, and it frightens me!

I spent some time working in good old Capitalism Central back in the 1990s. It was, in fact, a pretty cool gig, and a great education. The majority of the firm leaders were smart and had common sense. They really did strive to bring many of us into the partnership. And from day one they 'trained' you for that position, not just in terms of the firm, but in terms of how to handle new found wealth.

The rich are different from the rest of us. They don't, typically, pay interest on assets unless they expect that value of the asset to outstrip the interest. They are amazingly patient, and will wait till they can pay cash for that new toy. They also don't, again generally, carry a lot of insurance. They'll have catastrophic health care, and they will carry state mandated liability, but beyond that they tend to be self insured.

I imagine (never quite made it to partner<G>) that this level of self sufficiency is quite a nice reward.

And here's the key - the majority of Capitalists are good folks, most that I've met would surprise you with their desire to provide safety nets for folks facing difficult times.

Same goes for most socialists... their goals are laudable. A great society should be measured by how it cares for the downtrodden!

But there are just plain whacked examples in both camps, and they are the ones that get the most press! You should not judge all Capitalists or all Socialists by the actions of a minority, anymore than you should judge any group based on a small sample. I believe that is called prejudice!

Overall I believe that free markets, with oversight, provide the best opportunity for folks that wish to excel to do just that. By the same token, the gap from poorest to richest can not be so great that the poorest can not survive... and there do need to be programs in place to help people that have temporary setbacks, no matter the cause and no matter the severity. And there also need to be regulations put in place to keep a greedy few from gaming the system. There will never be a level playing field, and some believe such a field would be bad. But birthright ought not provide you with a guarantee, just a slightly better opportunity perhaps - and that is a natural result of basic parental instincts. You will not change that, nor should you.

I enjoy debate, but please, let's not make gross generalizations...


----------



## midphase (Oct 16, 2010)

This guy is scary:

http://www.slate.com/id/2271265/


----------



## wst3 (Oct 16, 2010)

So many points, so little time<G>...


Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> There's no such thing as a free market, or it's very rare; -opolies are the norm rather than the exception.


Sorry, but I beg to differ... -opolies are the natural extension of specific segments of the marketplace either because they've become commodities and investors lose interest, or because of good old greed. And I'm not arguing that a free market is perfect, just the opposite, it does require regulation because some folks just don't care about anybody but themselves. The problem is, that's true of many of the regulators as well!



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> People say they believe in free markets the same way they believe in scripture, but nobody really does - and for good reason


We'll leave that for another day<G>!



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> Meanwhile if you examine the concept closely it turns out that "free markets" usually just means you get a choice of products - different brands of strawberries, cars, washing machines, what have you.


That is but a small part of the concept. In a larger sense it means that if you want to go out and invent something, or write about something, or whatever, you are free to do so, and if you do it well you'll be rewarded accordingly.

Sadly, in the last couple of decades the later part has fallen on hard times... but not because it's a bad idea, but rather, because of unbridled greed and selfishness.



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> The reason I point this out is that I hate "free market" ideology. What it really means is "free to justify why one shouldn't help people." Sort of what people like George Caplan are so fond of.


Not at all! That is the result of so-called public servents being just as greedy as the rest of the folks, and taking what amounts to bribes to look the other way, or worse, being smart enough to find loopholes and then selling them to the highest bidder.



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> Another point: yeah I hope things don't get any worse before they get better, but really the double-dip question is missing the point that we're in one big horrible dip. And because of the conservative Democrats and even worse Repubicans in power, it's going to take a very long time to get out of it.


What I don't understand is how someone can believe that it takes less time to undo something than it took to do it. Let's look at diets. Over a period of say 20 years you put on a few extra pounds. One day you wake up, and you really do not want to buy yet another closet full of even larger clothes. So you jump from one fad diet to another, and wonder why you make little or no progress. Yet if you were to change your eating habits you'd be shocked at how well it works.

The same logic applies to finances. It takes time to run up billions in debt - not as long as it used to I suppose, but still, it takes time. Why then does anyone think that corporations or the government can snap their fingers and undo it?



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> Everything they say is moronic bullshit: "you can't borrow to get out of debt,



You can't, not long term anyway. Borrowing means you are increasing your debt, and unless you have no intention of actually paying back the new debt then you have only played a silly shell game.



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> I know how to spend my money better than the government does,"


Sorry, but at every level that seems to be true - not that the public is brilliant about it, but certainly the government is terrible at it.



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> or the most astoundingly stupid line of all: "government can't create jobs, private people do."


Do you really want a country where everyone works for the government? That does not sound like a workable plan to me, though sometimes I think it might be nice to get a government job, with all those benefits and perqs. It won't scale, and it is not sustainable!



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> Plus that's peppered with demagogic lashing out at everyone in sight: immigrants, the Chinese, Muslim cultural centers, Obama...and of course the worst of all: SOCIALISM.


Yet another example of the sad side of human nature... you don't solve problems by attacking other groups, or even by painting groups with broad brushstrokes. There are good and bad public servants, good and bad conservatives, good and bad liberals, heck, I've even known a few good Libertarians<G>. And there are certainly examples of good and bad members of different religions or nations.

No one is going anywhere positive with that sort of behavior!


----------



## Udo (Oct 16, 2010)

It's ironic, but even research funded by the Bush Administration came to the conclusion that Conservatism "describes a set of neurosis and insecurities" (they didn't like to see that published, of course) :wink:

It applies to conservatism in general of course, not the party specifically (you'll find some people with conservative tendencies among the Democrats in the US :wink: ) 
[align=center]____________________[/align]
An observation: it appears that in its CURRENT INCARNATION, capitalism is ultimately a system of diminishing returns and possibly failure (not just morally and ethically, but also economically).

- it's too often driven and manipulated by gossip, rumour, innuendo, fear, uncertainty and doubt (.... and gambling  ).

- too many prominent people in the "system" are very insecure and often highly neurotic (despite their position, status, income, wealth and education). Conservatives appear to be by far in the majority in this group :wink: .

The above factors are obvious in many decisions!


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 17, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> Meanwhile if you examine the concept closely it turns out that "free markets" usually just means you get a choice of products - different brands of strawberries, cars, washing machines, what have you.



lot of truth in that.



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> The reason I point this out is that I hate "free market" ideology. What it really means is "free to justify why one shouldn't help people." Sort of what people like George Caplan are so fond of.



lot of truth in that too.  



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> Another point: yeah I hope things don't get any worse before they get better, but really the double-dip question is missing the point that we're in one big horrible dip. And because of the conservative Democrats and even worse Repubicans in power, it's going to take a very long time to get out of it.



thats always the thing at the back of investors collective mind. is it one big dip with the occasional spike? most commentators say /we are out of this or that recession/ when it could actually mean weve just merely had a spike upwards when the norm over time could be a long drop. remember the uk 100 indices for example has still never recovered from its year 2000 level. 
lets also remember that this problem was not caused by the obama administration directly or indirectly but by the previous administration with possibly one of our worst ever presidents.




Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> Plus that's peppered with demagogic lashing out at everyone in sight: immigrants, the Chinese, Muslim cultural centers, Obama...and of course the worst of all: SOCIALISM.



which reminds me of an interesting statement of angela merkels today.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 17, 2010)

C M Dess @ Sat Oct 16 said:


> I FUKING WORK HARD...DON'T WASTE MY FUKING SLAVE LIFE ON SHIT. At least make something nice for the world if I'm going to be your whipping boy.



ok lets try. and please say hello to your mother for me.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 17, 2010)

midphase @ 16/10/2010 said:


> This guy is scary:
> 
> http://www.slate.com/id/2271265/



So true. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## SergeD (Oct 17, 2010)

P.T. @ Fri Oct 15 said:


> As long as the jobs keep getting outsourced to other Countries, the stimulus is just likely to be stimulating foreign economies and propping up american companies that pay salaries to foreign workers, all at taxpayer expense.



+1


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 17, 2010)

Keep your eye on California. If Cali can't get its shite together, the US is screwed.


----------



## Animus (Oct 17, 2010)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sun Oct 17 said:


> Keep your eye on California. If Cali can't get its shite together, the US is screwed.



Ah yes, California. The great liberal experiment. We've seen how well it's worked out.


----------



## midphase (Oct 17, 2010)

Guys, the biggest issue at work here is that the Capitalist leaders of the industry keep sending more jobs to 3rd World countries because they can find desperate people willing to work in substandard conditions for pennies on the dollar. This has NOTHING to do with regulation, NOTHING to do with taxes, and EVERYTHING to do with greed!


----------



## P.T. (Oct 17, 2010)

midphase @ Sun Oct 17 said:


> Guys, the biggest issue at work here is that the Capitalist leaders of the industry keep sending more jobs to 3rd World countries because they can find desperate people willing to work in substandard conditions for pennies on the dollar. This has NOTHING to do with regulation, NOTHING to do with taxes, and EVERYTHING to do with greed!



Actually, it has a lot to do with regulation and taxes.

If a company is based here the gov can make laws about sending jobs out of Country.
They can impose taxes on outsourced jobs.
They can impose taxes on products made overseas by an american company and imported into the US.
There are all sorts of things they can do.

What they did instead was pass NAFTA and GATT and other things that were Largely designed to help companies to outsource.

Even the old Kyoto Protocol on environmentalism contained provisions that encouraged companies to outsource their manufacturing by placing more pollution restrictions on industrialized nations and less restrictions on 3rd world countries.

All of these things are interconnected.

Every time a job is outsourced, it isn't just a lost job. It is also lost tax revenue because that worker in a foreign country is paying taxes to that foreign Country, whereas an american worker would be paying taxes to america.

That salary is also american money that is leaving the country, making us poorer.

Then, to make matters worse, the american consumer very often doesn't see the lower prices that this outsourcing is suppose to give us. Not that lower prices will matter all that much to people without jobs.

I was in a major department store recently, looking at coffee mugs. Just plain mugs without any fancy design or glazes.

$5 for a simple mug, made in China. Am I really supposed to believe that we can't make a simple mug here in america and sell it for $5 and make a profit?

I saw socks, 3 pair for $15. Again, am I to believe that we can't do that right here at home?

These companies are sending our jobs away, getting the work done for dirt cheap wages and them pocketing all of the savings as profit and not passing any of it on the the american consumer.

Then, They want bail-out and stimulus money from the american taxpayer.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2010)

> Simple question. Microcosm to Macrocosm. If you yourself were $30k in credit card debt already would you then take out another line of credit to pay off that first line of 30k debt? What would that solve? Is that logical? Government is basically a business (or should be) and they are subject to the same economic laws as a private business. And what happens when a company spends more than it takes in, and/or then tries to borrow to make up that difference? Money does not grow on the proverbial tree. It eventually catches up to you.
> 
> The Japanese went down a similar road of deficit spending and guess what? Twenty years later and they are still in the same recession. All it does is prolong the pain and the bad blood can't be purged.



Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Damn, this is frustrating!

First, the Japanese didn't have sufficient stimulus either. Bad example.

Second, the country is absolutely 100% not a business or your household budget. That's the problem: our administration isn't explaining that, so people automatically figure that because they're in debt, the logical thing is for the government to reduce its debt.

In fact the opposite is true! It's exactly *because* so many people can't go out and buy things to keep the economy moving that the government needs to fill the hole. After the economy picks up as a result of that they can pull back, and tax revenues will go up so that our deficits are reduced.

And saying that because some stimulus money ends up overseas means that it doesn't work is simply ridiculous. Never mind anything else, if the government pays someone to build a tunnel, that money stays here.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 17, 2010)

Well guess where Pelosi, Reid and Obama decided that GM should build the 3 new plants with our bailout money.........?South America......Praise The Lord.....
Those poor non Union uneducated peasants will be happy building Green cars that nobody will ever buy. I bet Doug Rodgers from EW and Nick Phoenix cant even afford one of those.........Darn Sample developer CEO's....... o-[][]-o 

Well this double dip is terrible, I have many friends who are suffering.
I am glad that I voted for Obama though. I personally cant stand him or his policies, but it was a great investment. My Union health care plan has added unlimited Dental and Vision, and my Pension credit hours have risen while Social Security and Medicare benefits have decreased.
I guess the Union thugs knew a good bet when they saw one.
In May I hope to collect my Pension as I will be the ripe age of 55. 
Hell I might even become a Socialist myself.
Right now I employ 4 other musicians and pay for their SIIS insurances, and even give bonuses when we get SAG gigs or tips.
I think instead of giving them the current rate, I should up their pay when I start recieving those luscious Union Pension checks................Praise The Lord......
Yeah.......that way they can have even more money to gamble on the video poker games during their breaks.
Sometimes I think they are greedy little communists because instead of taking care of their families they drink and gamble their money away, just like our excellent Union Auto workers that we also bail out. Well as long as they build green cars...

God Bless The USA......... o-[][]-o


----------



## midphase (Oct 17, 2010)

P.T. @ Sun Oct 17 said:


> Actually, it has a lot to do with regulation and taxes.
> 
> If a company is based here the gov can make laws about sending jobs out of Country.
> They can impose taxes on outsourced jobs.
> ...




P.T.

You're misunderstanding what I wanted to say. Right now Conservatives are saying that there are too many regulations and taxes and that is why businesses are going elsewhere for manufacture. But it's just the opposite, with less regulation and taxes corporations still end up outsourcing to other countries because no amount of tax credit will offset the amount of money saved by hiring some poor chap to work for $10/week.

So we agree on the idea that the US Government needs to raise taxes (especially on businesses who take their manufacturing elsewhere) and increase regulation to make sure they stay in the country in the first place.


----------



## Animus (Oct 18, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Oct 17 said:


> > Simple question. Microcosm to Macrocosm. If you yourself were $30k in credit card debt already would you then take out another line of credit to pay off that first line of 30k debt? What would that solve? Is that logical? Government is basically a business (or should be) and they are subject to the same economic laws as a private business. And what happens when a company spends more than it takes in, and/or then tries to borrow to make up that difference? Money does not grow on the proverbial tree. It eventually catches up to you.
> >
> > The Japanese went down a similar road of deficit spending and guess what? Twenty years later and they are still in the same recession. All it does is prolong the pain and the bad blood can't be purged.
> 
> ...



Yeah it is frustrating for you I imagine because you are totally wrong!  This hole we are in is much to massive for the government to fill up with fiat money. The masterminds in the Obama admin said employment wouldn't go past 7.5% or so if the Stimulus was passed. They are clueless man. You can't grow the economy by growing government, or as bang for the buck Pelosi would have it, making more foodstamps. 

You again think if the government is the one doing the spending its free money that comes from fairy land and saves the consumer/taxpayer money. Deficit spending will cause inflation which will devalue the working man's dollars, a one two punch on top of everything else.

Yeah you forgot to mention that most the laborers building that tunnel are illegals who send their money back home to Mexico.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 18, 2010)

No, it's frustrating trying to argue with people like you who are misinformed (hopefully not uninformed) yet insist on saying I'm wrong.

1. The unemployment rate being higher than expected is a matter of economic forecasts being too optimistic - in the face of a major storm. That has nothing to do with whether the general policy response was right and only a little to do with the scale of the response.

And by the way, there's no question that Bush would have done the same thing, just as he would have bailed out the auto industry.

2. Deficit spending will NOT cause inflation under the current circumstances (provided it's lower than the hole in the economy). The danger is deflation right now.

3. Very ugly. I hope you're not as bigoted as that sounds.


----------



## Animus (Oct 18, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 18 said:


> No, it's frustrating trying to argue with people like you who are misinformed (hopefully not uninformed) yet insist on saying I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not misinformed nor uninformed. This economic shitstorm is not even close to being over with, round 2 could be even worse. Besides, its you who is always saying everyone else is wrong when you get your information straight out of the liberal platform.


1) yeah, Bush sucked too but he's a Democrat.

2) Yes, deflation but the endgame is inflation.

3) ah, why didn't I see the whole liberal race card coming. How is that bigoted? The point was that they are illegal and it's fact that good bit of them are from Mexico. I could care less if they were Mexican or Canadian. it's hilarious that people cry discrimination or nationalism when a lot of other countries are far more strict than we are on immigration. Immigrations laws are far more demanding and protective to get into Germany for example. It makes good sense to protect out borders and only allow legal immigration.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 18, 2010)

Animus @ Mon Oct 18 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 18 said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's frustrating trying to argue with people like you who are misinformed (hopefully not uninformed) yet insist on saying I'm wrong.
> ...




#3 is the way some people try to stifle discussion.

It's like pointing out that many immigrants who never worked a day in the US and never paid a penny into social security are receiving benefits.
If you bring it up, many people will call you a racist in order to stop the discussion.
Many of them are receiving higher benefits than americans who paid into the system their entire lives.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 18, 2010)

P.T. @ Mon Oct 18 said:


> #3 is the way some people try to stifle discussion.
> 
> It's like pointing out that many immigrants who never worked a day in the US and never paid a penny into social security are receiving benefits.
> If you bring it up, many people will call you a racist in order to stop the discussion.
> Many of them are receiving higher benefits than americans who paid into the system their entire lives.



And you know this as a fact? I don't think so. Most people that spout non stop about illegal immigration are spouting their beliefs unsubstantiated by fact.

The truth is I've known many illegals and you've never met a more hardworking group of people trying to live the American dream than most illegals working in fields and restaurants, ect....

The actual fact is that illegals can't receive benefits of any kind only their anchor babies. Which according to the constitution of the US, anchor babies are American citizens.

Germany is a bad example. Germany came up from a specific tribe of people that have been there for thousands of years. I find it totally disgusting that they are so fearful of immigration but not surprising. But, the US on the other hand is a country completely built on immigration. It's a country that was completely built on taking land legally and illegally from other races. Truth is that up until the late 1800's states like AZ were part of Mexico. Now it's our land. No biggy. But at the same time it's land that has no natural border. So of course there's going to be crossing at that border. People have been coming up from central and south America for 1000's of years. Not like anything we do now is going to stop thousands of years of tradition.

The only sensible thing to do is to have a completely open immigration policy not unlike the early part of the 1900's. Give is your tired, your sick and your poor. Immigration is the life blood of this country and our economy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 18, 2010)

And I'm not bringing it up to stop the discussion, I'm biting my tongue and not hurling a bunch of insults because IT PISSES ME OFF.

Jose is right.

Know what else? Our population is aging and we need young workers to pay into Social Security.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 18, 2010)

> Besides, its you who is always saying everyone else is wrong when you get your information straight out of the liberal platform




Everyone who disagrees with me about this is indeed wrong, and if my information corresponds to the liberal platform then that's because both are right. But I'm not quoting you slogans, I'm explaining why you and half the country are wrong.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 18, 2010)

Well I have worked with Cuban immigrants in the late 70's and Mexicans here in Nevada and SoCal up until 2009.
White boys just can't handle the Concrete, and I was the minority.
You won't find a more grateful group of folks. And sure I ate some shit, but thats an occupational hazzard.

They are use to this nonsense though as even the newer immigrants have heard of the endless election cycles where Mexicans and Blacks are used as pawns by the elite rulers of our society.
It will be over in 3 weeks until 2012 when Obama promises all Mexicans amnesty and a free Green Car.............. :mrgreen: 

But even a Mexican immigrant knows these temporary occupants in DC could care less about any commoner, much less an "illegal" one.

Joke:
What did Jim Bowie yell to Davy Crockett when they looked out over the walls at the Alamo and saw 5000 Mexicans running towards them...............???
Answer:
CONCRETES' HERE.............. :mrgreen: 

Joke:
WHat do Mexicans and Cue Balls on a billiards table have in common....?
Answer:
The harder you hit them, the better the English ya' get......... Ankyu.

Joke:
There were 2 Mexican guys with signs on opposite corners of the intersection trying to get help from the Gringo filled SUV's passing by, and after an hour the Taco Truck pulled up so they each took a break.
The one Mexican guy had rolls of 20's and bought 3 huge Burritos.
The other Mexican guy had a few 1's and some coins.
So he looks over and says " Hey, Hombre", how do make so much money here....?
Then the guy with the rolls of cash said" let me see your sign."
The sign said I WILL WORK FOR FOOD.
The Mexican guy with all of the money laughs and says, " you Pendajo." You need a sign like this.
So he holds up his sign and it says I JUST NEED GAS MONEY TO GET BACK TO MEXICO>...................... :mrgreen: 

Ankyu..........................Please.......................Stay Seated.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 18, 2010)

How did this get to be about whether or not we need the immigrants or whether or not they are hard workers (I would imagine like most people, some are and some are not) or whether or not they are decent people (again, I would say that some are and some are not).

I would, however, be interested in how it is bigoted to point out that many immigrants send money back to their home Country.

It may or may not be relevant to anything, as I have no idea how much money it amounts to.

You may want to also remember that many white people were treated like garbage in america. The Irish, Italians, Spanish, Greeks and Eastern Europeans.
Now they all get lumped together as 'whitey the bigot' in an us against them way of viewing things.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 18, 2010)

It's the sneering that's bigoted, P.T.

Come on, don't piss me off.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 19, 2010)

this thing with deficit spending. dont get that mixed up with japan. it sounds like there is a comparison with japan and its deflation. the difference between the US and Japan is the US has a lot more debt than japan had/has. japan is awash with cash. the reason you get deflation is because people stop spending.

nearly two years ago i remember traders running around thinking currency was going to be worthless in just a matter of days.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 19, 2010)

I am often called un patriotic for my beliefs about the military role the USA plays.
This is understandable as half of our nation seems to be brainwashed or bribed into thinking we are serving the greater good.
The Federal Reserve and our Military is controlled by Global interests, and I for one believe its time the people took a vote on these activities.

I was lucky my oldest son didn't die for some wife beating Saudi Prince.
You want to see America have the best human rights record in the world, best education and health care...............?
Close our overseas bases and let these wife beaters who dont even share our democratic beliefs fight for themselves.
I was ashamed when I saw President Obama bow to these Yacht driving sons of bitches.
Its no wonder China laughs in our faces when we talk about human rights.

BTW in case anyone wants to know the value of the Afghan deployment, just look at the investments in the mineral deposits that the ruling class has invested in heavily.
Lithium deposits are valued in the trillions there, and the USGA has a rather large contingency over there being guarded. A recent "Aid worker" that disappeared has a Phd in Geology, is thats any clue.

Audit the Federal Reserve since we own and built it.
Close all overseas bases and bring our sons and daughters home.
This recent financial "crisis" will quickly come to an end.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 19, 2010)

George:

http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-n ... y-country/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ublic_debt


There are differences in the make-ups of our economies, but the parallels I was making seem pretty apt. Most importantly, the reason the US economy is in a slump is also because people aren't spending, NOT because of the national debt!

That's the conservative hype: generational theft, bla bla bla. What they really mean is "let's perpetuate this wonderful ruse we have going so that we can keep pushing the tax burden down and widen the income disparity; who cares if it's ultimately what led to this crash."


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 22, 2010)

that report is from the ny times and looks like it was lifted from the guardian. there are some good points krugman makes but a lot of that was predicted several years ago by people who make judgements and then back them up with huge money. thats the difference between someone writing at a desk and someone actually predicting to make money. its the kind of article polly toynbee would write.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 22, 2010)

I happen to agree with Krugman as do many leading economists.
I actually sit through the Budget Commitees hearings and have learned from the depositions given, and the USA has an advantage in that it is 2 years ahead of most economies.
The problem is that the same economists who applauded the stimulus never complained that it was too small when the bill passed. 
If Obamas economic team would have stayed in office instead of heading for the hills this argument could have more merit.

But I am confident in my beliefs that these temporary occupants of the Capital are just puppets and spokespeople for the true powers that be.
Sharon Angle and other freak show politicians will be seen voting for the new stimulus since this is what they will be instructed to do, well if they want to keep their nice lucrative jobs.

We would like to believe that there is a left and a right, so we vote accordingly to our beliefs.
But I see this as a sideshow.
My proof is years of watching campaigns that win based on promises broken.
Why....?
Because these politicians have never been in office so only once they arrive do they really see who runs what.
They are up against the Federal Reserve and the Military that is backed by the Worlds Wealth.
Of course they will let you play around and pass a health care bill that pleases many and does force the insurance companies to actually spend some of their profits, but these are passed on to us in higher premiums.
In 2012 this bill will be repealed, as I am quite sure the record profits they show also help fund our Military and Federal Reserve.
So if anyone believes the left or the right have any power, just look at this last " Super Majority " and ask yourself if having a stacked deck helps...?
Only in the eyes of the lied to people maybe. The real power brokers made damn sure that Obamas Health Care laws wouldn't even take effect until he was out of office, and even then, it can be easily repealed.
And the game continues to go on and on.
The Federal Reserve and US Military will be challenged eventually by China on an economical and military front, and only then will these truths come to light as these powers that be must expose themselves as they did in the successful Persian Gulf War where 34 nations came together.
That was a huge success and only emboldened the true powers in our society.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2010)

George, the problem is that the people with the huge money tend to be interested in making more of it as quickly as possible rather than in the longterm good of the society they live in. They don't understand that - as Robert Reich put it - they'd be better off with a smaller slice of a bigger pie. And there's nothing wrong with being intellectual, as Krugman is, as long as your view isn't detached from reality - and his absolutely isn't.

Chimuelo, my understanding is that Obama's first economic team wasn't unanimous. Christine Romer wanted a much larger stimulus, but the forces of politics won over. The problem is that because it wasn't big enough, now you get ignorant morons saying "See? We have almost 10% unemployment, they said it would be 7%, therefore stimulus doesn't work - so now let's vote in Republican fux who want to do anti-stimulus. You can't borrow your way out of debt, right?"

And the result is going to be a slow, lingering lousy economy (here and in the UK) - with no drop in the deficits, I should add.

Have I mentioned that I really don't like conservatism?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2010)

People knew that stuff in the 1930s, George. Krugman's point is exactly that: the lessons of history are being ignored.

The reason it's timely is that - in case you haven't heard - you in the UK started down the wrong path this very week. And austerity has met with disaster everywhere it's been tried.


----------



## SvK (Oct 22, 2010)

DEMS will hold Senate AND I believe we will narrowly hold the house despite what the polls say.....

80% of polls do NOT poll cellphones. They only poll Landlines

You know what demographic still has mostly landlines?

Mostly, rural, old people.....so that skews towards GOP.

And during the last 3 years way more people have dropped their landlines because of the Economy....

Also the Dems groundgame is really good. I make calls EVERY sunday to voters through OFA
for 3 hours. There are 1000s like me....

Call me crazy but I think we will suprise everyone come Nov 2nd.

GoDems!

SvK


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 22, 2010)

im not a uk citizen. but i work and live here at the moment. 

there are several issues here in the uk and the 1930s' may point to some of them historically if thats what youre getting at. when you say lessons i dont think many people here and in the US will understand. the reasoning coming out the US almost daily now is china.
its no secret that economic writers sometimes known as the dismal writers because of the word economics are not really interested in my line of work on a philosophical level especially if they work for the ny times. its a liberal paper for labor readers. and thats good providing you can balance it against a gop paper. otherwise youre talking to someone whos been in this business quite few years now. i go on a couple websites that are not going to be available for most people and this stuff gets covered quite a lot. nothing wrong with politics but they dont put their money down generally. dont get what we do mixed up with clearing banks and banking.

the uk since you mention it was down the path 13 years ago the minute they taxed the pension funds; wouldnt address public sector pensions and the net result to many in the business based on current projected figures, the governemtn will probably not be able to pay them in 20 years time.

the baby boomer year of 1947 saw 800,000 births in the uk and theyre coming up to 65 in 2012. thats going to be serious for the uk if theres little to no growth. look at France. what else can they do except what theyre doing with pensions. people have to face the consequence that the west wont be calling the shots much longer.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 22, 2010)

SvK @ Fri Oct 22 said:


> Call me crazy but I think we will suprise everyone come Nov 2nd.
> 
> 
> SvK



youre crazy.


----------



## SvK (Oct 22, 2010)

for you George

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... surge.html

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2010)

George, your first fallacy of several is thinking that anything the GOP says balances anything.

Reasoned opinions cannot be balanced by ridiculous bullshit; conservatives are wrong about every single issue.

And your second fallacy is believing that the time to cut back on public spending, whether it's necessary or not, is in the middle of a horrendous economic crisis. I don't give a flying hoot how much money you have or are trying to make - that is bad policy.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 23, 2010)

Another view on stimulus.

http://www.incrediblecharts.com/tradingdiary/2010-10-23_economy.php (http://www.incrediblecharts.com/trading ... conomy.php)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 23, 2010)

Yeah, it's all wrong. No time now, but the missing factor in all that is what the problem is: demand.

Big businesses aren't investing the money they're hoarding for one reason only: no customers.

I'll come back and answer about the famous zero bound and why the Fed probably can't do a whole lot to change that by putting money in the system.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 24, 2010)

yes thats right. there are no customers anywhere. same in the uk. partly through fear and partly because they cant borrow anymore money. ill be over in connecticut during next week and it will be interesting to watch the outcome.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 24, 2010)

Fear - rational fear - of losing their jobs, or because they've lost their jobs.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 25, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Oct 24 said:


> Fear - rational fear - of losing their jobs, or because they've lost their jobs.



oh yes. rational fear and overburdened current debt and the current labor markets. in the uk its a lot to do with the public sector half million job losses coming up and the effect that will have initially on the private sector. plus no borrowing facility in the same way it was just 2 years ago plus cutting back of state benefits. sorry thats all very simple but ò1·   ìþÖ1·   ìþ×1·


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 25, 2010)

Yup.

This is a good post on Paul Krugman's blog today - a different take on why the "you can't borrow to get out of debt" is so half-baked:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/1 ... al-policy/


----------



## José Herring (Oct 25, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 25 said:


> Yup.
> 
> This is a good post on Paul Krugman's blog today - a different take on why the "you can't borrow to get out of debt" is so half-baked:
> 
> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/1 ... al-policy/



His entire article is based on a huge fallacy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 25, 2010)

And what is that?


----------



## José Herring (Oct 25, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 25 said:


> And what is that?



His idea that we owe the money to ourselves isn't taking into account that our money was handed over to a private institution back in the 1920's.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 25, 2010)

Oh come on, Jose. This is the real world and the Fed isn't going away.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 25, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 25 said:


> Oh come on, Jose. This is the real world and the Fed isn't going away.



I didn't say that the Fed is going away, but that the Fed is just as bottom line driven as any other entity. 

Also, if it is the real world, then do it yourself. Put some actual values and real people in his equation and you'll get a far different conclusion.

That's really my point. His fancy theory doesn't at all conform to reality other than his own.

Btw, i've always hated this guy so I'm biased against him. Just want to through that out so you know where I'm coming from. He's got this quasi Kenesian philosophy mixed with his own take and I find both detestable. Almost as detestable as the conservative economic hero Frederic Bastiat. Both sides are so wrong on the economic equation that it's frightening. It's no wonder the world is in trouble.

But I must admit that Bastiat makes more sense than the other guys.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 25, 2010)

I've never bought into the 'we owe it to ourselves' idea.

The debt is owed to whoever buys the debt. It could be an american or a foreign country.
Which one of those doesn't care if they get paid back.

Which one of you doesn't care if they get paid back?
If, instead of borrowing, the gov't prints money, that still impoverishes people by lowering the value of their savings. Eventually there is a very good chance of inflation as a result of printing too much money. Inflation devalues savings and is ruinous to people on a fixed income.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 25, 2010)

There is no risk of inflation in the current situation, P.T. Right now the risk is deflation.

Under normal circumstances just having the government print money "crowds out" the private sector, and that does result in inflation.

Meanwhile of course it makes a difference who owes the money!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 25, 2010)

Jose, I remember you saying Keynes was detestable years ago on NS. You were wrong then just as you are now.

Well, I never met him personally, but his fancy theory totally conforms to reality!

[Edit: confOrms to reality, not confirms!]


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 25, 2010)

Krugmans' analogy is based on a reputable model and actually having the debt spread out to other G20 nations is a safe bet.

We hear about how bad it is to owe China so much money, but I firmly believe this is part of a concept that has its roots back in the Eisenhower administration. We purposely crippled the American Steel industry so Japan could grow stronger.
It was vital to have S.Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the Phillipinnes become industrialized. 
This led to China becoming a partner in the WTO.
Now we have an unfair arrangement with China where they basically own the largest port on our West Coast, and goods pour into the USA w/o much regulation.
We cannot export 80% of our goods there, so our debt to them has been part of a plan for world trade long before they joined.
There's no way the USAs' economy would ever crash. The worlds wealthiest nations and individuals will never allow it as they are all heavily vested.

If you needed trillions of dollars to stave off a global financial meltdown, where would you get that kind of capital...?
Well how about the 5.5 trillion in equity that a housing bubble created.
Guess where that money is right now.....? It just doesn't disappear. That enormous kind of wealth must be immobile and seperate from the energy markets and commodities. 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... PGKL26-TCg

Here's why China has covered our debt.
This is where our equity went. You can easily follow this massive flux of virtual capital wherever it goes. My guess is this is the amount of money we have to print, and there's still plenty for even more stimulus.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 25, 2010)

I agree...except that I think the wealth really can just disappear. If your house is worth 30% less than it was before the crash, then your net worth is 30% less and all that wealth has disappeared.

Same thing if you own stocks and the market drops down to 6500 or whatever it was.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 25, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 25 said:


> Jose, I remember you saying Keynes was detestable years ago on NS. You were wrong then just as you are now.
> !



He is. I'm not wrong. Just look at the economic state of Europe. That's proof enough.

Can't politicize the laws of economics. It's like politicizing the laws of physics. Problem being that at least enough people know the laws of physics to know that they ain't gonna change. Doesn't matter if you're on the left or the right of physics. The laws are the laws. Same with economics.

So we go through history, time and time again trying this theory or that theory bouncing from left to right and up and down again all the while ignorant or ignoring the laws of economics. Boom and bust we go, over and over again. The laws of physics apply to everybody equally. The housewife, the sole proprietor, the large corporation, banks and governments. The laws of economics apply equally the same.

Government can't borrow it's way out of debt. Sooner or later that debt has to be paid and that debt will be paid on the backs of every man women and child of the nation in debt. Do you really want to go the way of Greece? 

Keynes major fallacy isn't his intelligence it's his insidious wickedness imo. He sold the idea that in order to create full employment of the masses that you had to create want in the society by using government to restrict the production of necessary goods to a point that the average person would have to work 40 hours a week 5 days a week just to survive. So he created based on that idea a whole model of government taking over the means of production of a nation. Running them so that they are insolvent, then in order to keep the services going you have to overly tax the population or the government would have to heavily borrow from private banks. So tell me, what's not crazy about that?

If I have to I could go point by point on Kruegman, but why bother. His ideas aren't that popular anyway.

So if I'm wrong tell me why? You are always quick to point out the "wrongness" of people that don't buy progressive economics, but not really forthcoming as to why. Just because its on the left doesn't make it right. Just as right doesn't equal right either.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 25, 2010)

Huh?

First, economics and politics are completely inseparable! Economic models are based on observation (hopefully) but policy responses have everything to do with politics.

And what does the economic state of Europe have to say about Keynes? They're moving the exact opposite direction right now, and they're going to suffer for years because of it.

And where did you get the idea that Keynes wants the government to restrict production etc. etc. or that the government should take over the means of production? That sounds like socialism, not Keynes.

I'd like you to go point by point on Krugman, whose ideas are extremely popular - because he's absolutely right. If you read what any informed liberal thinker has to say, you'll find pretty general agreement with him.

Finally, I think I've explained precisely why people are wrong - in this very thread. And it's not just progressive economics, it's progressive everything: people who are conservative are wrong about everything!

Obviously I'm not talking about social issues, which of course are a matter of opinion, and reasonable people can disagree about details. But the things I'm saying are stupid really are!

And I see no reason to pretend they're not just so I can appear to be centrist and not piss anybody off.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 26, 2010)

P.T. @ Mon Oct 25 said:


> Eventually there is a very good chance of inflation as a result of printing too much money. Inflation devalues savings and is ruinous to people on a fixed income.



thats an interesting technical point but inflation isnt a problem right now. the interest rates are so low partly because of QE. should inflation seem to take hold then the interest rate would be increased as part of that. probably. the trouble then is the currency issue with china in particular because then we would devalue our currency even more. that may not be a bad thing in the short term. but compared to years ago when there was an iron curtain and no china or india or brazil and soforth, manufacturing has now become part of the worlds right. the west had it all to themselves for years and now everyone want to sell goods and commodities.

economic writers are always linked to political parties. dealers only care about winners and losers whatever party is in favor and they dont really care even if they say they do.

theres the world economy and theres Greece. :lol:


----------



## José Herring (Oct 26, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 25 said:


> Huh?
> 
> First, economics and politics are completely inseparable! Economic models are based on observation (hopefully) but policy responses have everything to do with politics.
> 
> ...



I have no problem with your disagreement of the economic policies on the right. They are stupid. But, at the same time you can't jump to the conclusion that the left economic policies are correct either just because you believe in the progressive causes. Whether on the left or the right all I see is the blatant attempt to game the economic system to support their political agenda. The point I'm making is that the laws of economics don't care about political agendas. The laws are pretty absolute. The first of which is that any entity has to take in more than it spends in order to survive. Bloody simple stuff. Then all these so called "experts" come in and try to game the system. Well, we all suffer. We all suffer badly. Whether it's wall street trying to game the system or big business or governments.

As for Keynes I leave you with one of his famous quotes:

_
I work for a Government I despise for ends I think criminal._
John Maynard Keynes 

Looks like he did have a conscience after all.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 26, 2010)

P.T. @ 25th October 2010 said:


> Eventually there is a very good chance of inflation as a result of printing too much money. Inflation devalues savings and is ruinous to people on a fixed income.



The markets are not signaling any serious inflation, judging by the yield on long term bonds and TIPS. Some, but less than 2% as far as the eye can see. I trust the markets a lot more than pundits. See this WSJ article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... stpop_read

In eight years, Bush MORE THAN DOUBLED the cumulative, all-time deficit, from about $5 trillion to over $11 trillion. Obama, in only two years, has raised it another $3 trillion, though during recession and to a great extent by carrying on policies nearly identical to those of Bush. 

Overall, anger at the fake conservatism of Republican administrations, at least as much as the allegedly (but not really) socialist Democrats, has fueled the Tea Party. No wonder. It's obvious that a tiny minority that has not played by the rules but, nevertheless, has been coining money, even during this horrendous recession.

The Republican official platform is to reduce taxes but stop deficits. How? Ironically, the one specific program they target is repealing the Obama's health care legislation, which even the CBO says will, net, slightly reduce the deficit, not raise it. It is amazing, given the record, that people believe Republicans will spend less than Democrats, when the opposite has been true for over 30 years. 

Meanwhile, the genuinely frightening unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security ($100-plus trillion and $25 trillion, respectively) remain -- undiscussed.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 26, 2010)

Worse, we get demagoguery against immigrants, and with an aging population we're going to need them to pay into Social Security.

Jose:



> you can't jump to the conclusion that the left economic policies are correct either just because you believe in the progressive causes. Whether on the left or the right all I see is the blatant attempt to game the economic system to support their political agenda



I don't believe the economic policies are correct just because I believe in progressive causes, I believe the fundamental analysis that supports them. 

When Paul Krugman and others write the following, I believe them:

"The key argument against fiscal austerity now is that it’s bad economics: it would depress the economy, while doing very little to improve the long run budget position (and might even make that long-run position worse.) I’ve done the math repeatedly on this blog."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 26, 2010)

...not that I agree 100% with his position against China, for example.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 26, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 26 said:


> Worse, we get demagoguery against immigrants, and with an aging population we're going to need them to pay into Social Security.
> 
> Jose:
> 
> ...



The problem with that is that the only real way governments make money is through taxation so in order to "sustain" the debt (ie make debt payments) people have to be taxed. The more people are taxed the less money they have to spend on the goods and services of the society, thus production suffers as demand decreases thus higher unemployment, thus government stepping in even more to balance out the economy thus increasing debts and payment, thus taxing more, ect... It's the surest way to run a country into the ground from and economic viewpoint.

That's the way Europe went. Now they are trying to back track the last 50 years and trying to correct themselves. And what's sad is what happened in Greece. You had twenty year olds rioting in the streets because the government had to scale back retirement benefits! Whoa dude, at 20 you shouldn't be thinking about retiring. You should be thinking about making enough money so that you don't have to worry about retirement. Also, selling off of 50% of Greek shipping assets to China. Yikes!

We can't go down that path. I refuse the go down the path of having the government be the only source of survival for Americans. I'm a social liberal for sure but when it comes to money I think that the tea party is a little leftist. :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 26, 2010)

Well, that theory - trickle down - is exactly the direction we've moved in steadily since that ass Reagan was in power. It sure hasn't worked in the real world, in fact it's exactly what led to the economic crash.

The result is obscene income inequality and the oligarchy we live in now!

Sorry Jose, but your theories are evil, not Keynes'.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 26, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 26 said:


> Well, that theory - trickle down - is exactly the direction we've moved in steadily since that ass Reagan was in power. It sure hasn't worked in the real world, in fact it's exactly what led to the economic crash.
> 
> The result is obscene income inequality and the oligarchy we live in now!
> 
> Sorry Jose, but your theories are evil, not Keynes'.



You are assuming a lot things that I'm not saying. I haven't even given you the "Jose" theory of economics. I don't even have one. It would be useless. There are laws of economics just like the laws of physics and if violated certain death is the result. I have made it clear that nobody on the left or right has even a clue as to what these laws are and if they do they are trying to keep it from people to further their political ends.

Trickle down? What the hell gave you that idea? 

If I had any belief of money at all it would be that people should work for it. But, putting a belief system towards money would be stupid. Money's just money. It's not worth believing in or even creating theories about.

Oh and another great one from Keynes:

_Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become 'profiteers,' who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.
Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose._


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 26, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 26 said:


> Well, that theory - trickle down - is exactly the direction we've moved in steadily since that ass Reagan was in power. It sure hasn't worked in the real world, in fact it's exactly what led to the economic crash.
> 
> The result is obscene income inequality and the oligarchy we live in now!
> 
> Sorry Jose, but your theories are evil, not Keynes'.



Nick please behave yourself :lol: 

i agree on trickle down. it doesnt work even on a personal basis. i knew this guy who was even wealthier than i could imagine at the time and he was always going on about trickle down. i hated it.

do you not think the tea party over compensate from a platform of fear Jose?

S&P upgraded the uk to AAA standard today. shows how wrong i can be.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 26, 2010)

Oh and one last clarification.

Taxation isn't bad. It's necessary. What I'm apposed to is excessive taxation making it impossible for people to afford the basic goods of survival like food, clothing and shelter. Then the people have to turn to the government for these things. That's what Europe got into. It has failed. And, imo that's where the theories of Keynes heads directly into. But, in a really bad way because it subjugates the many in service of the few as Chimuelo is so apt at pointing out.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 26, 2010)

JohnG @ Tue Oct 26 said:


> The markets are not signaling any serious inflation, judging by the yield on long term bonds and TIPS. Some, but less than 2% as far as the eye can see. I trust the markets a lot more than pundits. See this WSJ article:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... stpop_read



I agree inflation isn't an immediate issue.
And with the idea that markets are better indicators than pundits.
But those particular instruments? I dunno, dude. 
Off to read your article now.

edit: Quite possible I mistook your point. My position, as you might guess is the ones buying that debt are nuts.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 26, 2010)

"Trickle down is that you give to the rich and in theory they provide opportunities for the rest of us."

Okay, and are the rich simply handed bags of money? No. Their tax rate is lowered - effectively to 15%, since that's the capital gains rate.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 26, 2010)

madbulk @ 26th October 2010 said:


> But those particular instruments? I dunno, dude.



Those are the definitive instruments for answering the question about prospective inflation as predicted by the market. Comparing TIPS and Treasury yields is the classic way, because it cancels out the potential default risk of the US government.

I prefer market estimates to even relatively neutral entities such as CBO, because there is zero partisanship in the markets -- just millions of very focused individuals and institutions putting their money where their mouths are.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 26, 2010)

Right. Wasn't questioning the relevance, was questioning the short term net opinion of your focused millions. 
If you're saying (and I certainly do not want to put words in your mouth) that the market will reliably predict the future? I would question that as well.

Edit: Again, I think I may be misinterpreting you. You probably aren't saying that the price of TIPS is right or wrong. Just outlining what the relationship to Treasuries says about market sentiment. This would be prima facie, or however you spell that.
Sorry if I'm editing as your replying.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 26, 2010)

> That's what Europe got into. It has failed



Also quite wrong in my opinion. Their social democratic model is very successful; most of those countries charge higher taxes and provide more services. What you call "dependency on government" I call "a much more sensible system."

For example, one of the main reasons Germany isn't suffering from the same unemployment as in other countries is that they have a much bigger social safety net built into their system than we have - which of course is very Keynesian. (Another reason is that they took steps to keep their higher-end manufacturing, which isn't as susceptible to collapses in trading partners' economies as lower-end manufacturing.)

What did fail isn't exactly the same in all European regions and countries, but it's all related to popped bubbles in the global economy - NOT to the failure of democratic socialism.

Earlier I said that economics and politics are different sides of the same coin. At the same time, economic and political freedom aren't at all the same thing - contrary to what the American right has been shoveling for the past few decades.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 26, 2010)

JohnG @ Tue Oct 26 said:


> madbulk @ 26th October 2010 said:
> 
> 
> > But those particular instruments? I dunno, dude.
> ...



And, if you have a sec... explain this. I don't see how it does that.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 26, 2010)

the yield on Treasuries tells you three main things -- the amount by which one's cash will be eroded by inflation, plus the time value of money not including inflation (such as liquidity preference), plus default risk.

By comparing TIPS, which has two of those things, but not inflation risk, you zero in on just inflation. I think the WSJ article does that.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 26, 2010)

oh... I did misunderstand... canceled out because it's common to both.. yes.... sorry... I thought you might be saying that TIPS didn't carry default risk. I didn't see why you were mentioning default risk at all.
Nevermind.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 26, 2010)

I trust the market in some ways but not necessarily always. After all, it did just crash from 14,000 to 6500!


----------



## madbulk (Oct 26, 2010)

Thanks to income inequality! 

Guess that's all I was saying. Historically wacky high prices. Maybe the spread isn't exactly a crystal ball either. Neither pundits nor markets have my faith in times of double dips and mid terms.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 26, 2010)

> Still, this isn't over yet.



Well, we agree about that. And people like me on the left are disappointed at the compromises the Democrats had to make in every area you mentioned. But I still blame the Republican party, who forced the compromises - especially in healthcare reform. They decided to adopt a policy of opposing everything, which is good politically but a disaster for the country.

And it's the far right freaks in the Republican party who are really to blame. Republicans who were even a tiny bit rational lost re-election.

People praise the Republicans for being so united, but I sure don't.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 26, 2010)

Blame is too binary. More stimulus may have been a good idea, and politics standing in the way of potential improvements in employment is a shame. But we're here because of stupidity and greed mostly, not deregulation and cheap money. And we'll stay here mostly because housing isn't coming back.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 26, 2010)

I don't praise the republicans for anything.

Social security and immigration:
We either need the immigrants or americans need to have more children.
Neither is really workable.
Who will pay the Soc Sec for those extra people? Tens of millions more people?
So is the future america...pop 1 billion?
Then who will pay their Soc Sec. America 2 billion?
I thought we need population control for the health of the planet and the health of the people.

Social Security need massive restructuring or else it needs to be dismantled.

I don't really know the numbers, but possibly if they removed the cap on soc sec tax that limits the wealthy from having to pay 15% on their entire salaries instead of there being a cap then the system might pay for itself. Especially if there was means testing of some sort so that the wealthy received less or no benefits.
After all, it's really the lower income and middle income people that need help when they retire.
But, no one, not even the democrats, are willing to change any of this.
It's another sign that the nation is broken.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 26, 2010)

NickyB.
I admire your progressive passion and share some of the ideas.
But remember when you said you found me insulting because I didn't believe the left/right Dog & Pony show....?
Hasn't the last 2 years of an entirely Democratic majority on every pertinent commitee, and in the House, Senate & Presidency with the 40 some unvetted appointees still convinced you that this massive Ponzi scheme is controlled by the global banking giants...?
It provides zero accountability.
The GOP gets the blame by the DNC and vise versa, and this has continued on since the 60's when the " Great Society " programs attempted to incorporate what were thought to be successful European models.

I have tried to believe in Obama but lets face it. He didn't know who really runs the show since he himself had only 2 years of experience, and was absent half of the time while serving....

These broken promises I do not blame Obama for as he believed a super majority and a sitting President could undo so many laws. Its easier to undo bad laws instead of passing hundreds more that are poorly created.

I will close Guantanamo Bay.......
I will prosecute Dick Cheney instead of the Black Panthers.......
I will stop the lobbyists from entering the White House..........he has the new record with 78 lobbyists sitting around the various rooms buying legislation.
Line by line elimination of earmarks.
No more borrowing or spending unless its funded.......
No need to continue...Its a giant Whore House full of lawyers with briefcases full of Bearer Bonds.

This isn't because he was lying....He just didn't realize that TARP was the continuation of the global banking giants exerting their rule over these temporary occupants of the Capital.

I have seen this show over and over and keep thinking there's going to be someone to stand up for change.
But even with all of these majorities and 2 years to at least change things, it has become even more out of control and we have deployed more troops.
That fact alone tells me that everything Eisenhower warned us about has succeeded for over 50 years......

If this isn't convincing how about the board members at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange........?
GE and Monsanto.....?
These giant defense contractors are now " Green "....??
I just can't see the GOP or DNC coercing them into doing this. The powers that be are going to use Cap & Trade as another unnacountable form of currency. There's no stopping it. Every nation and corporation pays homage to the global banking giants, they too do as they are instructed, or lose the interest free loans from the Feds and future " bailouts."

But vote for your favorite as I am sure they share your beliefs and really want to pass laws to change things, but at the end of the day the global banking giants arent' going to allow any party to change the way the USA runs its military and governing branches.
Only they can change it, and we are powerless to stop them.

I am never going to waste my time voting again unless its a local election where there's someone held accountable.
I enjoy playing music and raising my youngest son.
Obama was my last chance. 

I need no more proof...


----------



## P.T. (Oct 26, 2010)

If elections could change anything, do you think they would let us vote?

They had elections in the Soviet Union also.
You could vote for the communist or the other communist.
They had a constitution also.

It's pretty much the same here.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 26, 2010)

There's some truth in much of what both of you are saying, especially what chimuelo is saying about the power of the finance industry (although I wouldn't stop there).

But we're not quite that far gone yet!


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 27, 2010)

Hey the Labor Unions got the right idea.
Give illegals memberships and take their wages for decades, then let the Feds say wait, we can't pay you, you signed this IRS form and lied about your status...
Thanks and have a nice day.
This is another reason the Unions and this President are like Peas in a pod.
I know more than a few Mexicans who were told to hire a lawyer and sue.
Perfect...more future politicians to uphold the Constitution they wish to destroy when it suits their needs.

So if anyone really thinks the Illegal Aliens have a friend in the DNC they should just google various lawsuits and confirm this.
Every 2 years the AFL-CIO has another company manage their Pension funds.
Perfect, no accountability as they too can blame the Republicans who ran the Pension the prior 2 years.
Oh I have many more stories, and yes I will collect a Pension from these thieves, because I am grandfathered in.

I believe the Feds learned from the Suadis about how to " represent " the oppressed and steal their futures simultaneously.
Have you ever seen a Saudi Prince strap a bomb on and jump on an Israeli bus to kill women and children.....?
Yeah those Palestinians are used in the same fashion as our politicians use the illegal immigrants.
I know this sounds harsh, but look at the border. Do you see a real deterance there...?
No......but there are signs warning Americans about stepping out onto their own land.
Once again it is the evil GOP that uses these poor immigrants.
But then the GOP blames the DNC....

Anyone see a pattern here....?
This is the way our Federal Government has operated for decades.....
The super Duper Majority just gives a few speeches and nothing changes.
So who's bull shitting who....?

DC's idea of a larger Federal Government is more soldiers and IRS agents.
The GOP grows the Federal Government as much as the DNC.
Again, both blame each other, and any moron wearing a Tea Bag on their hat can run for office as they say give me a job ( which is actually growing the federal payroll ) and I will fire someone.
Excellent.
Lets have a form of Politician offests like we will see with Carbon Offsets.
Turn the lights of your 9 million dollar mansion on, and have peasants in Bolivia plant a few trees. Its all good............ o-[][]-o 
Hire me and I will bring along a 40 man staff and fire some Homeland Security Gaurd at the Airport............

God Bless The USA....


----------



## esteso (Oct 27, 2010)

chimuelo @ Tue Oct 26 said:


> I am never going to waste my time voting again unless its a local election where there's someone held accountable.
> I enjoy playing music and raising my youngest son.
> Obama was my last chance.
> 
> I need no more proof...



So sad ....... and probably quite correct. It's either that or time to get out the Uzi I guess. (that last statement was a joke for all you thin skinned folks out there ...... I mean, where would you even aim?)


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 29, 2010)

I cannot allow myself to ever get mad about these self serving elites.
Its not their fault as we sold the Government a long time ago to international interests as a way to fend off Chinese and Soviet Communism. I grew up scared all of the time as a kid, but after decades of nothing ever happening, even while we were blowing Hind Helicopters from the skies in 85-88, I realize nobody really wants a 3rd world war, but the endless fear of war keeps the industries alive that produce the weapons that we test on in real war scenarios by invading small helpless countries.......
These folks run the world, and the clowns we send to DC are strictly for entertainment purposes.

I now realize this isn't a theory, but a reality.
I will just accept it and make damn sure my youngest son stays put.
No more members of my family will ever serve again until the Congress actually declares War.
Undeclared Wars are cheaper as industry needs no changing over, and wartime benefits aren't offered to the fallen ones.
Yet so many brave Americans are going into the armed services from an extended, unnecessary recession...
Great way to keep the record number of recruits we have going.

If theres such a thing as Pergatory, I hope these elites get an extended stay there.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 29, 2010)

Well chimuelo, we've had this discussion before. There's a huge difference between the two parties, and not everyone in government is a self-serving elitist. We do have an oligarchy, but it's not 100% corrupt.

If Republicans take over both Houses we will have years of continued high unemployment. We may well with Democrats too, but with Republicans our fate is sealed. They will do nothing to move us toward the next energy economy, which of course is the number one issue facing civilization.

Should I go on?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 30, 2010)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/1 ... dentities/


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 30, 2010)

The States sovereignty must be removed for that scenario.
You just witnessed the best attempt to bring about a minute amount of change, and viola......right before an election, vast amounts of capital from so many untracable sources shows up and tips the scales.
Guess what...during this Super Majority session the Supreme Court allowed this new fast tracked law to pass without a committee, and only after it was passed did our bought and paid for media announce this gift for politicians.

Knowing the greed, we heard the party in power pissing and moaning about it, but look who is taking adavntage of it at this very moment.

I want the same things many progressives want to a certain degree, but the powers that be aren't going to allow this to happen until their ducks are all in a row.
So these pitiful elections were bought and paid for by yours truly.

Republicans aren't going to change a thing and as I predicted were suppose to come in and repeal the law that wasn't even designed to start until after the ones who voted on it were long gone.

So we will see more people getting fat from cash and Bacon so they can go to thier little States and say........" See,....I care for the little people too."

We will be right back to the Bush Admin all over again.
Patriot act, more troops deployed, and new countries like Yemen to invade.

Hopefully pre existing conditions will be allowed, but don't count on taking more money back from the powers that be so easy......


----------



## P.T. (Oct 30, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 30 said:


> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/accounting-identities/



I tend to agree with the 2nd comment from Doug in SF.
We need to deflate to something rational and sustainable, rather than piling on more debt to keep the existing debt going.

I know you disagree.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 30, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 30 said:


> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/accounting-identities/



_1. Those who pay down debt must do so by spending less than their income.
2. For the world as a whole, spending equals income.

It follows that

3. Those who are not being forced to pay down debt must spend more than their income._

He would have flunked any first year course in Logic with that statement. :roll:


----------



## P.T. (Oct 30, 2010)

As for the housing portion of our troubles:

I think the housing prices should be allowed to drop to a sustainable level and absolutely no effort should be made to artificially hold the prices up.
The prices went high because of absurdly low interest rates that spurred excess speculation.

No one should be bailed out or subsidized, not even to help them keep the house that they find they can not afford the payments on.
These people will be losing nothing or close to nothing.
They may lose their house.
They were making mortgage payments. If they had not bought a house, they would have been spending that money on rent anyway.
If they lose the house, they would be in the same position as if they had been renting all that time.
No equity in either case.

If the taxpayers have to subsidize these people then the taxpayers will be harmed more than the people would be if they lost their house. It would be a pure loss for the taxpayer.

Those people should not have bought those houses.
I remember the news stories when this was all starting.
Stories about how people were taking out mortgages because rates were so low and there were no downpayment loans available.

Even then, right at the beginning, when I heard that people needed historically low interest rates and no down payment adjustable rate mortgages in order to buy the house, I thought, "What happens when interest rates go up, even slightly from these historical lows?"

It was obvious we were heading for a serious problem.

The bankers caught up in the recently disclosed mortgage fraud that is behind some of the foreclosures belong in jail.

I also believe in letting businesses fail instead of bailing them out.
They won't all fail at once, and other existing companies can take up the business of the failed companies and new businesses can be formed.

There will be some disruption that would most likely be less than spending trillions of taxpayer money keeping these businesses going.

I don't care that some of them supposedly got back on their feet and paid back the money. Some will and some won't.
It shouldn't become the taxpayers burden.

Yes, end military adventures at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
We have better things to do with the money.
And they need to stop jabbering about the nearly non-existent terrorism.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 31, 2010)

josejherring @ Sat Oct 30 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 30 said:
> 
> 
> > http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/accounting-identities/
> ...



he may have done but there is some logic when you break it down. the trouble with all these type of deals is the name of the game is sentiment. its mostly sentiment and not logic that drives spending and soforth.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 31, 2010)

*Re: Double Dip and Mid Terms and sentiment*



P.T. @ Sat Oct 30 said:


> I think the housing prices should be allowed to drop to a sustainable level and absolutely no effort should be made to artificially hold the prices up.
> The prices went high because of absurdly low interest rates that spurred excess speculation.



your post is very interesting to me anyhow. you cannot sustain house prices at any level actually. the interest rates and any tax breaks are already crazy and thus sentiment is now leaving the building as we used to say. the states and the uk are now becoming all too familiar on this subject. 
at least in the uk where i work part of the housing bubble was caused by unhelpful taxation on pension funds in 1997 thus sparking a tremendous exodus to property buying either as personal one off speculation or multiple buò5+   íê5+   íê5+   íê5+   íê5+   íê5+   íê5+   íê5+   íê	5+   íê
5+   íê5+   íê5+   íê 5+   íê5+   íê5+   íê5+   íê5+   íê5,   íê5,   íê5,   íê5,   íê5,   íê5,   íê5,   íê5,   íê5,   íê5,   íê5,   íê5,   íê5,   íê5,   íê 5,   íê!5,   íê"5,   íê#5,   íê$5,   íê%5,   íê&5,   íê'5,   íê(5,   íê)5,   íê*5,   íê+5,   íê,5,   íê-5,   íê.5,   íê/5,   íê05,   íê15,   íê25,   íê35,   íê45,   íê55,   íê65,   íê75,   íê85,   íê95,   íê:5,   íê;5,   íê<5,   íê=5,   íê>5-   íê?5-   íê@5-   íêA5-   íêB5-   íêC5-   íêD5-   íêE5-   íêF5-   íêG5-   íêH5-   íêI5-   íêJ5-   íêK5-   íêL5-   íêM5-   íêN5-   íêO5-   íêP5-   íêQ5-   íêR5-   íêS5-   íêT5-   íêU5-   íêV5-   íêW5-   íêX5-   íêY5-   íêZ5-   íê[5-   íê\5-   íê]5-   íê^5-   íê_5-   íê`5-   íêa5-   íêb5-   íêc5-   íêd5-   íêe5-   íêf5-   íêg5-   íêh5-   íêi5-   íêj5-   íêk5-   íêl5-   íêm5-   íên5-   íêo5-   íêp5-   íêq              ò5-   íês5-   íêt5-   íêu5-   íêv5-   íêw5-   íêx5-   íêy5-   íêz5-   íê{5-   íê|5-   íê}5-   íê~5-   íê5-   íê€5-   íê5-   íê‚5-   íêƒ5-   íê„5-   íê…5-   íê†5-   íê‡5-   íêˆ5-   íê‰5-   íêŠ5-   íê‹5-   íêŒ5-   íê5-   íêŽ5-   íê5-   íê5-   íê‘5-   íê’5-   íê“5-   íê”5-   íê•5-   íê–5-   íê—5-   íê˜5-   íê™5-   íêš5-   íê›5-   íêœ5-   íê5-   íêž5-   íêŸ5-   íê 5-   íê¡5-   íê¢5-   íê£5-   íê¤5-   íê¥5-   íê¦5-   íê§5-   íê¨5-   íê©5-   íêª5-   íê«5-   íê¬5-   íê­5-   íê®5-   íê¯5-   íê°5-   íê±5-   íê²5-   íê³5-   íê´5-   íêµ5-   íê¶5-   íê·5-   íê¸5-   íê¹5-   íêº5-   íê»5-   íê¼5-   íê½5-   íê¾5-   íê¿5-   íêÀ5-   íêÁ5-   íêÂ5-   íêÃ5-   íêÄ5-   íêÅ5-   íêÆ5-   íêÇ5-   íêÈ5-   íêÉ5-   íêÊ5-   íêË5-   íêÌ5-   íêÍ5-   íêÎ5-   íêÏ5-   íêÐ5-   íêÑ5-   íêÒ5-   íêÓ5-   íêÔ5-   íêÕ5-   íêÖ5-   íê×5-   íêØ5-   íêÙ5-   íêÚ5-   íêÛ5-   íêÜ5-   íêÝ5-   íêÞ5-   íêß5-   íêà5-   íêá5-   íêâ              ò5-   íêä5-   íêå5-   íêæ5-   íêç5-   íêè5-   íêé5-   íêê5-   íêë5-   íêì5-   íêí5-   íêî5-   íêï5-   íêð5-   íêñ5-   íêò5-   íêó5-   íêô5-   íêõ5-   íêö5-   íê÷5-   íêø5-   íêù5-   íêú5-   íêû5-   íêü5-   íêý5-   íêþ5-   íêÿ5-   íë 5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë	5-   íë
5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë 5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë5-   íë 5-   íë!5-   íë"5-   íë#5-   íë$5-   íë%5-   íë&5-   íë'5-   íë(


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 31, 2010)

Sentiment and political correctness are an excuse to mask the reality of our society, and help relieve the guilt from more diabolical plots.
Our President recieved a Nobel prize for such skillful nonsense.

We tell the Chinese and others how to act if they want to make money with us, yet our own Presidents have Mafia style rewards and contracts out on various criminals, and nowhere in our laws is this legal..
But Lord forbid if a 2 inch Guppie might suffer from the water the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley need.... :lol: 

How about this prepostouros failed eutopian dream............
Dodd and Frank and the Mafia banker still haven't been in front of a committee that actually matters for their sweetheart deals where they all got rich, and yet we are pointing our fingers at the poor folks who were duped into this zero money down, poor credit ratings to recieve " the American dream "......
Even now we can see this coincidental foreclosure freeze perfectly timed for the elections, where those who dont pay any money on thier mortgage are being allowed to stay there even longer, but we all know theyre on their way to another family members house to live.

This was a perfect " feel good " scam where untold billions could be siphened off for the elites, all in the name of helping out the little people.
Ask yourself who still has these presents, and who benefits.
Well Dodd and Frank did real good, and naturally every criminal who siphened off equity during a re financing scheme.....
Perfect example of another preposturous failed eutopian dream.....
But I think these people know exactly what they are doing.
As only they always seem to benefit by helping the little people........

I would like Barney Franks condo in the Virgina Keys, or Dodds house on the Irish coastline, or Charley Rangles beachfront property in Puerto Rico or Jamaica....
Great assets for holding down a low 6 figure gig.....
But they really care about us, and want all poor people to have the American Dream.

God Bless THe USA.... 0oD


----------



## esteso (Oct 31, 2010)

P.T. @ Sat Oct 30 said:


> No one should be bailed out or subsidized, not even to help them keep the house that they find they can not afford the payments on.
> These people will be losing nothing or close to nothing.
> They may lose their house.
> They were making mortgage payments. If they had not bought a house, they would have been spending that money on rent anyway.
> ...



Well here you're talking about me and you are wrong. We bought a house 3 years ago with a 100k down. (20%) we have now lost that money as our house is worth l00k less. In the meantime we have been paying over $3000. a month. When we rented we were paying $2400. So we lost money twice.

We are coming very close to losing the house because of my business as a musician tanking.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 31, 2010)

My sister had a similar experience esteso. She bought a house a year later it was worth 100k less. They were still making payments at the value they bought the house at, and at some point they just decided to short sale the house.

It's unfortunate really. But at some point, even though you may love the house, you have to make a business decision and sometimes the best thing is to walk away and live to buy another day.

But what really sucks is if you have kids. They've come to see that house as home.

That's kind of the bummer part of capitalism. It has a cold heart, but at the same time unless we want to go back to bartering chickens it's all that we have right now. And, we all have to face the fact that sometimes a decision is just based on numbers, no matter how painful the solution.

Jose


----------



## esteso (Oct 31, 2010)

P.T. @ Sat Oct 30 said:


> No one should be bailed out or subsidized, not even to help them keep the house that they find they can not afford the payments on.
> These people will be losing nothing or close to nothing.
> They may lose their house.
> They were making mortgage payments. If they had not bought a house, they would have been spending that money on rent anyway.
> ...



Well here you're talking about me and you are wrong. We bought a house 3 years ago with a 100k down. (20%) we have now lost that money as our house is worth l00k less. In the meantime we have been paying over $3000. a month. When we rented we were paying $2400. So we lost money twice.

We are coming very close to losing the house because of my business as a musician tanking.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 31, 2010)

C M Dess @ Sun Oct 31 said:


> esteso @ Sun Oct 31 said:
> 
> 
> > P.T. @ Sat Oct 30 said:
> ...



The government is powerless to act unless they want to take away the very foundation of capitalism. Unless they want to undo the whole banking system. Not that there couldn't be a better system. I think there can be but right now we've got nothing but total communism to replace it and we all know how that will turn out.


----------



## midphase (Oct 31, 2010)

Personally I think that unbound capitalism is just as destructive to a society (as we are witnessing right now) as unbound communism, totalitarianism, fascism and on and on.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 31, 2010)

> He would have flunked any first year course in Logic with that statement



And you flunk kindergarten?

What do you mean, Jose? The fact that we're seeing the effect of #3 not happening proves that he's right on its own!


----------



## José Herring (Oct 31, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Oct 31 said:


> > He would have flunked any first year course in Logic with that statement
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, hey now remember the rules moderator.

What I mean is that #3 doesn't naturally follow from #1 and #2 and that #3 violates the first rule of economics and that #3 would only be true if you have the Keynesian false data that excessive savings is bad for an economy. None of which are true imo.

And Kays is right. Unrestrained capitalism lead to the great depression in the US and plunged China into communism.

Capitalism is weak. It turns every man into an island and turns the ultra rich into robber barons like Carnegie and Rocherfeller and Joe Kennedy. But at the same time Communism is weak too. The answer in American and Europe was to synthesize the two into a socialism. Problem is that two negatives don't make a positive, and though the death of socialism is certainly slower than the death brought about by liasse-faire capitalism and communism it leads to certain slow painful death as we are witnessing.

Each system of capitalism, communism and socialism all violate basic economy laws and the kicker is that Keynes knew that. He discovered the basic economic laws and knew them very well. He knew exactly what he was doing. And, even in his writings he knew what he was trying to do was wrong. He justified it as a "necessary evil". But he knew that his economic theories would deliver governments, specifically the government of England directly into the hands of the English banking elite, what he calls "vested interest".

So here we are. At the mercy of bankers. And as much as you don't believe Chimuelo, Nick, he's right. We are at the mercy of vested inò5Z   íøh5Z   íøi5Z   íøj5Z   íøk5Z   íøl5Z   íøm5Z   íøn5Z   íøo5Z   íøp5Z   íøq5Z   íør5Z   íøs5Z   íøt5Z   íøu5Z   íøv5Z   íøw5Z   íøx5Z   íøy5Z   íøz5Z   íø{5Z   íø|5Z   íø}5Z   íø~5Z   íø5Z   íø€5Z   íø5Z   íø‚5[   íøƒ5[   íø„5[   íø…5[   íø†5[   íø‡5[   íøˆ5[   íø‰5[   íøŠ5[   íø‹5[   íøŒ5[   íø5[   íøŽ5\   íø5\   íø5\   íø‘5\   íø’5\   íø“5\   íø”5\   íø•5\   íø–5\   íø—5\   íø˜5\   íø™5\   íøš5\   íø›5\   íøœ5\   íø5\   íøž5\   íøŸ5\   íø 5\   íø¡5\   íø¢5\   íø£5\   íø¤5\   íø¥5\   íø¦5\   íø§5\   íø¨5\   íø©5\   íøª5\   íø«5\   íø¬5\   íø­5\   íø®5\   íø¯5\   íø°5\   íø±5\   íø²5\   íø³5\   íø´5\   íøµ5\   íø¶5\   íø·5\   íø¸5\   íø¹5\   íøº5\   íø»5\   íø¼5\   íø½5\   íø¾5\   íø¿5\   íøÀ5\   íûÛ5\   íûÜ5]   íøÁ5]   íøÂ5]   íøÃ5]   íøÄ5]   íøÅ5]   íøÆ5]   íøÇ5]   íøÈ5]   íøÉ5]   íøÊ5]   íøË5]   íøÌ5^   íøÍ5^   íøÎ5^   íøÏ5^   íøÐ5^   íøÑ5^   íøÒ5^   íøÓ5^   íøÔ5^   íøÕ              ò5^   íø×5^   íøØ5^   íøÙ5^   íøÚ5^   íøÛ5^   íøÜ5^   íøÝ5^   íøÞ5^   íøß5^   íøà5^   íøá5^   íøâ5^   íøã5^   íøä5^   íøå5^   íøæ5^   íøç5^   íøè5^   íøé5^   íøê5^   íøë5^   íøì5^   íøí5^   íøî5^   íøï5^   íøð5^   íøñ5^   íøò5^   íøó5^   íøô5^   íøõ5^   íøö5^   íø÷5^   íøø5^   íøù5^   íøú5^   íøû5^   íøü5^   íøý5^   íøþ5^   íøÿ5^   íù 5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù	5^   íù
5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù 5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù5^   íù 5^   íù!5^   íù"5^   íù#5^   íù$5^   íù%5^   íù&5^   íù'5^   íù(5^   íù)5^   íù*5^   íù+5^   íù,5^   íù-5^   íù.5^   íù/5^   íù05^   íù15^   íù25^   íù35^   íù45^   íù55^   íù65^   íù75^   íù85^   íù95^   íù:5^   íù;5^   íù<5^   íù=5^   íù>5^   íù?5^   íù@5^   íùA5^   íùB5^   íùC5^   íùD5^   íùE5^   íùF              ò5^   íùH5^   íùI5^   íùJ5^   íùK5^   íùL5^   íùM5^   íùN5^   íùO5^   íùP5^   íùQ5^   íùR5^   íùS5^   íùT5^   íùU5^   íùV5^   íùW5^   íùX5^   íùY5^   íùZ5^   íù[5^   íù\5^   íù]5^   íù^5^   íù_5^   íù`5^   íùa5^   íùb5^   íùc5^   íùd5_   íùe5_   íùf5_   íùg5_   íùh5_   íùi5_   íùj5_   íùk5_   íùl5_   íùm5_   íùn5_   íùo5_   íùp5_   íùq5_   íùr5_   íùs5_   íùt5_   íùu5_   íùv5_   íùw5_


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 31, 2010)

A lot of stuff in there that makes no sense to me, Jose. (And by the way I was only kidding about kindergarten - I should have put a smiley there. Sorry about that.)



> the Keynesian false data that excessive savings is bad for an economy



Let's start right there. The reason savings are good for an economy is that they are deposited in a bank that lends the money out to be invested. But consider that the Soviet Union had a savings rate of 40% at the time of its collapse!

So that only goes so far. And the famous "paradox of thrift" is that if everyone saves at once, you have no customers. Case in point: right now.



> And Kays is right. Unrestrained capitalism lead to the great depression in the US and plunged China into



Kays is right. And by the way unrestrained capitalism led to the Great Recession too.

Well, I'd have to brush up on the Chinese Revolution to think about that - or the three Chinese revolutions - but it's always the same thing: grotesque inequality of wealth.



> And as much as you don't believe Chimuelo, Nick, he's right. We are at the mercy of vested interest just as Keynes wanted it



Of course he's right that the bankers have way too much power over our government - along with some other groups (minerals, defense, etc.). What I disagree with is that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans, or more basically that there's no point in even voting. He focuses on the negative similarities; I think it's important to focus on the positive differences!

I also don't think it makes one bit of difference whether Keynes wanted vested interests to run the government - not that I believe he did. What's important is that his theories (and remember, theory doesn't mean "hunch" in this context) are the only way out of this mess in a hurry.

Finally, I'm glad that you realize that I am always right.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 31, 2010)

midphase @ 31st October 2010 said:


> Personally I think that unbound capitalism is just as destructive to a society (as we are witnessing right now) as unbound communism, totalitarianism, fascism and on and on.



Really? Did you ever live in one of those regimes? A European friend who visits Cuba says it's a living nightmare of hopelessness and decrepitude. You can get 20 years' prison for speaking your mind on politics.

Maybe the key is the word "unbound."

I'm not saying there are no problems; of course there are tremendous ones. But sometimes I feel that the criticism of the US and West generally revolves around inequality of outcomes -- differences between the rich and poor. Democracy on its own doesn't promise anything about that. Moreover, I can't think of a flourishing example of a political system that has failed to tolerate very large inequality. Norway has some aspects of this -- an extremely admirable society in many respects -- but its infrastructure, health care and schools are supported enormously by a huge per capita subsidy from North Sea oil.

But when I consider regimes like Pol Pot's or North Korea, or Burma/Myanmar, or Stalin's USSR, I shudder. I can't think of any democracy as terrible as that, assuming it's a true democracy in which government changes according to law, not violence.

Comparing what's going on now in the US to any of that makes it look like Paradise here, I would say.


----------



## esteso (Oct 31, 2010)

josejherring @ Sun Oct 31 said:


> So for me I've decided to learn the rules of economics and live by them so that I'm not at the mercy of my next credit card payment. It's brutal. Can't get that shiny new mac pro exactly when I want it. But I've gotten way creative in other ways, learning to save money and buy my stuff out right, learning to build my own computers, do my own sampling, ect...... The end goal is that I want to be free of these banking bastards and live my own life.



Right on Jose!


----------



## P.T. (Oct 31, 2010)

midphase @ Sun Oct 31 said:


> Personally I think that unbound capitalism is just as destructive to a society (as we are witnessing right now) as unbound communism, totalitarianism, fascism and on and on.



Except, this isn't unbounded capitalism.
It is corporatism that is enabled and made possible by government complicity.
One example being that a failed company would go out of business, wheras in our society if the gov likes you or profits from you in some way they will force the taxpayers to subsidize that business.

Also, much of the recent foreclosures are not about people not paying, but rather outright fraud on the part of the banks and finance companies, and so far the gov't is protecting the banks.

The corporation itself is a gov't created entity.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 31, 2010)

esteso @ Sun Oct 31 said:


> P.T. @ Sat Oct 30 said:
> 
> 
> > No one should be bailed out or subsidized, not even to help them keep the house that they find they can not afford the payments on.
> ...



I'm sorry for your situation, however, I really don't want to be forced to help you keep the house.
I can't afford a house and I don't have one. 

How do you think people like myself feel about subsidizing others?

I lost a few thousand in the stock market a few years ago.
It was a stock that S&P and another major site rated a strong buy.
They went bankrupt a few weeks later.
No one bailed me out.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 31, 2010)

I think this quote says it all Nick:

_
"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." _

I mean what more can be said about his intentions. That pretty much sums it up.

Imo, people need to survive. So if by the process of inflation the government erodes the accumulated wealth of it's citizenry you get two things a) One dependent on loans to survive and b) Once the credit dries up they're dependent on the welfare of the state.

Oh and as far as the USSR 40% of nothing is still nothing.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 31, 2010)

"He justified it as a "necessary evil". But he knew that his economic theories would deliver governments, specifically the government of England directly into the hands of the English banking elite, what he calls "vested interest". "
___________
Same in the States.
The President who signed the Fed Reserve into law eventually said that he had made a great mistake and the this would eventually destroy the Country and turn it over to the bankers.


----------



## esteso (Oct 31, 2010)

P.T. @ Sun Oct 31 said:


> I'm sorry for your situation, however, I really don't want to be forced to help you keep the house.
> I can't afford a house and I don't have one.
> 
> How do you think people like myself feel about subsidizing others?



Ah, yes. The rugged American viewpoint surfaces. Well I never said one word about wanting someone to bail us out that I recall. And obviously we could afford it with 20% down and paying off an expensive mortgage for over 3 years.

But thanks for all your assumptions.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 31, 2010)

esteso @ Sun Oct 31 said:


> P.T. @ Sun Oct 31 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry for your situation, however, I really don't want to be forced to help you keep the house.
> ...



Well, you did respond to a post I made ( including quoting it) talking about that exact topic, so I don't understand your attitude.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 1, 2010)

I have a neighbor who had a mortgage with Wachovia where he paid an additional amount of money for his personal property taxes and insurance that would cover the mortgage if he were to become disabled or lose his job, or even during a move.
He lost that coverage when Wachovia was taken over by Wells Fargo.
The Feds with their usual one size fits all approach allowed these Banks to re organize under the TARP program so they could borrow money interest free from the Fed to take over certain sections of the financial sector that didn't turn a profit, naturally Wachovia was first to go.

Its also nice to know our leaders in DC legally can use their positions to give out contracts and agreements to the evil private sector for profit or favor.
Diane Feinstein who I considered a good Senator had a bad side to her I was unaware of.
Her husband has a heads up on the new laws being passed and naturally was buying up entire communities in advance of the Feds coming in and allowing foreclosures to linger on no matter who held the paper.
Said husband was now holding and owning dozens of properties he didn't even have to make a payment on.
What a great wife. Assets in excess of 100,000,000 dollars..................damn nice for a low 6 figure federal job 'eh...?

I am again not surprised to see the predators are those we continue to elect, but gosh man, those federal salaries really suck, so you can't blame for passing laws that benefit themselves and other family members.
Weren't these laws passed to help the little people though...?
This is why a poorly written 2500 page Health Care bill was jammed through and non participants had a gun pointed at their head if they disagreed.
I can only imagine the investments we will discover that certain elites were going to cash in on from even more lucrative contracts sold to us as a humane and just thing to do.

Said husband even had a military contract worth 600,000,000 dollars awarded to him a year after their " marriage " ( merge is the term in the business world ) as she sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee.
What a great gal.

I worked with Perini here in Las Vegas during City Centers 10 Billion dollar job, that World Dubai and MGM both own. Her husband was on the initial inspection team that brought in the Secret Service protected World Dubai leaders for a quick tour.

So when you hear Obama using his class warfare speeches prior to an election where he wants to get the Fat Cat CEO's and Bankers we would expect him to start in the Senate with Harry Reid and other Fat Cat leaders right....?
Wrong...............they have had plenty of time to put their holdings into tax exempt shelters since they pass the laws that create these safe enviroments. George Soros has the perfect place for his companies.

God Bless The USA............

Just think if any of us were Composer/Politicians.............
Screw the jpegs of an SSL console.........I'll take the 16 foot SSL4000G console for 235,000 USD and then mix only artists who have recieved federal grants that will sing and perform Green songs for even more money.


Praise The Lord.............

John Denvers song called Plant A Tree would be my first remix.
Al Gore would be invited during the press release, and we could get all of the Hollywood elite together for a remake of " I Want To Teach The World To Sing...".......... 0oD 

Oh I feel so good now doing the little people of the world a favor out of the kindness of my heart, and the pockets of taxpayers.......

God Bless America........


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 1, 2010)

John: As I posted earlier in this thread, political and economic freedom are two very different things (Chile under Pinochet had economic freedom, Scandinavia - which you mentioned - has political freedom). And the miserable conditions in Cuba are probably a separate issue - not that I'm any fan of Castro; he had the whole world on his side and then turned out to be monstrous.

In other words, the operative word is "unbridled." My interpretation of what Kays wrote is simply that we live in a mixed economy, and the argument is only about the details of that.

Sorry if I'm talking baby talk to you, since you obviously know all this.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 1, 2010)

Mike:



> its mostly sentiment and not logic that drives spending and soforth



Consumer confidence is always important, but I think it's much more than that right now, Mike. The psychology doesn't matter if you've lost your job - or even if you have a rational fear of losing it.

Likewise if the government writes someone a check to build a tunnel, there's nothing sentimental about them having money that they didn't have before.


----------



## madbulk (Nov 1, 2010)

P.T. @ Sun Oct 31 said:


> esteso @ Sun Oct 31 said:
> 
> 
> > P.T. @ Sun Oct 31 said:
> ...



I think Michael meant to take issue with your suggestion that displaced home owners would return to being renters without much of a loss. He has lost, arguably, 100k in cash very quickly. Lot of people, you'd be right.
Whether to prop up home prices in the very short run is tricky stuff. Equilibrium, like stimulus, is the greater good. (I guess. Kinda.) But in many cases I agree with you. One who is unable to make payments at 4.3% on a home at CURRENT market value, should not be artificially kept in that house. If they can, the bank should just rewrite the loan. It's not FAIR that the bank should need to do that. But at this point, it favors the bank too. Blood from a stone, otherwise.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 1, 2010)

> I think this quote says it all Nick:
> 
> 
> "The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens."
> ...



Jose, are you aware that there's more to pure Keynesianism than deficit spending, that the other side to stimulus is to reduce deficits during normal times when the economy doesn't need support? He showed - and we're seeing right now - that government spending *doesn't* create inflation or debauch the currency when it's not crowding out private spending...but that it does when the economy picks up. The whole argument isn't heard most of the time.

Having said that, some inflation is good (the Fed supposedly targets 2%), because it and growth are on opposite sides of the same coin. It's excessive inflation and deflation that are bad.



> The end goal is that I want to be free of these banking bastards and live my own life



That's great when it comes to Jose not buying a Mac Pro on credit, but it's hardly a credible policy argument for a national economy!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 1, 2010)

Okay, and here's a better explanation of Krugman's failed first grade logic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/opini ... ml?_r=1&hp

He's right, Jose. Federal belt-tightening is a prescription for prolonged suffering.

And from his blog today:

"I’m getting some fairly hysterical reactions to today’s column, many of them along the lines of “You’re an idiot — I know what it’s like out there in the real world of business” etc..

The thing is, no amount of experience meeting a payroll helps you understand issues that are critically affected by the way things add up at a macro level. Businesses are open systems; the world economy is a closed system, with feedback effects that are crucial but play no role in ordinary business experience. In particular, an individual businessman, no matter how brilliant, never has to worry about the fact that total income equals total spending, so that if some people spend less, either someone else must spend more, or aggregate income must fall.

This is why we have a field called macroeconomics. Unfortunately, the hard-won insights of macroeconomics are being rejected right now in favor of visceral feelings. And we’ll all pay the price."


----------



## esteso (Nov 1, 2010)

P.T. @ Sun Oct 31 said:


> Well, you did respond to a post I made ( including quoting it) talking about that exact topic, so I don't understand your attitude.



Ok, I see what you thought I was responding to. So maybe we just crossed wires a bit. I was simply pointing out that we had actually lost a lot of money as homeowners, a lot more than if we had rented. I included the bailout quote a bit sloppily as it turns out.

Sorry for the mix up. Carry on.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 2, 2010)

Please do not fall for the media distractions of how people trying to stay in their houses are the problem in the housing crisis. many were duped by this elaborate scam designed to help the little people.

The elites that represent us allowed foriegn banks to come into our country and use predatory lending practices to re finance the middle class equity while allowing folks with poor credit and zero money down to own a home.
These laws came in effect in 2004 immediately after the Dems grabbed all of the seats. But the reality is that both parties feasted on this scam together. Sure they hate each other for the media cameras and blogs, but they all had to shake hands and work together to enjoy the beneifts they shared up until 2007.
Shoudlnt the media report on this........?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... asfvNpXczA

How about how he was the largest Republican donor to Bush while in office. And once he was allowed the fastest bancrupcy in modern history, the Senate passed overnight legislation for him to become Ambassador to the Netherlands.
Cant use his money if he's in jail, so we better keep him on the street......

Yeah, this is our Government. Both parties feasting on the laws they pass to benefit themselves. So if anyone thinks these laws were passed to help the little people, you are correct, but if you believe that dig a little deeper and follow the money.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... hqol2Jdbyw\

Read above about foreign banks were allowed to operate on US soil and destroy the equity of the American Middle class. The DuetschBank and Indy Mac had their names stamped on every single ACC Capital and Ameriquest contract.

When in history has our leaders allowed such outright theft to occur on our soil by a foreign entity.....?
Well China is here now and their products basically are un regulated, Products we make here are so costly from the over whelming safety procedures and union costs they are un marketable and can barely be exported.
Lets keep voting these leaders in so we can transfer the remaining middle class wealth over seas. THen we all will be begging for food stamps and unemployment benefits.

To remember this debacle and how and when it started, just think back to 2004.
The Democrats just swept into power and one month after thier arrival the phones starting ringing. Not just land lines but cellular phones too.
Remeber the famous re finance your house at zero interest and recieve cash back on your equity.......? The phones stopped ringing after 3 years, and then suddenly China started having their housing boom and now the bubble we had is in Shanghai....FOLLOW THE MONEY.....
They had my financials, my address, my phone numbers and even email......How was this even allowed to occur is beyond comprehension.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... zVul7_uJBg

I apologise if I have offended anyone, but I cannot stand by and see the blame game against my fellow citizens happening when I know exactly where this statred and ended.
I sued Ameriquest and their subsidiaries and settled out, so this is why I know this scam.

Unfortunately our media is told what to do and when, so they dont report these events.
This is why I dont buy the crap I see on cable news or other American media outlets.
I dont even let my son watch this crap and shut it off.
Local news only. Sure its boring and doesnt have pretty girls like Faux or CNN, but I prefer to avoid their bought and paid for talking points.

Oh just in case you didn't want to read the links and see the real truth, the owner and criminal friend of COngress and the White House turned Ambassador had a sudden and mysterious death while serving the little people..............

God Bless The USA.............. /\~O


----------



## José Herring (Nov 2, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 01 said:


> Okay, and here's a better explanation of Krugman's failed first grade logic:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/opini ... ml?_r=1&hp
> 
> ...



I didn't say failed first grade logic. I distinctly said first year course in logic, which is usually first year in college. So at least he made it that far! :mrgreen: 

I can see that he's not a evil bastard out to oppress the world economically. He really believes that what he is saying will do some good. It's idealistic but misguided (imo). His ideas would only be safe if the government actually had the money set aside in some sort of emergency fund.

Rule zero (before rule 1) of economics is that money is based on confidence. Confidence in the country holding the denomination. People before they spend freely want to have confidence that there will be money in the future. A government in too much debt and the threat of inflation erode confidence. 

Reagan said that "a little deficit spurs the economy" I didn't believe it then and I haven't seen anything in the real world that has changed my opinion. A little deficit spurs huge tax increases and worry about the future. Worry spurs an economic clamp down on funds. People start to hoard their means of survival.

But this conservative idea that Tax breaks spur the economy is just as flawed. Really even more flawed than Kruegman's ideas.

My idea for government economics would be a good balance sheet with plenty of money set aside in reserves for times of emergency. That we don't have that is the real shame. I honestly think that so far Clinton was the only guy who understood this. And I hate to say it but it took a beating from Republicans to get him to see the light. Republicans demanding a balance budget and the Liberal Clinton deciding that the best way to do that was to cut military spending. It was good.

Of course Republicans would never cut military spending so they rack up debt like you can't believe.

Either way Obama is going to have to face some hard changes after today. Hopefully he can synthesize something along the lines of what Clinton did and stop throwing away hundreds of billions in a war that's not winnable. It's obvious that the only way to fight terrorism is with covert ops. That we have 100,000,000 troops sitting in the desert doing essential nothing and afraid of dying is a huge drain of resources.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 2, 2010)

Your plan would result in something worse than the depression, Jose.

I agree about military spending, though.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Nov 2, 2010)

What the Democrats have done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnDVG4FxwQw&feature=sub


----------



## midphase (Nov 3, 2010)

Typo


----------



## José Herring (Nov 3, 2010)

esteso @ Wed Nov 03 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Nov 02 said:
> 
> 
> > That we have 100,000,000 troops sitting in the desert doing essential nothing and afraid of dying is a huge drain of resources.
> ...



Typo. Meant 100,000.

Sorry.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 3, 2010)

The Military is the best run most efficient thing our Government does.
But they too have learned the value of gridlock.
We whooped the Iraqis in 100 days. 
Slapped the Taliban wife beaters back into their caves in 3 weeks...???
Have we forgotten how well the military does its job when it Attacks..

Now we hang out and hope someone shoots at us so we can stay and have a continued gridlock, of course strategically located in the worlds largest Oil Fields, and again in the largest Lithium discoveries in modern history.

DC seems to work best when there's a gridlock too.
Clintons years proove that.

Bush got alot done because he had no opposition, same with Obamas 2 year run.

Maybe we are better off when they dont get anything done...?

Time Will Tell...


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 5, 2010)

just got back from the states and watched the predictably disastrous dem mid terms. what we are very worried about now is the 600 billion $$$$ QE. this could turn out to be a catastrophe. will the gop stop it? we wonder.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 5, 2010)

They prefer these funds to be dispersed during transitional periods.
Isn't this obvious who runs the politicians in DC.....?
Also these guys have perfect timing too. TARP was released as an " emergency " relief program under Bush just weeks before his departure.
In this way they could let the new thieves siphen even more cash from a second " relief " fund as long as they do as they are told and read the speeches they are handed.
So I kind of doubt you will hear any new GOP member cry about this. But they are surely climbing all over each other to get their Commitee seats where they too can siphen funds from the latest " stimulus. " 
I guess the 480 Billion we still have in reserve is another lie.
I cant imagine DC elitists allowing any money to sit still in some giant account until needed.
Thats like asking Colonel Sanders to watch your chickens for the weekend while you take the kids to Disney....

If it isn't obvious who really runs DC, then those who see this are not interested in the reality of politics.
There is no such thing as the left and the right.
They exist only to place blame and continue the sick game we have seen for decades.
The last " super majority " achieved absolutely nothing becasue those who really run the show cannot allow their game to be interupted by these temporary occupants of our Capital...

Its a one party rule, the seats are at the Federal Reserve, you can vote for the left or the right, but they too realize once they are there what really goes on. So naturally they will do as they are told and come home with a new railroad that goes to thier wiò9R   îäÆ9R   îäÇ9R   îäÈ9R   îäÉ9R   îäÊ9R   îäË9R   îäÌ9R   îäÍ9R   îäÎ9R   îäÏ9R   îäÐ9R   îäÑ9R   îäÒ9R   îäÓ9R   îäÔ9R   îäÕ9R   îäÖ9R   îä×9R   îäØ9R   îäÙ9R   îäÚ9R   îäÛ9R   îäÜ9R   îäÝ9R   îäÞ9R   îäß9R   îäà9R   îäá9R   îäâ9R   îäã9R   îää9R   îäå9R   îäæ9R   îäç9R   îäè9R   îäé9R   îäê9R   îäë9R   îäì9R   îäí9R   îäî9R   îäï9R   îäð9R   îäñ9R   îäò9R   îäó9R   îäô9R   îäõ9R   îäö9S   îäý9S   îäþ9S   îäÿ9S   îå 9S   îå9S   îå9S   îå9S


----------



## José Herring (Nov 5, 2010)

chimuelo @ Fri Nov 05 said:


> They prefer these funds to be dispersed during transitional periods.
> Isn't this obvious who runs the politicians in DC.....?
> Also these guys have perfect timing too. TARP was released as an " emergency " relief program under Bush just weeks before his departure.
> In this way they could let the new thieves siphen even more cash from a second " relief " fund as long as they do as they are told and read the speeches they are handed.
> So I kind of doubt you will hear any new GOP member cry about this. But they are surely climbing all over each other to get their Commitee seats where they too can siphen funds from the latest " stimulus. "



Oh totally. They are already licking their chops to climb on the taxpayer funded gravy train.

The whole Republican economic philosophy breads unethical behavior. And, just like last time these mofo's will go down one by one cheating on wives, stealing money, ect.... The next two years are going to be a freak show. The new speaker looks to me like a booze hound. He always looks tanked every time I see him. This should be fun.

I say that the Rep economic philosophy leads to corruption because I just read some of the works of Bastiat. Their adored economic theorist. Bastiat says that man only acts in his own best interest and that the governments only role is to protect the individuals pursuit of his own interest. Well we all know what that gets us. The rich banker and the politician start acting in "their own best interest" and start fucking everybody else. Literally and figuratively.

Bastiat also states that if everyone acts in their own best interest then magically the whole nation will be taken care of. Of course he never says how, but oh well.

So America vacillates like a pendulum between economic philosophies that are out dated and unworkable. It's a wonder we're all not dead yet.


----------



## P.T. (Nov 5, 2010)

Jose,

Your post made me check out Bestiat on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat

It was an interesting read.
Which lead to the Broken Window Fallacy page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of ... ken_window

The wiki claimed that he said about the purpose of Gov't being;

"Bastiat asserted that the only purpose of government is to defend the right of an individual to life, liberty, and property."

Which is a bit different than the way you put it.

I have not read his actual works, though.

Did you read his works, or an overview written by someone hostile to his ideas?

Wiki also called him a "Classical Liberal theorist"


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 5, 2010)

The new Speaker crys like a little Girl. 
Perfect target for lobbyists.
Is it just me or do American women in politics have more balls then the men...?

I dont agree with Palin, Pelosi or Clinton on all issues, but they stand up and fight, and usually win for whatever their particular cause is.

I would love to see a porn flick of Barney Frank being beaten and sodomized by Sarah Palin.
Then one of Hillary right after President Clinton got busted where she could just pace around back and forth with him tied to the chair, and slap him every 30 seconds real hard while chugging some Cognac.
And one of Nancy Pelosi filling a Pool with water where George Bush was handcuffed to the drain, as she tested her latest Chardonnay from her Winery.

I would score that for free and even pay money just to see the trailer.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 5, 2010)

P.T. @ Fri Nov 05 said:


> Jose,
> 
> Your post made me check out Bestiat on Wikipedia.
> 
> ...



Yeah I read a book of his. His assertion that the government is there to defend the right of an individual to life, liberty and property, is correct. But you have to frame that understanding with his stated underlying belief that an individual is completely motivated by selfishness. So Bastait then forms a whole theory of government wherein the group serves the individual. That's what I think is wrong.

To be honest I don't think he's devious. I just think that his thinking is flawed. That if you went through life only concerned about your own interest and thinking that the government is only there to serve you, then you are missing the point of living in a society. Yes, it should serve you. But, also the individual should be doing his job in serving his community as well. A country or a government won't survive long with everybody just acting in their own best interest. 

Here's a good primer on Bastait. 

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html

I admit that I find that he has a lot on the ball. I just think that his fundamental premise is incorrect.

best,

Jose


----------



## P.T. (Nov 6, 2010)

While I agree that it is important to consider the good of society, I think it is true that most people act in their own self interest most of the time.

They may talk about the interests of others, and may act in the interest of others when it doesn't cost them anything or harm them in any way. But, the bottom line will usually be what's good for them.
So, I can see how people acting in their own self interest is something that anyone theorizing about society has to consider.

However, it's certainly not possible for the group to serve the individual, because it would mean serving every individual which would involve total conflict.


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 6, 2010)

the german finance minister just called the obama administration out. i think he has a point.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 6, 2010)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... ahD18rbl7A

I didn't hear the German Finance Minister complain when our Congressional " leaders " of 2004 allowed the Deutsch Bank to make huge commissions on the American Middle Class transfer of wealth to Shanghai.
Anyone who did business with the 2004 Congress has been rewarded enormous campaign financing and even sweetheart deals on property investments offshore.
Just look at Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Charley Rangle, Barney Frank and all other Committee members and Chairman who sold us out for personal gain.

Chris Dodd was smart enough to pretend he wanted to spend time with his family, and even claimed he had Cancer, which was a failed trick from another boy hugger member of Congress that got busted during the Nancy Pelosi " cleaning out the swamp" campaign. 
None of these clowns will be convicted in a court of Law.
Just watch Charley Rangle or Maxine Waters trials.
Just like cowardly Mafia rats, they will offer up complicity on other members and lobbyists, which in turn will sicken the public further, so the real truths will be witheld from us.

In the meantime most folks will hear this scam was suppose to help out people with zero credit, and stand for all of the little people, when actually it was designed to fail from the start, and further cloud the real issue which was the transfer of the Middle Class home equity. Even now we hear about fellow citizens just trying to keep a roof over their heads, and this is suppose to distract us from the truth.
The truth is every Banker and politician invloved gained enormous wealth.

These trials will be handled exactly the way I described as I have seen so many and can easily predict their outcome.
Very similar to Sammy Gravano selling Ectasy in massive quantities all while in witness protection down in Phoenix.
Government efficiency at its finest.
I would be willing to bet this was allowed, until he stumbled and accidentally sold drugs to a cop who wasn't on the take.

GOD BLESS THE USA..........Land Of The Free, And The Home Of The Slave.


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 23, 2010)

now its going to get rough for a while. how many countries remain in the euro is going to be debatable. the Germans will be doing a lot of complaining quite soon.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 23, 2010)

I predict they'll all remain in the Euro.

But there's an interesting article on NYTimes.com - the lead one. The Fed released minutes of its last meeting, in which they discussed the possibility of targeting higher inflation. That could actually help the situation today.


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 28, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 23 said:


> I predict they'll all remain in the Euro.
> 
> But there's an interesting article on NYTimes.com - the lead one. The Fed released minutes of its last meeting, in which they discussed the possibility of targeting higher inflation. That could actually help the situation today.



i didnt get a chance to read it because the last couple weeks have been grim. what was black friday like where you are? apparently Goldmans think not in todays papers re the euro. havent read that yet though either but will certainly look when ive gotten a chance.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 29, 2010)

Just saw our future President taking questions from the Press and showing true leadership.
No, I wasn't talking about Obamas' scripted speech that Parroted Speaker Boehners' demands from 2 weeks ago, on freezing Federal employees pay.

Man I really feel sorry for Obama. His advisors won't let him answers questions, he has stitches on his mouth,....he looks all beat up.
And then Hillary takes the stage and just silences the Press with her skillful analogies and experienced states(wo)menship........ 8) 

I still maintain she will drop out of her position as SecOfState in summer 2011.
Sure she says No right now, and she also said no to being a Senator when she moved to New York.
One thing I learned later on in life is that when women say No...they usually mean Yes.

I really feel sorry for Obama as he has Pelosi standing firm ( bless her heart ), Michelle telling him what to wear, his daughters begging for attention, Palin on a 24/7 bashing tour, and Hillary talking to him with that " I got your back Bro' " grin on her face.

Looks like American women really have an effect on us.
I remember Sean Penns great remark to a reporter back when he was with Madonna.....
When asked...." How does it feel having the women wearing the pants in your family...? Penn replied......"It's fine with me..........I'm the guy who gets to take them off."

Palin vrs. Clinton in 2012..................???..............OMG we are in for a helluva ride in 2012.
This could be the Mayan calender event written in Stone from 1500 years ago.


----------

